Earlier today David Cameron set out his government’s strategy to defeat the “poison of Islamist extremism,” as he coined in at the school in the great city of Birmingham. Our PM pledged to tackle the extremist ideology and “the failures of integration” which he said had led to hundreds of Britons joining those nutters who call themselves Daesh.
In his speech the PM stated “It begins – it must begin – by understanding the threat we face and why we face it. What we are fighting, in Islamist extremism, is an ideology. It is an extreme doctrine. And like any extreme doctrine, it is subversive. At its furthest end it seeks to destroy nation-states to invent its own barbaric realm. And it often backs violence to achieve this aim – mostly violence against fellow Muslims – who don’t subscribe to its sick worldview”.
Now David, as a PR man to another PR man, surely you know it is essential to understand the usage of words and values? For example the term ‘Islamist,’ is one word which can be slightly subjective. After all in 2007 you did state: “Many Muslims I’ve talked to about these issues are deeply offended by the use of the word ‘Islamic’ or ‘Islamist’ to describe the terrorist threat we face today We do need greater understanding of the true nature of the terrorist threat. There’s too much complacency about it among non-Muslims, and too much denial of it in the Muslim community. But our efforts are not helped by lazy use of language. Indeed, by using the word ‘Islamist’ to describe the threat, we actually help do the terrorist ideologues’ work for them, confirming to many impressionable young Muslim men that to be a ‘good Muslim’, you have to support their evil campaign..”
So I guess today by using that term ‘Islamist,’ we have actually help to the terrorist idealogues’ work for them.” The term ‘Islamists’ is to broad and open ended. If I am not making sense then please watch this short explainer (yes it is attributed editorially, but I do feel it has wider reaches as well)
Just a thought. Of course I could elaborate on other aspects of the speech and the fallout, failures and successes, but i’d rather let the experts fight it out.
Of course radicalisation is a problem and it must be dealt with accordingly, but ignoring economic issues, class, identity and the FP terminology is slightly far- fetched. But what do I know, I don’t work for Quilliam Foundation or engage in Prevent funded projects.
Finally, no doubt many experts will be writing, tweeting and commentating in relation to the speech. Personally I would recommend you read An Open Letter to Britain’s Leading Violent Extremist: David Cameron.