The governments ''tackling extremism'' and consultation with Muslims road show kicked off in Bolton earlier this week. Whether the aim of the event was to consult or insult the Muslim community, the end result was a meaningless farce.

The proposed aim of the event was to address ‘how to tackle extremist ideologies and prevent young people being drawn into extremism. A rational approach to any problem would be first to identify/define the problem and then look at its causes before proposing a solution.

The government and its representatives have still failed to define what they define as extremism. The Minister Phil Woolas readily related religion to extremism and by extension terrorism, while the consensus of the group, to the contrary maintained that extremism and terrorism are linked to political and not religious motives.

The Minister further illustrated his ignorance and sheer disdain of Muslims by stating that Muslim concerns over Britain's Foreign Policy were ''nonsense'' and not legitimate grievances. Illustrating the approach and futility of these consultations, Phil Woolas bluntly dismissed my views as ''crap'' and insignificant. The alarming irony is that these words were uttered by the Governments Minister for Local and Community Cohesion, just days before the launch of the new Commission for Integration and Cohesion.

Echoing the views of the Home Secretary John Reid last week, Woolas stated that addressing the issues of Foreign Policy would be pandering to extremists and terrorists. Would the Minister then brand me an extremist if I demand our government to adopt an ethical foreign policy? In fact, the majority of participants at the event later approached and informed me that they agreed with my views, would the Minister then deem them as extremists as well?

The government’s irresponsible and vague definitions of extremism have perpetuated a climate of fear in the British community. Resulting in incidents such as that on the weekend, where two innocent men were hauled off a flight for simply 'looking' Muslim. We don't want or need such futile token gestures from the government, we demand genuine consultation, where our views and concerns are acknowledged and respected. This wholly unconstructive exercise further undermined by the poor choice of Minister present could serve only to worsen relations with the Muslim community.

While the event was aimed at engaging with the wider Muslim community – young people in particular, the female representation was minimal and youth representation glaringly absent; yet in hindsight I am pleased that more young Muslims were not present. As a foremost advocate for the need to enhance community cohesion and strengthen our communities, if those young people had been exposed to the Phil Woolas School of thought, I fear that it would have sent out a very alarming message to young minds who may already harbour a sense of alienation and uncertainty.

As a young Muslim, how can the government expect me to trust in their aims, initiatives or sincerity after such an incident? What credibility does it have left after a Minister insults my legitimate concerns as ‘crap’ because I didn’t agree with him? Until and unless the government is prepared to take an honest and sincere approach in its consultation, with a genuine desire to address issues raised, do not waste our time, efforts and tax payer’s money in setting up more Committees, Commission’s, Consultations or Road Shows.

While I was sceptical of the aims and outcomes of the Home Office consultation, I made the effort and invited a group of articulate and active women to engage in the consultation. The disappointment of the event aside, the least I would expect from the organisers of the event is an apology from the Minister Phil Woolas.

I look forward to your response.

---