Jack Straw and John Reid have launched public challenges to sections of the Muslim community. The gauntlets they have thrown down have fed into a series of stridently anti-Muslim stories. Ministers have publicly disagreed about the wisdom of debating veils in this way. However genuine Straw and Reid may be, recent history suggests this isn’t the way to go.
In spring 2001, the BBC Today programme claimed that Asians in Oldham had set up ‘no-go areas’ for whites. The story was repeated by the tabloids and vicious but unconnected acts of violence were used to ‘stand up’ the story. Later that summer, Oldham exploded with some of the worst communal violence Britain has seen.
But the story wasn’t true. The independent Ritchie inquiry concluded ‘the claims of no go areas are not born out on the ground… it will always be possible to find a few young hotheads who will make such claims, but they are certainly not speaking for majority opinion in their own communities.’
That’s a cautionary message as John Reid and his ministers set out to take the anti-terrorist message into Muslim communities. As in Oldham, there aren’t any no go areas. While extremists certainly exist, we Labour MPs can discuss these issues frankly in any part of our constituencies. But, by the time the Ministers have finished, it may look as though they are for real. A couple of people shouting, or brandishing incendiary banners is all it will need. Scary images broadcast into homes of millions with little personal knowledge of Muslims would fuel the polarisation the extremists’ desire.
And Jack Straw’s intervention may widen those divisions further. His original article is measured and reasoned, but wasn’t the Daily Express’ campaign to ‘Ban the Veil’ as likely as to follow as an informed debate about cultural and religious identity in a diverse society?
Five years ago, the Ritchie report warned ‘in a sensitive situation….it is particularly important to make sure that people interviewed reflect a cross section of opinion which is truly representative’. Britain is probably more polarised than five years ago, yet that lesson has not been learned. Did the recent Today interview with the extremist Abu Izzadeen emphasise how unrepresentative he is, or did your non Muslim friends, work mates and family shake their heads and sigh, that’s the trouble with Muslims? In how many homes will Jack Straw’s remarks affirm the belief that the problem with Muslims is, well, that they are Muslims? Will John Reid’s careful distinction between the majority and the minority in the Muslim community not be lost on some viewers?
We do live in insecure times. Tough measures to face challenge those we fear are popular and serve a number of political purposes. Reassuring the majority that all real problems are caused by the minority is popular too. But ultimately we won’t be thanked if we make ourselves more scared and no safer or more comfortable with our neighbours.
It’s not that we shouldn’t discuss these issues. Muslims including Baroness Uddin and Sahid Malik MP acknowledge questions about veils. But how we have the debate does matter. Three weeks ago I joined 200 Muslims and non-Muslims brought together by Southampton’s local Council of Mosques. . It was an illuminating four hours of sometimes passionate discussion. It was an event organised by the type of serious committed devote Muslims whose virtues are often extolled by politicians. They are the ones who are prepared to take extremist ideas everyday; in mosques and in the community they are challenging bad theology and poor politics. But their frustration that the Government’s handling of events so often makes their job more difficult was tangible. Across Britain the arguments are being lost too often for comfort.
If we had responded better to the northern riots Britain today could have been very different. We might have improved the level of understanding and solidarity between different communities in Britain which do live all to separate lives. We might have learned how to discuss issues about identity, observance and dress without reinforcing the very divide we are trying to overcome.
So while I’m pleased that Ministers are going round the country it can’t be to grandstand to the scared majority. We must never resile from making clear the limits of acceptable behaviour and argument, but we need Ministers to listen and understand every bit as much as lecture and lay down the law. And we need Ministers who will go back again and again long after the cameras have lost interest.
There’s a key test in front of us with the new Terrorism Bill. Last year’s Terrorism Bill contained controversial measures against the glorification of terrorism. Rushed through Parliament, it left many feeling it was aimed at Muslims in general. Had the time been taken to take the proposal up and down the country it could have provided the focus for real debate about the acceptable limits of free speech, and created some consensus on what to do. But Government was anxious to prove its toughness and the chance was lost. Last year it was, perhaps, understandable in the wake of 7/7. This year there would be no excuse.
John Denham
Source: JohnDenham.Org.Uk
