Ruth Kelly's speech yesterday to an invited Muslim audience contained much that was sensible. On the contentious issue of the niqab (face-veil), for example, she said: "This is ultimately an issue of informed personal choice. No-one is suggesting that in a free and democratic country the state should decide what its citizens can and cannot wear..."

She was also half-right, in my view, in reminding her listeners that: "Britain is a good place to be a Muslim. British Muslims are central to our political, business and social life. There are an increasing number of Muslims in the armed forces, in the police and in parliament."

I say only half-right, because as the secretary of state for communities and local government, it is of no little concern that she did not take this opportunity to also express her thoughts on the worrying anti-Muslim climate being deliberately stoked by some sections of the British media. Just recall some of the ridiculous stories that have qualified as national news in recent weeks and the harmful impact they will have had on perceptions of, and attitudes towards, ordinary British Muslims.

However, her speech will primarily be remembered for her pledge to financially support those groups which were actively committed to tackling extremism and her not so veiled criticism of the Muslim Council of Britain for its stance over the Holocaust Memorial Day.

On the issue of extremism, Ruth Kelly, accepted that this was a "shared problem". Did that mean that the government had finally acknowledged that some of its own policies overseas may have contributed to exacerbating the problem of violent extremism at home and would be rethinking its role? Don't be silly.

"I am clear that our strategy of funding and engagement must shift significantly towards those organisations that are taking a proactive leadership role in tackling extremism..."

So, Muslim groups are to be paid money to try and help clear up the mess made by the government. It is surely right that British Muslims also take seriously their own responsibility for countering the spread of extremist ideas and to challenge those promoting violence. If the government can help in this effort then it should certainly do so. But isn't it a better long-term strategy to also clearly admit its previous major errors and vow to prevent another similar mess from being created through participation in unjust wars overseas and support for repressive regimes?

And on to the Holocaust Memorial Day. It is true that the MCB has been strongly criticised in some quarters, particularly by Jewish groups, but also by some Muslims, for refusing to attend the annual event. The MCB's stance has been that it recognises the monstrous cruelty and inhumanity that underpinned the Nazi holocaust. However, the MCB's constituent affiliated organisations vote every year on whether they should instead call for a Genocide Memorial Day to send out a clear signal that we as a society value the lives of all people - regardless of racial or religious background - equally. There have been many further instances of genocide and mass killings since we vowed "never again" in response to the Nazi crimes at the end of the Second World War. Just think of Rwanda and in the European continent, Srebrenica, just eleven years ago. Do the innocent killed in those horrific episodes not equally deserve to be commemorated in a more inclusive and aptly titled Genocide Memorial Day and would that not be a more fitting tribute to those who suffer from tyranny even today?

Yesterday on Cif, the Guardian's former political editor, Michael White, showed some understanding for the MCB's stance.

Ruth Kelly though, disagrees, and yesterday added her voice to those criticising the MCB's position (a position set out in detail by Sir Iqbal Sacranie in a well-argued comment piece over a year ago):

"I can't help wondering why those in leadership positions who say they want to achieve religious tolerance and a cohesive society would choose to boycott an event which marks, above all, our common humanity and respect for each other."

But, if the HMD event really does set out to mark "our common humanity and respect for each other" then what is the objection to renaming it to a Genocide Memorial Day? The MCB has put this question to the government for over five years now and still has not received an intelligible answer.

Source: commentisfree.guardian.co.uk

---