Political Correctness and Terrorism

Thanks, Pro, for this debate. I'll present my case, saving rebuttals next round. I. BurdensIt is Pro's burden in this debate to show that, on balance, political correctness (PC) is harming the fight against terror. It is my duty to show that PC is not harming the fight against terror. Unless Pro can show some harm caused by PC in this fight, and unless that harm outweighs whatever benefits might be present, voters should vote Con. II. The Social Element of TerrorismA. Belonging and AcceptanceTerrorists turn to terror because they feel socially alienated and they seek a sense of deeper belonging and acceptance. This is true for several reasons:1. Marginalized people are more at-risk for terror. "Terrorist organizations appeal disproportionately to certain psychological types of people, namely, the socially alienated. .. Demographic data shows that the vast majority of terrorist organizations are composed of unmarried men or widowed women. .. Marc Sageman's study. .. demonstrates that these risk factors are particularly prevalent among the crucial case of al-Qaida members, 80 percent of whom are 'cultural outcasts living at the margins of society'. " [1]2. Recruitment patterns confirm that the marginalized are vulnerable. "[T]errorist organizations focus their recruitment on the socially isolated, not on people with a demonstrable commitment to their given political cause. Pedahzur's research, for example, shows that Hezbollah, the PKK, and Chechen and Palestinian groups recruit young, unemployed men 'who have never found their place in the community'. " [1]3. Terror groups foster tight social bonds. "[T]errorist outlets are particularly attractive outlets for those seeking solidarity. .. [They] are far more tight-knit that other forms of voluntary associations because of the extreme dangers and costs of participation. " [1] It is logical that even lone wolves engage in terrorism in part to feel a sense of belonging to a broader community, and to elicit praise from that community. B. Ghettos and Social DecayCommunities such as Molenbeek in Brussels have high concentrations of Muslims, and are largely left to rot by the police, firefighters, and the government. [2] Leaving these communities isolated and neglected has allowed a sense of social abandonment to fester within the local population. "French counter-terrorism experts have identified 64 suburbs in dozens of cities that act as breeding grounds for Islamic extremism. " [3] "Mathieu Guidere, a professor of ­Islamist psychology at the University of Toulouse II, said the Belgian and French ghettos were a perfect breeding ground for terrorists. He cited 'the explosive cocktail of strong immigration, strong social exclusion, a lot of unemployment, very little integration and the infiltration of religious radicals'. " [4]C. Words Inspire ViolenceOffensive statements and barefaced bigotry feed the feeling of exclusion that marginalized groups may have. Terrorist groups seize on these statements to fuel their recruiting efforts. For example, al-Shabab has used a clip of Donald Trump calling for a ban on all Muslims in their recruitment videos. The video then adds, "Yesterday, America was a land of slavery, segregation, lynching and the Ku Klux Klan. And tomorrow, it will be a land of religious discrimination and concentration camps. " [5] In another instance, after a Tamil terrorist attack in Sri Lanka, the Sinhalese population rioted. These riots helped to further alienate the Tamil population, and caused them to turn towards the terrorists. [6] D. SummaryConsider: a young Muslim man, born in France, hears anti-Muslim epithets every day either in the news or from the people he might encounter outside his cloistered community. He feels as if his country hates him, and he seeks out those who share his views--a sympathetic ear for his woes. This is precisely the kind of person at-risk of being recruited into a terrorist cell. Whether the actions targeted at minorities are the shuttering of places of worship or the banning of articles of clothing (e. g. the burkini), they alienate the minority from the majority. They foster a siege mentality wherein the minority group perceives that it is being persecuted, marginalized, or coerced, and this siege mentality creates conditions ripe for "fighting back" against their oppressors, i. e. , the West. III. PC SolvesTo eliminate the social motives of terrorism, "counterterrorism strategies must reduce the demand for at-risk populations to turn to terrorist organizations in the first place. To lessen Muslims' sense of alienation from democratic societies, these societies must improve their records of cracking down on bigotry, supporting hate-crime legislation, and, most crucially, encouraging moderate places of worship--an important alternative for dislocated youth to develop strong affective ties with politically moderate peers and mentors. .. Counterterrorism operations must redouble their efforts to minimize collateral damage, which invariably creates dislocation, social isolation, and calls for revenge. " [1]PC forms of rhetoric, by making minorities feel respected, will help combat the social marginalization that drives many to terrorist violence. Political correctness fosters a narrative of acceptance by pointedly refusing to reject minorities or to propagate calls to nativism. Political correctness encourages societies to speak out against bigotry, wherever it occurs, and to avoid making inflammatory comments in the first place. The doctrine of political correctness encourages governments to take action against those who would commit hate crimes and to mobilize resources to protect the civil liberties of migrants. It would rule out policies like a Muslim immigration ban that, were it implemented, would only escalate current social tensions and play into the hands of extremists. PC is also not against assimilation as a practice. Rather, it is against overly coercive assimilation, or forms of assimilation that treat newcomers in utterly xenophobic or demeaning ways. This is true and beneficial for several reasons, including: (a) all people should be treated with respect, (b) xenophobia creates social tensions which spur terrorism, and (c) coercion is counterproductive. Regarding (c), suppose you own a house, and the government wants to encourage you to update it somehow--say, to paint it blue--the government has several options it can pursue to try and convince you to paint your house blue. It can pass a law mandating that all houses be painted blue, and impose coercive penalties (like a fine) on those who fail to comply. Alternatively, the government could offer incentives (such as a tax deduction) on all blue houses to, in essence, bribe you into compliance. Assume that the government implements the stick rather than the carrot, and you are forced to paint your house blue because of the fines. You probably are resentful of being forced to paint your house this color; you feel as if your freedom to do as you please was infringed on. A few municipal elections later, and a new administration takes over, rescinding the law. Newly unencumbered, you quickly repaint your house to a color more to your tastes. This example illustrates one of the fundamental challenges of coercive policy. It fails to create "ownership" of the changes. People don't feel like the owned the decision to paint their house blue, and, as a result, they chafe at being forced to make the changes. When people lack this ownership, they don't embrace the decision that was made, and so they may feel resentful at the change, change only superficially, resist the change altogether, or all three. Political correctness seeks to foster ownership of changes in order to produce ideal results. Minorities who choose to learn the language or to change their style of dress are more apt to effectively and meaningfully assimilate. The goal then should be to provide incentives for migrants to voluntarily assimilate. While some mandates may be in place, a PC policy, on balance, is more carrot than stick. One potential PC policy would be to offer free or reduced housing to migrants in widely dispersed locations. Another would be to offer voluntary assimilation classes, job fairs, and job training sessions, and to offer food, blankets, or other basic supplies to incentivize attendance. Funding moderate paces of worship, moderate religious publications, and engaging more closely with moderate religious leaders is also a PC policy. Policies like these have been implemented in many European countries, including Germany, the UK, and Finland, and will help prevent terror in several ways. [7, 8, 9] By resettling migrants diffusely (and equipping them with linguistic skills), ghettoization can be averted and assimilation can be encouraged. By providing employment opportunities, the social and economic disaffection that comes from feeling neglected or abandoned by society can be mitigated; people are happier when they are not poor and when they feel like government is work for them rather than against them. Conditions in existing ghettos can also be improved through such policies. And, by funding credible, moderate voices, governments can hope to counteract extremist propaganda. IV. ConclusionI have demonstrated that "anti-PC" behaviors, including offensive remarks or neglect of minority communities, are major drivers of terrorism. PC is therefore essential in halting these drivers and in successfully integrating minorities. V. Sources1 - Max Abrahms, "What Terrorists Really Want: Terrorist Motives and Counterterrorism Strategy," International Security 32, no. 4 (Spring 2008), p. 78-1052 - . http://tinyurl.com...3 - . http://tinyurl.com...4 - . http://tinyurl.com...5 - . http://tinyurl.com...6 - . http://tinyurl.com...7 - . http://tinyurl.com...8 - . http://tinyurl.com...9 - . http://tinyurl.com...Thanks!