Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: UK - pogrom antiislamico, da Blair a Cameron

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/05/david-cameron-attack-multiculturalism-coalition
David Cameron's attack on multiculturalism divides the coalition
The language of Cameron's speech resembles that of Blair in the wake
of the 7/7 bombings. But the issue still threatens to divide his party
as badly as it did Labour
    *
          o
          o Share
          o Reddit
          o Buzz up
    * Jamie Doward
    * The Observer, Sunday 6 February 2011
    * larger | smaller
    * Article history
English Defence League Demonstrations The English Defence League
demonstration in Luton yesterday. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
David Cameron's speech attacking multiculturalism may seem to have
come out of a clear blue sky, but its genesis can be traced back to
long before he became prime minister. Indeed, in its tone and content
it shares many similarities with a key speech made by Tony Blair in
2005, shortly after the London bombings.
Blair argued that the roots of violent Islamism were not "superficial
but deep" and could be found "in the extremist minority that now in
every European city preach hatred of the west and our way of life".
Those who perpetuated such an ideology, Blair claimed, play "on our
tolerance and good nature … as if it is our behaviour that should
change, that if we only tried to work out and act on their grievances,
we could lift this evil … This is a misunderstanding of a catastrophic
order."
But even though Blair returned to this argument recurrently, the
Labour government was unable to resolve its internal battles over how
best to combat violent extremism. The rows engulfed the government's
chief response to the threat, articulated in its "Prevent" strategy,
which originally sought to counter the spread of Islamism by
empowering moderate voices in the Muslim world.
The Home Office and the Department for Communities vied with each
other for cash and resources as they attempted to implement the
strategy. Behind the scenes, ministers clashed over who should own the
policy. A number of Muslim groups flagged concerns that senior civil
servants were in thrall to Islamist organisations that preached non-
violence in the UK but endorsed violent extremism abroad. There were
even accusations that Prevent itself had been hijacked by extremist
groups.
"There was this belief that supporting and reaching out to the non-
violent extremists would prevent violent extremists from committing
acts of terrorism," said Haras Rafiq, a founder of the Sufi Muslim
Council and a director of Centri, an anti-extremism organisation. "It
is clear that Cameron now believes that approach was muddled."
Cameron's speech signalled just how muddled he felt the approach had
become. In the future, he pledged, only groups that would encourage
integration would receive funding. "Let's properly judge these
organisations," Cameron said. "Do they believe in universal human
rights – including for women and people of other faiths? Do they
believe in equality of all before the law?"
These questions will become increasingly important over the next few
weeks as the government redrafts the Prevent strategy. Originally due
to be unveiled in January, it now looks unlikely to appear until the
summer.
As with Labour, the coalition is divided. Insiders say Cameron, along
with education secretary, Michael Gove, the home secretary, Theresa
May, and the security minister, Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, accept
there has been too much of what the prime minister calls "passive
tolerance" of extremist groups in recent years, while Nick Clegg and
Baroness Warsi, the Tory party chairwoman, prefer a more multicultural
approach.
Signs of the tension between both sides were evident last year when
Warsi was due to attend the Muslim Global Peace and Unity conference
in east London but pulled out under pressure from Tory party
officials, who were alarmed at claims the event was to be attended by
Islamist sympathisers.
Warsi was understood to be distraught at being unable to attend and
used a speech last month at Leicester University – rumoured to have
not been cleared by Tory party HQ – to warn that "Islamophobia has now
crossed the threshold of middle-class respectability".
She said: "The drip-feeding of fear fuels a rising tide of prejudice.
So when people get on the tube and see a bearded Muslim, they think
'terrorist' … when they hear 'halal', they think 'that sounds like
contaminated food' … and when they walk past a woman wearing a veil,
they think automatically, 'that woman's oppressed'. And what's
particularly worrying is that this can lead down the slippery slope to
violence."
As for the Liberal Democrats, many of their MPs and members will feel
uneasy at Cameron's claim that multiculturalism has failed. The party
has seen itself as distinct because of the way in which it embraces
diversity. Nick Clegg was even prepared to stick his neck out in the
election campaign in support of an amnesty for illegal immigrants,
seeing it as an important badge of liberalism. Many Lib Dems will find
being associated with Cameron's approach difficult.
Muslim groups were quick to voice fears that Cameron's speech was
putting the UK on the same slippery slope, coming on the day the far-
right English Defence League staged its largest ever rally in Luton.
"The prime minister chose to deliver his speech on a day when the
extremists of the English Defence League will be marching on Luton to
sow discord among our communities," said Farooq Murad, secretary
general of the Muslim Council of Britain. "We find it very
disappointing that, at a time when we should seek to stand together to
fight violence and extremism, Mr Cameron omits any reference to this
extremist group spreading hate and bigotry against British Muslims in
towns and cities up and down this country."
But Cameron did use his speech to acknowledge the relationship between
Islamophobia and the far right. "On the one hand, those on the hard
right ignore this distinction between Islam and Islamist extremism and
just say: 'Islam and the west are irreconcilable'," he said. "These
people fuel Islamophobia. And I completely reject their argument."
Anti-fascist campaigners point out the EDL was formed in response to
the rise of al-Muhajiroun, the now proscribed extremist organisation
that glorified suicide bombers and influenced several British-born al-
Qaida sympathisers jailed for terrorism. A mix of football hooligans,
far-right supporters and disaffected white workers, the EDL lacks a
common identity but is united in its target: Islam.
"The rise of the EDL can be seen as a failure by the British
government to get to grips with Islamist extremism," said Maurice
Cousins of the anti-far-right campaign group Nothing British.
Multiculturalism has, according to Cousins, helped Islamism flourish.
"We take the view that multiculturalism hasn't been the best way to
integrate people in society," he said. "It ghettoises people into
minority and majority groups with no common identity. You can argue in
favour of pluralism, but multiculturalism says there's no one
overriding culture and that causes divisions and makes society less
cohesive."
Cameron signalled he had come down on the side of this argument. "The
speech was an attempt to bring everything together," said James
Brandon of Quilliam, the counter-extremism thinktank. "When they got
into power, the government tried to draft anti-extremism policy in
piecemeal form, but they've realised they need a bigger-picture
approach to make sure every department is on the same page."
Insiders suggest it is likely Cameron's speech will trigger a further
redrafting of the Prevent strategy. What eventually transpires will be
radically different. "A lot of things were wrong with Prevent,"
Brandon said. "People were being loose with who the money was going
to; they were working with the wrong people."
Having rejected the previous government's strategy, Cameron is now
reverting to his default position, outlined in a speech he made in
2005 when shadow education minister. In the speech Cameron likened
Islamist extremists to Nazis. "Just like the Nazis of 1930s Germany,
they want to purge corrupt cosmopolitan influences," Cameron said.
Meanwhile, the EDL's website also invokes the Nazis. It carries a
quote from Albert Einstein, a "refugee from Nazi Germany": "The world
is a dangerous place to live in; not because of the people who are
evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."
Indeed, at the march, several EDL members were quick to claim
Cameron's speech reflected their own views. By waging war on one form
of extremism, Cameron may unintentionally have given succour to
another.

 Cameron's speech reflected their own views
CVD. Robertì, informati prima di condividere

 CVD. Robertì, informati prima di condividere
E' possibile che questo sia evidenza della sua onestà intellettuale?


Anche un terremoto è intellettualmente onesto, ma alla fine mi sfascia
la casa...


Mettiamo il caso che qualcuno, uno qualsiasi, dica una cosa 
condivisibile. Mettiamo pure il caso che tu ti precipiti a sbavare su 
questa cosa come ci hai abituato. La cosa condivisibile diventa per 
questo meno condivisibile?
-- 
*Sunspot*
This is the message phone company.  I see you're using our unit, now how 
about paying for it?

 condivisibile.
condivisibile dai fasci dell'EDL. E da te. Prendiamo atto

 c
Non hai risposto alla domanda.


 Non hai risposto alla domanda.
ho risposto eccome. Le cose che condividono la destra e i fasci sono
cose fasciste, quindi solo chi la pensa come loro le condivide.

 ho risposto eccome.
No.


 No.
spiacente, ma se fai le domande non puoi respingere le risposte che
non ti danno ragione. Funziona così, nel mondo reale.


Se faccio le domande, decido anche quali sono le risposte e quali le 
svicolate. Se rispondi alle mie domande, rispondi secondo le mie regole.


 Se faccio le domande, decido anche quali sono le risposte
none. Se fai le domande in pubblico, le risposte te le tieni .E
rispondi a quelle, non neghi che siano risposte


È evidente che è così.
Riproviamo: «Mettiamo il caso che qualcuno, uno qualsiasi, dica una cosa 
condivisibile. Mettiamo pure il caso che tu ti precipiti a sbavare su 
questa cosa come ci hai abituato. La cosa condivisibile diventa per 
questo meno condivisibile?»
Nota che la cosa, così come la domanda, è generica. Ora, se vuoi 
rispondere, le regole le conosci...



non è generica, perchè tu parli di una sbavata automatica, che è una
palla. Io ho "sbavato" (ovvero ho risposto per le rime) al discorso di
Cameron, che non è per niente condivisibile perchè lo fa Cameron, che
è la quintessenza dell'elitismo britt.

 Cameron,
No, immaginavo ci fosse qualcosa di poco chiaro che ti spingeva a non 
intenderti di capire... Non c'entra Cameron, né nessun altro. Fa' conto 
che X dica qualcosa e che tu ti entusiasmi: dovrei io provare problemi a 
condividere il pensiero di X?
