Yes that's all very nice, but it would be more useful if you confirmed your position on how much of our efforts to prevent jihadists should be focused on muslims, given that 100% of jihadists are muslims?
Oh I'd be the first to admit that my post was high level, head in the clouds, theoretical view only. In practice, there are times that we have to be more realistic and compromise the approach. But, equally, we need to be sensitive about how we conduct ourselves with respect to the definition of 'communities' and how we approach them.
As an example, would I support the public distribution of anti-terrorism pamphlets in areas which were predominantly Muslim? No, absolutely not as it leaves otherwise innocent people feeling stigmatized. Would I support a government program which sent representatives to mosques around the country in an attempt to understand the degree of radicalization within various communities and what we might be able to do to help address the issue? Absolutely.
Fine lines, Burney. I think my main point is that the definition of 'community' is one we need to be careful with, both the definition and how we use it.
I'm sorry, but I have to take issue with you even calling it a 'necessary evil'. It's not an 'evil' in any way, shape or form. It's a necessity driven purely by a logic predicated on the best means of keeping the public at large safe from potential or actual offenders. There is no need for any apologetic language.
If someone's response when it is pointed out that there is a group of people within their locality and ethnic group who represent a clear and present terrorist danger to the public is to whine about feeling 'stigmatised' rather than think 'Well, we should do everything possible to aid the police in rooting them out because I don't want that sort of person being seen as having anything to do with me', I'd say that neatly illustrates the fundamental problem. Namely, that they put their carefully-nurtured sense of grievance ahead of the safety of their fellow citizens.
If that's the case, fûck their stigma, fück their feelings, fûck them.
So, if the government required all heterosexual men to attend rape awareness courses your attitude would be 'well, people of my sex and sexual orientation are almost entirely responsible for rape so it really makes sense for me to attend the course so that we can understand why men rape women and work with the authorities to try and eliminate it'.
Yeah, course you would. :rolleyes:
No-one is pre-judging. We are merely talking about weighing the balance of probabilities in order to narrow the search, not waste time and give one the best possible chance of stopping crime in the shortest time possible. Because stopping crime is good, you see?
If there's a rape case, I'm not going to waste my time DNA testing female subjects or gay men. Equally, if I've got intelligence of an Islamic terror plot, I'm not going to waste my time questioning the Chinese community. Nothing 'evil' about that.
Hardly comparable. If I knew or suspected a man I knew was a rapist or heard someone exhorting men to commit rape, I'd contact the police immediately. Do muslims do the same vis-a-vis radicalised young men or radicalising preachers? No, I'm afraid that in many cases they do not.
We will leave people feeling pre-judged, though. And we shouldn't under-estimate the downside of this, Burney. Stigmatising a cross-section of our society and leaving them feeling alienated is really not a good thing.
Sometimes unavoidable, I agree, my point is only that we need to be sensitive in this regard.
Sensitivity is fine, but it goes out of the window when there are potentially lives at stake, I'm afraid. Anyone who can't see that is already fûcked in the head.
To adapt your earlier example to a more precise analogy, would I feel stigmatised as a man if I were asked to rule myself out of a rape enquiry and then asked to keep a look out for a potential rapist in my neighbourhood and report any suspects? Of course not, as I'm not a rapist.
Equally, the only people likely to feel stigmatised as potential terrorists are to my mind ALREADY suspicious to the point of being potential terrorists by virtue of feeling that way. If they weren't potential terrorists, it wouldn't occur to them to feel resentment, since they'd see the logic of the approach and bow to the greater good.
But you probably cared about Northern Irish catholics getting profiled back during the Troubles. Innocent men went to jail, and 'clampdowns' on nationalist communities arguably did as much to increase support for the armalite as it did too prevent terrorism/armed struggle.
Though you would probably agree that treating elderly Pakistani women as equal suspects in cases where the IRA claimed responsibility for a Spectacular would be tactically a bad move for the authorities.
Not sure if it ever made it over here, but when I worked in Toronto in the early 90s feminists asked all men to wear pink ribbons on their suit jackets as a demonstration of their support for the elimination of violence committed by men against women.
I refused to participate for obvious reasons. I see very little difference between that and plastering anti-terrorism posters all over predominantly Muslim areas, as an example.
You're comparing an empty gesture to a practical measure, though. Would I wear a pink ribbon? No. Would I do everything in my power to ensure an actual or potential rapist was stopped? Absolutely. Would I feel that the existence of a rapist stigmatised me as a man? Absolutely not.
I'm afraid that, as I've said, in the analogous situation, the same cannot be said about muslims, radicalisation and terror.
Yes, but the concept is the same. Identifying a cross section of our society and publicly focusing on them as needing to be part of the solution to a problem will necessarily stigmatise that cross-section of our society.
And as I've said, I'm not completely opposed to it, I just think it's a measure of last resort and we need to be very careful with that approach.
Well actually it's the fundamental principle of Maoist guerrilla strategy looked at from the other side. And, the fact is that it's effective, as the British proved in the Boer War and Malaya. If you take away the water, the fish die.
Although I'll grant you that it can be a bit messy. :-\
My narrower point, however, was that if you're going to try and catch or stop a terrorist, you go where he is rather than where he isn't.
My point is that, if your priorities are already so fûcked that you take it personally that a terrorism enquiry targets your ethnic and religious group because the perpetrators are 99.999999% likely to be from your ethnic or religious group, the problem is already there and all the 'sensitivity' in the world isn't going to shift it.
It wasn't a bad analogy. I refused to wear the ribbon not because it had no practical effect but because I felt there was an implication that all men were in some way responsible for violence against women, a presumption that I found offensive.
I guess you wouldn't have felt that way, but many did.