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.