I must agree with you Steve, we can do no more than treat people as individuals, which I think I have been saying we should. But we can use group identity to help narrow down the individuals we want to investigate, to save both time and money.
"As for Wilders, and his right to say what he likes, there have been many
troubles associated with religious groups in the history of the British Isles. A
recent example is those in Ireland. There were certainly Catholics who were
terrorists. But did that mean that we said that terrorism was a characteristic
of Catholicism? Or that all Catholics shared the responsibility to some extent?
No, we dealt with those who were planning and executing acts of terror as
appropriate. We also, most of us, condemned those who tried to spread general
hatred of Catholics based on the acts of a few. As individuals, we have all
kinds of rights. But those in public positions have different responsibilities
because they are privileged. "
So this analogy has been made before. I am not familiar with all the details of the Catholics and their activities in the Isles. However I assume you are referring to the N. Ireland situation. In which case I feel you are making a bad analogy. I was actually going to write a post on how the N. Ireland situation is completely different from that of Muslim terrorism, but I will touch on it here. First, the IRA had specific national and political goals, ones that did not extend beyond what was the contiguous region known as Ireland. The IRA never sought the destruction of Britain, nor the death or conversion of all non-Catholics. The Islamists seem bent on both the destruction of non-Muslim polities and the death or conversion of their inhabitants. This is evidenced by any number of their statements, and these aren't what are at issue because I feel we agree on the nastiness of religion and Islam in specific.
Now the Catholics in N. Ireland had a daily grievance, occupation of their land. Now can you please tell me what several British born Muslims, who live in total freedom, and relative economic prosperity are doing bombing the Underground? What analogy is there to be made? None at all. Catholicism was wrapped up in a larger struggle for self determination. British citizens, Muslim or not, already have self determination. The reason for the bombings of 7/7 was something else. Something common to a certain group and not found elsewhere.
Indeed there are plenty of non-Muslim terror organizations, the LRA of Uganda, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, numerous far right ultra-nationalist groups in Eastern Europe, etc... But these other groups do not have a religious nature to them like Islamist groups do, this is fact.
"What people have to be responsible for is what they do - their actions. Those
actions can include promoting oppressive aspects of an ideology. They can be
held morally responsible. Of course, legal penalties for that is a quite
different matter. What we have to avoid is thought crime."
I agree with you here, we cannot have thought crime. But let's see what the reaction to perceived threats to Muslims is:
A boy with the mental capacity of a five year old is charged with a race crime in Britain because he got into an argument with a person of "Asian" descent:
A teacher sacked for criticising Islam (Actually making a factual statement):
All this special treatment for Muslims has got them feeling... well.... special, like they can run their own enclaves as they see fit:
All this special treatment for Muslims, doesn't this strike you, Steve, as being group based preferential treatment? Doesn't this irk you?
"Is it reasonable for people who live in a culture to explicitly deny that
culture, as against try to live quiet and peaceful lives, trying to respect the
rights of others within it?"
We aren't talking about people born in the Swat Valley who have never met a non-Muslim, we are speaking of people who are either naturalized or native born citizens of a western country. They can't plead ignorance... well I guess willful ignorance. What I am saying is that the current situation is untenable. Society should demand that these miscreants get with the program. It is high time the governments of the west stop appeasing the nasty violent tendencies displayed by many in the Muslim communities. It is wrong to deny someone's right to free speech because a group has decided it will unleash wanton violence in the face of this speech (A British Muslim peer said it would be 10,000 Muslims). Another example, German police broke into an apartment to remove an Israeli flag from the window (a clear violation of free speech) so that the pro-Gaza rioters below would not further destroy the city. Instead of policing criminals, the police chose to illegally enter a home, and curtail the free speech of the occupants, all to appease the Islamists and useful idiots below:
In the current situation, the government treats any offense against Muslims as a race crime, attempts to prosecute teenagers with down syndrome for a dispute on a playground, offering Shariah courts to appease Muslims, allow Muslim rioters to run buck wild through the streets of London destroying shops with no police opposition, allowing Muslim students to skip Holocaust memorial days, and banning foreign critics of Islam for entering the country when this person has done nothing but make truthful statements. With all this preferential treatment it is curious that you are worried we will start treating Muslims as a group. We already do, for their special status they now have. This has done nothing but embolden them. Sure the useful idiots feel they are making accommodations, but they are showing weakness, perhaps it will be deducted from future jizya payments. What do you expect them to think? Their religion says they are superior and that other should convert, die, or pay tribute. Then when the non-Muslim societies in which they live start paying tribute... the logical conclusion is obvious. Defending the religion that shall not be named is reinforcing the most disgusting aspects of that religion. Rights are individual based, I suggest we start defending those instead of the current police where we give ONE group special treatment.
Posts
7 comments:
With all this preferential treatment it is curious that you are worried we will start treating Muslims as a group
I think you have misunderstood my argument. I am against preferential treatment of any kind. I am not "worried about the start of treating Muslims as a group". What I am after is differential treatment not happening in all forms. Both positively and negatively. I thought I made that clear in my posts. The privilege for religions has to stop, but at the same time the negative treatment of the group can't be encouraged, as that is not applying the same standards to everyone.
I think you have misunderstood the nature of my comparison with Catholics. The political aims of the minority, or even nominally of the majority, is irrelevant. My point was about assuming that all think alike.
I don't think that I said all Muslims think alike, in fact they don't. What I was saying was that there are tenets of Islam that are common enough to Muslims to make some general comments. Now I have shown polls in the past about these kind of things (33% want Shariah, 35% think apostates should be killed etc...).
I don't disagree that group treatment is generally bad, we have agreed on this for some time. But I think it is reasonable to consider group affiliation in policing, but not in prosecuting. For instance wouldn't you watch Nazis more closely if they are staking out synagogues? Or would you still push the "can't treat them as uniform in thought, I have no evidence these individuals hate Jews".
Group identity CAN be useful. Do you agree?
In general, I agree. I do find it difficult, though, to make general comments. I was simply astonished to learn that there are gay muslim groups. That helps reveal to me that generalisations can be deeply flawed.
However, in terms of policing and monitoring, yes, I agree, there are group characteristics that are relevant.
Also, I find polls difficult. As I said, we can learn only so much about what something thinks by what they say. The real evidence comes from actions. I would be interested to know what "Shariah" means to those who were questioned, as against a vague idea that they should be in support of.
Just to say, I've been following this discussion, it's very interesting.
I think perhaps that this discussion of Ireland is a distraction. The IRA were never explicitly a pro-Catholic organisation: the explicitly sectarian violence was nearly all by loyalist paramilitaries. Whatever contribution religion has made, the Irish question is first and foremost a tribal dispute, not a religious one.
What we can learn from it is what happened when the British Army started treating every teenager in a Celtic shirt as a potential terrorist - that is what some of them became. A better strategy is to deal with the ringleaders, not the potential footsoldiers. We can probably all agree on this.
Well, the political aims of the minority, or even nominally of the majority, is irrelevant.
DRTV
Post a Comment