As I suspected in my posting of yesterday, David Cameron’s speech about Islamic extremism is likely to do nore harm than good. Specifically, that it will likely cause an increase in alienated young Muslims in this country and that more young people might be going to Syria to support Isil’s cause.
Three young intellectual Muslims on BBC Newsnight last night said exactly the same. “It [Cameron’s speech] will only cause Muslims to feel more isolated than before”, one said. Another said that the problem is multi-factorial and less due to their religious belief than Cameron supposes. It certainly is in my opinion. One of the major factors is that young Muslims in this country are in the same boat as very many indigenous young people at the present time — poor job prospects. There hasn’t been a worse time in this country in the last 50 years when young adults have such little chance of ever affording a decent home to buy or to rent in which to raise a family.
In his speech yesterday, Cameron said a lot of things that were were very sensible but he used a lot of infelicitous phraseology, too, such as the far too frequent use of “extremist Muslims” or “extremist ideologists” — as though there is a separate category of them. There’s a gradation here, in the same way that, in the 1939 Spanish Civil War there was a gradation of support in this country for the Republican cause leading to young men going to Spain to fight on the Republican side. Were they “extremist ideologists”, too? Yes, they were, according Cameron’s terminology. But among those who went, there were intellectuals such as George Orwell, Arthur Koestler and Jack Jones who, in later years, contributed a great deal to our cultural and political life of this country. No, what’s ‘extremist’ is the too frequent use of the word.
Cameron says he has a five-year strategy to deal with the Muslim problem in this country (which is what it is tending to become because of Cameron’s language). Yes, by all means have a five-year strategy, but it would be far better to be carried out quietly and diplomatically through the mosques. Paradoxically, the government could also afford to be a little ham-fisted about the some matters and to shut down a few mosques where the mullah is allowing Isil supporters to infiltrate their localities — that is, those who must be recruiting the more impressionable young people to go to Syria (and, importantly, helping them with travel arrangements).
The more responsible mullahs know who the extremist mullahs are (and yes, the term can be used accurately in the case of fully adult mullahs) and some very quiet diplomacy among the majority of sensible moderate ones would elicit nods and winks about the bad apples. Even already the MI5 must know of some of them already. if some mosques were shut down there’d hardly be more than one or two cheeps of protest in the same way that happened when burqas were outlawed in France a couple of years ago — even though ‘progressives’ in this country thought that the French government would never get away with it.
In the same way, more of the Muslim pimping gangs that subvert emotionally vulnerable (white) young girls in local authority care homes into prostitution could be prosecuted in addition to the only two that have been prosecuted so far over the whole country. Young Muslim men without a job, and who are never able to meet young Muslim girl teenagers after they’ve left school — because they are kept at home — are particularly sexually frustrated. In proportion to the population of four million Muslims in the country no wonder that there are proportionately far more Muslim pimps than there might be. Once again there’d be little protest from the Muslim population as a whole if there were more prosecutions. Political correctness and the fear of being caused racist has inhibited almost all city police forces from taking action.