David Cameron: a blight on British politics
Today in the Observer, David Cameron writes:
First, a concerted attack on racism and soft bigotry. You can't even start to talk about a truly integrated society while people are suffering racist insults and abuse, as many still are in our country on a daily basis. We must also be careful about the language we use. No Muslim I've ever met is offended by Christmas, or supports its replacement with 'Winterval'. But many Muslims I've talked to about these issues are deeply offended by the use of the word 'Islamic' or 'Islamist' to describe the terrorist threat we face today.
We do need greater understanding of the true nature of the terrorist threat. There's too much complacency about it among non-Muslims, and too much denial of it in the Muslim community. But our efforts are not helped by lazy use of language.
So, David Cameron is telling us that Muslims are offended by the association of the terms 'Islamic' and 'Islamist' to describe terror attacks by individuals and groups who nevertheless regard themselves, however misguidedly, as Muslims acting in the service of their God and their faith - who believe indeed that their acts are indeed Islamic, as well as Islamist. And those of us who choose to note this (not insignificant) fact are chided for lazy use of language, and worse, 'racism and soft bigotry'.
If this is so, then the Conservative Leader needs to take a long hard look in the mirror, for on November 12, 2006, David Cameron wrote this in the Sunday Times:
The final change needed is a much more rigorous approach to combating Islamic fundamentalism. The government seems confused as to what fundamentalism actually is. On the one hand ministers — perfectly reasonably — express concern about women who wear the veil while teaching. On the other hand they pay for extremist preachers of hate such as Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who supports suicide bombings, to attend conferences.
Cameron is here explicitly attacking Islamic fundamentalism (which is a manifestation of religion), and not Islamism, which is a fascistic political ideology based on a debased interpretation of Islam. The man has a nerve accusing anyone else of lazy use of language: or is this just soft bigotry?
Melanie Phillips gets straight to the point:
On Planet Cameron, the phrases ‘Islamic’ or ‘Islamist’ terrorism are to be expunged from the lexicon. I wonder therefore whether Cameron would denounce the British Muslim Ed Husain for ‘soft bigotry’ over his book ‘The Islamist’?
...Husain shows that Islam and Islamism are two different things: that it is perfectly possible to be a Muslim who derives spiritual solace from the faith in a way that threatens no-one — and that it is essential to distinguish such Muslims from Islamists and protect the former, along with all of us, from the latter. Muslims like Husain need our support, encouragement and protection. David Cameron’s words instead take the ground from under his feet.
This is entirely correct. There is a struggle going on within the Muslim community for the soul of their faith. Those Muslims who are in many cases risking their lives to take on this challenge deserve more support than to have David Cameron demand that the issue be ignored. So what is it all for, this betrayal of moderate Muslims? It's about votes, and percentage points in opinion polls. It's the same old Cameron strategy: say anything, do anything to create the desired image - the content doesn't really matter to the new model Tories.
On September 11, 2006, on the fifth anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, on the occasion of the JP Morgan Lecture at the British American Project, David Cameron chose to say this:
But I believe that in the last five years we have suffered from the absence of two crucial qualities which should always condition foreign policy-making. Humility, and patience. These are not warlike words. They are not so glamorous and exciting as the easy sound-bites we have grown used to in recent years. But these sound-bites had the failing of all foreign policy designed to fit into a headline.
Such crass remarks to be made on such a day to such an audience give the full flavour of the man we are dealing with here. He is, and was, apparently oblivious to the irony of his criticising American and British foreign policy makers for headline chasing and soundbites.
David Cameron is a politician of trivial talents and minimal integrity: he is a hyperactive spin-doctor who has somehow wangled his way into the top job. His inconsistency, cynicism and calculated tactlessness ought to rule him out of consideration for any position in government. One suspects that if he had spent the last ten years as a Labour MP he would now be on the backbenches. But because he is media-savvy, all is forgiven. Because he has created the image of a Conservative Party that is just like Labour but somehow sexier, the media and the voters, increasingly bored and desperate for change, seem prepared to consider a Cameron premiership. The fact that David Cameron can make so much headway with so little of value to say for himself is a sad indictment of the state of our politics. Britain deserves better, but until Britain demands better the quality of our politics and government will not improve.
|