The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Philosophy Now, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here

Friday, 9 September 2011

The Guardian's David Miller on Far-Right Terrorism

I wish that, every now and again, Guardian journalists would give us a definition of the word ‘Islamophobia’. This is very rarely done. It seems almost as if they think the word is as well understood as a word like, say, ‘conservatism’or ‘revolution’. Is it because a clear definition would give the game away, as it were? That is, it would be shown that

‘Islamophobia’ = any criticism of Islam or Muslim behaviour (as Muslims).

Take David Miller’s article, ‘Thinktanks must drop this cold war approach to Islamism’. He accuses ‘Conservative thinktanks [of] downplaying and even excusing... Islamophobic groups such as the EDL’. More concretely, he says that both the Policy Exchange and the Centre of Social Cohesion (CSC)of ‘underplaying’ these ‘Islamophobic currents’.

Not only is the word ‘Islamophobia’ rarely, if ever, defined, but David Miller also simply assumes that there has been a ‘rise of Islamophobia’ here in the UK and elsewhere. Again, no explanation or evidence is offered as to why he thinks this.

The most interesting aspect of David Miller’s article is its defence of Islamism (not just plain Islam). It would seem that Miller has gone one step further than most Leftist and liberal commentators in that he suggests that we should not only 'embrace’ Islam, but that we should do the same with Islamism too.

Embracing Islamism is a big step forward in the ‘fight against Islamophobia’. Miller doesn’t deny the deeply political nature of Islamism. How could he? That’s what Islamism is - political Islam. He explicitly says that groups had ‘risked repressing those engaged in legitimate political activity’. It’s a shame that ‘Islamism’ isn’t defined by Miller either.

What kind of Islamist ‘political activity’ is Miller referring to? Could he be referring to the Islamist political aim which is the creation of an Islamic state and therefore the total implementation of full sharia law? However, he does, sort of, define ‘Islamism’, but only in an extremely loose and unhelpful manner. He says that Islamists are simply ‘politically active Muslims’. That’s it! What is meant by ‘active’ and how, exactly, are the Islamists he defends ‘politically active’? It’s all OK to defend Islamism without specifics. But when you do define ‘Islamism’ you may well find that things aren’t automatically so innocuous or compatible with a parliamentary democratic system.

What David Miller demands is that counter-terrorism organisations spend more time on the ‘far right’ and on ‘Islamophobic’ groups. Thus Anders Breivik’s terrorist outrage in Norway has proved to be a godsend to people like David Miller and, indeed, to all the other Islamophile Guardianistas. How would they have argued their case if Breivik had not killed so many people? Every day, throughout the world, there are literally tens of jihadist attacks; either bombings or other kinds of killing. That tens of attacks EVERY DAY!

As for the ‘far right’, on the other hand, Breivik’s actions were the first of their kind, more or less, since Timothy McVeigh committed his massive crime in Oklahoma City in 1995. That's two large far-right terrorist attacks in around sixteen years. (That’s if Timothy McVeigh was, strictly speaking, a member of the far right.)

What about Islamoterrorism? I’ve already mentioned the daily killings of the jihadists worldwide. In Europe, we’ve had the London bombings, the Madrid bombing, and other fairly-small attacks around Europe; including a handful in Paris alone. And this is to disregard the large number of Islamoterrorist attacks which have been foiled by the police and security serves (as with Hamas and Israel) in England and beyond.

So it’s odd that David Miller should argue that it’s a bad thing that ‘conservative’ thinktanks, in ignoring ‘far-right’ terrorism and violence, must not ‘genuinely [be] interested in public safety and the health of the democratic system’. (This is a statement aimed at Policy Exchange and Douglas Murray’s Centre for Social Cohesion.) On the contrary, these organisations appear, to Miller, to ‘exaggerate the threat posed by “Islamists” (in inverted commas!), whereas far-right violence is ‘downplayed’.

Of course, the whole point of David Miller’s article is that this disjunct should be reversed: thinktanks, etc. should focus on the threats from the far right and ‘downplay’ the threats which exist from the Islamists.

It’s really that simple.
The News link:

No comments:

Post a Comment