t******r
发帖数: 8600 | 1 Today, I want to focus my remarks on terrorism.
But first, let me address one point.
Some have suggested that by holding a Strategic Defence and Security Review,
Britain is somehow retreating from an activist role in the world.
This is the complete reversal of the truth.
Yes, we are dealing with the deficit, but we are also making sure our
defences are strong.
Britain will continue to meet the Nato 2 per cent target for defence
spending.
We still have the fourth largest military budget in the world.
And at the same time, we are putting that money to better use, focusing on
conflict prevention and building a much more flexible army.
That's not retreat, it's hard headed. Every decision we take has three aims
firmly in mind.
First, to support our continuing Nato mission in Afghanistan.
Second, to reinforce our actual military capability.
As Chancellor Merkel's government is showing here in Germany what matters is
not bureaucracy – which frankly Europe needs a lot less of – but the
political will to build the military capability we need, as nations and
allies, to deliver in the field.
And third, to make sure Britain is protected from the new and various
threats it faces.
That's why we're investing in a national cyber-security programme and
sharpening our readiness to act on counter-proliferation.
The biggest threat to our security comes from terrorist attacks – some of
which are sadly carried out by our own citizens.
It's important to stress that terrorism is not linked exclusively to any one
religion or ethnic group.
The UK still faces threats from dissident republicans.
Anarchist attacks have occurred recently in Greece and Italy.
And of course, yourselves in Germany were long-scarred by terrorism from the
Red Army Faction.
Nevertheless, we should acknowledge that this threat comes overwhelmingly
from young men who follow a completely perverse and warped interpretation of
Islam and who are prepared to blow themselves up and kill their fellow
citizens.
Last week at Davos, I rang the alarm bell for the urgent need for Europe to
recover its economic dynamism.
And today, though the subject is complex, my message on security is equally
stark.
We won't defeat terrorism simply by the actions we take outside our borders.
Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries.
Root of the problem
Of course, that means strengthening the security aspects of our response –
on tracing plots and stopping them, counter-surveillance and intelligence
gathering.
But this is just part of the answer. We have to get to the root of the
problem.
We need to be absolutely clear on where the origins of these terrorist
attacks lie – and that is the existence of an ideology, 'Islamist extremism
'.
And we should be equally clear what we mean by this term, distinguishing it
from Islam.
Islam is a religion, observed peacefully and devoutly by over a billion
people. Islamist extremism is a political ideology, supported by a minority.
At the furthest end are those who back terrorism to promote their ultimate
goal: an entire Islamist realm, governed by an interpretation of sharia.
Move along the spectrum, and you find people who may reject violence, but
who accept various parts of the extremist world-view including real
hostility towards western democracy and liberal values.
It's vital we make this distinction between the religion and the political
ideology.
Time and again, people equate the two. They think whether someone is an
extremist is dependent on how much they observe their religion.
So they talk about 'moderate' Muslims as if all devout Muslims must be
extremist. This is wrong.
Someone can be a devout Muslim and not be an extremist.
We need to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing.
Muddled thinking
This highlights a significant problem when discussing the terrorist threat
we face: there is so much muddled thinking about this whole issue.
On the one hand, those on the hard right ignore this distinction between
Islam and Islamist extremism and just say:
Islam and the West are in irreconcilable. This is a clash of civilisations.
So it follows: we should cut ourselves off from this religion – whether
that's through the forced repatriation favoured by some fascists or the
banning of new mosques as suggested in some parts of Europe.
These people fuel Islamaphobia. And I completely reject their argument.
If they want an example of how Western values and Islam can be entirely
compatible, they should look at what's happened in the past few weeks on the
streets of Tunis and Cairo.
Hundreds of thousands people demanding the universal right to free elections
and democracy.
The point is this: the ideology of extremism is the problem. Islam,
emphatically, is not.
Picking a fight with the latter will do nothing to confront the former.
On the other hand, there are those on the soft left who also ignore this
distinction.
They lump all Muslims together, compiling a list of grievances and arguing
if only governments addressed them, this terrorism would stop.
So they point to the poverty that so many Muslims live in and say: get rid
of this injustice and the terrorism will end.
But this ignores that fact that many of those found guilty of terrorist
offences in the UK have been graduates, and often middle class.
They point to the grievances about Western foreign policy and say: stop
riding roughshod over Muslim countries and the terrorism will end.
But there are many people – Muslim and non-Muslim alike – who are angry
about western foreign policy and don't resort to acts of terrorism.
They also point to the profusion of unelected leaders across the Middle East
and say: stop propping them up and creating the conditions for extremism to
flourish.
But this raises the question: if a lack of democracy is the problem, why are
there extremists in free and open societies?
Now, I am not saying these issues aren't important.
Yes, we must tackle poverty.
Yes, we must resolve sources of tension – not least in Palestine.
And yes, we should be on the side of openness and political reform in the
Middle East.
On Egypt, our position is clear: we want to see the transition to a more
broadly based government with the proper building blocks of a free and
democratic society.
I simply don't accept that there's a dead-end choice between a security
state and Islamist resistance.
But let's not fool ourselves, these are just contributory factors. Even if
we sorted out all these problems, there would still be this terrorism.
Identity and radicalisation
The root lies in the existence of this extremist ideology.
And I would argue an important reason so many young Muslims are drawn to it
comes down to a question of identity.
What I'm about to say is drawn from the British experience, but I believe
there are general lessons for us all.
In the UK, some young men find it hard to identify with the traditional
Islam practised at home by their parents whose customs can seem staid when
transplanted to modern Western countries.
But they also find it hard to identify with Britain too, because we have
allowed the weakening of our collective identity.
Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different
cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream.
We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want
to belong.
We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that
run counter to our values.
So when a white person holds objectionable views – racism, for example –
we rightly condemn them.
But when equally unacceptable views or practices have come from someone who
isn't white, we've been too cautious, frankly even fearful, to stand up to
them.
The failure of some to confront the horrors of forced marriage the practice
where some young girls are bullied and sometimes taken abroad to marry
someone they don't want to is a case in point.
This hands-off tolerance has only served to reinforce the sense that not
enough is shared.
All this leaves some young Muslims feeling rootless.
And the search for something to belong to and believe in can lead them to
this extremist ideology.
For sure, they don't turn into terrorists overnight.
What we see is a process of radicalisation.
Internet chatrooms are virtual meeting places where attitudes are shared,
strengthened and validated.
In some mosques, preachers of hate can sow misinformation about the plight
of Muslims elsewhere.
In our communities, groups and organisations led by young, dynamic leaders
promote separatism by encouraging Muslims to define themselves solely in
terms of their religion.
All these interactions engender a sense of community, a substitute for what
the wider society has failed to supply.
You might say: as long as they're not hurting anyone, what's the problem
with all this?
I'll tell you why.
As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist
offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by what
some have called 'non-violent extremists' and then took those radical
beliefs to the next level by embracing violence.
And I say this is an indictment of our approach to these issues in the past.
And if we are to defeat this threat, I believe it's time to turn the page on
the failed policies of the past.
So first, instead of ignoring this extremist ideology, we – as governments
and societies – have got to confront it, in all its forms.
And second, instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear
sense of shared national identity, open to everyone.
Let me briefly take each in turn.
Tackle all forms of extremism
First, confronting and undermining his ideology.
Whether they are violent in their means or not, we must make it impossible
for the extremists to succeed.
For governments, there are obvious ways we can do that.
We must ban preachers of hate from coming to our countries.
We must also proscribe organisations that incite terrorism – against people
at home and abroad.
Governments must also be shrewder in dealing with those that, while not
violent, are certainly, in some cases, part of the problem.
We need to think much harder about who it's in the public interest to work
with.
Some organisations that seek to present themselves as a gateway to the
Muslim community are showered with public money despite doing little to
combat extremism.
As others have observed, this is like turning to a right-wing fascist party
to fight a violent white supremacist movement.
So let's properly judge these organisations:
Do they believe in universal human rights – including for women and people
of other faiths?
Do they believe in equality of all before the law?
Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own
government?
Do they encourage integration or separatism?
These are the sorts of questions we need to ask.
Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with
organisations.
No public money. No sharing of platforms with Ministers at home.
At the same time, we must stop these groups from reaching people in publicly
funded institutions – like universities and prisons.
Some say: this is incompatible with free speech and intellectual inquiry.
I say: would you take the same view if right-wing extremists were recruiting
on campuses?
Would you advocate inaction if Christian fundamentalists who believe Muslims
are the enemy were leading prayer groups in prison?
And to those who say these non-violent extremists are helping to keep young,
vulnerable men away from violence, I say nonsense.
Would you allow the far right groups a share of public funds if they promise
to lure young white men away from fascist terrorism?
But, at root, challenging this ideology means exposing its ideas for what
they are -completely unjustifiable.
We need to argue that terrorism is wrong – in all circumstances.
We need to argue that their prophecies of a global war of religion pitting
Muslims against the rest of the world are rubbish.
Governments cannot do this alone.
The extremism we face is a distortion of Islam so these arguments, in part,
must be made by those within Islam.
So let's give voice to those followers of Islam in our own countries – the
vast often unheard majority – who despise the extremists and their
worldview.
Let's engage groups that share our aspirations.
Stronger citizenship
Second, we must build stronger societies and identities at home.
Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and
much more active, muscular liberalism.
A passively tolerant society says to its citizens: as long as you obey the
law, we will leave you alone.
It stands neutral between different values. A genuinely liberal country does
much more.
It believes in certain values and actively promotes them.
Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal
rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality.
It says to its citizens: this is what defines us as a society.
To belong here is to believe in these things.
Each of us in our own countries must be unambiguous and hard-nosed about
this defence of our liberty.
There are practical things we can do as well.
That includes making sure immigrants speak the language of their new home.
And ensuring that people are educated in elements of a common culture and
curriculum.
Back home, we are introducing National Citizen Service – a two-month
programme for sixteen year-olds from different backgrounds to live and work
together.
I also believe we should encourage meaningful and active participation in
society, by shifting the balance of power, away from the state and to people.
That way common purpose can be formed, as people come together and work
together in their neighbourhoods.
It will also help build stronger pride in local identity so people feel free
to say yes, I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am Christian but I am also a
Londonder or a Berliner, too.
It's that identity – that feeling of belonging in our countries that is the
key to achieving true cohesion.
Conclusion
Let me end with this. This terrorism is completely indiscriminate and has
been thrust upon us.
It can't be ignored or contained.
We need to confront it with confidence.
Confront the ideology that drives it by defeating the ideas that warp so
many minds at their root.
And confront the issues of identity that sustain it by standing for a much
broader and generous vision of citizenship in our countries.
None of this will be easy. We need stamina, patience and endurance. And it
won't happen at all if we act alone.
This ideology crosses continents – we are all in this together.
At stake are not just lives, it's our way of life.
That's why this is a challenge we cannot avoid – and one we must meet. | r**h
发帖数: 1288 | 2 望英国政府切实保护少数族群的人权和宗教信仰自由
Review,
【在 t******r 的大作中提到】
: Today, I want to focus my remarks on terrorism.
: But first, let me address one point.
: Some have suggested that by holding a Strategic Defence and Security Review,
: Britain is somehow retreating from an activist role in the world.
: This is the complete reversal of the truth.
: Yes, we are dealing with the deficit, but we are also making sure our
: defences are strong.
: Britain will continue to meet the Nato 2 per cent target for defence
: spending.
: We still have the fourth largest military budget in the world.
| L**S
发帖数: 7833 | | t******r
发帖数: 8600 | 4 “我们消极的忍受”，忘记了我们也有我们引以为自豪的文化。
他们要留下了，就必须信仰我们的文化。。。。 | t******r
发帖数: 8600 | 5 英国真正驱逐一个宣扬极端穆斯林观念的preacher。 | c****g
发帖数: 37081 | | H*****n
发帖数: 137 | 7 讲理没用
Review,
【在 t******r 的大作中提到】
: Today, I want to focus my remarks on terrorism.
: But first, let me address one point.
: Some have suggested that by holding a Strategic Defence and Security Review,
: Britain is somehow retreating from an activist role in the world.
: This is the complete reversal of the truth.
: Yes, we are dealing with the deficit, but we are also making sure our
: defences are strong.
: Britain will continue to meet the Nato 2 per cent target for defence
: spending.
: We still have the fourth largest military budget in the world.
| z******4
发帖数: 4716 | 8 穆斯林这么小打小闹迟早吃大亏
估计新一轮的驱除穆斯林运动要开始了
【在 t******r 的大作中提到】
: “我们消极的忍受”，忘记了我们也有我们引以为自豪的文化。
: 他们要留下了，就必须信仰我们的文化。。。。
| s*****s
发帖数: 1509 | 9 确实，真有点脑子先忍个50年，等人数过半了靠选票把欧洲占领。
【在 z******4 的大作中提到】
: 穆斯林这么小打小闹迟早吃大亏
: 估计新一轮的驱除穆斯林运动要开始了
| t******r
发帖数: 8600 | 10 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22480089
David Cameron said he would be "one of the happiest people in Britain" if
Abu Qatada were to leave voluntarily. | | | r*****2
发帖数: 2682 | 11 没用，言论自由，宗教自由，民主普世对付不了伊斯兰。 | t******r
发帖数: 8600 | 12 Some radio show hosts in this country said that this was the most important
speech in 21st century!!! | t******r
发帖数: 8600 | | w****r
发帖数: 15252 | | c******a
发帖数: 4400 | 15 cameron是个明白人
就是要在普世框架中小心翼翼做一定修改，你看他每说一句狠话之前要好几句话铺垫
让自己能能搞搞老穆，中左派应该是乐观其成的
【在 r*****2 的大作中提到】
: 没用，言论自由，宗教自由，民主普世对付不了伊斯兰。
|
|
