Monthly Archives: June 2022

Britain is reviewing its cornerstone anti-terror programme. As the name implies, Prevent is a strategy designed to stop radicalisation before it metastasises into killer intent. But how well is it working?

There have been accusations that Prevent is discriminatory. Groups such as Liberty and the Muslim Council of Britain have criticised the anti-terror strategy for targetting Muslims, arguing that it has caused hurt to Britains Islamic communities. But there are also criticisms that, even on its own terms, the Home Office programme isnt working as well as it should. Dame Sara Khan, the social cohesion tsar, last week warned that efforts to tackle Islamist extremism are being hampered by political correctness. The fear of being called a racist, she explained, is hampering our ability to avert deadly extremism.

Khan is of course right, as anyone who has followed Britains numerous terror attacks will have heard. Remember the Manchester Arena bombing and the security guard who spotted the Salman Abedi behaving suspiciously with his rucksack? Kyle Lawler, then aged just 18, claimed that if he had confronted Abedi, his career might have been ruined by an accusation of racism. This is far from the only case. Khan herself has given the example of an unnamed local authority in which councillors were very comfortable talking about the far-right but altogether more coy when it came to the Islamist threat which, regardless of what some media outlets might have you believe, is still by far the greater danger to Britains streets

And it isnt just local government thats the problem. Hannah Stuart, a terrorism expert who previously worked at the independent Commission for Countering Extremism alongside Dame Sara Khan, has spoken of how common it was to sit through hours-long meetings with government departments only for Islamist extremism to be studiously avoided. She has said how during these meetings, civil servants seemed very wary of talking about Islamism and very wary of being called racist.

The police too even discussed dropping the term Islamism in favour of faith-claimed attack in order to avoid accusations of stigmatisation. While in prisons the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation described an understandable fear of discriminating against Muslim prisoners, resulting in a tendency to regard Islam as a no-go area [and a] reluctance to focus on Islamist group behaviour. But across Britain and Europe, prisons have proved an incubator of Islamist terror.

Surely academics, the last defenders of truth, would study this phenomenon without fear or favour? Not a bit of it. All of the career and funding incentives point toward safer subjects while focusing on jihadism risks accusations of hardline politics at best or islamophobia at worst. A colleague recently tried recruiting a graduate analyst to work on Islamist extremism and terrorism. He couldnt find a single researcher. All of the applicants perfectly polite and eloquent spoke of their interest in studying the far-right, incels, or in studying video gaming and extremism. In other words, in studying anything but Islamist extremism.

Studying jihadism is not only unpopular, it can at times feel dangerous. Just ask the Bristol University professor forced to leave his home after a spurious campaign was whipped up against him mere months after a fellow educator was forced into hiding in Batley and another was decapitated on the outskirts of Paris.

Even at the very top, the response to Sir David Amesss murder quickly descended into a debate about online trolling. The reality was clear, if uncomfortable. During the trial of Ali Harbi Ali, who was later jailed for life for the attack, the jury heard that the killer had written that he was motivated by revenge for the blood of Muslims.

The review of Prevent, led by Sir William Shawcross, will attempt to redress some of these problems. How easy that will be remains to be seen. Far-right referrals to Prevent now outweigh their Islamist reports. Itis clearly a problem just look at the planned Neo-Nazi attack on Labour MP Rosie Cooper. But there is a question of proportion. Only so many resources are available for halting extremism. The public rightly expects that those resources are used as efficiently as possible. And yet there seem to be substantially differing referral thresholds for far-right and Islamist extremists, as well as a rapidly expanding category of what constitutes far-right in the first place, at least according to Prevent practitioners I've spoken to. Perhaps that has something to do with the various NGOs and civil society organisations pushing the notion of a burgeoning far-right terror network in Britain. Their unmistakably celebratory tone whenever far-right referrals outweigh Islamist reports gives away rather more than they'd wish.

There is something unmistakeably bleak about our institutional response to an enduring extremist threat. Too often those who clearly state the problem are hounded by accusations and ditched by colleagues for fear of cross-contamination. Those charged with understanding and preventing terrorism shouldn't be afraid of accurately and fully describing where it comes from. The risks are just too high.

Visit link:

Prevent and the problem of 'political correctness' - The Spectator

There are hundreds of thousands of words in the English language. Each word, no matter how commonplace, packs a powerful punch. We can string words together to make someones day, break a heart, spread ideas or even cause mass hysteria. While some people dismiss this fascinating phenomenon with the phrase words are just words, this ideology entirely ignores the communicative properties of words and invalidates their importance to both society and culture.

Because of our advanced level of communication, we must be hyper-aware of what we are saying and the connotations of the words we speak. I have found that our society often does not prioritize this understanding; our education on these connotations and how they might make others feel is extremely lacking.

I have found myself surrounded by phrases such as thats so gay on a day-to-day basis. My peers and honestly, myself rarely bat an eye when it comes to comments like the ones I just described. Our society has normalized the use of words that describe someone different from ourselves in negative contexts to the extent that we have become desensitized to such occurrences.

When was the last time you heard someone say thats so gay to something that made them happy? Likely: never. It is often used when a person is responding to something they do not like or when mocking something. Using the word gay with a negative connotation is a form of discrimination toward the LGBTQ+ community.

I used the previous phrase as my example because it is such a common one to hear, but the same kind of ignorance is perpetuated with many other misused words and phrases such as Im going to kill myself or thats so Jewish. Using words packed with such heavy social or historical implications in frivolous contexts is ignorant and disappointing. However, if Im giving people the benefit of the doubt, maybe they dont know what it is they are doing and why it is wrong.

In that case, Ill break it down for you. Several of the examples above can be referred to as microaggressions, which are typically subtle ways of showing negative attitudes toward a marginalized group.

One of the reasons why this issue persists is because of the numerous people in positions of power who have encouraged our societys miseducation. For example, former President Donald Trump once stated, I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct. Ive been challenged by so many people and I dont, frankly, have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesnt have time, either.

In some ways, there is value in being straightforward and to the point, but to encourage an atmosphere of totally uncensored speech soundly rejects the spirit of democracy and goes against our values of diversity, safety and a welcoming environment. Trumps apparent lack of time to replace a disrespectful word with a respectful one has nothing to do with time and everything to do with the ingrained racism, sexism, ableism and homophobia that prevails in our country despite how progressive we might think it is.

Some of our distaste for political correctness can be traced back to ancient Greece, when wealthy students were taught more advanced rhetoric than their less wealthy counterparts in order to give them an advantage in winning elections or even evading prison time. These ideas even carried into our countrys founding, where a free marketplace of ideas was encouraged through limited government censorship. This meant the persuasive nature of ideas contributed in large part to a particular ideas popularity and acceptance, even if the idea was persuading listeners in the wrong way. These trends show a historical relationship between eloquent speech paired with an element of distrust, which still exists today.

For this reason, we sometimes associate carefully executed speech with calculated, ill-intentioned speech that is designed to manipulate. Trumps simpler and less sophisticated (yet politically incorrect) rhetoric appeals to many Americans because it makes you feel more like you are just talking to the guy next door. This tendency to associate ourselves with those more demographically similar to us is called homophily, and explains why we might prefer to listen to a more casual speaker talk to us rather than a grandiose speaker who seems, and probably is, smarter than us.

With that said, it is no secret that our leaders play a formidable role in promoting or impeding political correctness. While some of us may be averse to the eloquent, occasionally complicated and politically correct speech that is associated with the left, I urge you to keep in mind that you can say the exact same things in hundreds of different ways with varying degrees of social acceptability that is the beauty of the English language.

Circling back to the tremendous impact our leaders have on our social perspectives: whether it is the leader of a country, a celebrity, a parent, a coach or a teacher, every influence, large or small, matters. This is especially applicable to our youth, who are highly impressionable throughout their journey of becoming an adult with steadfast values and beliefs. It is the job of those with more experience and knowledge than the youth to catch these wrongdoings and correct them before they become cyclical, persistent and difficult to reverse.

To further combat these shortcomings, the American Psychological Association suggests that if you are the victim of a microaggression, you should try to consider the context of the situation to help you determine the best course of action, practice self-care and use your experiences as an opportunity to educate. On the other hand, if you are a bystander, it is useful to act as an ally to the victim and assist in uplifting their voice. It is important to allow them to speak for themselves as well, and act more as a helping hand than an overpowering voice.

While I have not found political incorrectness to be an outstanding issue here at the University of Michigan, that is only my experience as a white person and does not represent our student body as a whole, nor other parts of our country. If you hear something on campus or elsewhere, say something. In order to encourage productive conversation and change, be vigilant in your endeavors by educating rather than scolding or talking down to those who lack political correctness.

I envision a society where everyone is articulate, inclusive and sensitive to their own speech and either receptive or corrective to the speech of others. Remember to think before you speak and be conscious of others beliefs, identities and feelings. With the correct educational reinforcements and a dash of heightened social awareness, as well as our leaders setting a desirable example for others, the solution to this issue is hiding in plain sight.

Anna Trupiano is an Opinion Columnist and can be reached at annatrup@umich.edu.

Go here to see the original:

The overuse and misuse of politically incorrect speech - The Michigan Daily

Editors note: Please be advised this column contains graphic language and may not be suitable for all readers.

With so many options available, hows a patriot supposed to choose?

Residents are snatching up t-shirts, bumper stickers and a popular yard flag that says, Fuck Your Feelings. Trump 2024.

Thats an oldie but a goodie, recycled from 2020.

We dont normally publish those words in a column or otherwise. And, most of the time when we do, we employ the old cartoonist approach, using asterisks, number sings and exclamation points in place of the letters in cuss words.

However, if the word is good enough and common enough for it to be put on a flag, sold on the street corners of Montana and then flown in houses right across from elementary schools, the words should be good enough to publish, right?

Thats point.

Even in a society that has become more accepting of language that would have normally been reserved for sailors and the French (although why they got saddled with being the Western worlds potty mouths, I dont know), its shocking to see bumper stickers, t-shirts and flags flying in yards with such coarse language.

And if this were just a prudish reaction to the language, that would be one thing. It isnt that I am trying to be a schoolmarm. My own kids can testify that at the right time, mostly while driving, I can weave a string of invective together that is quite descriptive.

In other words, if the language were the only the problem, it would be a fairly stuffy and straightforward approach. I loathe censorship, and would probably say the best way to handle offensive language is by ignoring it. After all, I grew up with a collection of Parental Advisory stickers all over my cassettes, the product of busybody Democrat Tipper Gore and her one-woman crusade to bring back the days of Pat Boone.

This isnt about offending my delicate, snowflake sensibilities or even about political correctness. You want to have a spirited, even ornery debate? Lets go. Im your guy. But telling someone to eff off has never settled an argument or advanced a political ideology.

From the coded Lets Go Brandon t-shirts, a wink-wink-nudge-nudge joke that conservatives tell each other, a sort of password to identify other similarly clever conservatives, to the latest iterations of resistance, which include the letters FJB, in which the JB stands for Joe Biden, its distressing to see most of this foul-mouthed merch emblazoned with stars-and-stripes-colored letters or against a backdrop of the American flag.

Its not that I worry that by putting those aggressive and unoriginal messages on a flag will give the wrong impression of America, its that I am worried its giving off exactly the correct message.

By plastering a Buick with FJB bumper stickers, were normalizing a coarseness in everyday discourse that cuts off conversation. And once we stop engaging, exchanging ideas, were doomed. Moreover, if its gotten to the point where the only response on either side of the political spectrum is to drop the f-bomb, were at an even more dangerous point.

As much as I would like to blame this on former President Donald J. Trumps only successful talent which is marketing and merchandizing his own brand of mediocre products and even worse thoughts, he couldnt sell any of it without willing buyers.

Items that tell people to literally eff off, or suggest telling the president to do so while cloaked in the stars-and-stripes and being so proud of the fact that youd want to put them on clothing and cars for the world to see is symptom of something much larger.

For all the disdain aimed at former presidents and leaders, I cant believe bumper stickers or t-shirts that said, Kick Jimmy Carter in the peanuts, would have been acceptable. There has always been acrimony and discord in American politics, even personal attacks. The American public dealt with morally suspect presidents, including Grover Cleveland and Warren G. Harding. Thats nothing new.

Yet my children can be disciplined for using the bumper-sticker language in the public schools, and rightfully so. How do I, as a parent, explain that its fine for people to display yard signs or parade around in t-shirts, but they cant or shouldnt use the same language? And, if this generations accepts the coarsening of its language and the dulling of ideas, whats the next step? What are their children going to accept in the arena of public discourse? Why should I encourage our children to have reasonable, calm conversations with the other side when all theyre going to be told is to do the anatomically impossible?

Before pounding out an angry response to this commentary chock full of what-aboutisms, including signs that were displayed at protests for Black Lives Matter or some antifa rally, theres a difference between a protest and homemade signs, and an entire industry that has marketed and capitalized on such vulgarity.

The same party which talks about necessity of bringing back God in more public spaces, which urges prayer in school and the righteousness of Jesus, also seems to embrace this sort of hostile merchandise. And telling someone to f-bomb their feelings seems about as far away as you can get to Jesus words: Whatsoever you do to the least of these, you have done it to me.

Forgive me that I doubt the sincerity of those same people who are so worried about a graphic passage or two being found in the books of the school library, yet accept these f-laden messages from their political party. If they were truly worried about the content, theyd be worried about all content, regardless of whether its in a library or on a flag pole.

And I am astonished at those who are so concerned about what they see as the lack of respect when professional athletes and other members of the public kneel during the National Anthem but then have the audacity to co-opt the flag and use its colors and patterns in a message that is as decidedly unpatriotic as FJB.

The irony is as members of the right are telling the rest of us to stuff our feelings (not exactly their words, of course), they have put on bright display their feelings and it doesnt look like theyre about to quietly demur.

To them, I get it show me a person in 2022 who isnt angry about politics.

But now that youve told everyone who pulls behind you at a red light about your anger, what are you going to do about it?

The rest is here:

Patriotism in 2022: Red hot anger, White rage and a blue-streak Daily Montanan - Daily Montanan