In combating violent extremism, we need to be less squeamish about religion

By Hazel Blears

This afternoon I gave a talk about violent extremism at the London School of Economics. It’s a difficult conversation, but nonetheless one we must have.

The far-reaching network of violence and hatred that President Obama spoke of in his inauguration speech in January is rooted in a shifting mosaic of international groupings. Their origins are in the struggle of the mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan, in the refugee camps and some madrassas on the Afghan-Pakistan border and in the war in Iraq.

Some seek to define this mosaic of organisations and philosophies as ‘Islamism’ or sometimes ‘Political Islam’. But, as I noted in my speech, it is here that we run into real dangers, of language and interpretation.

Government is alive to these challenges – and that is why, in response to calls from Muslim communities, we are looking to enable more faith leaders to be trained in this country, to improve qualification standards, and to help existing faith leaders improve their language, pastoral and other skills.

But, in the conversations we have about extremism, there is a need for moral clarity, for a clear dividing line between what we consider acceptable, and what we consider beyond the pale.

What is needed is a framework for engagement, based on clear principles. But defining this approach is not straightforward.

There is no single ‘Muslim community’ in the UK. There are many Muslim communities – different religious traditions, different geographic roots. So the Government – both nationally, and locally – is contending with a wide range of groups who cover a broad spectrum of attitudes towards violent extremism. Indeed, you will often find a range of attitudes inside groups themselves.

So just as we deal with a spectrum of groups, we need a spectrum of engagement, carefully calibrated to deal with individual circumstances: from isolation and rejection, to discussion through challenge and debate, to working with and funding organisations who want to be part of the solution.

With those groups which do not call for terrorism, but which have an equivocal attitude on core values such as democracy, freedom of speech or respect towards women, there may be scope for officials to meet them in private, and an important part of any meeting will be to challenge those views that the Government considers unacceptable.

With other groups or coalitions, which on the whole accept core values and reject extremism, but which have some internal dissent about these principles, officials can meet and debate in public – especially where this would encourage men and women standing up for core values, and help them carry the day inside the organisation.

And with those groups taking a genuine lead, Ministers can make visits, share platforms and debate in public. The stronger the group’s example, the stronger the case for Ministerial involvement at a high level, all the way up to the Prime Minister.

This country is proud of its tradition of fair play and good manners, our welcoming of diversity and our tolerance. This is a great strength.

But the quality of debate about religion in contemporary life – and by religion, I mean all faiths – is being sapped by a creeping oversensitivity. Three quarters of the UK population describe ourselves as belonging to one of the major world religions. A survey for the BBC this week found that nearly more than three in five people believed that national laws should be influenced by traditional religious values; and that faith should have a bigger role in the public sphere. Yet there is an astonishing amount of squeamishness about the subject.

It seems that every week we hear a new story – the nurse suspended because she offered to pray for a patient, or the school banning Christmas decorations – about people getting into a panic because someone, somewhere, might get offended. Worse, at times leaders have been reluctant to challenge absolutely unacceptable behaviour – forced marriage, female genital mutilation, or homophobia – because they are concerned about upsetting people’s cultural sensitivities.

This flies in the face of some of ourother traditions – open debate, rational inquiry, and plain old common sense.

We would do well to be a little less anxious and a little more robust in having this conversation. And just as we are confident about speaking up against the race hatred of the BNP, we should be confident about condemning the intolerance of Christian extremists such as Fred Phelps, and we should be confident about saying “no” to unacceptable practices that have their roots in different cultural traditions.

And if we are to win this debate, it will not be through restricting our engagement to a select few, but through bringing in new voices: not through concealing what we believe in, but through making our arguments confidently; and not through acquiescing with those with whom we disagree, but through being robust in our challenge to them.

You can read Hazel’s speech in its entirety here.