Shouldn’t he tell his boss “to be alive to the impact of his government’s counter-terrorism strategies on minorities?”
The New York Times reports that a “radical Islamic group planning a protest march through the streets of a town that has achieved iconic status in Britain for honoring the passing hearses of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan ran into a stiff rebuff from the British government on Monday.” The British prime minister has stated that he is “appalled” and the home secretary has indicated that he is inclined to ban the rally.
Where’s that cabinet colleague of theirs, David Miliband? The British foreign secretary had found it appropriate to speak at the site of a terrorist massacre at Mumbai’s Taj Mahal hotel and lecture his hosts on the “need to be alive to the impact of our counter-terrorism strategies on minorities.”
We strongly agree with Gordon Brown that “any attempt to use this location to cause further distress and suffering to those who have lost loved ones would be abhorrent and offensive.”
That’s exactly what we want to impress upon Mr Miliband.
19 thoughts on “Where’s David Miliband now?”
Where is all this coming from?
David Miliband’s statement is the liberal template upon which all the angst built, of the (Unprincipled Exception)Gordon Brown variety even, crumbles to dust.
Again, DM has said nothing different from what is asserted by Hindusthan’s liberals always. On a good future day, GB himself will revert back and agree with every word uttered by DM and his ilk.
So, where is all this coming from? Why does liberal GB says things he will want to forget after the next 24 hours? And why will he want to forget what he said?
Think – Think – Minority, Think – Multi-Cultural, Think – All cultures are equal, Think – Open borders, Think – Unassimilable Immigrants, Think – Political Correctness, Think and Know – Modern Liberalism
Think why liberals can never win this fight no matter what fancy policies they come up with.
Excellent observation Amit.
I could not follow the logic in your post.
Which part of “need to be alive to the impact of our counter-terrorism strategies on minorities” do you disagree with? That, as you would know, is standard policy in all tolerant societies, not to say the correct thing and a factor recognized as important in the success of counter-terrorism ops. It is only an extrapolation of the principle that whole groups not be made to pay for the acts of individuals. Or, is it that you disagree with such a principle?
And what is the connection between that statement and the described revulsion to a radical Islamic groups tasteless protest against a town honoring its war dead?
There were other parts of that Miliband speech one could rightly object to, but you highlight the most innocuous part.
If I have this correctly, the rally however tasteless is an expression of significant displeasure of some of the minority with the counter-terrorism strategies of Britain. Banning the rally is not “being alive to the impact of counter-terrorism strategy on minorities” its quite the opposite.
Nitin would like Mr.Miliband to do to his PM and his govt what he kindly obliged us, a host nation, at the venue of the worst terrorist attack in recent memory, with. And be internally consistent.
I could see that argument. And it is quite a stretch.
Mr. Miliband’s is a sentiment routinely expressed by national authorities and local sheriffs in many places and is key to effective counter-terrorism/police activity and its public relations. What it always means is that law enforcement be sensitive about not generalizing or unnecessarily profiling particular communities. I would think that in India, not renowned for police sensitivity or due process, it is especially relevant.
I am certain Mr. Miliband will not include provocative protest marches against security personnel killed on 26/11 as being encouraged or allowed by that statement of his. Now, some libertarian free speech advocates would argue that the right to tastelessly offend is a valid right, but Mr. Miliband is not going there in his statement.
I am only saying that Nitin not make the far out connections that he rightly insists MSM personalities on not making.
>>the rally however tasteless is an expression of significant displeasure of some of the minority with the counter-terrorism strategies of Britain
Excuse my saying so, but truth be told I find your remark quite tasteless. You are confusing gross intolerance with mere tastelessness. The “expression of significant displeasure” (impressive wordsmithy there) of the extremists who want to take out that rally isn’t within the broad realms of acceptable political dissent. It is blindingly obvious that their sympathies lie with the terrorists, and that the death of their country’s soldiers at the hands of those they sympathize with makes them happy.
Should the intolerant be shown tolerance? This is of course an old question, and the answer depends on where in the political spectrum you belong. Neutral liberals argue that intolerance from any and all quarters should not be tolerated. Leftwing liberals (and more vocally leftwing hardliners) however contend that the intolerant from among those they deem as “vicitms” or as “disadvantaged” or as “”vulnerable” must be tolerated. This is in line with the Miliband doctrine. Just exactly what is the identity of that collective the impact on which of counter-terrorism strategies may we not be alive to? It is not without a reason that the Miliband doctrine makes a special mention of “minorities”.
Hence Nitin’s question. The British government is refusing to privilege Miliband’s favored intolerant people. It’s choosing the path of the neutral liberal, not the leftwing liberal. So what’s Miliband gonna do?
I agree with most of the early part of your comment. But I suspect Jai is only making an attempt to interpret the reasoning behind the blogpost. He can of course clarify.
“…refusing to privilege Miliband’s favored intolerant people.”
How does this follow from anything Miliband has said? Not knowing much about UK politics, this is a genuine question. Because if he has maintained such a position, this post would make slightly more sense to me.
It does not follow from what Miliband said at least in India, that much I know. Unless you conflate a legitimate concern for minorities automatically with an endorsement of minority extremism and intolerance. Which I know is popular reasoning in some quarters.
I did see on Wikipedia that Miliband’s favorite position is foot-in-the-mouth, including a really bad defense of an anti-apartheid activist, besides the India comments. And of course, his rather expensive taste in home furnishing.
FC is right, I’m just attempting to align the 2 thoughts to show how Nitin’s logic IMO applies to Mr.Miliband’s statement.
FC you have it kind of down to:
“…always means is that law enforcement be sensitive about not generalizing or unnecessarily profiling particular communities…”
and are *certain* that Mr.Miliband is, or will be, dead against the protest. No wonder Nitin’s logic looks “far out” 🙂
I dont know enough or care enough abt Mr.Miliband to continue this but we can agree to disagree on the ‘distance’ there.
“Unless you conflate a legitimate concern for minorities automatically with an endorsement of minority extremism and intolerance. Which I know is popular reasoning in some quarters.”
– It has to do with context. There can be a legitimate concern for minorities (Dot busting rings a bell) but can such concern be legitimate in the case of minorities coming out in support of killers?
Should concern for minorities as a unit of population (though not part of the nation)not be based on legitimate grounds rather than on the mere fact that they are minorities and hence automatically deserving of concern?
The issue is liberals (left-center-right are only variants on the premises)do not make this distinction and that’s because they are not comfortable with any discourse that involves the *nation*. That is also the reason why Gordon Brown will not be able to defend his decision as it should be defended.
If one reads that report again, this is what the minority is saying;
“It is worth reminding those who are still not blinded by the media propaganda that Afghanistan is not a British town near Wootton Bassett but rather Muslim land which no one has the right to occupy, with a Muslim population who do not deserve their innocent men, women and children to be killed for political mileage and for the greedy interests of the oppressive U.S. and U.K. regimes,” he said.(End quote)
This gentleman is a “a 42-year-old lawyer and the British-born son of a Pakistani immigrant.”
Now see how a former British Mayor reacts:
“We don’t do what we do at Wootton Bassett for any political reason at all,” said Chris Wannell, a former mayor of the town. “We are a Christian country and traditional English market town who honor very much our queen and country. We obey the law and pay respects to our servicemen who protect our freedom. If this man has any decency about him he will not hold a march through Wootton Bassett.”
Gordon Brown should have had the above quoted minority gentleman, deported. Banning his march would have been a mayor’s responsibility.
However, what will most probably happen is that the minority gent will call off his march and go back to his lawyering and building his “organization” whilst Gordon Brown will heave a great sign of relief that he was not the one called upon to act as he should have.
This is certainly not the Britain that arrested and imprisoned (for life)Herr Hess when he flew in on a peace mission in war-time. In this world, Herr Hess would have been decorated for being so understanding of current situations.
How do you do? Long time.
When it comes to asking questions, you can be charmingly sharp and succinct! Trust me, long-winded isn’t a good model for answers either.
>>How does this follow from anything Miliband has said?
I do not buy your implied suggestion that the statements of politicians (especially of the left-leaning kind) must be interpreted in a manner that paints a halo around their heads. Politicians use context and platform to deliver loaded messages to the constituencies they pander to. The more sophisticated types use the occasion to let you know how left-winger-ly virtuous they are, so if you question their pearls of wisdom, they are going to get disgusted.
Miliband said: “there is a need to be alive to the impact of our counter-terrorism strategies on minorities.”
Miliband meant: [to Indians] “the terrorists who killed people here may have come from among the minorities, and hence your anti-terror ops may have to focus on fishing out the bad lot from the minorities but hey, if you don’t do your security stuff in a softy-softy apologetic way and if your minorities protest your policing, you will be very baaad boys in my book, beware!”;
Miliband meant: [to his bearded voters back home:] “See? I protect your interests at home. I protect your interests abroad!”
From all of which follows the logical connection. He ought to be out there in that town rallying with those radicals, if you ask me.
What I actually have it down to is this: not to “conflate a legitimate concern for minorities automatically with an endorsement of minority extremism and intolerance…”
Even I don’t know enough about Mr. Miliband but quick research reveals he is not soft on terrorism. As early as 2005, in a government bill introduced by Labour to detain terrorism suspects for up to 90 days without charge, he voted For; this when up to 49 other Labour MPs rebelled and defeated the proposal . Besides other recent votes in support for similar counter-terrorism laws. This does not sound like a person who might even offer the free speech caveat for the “protest march”.
This is how my thinking went: I read the Times article and was appalled. I then read Miliband’s statement, and given the title of the post, was rather underwhelmed. I am repulsed by the march, but I agree with Miliband.
To illustrate it differently: we all agree Gordon Brown is appalled at the march; now I am quite certain if you looked close enough in to Brown’s record, he will have made some version of “being alive …”at some or likely many points in his political career. That is to say, the two positions are not only mutually consistent but even the norm among those holding positions of responsibility. To suggest otherwise without specific evidence is a stretch, to put it mildly.
Good. Thanks for asking. Yourself?
Like I said, I agree with you that the “protest march” crosses the boundaries of acceptable political dissent. I also agree with the reasoning here: “Hence Nitin’s question. The British government is refusing to privilege Miliband’s favored intolerant people.” The only thing lacking it seems is evidence that Miliband favors minority intolerance/extremism. Till we get that evidence, it seems to me, we should assume otherwise. In fact, as I have stated in response to Jai, Miliband does not seem to be soft on terrorism.
That’s the LeT praising milliband’s statements post 26/11. This selective amnesia on Milliband’s anti-India utterances in support of terrorists is amusing. A google search with the keywords: Milliband Mumbai comments gives a list this lowlife Milliband’s support for terrorism in India.
“It has to do with context.”
“There can be a legitimate concern for minorities..but can such concern be legitimate in the case of minorities coming out in support of killers?”
No. I posit above that Miliband might also agree with us on this.
“Should concern for minorities as a unit of population..not be based on legitimate grounds rather than on the mere fact that they are minorities and hence automatically deserving of concern? ”
To the second part of your question, a qualified yes. There is a majority-minority dynamic- especially in societies with historical animosities- that the mere fact of a community being a minority makes it deserving of special protection. This is a matter of state and local government policy in all advanced societies. The various exemplary hate crime laws being increasingly enacted and enforced in the West are testimony to this.
This is not the same as endorsing minority intolerance, a la Shah Bano or the Rushdie ban. Less importantly, research also shows that communities affording cultural/sexual minorities security and protection from harassment often come out ahead in terms of innovation and economic development.
“Gordon Brown should have had the above quoted minority gentleman deported.”
He will probably need a law so that the move will stand court scrutiny. I personally am not averse to such a move.
On a side note: I have run into your comments on this and other fora. I always find them intelligently argued and internally consistent, even if inflexibly ideological. I also consider myself a traditionalist in some aspects, and am wary of the disrupting effects of hyper-liberalism. However, to denounce everything in liberalism is to throw the baby out with the clichéd bathwater. This is exactly what I argue with hyper-liberal friends w.r.t conservatism.
I am glad I afforded you some amusement.
From your link, Miliband on LeT: “..individual groups like LeT should be targeted and brought to justice.” Also, I will not rest my arguments on LeT’s statements. Neither should you.
From my earlier post: “There were other parts of that Miliband speech (an Indian) could rightly object to..”
And by your strict definition of anti-India, many Indophile Western leaders would be that too.
That will be it from me on this- this has been a timesink! Thanks for listening.
“And by your strict definition of anti-India, many Indophile Western leaders would be that too.”
If Milliband is an Indophile, Bipasha Basu is my long-time girlfriend. Yeah, have no intention of prolonging this nonsense either.
FC, BTW, w.r.t. labels such as liberalism and conservatism, etc., my view is labels in politics are meant to confuse, as that draws attention away from whether the people behind those labels behave like a monolithic group in terms of interests. So instead of asking the right questions, people get into arguments about a hypothetical and simplistic world composed of groups of people with specific labels, and confuse that with the real world. I think it is best to ignore labels and pay attention to who exactly is saying what as they hide behind some label or other.
1/ You misread me: by Indophile leaders, I mean other Western leaders who regularly talk about ‘solving the Kashmir issue’- and I did not include Miliband in it.
2/ I do not think Miliband’s Indophilia, or lack, has any bearing on the central argument here.
Have a good day or night!
Over and out. Promise!
I do agree with the author and blogger murthy that the said brit was disingenuous with his word of caution on treatment of minorities post 26/11 whilst this guy was visiting mumbai. His utterances reminded me of some congress leaders who harbour votebank appeasing tendencies in whatever they say in public.- Surya, chicago.
Comments are closed.