There is something about Nick Clegg that I just cannot work out. Sometimes he says things which seem sensible (usually Orange Book type things), and then in the next breath he will say things that are just silly and remind me why I don't support the Liberal Democrats. Today it seems is no exception.In response to Ruth Kelly's speech about "multiculturalism" yesterday (which I mentioned here), the Cleggmeister has said that "any attempt to reach out to disaffected members of our Muslim communities must also incorporate an honest debate about this governments foreign policy".
I have to ask myself the question why? What purpose with having a debate serve exactly? We already know that the "disaffected members of our muslim communities" don't like British foreign policy and want us to change it. We don't need to talk about it anymore. The only reason we might do so is on thebasis that we might start changing our actions in response to concerns.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I was under the impression that this country acted abroad on the basis of her democratic foundations in relation to Parliament and its make up. I don't recall the Constitution saying that her foriegn policy should be shaped to fit the interests of a minority religious group which makes up less than 5% of the population.
5 comments:
It is a none too subtle dog whistle by the LDs to our Islamic chums saying 'vote for us, we didn't support the war'.
We need a debate to understand the views of those who object to our society. Of course we should not change our foreign policy for 5% of the nation, but we must undertand every argument put forward. Only then can we combat extremism.
Err the objections are well understood already.
I can't really see how understanding someone's point and then bypassing it will do anything to combat extremism. Either the objectors, or the objected to, change, otherwise the bone of contention remains.
Not sure its a dog whistle more open begging mans an idiot ought to go work for the bbc
Post a Comment