Councillor Mohammed Iqbal represents the ward where the London bombers lived. Like many in the community he is stunned by the attacks. Also, like many in the Islamic communities in Britain, he is asking why.
I feel for Mr Iqbal when he says:
"We as a Muslim community need to take a role in dealing with this. And that means the community should come forward and do its part, for the sake of everyone."
He is right. I wish him well. He has a difficult path to tread, as does Mr Tanweer whose nephew Shehzad was one of the bombers. Today Tony Blair has urged them to "uproot the ideology of evil".
"Tony Blair yesterday launched a campaign to help mainstream British Muslims confront the "perverted and poisonous" doctrines of Islamic extremism in their midst, if necessary by excluding or deporting the religious extremists who foment it."
I wonder where…
As I commented earlier, there are the knee-jerk reactionaries who think that eroding civil liberties willy-nilly is the appropriate response. This gentleman for instance treats us to a regurgitated version of the Home Office’s justification for identity cards. As one of his commenters points out – like the Home Office he neatly refrains from explaining how, exactly, they will work in combatting terrorism. He also indulges in a classic strawman fallacy when he says:
"This is perhaps the most warped argument of them all. In the aftermath of 7/7 many expensive and sometimes intrusive security measures will be put in place, in an attempt to prevent another attack. Does that mean the terrorists have won? Quite the contrary, it only means we’re fighting back. Or does anyone suggest we do nothing at all?"
No one has said that the authorities should do nothing – merely that resources should be applied where they will best work. ID cards are not an example of that.
I also find it curious when people refer to the ID cards issued during WWII as some sort of justification. Such people really are revising history to suit themselves. Firstly, this country is not at war. George Bush’s "war on terror" is a rhetorical term, it does not mean that we are at war with another country. Therefore draconian measures are inappropriate. Also, comparing the documents issued 60 odd years ago with the current proposals is not comparing like with like. A card document with little more than name and address is not the same as a national identity register with 50 personal details and an audit trail. And, no one has ever demonstrated that the wartime ID cards were effective in any way – people had them; so what? It didn’t prove anything. It reminds me of the old motorcycle daytime headlight claim – it looks safe, so it must be safe. This is a foolish assumption. The other point that the revisionists choose to forget is why we stopped having ID cards in 1952. In 1951 acting Lord Chief Justice Lord Goddard made the following judgement:
"it is obvious that the police now, as a matter of routine, demand the production of national registration indemnity cards whenever they stop or interrogate a motorist for whatever cause. Of course, if they are looking for a stolen car or have reason to believe that a particular motorist is engaged in committing a crime, that is one thing, but to demand a national registration identity card from all and sundry, for instance, from a lady who may leave her car outside a shop longer than she should, or some trivial matter of that sort, is wholly unreasonable. This Act was passed for security purposes, and not for the purposes for which, apparently, it is now sought to be used. To use Acts of Parliament, passed for particular purposes during war, in times when the war is past, except that technically a state of war exists, tends to turn law-abiding subjects into lawbreakers, which is a most undesirable state of affairs. Further, in this country we have always prided ourselves on the good feeling that exists between the police and the public and such action tends to make the people resentful of the acts of the police and inclines them to obstruct the police instead of to assist them …
They ought not to use a Security Act, which was passed for a particular purpose, as they have done in this case. For these reasons, although the court dismisses the appeal, it gives no costs against the appellant."
That statement is as valid today as when it was first uttered.
“I also find it curious when people refer to the ID cards issued during WWII as some sort of justification. Such people really are revising history to suit themselves”
Not a single Nazi spy or saboteur was captured as a result of the British WW2 “ID Card”.
Not a single Communist spy or mole working for the British intelligence services or the atom bomb project was detected as a result of the “ID Card”.
”’Longrider replies: Indeed. No one appears to have challenged its usefulness. From what I recall, Nazi spies were mostly captured as a result of their own lack of preparedness for the task in hand”’
So if Blair is pledged to supporting the moderate muslims against the extremists is he applying the same criteria to the Christian and Jewish communities?