Do we need 'muscular liberalism'?

"We need much more active muscular liberalism." No, it's not Nick Clegg pushing steroids on his colleagues but rather David Cameron attempting to promote a national identity based upon core values:

"Let's properly judge these organisations: Do they believe in universal human rights - including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separatism?"

In many ways a worthy aim. Liberalism produces multi-culturalism. Liberalism produces religious and political tolerance. For me, liberalism is the bottom line. The spring from which our rights flow and a healthy democracy can florish. Unfortunately, this was Cameron, not Abraham Lincoln. Although, to put it in context, I think even Norman Tebbit would have thought twice about making this speech.

So, with no sense of irony or...well, sense, for that matter, the Prime Minister, chose to attack "state multiculturalism"... in Munich. Yes, Munich, home of the world famous Oktoberfest, and, oh, the birthplace of the Nazi Party. This was the Prime Minister's first speech on the subject of national identity, a pretty contentious subject, which means that he deliberately waited for this opportunity to reopen the debate. With an eye to historical integrity, Cameron even managed to single out one particular religious group for vilification, Muslims. 

Some Muslims are a threat to our values and our security according to Cameron, well at least he said some. He went on, "Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years." Could they not afford TV's or newspapers in opposition? If thousands of innocent civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan was 'passive tolerance' then I am not looking forward to seeing the the results of a more 'active muscular liberalism'. Whether the change in emphasis leads to an even higher death count remains to be seen. But, from his Munich platform, language like active and 

muscula

r take on a rather unpleasant ring. 

In his 

speech Cameron highlighted a different standard for Muslim groups: according to the BBC, 'Mr Cameron suggested that there would be a greater scrutiny of some Muslim groups which get funds but do not tackle extremism. Ministers should refuse to share the platform or engage with such groups, which should be denied access to public funds and barred from spreading their message in universities and prisons.' 

I must admit, I am a little confused. Who is the government currently funding to spread extremist messages across the country? That's a pretty important admission. I think part of the problem is the word extremist. I'm not sure what 'extemist' means. I'm sure I could be characterised as an extremist, I own a lot of 1930s Hillbilly music. But that extremism, thankfully, is not covered by any legislation. We do, however, have a statute book that is brimming with legislation covering 'hate-crimes' or 'terrorism'. 

The fact is that most 'extremist' rhetoric, may not be illegal. 

Of course, 'some' Muslims are a threat to our liberal values and some might also be a threat to our security. But then, so are some of our most patriotic, union-jack underpant wearing Brits. Extremists, in the shape of the BNP, are as equally protected as restrained by laws and regulations. After all Nick Griffin gets a seat on Question Time. Dr Hans-Christian Raabe, who is a member of a Church that has accused gay men of promoting paedophilia, has recently been appointed onto a government committee. Does he pass Cameron's test? Does he believe in 'universal human rights?'

Muslim groups, however, seem to have to meet a higher standard. Muslim groups must 'tackle' extremism. I'm intrigued how you 'tackle' extremism. Does Cameron mean that it is not enough for a Muslim group to be law abiding. Is he suggesting that to keep their funding, using the Nazi analogy, they have to be conducting street fights with the Nazi storm troopers? Does that standard apply to Christian groups when they come up against other Christian Churches preaching extremist views? Or do they continue to get government appointments?

Cameron has made this speech on the day that the English Defence League held a major protest in Luton. Labour MEP Richard Howitt, who spoke at the counter-rally to the EDL demonstration, told the BBC,

"The phrase 'muscular liberalism' in particular sadly endorses the climate of threat, fear and violence which is present on the streets of Luton today. The attack on multiculturalism surrenders to the far-right ideology that moderate ideas cannot be distinguished from each other, and actually undermines respect and co-operation between peoples of different faiths."

I think the key difference between the different shades of 'extremist' is summed up neatly by the word 'Christian'. As well as prompting thoughts of Dr Goebbels,

 'muscular' and 'active' would no doubt have struck a chord with Thomas Arnold, the 19th Century Christian moralist and Headmaster of Rugby School who developed the idea, if not the name, of 'muscular Christianity'. Is this the unconscious or even conscious reference? The far right express a strong attachment to 'Christian values' and there is certainly a constituency that sits between the Conservative Party and more far right organisations. Was that Cameron's audience?  

In his 2011 book, 'Going to Extremes' - Cass R Sunstein, Professor and adviser to Obama, argues, "when people find themselves in groups of like-minded types, they are especially likely to move to extremes." Football crowds or MPs at Question Time illustrate this point. Obviously not all extremists become terrorists but psychologists and sociologists agree that 'abuse, humiliation and injustice' are the fermenting grounds for terrorists. By marginalising any section of society we are increasing the probability of terrorists emerging. 

We can't have a single 'national identity.' No matter what the BNP or certain religious extremists may believe. Not without an awful lot of hatred and suffering. We need consistency. We need a leader who dares to promote those principles expressed by Cameron but aimed at protecting or restraining all sections of our society, not just groups who happen to lay a historical claim to some sort of cultural pre-eminence. Cameron's 'little Englander' rhetoric would be laughable for its cynicism, if it wasn't for the fact that it promotes the terrorism it claims to be fighting.

Now, where did I put that Skillet Lickers' 78?