Bbc Under Fire, When Their Home Affairs Editor Makes An Unfortunate Comparison Between Anjem Choudary And Gandhi And Mandela’.

[anotheoldgit]

/// Referring to Theresa May's pledge to clamp down on extremism, the journalist said that Gandhi and Mandela had both been 'extremists' and that extreme views 'are sometimes needed to challenge very establish values'. ///

[mikey4444]

Bracketing Choudary with the other two is too disgusting for words. He is a rabble rouser, no less and no more. Its about time the authorities dealt with him for good.

[New Judge]

Of course it could be argued that both Ghandi and Mandela were rabble-rousers. Mr Gandhi certainly fits that description in my book. If Mandela were to head an organisation that set out to destroy the established order in the UK (elected by a minority of the population, remember) by means of violence he may well be termed a terrorist.

The principle difference between them and the likes of Choudary is that the first two were, at least, trying to effect changes in a country where a sizable number of people supported their vision of the changes required. It is ironic in Gandhi's case that his dream of independence was somewhat tempered by the partition of India which was made necessary by Muslims being unable to live with anybody else (nor, it has subsequently been realised, with other Muslims in many cases).

On balance I think Gandhi and Mandela had more of a case for change than Mr Choudary has and, more importantly, more support for those changes than he has for those he wishes on the UK.

[ichkeria]

He was actually, on the strength of your quote at least, suggesting that "extremism" covers a multitude of things, and a variety of causes.
Any attempt to "clamp down" on anything "extreme" which cannot properly be defined by law is doomed either to failure or develop into something akin to censorship.
I am naive enough to believe that as this is Britain it will be the former, as least I hope so.

[naomi24]

//I am naive enough to believe that as this is Britain it will be the former [doomed to failure], as least I hope so. //

I hope not. Choudary is certainly no Gandhi or Mandela. Comparing him to them is not 'unfortunate' - it's an insult.

[ichkeria]

But he isn't "comparing" them (on the evidence presented at least).
I think his point is that they are indeed very different but a broad-brush description of "extremism" isn't good enough and draws in lots of different views and secnarios

[naomi24]

He is comparing them insofar as he's saying they're all considered in one way or another to be, or to have been, extremists. That said, I've no doubt that when we, in this country, talk about the extremists who are currently threatening our security, we are all aware that we are not talking about Gandhi or Mandela, and nit-picking and pussyfooting around the issue, as this man is doing, is neither productive or helpful.

[jim360]

At the time, at least, Gandhi wasn't looked on very fondly by many. The key difference is that history was kinder to him. I very much doubt that opinions will change on Anjem Choudary.

[naomi24]

//The key difference is that history was kinder to him.//

The key difference is that Gandhi's agenda bore no resemblance whatsoever to the evil, twisted, agenda that Choudary is promulgating.

[jim360]

It wasn't always seen that way, though. Many thought Gandhi was dangerous and seditious.

It seems a point worth bearing in mind, that we have not always got it right about who ought to be viewed as extremist. Choudary's views I have no time for but we still need to be careful.

[naomi24]

Be careful of what? There's no doubt that radical Islamists like Choudary are extremists. We've got that right.

[jim360]

Careful that we don't go too far in our pursuit and definition of extremism. Careful that state intrusion into everybody's lives isn't too heavy a price to pay. Careful that we don't abandon what we're trying to protect.

If we can tackle extremism without having an impact on the lives of most then there is no problem. But it's still a question we have to ask. Freedom to dissent is, in general, an important one to have.

[naomi24]

I don't understand why you think tackling Islamic extremism will impact negatively upon the rest of the population. Freedom to dissent is one thing - freedom to jeopardise the security of this country with impunity is something else entirely.

[jim360]

I think it's closer to say that I think it could impact on the rest of the population. It depends a lot on how much you trust the state to stay within its narrow remit of targeting specifically those extremists who not only challenge the way we run our society but also actively stir up hatred and encourage violence and terrorism. Inevitably, in order to find all such people, you have to start by assuming that everyone is a potential terrorist and examine what they say, do, think, who they talk to, and so on. Otherwise you would miss at least those you are looking for and have to reply on their showing themselves in public discourse. Some already do, of course. Others are not so visible, so would need to be found by, effectively, automatically assuming guilt until established otherwise.

Already that's one of the fundamental tenets of British society potentially thrown out of the window right there. If this is not what Cameron meant, it is certainly what he said when talking about interfering in people's lives "even if you are within the law".

And what guarantee do we have that it would stop there? Several years ago there were stories about councils using what was meant to be anti-terrorism legislation in order to deal with things it was not meant to be used for. Abusing the powers, in other words. And those were just local councils just getting obsessed about dog owners.

It is, then, a legitimate concern to be worried about what greater state interference will mean. Will these concerns turn out to have been justified? I don't know. But allowing the state carte blanche to interfere in other people's lives will inevitably lead to its interfering in and snooping on yours. That could well be a negative impact and it's dangerous to dismiss such concerns as idealistic or naive.

It's important to try and tackle extremism. It's just also important to make sure that in doing so we aren't abandoning the values we are protecting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7756352/Councils-using-anti-terror-laws-to-spy-on-dog-walkers.html

[naomi24]

//Inevitably, in order to find all such people, you have to start by assuming that everyone is a potential terrorist and examine what they say, do, think, who they talk to, and so on. //

That's nonsense. You're allowing your imagination to get the better of you again. Radical Islam has to be tackled and in saying, for example, that meeting places and mosques where fundamentalists gather will be closed, the government has made its intentions quite clear.