22. februar 2011

Graverende fejl i Jyllandsposten og Urban: “Sandheden er den løgn, vi bliver enige om.”

Jeg har fulgt sagen fra starten, og undrede mig over, medierne fandt det mere interessant at cirka “30 unge” kriminelle/misbrugere bosiddende otte kilometer fra Odense C skulle have en cykel stillet gratis til rådighed i to år, end det at “15-20 piger” og cirka “40 voksne” indvandrere fra Vollsmose bare sådan lige kvit og frit modtog en “racercykel med tilhørende udstyr og tøj”.

Jyllandsposten var et af flere medier, der hævdede at Utilpassede unge får gratis cykler, selvom de 30 unge i lige netop det projekt, rent faktisk var de eneste der skulle betale noget selv.

I mandagens Urban, gentages fejlen i en artikel med overskriften Gratis cykler til utilpassede unge i Odense, og journalisten overgår ligefrem sin kilde, ved at hævde, at cyklerne til de 30 teenagere alene koster Odense Kommune “godt 1,7 mio.”. Det er den samlede pris for fire projekter, herunder to projekter uden egenbetaling.

For nu at skære det ud, så selv journalistuddannede kan forstå det.

– Ingen af de 30 teenagere i Skt. Klemens-projektet får gratis cykler.
– Samtlige 55-60 indvandrere involveret i to af de øvrige Vollsmose-projekter får cykel, tøj og tilbehør uden egenbetaling.

(reklame for Journalisthøjskolen, februar 2011; se evt. Illbunker)

Oploadet Kl. 03:13 af Kim Møller — Direkte link15 kommentarer

6. februar 2011

Cameron: “We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong.”

Munich Security Conference, der betegnes som sikkerhedspolitikkens Davos, afvikledes for 47. gang denne weekend. Blandt deltagerne var Nato-chef Anders Fogh Rasmussen, der talte for forsamlingen fredag eftermiddag. Lørdag formiddag var turen kommet til den engelske PM David Cameron, der gav en interessant tale, som dog ingenlunde var et angreb på muslimer.

(Jyllandsposten, 5. februar 2011: Forfejlet multikultur, af Lasse Skytt)

Selvom der altid lyder et ramaskrig fra muslimske organisationer, når islamiseringen problematiseres, så var Camerons tale ikke desto mindre en opvisning i apologi. David Cameron brugte store dele af sin tale på at frikende Islam for ekstremisme, og man behøver ikke have en ph.d. i retorik, for at se hvor dårligt det hænger sammen med hans efterfølgende fokus på ikke-militante ekstremister.

(David Cameron, 5. februar 2011; securityconference.de, Youtube)

Talen kan læses i sin helhed på Number10.gov.

“… the biggest threat that we face comes from terrorist attacks, some of which are, sadly, carried out by our own citizens… What I am about to say is drawn from the British experience, but I believe there are general lessons for us all. In the UK , some young men find it hard to identify with the traditional Islam practiced at home by their parents, whose customs can seem staid when transplanted to modern Western countries. But these young men also find it hard to identify with Britain too, because we have allowed the weakening of our collective identity. Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.

So, when a white person holds objectionable views, racist views for instance, we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious frankly – frankly, even fearful – to stand up to them. The failure, for instance, of some to confront the horrors of forced marriage, the practice where some young girls are bullied and sometimes taken abroad to marry someone when they don’t want to, is a case in point. This hands-off tolerance has only served to reinforce the sense that not enough is shared. And this all leaves some young Muslims feeling rootless. And the search for something to belong to and something to believe in can lead them to this extremist ideology. Now for sure, they don’t turn into terrorists overnight, but what we see – and what we see in so many European countries – is a process of radicalisation…

Now, you might say, as long as they’re not hurting anyone, what is the problem with all this?

Well, I’ll tell you why. As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by what some have called ‘non-violent extremists’, and they then took those radical beliefs to the next level by embracing violence. And I say this is an indictment of our approach to these issues in the past. And if we are to defeat this threat, I believe it is time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past. So first, instead of ignoring this extremist ideology, we – as governments and as societies – have got to confront it, in all its forms. And second, instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity that is open to everyone.

Let me briefly take each in turn. First, confronting and undermining this ideology. Whether they are violent in their means or not, we must make it impossible for the extremists to succeed. Now, for governments, there are some obvious ways we can do this. We must ban preachers of hate from coming to our countries. We must also proscribe organisations that incite terrorism against people at home and abroad. Governments must also be shrewder in dealing with those that, while not violent, are in some cases part of the problem. We need to think much harder about who it’s in the public interest to work with…

At the same time, we must stop these groups from reaching people in publicly-funded institutions like universities or even, in the British case, prisons. Now, some say, this is not compatible with free speech and intellectual inquiry. Well, I say, would you take the same view if these were right-wing extremists recruiting on our campuses? Would you advocate inaction if Christian fundamentalists who believed that Muslims are the enemy were leading prayer groups in our prisons? And to those who say these non-violent extremists are actually helping to keep young, vulnerable men away from violence, I say nonsense.

Would you allow the far right groups a share of public funds if they promise to help you lure young white men away from fascist terrorism? Of course not. But, at root, challenging this ideology means exposing its ideas for what they are…

Now, governments cannot do this alone. The extremism we face is a distortion of Islam, so these arguments, in part, must be made by those within Islam. So let us give voice to those followers of Islam in our own countries – the vast, often unheard majority – who despise the extremists and their worldview. Let us engage groups that share our aspirations.

Now, second, we must build stronger societies and stronger identities at home. Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and a much more active, muscular liberalism. A passively tolerant society says to its citizens, as long as you obey the law we will just leave you alone. It stands neutral between different values. But I believe a genuinely liberal country does much more; it believes in certain values and actively promotes them. Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, the rule of law, equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality. It says to its citizens, this is what defines us as a society: to belong here is to believe in these things. Now, each of us in our own countries, I believe, must be unambiguous and hard-nosed about this defence of our liberty…

So, let me end with this. This terrorism is completely indiscriminate and has been thrust upon us. It cannot be ignored or contained; we have to confront it with confidence – confront the ideology that drives it by defeating the ideas that warp so many young minds at their root, and confront the issues of identity that sustain it by standing for a much broader and generous vision of citizenship in our countries. Now, none of this will be easy. We will need stamina, patience and endurance, and it won’t happen at all if we act alone. This ideology crosses not just our continent but all continents, and we are all in this together. At stake are not just lives, it is our way of life. That is why this is a challenge we cannot avoid; it is one we must rise to and overcome.

Denne weblog er læst af siden 22. juni 2003.



Vælg selv beløb


RSS 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0