@hawkeye10,
Well, having criticised my own govt, let me also say that I can understand why they do it...but I think the reasoning is short sighted / too narrowly focused.
They are afraid that if they (the govt) admit to the problem, that:
-
Muslims will be targetted; and
- Muslims will s
top working with the govt to 'stop' the extremists
Both are legitimate concerns.
While admitting to the problem may result in a short term spike in hate. The long term problem is:
1. Not admitting the problem can lead to:
- not speaking openly with the target community involved about the source of the problem, and not speaking openly with the rest of the community about what the problem is';
- neither community (excepting their leaders) having a clear understanding of what the problem is
- narrow community involvement in problem solving, rather than wide community involvement
- misunderstandings on both sides. Ongoing 'misunderstanding' is a major contributor to slow simmering conflict.
- a narrowing of the problem when problem solving
- the possibility of not addressing the correct problem
- the seeking of short term outcomes, rather than long term outcomes
All these things, combined, can contribute to a greater degree of long term hate than admitting the problem.
2. Further, without admitting the problem, they slowly lose control of the message, and more hate & fear is generated over the long term...
and eventually more muslims will be targeted
3. As more muslims get targetted, t
hey will stop working with the govt to 'stop' extremists
So to me it seems the current method (not admitting the problem) is long term counter productive....but admitting the problem is (in the long term) beneficial to what the govt is trying to achieve:
- trying to miminise hate against Muslims,
- and trying to have as many Muslims as possible (and the wider community) become part of the problem solving process.
Whether or not even that can be successful in the even longer term...I have my doubts. But then, I have no other solution either.