Politics and Culture

In Britain:

Gordon Brown has banned ministers from using the word “Muslim” in ­connection with the ­terrorism crisis.

The Prime Minister has also instructed his team – including new Home Secretary Jacqui Smith – that the phrase “war on ­terror” is to be dropped.

The shake-up is part of a fresh attempt to improve community relations and avoid offending Muslims, adopting a more “consensual” tone than existed under Tony Blair.

However, the change provoked claims last night that ministers are indulging in yet more political correctness.

In a similar move, White supremacists will simply be known as "supremacists" and Christian fundamentalists will be known as "fundamentalists."

I understand what Brown is trying to do, not upset his Muslim population, but isn't it useful to make distinctions sometimes, if only to be able to better target the problem?

Wouldn't a crime strategy in an American city necessitate distinguishing between Black, White, Asian, and Mexican gangs, for example? Or, should we not pretend to notice? Did the British government not negotiate with Irish terrorists groups? Why didn't they just think of them as individual terrorists?

I'm sure many do these things already, but more demonstrations against terrorism and increased cooperation with authorities by British Muslims would go a long way towards building a more consensual tone with non-Muslim Brits, I'm sure.

Finally, group blindness goes both ways. If the British government doesn't want its citizens to notice that a certain group of a certain religion commits the overwhelming amount of terrorism in Britain for a certain reason, then don't come back and tell them that these same groups in Britain are disenfranchised, disaffected, discriminated against, or disproportionately poor.