How not to have a debate

By John Denham, Labour MP for Southampton Itchen and chair of the home affairs select committee (THE GUARDIAN, 09/10/06):

Jack Straw and John Reid have both launched challenges to sections of the Muslim community. The gauntlets thrown down have fed a series of anti-Muslim stories. However genuine Straw and Reid may be, recent history suggests this is not the way to go.In spring 2001, Radio 4's Today programme claimed that Asians in Oldham had set up "no-go areas" for whites. The tabloids took up the story and unconnected acts of violence were used to "stand up" the story. That summer, Oldham exploded with riots. But the story wasn't true. The Ritchie inquiry concluded that claims of no-go areas were not borne out on the ground.

That's a cautionary message for Reid and his ministers as they set out to take the anti-terrorist message into Muslim communities. There aren't any no-go areas. While extremists exist, we Labour MPs can discuss these issues frankly in any part of our constituencies. But, by the time the ministers have finished, it may appear as though they are for real. A few people brandishing banners is all it will need. Scary images broadcast to millions with little knowledge of Muslims would fuel the polarisation the extremists desire.

Jack Straw's intervention may widen those divisions. His original article is measured, but wasn't the Daily Express "Ban the Veil" campaign as likely to follow as an informed debate?

Five years ago, the Ritchie report warned: "In a sensitive situation ... it is particularly important to make sure that people interviewed reflect a cross-section of opinion which is truly representative." Britain is probably more polarised than five years ago - as the alarming events in Windsor during the past few days suggest - yet that lesson has not been learned. Did the Today interview with the extremist Abu Izzadeen emphasise how unrepresentative he is, or did your non-Muslim friends shake their heads and sigh, "That's the trouble with Muslims"?

We live in insecure times. Tough measures to challenge those we fear are popular. But ultimately government won't be thanked if we make people more scared and no safer.

It's not that we shouldn't discuss these issues. But how we conduct the debate does matter. Three weeks ago I joined Muslims and non-Muslims brought together by Southampton's local council of mosques. It was illuminating and full of passionate discussion, and was organised by those committed Muslims whose virtues are often extolled by politicians - the ones who are challenging bad theology and poor politics every day. Their frustration at the government's handling of events, which so often makes their job more difficult, was tangible.

So while I'm pleased that ministers are going round the country it can't be to grandstand to the scared majority. We must never resile from making clear the limits of acceptable behaviour, but we need ministers to listen and understand every bit as much as lecture and lay down the law. And we need ministers who will go back again and again long after the cameras have lost interest.

There is a key test before us with the new terrorism bill. Last year's bill contained controversial measures against the glorification of terrorism. Rushed through parliament, it left many feeling it was aimed at Muslims in general. Had the time been taken to consult with the country it could have provided the focus for debate about the acceptable limits of free speech, and created consensus on what to do. But the government was anxious to act tough and the chance was lost. It was, perhaps, understandable in the wake of 7/7. But this year there would be no excuse.