Prime Minister David Cameron recently spoke on his concerns about terrorism and the integration of various religious groups into British society. His speech offered a view that an erosion of definitive national social principles has allowed the rise of distinct separations in the manner in which we conduct our lives. He argued that without providing robust expectations of its citizens, our country will not tackle the threads of unrest that are slowly boiling beneath its surface. He explicitly refers to extreme religious factions that adopt life principles that are incompatible with the aspirations of the greater UK populace.
Cameron used the terminology "muscular liberalism" to give shape to his image of a nation that holds certain democratic qualities as defining cornerstone principles.
It is easy to imagine liberalism as a compelling way to describe the desires for a population. It is a strong statement of will that declares in grand tones a giddy freedom. Several hints of force that creep into Cameron's rhetoric (economic sanctions for example) are surely contrary to such a vision of a truly liberalised nation? Freedom, after all, moves beyond governance: to enshrine it in doctrine would be an opposition to allowing it to truly flourish. The lingual predominance of this particular point - with the stark adjective "muscular" - only dents the sentiment further with imagery that sounds (if only slightly) violent.
What do his words really mean?
No comments:
Post a Comment