What with the whole David Davis business, Hazel has found herself limited to endlessly parroting the same quotes over the last few days. That is largely why blogging has been a bit limited since the middle of the week. However, this weekend Hazel has turned her fire on Dominic Grieve, the new Shadow Home Secretary. Grieve attracted measure of controversy when, after the 7th of July attacks on the London Underground, he said the attacks were “totally explicable” as a result of anger amongst many British Muslims. I disagree with Grieve insofar as he placed the blame almost entirely on the Iraq war. I personally believe that extremists will look for any excuse to justify their murder and mayhem, so just blaming Iraq doesn't wash with me. However, Grieve is correct in trying to get to grips with the root causes of terrorism. Hazel, however, sees things differently. She says:
“It is astonishing that the man David Cameron thinks should be Home Secretary believes we need to understand the actions of bombers. It is clear that Cameron and his new Shadow Home Secretary have failed to get to grips with the essential issue of national security and seem to be soft on terrorists.”
In other words, Hazel isn't interested in attacking terrorism at its most basic level, by dealing with the indoctrination of the young and vulnerable men who become bombers. She'd much rather just deal with terrorist attacks after they occur by passing lots of laws saying the government can spy on us and lock us up. It's short-term political posturing at its absolute worst. Hazel also doesn't seem to understand how the British legal system works. Leaving aside the libelous claim that the Conservatives are "soft on terrorists", the very fact that she uses the word 'terrorists' at all is telling. The people who will be locked up for 42 days are not terrorists, they are suspected terrorists. In Hazel's world there's no such thing as innocence until proven guilty, it seems.
Update - A quote from Hazel, given to Radio 4's Sunday programme on 8th June:
"That’s just common sense. If we’ve got an issue where we have to build resilience of young Muslim men and women to withstand an extremist message."
That was part of her attempt to justify spending money on Muslim groups who try to curb extremism. So what exactly is her problem with what Dominic Grieve said?