Don't mention the war (on terror)

Jon Bright (London, OK): One of the aspects of the global war on terror which, as it were, would have been funny if it wasn't so tragic, was the often repeated desire to "win hearts and minds": often repeated by people who seemed to be going out of their way to do exactly the opposite. Forward Thinking's new report on "Forgotten Voices", which investigates the opinions of young Muslims through conversations with their peers, exposes the extent of the damage - and the rather worrying level of concern Muslim youth feel about their lives and their prospects. It reveals both that a "great majority" of them felt "British", and yet also felt isolated within their society - fearful of their prospects of educational and professional development.

Policy does affect this - but it is the general tone of the public debate which they referenced most often - particularly a constantly negative portrayal by the media. This portrayal is reinforced by careless use of language: the idea of "Islamic" terrorism, for example, has always been problematic (while the word "Islamofacism" has, I hope, gone the way of the Dodo). There are people in the world who desire to murder civilians through violent attacks - but to allow their violence to be in the name of a religion is to allow them possession of an enormous worldwide faith with which they have little right to. God is routinely invoked as justification for all sorts of violent acts - lets not forget that leaders of both the UK and US also spoke to their various Gods on the eve of war with Iraq.

However, some crumbs of comfort appear to come from a leaked Home Office document today, which also seems to bear out the idea that Brown is far more wise to the politics of naming than his predecessor. Despite claiming not to be a list of "what not to say", this document advises civil servants on the power of the language they use to describe problems - advising them not to refer to "Islamic extremism" when talking to "Muslim communities," for example, but instead to refer to "violent extremism."

"Evidence shows that people stop listening if they think you are attacking them" it says. Excellent. It's just a shame that it's taken them this long to grasp what looks like a fairly obvious point. When Hazel Blears goes to these communities with her £45 million for tackling extremism locally, will she be able to earn their trust by rebranding "islamic terrorists" as "violent criminals"? Or will she be simply perceived as part of a government which is still practically committed to the war on terror, only no longer rhetorically? Far too early to tell: but governments should always be applauded for talking sense, and this is, at least, a genuine attempt to think about the politics of hearts and minds.