25/05/2013 Dateline London

Hello and welcome to Dateline London. In this week's programme,

the terrorist murder of an off duty soldier on a busy street and the

prospect of elections in Iran, is the system so rigged that the

outcome doesn't matter? My guests are Amir Taheri, the Iranian writer,

Mustapha Karkouti, a writer, Henry Chu from the LA Times and bier bier

of the Daily Mail. The horrific murt of an off duty

British soldier in broad daylight on a busy street is the kind of attack

the security services have been core -- worried about. Beyond security

and policing matter, something more needs to be done to stop the

radicalisation of young people into what is clearly a perversion of

Islam. The question is, what? This question, Ian, of what do we doe

about home-grown terror, and how we turn people away from

radicalisation, what do you think in terms of public honourable friend

sieve Governments can do? It is very difficult. An horrific incident an

the savagery and the weirdness and strangeness of them hanging round

gave it more attention, but in terms of the response, it is difficult. It

is a small minority of people, who generally second generation

immigrants, who are being alienated in some way from normal life, from

normal society, getting trapped into small extremist circles and then

only a few are going on the do horrific outrage, so it is difficult

to know how you crackdown, there are things you can do by closing down

some of the voices that are encouraging them, closing down the

websites, closing down the people who are encouraging them, to incite

them do these thing, there are thing yous can do there. But it is

important the keep a sense of pre-Budget report shurntion it is

worth remembering while this was a savage act and shocking, this isn't

9/11, this isn't Madrid, this isn't 7/7 and to some way, some degree

there is a sign of success there, I am alarmed also at the same time of

seeing a huge rise in Islamophobia and a huge rise in attacks on

mosques this this country. I think we demeeped it in proportion and aim

-- keep it in proportion and aim it at the small number of people who

encouraging this. Politicians are said the dividing line is not

between Muslims anner people, it is between a very tiny minority of

people who are prepared to this and everybody else and which the Muslim

community has been condemning it throughout the week. I agree

entirely with that. There is one point, we have to be careful when we

talk about this incident. There are not necessarily second or third

generation immigrants, immigrants is a loaded word to use, in an event

like that. , are British, born, educated, they were Christian as

well. And converted to Islam, so, you

don't bring the immigration or the immigrant aspect into it. They were

100% British, and this is what makes it very, I mean much more dangerous.

You think that makes it more worrying. They sound like Londoner,

like people from the south-east the way they talk. Yes, the same in

Europe and France, as well, why do we always when incidents of this

kind, we say of Nigerian origin or Moroccan origin, they were born

here, educated here. Where do you see the root of the problem? I know

you have have met one or two people who have extremist views and you

have talked to them and persuaded them other wise, what do you think

needs to be done? Well, a number of things, really. First of all,

culturally these people should be subject subjected to the, to the

cultural Islam. The history of Islam. They know nothing, if gruebg

to even Choudhry, the lead their is representative of the so-called muj

ruin, who appeared on Newsnight a couple of days ago. Even that has a

very narrow track through which he delivers hiss poison I think, and

because these people inspire crime, inspire killing in way, so one

thing, you have to widen the churl debate. -- chur debate. The

Government should consider, I know, I may say something you might find

strange, this society is very tolerant, extremely tolerant, and

that is what is nice about it. But, there must be a limit for tolerance

in a way. So, inciting terror, inciting killing should be a crime.

Does that mean some imams? course. They should be what,

punished for this? Hate speech or thrown out of the country?

Absolutely. Punish, take them to court, throw them out of the

country, no doubt. Take the case of Abu Hamza. Society is too tolerant.

Why allow him to speak in public, in the street, the road, not only in

the mosque. . But that has happened. We have seen some getting deported

or having been silenced. What is more worrisome is this crosses

borders, where you have the sermons on YouTube, it is no longer confined

to within the borders of Britain, and even the suspects here, I think

one was just to be having seen inflammatory rhetoric on the come.

It is no longer about physical presence of people in this society,

that makes it tougher. Journalists tend to be uncomfortable, do you go

down the route where you have to close down some of the websites and

limit what people see? That tends to cause other problems. It will be the

ambulance between free. Do of speech and expression and what you feel is

going to harm society. I don't think there is an easy answer just to say

if you shut them down it is going to staunch this problem. There will be

other ways of spreading this message. It is not just about

radical Islam. It is about young men joining gang, in terms of being

sucked into a narrow view of society. A sense of belonging. And a

sense of grow vans. What is your thoughts? Whatever happen, the

tendency is to say the government should do something. As if you know

the Government is God and so on. I think the main thing is that the

Muslim community itself has a problem, slam has to detoxify

itself, not only in Britain, but elsewhere. Right now there are

revolts in places, in France, everywhere, in the Muslim countries,

they are killing each other, in Syria, in Lebanon, Iraq, Tunisia, in

Pakistan and so on and commune tyrism has led to bloodshed, in

India, it is a very old story, it has always happened. It is not a

problem for the British Government, you know, if I were a British

Muslim, I would ask my leadership to create a conclave or something, a

conference to find out what is wrong with us. If you go to the Muslim

areas of London, they have turned them into independent imrat, people

dress the same, people grow the same kind of beard, the same kind of

hijab, the same kind of food, you know, accidentally Tay happen to be

in Britain, but they are not really motionly and culturally in Britain

and they don't feel British. They listen to what they say in in the

mosque, they don't discuss British problems from an Islamic angle. They

discuss Palestine, Syria, India, they discuss the loss of Spain,

Andalucia and so on, but where is the Muslim vision of Britishness?

You say there should be a Muslim reformation. Something as great as

that. As long as it hasn't happened. As long as they, I am a Muslim

myself, but like to be an example, I don't want to force anybody to

become slam, at the moment there is a ten den receive, the overwhelming

send I we are the winning team, we are the west is in decline, it is

corrupt and so on, and it is our turn, you know to come and conquer

the whole world. They have to abandon that ambition. There are

moderate Muslims. I am one of them. The politically active tendency,

backed by money from Muslim Government, from Iran, from some

Arab country, from Pakistan, anybody, rich Muslim, I know many

who contribute to so-called foundations and so on, to propagate

these. This is bad for Islam. In tend more Muslims are killed than

non-Muslims. Look at what is happening in Nigeria. That is like

thinking the voice of Christian Christianity are the extreme

fundamentalist voices you hear in America. They are behind some of the

awful things there, Suis as the anti-gay stuff in Uganda. It is

wrong to see the loudest voices as representing the mass. If you are

talking about Christianity, right now we are talking about Islam. Of

course... The point I am making just because they are loudest. . We say

if we do this, the others do that, Hitler killed people. Let us not go

on other trajectory, what we are talking about is Islam has a problem

with itself, and the Muslims are suffering and the Muslims are dying,

overwhelmingly, they have to tackle it. Why cover it? Why try to be

polite about it? It is correct, we always say that Islam should reach

the point where they can make the self criticism. It hasn't happened

yet. But this is going to take a long time to happen. Let us start

it. In order to impact on the Muslim minorities in the west, but in the

meantime, the Government look at it, can play a role somehow, why do they

still allow or encourage the independent religious school for

example? This is wrong. There should be... You can't expect a liberal

western democratic Government to act as an authoritarian state. It would

be wrong. That is a victory for the tiny groups of young man who have

become fanatic, I think it's a victory if Britain closes down its

tolerance, if they are forced to close down well that work for many

other people. The worst thing of all is for Britain to be changed by the

actions of one or two delude deluded individuals. It is time it has to

change. Not Britain. Let us find half way. Criminalise the actions.

They are. Nobody is arrested. Choudhry should have been arrested

two days ago. We will leave it there. Because let us move on to

Iran. Because Iran's one of those countries from which from time to

time feels it needs to hold elections but without regard for the

Superintendents of democracy, the freedom of Iranians to choose a new

President is so heavily curtain curtained -- curtailed, even a

former President has been stopped from taking part. Does it matter

which of the mullah-sanctioned men becomes President and whoever wins,

how should the west handle the new regime. If you were in Iran would

you go to the polls? No, I wouldn't go but many would. This election is

like primaries in American party, it is not an open election, you are not

saying the Democrat party makes a difference if Hillary Clinton won or

Barack Obama won. The same thing is here, there are eight candidates,

some of them totally obnoxious, I wouldn't even vote for them hold

manager I nose, but some are acceptable, more or less, so, you

know, there is still a choice, it is not a free choice, you know, the

Iranian people would love to have other candidate bus they are not

allowed to. This is a system. Aye e either you accept it or ject it. I

think actually, what is happening is not too bad. We will have for the

first time one faction controlling most office of the supreme guide and

the presidency, and the various military and security organisations,

therefore, that could end the faction fighting, that has s

prevented Iran from taking big decision, including the relations

with foreign country, because whenever somebody wanted to talk to

America, the others are, you are abandon abandoning betraying the

revolution, now there is nobody to shout, everyone is on the same side.

Paradoxically it could help ease Iran's relations with the outside

world. Signed Iran, of course, it would be bad for the Iranian people,

who are suffering, because this is peculiarly totalitarian regime, it,

the Islamic ambitions that said to conquer to world, first to conquer

the Arabs to its brand of Islam. All mad idea, but you know, in the short

run, it would enable Islamic Republic or the so-called Islamic

Republic to northerly lice wit the outside. We know about the economic

problems and flaings and the difficulty people have making a

living. What ever happened to the Ross expect for real reform that

were stamped on when they turned into street protests? Is that gone?

There was never really prospect for reform, because the candidates who

were defeated they never offered any programme for reform. The people had

the perception, you know, they projected their own dreams and idea

ideas to Mr Mousa. But never said what he wanted to reform as well.

This is the problem, and the same with Rafsanjani. People said if he

was President it would be paradise. He doesn't know his programme

either. The programme is to get elected. I get your point. This

views with great concern from where you live in the gulf. Absolutely,

with this kind of process, election process itself, the selection, all

the same colour, would make the authority more authoritarian I

guess, rather than less. This is worrying is no doubt, in the region

itself. It is a fact of life, Iran is the only strong power who can

influence events in the region. The other big power, like Saudi Arabia,

the Americans totally ignore the rest of the Gulf. We know the

problems of Iraq, Syria and Egypt. They would like to deal with the

strong power in the region, in this case there on. Take Iraq as an

example -- in this case, Iran. everybody will be singing from the

same song sheet, it means that perhaps there is room for a

manoeuvre for a regime that does not have to be constantly on guard of

being accused by the other side of betraying principles. That means

that when it comes to Syria, for example, perhaps there will be a

possibility of participation by Iran in a way that the US can

countenance. Up until now Hillary Clinton has said that nobody from

Iran should be at the table when it comes to Syria, but John Kerry, her

successor, is repaired to be flexible on that. If you have a

regime that is prepared to make baby steps, there are possibilities.

Speaking with one voice, unlike the US Congress, you might say. Just to

pick up on one point, think it is correct. You have do have a run and

you have to have in Russia. These other countries to decide on Syria,

it is not the Syrian president. you surely the of optimism? I do.

Last time they had the election which went out of control with the

performance movement and the for the people in charge. You have a

cat fight among a small group of Conservatives to see who is going to

emerge as the victim. There are still a lot of people in jail as a

result of what happened in 2009, that should not be forgotten. They

are closing down the internets base and free space. If we are to be

optimistic, it is this idea that there will be people on one unified

site, which makes it easier to negotiate and go forward. The

trouble is, it will probably be a pretty awful government and it will

be pretty miserable for the people they are governing. Whatever

president wins, still Iran would talked about Syria. Now the

involvement of Hezbollah on the side of the regime. Hezbollah is part of

the uranium government, it is not an independent agent. -- Hezbollah as

unchanging and one of those is developed nuclear power. I don't

know if Iran wants to develop nuclear power but they want to be in

a position to do that. Nobody is going to stop that. It is already

happening. In fact Iran could do that right now. With the centrifuges

they have, if they work them faster, they could have enough enriched

uranium to make nuclear war. I don't think they have taken the decision

to go that far yet and I don't think they will in the near future. The

problem is that Iran as a nation state has no interest in Syria. Its

interest is only as a revolution. If they can fight a way to show that

the -- find a way to show that the revolution has not been defeated in

Syria, Iran could not give a dam about Syria, it is neither here nor

there. A BBC World Service poll found that the most positively

viewed nation in the world is Germany, and bottom of the image

poll came Iran, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. Written came out

near the top four is a bit may be obvious why Iran were near the

bottom but why was Germany near the top? I think there are number of

reasons for that. We are talking about Germany post-2nd World War. It

has passed through quite a challenging attempt to take a full

example, reunification. It was unimaginable for a long time. To go

through this challenge, the cost of it politically, socially, it is a

huge challenge. More importantly in the 50s, it led the move towards

stability and peace and cooperation. With what became the EU Western Mark

exactly is. -- with what became the EU? Exactly. It rehabilitated itself

for a well after the war and it has become a strong economic power -- it

rehabilitated itself very well. is a triumph of soft power. Exactly,

it is not out in front when it comes to foreign policy. We don't see that

at all. It is easier to have fuzzy feelings about a country like that.

I think the question of the survey was very winery, does it have mostly

a positive or mostly negative -- was very binary. A few months ago there

was a poll where you saw that Germany was voted by nations as the

most arrogant and released compassionate. It depends on how

these questions are asked. depends how much money you need to

borrow, I suspect. Absolutely, and when you are talking about

economics, it is a different story altogether. I thought it was quite

interesting, it is also a sign, for my generation growing up, Germany

was still equated for the war -- with the war and it is interested in

to see how it has got over the trauma for the bid has managed to

become this benign presence that people can vote for in this way. To

see through its soft power and policy of nonintervention and

economic strength and solidity, and even through its footballers, as we

see tonight in the Champions League. This is a country which in many ways

has got it together and is pretty unified, in a very turbulent world,

where there is a lot of change in globalisation and is a lot to admire

about the German economic miracle anti-social miracle. -- and the

social miracle. Some of its banks were the worst acts around and it

still survive pretty well. -- the worst banks around. It is partly

because benighted States does most of the dirty work. -- it is partly

because the United States does most of the dirty work. In Iraq they

didn't take part, in Libya they didn't take part, Britain and France

were supposedly leaders. In Mali, Niger and France were heading

things. At the same time, Germany is a very nice place to live. I speak

German, I love German literature and I go there once or twice a year for

holidays. It is a very agreeable place. But it is a big Switzerland.

Nobody could be against the Swiss, even for inventing the cuckoo clock.

We could hold that against them. I wonder if it can last. We have this

great power in Europe, they will inevitably start rethinking their

role as having handled the past very successfully. There are no signs

that it won't last, at least in the medium-range future. It has a

powerful base. The coherence of the society is quite strong. There is

1.I want to make about Germany -- there is one point I want to make