The following could be relevant :-

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Despite whatever has been justifiably said regards Goering (eg mass murder, thief etc), he did seem to make a very astute historian, and some of what he said could be still relevant 60 yrs later.

I’m rather suspect about exchanging the “ism” called terrorism, for yet another “ism” called Liberal Secularism.

Well I think Cameron presents compelling evidence that leanings towards Muslim theocratic rule in major Muslim countries (eg Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malaysia) are tempered by the more down to earth voting patterns of their electorates.

Cameron also argues that some security laws go too far, though the evidence from the UK points less to the issue of multiculturalism and more to a small group of Muslim radical imams who see the UK as a port of convenience (and having little affinity to Britain in general).

Cameron's highly developed idea of a "National Security State" seems to me to be a variation on the fear of a "World Government". This is all way out at one end of the spectrum.

On the other hand the desire for a minimalist government would be weak in the face of Al-Qaida (arguably another type of minimalist government bankrolled by an ex citizen of Saudi Arabia). Incidentally, how would a minimalist government handle the disaster of Hurricane Katrina?

So somewhere in between the extremes seems the safest ground. More rational use of resources under the existing politico-economic system we have in Australia seems to be a better way to go.

Though I disagree with your final anaysis Cameron I think its an excellent piece.

Dear Cameron,

I very much agree with your endeavour, the more certain misguided aspects of both Moslems amd Christians are cast aside in today’s politics the better. However, as one who regards himself as having become a political philosopher in his old age, and who has done an intensive study of history and philosophy since the time of the early Greeks, your use of the word liberal in your heading jars the insight. Possibly better a term like secular tolerance would suit the occasion

A you would probably know also, the word liberalism was first used by John Locke when after his rather secret association with the English Glorious Revolution in 1688, he went on to again secretly advise the drawing up of a Proclamation to give free reign to the entreprenuer for the good of Mother Britannia. The essence of Locke’s liberalism at the time was it had nothing much to do with the welfare of the lower ranks. The word Liberal was also misused by Adam Smith in his great thesis the Wealth of Nations, and it is surprising that John Stuart Mill did not allude to the misuse of the word in his great classic On Liberty.

But if ever a society was sucked in by the misuse of a term, it was and is to do with liberty, which we only have to peek in a dictionary to find liberty means tolerance, freedom, compassion - all the things even secular people should agree with.

This commentary Post, Cameron, does not allow much more discussion, except to say that true liberality unfortunately, does only not apply to Islam, but also to this breed of misguided right - wing Christianity we are being pestered with, not only from Pax Americana, but also from our own so-called Liberal government. Labor, of course, is also at loss how to handle it, as it at also at a loss to understand the term economic rationalism, the word rationalism, of course, like liberty meaning to share-out, an area that Labor as social democrats would do better politically to stick to

Cameron,
your article is very important and contributes well to the discussion.

A number of aspects need further comment

Muslims will choose a liberal secular democracy if given the chance ?
I have to respectfully disagree with this. The greater likelihood is to choose either a toned down form of Islam, with a veneer of secularism, (Malaysia) or an Islamic State if they are all of the same tradition. (all shia or all sunni)

Democracy is quite foreign to Islam.

The historical pattern has not been like this in the expansion of Islam. The most dynamic and telling factor has been the absolute belief in the concept of 'Jihad' being 'to establish the rule of Allah'.

I recommend a read of some Islamic history about the very early battles (Uhud, Badr, Trench and Yarmuk) and then the life of Khalid bin Al Waleed (Sword of Allah) to see how the belief in the divine authority made such a difference to the fighting.

Similarly, it is noteworthy that the secular or polytheistic belief systems of opposing armies appears to have produced a lack of moral foundation for them giving their best. They found themselves facing an army which only wanted to do 2 things, persuade them to worship the one true God, and accept Mohamed as his messenger. On the surface they might have thought "What's to fight about" ...and many did just surrender without a fight.

The only times Islam was stopped militarily were at Tours in 732 by Charles Martel, who had a very disciplined army, and at Vienna in 1689 by Count Soboieski of Poland.

The most important weapon against extremism is a foundation in faith not the lack thereof.

Please understand, the the current momentum toward what you termed as a 'monoculture' is better described as an awakening of historical roots by those who have taken it for granted for so long without serious threat. It is a natural outcome of cultural threat that those of Anglo/European background will remember their own culture. It happens to be the prevailing one of Australia, a simple fact.

All that just to tell us we need a republic! Thanks, but no thanks. The claims re a 'conservative commentariat' and the comparison with Saudi Arabia are two of the silliest things I've heard for a while, too.

Are you sure that Muslims will choose a liberal secular government?Here are the results of a survey entitled "The Detroit Mosque Study: Muslim Views on Policy and Religion," by Ihsan Bagby of the Institute for Social Policy Understanding (a Muslim group). Mosque participants were asked, whether they agree or disagree with the statement:

"Shari'ah should be the law of the land in Muslim countries?" Shari'ah refers to Islamic law.

Strongly Agree — 59%
Somewhat Agree — 22%
Somewhat Disagree — 8%
Strongly Disagree — 3%
Don't Know — 8%

81% want sharia law in America. How many want it in Australia?

I have noticed Indonesia creeping towards appeasement of radical Islamists - last week the president made a broadcast encouraging women to 'dress more modestly' and I have heard many reports of women being pressured into wearing hijabs etc