Last week I was asked by a major Muslim news outlet, as CoolnessofHind, to answer questions regarding William Shawcross and the broader political issues affecting the Muslim minority. Due to the “hard-hitting nature” of the truth in my answers (their words, not mine), the outlet, which is already under scrutiny, chose not to reference my answers or blog. What is incredibly manifest from the above is the media treatment of the Muslim minority and those who promulgate the neocon narrative: Muslims can be smeared, defamed and their reputations shattered by the media and politicians without even a second-thought, but if a Muslim turns the tables, exposes the hypocrisy of the elite with integrity then it becomes too much for our Muslim media outlets handle. Such is the minority discrimination in Britain and such is the dehumanisation of Muslims.
I reproduce below the questions they asked and the answer I gave for the benefit of the readers.
1 – Why should, in your view, William Shawcross be removed from his position?
The Charity Commission emphasises political neutrality with regards to charities. It follows that those who decide the neutrality of the charities should be of a plural understanding. The resignation from the neocon Henry Jackson Society, which comprises of known anti-Muslim individuals like Douglas Murray, and takeover by William Shawcross and like-minded individuals as members of the board was a response from neoconservative elements in the government to Dame Suzy’s commitment to deregister neoconservative think-tanks.
William Shawcross’ appointment was thus a political manoeuvre. I have elucidated his politically biased and anti-Muslim views in detail on the blog. His views on Islam and Muslims which he regards as a “terrifying problem”, make him completely untenable as someone who is supposed to be politically neutral.
2 – Tell us also (perhaps sum up) about the board (the new board members and their links)
The board members consist of individuals who fit the neoconservative policy, be it domestic, in the form of the Orwellian PREVENT policy and the fallacious counter-extremism agenda, or foreign, in the form of military “intervention” in the Middle East and unfettered support for Israel. Peter Clarke who is heading the current investigations into Muslim majority schools in Birmingham is on the board. He was the head of counter terrorism unit and also served as consultant employed by private military companies. Nazo Moosa was also the Director of Carlyle group -a war-profiteering company. Others either are politically aligned to conservative, advocate Zionism or promote military policies which are in-line with the neoconservative understanding.
3 – Considering the reasons you’ve outlined for his removal, would these make Shawcross’ latest statement about the dangers of charities being used as cover for extremism be insincere?
It would at the very least caste doubt. If your mind has prejudiced, deep-rooted convictions about a particular minority, you will view all their actions in that light. This psychological dynamic is hard to refute. The fact that the first public statement he releases is about “Islamist extremism” further reinforces this notion.
4 – Do you believe that his latest comments are part of a concerted attack on Islam and Muslims?
Politics is a dirty game. Construction of public opinion is easy when you play on public emotions and fear. Previously the Jews suffered the same, being regarded as “fifth columners” to perpetuate an expansionist imperialism. Further down the history it was the black community, and now it is the Muslims. The demagoguery by politicians is revealing when there are deeper issues in the political establishment such as mass rights-violations revealed by Snowden, expenses scandals, ineffectual Charity Commissions and more recently the food poverty crisis in the UK etc.
The right-wing and the neoconservative elements recognise the benefit of deflecting through the use, or rather the abuse of the Muslim minority. Muslims and the manufactured notion of extremism attached to them provides for an easy scapegoat. It is easy to reject the notion that there is a conspiracy against the Muslim minority as a “theory”. What is hard to refute is the daily onslaught on the beliefs and manifestations of Islam in comparison to the lack thereof in similar minorities. And the fact that those behind it are linked (e.g. Shawcross, Charity Commission and Henry Jackson Society, Peter Clarke, Charity Commission and Trojan Horse investigation). When this comparison is assessed, then there is an indication to a concerted attack on Islam and the Muslim minorities in the West.