The Impact on the Muslim Minority – Are the Main Parties Really that Different?

Photo: AFP/GETTY

I have written some articles focussed on the Conservative party and what it would mean to have a Tory government for Muslims and the broader UK populace (see here and here, for instance). Indeed it would be a severe blow to whole country at every level.

In the Muslim context, the Conservative party’s counter-extremism measures are grossly invasive with a disproportionate focus on Muslims, tearing up of the Magna Carta and the rule of law in the process. David Cameron doesn’t seem too keen in courting the “Muslim vote” anyway. With campaign plan drafted by Lynton Crosby, which includes a failed attempt at pandering to the UKIP voters, I would not expect anything less. Perhaps what seals the strategy of the Tories toward Muslims (not that Muslims, I am sure, would give a curse), is how the “abrasive” Crosby reportedly referred to this minority while campaigning for Boris Johnson. He apparently used “f*****g Muslims” when he was arguing it would be pointless to hold a particular event to win support in an area dominated by ethnic minority voters. Quite.

In a recent interview with Muslim News, despite Cameron’s claims that Muslims should not be viewed through the prism of security, quite evidently, over the last year, this is precisely what has happened. He defended PREVENT, defended the war-like incursion into Birmingham schools, brushed aside the demonisation of Muslims during the Trojan Hoax, cited Peter Clarke’s report and ignored the Education Select Committee’s findings that there was no “extremism” in Birmingham schools, pointed to Sajid Javid being a “Muslim” in cabinet as progress, despite the fact that Javid himself has said he is not a Muslim, and presented a sweety for the Muslims in the guise of recorded Islamophobic crimes, all the while doing everything politically over the past years to exasperate them.

In the context of Palestine, Cameron’s slavish allegiance to the rogue Zionist state is well documented. Recently, he sickeningly defended the massacre of Palestinian men, women and children in 2014. Ha’aretz subsequently reported that the consensus of Israeli diplomats and lobbyists in London is that they “have never had such a pro-Israel prime minister”.

There is little reason not to concur.

But what of the other parties?

Pushed by the likes of Guardian and with Nicola Sturgeon repeatedly offering him a plan to keep the psychotic Blues out, Ed Miliband and his party poses the greatest threat to an overt impending authoritarian rule of Tories.

Muslim News recently interviewed Miliband. On the face of it, it looks promising: Labour would “outlaw Islamophobia”, and “overhaul” the discriminatory PREVENT Strategy. They also supported the recognition of a Palestinian state, whilst voting against intervention in Syria in 2013.

Indeed, he has certainly attracted the attention of neocon ideologues and their propping enablers.

Islamophobia!

A digression if I may.

The fascist Douglas Murray dedicated a piece whilst out of the country attacking the proscription of Islamophobia. His entire piece is premised upon the assumption that Islamophobia is equivalent to a critique of Islam. Basking in the “victimhood narrative” by citing criminal examples of Michael Adebolajo, and Charlie Hebdo, and then obfuscating hate crime with critique, Murray seeks to “test the law” if given statutory footing by gathering academics and philosophers to reject the beliefs of Islam. Of course, he ignores the context of “aggravated crime” and “Islamophobic attacks”, which Miliband clearly uses to describe a proposed criminalisation of anti-Muslim hate crime. No one tears the hijab off a woman because he or she loves Islam and the manifestation of it by Muslims. Given his hatred toward Muslims and Islam, his sympathy with, and endorsement of far-right bigots, perhaps he fears falling foul of it himself. One does not witness articles authored by him mourning the slaughter of free speech when Zionists shutdown academic conferences questioning the basis of the Zionist entity.

In the past, David Aaronovitch of Jewish Chronicle, sharply criticised Murray for calling Islamophobia “a crock”. He wrote,

“Yet when the static targets are mosques and the moving targets are Muslims, it would be somehow wrong – buying into “the crock” – to describe the attacks as “Islamophobic”. Says Douglas… Some of this is, whatever Douglas says, very familiar. Before the race theories of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, antisemitism (or Jew hatred) was not racial. The problem wasn’t with the Jews themselves but with what they obstinately believed. If they abandoned Judaism they could become good people. So it is quite possible to posit an Islamophobia which corresponds to pre-racial antisemitism. The fact that, in this society, most Muslims are brown, can give this hatred a racial dimension.”

Shlomo Sands, Israeli professor at Tel Aviv University, is explicit in recognising Islamophobia, going as far as saying that it has replaced “Judeophobia” as the enemy of Europe:

“Who is the enemy today to construct a European identity? It’s clear, it’s the Muslims, the Arabs. A common enemy is good to construct an identity… Europe was constructed between 1850 to 1950 on the basis of anti-Semitism… anti-Semitism, or Judeophobia, Judeophobia is a better word, was a very important factor to construct nations in the 19th century. I think political anti-Semitism finished in Europe… I think today – and this is important – that the Islamophobia has replaced the Judeophobia, and Islamophobia is one of the ways to construct Europe. There is a political Islamophobia in Europe. There is not a political Judeophobia in Europe. I think the Cameron [Munich] speech is a part of this way of defining a new identity [to] face the Arab or the Islamic world… There is a political hate of Arab and Muslims in the Western world including Britain.”

Maajid Nawaz also added to the chorus with a similar conflation to Douglas Murray, rejecting Islamophobia and reducing the diverse political and sociological contexts, to “scrutinising” an “idea”.

The fact that Murray’s Henry Jackson Society and Nawaz’s Quilliam Foundation are instrumental in the securitisation of Islam and Muslims, whilst rejecting Islamophobia is no incident. They represent the pretext, a factor, which contributed to the eventual Holocaust. That this small, interconnected cabal of individuals oppose these measures can only mean that such proposals are a good thing.

But before jumping on the hooray! He’s okay! bandwagon it is worth noting some reservations about Miliband.

“Extremism”

Miliband’s counter-extremism strategy is merely a variation of the approach already undertaken to the detriment of the Muslim minority. In fact, it smacks of the first version of PREVENT, implemented by the previous Labour government to “exact control” of Muslims. The rhetoric continues to remain infected by the academically discredited conveyor-belt theory of radicalisation, which posits ideology central to the process of radicalisation. Hence Miliband states that the Muslim community need to be engaged to stop “our young being dragged into this perverted ideology”. He further adds,

“You got to do the things that once this ideology takes hold you try to disrupt it. For me that is the answer. We want to see how the Prevent programme is community focused.”

“Community engagement” simply means, “get the Muslim community to implement our policy”. Instead of Theresa May having dictatorial control of “tackling extremism” through forced assimilation along with public bodies, the buck is being passed to the community to tackle “extremist” ideology without the community still having any tangible understanding of what it exactly is.

As Ahmed J Versi, the interviewer, noted,

Miliband insisted that he took “extreme care” in what he said but it still did not stop him in using the generic term of “Islamist terrorism” and inferring the cause was religious rather than political when suggesting more than once it was based on “perverted ideology.”

The Labour party supported the ridiculously invasive Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015, which among other things, placed the PREVENT Strategy on statutory footing. Shadow Home Secretary and Labour MP Yvette Cooper has been continually slamming Theresa May for not being “tough enough”. At the annual Labour Conference of 2014, and at a time when the CTS Bill proposals had been made, Cooper said,

“It’s time to strengthen the counter terror powers that Theresa May weakened.”

She has been a strong proponent of the absurdly human rights-violating control orders, again scolding Theresa May for ditching relocation (“exile orders”) of suspects not charged of any crime. (Hansard, column 228).

Indeed many of the discriminatory, totalitarian measures called for by May are shared with Cooper. Once again, taking a pot shot at her superior, she said last month that,

“She could have had banning orders, reviewed sharia courts, and insisted preachers speak English five years ago, rather than leaving it until now.”

Foreign Policy

A few years ago, in an article in a major media outlet, the link to which has been conspicuously removed (I searched for the article for two hours; it could be previously found by simple entering the search terms “Ed Miliband Liberal Internationalism”), Miliband brazenly praised and adopted Tony Blair’s 1999 Chicago speech, which established what is now known as the “Blair doctrine”. This doctrine espouses Liberal Internationalism (LI) – a school of foreign policy to which Miliband ascribed himself to. LI is also known as Wilsonianism across the pond. The foreign policy goals are no different to neoconservativism. It is the manner in which those goals are achieved where there is variance: LI encourages the use of international organisations and treaties, neoconservatism rejects such reliance for hard power. This is why neoconservatism is also known as “Hard Wilsonianism”. LI seeks to create “security” and “peace” globally by bringing democracy to oppressed nations. With the “Islamic threat”, the rhetoric from the likes of Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchen is virtually the same as that of nutty neocons: blasé hate, supremacist and hegemonic.

Indeed, the similarity was such that the son of Irving Kristol, William Kristol remarked, “I think Tony Blair is a kind of neoconservative, despite himself”.

Miliband likes us to know that he “learnt the lessons of Iraq” and said no to military action in Syria in 2013. However, pushed into a position to respond to Cameron’s decision for military action in Libya in early 2011, he approved of the disastrous intervention. In justifying his support he employed seriously disturbing neoconservative wording stating that foreign policy must always be an uneasy combination of “principle and pragmatism”. It is precisely this rationalising away of “principles” which allowed the US state to sanction torture, and push illegal wars based on lies. Syria was a pragmatic decision, not one born from a sudden epiphany which exposed the danger of neoconservative agendas.

In his review of a book charting the making of Ed Miliband as a Labour leader, John Gray wrote,

“What may be less obvious is the extent to which he has shown himself to have some of the qualities that Machiavelli admired in a leader – courage, freedom from sentimentality and an instinctive sense of where power lies.”

Machiavellian “virtue” of determining where power lies works in conjunction with “pragmatism”, where principles are compromised in the pursuit of power and agendas. Perhaps it was this “sense” which became active when he realised there was no public stomach for another commitment for a war in the Middle East in 2013. Perhaps it is this “pragmatism” which is pushing for Palestinian statehood just before election time. With such shape shifting qualities, who knows? Miliband is a self-confessed “friend of Israel”, and he has clearly stated that he would not support sanctions against the Zionist entity. The Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander has no scruples in supporting the US in the bombing of Iraq to contain ISIS, but Israel, despite its brutality, is off the table for any form of internationalist “intervention”.

Labour’s Douglas Alexander, a member of the Zionist Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) lobby group, has been articulating Labour’s revised foreign policy. He clarified in his speech outlining the new policy, “progressive internationalism”, that “a future Labour Government would recognise Palestine, but only when such a move would enhance the peace process”. The definition of “enhancing the peace process” is as slippery as a double-speaking neocon. Milband in his speech to the LFI Zionist lobby said that,

“…significant challenges to the peace process include the role of Hamas, not just its failure to renounce violence against Israel but to accept its very right to exist.”

In other words, most likely never.

As for the policy toward the rest of the Middle East, we are informed that it is one of “no harm”. Of course this raises the question, if one views spreading “peace” and “democracy” through wars as beneficial for global security, what is exactly “progressive” about the new internationalist policy? That we do the same, only less while keeping an eye on our coffers at home? Alexander in a Guardian comment wrote,

“Labour’s task for government is to build consent for an outward-looking Britain as the best way to advance not just our interests, but also our values at a time of challenge, both at home and abroad.

Neocons also claim to act in the interests of their state, and also advance their values globally through war and demonisation. Only time will tell how a potential future Labour government will advance their “interests” and “values” abroad.

Lib Dems

Nick Clegg’s attitude towards the Muslim minority has not been entirely dissimilar to the Tories and Reds in the context of PREVENT. In fact, Clegg seemed childishly uninformed of the PREVENT Strategy’s impact.

Regarding the CTS Act, he only saw it as creating “consistency” by ensuring all local authorities do “good work” – “work” which predominantly targets Muslims because of their beliefs.   The confused Deputy PM was unaware that nurseries were also the target of PREVENT. He explained that the Act was against inciting violence by hatred even though Part 5 of the Act targets specifically “extremism” – which includes opposition to foreign policy – through PREVENT. Though PREVENT is not “law”, it is legally enforceable as non-implementation of the Strategy will result in legal liability for the public body. He called on more “moderate Muslims” to articulate “mainstream opinion”, echoing more of the first iteration of PREVENT. As explained in depth before, the “moderate Muslim” for the west is one which does not challenge the government in their draconian policies, remains silent when his or her beliefs are publically ridiculed and restricted through counter-extremism policies, and welcomes their co-religionists “benevolently” being bombed by Western democracy crusaders on the basis of lies and spin.

With Clegg effectively side-lined in the existing “coalition” and now looking to jump into bed with the Tories once more to retain power, Clegg’s concessions to Muslim concerns, or resistance to the PREVENT Strategy in the grander scheme of things, despite small changes to the policy, would be of little value.

Concluding Remarks

Whilst the stately Ukippers that are the Conservatives are blatantly anti-Muslim, and unabashed apologists for Zionist state terrorism, the reality of Labour, beneath the election bluster, is not much different. When it comes to “extremism”, the three main parties use the term with abandon without fleshing or challenging the ambiguous definitional discourse, and without eschewing the falsity that is the conveyor-belt theory of radicalisation and abject obsession with ideology.

Moreover, all three of the parties have absolutely no qualms with the precarious position their support for PREVENT places them in, regardless of tactical differences: it amounts to unjustified state intervention of religion, the manifestation of which has resulted in discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs.

The pervasion of neoconservativism across the parties will ensure that such discriminatory, Stasi-esque policies will remain. Indeed, it was the neocon Alexander Carlile who led the review of the PREVENT Strategy to bring it to the totalitarian state it currently is in. With the two leading parties both sycophantically cosying up to psychotic Zionists, or refusing any meaningful action against the slaughter of Palestinians, Israel’s continued violation of international law and religiously fuelled massacring will most likely continue unabated.

Until the parties realise that the greatest threat to Britain – neoconservatism – is already in power and is subverting human rights and democratic processes, this continued clandestine push for totalitarian control and demonisation of a minority through Machiavellian tactics will remain.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “The Impact on the Muslim Minority – Are the Main Parties Really that Different?

  1. I think that you are mistaken if you think that Labour are not better for Muslims than the Conservatives. Blairism was not Labour, Blair was a Neo-Conservative, Neo-Liberal who subverted a Social Democratic party. Blairish is gone (dead and buried) and Ed Miliband is a million miles from Blair.

    • Thanks for your comment Patrick.

      “better” is a matter of degrees. The fact remains that Labour’s foreign and domestic policies which discrimanatorily target Muslims are not much different from Cons. Miliband perhaps is not quite on the same level as Blair, but as mentioned in the article, he certainly shared his liberal internationalist understanding which formed the basic impulse for the Iraq/Afghan wars. The securitization of Muslims has at its basis a neocon understanding – mainly drawn from Gove and refined by neocon think-tanks – this is shared across the spectrum of the three parties. This includes Miliband as evident from his articulation of Prevent. A careful analysis of his wording shows that engagement means co-opting Muslims into delivering a flawed strategy. Until such strategies are not re-thought, not in terms of implementation but approach, it will always stigmatise a minority by telling them which of their views are “extremist”.

      This is precisely why I concluded the piece in the way I did: no comment on which is the ideal party for Muslims; rather the pervasion of neocons and their assumptions need to be rooted. Currently none of the main parties are doing this.

      Kind regards,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s