Note: CAGE’s comprehensive deconstruction of Daily Mail’s upcoming PREVENT propaganda piece can be found here.
The Daily Mail has set out to smear key Muslim organisations opposing the neo-Stasi state-establishing PREVENT counter-extremism strategy. In doing so, it has appeared to have adopted the strategy to suppress PREVENT drafted by the notoriously bigoted, Zionist-backed neoconservative Henry Jackson Society (HJS). I wrote about the colour-blind racist report published by HJS last August and noted that HJS rather pathetically spun criticism of PREVENT as being linked to CAGE/“Islamists” who propound “deliberate misinformation”. All contentions were magically rendered “extremist” because CAGE had raised similar concerns which happened to have been raised by other organisations such as the National Union of Students. Tenuous does not even begin to describe the pathetic arguments.
The Daily Mail, though, has seemingly taken the specious neocon spin as its premise and proceeded to make HJS-style assertions through several questions raised to CAGE.
In one question it is asserted that CAGE have “deliberately hijacked a student movement campaigning against PREVENT”, and insinuates the advocacy group is effectively spreading “misinformation”, to use the words of HJS.
A further, more blatant example is that the journalists explicitly posit opposition to PREVENT as “extremist”. The journalists outline the PREVENT policy that “extremist views do not go unchallenged”. CAGE is then questioned as to why there was “no opposing voice on the panel supporting anti-extremism measures” clearly categorising opposition to PREVENT as “extremist”.
The censorious implications of securitising dissent to state policy is self-evident.
The government’s Extremism Analysis Unit – most likely comprised of individuals from HJS – has seemingly plagiarised HJS reports in the past, passing dictator-style proclamations on Muslims, and declaring them “extremists”. It is hardly surprising then, that the press is apparently resorting to similar tactics and thus acting as a conduit for the neoconservative agenda to carve a closed society out of Britain.
One cannot help but ask the question, are the “extremists” those who support and propagandise a strategy which edges society closer to a totalitarian state by creating a surveillance culture in which the state is designated the arbiter of legitimate views? Or is it those who, in their dedication to justice, transparency and the rule of law, oppose and expose this Orwellian crusade? The answer is clear to anyone not affiliated with or decieved by neoconservatives.