Muslims have been understandably expressing consternation at Theresa May becoming prime minister. Whilst the sacking of Michael Gove has brought delight, her appointment of Amber Rudd as Home Secretary is being seen as deeply worrying given Rudd’s policy council membership of the notorious hate-funded Henry Jackson Society. No doubt we will be seeing a continuation of closed society, illiberal security policies in the name of liberalism and freedom, as Muslims remain the punch bag for anti-Muslim rhetoric. May is no friend of Muslims, with animosity towards Islam articulated through counter-extremism rhetoric.
As the Conservative prospective candidates demonstrated their reality by stabbing each other in the back, dropping low-blows about not having children, and employing Machiavellian tactics against each other for once, as the leadership came to a head, it was interesting to note the prominent voices which fell into line behind May.
A series of blogs analysing the recent Channel 4 documentary titled, “What British Muslims Really Think”
Part 1: An Orchestrated Attack on Islam
Part 2: Brief Profile of Trevor Phillips
We now turn our attention to the Channel 4 documentary.
There has been much discussion on the survey from the perspective of methodological issues, with some commentators even edging on the patronising as the insinuation is made that “conservative views” are the preserve of “deprived areas” that house “Pakistani or Bangladeshi” people.
More troubling criticisms relate to the loaded question fallacies inherent in the survey, the applicability of questions to the control group, and the subsequent spin which Trevor Phillips applies. These aspects will be will be touched upon through this piece.
Accompanying the neocon propaganda documentary was a piece authored by Trevor Phillips himself in the Daily Mail. Both were a master class in spin constituted of a number of red herrings. These will be deconstructed to reveal a concerted effort to excommunicate the Muslim minority from society, rendering them the alien upon which neoconservative policies can be predicated.
Fulfilling the annual ritual of attacking the smallest minority within a minority (women in niqab – subject of a follow-up blog) came with an additional twist this year, spearheading Muslims, their beliefs and manifestations across the media spectrum. The right-wing relished in reproducing defunct diatribe of the Yasmin Alibhai Brown variety. The Guardian meanwhile comforted itself in introducing David Cameron to the concept of empathy, whilst asserting he was right to “raise the often unfavourable position” of Muslim women. The additional twist was Cameron dictating to his subjects that learning English reduces susceptibility to extremism. Whilst there have been a fair few commentaries and responses, the blatant elephant in the room has been completely ignored: structural, flagrant discrimination and racism.
The red herrings in this discourse and Cameron’s Cameronialism exhibited in his Times comment – titled We wont let women be second-class citizens – as such requires deconstruction.
“There should be no ungoverned spaces…” – Prevent Strategy
David Cameron’s speech was textbook neoconservativism. It was characterised by the need to manufacture an enemy for the state to court a form of fear-based nationalism, which enables warring and a resultant neocon-shaped society founded upon principles of fascism and increasing authoritarianism.
A “Greater Britain”, a Neocon Britain
It is certainly interesting to note that a “Greater Britain” for Cameron “begins by making the case for strong defence”. It echoes neocon hawks William Kristol and Robert Kagan’s “remoralisation of America” which requires a hegemonic foreign policy. There was much veneration of the global militarism in Cameron’s speech directly tied to the “greatness” of Britain and national identity. For war, an enemy the “nation” can relate to and remain in fear of, is required. In other words, an identity based on the “other” through fear is the Machiavellian recipe for a Straussian “closed society” shorn of individual liberty and freedom.
In this series, we will delve deeper into the views held by our new Justice Secretary, Michael Gove as articulated in his book, Celsius 7/7, with additional commentary explaining the neoconservativism underpinning the statements where appropriate, and the impact it has thus far had on the good Britons of this country.
Click here to read Part 1.
The belief in Islam has been used by the Police and other Government bodies in Britain to disadvantage Muslims (see here, and here, for instance). The core understanding of this draconian manifestation can be found in Michael Gove’s book, Celsius 7/7. An inspection of this book reveals views that give credence to Whitehall sources, which have been quoted as having said that,
“Michael Gove’s views are so incredibly black and white. It’s either his way or no way. He seems to think that anybody who strictly follows Islam is not really integrated… And he thinks anybody who holds conservative Muslim views is a bit of an extremist.”
The Whitehall source went onto suggest that his agenda drove his militant “intervention” into the Birmingham schools last year vis-à-vis the Trojan Hoax plot.
A Look at Theresa May’s Responses
The blind-spot for far-right and Zionist “extremism” extends to Theresa May’s pathetic response to critics. She responds to the argument that “Islamist extremism” is social conservatism, stating that it is invalid because if anybody else discriminated against women, and rejected the democratic process on the basis of beliefs then they would be challenged.
There are a number of points being conflated. Firstly “discrimination against women” for instance, is tolerated in other communities. The Beth Din courts have “discriminated” against women in their judgments for over a century. Yet it has never warranted the label of “extremism” let alone an independent inquiry which is called for in the context of Shari’ah courts. In fact, as per my previous blog specifically on this topic, the Home Office has effectively approved “discrimination” as a result of “Jewishist extremism”. Moreover, previous versions of the London Beth Din website have clearly stated the Halachic position that it is prohibited for Jews from take their legal matters to a “secular” civil court (rule of law anyone?).
My intention was to cover this aspect in the second part of my analysis of Theresa May’s anti-Muslim, discriminatory, hypocritical speech. However, given the outrageous Muslim minority discrimination exhibited by the Home Office, the issue needs to be separately.
May announced that Shari’ah courts are to be investigated, because she “knows there is a problem”. As an example she states that,
“there is evidence of women being “divorced” under Shari’ah law and left in penury”
However, there is also “evidence” of Jewish women being left in marriage limbo due to the abuse by the husband issuing a “get” (divorce). The Beth Din courts govern Halacha (Jewish law). A “get” is required for either of the couple to remarry. Where the husband refuses a “get”, the wife is left in the status of “agunah”, or “chained woman”. If the wife then remarries in this state, her subsequent children (“mamzer”), which are religiously regarded as illegitimate, are treated as outcasts as they cannot marry a fellow Jew and the stigma remains down the line.