You must be the right type of Muslim with the right type of mindset to be allowed into the political arena. A Sajid Javid/Maajid Nawaz-type whose practice of Islam is non-existent and politically kow-tows to the neocons and pro-Israel lobby, would be ideal.
Are you a confident Muslim who asserts mainstream Islamic and political views that do not pander to the aforementioned circles? Forget democracy and all that British Values nonsense and prepare to have the weight of the establishment bear down on you and your livelihood targeted.
A recent orchestrated furore exemplifies this.
It has been my attempt to relate the human cost of the PREVENT counter-extremism programme on this blog, whether it is teachers going through the humiliation and stress of being called “extremists” only to be exonerated two years later, or whether it is children suffering effective psychological child abuse upon coming into contact with the PREVENT referral apparatus. The theoretical analysis and argumentation can sanitise the real cost of such decrepit neoconservative policies like PREVENT.
Two years ago, it was suggested by CAGE’s Asim Qureshi that there was a possibility that children would be taken from their parents under PREVENT. Those PREVENT-milking state-collaborators in the persecution of the Muslim minority were rolled out repeatedly to discredit CAGE using specifically this claim to highlight that CAGE was “fearmongering” and spreading “myths”. Exactly who is linked to propaganda departments within the Home Office, and who is regurgitating their black propaganda “messaging” is known well-known. The reality is that the Muslim minority had already anticipated the child-snatching policy. Boris Johnson was foreshadowing the removal of children from “radical” parents as early as March 2014. The claims by PREVENT-supporters that children will not be taken away through the implementation of PREVENT has proven to be as vacuous and deceptive as their state-prostituted, ventriloquized minds.
The Leave/Remain EU debate over the past months has descended into propagandised political rhetoric. According to one BBC article, “Boris Johnson may seem to be the face of the Leave campaign but in private Mr Gove is its brain.”
Pro-Israel neocon Michael Gove has framed the EU debate as a threat to the UK using language which knowingly roused the prejudiced fears of people. Britain, Gove argued, would be “voting to be hostages, locked in the back of a car” as a hoard of foreigners and criminals overran Britain. He’d rather have Britain hostage to the US and Israel.
However, these Machiavellian politics have a price.
Nothing demonstrates this more than the terrorist attack which saw a rare example of an honest politician being gunned down and stabbed in broad daylight by a white, possibly Christian man. Thomas Mair shot and stabbed Jo Cox whilst shouting “Britain First”. Cox was campaigning to remain in the EU.
Selective application and outrage of various freedoms is instructive of the neoconservative agenda to dehumanise and alienate Muslims as the manufactured enemy.
Neoconservatives have constructed their angst and hatred on the culturalist notions that the Muslim (“Islamist”) world is attacking free speech and therefore Western culture through responses to various provocations. This is precisely the position held by anti-Muslim neocon Michael Gove.
When Angela Merkel acceded to Ankara’s request to prosecute a comedian who recited an offensive poem about the Turkish president, neocons went into overdrive. To note, the Turks called on Merkel to enforce existing German law.
This is a response by Jahangir Mohammed to Andrew Gilligan’s efforts to undermine the movement against the civil-liberties-destroying PREVENT Strategy in which he was one of the subjects of Gilliganite smears. I analysed Gilligan’s many claims previously in the following piece here:
Andrew Gilligan and Neoconservative Extremists’ Campaign to Undermine Fight Against Draconian PREVENT
For a complete archive of Gilligan’s distortions on this blog, see below link:
Lies, Spin and Distortion: Archive of Andrew Gilligan’s Anti-Muslim Journalism
Crosspost: Jahangir Mohammed
Andrew Gilligan the London Editor of the Telegraph achieved notoriety whilst working at the BBC in 2003, when he produced a report on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme in which he alleged a British government briefing paper on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction had been ‘sexed up’.
The response by the British State to that report likely led to Gilligan’s resignation from the BBC. During the Hutton Inquiry, Lord Hutton questioned the reliability of Gilligan’s evidence.
In my previous article, I stated that I would focus on the discriminatory aspect of David Cameron’s statements made in his New Year’s messages around terrorism, its politically expedient focus on ideology (extremism), and the “conditions” which foster extremism, namely orthodox Islamic beliefs and practices.
Through the smokescreen of “Islamist extremism”, “integration”, and “isolated communities”, we have been witness to relentless, structural (state-level) culturalist attacks on Islamic beliefs/practices – from sex separation, Shari’ah arbitration and the Islamic conception of roles of men and women, to loyalty to other Muslims through the concept of the Ummah and Caliphate. All of this and more is used to concoct the Machiavellian “fifth column” menace.
There is one particular neoconservative blind spot which is absent not only from Cameron’s speeches, but also the underpinning policy which has been carefully carved by his neocon guides at the Henry Jackson Society and Quilliam Foundation: the counter-extremism strategy. It is the omission of a particular group which not only accentuates the discriminatory aspect of Cameron’s regressive rhetoric, but points to a contributory political hand being played in the carving up the Muslim minority, its beliefs, and practices.
The suggestion made by CAGE, that the security services may have contributed to the radicalisation of Mohammed Emwazi continues to be the subject of, well, not being the subject of mainstream corporate reporting. Instead, emotional questions are asked and statements are made: Our security services? Which protect us? They are just doing their job! The entire mood across the media spectrum seems to promulgate the view that the security services can do no wrong. This, despite the fact that just last month the discourse was critiquing the Intelligence and Security Committee for its toothless oversight of the security services. Clare Algar, executive director of legal charity Reprieve, said,
“From UK complicity in CIA torture to mass surveillance, the ISC has missed every major security-related scandal of the past 15 years”.
Incidentally, Reprieve’s Clive Stafford Smith in a statement of support said that CAGE’s work was “vital”, not that this would matter to papers hell-bent on deflecting from core issues.