The “Independent and Impartial” Thought-Policing Counter Extremism Commission

Twitter talk and feverish Facebook frenzy over the newly announced Commission for Counter Extremism (CCE) has continued for the past few days, but perhaps disproportionately for the wrong reasons.  The government’s announcement of the Commission came alongside the announcement of the lead commissioner Sara Khan of Inspire, a self-styled feminist who counters “extremism” has triggered vociferous responses in the media. MEND led a petition against her appointment and whilst it opens with a question as to why the Commission is necessary, it goes onto attack Khan on the condition of it existing, rendering the opening statement somewhat incidental. Mend CEO Shazad Amin also centred on Khan, reinforcing this perception.

There are certainly problems with Khan (these will be elaborated upon in a subsequent, detailed piece), however, they are an extension of far more important concerns that need to be raised.

NSPCC Co-Opting Counter-Extremism Agenda Raises Concerns

How ironic.  When doing some background reading on emotional and psychological child abuse for an earlier article on PREVENT, one of the websites I visited was that of NSPCC’s.  It provided definitions for signs of psychological child abuse. Those signs were based on the Home Office’s guidelines on safeguarding, which I then used to demonstrate how PREVENT was in fact resulting in children suffering from abuse.

Earlier today, it was revealed that the charity NSPCC had implemented the counter-extremism screed on “extremism”.  Chief executive Peter Wanless said:

“The fact that a young person might hold extreme or radical views is not a safeguarding issue in itself. But when young people are groomed for extremist purposes and encouraged to commit acts that could hurt themselves or others, then it becomes abuse.”

Parents can now ring the charity to obtain information from “trained” counsellors to determine whether their child is becoming an extremist as adjudged through “signs”.

These reports on NSPCC raise deep concerns.

ASCL’s Ramadan Paper – Deformation of Islam beneath the cover of Concern and Advice (1)

In a world dominated by a fast-paced environments denoted by the maximisation of profits, the tendency to enter into “cruise-control” upon the pathway of life is inevitable. The often spiritually devoid nature can take its toll. For Muslims, the month of Ramadan operates as the nudge which forces the Muslim psyche to recognise the spiritual state and take steps through the obligatory fasting (sawm) and associated worship to reform the soul.

Sawm is not just merely a ritual; it’s an obligation which is central to Islam to the extent that it is referred to as a pillar of this religion. To unshackle the understanding of modernity imposed upon Islam, it is not simply a ritual relegated to the private sphere but operates as an act which imbues the soul with Islamic morality which is defined by its quality of transcendentalism – i.e. its implications are not limited to the temporal but far more importantly, beyond the ephemeral. For a believer it is sine qua non for the purposes of discharging one of the most fundamental obligations in Islam.

Recent reports however, have taken to delegitimising fasting in the month of Ramadan in the context of schools.

RICU Revelations: The British Government’s War on the Muslim Minority

The following question has maintained a concious presence generally for years but particularly so in the last few days: are we, the British people allowing ourselves to be governed in a totalitarian fashion?

A set of reports and leaks from the Guardian (here and here) and CAGE (“We are Completely Independent”) revealed that this totalitarianism had now become all too pervasive: a substantial body of information exposes an intertwining propaganda network which implicates private PR companies, the state and knowing or inadvertent civil society groups.

The details though loosely known, were still shocking to read in black white. I have speculated that the Home Office propaganda unit, RICU (Research Information and Communications Unit), may have been involved in last year’s documentary on “extremism” pumped out by neocon propagandist John Ware. I also brought to attention the connection between Sara Khan and her sister Sabin Khan who was alleged to be working in RICU. This connection since was highlighted in the home affairs select committee as being a source of potential conflict of interest, with Sabin being confirmed as deputy chief of RICU.

Deforming Faith and History to Serve a Neocon Agenda Part II: Sarah Khan

 

The piece continues from the first part:

Deforming Faith and History to Serve a Neocon Agenda Part I: Rashad Ali

---

 

Whilst Ali is known amongst Islamic scholarly circles for twisting texts and now history to suit the views his paymasters demand of him, there are other characters who are willing accomplices in this project.

Sara Khan seems to have been on a bit of a mission to shake off the negativity surrounding her involvement as a human rights-touting feminist who confusingly promotes the human rights-violating PREVENT Strategy through the incredibly feminist “weaponisation” of Muslim women.  The Guardian’s Alex Preston penned a piece late last month looking at Khan and her work. Of pertinence is the exploitation, like her human rights and feminism discourse, of Islam.

Ignoring the fact that Islam guides on all facets of life, Khan homes in on the “fascination” of “Muslim clerics and preachers” with women’s clothing. For her, removing the veil “was about removing the authority of religious clerics”.  Of course, with statements like that, considering that the Prophet of Islam was a man who designated the status of the Ulama as “heirs of the Prophets”, she might as well absolve herself of the authority Allah, and His Messenger, peace be upon him.

The British Neo-Stasi State: GCHQ’s Penetration of the PREVENT Strategy

Click on image to enlarge

In an earlier piece on the impact of PREVENT and the implication of “terrorist toddlers”, I drew attention to the fascist neoconservative impulse permeating the policy and the pervasiveness of the securitisation of public services. Under PREVENT and the Channel deradicalisation programme, public service employees would spy on people for signs of radicalisation and refer them to a PREVENT officer, effectively creating a modern police-state primarily for Muslims.

I likened this to the authoritarian East Germany of the 80s and 90s which popularly became known as the Stasi state. I noted that there were multiple levels of surveillance: those who were “officially” employed and those who spied in an unofficial capacity. At that time I had focussed on the “unofficial” spies: those who were employees of schools, hospitals and most public services tasked to monitor ideological leanings of people.

The Quilliam-Linked Hand in the Trojan Hoax Fiasco

The Trojan Hoax fiasco had a number of parties involved to pull it off. Some were merely pawns in the “Great Game”, whilst others were the ones moving the chess pieces. The sledgehammer which the neocon, anti-Islam Michael Gove smashed onto the Muslim minority of Birmingham was casted some years ago by the infamous and much discredited Quilliam Foundation.  In a leaked 2010 memo addressed to Charles Farr of the OSCT, and signed off by Ed Husain and Maajid Nawaz, Quilliam outlined its plan in “dealing” with the terror threat.  The contents despite it being made public, has been remarkable in its implementation and achieving the resultant targeted discrimination the Muslim minority now faces.

In the context of the education of the sphere,

“With the appointment of Michael Gove MP, who has previously spoken out on topics related to the Prevent agenda and has shown a good understanding of the issues relating to it, to the position of Secretary of State for Education, it looks as though Prevent at DfE will continue to develop and focus on the vital counter-ideological work necessary to prevent terrorism.”

Of course, in November 2009, this “good understanding” presumably referred to an embarrassing series of blunders, when Gove helped David Cameron set up a question to the Prime Minister on “Islamic extremism”, making false claims regarding funding and inspection of Islamic schools.

Post-Trojan Hoax: NUT Conference Slams PREVENT and Raises Concerns About its Stasi Traits

Copyright: BBC

First it was the Association of Teachers and Lecturers urging teachers to ignore the neocon-driven, authoritarian “British values” social engineering, public surveillance programme, and now the National Union of Teachers have joined in the rapidly crescendoing critique of government’s PREVENT Strategy.

With the Trojan Hoax dust settled and the teaching profession coming to terms with what I have been saying pretty much for the whole of last year, it was only a matter of time that the problems of PREVENT started to pile up. It is certainly worth repeating the key issues highlighted at the NUT conference held at Harrogate. It is also worth noting that these are individuals who are now implementing the ambiguous PREVENT Strategy.

PREVENT injustices: Muslim demonised and turned into suspects

John Ware and Sara Khan – Was the Documentary a Propaganda Piece for the Home Office?

John Ware’s content suggests he is an establishment journalist who makes the facts fit the government agenda.  However, in order to grasp an idea of his political outlook one needs to examine some of his work.

In an article for the Jewish Chronicle (JC), Ware praises Douglas Murray as a “titan of the commentariat”, and defends his trivialisation of Islamophobia, who calls it a “crock” to the sharp criticism of another JC writer, David Aaronovitch.  Douglas Murray needs no introduction. An ardent neocon, he has called Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, a “very bad man”, and Islam along with the Qur’an, “bad”. He translates this hate into calls for special negative treatment of Muslims, by making conditions for them in Europe “harder across the board”.  According to Murray, even “universal” human rights are tiered, with the rights of “West’s people [overriding] those of the Islamist’s in their midst.”

His Henry Jackson Society is funded by a transnational Islamophobia-pumping industry.  In the discussion between Aaronovitch and Murray, Ware sides with Murray and echoes him in “rationalising” away his exceptional treatment of Muslims, justifying his position by stating that anti-Semitism is “entirely irrational” whilst Islamophobia is “reactive”.  He then attempts to give credence to his position by highlighting that Jewish integration has been a “success story”. The success of “Jewish integration” has been addressed in previous articles, and it is not entirely as it is made out to be.  Muslims are demarcated, however, because they,

“cite foreign policy as the reason for terrorism here, which suggests they identify more closely with other Muslims in far-off lands than with fellow Britons.”

Sara Khan: The Feminist Who Abused Women in the Pages of the Sun

Sara Khan’s credentials have taken a battering with her latest attempts at “tackling extremism”.  Her links with Quilliam illuminaries and her endorsement of all things reformationist, have completely ruined her credibility amongst the mainstream Islamic community. Much can be written about Sara Khan and her organisation, Inspire. And I mean a lot. Her reformationist outlook which spills into marginalising (and here) the mainstream within the Muslim minority who uphold an alternate view to her, the endless “news” on ISIS and “extremism” in the news section, but complete silence on the issue of Gaza (and the comparative inactivity and inaction against the Zionist state of Israel – a possible factor in “radicalisation”), support from devolved reformationists like Usama Hasan and of course, how can we forget the Trojan Hoax plot – her diatribe recycles the lies and twists and even positively cites discredited anti-Muslim Andrew Gilligan. And that’s just a superficial anlaysis of  her “work”.

Her latest charade involves her “Making a Stand” against ISIS, with the full support of David Cameron and Theresa May, both “extremists” using the PREVENT defintion and both of whom want to scrap the Human Rights Act to the rebuke of more reputable human rights organisations. No campaigns against them Sara?