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.
Neocons relish a good tragedy. In a screed published prior to the 9/11 attacks, a cabal of neocons argued that the US Armed Forces could only be made resurgent through “some catastrophic and catalyzing event – a new Pearl Harbor”. Soon after the 9/11 attack the neocon David Brooks noted how the attack was positive for cultivating “an unconsummated desire for sacrifice and service”. Unsurprisingly, soon after the Westminster attack, the Times took the opportunity to milk the event and direct all narratives towards Islam and Muslims.
Niall Ferguson, a neocon, penned a particularly vitriolic piece, relying on three reports. The opinion piece has also been published in the Boston Globe.
In my previous piece drawing parallels between the PREVENT duty and the Inquisition, I drew attention to Ofsted’s invasive line of questioning, unsettling children, and assessing the beliefs of children in accordance with the State’s contrived civic religion of “British values”.
My sources in Birmingham have brought attention to an Ofsted inspection which yields yet another example of Inquisitional, “radicalisation profiling”-style of questioning echoing the much despised Waltham Forest Council’s BRIT Project fiasco. If we recall, the Council in London had deceptively disseminated psychometric tests into Muslim majority schools which purported to analyse the level of “radicalisation”. The Council was exposed for lying and slammed for its Nazi-style ethnic profiling exercise as “shockingly Orwellian”.
This “shockingly Orwellian” reality has manifested again through Ofsted. My sources state that Inspectors at a Muslim faith school behaved in a similar fashion to the BRIT Project questionnaire and asked questions tailored to the “extremism” agenda, interrogating young children.
Less than two weeks ago I exposed the disturbing similarity between a press release issued by the government about “tackling extremism in universities and colleges” and a report published the bigoted, Zionist hate-funded neoconservative Henry Jackson Society. I noted that the people identified in the unprecedented, repressive blacklist of “extremists” charged with treachery against state-ideology by the government were exactly the same as those found in HJS’s Preventing Prevent report. I had further highlighted that the names noted flimsily as evidence of an apparent connection between “extremism” on campus and political violence were also the same as those highlighted in the HJS report.
This link has also been picked up in a Times Higher Education article, which states in its opening sentence that “[s]ections of a Downing Street statement accused universities of hosting hate preachers are identical to those featured in a report by a controversial thinktank…”
Two major policies have been brought forward by the neoconservative government soon after assuming the mantle of unfettered “statecraft”: legislation to tackle “extremism” (not to be confused with terrorism), and the proposals to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998. Indeed one wonders, given the speed with which the government has acted, why on earth were not these issues debated before the elections? Corporations are in better shape than ever, the homeless remain homeless, the starving remaining starving and the government wishes to make invocation of human rights all the more difficult.
It should be noted, however, that these two policy proposals are interconnected.
It is fast approaching that time of year when people engage in the process of democracy to elect their leader of a party which represents the wishes of the electorate. Of course that is the ideal understanding of democracy, however the reality of this non-existent utopia is dominated by corporations and lobby groups.
The neoconservative perversion has pervaded the upper echelons of most parties, as demonstrated most emphatically through the rapid passing of the Counter Terrorism and Security Act. Hook line and sinker, most sections of all big three parties, including the shapeless Lib Dems voted in its favour without batting an eyelid at the incredibly invasive, thought-policing measures being proposed.
After perniciously battering the Muslim minority with a host of further “extremism” measures, where “extremism” continues to entail normative Islamic beliefs, where the Muslim community continue to be treated like a fifth column and where Shari’ah courts are investigated, Theresa May gifted Muslims the penny Mojo chew, just to “sweeten” the taste of blood in the mouth. Five years of harsh rhetoric targeting the Muslim minority, government interference with religion and thought, harassment and “disruption” is meant to be excused because the anti-Muslim hate crime, born in part because of this public treatment against Muslims, will be categorised as a more serious crime.
No. Way. I was touched. No really, I am speaking the truth (in a neoconservative sort of way).