A far-right terrorist murdered Jo Cox. So when is the Cobra meeting?

ThomasMair

The below article is a good demonstration of the double standards applied to Muslims in contrast with non-Muslims.  I have written on this theme in detail a couple of times previously:

Michael Steven Stanford – A Terrorist? A Product of Western Culture?

Why aren’t Politicians and Mainstream Media Calling the Suspect Killer of Jo Cox a Terrorist?

Does the Orlando Attack have Something to do with Liberalism too Maajid Nawaz?


CROSSPOST: Maria Norris

On Wednesday, Thomas Mair was convicted of the murder of Jo Cox, an act which the Crown Prosecution Service has categorised as terrorism. Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 states that the an act may still be considered an act of terror even if it was not designed to influence the government or the public, as long as a firearm or explosives are involved and the act was politically, ideologically, religiously, or racially motivated. Nair’s murder of Jo Cox falls neatly under this definition. So does the murder of Lee Rigby in 2013.

And yet, the difference in the reaction to these very similar murders is astounding. After Lee Rigby was killed, the media was filled with alarmist headlines about the dangers of Islamic extremism. There was no hesitation to label Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, Rigby’s murderers, as terrorists or the murder as a terrorist attack. After Lee Rigby’s murder, even before Adebolajo and Adebowale’s trial, the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, chaired an emergency Cobra meeting and the government announced a new taskforce to fight Islamic extremism. However, when it came to Mair, there was a sudden concern regarding contempt of court, and even now there is a real hesitancy to actually label him as a terrorist. Has Theresa May chaired a Cobra meeting? Has she announced a taskforce to combat far-right extremism? No.

Continue reading

Advertisements

Why Aren’t Politicians and Mainstream Media Calling the Suspect Killer of Jo Cox a Terrorist?

ThomasMair.png

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.

Continue reading

Apologists for terror or defenders of human rights? The Cage controversy in context

Crosspost: Tom Mills, Narzanin Massoumi, and David Miller

Last week, in a widely trailed speech, the Prime Minister laid out the government’s counter-terrorism strategy for the next five years. It is necessary, Cameron explained, to challenge the idea that political violence is rooted in ‘historic injustices and recent wars, or… poverty and hardship’.  Terrorism, he said, is caused by ‘extremist ideology’, which his government is determined to confront.

There was little new in Cameron’s speech, which simply affirmed in strong terms the authoritarian drift of counter-terrorism policy. Influenced by the security apparatus and its supporters in Parliament, and by neoconservative think tanks, such as the Henry Jackson Society, and (partly) state funded propaganda outfits like Quilliam, policy makers have become increasingly preoccupied with ‘non-violent extremism’ rather than political violence. Officially this is portrayed as a political campaign against ‘intolerance’. Thus Cameron claims that his government will be facing down ‘terrorism’ and ‘extremism’ by asserting ‘basic liberal values such as democracy, freedom and sexual equality’.

‘For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society’

On the face of it this seems agreeable enough. But the actual policy is another matter. As was pointed out in a recent letter to which we were signatories, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 will ‘mean that individuals working within statutory organisations must report individuals suspected of being “potential terrorists” to external bodies for “de-radicalisation”‘. In effect, the government has drawn the entire public sector into its controversial counter-extremist agenda, meaning that public servants once responsible for the welfare of citizens – including children – must now monitor their behaviour, appearance and political views, feeding into the most unaccountable and repressive elements of the state. Since 2014, 400 children, even as young as three-years-old, have been referred to the government’s ‘Channel’ programme for ‘de-radicalisation’. The true political implications of the policy, which has now passed into law, were made clear in May when Cameron told the first meeting of the National Security Council: ‘For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens ‘as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone”.’  So much for liberalism.

Continue reading

The CAGE/Emwazi Emails: Managing Perceptions of a Counter-Terror Policy in Crisis

asimcage

Through the 90s, Gary Webb, an award winning journalist, experienced the wrath of the CIA through the corporate media for exposing CIA’s link with the Contras in Nicaragua and the cocaine epidemic in the US. There was a suggestion that the black communities were being targeted with these drugs. An internal CIA document authored by Nicholas Dujmovic, an employee of the CIA Directorate of Intelligence at the time of publication, noted the “already productive relations with journalists,” which allowed the CIA’s reputation to be left intact thanks to distractions by major newspapers. Webb’s career was destroyed and some years later, was ruled to have committed suicide with two bullets to his head. Much of his core findings however, were found to be accurate. As the Intercept spread articulates, the corporate media spent,

“ …far more time trying to poke holes in the series than in following up on the underreported scandal at its heart, the involvement of U.S.-backed proxy forces in international drug trafficking.”

More interestingly, Dujmovic wrote that the papers had deflected the core allegations, using stories which cited, “[r]espected columnists, including prominent blacks.” In other words, people “representing” the black communities, which were enraged by the allegations, had been abused to successfully shift opinion.

Continue reading

Mohammed Emwazi: Are Security Service Actions threatening the Security of Britain?

ss

For some reason there is a perception in Britain and indeed, in the Western world that security services are a squeaky clean in their approach to protecting the citizens of this country. This, despite the fact that they have been exposed in violating the very principles, which are lauded for keeping the “civilised world”, civilised.  In the damning judgment of Binyam Mohamed in 2010, it was found that the Mi5 did not respect human rights, nor renounced torture, misled MPs and operated in a “culture of suppression” in dealing with the court.

As the papers did what they do best – control+c and control+v reports, it seemed as though the corporate media suddenly had an epiphany: we are copying some real journalism here, this needs to be spun asap!

Reading the recent reports demonstrates evidence of media spin once again, where the (government) spin-doctors are in full-swing to skew the story of “Jihadi John”, or Mohammed Emwazi. The focus of the media rapidly shifted to the conveniently government-narrative-compliant “ideology” as a causal factor. The Daily Fail began its campaign against CAGE and Asim Qureshi who were cited in the original Washington Post article, after perhaps realising the implications of the initial report.  CAGE became smeared across the papers for suggesting that a person as violent as Mohammed Emwazi could actually have been a normal human being. Media outlets usually pointing the finger at mental disorders in “white terrorism”, began pointing the finger at CAGE for attempting to “contextualise” the man’s actions, forgetting that the government has been imposing its own academically-wanting contextualisation of belligerent actions on the Muslims community for decades. The academically-wanting conveyor-belt theory to terrorism has been the go-to theory for the government, counter-extremism “experts” from the Quilliam Foundation and the bigoted Henry Jackson Society.

Continue reading

Criminalising Ideas: The Government Gag through PREVENT Strategy Widens

PREVENTShapingIdeas

Throughout my blogs I have highlighted how the PREVENT strategy has effectively created an Orwellian-style Stasi state.  Yes, most of us live our lives freely. Yes, we can go out happily and shop till we drop. And yes, there is no marshal law with tanks rolling down our streets.  But start asking the wrong questions, questioning establishment narratives, or airing views which contradict the neocon public policy then the sheen of liberty and freedom quickly wears off to reveal a state which increasingly seeks to govern our ideas, creates mistrust and spreads fear – crucial tools to oppress a people.

Governance of “ideas” is the most crucial aspect of neoconservative thinking.  For Irving Kristol, the “godfather” of neoconservativism, ideas are important “social facts” because they define “the way reality is perceived”. “What rules the world”, he wrote, “is ideas.”[1] And whoever governs the ideas, controls the public perception of reality.

Thus, inevitably, the control of ideas becomes imperative in the pursuit of an abstract, neocon-defined “greater good”; a pursuit which eschews individual liberty.  In Britain, we have the imposition of “British values” (Michael Gove a neoconservative, pushed this concept through into education on the basis of “ideas” which essentially support the State – I will be elaborating on this in detail in a later article), an arbitrary criteria, to which a non-subscription would be tantamount to being an extremist worthy of having rights restricted. Of course this strategy, created in a soup of which the key ingredients of fear, distrust and spin, primarily targets the Muslim minority.

Continue reading

It isn’t Facebook that feeds terror. It’s war and tyranny

Photograph: Ho/REUTERS

Crosspost: By Seumas Milnes

It takes some mastery of spin to turn the litany of intelligence failures over last year’s butchery of the off-duty soldier Lee Rigby into a campaign against Facebook. But that’s exactly how David Cameron’s government and a pliant media have disposed of the report by Westminster’s committee of intelligence trusties.

You might have expected Whitehall’s security machine to be in the frame for its spectacular incompetence in spying on the two killers: from filling out surveillance applications wrongly and losing one suspect’s house number, to closing down the surveillance of another – just as the pair were preparing the Woolwich attack.

Centre stage might have been the admission that British intelligence could have been “complicit” in Michael Adebolajo’s torture in Kenya, and tried to cover that up. There is evidence that MI5’s attempts to recruit the Muslim convert on his return to Britain played a part in triggering the killing – though the trusties thought better than to inquire too closely into the matter.

Continue reading