Part 1 (Introduction): A Review of the Casey review (1)
Part 2: A Review of the Louise Casey Review (2) – A Paper Influenced by the Transatlantic Neocon Hate-network
Having established the influence of the transatlantic neocon hate network in the Casey Review, and in order to better appreciate the content of the report, it is worth better understanding the neoconservative narrative which underpins the Casey Review.
The Far-Right/Neocon Eurabia Conspiracy Theory
The reduction of the “white population”, Muslim population growth, and Muslims living together in areas, are sinisterised constituents of a particular narrative which states there is an existential Muslim “takeover” threat to Europe aided by a secretive deal between Arabs and Europeans. This narrative was first promulgated by conspiracy theorist Gisèle Littman, better known by her pen-name Bat Ye’or. The myth has been heavily criticised as a conspiracy theory and debunked by prominent scholars including Professor Arun Kundnani, who has likened its evidentiary credentials to the Protocols of Elders of Zion.
The conspiracy theory, however, has been adopted by neoconservatives and the far-right, including prominent actors of the Islamophobia industry Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes and Pamela Geller. It has been advocated by supremacist neoconservatives, fanned by the far-right “counter-jihad” movement, and adopted by paranoid, mass-murdering neo-Nazi terrorists. For full details of this myth and its promoters see here.
It goes without saying that I have been experiencing some manifestation of anti-Muslim hatred on a weekly basis for some years now. I often return it with a smile, or a peace sign, or, in the rare case where I am not in a particularly good mood, a retort like “how many GCSE’s did you pass again?” By the Grace of Allah, I have yet to experience a violent version of this simmering hatred.
Recently, witnessing comments made by two ladies against two women donned in niqabs brought to sharp attention the internationalisation of the alienation of Islam and Muslims. Seeing the veiled women who were tending to their little ones, the faces of two passing ladies crumpled into a frown and the skin colour took on a bruising red as they, clutching their prams, uttered the now ubiquitous slogan heard by Muslims of all stripes: “you do not belong in this country”, before scurrying off into a tram. They had German accents.
“New York white youth were killing victims; that was a ‘sociological’ problem. But when black youth killed somebody, the power structure was looking to hang somebody.”
~ Malcolm X
A white man, Dylann Roof, aged 21, on the 17th of June at 9.00pm rampaged into a historic African-American Church in Charleston, South Carolina and committed a terrorist attack, shooting dead nine congregants and leaving a woman behind to “tell his story”.
This does seem like a case of rinse and repeat on my part when it comes to writing about such horrific incidents. When one witnessed the reporting of the killing of three Muslims by a white atheist at Chapel Hill, and compares them to say, the Charlie Hebdo shooting, or the attempted shooting of UK-banned hate preacher Pamella Geller more recently, there is a consistent disparity in the categorisation and language of the assailants. This disparity trend is an entrenched one in Western State structures and the complicit media.
There are determinate conclusions which can be derived from the above. The first is that when a Muslim commits a violent attack, the word “terrorism” is almost invariably used somewhere in the context of the reporting. When a white, non-Muslim individual engages in a similar act, with ideological motivations, the crime is rapidly disseminated in a depoliticised construction. Most papers reported the shooting as a “hate crime” devoid of ideological motivations. Mayor Riley called it a “horrible act”, and Police Chief Mullen pronounced it a “hate crime” from the outset. A large spectrum of the media engaged in the same. The following papers in the UK, at the time of writing, had not a single reference to the terms “terrorism”, “terrorist”, or “radical” in them:
For much of the Muslim minority and from the perceptions garnered from my contacts working in the third sector, the impartiality of the Charity Commission and specifically the head, William Shawcross, is, to put it mildly, a running joke. A recent find by the journalist, Ben White, (posted on Facebook) has further added fuel to the pro-Israel, anti-Muslim fire.
William Shawcross the current chair of the Charity Commission and Peter Clarke, the individual who headed the investigations into Trojan Hoax allegations at Birmingham schools at the behest of Michael Gove, have been invited to a conference held in the Zionist entity. The Commission has confirmed that Shawcross has “politely declined” the invite, however this is unsurprising given the fact that he has had to come out and publically state he is not targeting Muslim charities and now needs to respond to a legal action which alleges that his Commission has exceeded its powers. The fact that he has made the itinerary of the conference does indicate that he may have initially accepted the invitation. Regardless, the fact that the conference organisers sought him fit to speak on a provocative topic speaks volumes about Shawcross and his neocon companion Clarke.
Crosspost: Nafeez Ahmed
Behind the facade of concern about terrorism is a network of extremist neoconservative ideologues, hell-bent on promoting discrimination and violence against Muslims and political activists who criticise Israeli and Western government policies
As the “Islamic State” (IS) has racked up the body count in its brutal atrocities against Western hostages and local civilians, “terror experts” have been in high demand.
One of them, Douglas Murray, calls himself an “expert on Islamist extremism and UK foreign policy”.
An associate director of the Henry Jackson Society, a right-wing think tank in London, Murray recently dismissed the idea that British security services could have had any role in the radicalisation of IS front man Mohammad Emwazi, aka “Jihadi John”.
To be sure, the presumption that Emwazi was only radicalised due to the harassment of British security services is absurd. The role of perceived grievances, identity crises, and of course extremist Islamist networks in Britain must also be recognised. But as former shadow Home Secretary David Davis noted, the security services’ failure to stop Emwazi despite surveillance is part of a wider pattern of “ineffective” tactics where the intelligence agencies leave “known terrorists both to carry out evil deeds and to recruit more conspirators”.
In all honesty, up until recently she was an unknown obscure who did not have much relevance in my life. However, Anne Marie Waters caught my bored eyes as she nestled between Quilliamite Usama Hasan and Zionist hate preacher Sam Westrop, in a discussion program which discussed the neocon deflective postulation that “Islamism” poses the greatest to the world. But where some neocons obscure their hate for Islam behind linguistic gymnastics of “Islamism”, Waters boldly declared Islam itself to be the problem,
“the idea that Islamism can be completely separated from Islam I think is problematic to say the least.”
Later in the same discussion she trivialises Islamophobia as “a phrase used to shut down any criticism of anything to do with Islam”. Perhaps she should trivialise Islamophobia and its realities directly addressing the many women who are attacked by white, non-Muslim and – like Waters – right-wing for being Muslims because of the hate directed at Islam and Muslims thanks to extremist ideologues like herself. And make no mistake, Anne Marie Waters hate for Islam as a religion is unfettered and focussed.
Maryam Namazie’s view of Islam is not dissimilar to Waters’. Thus both were suited for each other at the organisation “One Law for All” (OLFA), a front organisation for the anti-Islam Worker-Communist Party of Iran.
During her time at OLFA she made shockingly anti-Muslim remarks, loaded with prejudiced, reductionist assumptions. In one particular lecture she claims “criminal cases” occur in the context of “Taliban-esque” Sharia courts, which is patently false (See here from 10:50). In the same diatribe of a lecture Waters, in supporting the French ban on the niqab cites an unverifiable conversation with a French parliamentarian who stated that because of the French ban many women were now happy that they didn’t have to wear the hijab. In responding to the contention “what about women who do want to wear it, she replies
“why do you care about the women who want to wear it than the women who don’t want to wear it?”
Click on the image to enlarge
With the rise of the far-right/Christianist extremists in the UK which is spreading throughout Europe, and the rhetoric of groups the EDL and Britain First becoming ever-more violent, it is important to understand the sources of such extremism and the pathway to neocon-inspired terrorism. Importing American neoconservative to Britain, neoconservative writers like Douglas Murray, Michael Gove, William Shawcross, Melanie Phillips and Andrew Gilligan, through their ideologically-driven narratives, have supported and shared their insidious and bigoted narratives with the likes of Robert Spencer and Pamella Geller.
Extremists like Spencer and Geller have gone onto inspire terrorists like Anders Breivik.
The above infogram gives a summary of the conveyor belt to right-wing/Christianist Terrorism, supported and inspired by neoconservatism. Perhaps the government can use it to create a dedicated “PREVENT” programme to counter explicitly far-right “Christianist” extremism and formulate a “Channel” deradicalisation programme for individuals who support a neocon-inspired narrative. A women’s network to target white mothers of potential radical far-right extremists can be established to spot “signs of radicalisation”, whilst school teachers can be trained to identify conservative Christian values which may not sit with “British values”. A list of neocons/far-right Christianist extremists who espouse illiberal, bigoted views can be placed on an “extremist list” and a taskforce set up to identify hate-preachers like Douglas Murray, Michael Gove, William Shawcross and Britain First’s Paul Golding. They can be subjected to a Terror and Extremist Behaviour Order, allowing civil authorities to take action against people seeking to spread their neocon/far-right/Christianist message of hate, in a similar way to existing Anti-Social Behaviour Orders.