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”.
Attacks because of one’s faith or race, or any other identifying feature is unacceptable. It is dehumanising, and very often for the victim, traumatising. The perpetrators too, can be victims; victims of their own ignorance which is exasperated by stereotypes reinforced in the media and government officials. Instead of fighting stereotypes, and challenging xenophobia, our government has institutionalised xenophobia, a necessary ingredient for hate-crimes and manufacturing consent for draconian policies.
As such I was happy to see Theresa May and other neocons mourning the increases in attacks against the Jewish community, even though the claims which prompted Theresa May’s reassurance were from a study which the Institute of Jewish Policy Research slammed as “littered with flaws”, with the conclusions being “dubious”, “irresponsible” and “incendiary”. Nevertheless, it was befuddling to see the comparative silence on the rise of attacks against the Muslim community, not just in the UK, but across Europe. Instead, the rhetoric around the Muslims continued to assign blame to the Muslim community, calling on them to “do more”, and therefore reinforcing the far-right narrative that the Muslim minority is inherently to blame for every and any attack perpetrated anywhere in the world. It abhorrently played Muslims off the Jewish community, in a similar fashion to the political opportunism displayed in David Cameron’s Chanuka speech.
Key senior figures are clearly not interested anti-Muslim hate crime. Tell MAMA, headed by the opportunistic Fiyaz Mughal, was set up as a government initiative. Once the Foreign Office had published its 2013 report on Human Rights and lionised the fact that the Muslim minority had a comforting arm of the government cuddling the Muslim minority, Tell MAMA’s funding was promptly pulled.
The notoriously anti-Muslim, pro-Zionist Henry Jackson Society headed by the virulently bigoted Douglas Murray has hit a spot of bother. The Guardian reports that campaign organisation Spinwatch lodged a complaint about the organisation’s compliance with all-party parliamentary regulations which requires transparency with regards to donors. As it refused to provide the details the agreement for HJS to represent two all-party parliamentary groups, homeland and international security (and you wonder why government officials only ever talk about “Islamist-extremism”), has been terminated.
Why would HJS hide their donors? After all, they are working on policies which are affecting the British public. Of course, they don’t want the public to have too much knowledge of who is really pulling the strings on the discourse around Islam and Muslims because it would reveal their links to overt politics of hate. There are a couple of points I would like to add however, in addition to the revealing Guardian report.
Nina Rosenwald and the Anti-Muslim Industry
The report makes an interesting link between HJS and Nina Rosenwald,
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.
The Real Trojan Horses
Much has been written on this Hoax hype which was triggered by a fabricated document and blustered by neocon media outlets and politicians such as Michael Gove and Theresa May. Some have highlighted that the term “Trojan Horse” is a Chapter heading in Gove’s anti-Muslim diatribe, Celsius 7/7 which has been comprehensively exposed by writers such as Darymple as essentially a useless book. However the usage amongst xenophobes, Islam and Muslim-haters amongst the right-wing and neocon extremist is more common than first thought.
Douglas Murray, the notorious neocon, has been a key influence in the discourse regarding Muslims today and his desire to make the lives of Muslims difficult is coming to fruition, as can be seen from the treatment of the Muslim minority at the cold-blooded hands of the government and media. From the false Eurabia hypothesis to blatant racism Douglas Murray is an anti-Muslim, Islam-hating racist neocon.
Douglas Murray in his book Neoconservatism: Why we need it was first published in 2006. In one section, lamenting the fact that Americans were focussed on anti-Muslim violence he states,
“The Whitehouse and all government departments remain intent on demonstrating how pro-Muslim they can be, celebrating Muslim religious festivals and arranging constant photo-opportunities with Muslim “leaders.” These are the early signs of societal suicide… In the face of this the government has been unwilling – because scared – to recognize that its immigration and multiculturalism policies have to an extent allowed this threat within American society. The moves to counter it must be harsh, and mosques and centers that have been preaching hatred must be closed down entirely. Treating the Islamist threat seriously means being wary of allowing the Trojan horse into our midst. At the very least it means ensuring that the Trojan horse is not built from our own materials of tolerance and fairness.” P.178
Regarding Muslim schools he writes,
The attitude towards Muslim schools should be exceptional… if any Muslim academies are allowed to exist, they should be funded entirely privately, with no taxpayer assistance and should be subject to uniquely strict regulation and inspection. If such conditions are considered unbearable, then Muslims will have to try their luck in other countries… America must start implementing its response… For we have allowed the Straussian-nightmare endpoint of relativism to arrive, in which intolerance towards our society is treated as a value “equal in dignity” to intolerance… we must not allow tolerance to prove the Achilles heel of freedom. To defend our tolerance we must be intolerant to those who oppose us. pp. 177-178