Extremism Bill: The Ongoing Extremes of David Cameron

DavidCamerondystopianFuture

CROSSPOST: CAGE

The Cameron government has suffered a number of set-backs and U-turns in the past year in terms of policy. In most of these cases, the policies have been challenged by the public due to their adverse impact. What fiascos like the junior doctors pay have demonstrated is that a well-informed public, which has not pandered to the government’s fear mongering, or smoke-and-mirrors tactics, is one of the best checks on state excesses.

A further frontier is to be established with the Queen’s Speech setting out the Counter-Extremism Bill. With this area too, the public must stand up and see through the “terrorism” façade which is being used to justify spurious, draconian legislation.

Continue reading

Advertisements

“Rushing” Through Laws, “Asian Groomers” and the Erosion of Civil Liberties

cctv cameras

As we approach the end of the first year of the Tory regime ruling Britain, the damage wrought in terms of laws and policies passed and proposed has been extensive. Through deflections of “Islamism” and smokescreens of exaggerated terror threats, the casualties in this effort to form a “closed society” have been the civil liberties of all.

Briefly, neoconservatives prefer fascism-based despotism as a form of rule.  Moreover, it emphasises duties as opposed to rights, the latter of which hinder the exercise of the power accumulated amongst the elite neocon statesmen.  Understanding neoconservativism is imperative to make sense of the disparate events which have been taking place for years and which continue to do so under the cloak of fear.

Rushing through Legislation

The way in which the latest iteration of the unjust counter-terror legislation – the Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (CTS) – was rushed on to the statute books was telling.  It received royal assent without legislative scrutiny or public consultation.

Continue reading

Asian sex abusers to be stripped of UK citizenship. White ones to be knighted

I have written on the issue of race and paedophilia in the past. The points raised in that article are still relevant to the present regurgitation of the same discourse, as touched upon in the below crosspost. My article can be found here:

Rotherham, Race and White Paedophilia


Crosspost: Charles B. Anthony

The Independent revealed today that British Home Secretary Teresa May will be extending terrorism legislation to tackle “Asian sex abuse gangs”. The news comes a day after the Savile report, which looked into a culture of self-serving denial at the BBC allowing powerful white figures to abuse the young and vulnerable. Such irony should not be lost on anyone.

If sex abuse is specific to any one group of people, it’s men, of all colours and religions. Sex abuse is a worldwide problem rooted firmly in a global power structure that privileges men over women. it is not exclusive to Rochdale or Rotherham, refugees or mosques, but can be found all over Britain from suburban homes to “respectable” institutions. To view it as ethnically or religiously particular is not only racially and politically self-serving but highly dangerous; as it prioritises one set of predators, it renders another invisible.

Continue reading

As a Doctor, I Refuse to Spy on my Patients

preventStrategyStasiNHS

Crosspost: CAGE

I have been working as a doctor in the NHS for the last ten years. For the most part, my friends in healthcare know that I have been (and continue to be) a significant advocate for what is known as Quality Improvement in Healthcare.

There is a science behind Quality Improvement, a whole thought process which takes the practitioner from identifying a problem to developing what is hopefully a sustainable solution. Following a structured process is vital, otherwise you run the risk of developing a solution which is entirely unsuitable for the problem that you identified at the beginning.

Ill-thought out interventions lack sustainability, credibility and nearly always cause more problems than they are designed to fix.

Continue reading

How Unfolding Westminster Scandal Links to Henry Jackson Society’s Alan Mendoza and Raheem Kassam

HJSmendozakassamblaneyelliotjohnson

In my previous set of blogs (here and here), we saw how those groups connected to “foreign influences” – the sophisticated pro-Israel lobby and neoconservative “think-tanks” – have bullied through unethical policies and laws which have deteriorated civil liberties.  Characteristic amongst these lobby groups which have unquestioned loyalties to a foreign belligerent state is the use of threat and intimidation; not toeing the pro-Israel line means no “donations”, as accurately demonstrated by Ed Miliband’s condemnation of the 2014 Gaza massacre. And no donations means a lesser likelihood of attaining power. It is similar to how these behavioural traits manifest in other areas of politics. In place of diplomacy, neocon like to utilise “Hard Wilsonianism” urging the benevolent bombing of “peace” and “freedom” into the hearts of (mainly) Muslim communities throughout the Middle East in concert with Zionist strategic interests. At home, bullying has been used effectively against those who politically dissent against government policies by being hounded by a press using strategies devised by neocons. There is also, of course, using the law to force compliance to state ideology and policies through PREVENT. In the words of Machiavelli, approvingly quoted by the “godfather of neoconservatism” Irving Kristol:

“for neither conscious nor shame ought to have any influence upon you… those who obtain great power do so either by force or fraud, and having got them they conceal under some honest name the foulness of their deeds”.[1]

There is a darker side to this bullying and intimidation. Wrongdoing over the years, like donation scandals and buying or selling influence, which would result in a cacophony of press coverage accompanied by vigorous laws and regulation if the perpetrators were Muslim, barely attracts a slap on the wrist where individuals involved have been linked to pro-Israel lobby groups.

Continue reading

Will Discriminatory David Cameron Deal with Jewish “Extremism” and Glorification of Terrorism?

orthodoxJewishCameron.png

In my previous article, I stated that I would focus on the discriminatory aspect of David Cameron’s statements made in his New Year’s messages around terrorism, its politically expedient focus on ideology (extremism), and the “conditions” which foster extremism, namely orthodox Islamic beliefs and practices.

Through the smokescreen of “Islamist extremism”, “integration”, and “isolated communities”, we have been witness to relentless, structural (state-level) culturalist attacks on Islamic beliefs/practices – from sex separation, Shari’ah arbitration and the Islamic conception of roles of men and women, to loyalty to other Muslims through the concept of the Ummah and Caliphate. All of this and more is used to concoct the Machiavellian “fifth column” menace.

There is one particular neoconservative blind spot which is absent not only from Cameron’s speeches, but also the underpinning policy which has been carefully carved by his neocon guides at the Henry Jackson Society and Quilliam Foundation: the counter-extremism strategy. It is the omission of a particular group which not only accentuates the discriminatory aspect of Cameron’s regressive rhetoric, but points to a contributory political hand being played in the carving up the Muslim minority, its beliefs, and practices.

Continue reading

A Critical Overview of the Counter-Extremism Strategy

counter-extremism or counter liberties

“We will be absolutely clear about the people and groups we will not deal with because we find their views and behaviour to be so inconsistent with our own.”

~ Counter-Extremism Strategy document

Following on from my previous blog, I take brief look at the Counter-Extremism Strategy which has been published to much neocon fanfare and celebration.  Most of the measures have been either already implemented unofficially, or announced as upcoming proposals. I have covered these parts in detail in the following blogs:

In short, it’s the usual inevitable neoconservative mix of Machiavellian fear (“dangerous”, “poisonous”, “harmful”, “threat”, “extremists”, “Islamists”!), double speak (protect freedoms by curtailing them/“targeted powers” which are “flexible”/claiming “not about Islam” but advancing only “liberal” Islam), and irrationality (the Strategy is based on the PM’s assertions rather than empirical evidence, whilst conflating crime into the extremism discourse), not to mention implicit association with negative cultural practices with Islam and Muslims (or the phantom menace that are the “Islamists”), adding to the stigmatisation of the Muslim minority.

Any additional points? There are few which twiddled my whiskers as they say. Below is my elucidation of those points.

Continue reading