The neocon government wants the Muslim to be resilient from “extremism”. Over the years, despite the Muslim apologia, pronouncements of condemnations, Stasi-esque policies, government associations with anti-Islam organisations, rampant anti-Muslim hatred from the media to the intellectually challenged supremacist thug on the street, and judicial rulings relegating Muslims to second-class citizenry, Muslims have certainly developed a resilience. A resilience to neoconservatives and their blustering anti-Muslim doublespeak and a firm resilience to the designs of neoconservative extremism.
The script for the neocons is like clockwork. Governmentally pressure Muslims throughout the year, consorting with the media to demonise Muslims treating them as suspect communities. Use arms of the state to effectuate this goal by using ambiguous words like “extremist” which are only ever to be applied to Muslims and not Christians and Jews. Feed the Eurabia myth pedalled by the far-right and neocons that Muslims are “taking over Europe”, with unfounded Trojan Hoax plots and (discriminatory) Shari’ah courts fear mongering (and let’s not forget the dreaded halal meat!). Announce draconian security measures which discriminatorily target and profile the Muslim minority. If these measures face opposition, then await an atrocity to heavily spin and exploit. Make announcements that the Muslim community needs to “do more” to tackle radicalisation, ignore belligerent foreign policy and police-state actions and push through more measures, all the while profiling Muslims and eroding civil liberties for all.
This cyclical minority battering is really getting old.
Crosspost: Professor Arun Kundnani
From 1 July, a broad range of public bodies – from nursery schools to optometrists – will be legally obliged to participate in the government’s Prevent policy to identify would-be extremists. Under the fast-tracked Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, schools, universities and health service providers can no longer opt out of monitoring students and patients for supposed radicalised behaviour. Never in peacetime Britain has national security surveillance been so deeply embedded in the normal functioning of public life.
Even as those measures come into effect, the government is drafting another round of counter-terrorist legislation, reviving a set of still more authoritarian proposals first floated last year.
A religious group in Britain has decreed that, “no child will be allowed to learn in our school” if their mother drives because women driving “goes against the laws of modesty within our society”
The Community has been robust in its responses, defending the practice:
“We are proud of what we stand for and we do not feel the need to excuse ourselves for our deeply held beliefs and staunchly maintained way of life. It has withstood the test of time and is not prone to the vagaries of passing fads… It is a fact that most women in our community do not drive cars. It is equally true that a fair number of women do drive cars openly and entirely unhindered…”
The anti-Muslim haters and hate-groups would have jumped on this story like a dog on a bone: Those darn extremist Islamical Islamists, they wanna take ova R country! Those extremists are oppressing their women! They want a dual legal system for their extremism! Reform! Extremists! Extremists! Extremists!
Crosspost By: Jahangir Mohammed
Just before the General Election, we had the Counter Terrorism and Security Act – a whole raft of new laws targeting Muslims. This included mass surveillance of the Muslim community through a Prevent duty imposed on most public servants. Public sector workers are now to be turned into ideological crusaders against Muslims, helping to identify the enemy within, those with bad ideas and values.
As a young lecturer, I used to teach the development of British social policy. This policy will destroy the very essence of the British tradition of public services, which took great social and political reformers over a century to nurture. These services were meant to be for all those who need them, free from political and value judgements.
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.
Sarah Hewitt-Clarkson, since writing the previous blog, has additionally contributed her cries to another Guardian article. The report, ridiculously biased in its tone, continues to give the anti-Muslim head teacher space to air her unsubstantiated claims, without presenting too much of stern test of verification.
A Distraction from the Contentions Against Sarah Hewitt-Clarkson
Let me make this clear: most of the article is a deflection of the legitimate contentions I have raised against Hewitt-Clarkson’s bombastic claims. Nevertheless, I will entertain this distraction because the Trojan Hoax allegations are still being used to give credence to the totalitarian “extremism” policy announced yesterday. Theresa May, an extremist by her own definition, cited it an interview with the Beeb in which she failed to provide examples of the now widely criticised “extremism” policy would be applied. The Trojan Hoax farce was a pretext for these ridiculous measures; journalists and blustering, opportunistic teachers would do well to take note.
The Guardian article summons the powers of spin to discredit not only me (in the words of the neocon Michael Gove’s lackey Peter Clarke, “Islamist blogosphere” – what?! Now I’m an Islamist?!), but the cross-party Education Select Committee inquiry into the Trojan Hoax allegations, which found no “extremism”, bar one incident. I have clarified this one incident, but hey, why would the Guardian or any other paper regurgitating Clarke’s diatribe give a damn about the nuances when it comes to smearing Muslims. The Peter Clarke being quoted knew exactly what this one incident was; that it was allegedly PREVENT material being copied at the behest of PREVENT officers, yet he still sought to only note that the existence of an “Al-Qaeda video” at the school was “disputed” by Park View Trust.
I have written some articles focussed on the Conservative party and what it would mean to have a Tory government for Muslims and the broader UK populace (see here and here, for instance). Indeed it would be a severe blow to whole country at every level.
In the Muslim context, the Conservative party’s counter-extremism measures are grossly invasive with a disproportionate focus on Muslims, tearing up of the Magna Carta and the rule of law in the process. David Cameron doesn’t seem too keen in courting the “Muslim vote” anyway. With campaign plan drafted by Lynton Crosby, which includes a failed attempt at pandering to the UKIP voters, I would not expect anything less. Perhaps what seals the strategy of the Tories toward Muslims (not that Muslims, I am sure, would give a curse), is how the “abrasive” Crosby reportedly referred to this minority while campaigning for Boris Johnson. He apparently used “f*****g Muslims” when he was arguing it would be pointless to hold a particular event to win support in an area dominated by ethnic minority voters. Quite.
In a recent interview with Muslim News, despite Cameron’s claims that Muslims should not be viewed through the prism of security, quite evidently, over the last year, this is precisely what has happened. He defended PREVENT, defended the war-like incursion into Birmingham schools, brushed aside the demonisation of Muslims during the Trojan Hoax, cited Peter Clarke’s report and ignored the Education Select Committee’s findings that there was no “extremism” in Birmingham schools, pointed to Sajid Javid being a “Muslim” in cabinet as progress, despite the fact that Javid himself has said he is not a Muslim, and presented a sweety for the Muslims in the guise of recorded Islamophobic crimes, all the while doing everything politically over the past years to exasperate them.
Since I last touched on the topic of child abuse, there have been many further reports on this despicable, sickening crime. From doctors to priests, and more (to which I will come to later), all have been notably white, and non-Muslim, yet the press and the media gurus have not sought it fit to feed hatred, xenophobia and racism by highlighting these attributes and insinuating an intrinsic link between race/religion and the crime in such cases. Identity politics is a fantastic way to beat down minorities, not so much when it starts affecting the establishment.
And indeed the establishment connection to paedophilia has become a scandal.
Signs of a Paedophilic MP?
There have been a couple of reports which demonstrate differing methods of dealing with child abuse. On the one hand there are calls being made for children to be taught how to avoid child abuse. The other involves the police looking for “signs of paedophilia”. Durham police force have put 400 officers through the Intervene to Protect a Child (IPC) programme developed in the US. The signs include certain tattoos, clothes and even books.
The question is, how will children protect themselves from those who hold a public office yet actively cover-up such crimes in government? And what signs will be exhibited by the suited and booted who are part of the ever-suppressed, deflected and down-played Westminster paedophile ring?
Crosspost: Ian Dunt
You couldn’t ask for a clearer tip-off. The Tories will launch a harsh new crackdown against citizen’s rights, non-violent free speech and privacy after the election.
You didn’t even need to read the small print of their manifesto. As long as you knew how to interpret the words, it was put front and centre of the prime minister’s proposals for the next five years.
In the opening moments of his speech launching his party’s manifesto, David Cameron said:
“Other parties might be wary of causing offence, or of being criticised by those who see every single measure as an affront to their civil liberties. I know the threats. I have to make the judgement calls needed to tackle them. And I know this above all: our generation must fight the threat of Islamist extremism with the same resolve and tenacity as any threat Britain has faced before. Because this is the Conservative party – and we will never take risks with our nation’s security.”
Cameron couldn’t be clearer. He doesn’t care about those who “take offence” about civil liberties. The use of the word offence is completely inappropriate in this context and serves to delegitimise those who believe in the rights of the citizen. This inappropriateness is actually useful because it gives a clear indication of Cameron’s sympathies.
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).