Secular interference in Private Religious Sphere: Proposals to Regulate Supplementary Education Must be Rejected

maktabkids.png

The pervasion of the counter-extremism apparatus in British society is now unprecedented.  Co-opted professionals across disciplines which normally would be founded upon trust and confidence have been zombified into spying rings for the state as people are purged from the civil sector through the States direction of what constitute unacceptable views. The impact continues to shake up the education sector as children are being subjected to child abuse, Muslim teachers are suspended for their views expressed in the private sphere, and Ofsted continues its political agenda at the expense of the Muslim minority and their faith. Indeed, the shaping of thoughts and political views continues to broaden. A recent report revealed a non-Muslim child was bullied by counter-terror police for planning a protest outside David Cameron’s constituency office.

The agenda ploughs on, however, and the next step in ensuring that there are “no ungoverned spaces” for the authoritarian state, is direct state interference in the religious affairs of faith groups.

Continue reading

Anti-Muslim David Cameron’s Conference Speech and the Forging of Neocon Britain


DavidCameronOneNationWithoutMuslims

“There should be no ungoverned spaces…” – Prevent Strategy

David Cameron’s speech was textbook neoconservativism.  It was characterised by the need to manufacture an enemy for the state to court a form of fear-based nationalism, which enables warring and a resultant neocon-shaped society founded upon principles of fascism and increasing authoritarianism.

A “Greater Britain”, a Neocon Britain

It is certainly interesting to note that a “Greater Britain” for Cameron “begins by making the case for strong defence”.  It echoes neocon hawks William Kristol and Robert Kagan’s “remoralisation of America” which requires a hegemonic foreign policy.  There was much veneration of the global militarism in Cameron’s speech directly tied to the “greatness” of Britain and national identity. For war, an enemy the “nation” can relate to and remain in fear of, is required. In other words, an identity based on the “other” through fear is the Machiavellian recipe for a Straussian “closed society” shorn of individual liberty and freedom.

Continue reading