http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/countering-extremism/
1) The most effective protectors against extremism are a commitment to the values of a free society and the spirit of 'live and let live' that are hallmarks of British society. Conversely, any lack of confidence in, or undermining of, these values will weaken that protection.
2) Those individuals and
families who leave this country to go to Syria/Iraq to fight or who
plan/undertake acts of terror in this country have made a conscious decision to
cross the line taking them not only physically out of Britain but also to cut
ties with family, friends and colleagues which normally bind people together in
community. The influences on this break are therefore central to understanding
'Islamist' extremism.
It is evident from
'martyrdom videos'[1] and statements like that of
the Luton Mannan family[2]
that a) they identify only with fellow Muslims' suffering b) often make
reference to Islam's great and glorious past (compared to its perceived
degenerated state now), c) make reference to the West's corruption, and
sometimes to the need for liberation from man-made laws. While a number of
terrorists have been linked in some way to al
Muhajiroun, there are numerous internet sites and chatrooms which promote
grievances and victimhood, or discus how far a believer can or cannot integrate
into Western society.[3]
Nearly all of the terrorists who have left testimony can be said to
ascribe to the Myth of Unique Muslim
Victimhood-i.e. that only Muslims are victims and only Muslims can be
victims. The truth is that around the world Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus
and atheists etc are victims of horrible persecution and that people from all
of these backgrounds can be perpetrators. This understanding, empathy with
victims universally and that one's own co-religionists can be guilty, is
entirely missing in violent extremists' expressed world view. Crucially, these
themes also encompass the beliefs and actions of 'hate preachers' and of the
organised theocratic parties such as Hizb
ut Tahrir, the Muslim Brotherhood,
Jiamat i Islami and their various
'front organisations.'
3) Grievances regarding the clear suffering of Muslims' around the world
are woven into a meme that there is a conspiracy against Islam. But in this
country the main target outside of the Iraq issue, of more force given the
passing of time since the invasion, and its perennial importance is Israel and
the Palestinians. This is especially significant given the cross-party support
for a two state solution, but also the identification of Palestine by the Stop the War Coalition, many left-wing
groups and by organisations such as the NUS as a cause in which to take
sides-rather than as a nuanced issue which requires some perspective and
distancing from impassioned involvement.
It is necessary to offer context
and perspective on the Palestine situation. For example, the actions of Amin al
Husseini in organising terrorist attacks on Jews even before the Holocaust
(which he aided by propaganda, using his influence to block Jewish refugees'
leaving Axis-controlled territory and the raising of SS troops in the Balkans)
or of the establishment of the state of Israel. Moreover, it is a little
remembered fact that the Mufti also had many of his political opponents
assassinated-including those who wished to live side by side with Jews in peace.
A particularly significant event, which has resonance today both in Jerusalem
and this country, is his action of sending agents with faked photos of the al
Aqsa mosque burning which provoked the 1929 Hebron massacre and has poisoned
Jewish/Palestinian relations to this day. The cry of 'al Aqsa in danger' not only leads to
violence in Jerusalem but the Friends of
Al Aqsa in this
country, fronted by Ismail Patel, promotes the same
theme in the UK and therefore contributes a specific toxic issue to a general
sense of grievance.
4) PREVENT and CST are subject to
particular opposition from the Islamist parties and their front organisations
(for example the Cordoba Foundation-a front organisation of the Muslim
Brotherhood), but also various
'advocacy' groups such as MEND,
Cage and Friends of al Aqsa. The NUS and various trade unions have also
passed resolutions condemning PREVENT and charging the UK government with
endangering independent academic enquiry and free expression, demonising
Muslims and turning lecturers into terrorism prevention officers. The 'advocacy'
groups actually promote a sectarian and supremacist view. In the case of Friends of al Aqsa its work generally
and on campus is likely to have a particularly incendiary effect.[4]
FOA
and Cage have even
participated in mainstream academic conferences, notably the recent 'Understanding Conflict:
Research, ideas and responses to security threats' event at Bath University. [5]
The opposition of the NUS and UCU and concerns expressed by some vice-chancellors
exposes a set of double standards. All
of these organisations have anti-racism & fascism policies pledging to
tackle racism and fascism, to identify and expel lecturers identified as racist
and to confront racism in all its forms.[6]If
any group or individual were to appear on campus ranging from the BNP to the obscure White supremacist National Action, they would be readily identified
and opposition raised through official channels and Hope Not Hate and Searchlight.
Yet the claim is made both that Islamist extremists cannot be identified and
that to refuse them the opportunity to speak and organise would threaten
democratic principles. Moreover, both the NUS and UCU have a 'no platform'
policy which logically should be extended to clerical fascists.
In 2005 Universities UK published 'Promoting good campus relations:
dealing with hate crimes & intolerance.' The steering group included reps.
from UNISON, NUS, SCOPE, NATFHE, HEEON and was chaired by Prof. Les Ebdon,
the vice-chancellor of the University of Luton. [7]
It stresses the duty to promote good relations on campus, includes the ability
to take pre-emptive action and includes a helpful flow-chart indicating
possible interventions for those responsible. Thus, there should be little
difficulty in including Islamist groups, although it may take more research
effort on these groups from university and student union authorities. The
danger from these groups and speakers arises from their grievance mongering,
always focusing on Muslim suffering, and narrowing of the options for action by
'faithful believers.'
5) The CST requirements regarding speakers on campus would not ever have
been proposed if there was robust challenge to sectarian and clerical fascist
ideas on campus. But no such challenge exists. Indeed, ironically, the most
recent egregious attacks on free speech have been aimed at atheist Leftists and
feminists. Freedom of expression is central to British values and rests
fundamentally on the idea that “If liberty means anything at all,
it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear” (Orwell).
There is a frequent confusion and conflation of the terms toleration and
respect, but they are not the same thing. In a free society we are obliged to
tolerate[8]
views with which we fundamentally disagree. Moreover, there is no right to
respect or not to be offended. Attempts to establish 'triggers' and 'safe
spaces' are inimical to the spirit of the university and to a free and open
society.
These errors are compounded by the extension of
Left-wing opposition to 'racist & fascist speakers to include so-called
Islamophobic 'New Atheists,' supporters of Israel and even feminists. In
addition there is an alliance, whether principled or opportunist, between some sections
of the Left and Islamists. [9]
Thus, the broad-based opposition to Neo-fascist and White supremacist
extremists does not exist in relation to Islamism. This, and the lack of objection
to 'voluntary' gender segregation, has removed a large section of the
spontaneous safety barrier to extremism and has provoked intervention by
central government. 'Extremist speakers' are not challenged on campus and it is
no good pretending that they are. The extension of 'Islamophobia,' which is a fiercely
contested term, to physical attacks on Muslims is additionally unhelpful.
Conclusion: The non-violent extremist
threat essentially comes from the promotion of
sectarian identity. Those individuals and groups who promote a narrative
of grievance connected to a restricted definition of what constitutes a
faithful believer are dangerous. Those which particularly emphasis incendiary
issues such the 'Al Aqsa in danger' message are particularly so. These messages
are communicated in a number of media, but particularly on the internet and on
campus. A common sense of humanity is an antidote to narrow sectarian
identification, coupled with commitment to the fearless expression of our right
to free expression and the feeling of 'neighbourliness.' Relentless public
opposition to the Islamist parties, their front organisations and the pseudo
advocacy groups is essential. This requires support for censored speakers. But
in the absence of what has previously been a wide and inclusive opposition to
all extremism, the government's proposed targeting of so-called hate preachers
lacks a credible alternative.
[1] eg
Mohammed Siddique & the Tel Aviv
suicide bombers
[2] 'We release this statement to confirm that, indeed we
are in the Islamic State. A land that is free from the corruption and
oppression of manmade law and is governed by the shariah, the perfect and just
laws of Allah. All 12 of us and why should this number be shocking, when there
are thousands and thousands of Muslims from all corners of the world that are
crossing over land and sea everyday to come to the Islamic State? That are
willingly leaving the so called freedom and democracy that was forced down our
throat in the attempt to brainwash Muslims to forget about their powerful and
glorious past and now present.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3149190/All-12-Islamic-State-Luton-family-release-statement-confirming-Syria.html
[3]
e.g. http://www.ummah.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-171474.html
[4] see
http://www.foa.org.uk/ 'Hands Off al Aqsa' and associated inflammatory articles
[5] http://www.bath.ac.uk/ipr/events/news-0126.html
[6]
UCU statement http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=4546
[7] http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Pages/PromotingGoodCampusRelations.aspx#.Vj9r_MtOfmQ
[8] From the Latin 'to endure'-as in to endure
pain
[9]
See the International Socialist website for a justification for this seemingly
odd alliance based on an ostensible re-reading of Marx (or do hitherto
marginalised Left groups see a revolutionary oppressed class of people who can
be mobilised?) http://isj.org.uk/more-than-opium-marxism-and-religion/
No comments:
Post a Comment