Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

Salaam

Christian perspective.



The State Seizes Yet More Power From Parents - and it is the Tories who are responsible

Revolutionaries love to indoctrinate children. You can look up yourself who said these words ‘When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”

But it does not really matter who it was. It is horribly true, and it is what all these meddlers think, and why they are all so keen on getting control of schools and youth movements.

This week, they took a great step towards their goal, which is the eradication of all that is left of conservative Christian opinion in this country.

Some of you will be astonished (I am not) that it was a nominally Conservative government which last week announced the extension of compulsory ‘relationship’ education and ‘sex education’ throughout the school system.

Of course, in our innocence-free society, there is nobody over the age of about seven who does not know how babies are made. This ‘education’ will be about what to think, not what to do. If you can ever get your own children’s schools to disgorge the material they are using, you will find that it will cover the whole broad front of sexual liberation from condoms to sex-changes.

Many beliefs will become unsayable, and so unthinkable. It is already the case, for instance, that you will be greeted with shock and anger in most schools if you say that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that it is better than alternative forms of family.

If you are wise, you will not risk saying any such thing. Here’s a small illustration of how much narrower the range of permitted speech is than it used to be. It is now 20 years since Channel Four launched its TVdrama series ‘Queer as Folk’, in which the main characters were homosexuals.

I was asked to watch it, and to comment on it on a TV programme, and said that it was cultural propaganda, intended to persuade viewers that homosexuality was normal behaviour. This sounds about right to me. That’s what it was. But the left-wing commentators who have dug this out of the archives expect present-day readers to be shocked that anyone ever had the nerve to say any such thing.

If I live another twenty years, the fact that I ever dared to say and think this will certainly be used to try to keep me off the internet, and quite possibly to prosecute me. If you think I am joking, stick around. The Times columnist Janice Turner, miles to the left of me, is already feeling the cold breath of the thought police on her neck, for bravely resisting conformism on the Transgender issue.

This will happen because of this compulsory indoctrination in school, approved by a man called Damian Hinds, of whom almost nothing interesting is known, who has somehow become Secretary of State for Education.

Mr Hinds has openly broken a clear pledge given two years ago by a Tory government. The genuinely conservative MP Edward Leigh asked him a quietly devastating question in Parliament ‘All previous Conservative Governments … have given an untrammelled right to parents to remove their children from sex education, but here, in certain circumstances, that right has been transferred to the head teacher—a fundamental shift of power to the state. How does that square with what Edward Timpson, the then Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families, said during the passage of the Children and Social Work Bill? He said:

“We have committed to retain a right to withdraw from sex education in RSE, because parents should have the right, if they wish, to teach sex education themselves in a way that is consistent with their values.”’

Mr Hinds did not answer it. So another Tory MP who doesn’t toe the line, Julian Lewis, pressed the point: ‘He keeps adding the words, “unless there are exceptional circumstances”. Why have those words been added? In what circumstances would ​a head teacher overrule a parent? Is not the likely effect of this going to be that in some cases, instead of children getting necessary sex education in schools, more parents are going to keep their children out of school?’ Mr Hinds avoided that too. The law now sides with the state against the parent, and that is that.

And this was the moment at which a vital freedom died. The 1980 prophecy of that appalling fanatic Lady Helen Brook ‘From birth till death it is now the privilege of the parental State to take major decisions - objective, unemotional, the State weighs up what is best for the child’ has now come true, and under a Tory government propped up by supposedly ultra-conservative Ulstermen.

I quite understand why people don’t fancy having Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. But if this sort of Trotskyist cultural revolution carries on while the Tories are in office, I am not sure it will make all that much difference.

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

More debate.









The mask comes off.



A broader historical look

 
Last edited:
Salaam

Another update. Hate is the new replacement for blasphemy. Having said that have to agree some of the protests have been over the top.

Birmingham councillor calls for parents to be fined for withdrawing kids from LGBT classes

pro-LGBT councillor in Birmingham has said parents should be fined for taking their children out of Parkfield Community School in protest over the ‘No Outsiders’ programme.

It followed after 600 children were withdrawn from lessons at the primary school in Saltley in protest over the material which promoted LGBT values.

Conservative councillor for Erdington, Gareth Moore, labelled large scale demonstrations outside Parkfield Community School as a “hate crime”, and called for Birmingham City Council to act.

In response, the council said it has a restricted remit to act because Parkfield is an academy, but confirmed local authority officers were liaising with the Regional Schools Commissioner to address the matter.

Writing to the head of equalities Cllr John Cotton, Cllr Moore said: “I remain concerned that not enough support is being offered to the school and staff, especially since parents are becoming increasingly militant and taking their children out of school.

“The situation is getting out of control and I am concerned that this protest is in fact a hate crime.

“Clearly the actions of these parents are not acceptable and will be very damaging to their children’s education.

“What is the council doing to stop this from happening?”

“We hear stories all of the time of parents who have been fined or even prosecuted by local authorities for taking their children out of school for a holiday.

“Surely the same should be applied to these parents who are withdrawing their children, and effectively using them as weapons in their homophobic campaign of hate and discrimination?

“Withdrawing children in protest at ‘No Outsiders’ will be far more damaging than any holiday would be, and it is a shame as it will be these children who are likely to be the next generation of homophobes in our city.”

Birmingham city council initially said that it is for academies to inform parents of their legal responsibilities in ensuring their children attend school but cases could be referred to the authority to take further action.

Statement from Birmingham City Council

Labour’s Cllr Cotton of Glebe Farm and Tile Cross, who is the cabinet member for Social Inclusion, Community Safety and Equalities, issued the following statement on behalf of Birmingham City Council:

“Birmingham City Council’s first priority will always be to stand up for the rights of all children, whoever they are and whatever kind of family they are from.

“This city is built upon diversity and we value and celebrate difference as a strength.

“For many years, the council has supported various programmes, including No Outsiders, as a means of promoting the values of the 2010 Equality Act and ensuring all protected characteristics are respected. We have also championed the importance of ongoing dialogue and consultation with parents, so everyone is clear about what is and is not being taught in the classroom.

“We remain concerned at the continued protests by parents of Parkfield School and urge both the school and parents to come together in the spirit of cooperation in the best interests of the children. Parkfield School is an academy, but in spite of the restrictions this places upon the council’s scope to act, officers have been closely involved in supporting Parkfield and its staff.

“We are working with the Regional Schools Commissioner – which is responsible for academies – to address this issue. Whilst we recognise that parents have concerns, continuing protests only serve to attract extreme fringe movements taking an opportunity to further messages of division and hate.

“In recent days, we have been appalled to see attempts to divide the people of our city by using insulting and incendiary language targeting the LGBT community. This has no place in our city. Birmingham is a place of tolerance and mutual respect, where people of all faiths and none, all sexualities, all ethnicities, come together in pursuit of a common aim. This council will continue to champion these values and support all communities in putting them into action.”

https://5pillarsuk.com/2019/03/08/b...fined-for-withdrawing-kids-from-lgbt-classes/















Support from an unexpected quarter.



THe LGBT brigade have arrived in Pakistan.



 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Salaam

Another update



Who should teach our children about sex?

In the light of the increasingly heated row over the teaching of sex and relationship education in schools, Dr Siema Iqbal argues that schools have no right to impose lifestyles and beliefs on children because that is the parent’s job.

Who should teach children about sex? The answer should be us, the parents. As parents we are the primary educators and decision-makers for our children and we teach them about family values and relationships, in some circumstances based around our religious beliefs.

However, our role as parents is being undermined by those in authority and policy makers who appear to be eroding the rights of parents to teach children their values. This undermining is hinged on the concept that as parents we are unable and not competent to speak to or make decisions about our children on certain topics.

In 2017, Sir Edward Leigh MP described the new Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) curriculum as “a state takeover bid for parenting.”

Currently Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) is not statutory yet most schools do teach it, but it sits outside of the National Curriculum. Schools are advised to consult parents prior to teaching their children and any school policies should reflect the communities they serve. Schools reflect what is happening in society and the moral compass of society is an evolving and changing model.

A number of lobby groups have taken advantage of this and one area where this is more evident is in SRE where organisations such as Humanist UK, National Secular Society and Stonewall are being overly relied upon for guidance on how sex education should be taught.

At present as parents we currently have the right to withdraw our children from SRE lessons from primary school up to 19 years of age. Concerns raised by parents who object to SRE lessons are commonly about issues such as promiscuity, same sex relationships or gender choice being discussed prematurely with their children.

Children respect and trust their teachers but when teachers impose values which are not aligned to the values within the children’s homes it can lead to conflict and confusion for children. Other parental worries include the use of inappropriate and sexual images for teaching SRE.

Everyone is entitled to choose to live their lives how they wish to and no one should interfere, bully, attack or insult anyone because of their choices, even if these choices do not align with personal religious beliefs or family values. I will be the first to stand up against any bigotry.

However, in the same way it is wrong to interfere, bully, attack or insult anyone if they choose to question what is being taught to their children.

Parkfield School controversy

in the last month we have seen parents protest outside Parkfield Community School in Alum Rock, Birmingham, in a predominantly Muslim area. A week ago, hundreds of parents kept their children home from the same school amid anxieties about its “No Outsiders” programme. They felt the scheme was “not age appropriate” and “not what we send children to school for.”

Despite peaceful protests and parents exercising their right to stop their children attending the lessons they have been referred to as a “mob” by the media and demonised as “bigots” for their actions. To imply these parents do not understand “British values” or are not preparing their children for modern life, deeming them “unfit parents” or “extremist” is unfounded scaremongering.

It is unclear if the lessons at the primary school have now been stopped but perhaps if the parents had been properly consulted there would have been no need for this escalation or a breakdown between the parents and the school. Surely the school working with the parents would have been a better example for the children of how not to treat people as “outsiders”?

Implying parents who question what is taught to their children in SRE are homophobic is a recurring untrue slander thrown at parents, particularly Muslim parents in an attempt to silence dissent. Teaching children about respecting different lifestyle choices in an age appropriate way is not the same as the state imposing lifestyle choices on children, through the education system which contradict the values parents teach at home and telling children to affirm that these lifestyles are ok.

Although the media has given a lot of attention to the Muslim parents in Birmingham, concerns have not just arisen from the Muslim community. The Jewish community – in particular the Charedi community – is also challenging Ofsted led by Mr Shraga Stern, over the changes to Sex and Relationship Education.

Jewish schools have made it clear that they will not promote issues contrary to orthodox Jewish belief and have legally challenged the Department for Education (DfE). They feel the new regulations seek to limit and breach parental rights as per the ECHR and 2010 Equality Act to have children educated in accordance with parent’s religious beliefs and have ignored the findings of the government’s consultation in 2018 where a majority of responses felt that the material both at primary and secondary level was age inappropriate.

Whilst concerns should be taken seriously it is also important for parents to be clear about what resources are being used to teach SRE in schools and not jump to conclusions. As parents we have a right to see and discuss school SRE resources to ensure they are age appropriate and to enable discussions at home with children before it is taught in school if we so wish.

New curriculum

The new revised curriculum becomes compulsory in schools from September 2020 with limited rights of the parents to withdraw their children.

In Primary Schools a new subject, Relationships Education (RE) will be introduced as a separate subject to Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) and will be compulsory. In this subject primary school children will be taught to respect different types of families and relationships, allowing schools the flexibility to teach about sexual identities, including same-sex relationships and trans-gender identities.

But why do primary school children need to know this at such a young age? Where is the evidence to suggest that they do? Surely teaching children about differences can be taught without exposing children to the details of being “different”. The same people that shouted from the rooftops about hijabs sexualising children appear to be silent and seem not to have issues with material like this being shown to young children. Does this not cause premature sexualisation of children?

In Secondary school SRE (Sex and Relationship Education) will be changed around to RSE (Relationship and Sex Education) to calm fears, claiming the focus is on relationships but essentially will be SRE but taught as a compulsory subject. These lessons will include female genital mutilation (FGM), sexting, online grooming, domestic violence and forced marriage as well as gay and transgender relationships.

Parents will have the right to withdraw their child from the sex education aspect of RSE by requesting in writing to the head teacher who will decide, however parents can only withdraw until their child is 15 years old and then the child will be asked whether they wish to opt in.

It is relatively more appropriate for children to learn about topics such as online dangers, domestic violence, sex (safe sex), gay and transgender relationships in secondary schools. But does gender fluidity really need to be taught to all children? Research has shown that some cases can be driven by earlier psychological vulnerabilities and social problems and many who experience some form of gender identity challenge, later come to endorse the gender they were raised.

This demonstrates the situation is much more complex and requires an individualised approach so why confuse a majority instead of working with the minority who need the support?

Schools should also be encouraging dialogue between children and parents and if there are issues or problems, they should be working with families to work through them. They should not be placing a wedge between parents and children by teaching children they will help them do something their parents would be unhappy with.

Parental responsibility

As a parent I am the primary educator for my children and refuse to be made to feel bad for standing up for my rights as a parent and wanting to teach my children family values based on my religious beliefs. By doing so this does not make me a bigot, align me with the far-right or mean I should have the fight against Islamophobia thrown back in my face.

What it means is I respect your right to live your life and will stand by your side against all hate but it does not mean I have to accept that way of life for myself or my children.

Respect and acceptance are two different things. Live your life however you want but do not impose it onto others. I didn’t realise the fight against Islamophobia came with conditions? Instead of incorrectly calling me a bigot why do you not stand with me and fight for my rights as a parent? Or for me to exercise my religious beliefs?

Some parents may not wish to discuss issues such as sex and relationships at home and may opt their children out of the lessons at school too. This does not however give the state consent to fill that vacuum. Instead schools need to do more to consult with parents and communities and bring them in on discussions and work together on topics such as SRE.

As parents we wash, dress, feed and ferry the children to schools, religious institutions, clubs etc but outsource the emotional upbringing of our children to others. Whilst it is not unrealistic to expect schools to teach morals, manners discipline and values, completely outsourcing this teaching will mean they are taught values which will be based upon a school curriculum influenced by society whose beliefs may not align with yours.

Teaching of family values has to begin at home. Parents need speak to their own children about issues including sex and stop being afraid of doing so either due to cultural barriers, a poor relationship with the children or fear of state policies. We need to practically implement the faith values we wish to teach at home rather than just talking about them.

Otherwise who will normalise our values to our children? It certainly shouldn’t be schools as they erode parental rights under the guise of equality.

https://5pillarsuk.com/2019/03/09/who-should-teach-our-children-about-sex/

Two different but overlaping perspectives.

 
Last edited:
Salaam

Some good news.



Court rules that UK Government’s Prevent guidance to universities is unlawful

The UK Government’s controversial Prevent duty guidance to universities has been deemed unlawful by judges, after a successful judicial review stated that it violated freedom of speech.

The court of appeal found that Prevent guidelines on inviting “controversial” speakers were not accurate and impartial enough to guide universities of their equal responsibility of ensuring free speech while preventing students from being drawn into “terrorism”.

It came after Dr Salman Butt, 33, brought a claim that the Prevent guidance was too excessive by maintaining a strong presumption against allowing events to be hosted where the risk of students becoming “radicalised” could not be stopped.

Dr Butt argued that the guidance was having a damning effect on free speech and debate in universities by in effect censoring speakers who may have controversial views.

In their judgment handed down yesterday, Sir Terence Etherton, master of the rolls, Lord Justice Irwin and Lady Justice Sharp ruled that the “trenchant” language of the relevant sections of the guidance “is not only intended to frame the decision of [universities] on the topic in question, it is likely to do so”.

The judges said: “We do not intend to attempt a redraft of paragraph 11, since that is a matter for the government.

“We do, however, consider that a balanced guidance which better reflects what we perceive the secretary of state intended it to say…would be very easily achievable.”

Dr Butt, who is the editor-in-chief of Islam21C, brought his case after he was labelled an extremist speaker along with other Muslim figures in an official Downing Street press release which marked the publication of the updated Prevent duty guidance.

The press release said the Home Office’s Extremism Analysis Unit (EAU) had identified Dr Butt as a speaker who was “on record as expressing views contrary to British values”.

Before the press release was published, Dr Butt said he had no contact with the security services, the police or any other government body about his religious and political views.

His appeal came after the high court dismissed his claims in July 2017, despite a judge also rejecting the Prevent guidance by ruling that universities were within their rights to ignore it in the interests of freedom of speech.

However, the appeal court upheld an earlier ruling rejecting Dr Butt’s claim that collection and sharing of information about his personal views had invaded his privacy and constituted unauthorised surveillance.

Dr Butt now plans on appealing to the Supreme Court over that latter claim, and has lodged a separate libel claim against the UK Government over its description of him as an “extremist speaker”. Lawyers for the Home Office have suggested that they plan on defending their wording on the basis of “honest opinion”.

Dr Butt told The Guardian: “I haven’t had any other problems ever. At borders and stuff, they just let me through.

“I think if you just stand up and challenge something, they let you go. It’s the poor guys who just keep their heads down that keep getting hassled by Prevent. I think that’s what Prevent relies on; people just not knowing their rights.”

A Home Office spokeswoman said: “We will consider the implications of the court’s judgment relating to a single paragraph of Prevent duty guidance for universities.”

https://5pillarsuk.com/2019/03/09/c...prevent-guidance-to-universities-is-unlawful/

You can read more about this case on Islam21c.

https://www.islam21c.com/news-views/judgement-released-dr-salman-butt-vs-uk-government/
 
Salaam

Another update

Citizenship Deprivations: What you need to know

You may have seen the story of the high-profile British aid worker, Tauqir Sharif, who has been stripped of his citizenship without the Government presenting any challengeable evidence in a public court hearing to back up their allegations.

Many people were left asking what are citizenship deprivations, and what impact does a deprivation have on people? We tried to answer some of the most common questions here:

1- What is Citizenship Deprivation?

Citizenship Deprivation is when an individual with British citizenship status – whether through birth, naturalisation, or being a citizen of a British overseas territory or otherwise – has that citizenship removed by the British government.

It is not the same as deportation, though citizenship deprivation can lead to deportation, and in some cases, when the deprivation takes place while the person is overseas, the two happen simultaneously.

2- Who can remove your citizenship?

Citizenship can be removed through an order made by the Secretary of State – in other words a Cabinet minister in charge of a government department. In practice this is most often the Home Secretary.

3- What laws allow for the deprivation of citizenship?

Modern powers that allow for citizenship deprivation can be traced back to the British Nationality Act 1981.

These have been supplemented by a number of post-2000 laws, including the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and the Immigration Act 2014.

The 1981 Act outlined the boundaries of British Citizenship, and Section 40 of the Act included conditions under which the Secretary of State could deprive citizenship to non-birth citizens – i.e. those who had British citizenship due to naturalisation or registration.

The subsequent laws lowered the threshold to allow for citizenship deprivation whilst expanding the reach of citizenship stripping powers to include British citizens who had been born in Britain.

The Immigration Act 2014 was arguably the most significant change.

This Act provided a loophole for the government whereby a person could be deprived of citizenship, as long as there were “reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory.”

4- Who can have their citizenship removed?

Currently, there are two primary conditions under which citizenship can be deprived: if a person has gained citizenship through fraud or false representation; or when “the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good”.

This can be used against a British-born British citizen, if, as mentioned above, there are “reasonable grounds for believing” that the individual can become a citizen of another country.

Essentially this means that those British citizens who are able to claim citizenship of another country – through ancestry for example, even if they have never visited or lived in those countries – can have their citizenship removed if it is seen to be “conducive to the public good”.

5- How is it removed in practice?

To make a citizenship deprivation order, the Secretary of State sends a written letter saying:

they have decided to make the order

why they have made the order

that the individual has the right of appeal

It is only necessary that the written order be sent to the individual’s last known address – not that the individual concerned actually receives it.

6- What are the consequences of having your citizenship removed?

The consequences are far-reaching, and CAGE has recorded many testimonies to this effect.

They range from people having to relocate to countries where they have seldom (sometimes never) been, to individuals who have actually had to return to war-torn areas or areas where governments are despotic and have absolutely no regard for human rights.

The result of these cases are serious; ‘War on Terror’ rhetoric, and the stigma of being deported for ‘counter-terrorism’ means people not only struggle to get jobs, but they are the immediate viewed with suspicion. In some cases, they have been targets of raids, detention-without-trial and even drone assassinations.

All of this is the consequence of a process that begins in the UK.

7- Can I challenge Citizenship Deprivations?

It is very difficult to challenge these decisions, for various reasons. Since the majority of deprivations occur when a person is abroad, they struggle to get legal representation and legal aid.

For those who do get legal aid and are able to instruct lawyers in the UK, practically it is extremely difficult to communicate with lawyers and build their legal case.

Aside from the due process violations within the process itself (more on that in a moment), the act of doing so while the person cannot adequately respond due to being abroad, is abusive since it effectively results in that person being stranded.

In most cases the disturbing feature is that the citizen deprivation process involves the use in British courts of secret evidence.

This is when evidence is used against someone and neither that person, nor his/her lawyer are ever allowed to even see this evidence, and so they simply cannot challenge the allegations upon which a citizen deprivation case is based.

This concept collapses all principles of due process.

8- Can I select the legal team that will defend me?

Yes and No.

You can choose your own legal team however, in cases where there is ‘secret evidence’ – which is invoked on the grounds of ‘national security’ – a defendant will be assigned a ‘special advocate’.

This person is a security-vetted Barrister with whom the deprived citizen has minimal contact. The ‘special advocate’ is supposed to argue on their behalf during the secret hearings in the Special Immigrations Appeal Commission (SIAC) courts.

This ‘special advocate’ will not be able to communicate with the person nor their lawyers after they have heard the evidence against them in closed court.

This means that they cannot put the evidence to the individual, and the individual has no idea what is being said about them behind closed doors.

9- How many people have had it removed?

The Government has not published official figures, however from the years of 2010 to 2015, 33 people were stripped of their British citizenship. Since then it was reported in The Times that over 150 had their citizenships removed by 2017, as the conflict in Syria escalated.

We’ve documented, and assisted on many of these cases. We have seen the wide spectrum of people it impacts – from aid workers to ordinary citizens. This is the reality – and our evidence is contrary to the government’s narrative that citizen deprivations only have to do with ‘terrorists’.

10- Does it only happen to terror offenders?

No.

The threshold for triggering citizenship deprivation is either technicalities and/or that “ the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good”.

This is explained further in Section 40(4A) of the British Nationality Act 1981, which outlines that this person “has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory”.

There is no requirement for the individual to be convicted of any offence, not least a terror offence.

In practice, some individuals have their citizenship deprived for ‘serious crimes’ unrelated to terrorism, whilst others have theirs deprived while they are still abroad.

When this happens, the individual never has their case heard in a court, so he/she never knows on what evidence the allegations against them are actually based.

11- Is it a racist policy?

Yes, because it only ever targets people who have ancestors or parents that are from a different ethnicity.

Citizenship deprivations represent the convergence of far-right populist sentiments that have heralded ‘hostile environment’ policies, which are a product of the agendas of those who seek “to make conditions harder for Muslims across the board”.

It is a policy which seeks to subdue Muslims and children of migrants to the UK: the end result is that we are forever guests who must remain grateful and docile should we wish to remain in the country.

https://www.cage.ngo/citizenship-deprivations-what-you-need-to-know
 
Salaam

Another update. Good breakdown of how the British government is subverting parents authority in bringing up their children.



Andrew Moffat and Parkfield School: Proselytising and Indoctrinating Part 1

We have examined how LGBT topics have been co-opted by Moffat into PREVENT and its demonization of Muslims, and how his project – No Outsiders – is being coerced through misleading invocations of law thereby circumventing the parental right of withdrawal.

This piece will focus on the content promoted through No Outsiders and show how Moffat is actively undermining the religious beliefs of young Muslims in different ways on a mass scale.

“We are not saying one is right and one is wrong!”

Moffat publicly portrays his project from the perspective of pluralism. On the 21st of February, in an interview with BBC 5 live, he stated that he “aligns faith to an understanding that it is OK to be gay”. When asked how he did this, he explains that he tells his teachers that on the one hand, there is a religious prohibition and on the other gays exist. He goes on to explain that children can have these views, and that these ideas coexist. He adds “we are not saying one is right and one is wrong”.

In a section elaborating how he dealt with Muslim parent’s concerns around the No Outsiders project, Moffat explains,

“We understand there is a tension [between Islam and accepting homosexuality], and we are not telling children what to think…”[1]

Moffat leads parents to believe that he and his No Outsiders is simply preparing them for modern Britain.

The content of his No Outsiders projects shows otherwise. It is worth elaborating the terminology I will use to describe Moffat’s actions.

Proselytising is trying to convert someone from a belief set. This becomes problematic when it is unwanted and exercised from a position of power, as case law shows.[2] Moffat is in a position of authority over vulnerable children. As the hundreds of parents protesting outside the school show, aspects of his statements are unwanted too.

Indoctrination more generally entails teaching a set of beliefs in a one-sided manner. It is possible to argue that Moffat is involved in political indoctrination, which would contravene The Education Act 1996 s.406. The section prohibits the promotion of partisan political views (as opposed to “fair and balanced”[3]) in the teaching of any subject. Coercing the acceptance of particular beliefs as normal beyond highlighting existence could be construed as a biased political viewpoint, especially where such content is promoted uncritically.

These two dynamics, proselytising and indoctrination, are particularly prevalent in the No Outsiders material.

“Selling” Beliefs

Moffat’s approach is to not merely tell children that “their beliefs are wrong” but rather he needs to “sell it to them”.[4] The question is, which beliefs are being modified, and what beliefs are being sold?

This is important to understand because much of the mainstream media reporting around the topic has focussed on a simplistic narrative: backward Muslims vs homosexuality teaching material. Moffat’s agenda is significantly broader than this, as we shall see further below.

The argument presented against Muslim parents protesting at Parkfield Community School is that gays exist, and therefore their existence should be acknowledged. This is not what No Outsiders preaches, however.

Opening the introduction of his book No Outsiders, Moffat explains his mission thusly:

“I don’t believe that we need to be teaching children that gay men and lesbian women exist… what we now need to be teaching is that… to be a person who is gay or lesbian or transgender or bi-sexual is normal, acceptable and OK. Children also need to be learning that they may identify or may not identify as LGBT as they grow up, and that whoever they grow into as an adult is also perfectly normal and acceptable”.[5]

In his select answers to “challenging questions”, Moffat states,

“Some of our children may turn out to be gay… and they need to know that it’s OK.”[6]

Is this merely teaching children that different views can coexist? Is this not an example of someone teaching what is right and what is wrong? Muslims can happily coexist with people of varying background, however, make no mistake, Moffat is proselytising his own ideas to children which goes beyond acknowledging existence into the territory of preaching a moral position. Moffat’s public proclamations and what he is teaching are worlds apart.

Behavioural change and Undermining Religious Beliefs

Looking further in his book, we find Moffat celebrating how a Muslim child tells his “panicking” mother that two men holding hands whom walked past them was “normal”.[7] He calls this a “breakthrough”. In another example, Moffat highlights how the book My Princess Boy, and the use of the terms “gay” and “lesbian” resulted in no reaction from the classes “because the children are used to talking about these issues now”.[8]

The above shows that Moffat is not only telling children how to think but effecting behavioural change too. It fundamentally undermines the beliefs of Muslim children belonging to families adhering to normative Islam.[9]

Disconcertingly, Moffat uses psychological techniques to instantiate doctrinal and associated behavioural change.

Psychological Techniques

He employs role-modelling to change fundamental beliefs. Moffat encourages homosexual teachers to come out before children and advises preparation of teachers to react in a particular way so children can imitate the teachers “because they follow the reaction that is modelled to them by adults”.[10]

He further employs what is known as “vicarious reinforcement”. Moffat asks Year 6 children a series of questions in which he not only gets children to affirm that “gay is OK”, he then presents himself as a role model, before rewarding them with praise (“given them a clap!”).[11]

In another example, negative reinforcement is used through what manifestly looks like bullying.

Explaining an example of a man coming out gay in an assembly, he writes,

“There was one audible gasp from a child in Year 6 but otherwise there was no reaction at all, which was quite nice because it demonstrated to the shocked child that he was alone in his reaction; his homophobia made him the outsider.”[12]

This is disturbing. Firstly, it most certainly confirms that Moffat is actively conditioning children how to think and what to think in a given circumstance thereby actively teaching moral positions. Secondly, the above desensitisation of most of the class to the topic shows that he has conditioned responses. And thirdly, he has used questionable techniques which border on bullying as a way of coercing compliance.

“Won’t affect your religion”

This proselytising extends to how a child should think about religions. Moffat elaborates how, after listening to a Bible story, children were asked to write a note. The model note he shares in his book states that “it’s OK for Muslim children to listen to a Christian assembly because it won’t hurt you and it won’t affect your religion”. How does a child – or any non-Muslim for that matter – know whether content of an assembly from another worldview or belief system “won’t affect your religion”?[13] And why is Moffat encouraging this attitude in children?

Examining his lesson plans/material only reinforces this psycholgical cajoling. The material is designed to actively undermine religious faith and promote one value judgement/viewpoint on gay/lesbian family constructions and the issue of transgenderism and associated activism: acceptance as “OK”.

Promotion of Doubt and Deformation of Islam

The No Outsiders companion website hosts various materials for conducting assemblies. Moffat’s stipulated statements to be promoted to Muslim children is incredibly troubling. The material ranges from the subtle to the blatantly overt.

One assembly example involves a story about a Muslim female boxer experiencing rejection from her mother due to her boxing before eventual acceptance. Moffat promotes the following lesson:

“What does this show us about people and ideas? (ideas can change and people can change)”

It is questionable as to what sort of message Moffat is promoting here. The use of a Muslim example to effectively place disobedience to a parent in a positive light, along the with the message “ideas can change” suggests that Moffat is advocating the undermining of parental authority and guidance.

Family, Relationships and Undermining Religious Beliefs

Here we take a look on the material Moffat uses to teach about family and this actively undermines religious beliefs.

Like various social aspects, what constitutes a family structure ideal for children differs between varying epistemological systems and societies. Islam is no exception in this regard.[14]

Setting aside the plethora of research which strongly relates religiosity with marital stability, and marital stability with healthy upbringing,[15] the primary familial basis for Muslims is the moral foundations of Islam, which, like other Abrahamic faiths, advocates marriage between a man and a woman, thus establishing the foundation of society in which both parents must exercise and perform their duties towards their child. Other family structures, such as living with other relatives, or being adopted (all of which considered virtuous and encouraged in Islam) are fulfilling exigencies. Islam places an emphasis on the welfare of the mother and child. Women with children need help raising them, and a man biologically invested in the children, and therefore more committed to their welfare, is the primary individual to do this.

Irrespective of one’s outlook on what constitutes a family, the DfE’s SRE guidance makes it plain that parents have a right to have their children withdrawn from lessons on sex and relationships, a right that is circumvented by No Outsiders.

Moffat’s approach to teaching about families demonstrates a phased approach to deconstructing the family and reconstituting it around his own beliefs.

Among the set of books aimed at 0-5 year-olds, Moffat lists those which directly look at family relationships. Thus, the Family Book subtly influences a child into accepting that that all families including gay families are “OK” as the basis is care and love.[16]

This value judgements-approach to teaching about families is taken with other books listed in the No Outsiders book.[17]

Aiming at children aged 5-7, Moffat asks teachers to use The Great Big Book of Families which carries themes already outlined above but goes further to highlight how families were in the past (mother, father and children) and how they are now (depicting mum and mum and dad and dad), giving the perception that the traditional family structure is backward.[18]

The subtle messages become overt undermining of religious beliefs as children reach the age of 9 and 10. With And Tango Makes Three children are taught normalisation and acceptance of gay relationships by exposing them to a biased nature argument of the nature/nurture debate around homosexuality. Moffat encourages teachers to talk about the “many stories on the internet about gay animals in zoos”. This is tantamount to indoctrination.[19]

Another book Moffat lists is King and King.[20] The book itself shows the main character going through several seductively dressed suitors until a man appears and he chooses the man. There is an image of these two characters kissing. Disturbingly, Moffat asks teachers to close off the lesson with the following message:

In another example promoting “different families”, Moffat feels it is necessary to instil doubt in the beliefs of Muslim children by promoting religious moral relativism – a sort of perennialism – to Muslim children. The story involves a family which consists of a Muslim man, married to a Christian woman.

Moffat asks Muslim children,

“why does Faquir say about faith, ‘We don’t say this way is the right way or that religion is the right way; there are no wrong answers’ What does he mean?

Whilst coercing acceptance of LGBT as “normal” and “ok”, Moffat wants children to suspend judgement on what is right and wrong when it comes to their religious beliefs.

Not content with promoting doubt in theological fundamentals, in particularly insidious fashion, Moffat also actively advocates the normalisation LGBT orientations/identities to Muslim children through Muslim “role models”. Thus, Moffat shares stories of a fashion designer who designs rainbow hijabs, before asking questions such as “why you think [the designers] have designed the scarf to be used as a hijab”? Another assembly story outlines how a gay Muslim who has been living with another man wants to “show the world you can be Muslim and gay”.

Still not telling children how to think? Still not taking a moral stance?

A number of religions sex segregate their religious ceremonies and gatherings. This is not acceptable for Moffat, however. His proposed image shows Muslims and Sikhs eating together at a Gurdwara. Moffat suggests asking the children how they can make the Gurdwara “even more inclusive” and proposes that the children should write to the Gurdwara and advise them to “invite people of different gender too”. Whilst this is directed at Sikhs, the fact remains that Muslims also religiously sex segregate their gatherings, resulting in the instilling of doubt in Muslim children. Moffat is nudging Muslim children towards a direction of thinking that fits his own worldview.

“Some religions say that men and men should not get married. What does the law in the UK say? In 2013 the law was passed by the government to say that man could marry a man and that that a woman could marry a woman. At our school we say there are no outsiders”.

Directly juxtaposing religion at odds with British law has the effect of creating a cognitive dissonance in the child between his or her religious beliefs and British law. Moreover, the religious perspective is also placed against No Outsiders, reinforcing the idea for the child that his or her religion is at odds with the school’s ethos, further increasing the dissonance. Against the aggressive proselytising and indoctrination of LGBT normalisation and acceptance, the child over a period will most likely compromise his/her religious beliefs.

When this is coupled with another book listed by Moffat which encourages children to disobey rules and read material in secret, and when one considers that Moffat’s proposed activity is to get children to “smuggle” books,[21] the No Outsiders project becomes frankly sinister and subversive.

[The next piece will continue examining the No Outsiders material and deliberate on the politically one-sided ideas Moffat is promoting]

https://coolnessofhind.wordpress.co...hool-proselytising-and-indoctrinating-part-1/
 
Last edited:
Salaam

The parent's 'paranoia' was justified. Link between Prevent and the promotion of LGBT ideology.









Normal service has resumed from the Daily Mail.

Terrorism fears as 3,000 UK children a year go to 'jihadi' schools in Pakistan, secret government report reveals

  • Secret Home Office study says children are taught a 'glorified version of jihad'
  • Some Pakistani parents take their children to madrasas over the summer holiday
  • Officials fear that these madrasas will increase the risk of radicalisation
  • Two of the 7/7 bombers enrolled at madrasas before launching their attack
A secret Government report has warned that more than 3,000 British children are being taken to Pakistan each year and enrolled in extremist summer schools.

The chilling Home Office study says courses at madrasas teach a 'glorified version of jihad', according to a source.

Officials fear some youngsters will be radicalised and return to the UK with a warped ideology and pose a terrorism risk.

'It is highly likely that this education in Pakistan, even for short periods of time, increases the risk of exposure to extremism for British-Pakistani children,' the source told The Mail on Sunday.

'Enrolment at madrasas poses the greatest risk of exposure to more serious forms of religious extremism.'

Two of the 7/7 bombers, Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, enrolled on madrasa courses in Pakistan a year before they launched their deadly attack in 2005, which killed 52.

But the security services have established that some Pakistani parents take their children back to their native homeland during summer holidays under the pretext of visiting extended family.

In reality, they sign them up for lessons at some of Pakistan's estimated 20,000 madrasas.

The report says some of those madrasas receive funds raised in Britain and that UK-based imams have established seminaries in their ancestral homeland.

It identifies three madrasas of concern – the Darul Uloom Haqqania (DUH) madrasa in the remote Khyber Pakhtunkhwa region bordering Afghanistan; the Jamia Binoria in Karachi and Jamiatul Uloom Ul Islamia in Azad Kashmir.

Each has denied involvement in extremism. The DUH madrasa has previously been labelled the 'University of Jihad' because former students include Asim Umar, an Al Qaeda leader, and it awarded an honorary doctorate to the former Taliban leader Mullah Omar.

There are also fears that British taxpayers may have inadvertently provided it with funds.

The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government, which controversially handed a £2.2 million grant to the madrasa in 2016, will have received £283 million from Britain to help boost education when a ten-year project ends in 2020.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...UK-children-year-jihadi-schools-Pakistan.html

Some responses.







 
Last edited:
Salaam

Another update





Arab Regimes Are the World’s Most Powerful Islamophobes

Middle Eastern governments have forged alliances with right-wing groups in the West dedicated to anti-Islam bigotry.

In 2017, at a public panel in Riyadh, the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed, issued a warning about Islamists in Europe. “There will come a day that we will see far more radical extremists and terrorists coming out of Europe because of lack of decision-making, trying to be politically correct, or assuming that they know the Middle East, and they know Islam, and they know the others far better than we do,” Zayed said. “I’m sorry, but that’s pure ignorance.” The message was clear: European leaders would face a future endemic of Islamic extremism if they continued to tolerate the presence of what he described as radical extremists and terrorists in the name of human rights, freedom of expression, and democracy.

Although the statement is two years old, a clip was recently circulated by a prominent Emirati on social media, Hassan Sajwani, in an entirely different context: in the wake of the terrorist attack allegedly carried out by an Australian white supremacist against Muslim worshipers in two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, that led to 50 deaths. Sajwani, who has family links to both the Emirati government and the Trump family (his uncle is the founder and chairman of Damac Properties, which developed the Trump International Golf Club in Dubai), then posted tweets that echo the type of fear-mongering and dog-whistle attacks on Muslims that have been widely credited with inspiring the Christchurch attacks.

It’s just one example of an often-overlooked trend: the culpability of Arab and Muslim governments in fueling anti-Muslim hate as part of their campaigns to fight dissent at home and abroad. By trying to justify repression and appease Western audiences, some of these regimes and their supporters have forged an informal alliance with conservative and right-wing groups and figures in the West dedicated to advancing anti-Islamic bigotry.

Arab regimes spend millions of dollars on think tanks, academic institutions, and lobbying firms in part to shape the thinking in Western capitals about domestic political activists opposed to their rule, many of whom happen to be religious. The field of counterextremism has been the ideal front for the regional governments’ preferred narrative: They elicit sympathy from the West by claiming to also suffer from the perfidies of radical jihadis and offer to work together to stem the ideological roots of the Islamist threat.

Based on dozens of conversations conducted over several years, we found that autocratic regimes in the region carefully cultivate conservative and far-right circles in the West that they believe lean toward their own anti-Islamist agendas. The two sides’ political goals don’t completely overlap: Western Islamophobia can be far more vehement and sweeping than the variety supported by Arab governments. Nevertheless, both sides find the partnership beneficial. Arab propagandists claim there is an inherent connection between so-called political correctness and a tendency to downplay ideologies that lead to terrorism—claims that are seized on by Western conservatives to legitimize their own arguments. “Our threshold is quite low when we talk about extremism,” the Emirati foreign minister told Fox News a month after the 2017 panel discussion in Riyadh. “We cannot accept incitement or funding. For many countries, the definition of terror is that you have to carry a weapon or terrorize people. For us, it’s far beyond that.”

Such campaigns by Arab governments go beyond an effort to simply explain the precise threats posed by Islamists—which do indeed exist. Instead, they often involve scare tactics to play up the threat and create an atmosphere in which an alternative to these regimes becomes unthinkable from a Western policy standpoint. Such an environment also enables these regimes to clamp down on dissent at home with impunity. Terrorism becomes a catchall term to justify repression. In Saudi Arabia, even atheists are defined as anti-terrorism laws.

These patterns played out for more than a decade but intensified in recent years, and they proved to be effective instruments to win friends and influence enemies.

David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan leader who visited Damascus in 2005 to show solidarity with the Syrian regime against Zionism and imperialism, frequently expressed support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad despite the dictator’s vicious campaign against his own people. In a 2017 tweet, he wrote, “Assad is a modern day hero standing up to demonic forces seeking to destroy his people and nation – GOD BLESS ASSAD!” Similar Assad-friendly sentiments have been expressed by far-right figures in Europe.

In August 2015, the prominent and influential Dubai businessman Mohammed al-Habtoor published an eyebrow-raising opinion piece in The National, an English-language daily in the UAE, explaining his support for the then controversial presidential candidate Donald Trump, describing him as a “a strategist with a shrewd business mind” despite his incendiary remarks about Muslims. The support from Habtoor, who is close to the Emirati government, suggested that these governments, or figures close to them, were happy to strike alliances with anti-Islam activists in the West—not in spite of their rhetoric, but because of it. In an answer to a question about Trump’s anti-Muslim remarks, he later told Bloomberg that those were “political talk,” and “talk is cheap.”

As these regimes face more pressure, they deploy fears of extremism and terrorism to garner support. For example, as European countries increasingly became critical of Saudi Arabia last year after the growing casualties in the Yemen war, the imprisonment of women activists, and the murder of the Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, Riyadh turned to the right wing for support. Among other efforts, a delegation of Saudi women was dispatched to meet with the far-right bloc of the European Parliament. According to Eldar Mamedov, an advisor to the European Parliament’s social democrats, Saudi Arabia subsequently became a divisive issue in Brussels, as left-of-center forces pushed for resolutions against the kingdom while right-wing forces opposed them.

After the military coup in Egypt in 2013, the regime in Cairo and its regional backers were in full gear to exaggerate the risks of extremism and promote Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi as the strongman who was willing to take on not just the extremists but also Islamic thought. A statement he made in 2015 about the need for an Islamic reformation to review, and presumably discard, centuries-old Islamic traditions became heavily cited by his defenders in Washington and other capitals as evidence of his anti-Islamist credentials.

The rise of Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince, was framed by regional governments in similar terms. In leaked emails published in 2017, the Emirati ambassador to the United States summed up this propaganda in response to complaints about the continued emergence of jihadis from the region: “Look, I’ll be the first to admit that this ideology is a problem and its problem that needs to be dealt with. But we’re finally seeing someone in saudi willing to address it. Thats a first for us.” The Qatar crisis in 2017 was similarly depicted as part of an Emirati and Saudi effort to uproot extremists and their funders, which was briefly endorsed by Trump, who had just concluded a historic visit to Riyadh.

These regimes intentionally push propaganda about political and religious activists from their countries now living in the West to marginalize and silence them in their new homes. Many of these individuals fled repression and sought protection in democracies; labeling them as religious or stealth jihadis makes it easier to discredit their anti-regime activism. The rise of powerful Western Muslim activists and politicians adds to these regime’s anxiety about its own domestic stability.

The role of foreign countries in fueling the cycle of prejudice and xenophobia deserves to be an urgent area of focus. Contrary to what Habtoor said about Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric, talk is not cheap. As events in New Zealand have shown, talk can cost innocent lives.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/29/arab-regimes-are-the-worlds-most-powerful-islamophobes/
 
Last edited:
Salaam

Like to share

Blurb

They're often in the media spotlight, but say they're not being heard. Assed Baig talks to British Muslims about identity and finding their voice at a time of increased Islamophobia




 
Last edited:
Salaam

Another update

Down with the Muslim Brotherhood !

Should they be called a terrorist organisation? · Pure coincidence? Almost at the same moment, the French and American presidents have come out strongly against political Islam. While Donald Trump and his administration are examining the possibility of branding the Muslim Brotherbood as a “terrorist organisation”, Emmanuel Macron has denounced an undertaking which wishes “to secede from the Republic.”

His 25 April press conference was meant to deal with lessons which the government has drawn from the Yellow Vests movement. But the French President unexpectedly launched into an attack on those who, “in the name of religion, adhere to a project of a political Islam which aims to secede from the Republic.” In an off-the-cuff reaction, Stéphane Beaudet, an independent conservative mayor of Paris suburb Evry Courcouronnes, observed that ”concerning Islam, he pulled out all the stops! (. . .) He really spoke his mind. The European elections are just around the corner “.

Spokesperson for Les Républicains (LR), Lydia Guirous rejoiced but felt the President didn’t go far enough. In an op-ed which appeared in Le Journal du Dimanche (4 May)—and has been endorsed by over 50 LR MPs—she demanded the dissolution of “all organisations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. I have in mind the association of “Musulmans de France,”the new name of the UOIF (Union des organisations islamiques de France).”

She added that France should designate the Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation. “Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Great Britain have already done so.” One lie and one omission in a single sentence: London refused to go along with a designation demanded, on the other hand, by Saudi Arabia. But even for Les Républicains, to align themselves with a kingdom which is conducting a bloody war in Yemen and ordered the heinous murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi would no doubt have been hard to swallow.

This panicky language is not a monopoly of the right-wing French opposition, it can be heard coming from a broad range of political parties, mass media and intellectuals in France and throughout the European Union. In their crusade against “political Islam”, they rehash all the clichés of the far right – often with the strange pretext of halting the rise of such movements, and we all know how successful this has been!

The American president has been contaminated by this same phobia of Islam but with consequences that could be far more dangerous for the rest of the world. As the New York Times has revealed, his administration would like to add the Muslim Brotherhood to its list of terrorist organisations. This idea was already being bandied about when Trump took office and it was revived following his meeting with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi on 9 April 2019. It has the support of two other Middle-Eastern autocrats, the crown princes of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, Mohamed Ben Salman (MBS) and Mohamed Ben Zayed (MBZ), whose Washington envoys skulk in the corridors of power.

In the President’s immediate entourage, three people are pushing him in that direction. First, there is his national security adviser, John Bolton. He was one of the planners of the disastrous US adventure in Iraq in 2003 and one-time chairman of the Gatestone Institut, where it is believed that the United Kingdom has become “an Islamist colony” and where Muslim immigration in Europe is compared with “the great white death” (reference to the “great black plague” which devastated the continent in the 14th century). Then there is Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, previous head of the CIA, who was a Tea Party congressman and who is closely involved with the foundation ACT! for America.

The president of this organisation, Brigitte Gabriel, has written that “Jihad is mentioned in the Quran 40 times — 36 times out of 40 as a holy war against the infidels, to either kill them or subjugate them.”

The least known of the three, Victoria Coates is in charge of the Middle East for the National Security Counsel, although her specialty, surprisingly enough, is European art. She has worked for the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies, a neo-conservative think tank, which would be more appropriately named “Foundation for the Defence of Israel”. This is no doubt why Coates is currently associated with the group preparing the “agreement of the century” on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in gestation for two years now and which should be made public in the next few weeks. Will this sturdy coalition, composed of a handful of Middle-Eastern dictators and a clique of agitators close to the American ultra-right succeed in pushing through legislation against the Brotherhood? Perhaps not, for this plan is met with much questioning and many doubts inside the beltway itself.

For what comes under attack here is not a clandestine entity such as al-Qaida or the Islamic State (IS) but a movement with hundreds of thousands of members and millions of sympathizers in the Arab world. Whenever free elections have been held in one of those countries, the Brotherhood has obtained at least a third of the vote and at times has won a parliamentary majority in Palestine, in Egypt and Morocco (not to speak of the Algerian elections of 1991).

Banning the Brotherhood is tantamount to banning democracy, while the West never ceases to brag about defending it. The Egyptian example is edifying in this respect: in June-July 2013 a large portion of society took to the streets to challenge the elected President Mohamed Morsi and his party, the Muslim Botherhood. After having ousted them with unprecedented brutality, the army attacked the liberals and the left, then every dissident voice. And turned the country into a political disaster area.

By slamming the door on democracy, authoritarian regimes as well as the Western powers are indirectly encouraging the most radical organisations. The day after Sissi’s coup on 3 July 2013, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the head of al-Qaida sent a letter to the Egyptian Brotherhood in which he wrote, in substance: “We told you so, the democratic way is an impasse. “ As political commentator Marwan Bishara has pointed out:“ Perhaps the most damaging for regional and indeed global security is equating the Muslim Brotherhood with al-Qaeda and treating them as one, which spells disaster. It would not only push many Brothers underground, but also strengthen violent jihadi groups and vindicate their claim that the West at large sees all Muslims as terrorists and Islam as a threat. “

One may understand that those in charge of the fight against terrorism in the United States should be especially reluctant to divert a share of their resources to engage in dubious battle with the Brotherhood which has never launched the slightest operation in the USA or in Europe and certain branches of which are actually allies of the United States, as the editorialist David Kirkpatrick has pointed out in the New York Times: in Kuwait since the Iraqi invasion of 1990; in Iraq, where they have taken part in government coalitions; in Yemen where they fight alongside the coalition under Saudi leadership; in Syria where they are part of the anti-Assad opposition.

And what will happen in countries where the Brotherhood is part of the legal political landscape? In Morroco, one of its members, who belongs to the Party of Justice and Development (PJD) is Prime Minister, and the Brotherhood takes part in legislative elections in Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Mauritania. Will Washington break off relations with all those countries if they fail to ban the organisation?

Designating the Brotherhood as terrorist would adversely affect other American alliances in the region, in particular its relations with Qatar (which hosts the main US military base in the region and where Washington has just sent some B-52 bombers as part of its campaign of intimidation against Iran) or with Turkey (where relations with the US have seriously deteriorated over the past few years).

These two countries “are the primary state backers” of the organisation, Jonathan Schantzer of the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies claimed last year before Congress. “If US policymakers truly wish to undermine the global reach of the Muslim Brotherhood, it must take a hard look at the group’s state sponsors,”
2
he said. However, this opinion is not shared by everybody in Washington, including part of the pro-Israel lobby who points out that Qatar contributes to “the stabilisation” of Gaza.

But is the Brotherhood really “terrorist”? Here at Orient XXI we have on several occasions denounced the inanity of this term when it comes to qualifying an organisation. Even if we restrict it to “the use of violence against civilians,”we must remember that is condemned by the Brotherhood. The sole exception is Hamas, regarded by the Brotherhood, but also by the vast majority of Arab (Muslim) public opinion, as an organisation of legitimate resistance against an illegitimate occupation. And in any case, Hamas is already on the list of terrorist organisations compiled by the United Staes and the European Union.

We may dislike the Brotherhood, its authoritarian tendencies (which it shares with many other political forces in the region), its sectarianism or its neo-liberal economic program. But it is part of the political landscape and repressing it causes a setback for democracy, not for its ideas: if we are to believe a recent poll, one third of the Egyptian population still has a positive opinion of the Brotherhood, in spite of its being vilified every day in all the media and accused of the most heinous crimes.

The United States are engaged in an escalation against Iran, adopting increasingly severe sanctions and designating the Guardians of the Revolution as a terrorist organisation. As Marwan Bishara points out, they have given carte blanche to their Israeli, Egyptian, and Sudanese allies “ to do as they please domestically and regionally, as long as they purchase US weapons, invest in the US economy and support US initiatives in the Middle East, like the soon to be revealed “deal of the century’”. The criminalisation of the Muslim Brotherhood in this context would only be seen as part of an all-out war against Muslims.

At which point some can begin wondering pompously, “why do they hate ̔us̕ ”? And feign surprise that between 2016 and 2019 the number of young Arabs who consider the United States to be their ally has dropped from 59% to 32%, while those who see Russia as their ally is now 64%

By the same token, France has also been discredited: according to another poll, while 79% of respondents in the Arab world have an opinion not very favourable or unfavourable of the USA, the figure is 45% for France (as against only 36% favourable) . General De Gaulle must be turning over in his grave at the sight of the disaster area that his “Arab policy of France” has become.

https://orientxxi.info/magazine/down-with-the-muslim-brotherhood,3096
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top