Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

Salaam

Another update

Rabbani Trial Reactions: A Moral Victory Against Schedule 7

This week our international director Muhammad Rabbani appeared in Westminster Magistrate’s Court to defend the privacy of a torture victim after he was arrested for not divulging passwords at a Schedule 7 stop at Heathrow in November last year. Rabbani was protecting crucial information in a case implicating high ranking officials in torture.

Judge Emma Arbuthnot was constrained by the intrusive law to deliver a guilty verdict for obstructing a Schedule 7 search. Importantly she acknowledged that the issue of passwords and privacy was a fundamental one in our digital age and agreed that Rabbani was indeed carrying confidential material and that through his actions, was of good character and sound belief.

Such an outcome is a positive step in the campaign against this authoritarian law. It underlines the absurdity and injustice of Schedule 7 and demonstrates how far we have regressed when protecting client confidentiality and your privacy is deemed a ‘terrorism’ offence. The law allows for warrantless digital strip-searches, suspicionless stops, and mass profiling. As it stands, CAGE has no option but to appeal the verdict and challenge the law itself.

The media coverage of the outcome was overwhelmingly positive for CAGE. News outlets underscored the role that CAGE was playing, as the guardian not only of torture evidence, but also of the privacy and rights of all. Several journalists wrote about Rabbani’s courage and even more of them acknowledged the implications of the case for all those who pass through airports with confidential client information or private personal or professional data. Many raised the issue of the injustice of the Schedule 7 law.

The case also mobilised the community. The public gallery at court was packed, and over 100 supporters turned up outside the court on a Monday afternoon to show solidarity with Rabbani. Countless messages of support came from far and wide. Twitter and Facebook were alive with comments and we were overwhelmed by the goodwill shown towards CAGE. We would like thank all those who raised their voices in unison with ours.

https://cage.ngo/article/rabbani-trial-reactions-a-moral-victory-against-schedule-7/

- - - Updated - - -

Salaam

And another

Anti-torture advocate vows to appeal after magistrates court decision in crucial privacy case

London – Anti-torture advocate and International Director of CAGE Muhammad Rabbani will appeal a magistrate court’s decision that found him guilty yesterday in a landmark privacy case.

Mr Rabbani was ordered to pay court costs of £620 and was granted a conditional discharge of 12 months.

The judgement follows an incident where Mr Rabbani was stopped and searched in November at London Heathrow. He cited client confidentiality as a reason to refuse the police access to his devices. In relation to this point, both judge and prosecution accepted that Mr Rabbani was of good character and worthy of belief.

Schedule 7 gives police at borders unfettered access to individuals’ digital worlds, even when there is no suspicion of a crime. This is a violation of the rule of law. Moreover, statistics show that these digital strip searches overwhelmingly target Muslims, although they have broader implications for all those who carry confidential information.

Dr Adnan Siddiqui, Director of CAGE, said:

“Finding against Rabbani for upholding the rule of law, making a stand against the harassment of Muslims at airports, and protecting a torture victim’s right to seek accountability highlights the injustices of the system. The outcome demands an attitude of courage and fortitude from our supporters, as well as broader civil society. We must continue to challenge these injustices despite intimidation.”

“We would like to thank all those who supported Rabbani and CAGE in resisting oppressive counter-terrorism legislation, which has seen the steady erosion of our value and liberties. Despite the outcome, coercion and intimidation have still failed to break the principle of trust which is a key value of CAGE and all those who understand justice.”

Muhammad Rabbani, International Director of CAGE, said:

“I will be appealing this decision. In reality, Schedule 7 discriminates and the result indicates that our only option is to change the law. This judgement confirms that a person can fall foul of Terrorism laws for protecting client confidentiality. The principle of presumption of innocence, the principle of client confidentiality and the principle of personal privacy are all too important to surrender even with the threat of conviction. Maintaining the trust of the torture survivor is key to holding the perpetrators of his torture to account. CAGE will continue to seek accountability and due process, with the confidence that our community and our supporters are behind us.”

Gareth Peirce, solicitor, said:

“This is a mockery of the concept of due process – the exercise of a principled, rational, truthful, justifiable concern that legitimate confidential obligations should be respected is transformed instead into a strict liability criminal offence. The idea that there is access to any protection is nonsensical. The only comfort in this outcome is that it exposes vividly how shoddy and shabby are the claims that Schedule 7 stops are carefully calibrated, proportionally applied measures that serve to protect national security. The reality is Mr Rabbani’s experience boils down to having to run a capricious gauntlet of interference with every journey and with the Damocles sword of prosecution hanging over every stop.”

https://cage.ngo/press-release/anti-torture-advocate-vows-to-appeal-after-magistrates-court-decision-in-crucial-privacy-case/

Salaam

The pathetic Blair returns from the dead.

The irony of Tony Blair: how one of the world’s greatest neo-con “extremists” has stepped into the “extremism” debate

Last week, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, a new policy shaping institute which professes to be “helping countries, their people, and their governments address some of the most difficult challenges in the world today” released a report criminalising several Muslim organisations.

Making absolutely no mention of the grievances that fuel political violence or the pressing need to address the abuse of Muslims, the report, seized upon and quoted by right-wing media, pinned the blame for political violence on a handful of “hate preachers” as well as UK “Islamist” groups, which it claimed audaciously serve as “recruiting pools” for violent “jihadism”.

The assertions of a trajectory of violence between ‘non-violent’ Muslim organisations and political violence, coming from an institute headed by an individual who is perhaps one of the greatest warmongers of recent times, is laughable. In fact, Tony Blair is responsible for significantly increasing the risk of political violence on the streets by plunging the UK into a succession of wars despite warnings from the security services.
Close connections to despotic regimes

Following his role in the invasion of Iraq and subsequent to his role as prime minister at the time, Blair pocketed more than $30 million in oil revenues from his secret dealings with a South Korean oil consortium, UI Energy Corporation, which specialises in oil exploration in Iraq.

Besides this profit from mass murder, perhaps the most telling examples of Blair’s political legacy and danger to society, are his links to despotic regimes in Egypt, Libya and Saudi Arabia.

In Egypt, President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s security forces have been accused by Human Rights Watch of arresting tens of thousands of Egyptians, as well as of torture, enforced disappearances and “extrajudical executions”, known in common parlance as murder. In 2013, Sisi overthrew the country’s first freely elected president, Mohamed Morsy, and from this has the blood of more than 1,150 people on his hands.

But it is Tony Blair who has stood behind him: in 2014, Blair wrote: “It is massively to our advantage that President Sisi succeeds. We should help him.”

Blair has also cashed in on Sisi’s leadership, stepping in as an advisor to the despot and furthering a brand of government-approved Islam which is fuel for various abusive but ultimately profitable “counter-terrorism” measures that have seen the mass curtailment of freedoms:

“Blair has become Sisi’s éminence grise [advisor behind the scenes] and is working on the economic plan that the UAE is paying for. For him, it combines both an existential battle against Islamism and mouth-watering business opportunities in return for the kind of persuasive advocacy he provided George Bush over Iraq,” wrote Peter Oborne.

When it comes to Libya, it is widely accepted that Blair, with the assistance of then foreign secretary Jack Straw and MI6’s Sir Mark Allen, handed over Libyan dissident Abdul-Hakim Belhaj and his pregnant wife Fatima Boudchar to Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi in return for his co-operation in the ‘War on Terror’. The Boudchars were renditioned and tortured and have yet to receive an apology from the British government since their trial moved to secret court.

Blair’s ‘business interests’

Blair’s enterprises, which traded under the name Tony Blair Associates, included Windrush Ventures, under which Blair provided consultancy services to various governments around the world. According to the Telegraph: “Windrush Ventures was set up to channel money earned by Mr Blair through a series of consultancies giving advice to governments and their leaders including to Nursultan Nazarbayev, the autocratic ruler of Kazakhstan.”

Blair has made a substantial amount of money exporting his deathly political legacy. In 2015, Windrush saw its turnover increase by a third to £19.4 million in 2015, while profits tripled to £2.6 million. According to the Daily Mail, staff working for the firm have received an average pay increase that year of more than £30,000.

Even earlier than that, in November 2010, PetroSaudi hired Tony Blair Associates, then the trading name of his two groups of firms Firerush and Windrush, to court Chinese leaders to allow access to PetroSaudi, a London-based company co-owned by Prince Turki bin Abdullah – the son of Saudi Arabia’s then monarch. According to the Guardian, Blair was serving as Middle East peace envoy for the US, UN, EU and Russia at the time.

These are just a few of Blair’s dodgy business deals and links to despotic regimes whose human rights record is abysmal. And yet he reserves the right to declare what is acceptable Islam and what is not. It is no surprise then that last year, Blair proclaimed in an interview that “many millions” of Muslims hold a viewpoint that is “fundamentally incompatible with the modern world.” Now this year, his institute has released their report that casts Muslim organisations under suspicion.

The latest report on “jihadists” in Britain must be seen in light of these and other glaring and incriminating facts about Blair, a man who appears to be putting all his efforts into exporting his failed legacy to the world, in opposition to the sensibilities of the vast majority who are concerned with justice and peace.

https://cage.ngo/article/the-irony-of-tony-blair-how-one-of-the-worlds-greatest-neo-con-extremists-has-stepped-into-the-extremism-debate/

Salaam

Another update

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHgEAeyRGQs

https://youtu.be/rz5fZziMWEE

A plan is constantly in effect, i just cant figure it out lol.

Salaam

Another update

Outlawing gender segregation: How PREVENT and Ofsted are about conditioning our children, neo-con style

A recent ruling to ban gender segregation in faith schools is hypocritical and steeped in the hate-filled neo-conservative agenda to make conditions harder for Muslims “across the board”. But it will also affect other faith groups and is a call to action for us all.

Recently, the court of appeal ruled that a co-educational Islamic school in Birmingham, Al-Hijrah school, a voluntary-aided mixed-sex state school, could no longer separate boys and girls. This confusing ruling has called into question the neutrality of the court as it adversely affects Muslims by holding them to a unique standard.

It also exemplifies how PREVENT is being imported into the judicial system and it entrenches Ofsted’s role as an increasingly intrusive “regulator” that acts as an ideological henchman for the state.

A judgment steeped in hypocrisy which targets Islam

The ruling has attracted much commentary. However, it is important to focus on the actual judgment before addressing the deteriorating state of government institutions.

The judgment comprises the views of three judges, with the third Gloster LJ (Dame Elizabeth Gloster) approvingly referencing and citing the Casey Review, a highly problematic review for its anti-Islamic bias.

The arguments in the judgment assert that because a boy pupil can mix with other boy pupils but a girl cannot and vice versa, there is discrimination for each individual pupil on the grounds of sex.

This is highly hypocritical given the fact that all three judges attended elite single sex schools, and also problematic in light of the school’s insistence, with evidence, that it operated a “separate but equal” policy.

If this is the case, then why does this argument not apply to two single-sex schools – one boys and one girls – which discriminate on the basis of sex at the point of enrolment despite being under the regulatory auspices of Ofsted? Why does the court, Gloster LJ, and the pro-PREVENT interveners in this case refuse to consider this blatant contradiction?

The judges also determine “less favourable” treatment on the basis of Ofsted’s ideological agenda. Its findings were based on responses from a few pupils, which were then arbitrarily extrapolated to the general practice of segregation within the school. This approach can indeed be taken with single-sex schools too and yet again, this point is of little concern for the likes of Ofsted and the Equality Commission.

According to a report in the Guardian, “the school’s lawyers argued in court that the segregation was one of its defining characteristics. They said the policy was clear to parents who wished to send their children there and to previous Ofsted inspectors, who had never raised it as a concern”. In other words, teachers and parents (and even previous Ofsted inspectors!) saw this policy as being in the best interests of the children.

The influence of pro-PREVENT organisations whose aim it is to enforce the prevailing hierarchy

It is obvious that this judgment specifically targets Islam, although it will also adversely affect Jewish schools. This is not surprising when one takes a closer look at the background of those involved in this case – they are against religion. Islam in the current global climate is an easy target, and they are supported by the anti-Muslim bias of the tabloid press and their associated mob.

Gloster LJ mentions that she finds interventions by Inspire and Southall Black Sisters as “instructive” in the case. The fact that the opinions of these groups are being used as a guideline by top judges shows that the judiciary in Britain is becoming politicised by groups whose agendas are far from independent, while Muslim and even Jewish religious experts were not consulted at all.

Inspire is dedicated to promoting and defending discriminatory, academically baseless policy of PREVENT, a policy which allows power structures to coerce and bully minorities. Inspire has also received funding in the past from the Home Office for
projecting black propaganda to Muslims in the UK in order to bring about a state-approved version of Islam.

It is rich of Southall Black Sisters to intervene in a case concerning Muslims, whilst its founder Gita Sahgal seeks to restrict the rights of Muslim women to choose they way they dress, and how they conduct themselves in relation to men. Sahgal is a close associate of Maryam Namazie who has also expressed hateful views and called for a ban on hijab.

The Casey Review and the fingerprints of the neo-conservative hate network

But there is even more to this judgment than meets the eye. In order to enforce this aggressive secular view, these interveners and Gloster LJ assert that girls suffer greater detriment though segregation. Gloster LJ does this by relying on what the majority judges call “an objective inference” from the “entirety of evidence”.

Among this evidence is the Casey Review. The Casey Review is far from objective, however. It internalises PREVENT logic and Louise Casey herself is not known for evidence-based policy. Her previous reports have been criticised by academics for a “lack of rigour and transparency in the methods used to gather and analyse data”.

Ofsted, Amanda Spielman and Michael Gove

Questions only increase when it comes to Ofsted’s new head, Amanda Spielman, who is not without controversy. She was heavily criticised by the Education Select Committee in her pre-appointment questions for lacking passion and understanding for her role as well as teaching experience.

The Committee concluded that “Amanda Spielman was not prepared for the vast scope and complexity of this important role.” However, this advice was ignored and Nicky Morgan appointed Spielman anyway.

It is pertinent to note that Morgan’s tenure as secretary of state for education was mired by the revelation that her department was still being “back-seat” driven by warmongering, anti-Islam neoconservative Michael Gove and his allies. Spielman’s connection to the neocon does not end here. In fact she has a lengthy working relationship with him.

In 2011, Michael Gove and his then special advisor Dominic Cummings were exposed for their close links to a charity called the New Schools Network (NSN). Spielman was a trustee at the NSN, which was set up to provide advice and guidance to set up independent state-funded schools. It has several links to the Conservative Party. Spielman was also a member of the Sykes review group set up by Gove to review the school assessment system.

Not only was Spielman part of Gove’s agenda here, but she was research and development director of the academy operator. ARK was deeply implicated in the 2014 Trojan Horse scandal.

More worryingly, the Casey Review was heavily influenced by the neoconservative hate network. The Review references David Goodhart’s disturbing book The British Dream. Goodhart was formerly on the advisory council of notorious neoconservative Douglas Murray’s Centre for Social Cohesion, which later joined with the Henry Jackson Society.

He was also listed among those on the advisory board of the Quilliam Foundation in 2010. He now is a member of the advisory for Demos and currently heads the Demography, Immigration and Integration unit of Michael Gove’s notorious neoconservative think-tank, Policy Exchange. Notably, all three sources are referenced in the Casey Review.

Other think-tanks referenced in the Casey Review include another neoconservative group called Civitas and in particular, a report by the author David MacEoin. MacEoin said that he has “very negative feelings” about Islam. MacEoin has also authored several articles on the neoconservative propaganda website Gatestone Institute. Gatestone has been described as “one of the most important hubs in America’s Islamophobia industry, pumping out reams of dangerous anti-Muslim propaganda of the kind lapped up by far-right mass murderer Anders Breivik.”

The Gloster LJ opinion demonstrates an alarming lurch towards neoconservative thinking in the judiciary. The citing of the Casey Review and its neo-conservative links should be more vigorously interrogated and exposed.

Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board’

The ruling reflects how the neo-conservative lobby is exerting influence on top judges and the legal system to comply with Douglas Murray’s 2006 goal: “conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board”.

For now, the hidden agenda behind this ruling is obvious. The British government – and indeed other like governments around the world – have placed the responsibility for educating children firmly in the hands of the state. In turn, the state is imposing a way of thinking on children with methods reminiscent of a dictatorship.

Through the use of PREVENT to police “British values” and a compliant neo-conservative dominated Ofsted, the government is embarking on a programme of social conditioning that tramples upon religious freedom, threatens other religious groups especially Jewish people, limits choice, and ignores what many parents genuinely believe to be the best conditions for their children to learn and develop as full human beings.

This is a nothing short of oppression and discrimination and should be seen as such, and resisted appropriately, with all the rigour that protecting our children demands.

https://cage.ngo/article/outlawing-gender-segregation-how-prevent-and-ofsted-are-about-conditioning-our-children-neo-con-style/

It is yet more evidence of how this hate-driven network is infiltrating all aspects of public life with its warped ‘War on Terror’ values, among them a support for structural oppression and torture – something CAGE has been warning about for years and in particular warned about in the wake of our victory over the Charity Commission and failed efforts by William Shawcross, a colleague of Murray, to shut us down.

The trickling down of these values into public life in Britain and their threat to the rule of law is something that we will continue to speak up against despite being maligned for doing so.

https://cage.ngo/article/outlawing-gender-segregation-how-prevent-and-ofsted-are-about-conditioning-our-children-neo-con-style/

Salaam

The criminalisation of Islam in the UK continues apace. How low will they go :hmm:.

Inspectors to question primary school girls who wear hijab

Ofsted head says move is to tackle situations in which wearing head covering ‘could be interpreted as sexualisation’

School inspectors in England have been told to question Muslim primary school girls if they are wearing a hijab or similar headscarf, the head of Ofsted has announced.

Amanda Spielman, the head of Ofsted and chief inspector of schools, said the move was to tackle situations in which wearing a hijab “could be interpreted as sexualisation” of girls as young as four or five, when most Islamic teaching requires headdress for girls only at the onset of puberty.

The announcement – in the form of a recommendation to Ofsted inspectors rather than an update to the inspectorate’s official handbook – follows a meeting last week between Spielman and campaigners against the hijab in schools, including Amina Lone, co-director of the Social Action and Research Foundation.

Article continues

Recently Al-Hijrah school, a state Islamic faith school in Birmingham, was the subject of a long legal battle after being classed as inadequate by Ofsted for maintaining strict segregation between boys and girls.

In 2014 an Ofsted inspection of an Islamic faith primary school was derailed after parents complained that inspectors had quizzed pupils as young as nine about their attitudes towards homosexuality.

The Muslim Council of Britain secretary-general, Harun Khan, responded to the move saying: “It is deeply worrying that Ofsted has announced it will be specifically targeting and quizzing young Muslim girls who choose to wear the headscarf.

“It sends a clear message to all British women who adopt this that they are second-class citizens, that while they are free to wear the headscarf, the establishment would prefer that they do not,” he said.

“The many British Muslims who choose to wear the headscarf have done extremely well in education and are breaking glass ceilings. It is disappointing that this is becoming policy without even engaging with a diverse set of mainstream Muslim voices on the topic,” he added.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/nov/19/school-inspectors-to-question-primary-school-girls-who-wear-hijab

- - - Updated - - -

Salaam

Another update

Toxic PREVENT is turning young girls into suspects

London – The announcement that primary school girls will be interrogated by OFSTED for wearing hijab is part of a broader neo-conservative policy driven by PREVENT, and which aims to make “conditions harder for Muslims across the board”.

This is a clear sign that PREVENT is a policy which is poisoning public life and creating an environment in which it is now acceptable to interrogate young children.

This toxic environment is maintained through the infiltration of the public sector by neo-conservative hate networks. The politicisation of OFSTED can be explained in part by the links between the current head Amanda Spielman and Michael Gove.

The move indicates that the regulator is enforcing a climate in which the state has a say over such minutiae as children’s dress codes and, in an attempt to bring about a state-sanctioned Islam, young girls are now being targeted.

Ibrahim Mohamoud, spokesperson for CAGE, said:

“This is yet another example of how PREVENT is allowing Muslim children to be selected for special discrimination within the education system. There is no mention of these kinds of measures being taken in the case of other religious groups that wear head coverings. As such, it is wide open to abuse and the application of Islamophobic criteria.”

“The policy is a signal that OFSTED has been given exemption from the rule of law, since it is in clear breach of the Equalities Act 2010.”

“Such a policy is a further extension of PREVENT, a toxic politically-driven programme that aims to control belief and which teachers themselves have stated has led to a breakdown in debate and trust in the classroom. PREVENT must be completely abolished, as should all policies associated with it.”

https://cage.ngo/press-release/toxic...into-suspects/

- - - Updated - - -

Salaam

Another comment piece.

Ofsted Hijab Inquisition – We will interrogate your children to promote our liberalism

The chief inspector of schools in Britain, Amanda Spielman, has aligned herself with the secular fanatics who wish to impose their liberal values on everyone, showing that attempts to undermine Islam are getting more desperate and more sinister.

The Times newspaper reported “Inspectors are to question children who wear the hijab (sic) to primary school,” and that “it will be the first time the rise of the classroom hijab has been officially challenged in state schools.”

Whilst it is not a shari’ah requirement for children to adopt any particular dress code, it is not unusual that parents would want to instill basic modesty within them, so that they grow up with values that stand them in good stead for the rest of their life. Hence why should it be a problem for a parent to ask their child to dress with the clothing that they will be required to wear when they do become an adult? This is aside from the reality that children like to dress like the ones whom they look up to around them, which is naturally their parents, older sisters, cousins and aunties.

In fact there is no reason to attack the school girls who wear khimar in such a way, other than to further the cause of the bigoted Islam haters who have given up all hope of winning people to secularism through rational debate. They cannot attack the Islamic beliefs, upon which all of the shariah rules are founded, as they will then leave themselves hopelessly exposed, as the secular belief has no rational foundation at all. They instead choose to target the vulnerable Muslim children, implying that adherence to Islamic rules is oppressing them, as they are unable to critique the belief foundation for those very rules. It is Allah’s plan, however, that in spite of all their plans, is the best of plans.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/media/press-releases/ofsted-hijab-inquisition-will-interrogate-children-promote-liberalism/

Amanda Spielman and Michael Gove look like Jews. I think the problem here is that Jews have infiltrated Britain and currently rule. If it was under Anglo Saxon and other northern tribes rule they wouldn't let Muslim immigrants in at all, so there would be no problems.

Salaam

Another update

New algorithm to predict crime will bring on a full spectrum surveillance state

London – A series of recommendations from an official review made public last week includes the development of a new algorithm to mine data and detect behaviour that could indicate future involvement in “terrorism”.

This is a threat to an open, accountable and non-partisan justice system that will shift the balance from an evidence-based approach to pre-crime – and it will move Britain closer to a full spectrum surveillance state despite Parliament and the public showing opposition to this.

Computers are only as objective and accurate as their programmers. This is proved by the devastation wrought by drone attacks and the broad and subjective nature of databases such as World Check, which has listed major charities, activists, and mainstream religious institutions under its category of “terrorism”.

Moreover, methods of intelligence gathering lack transparency as they are often covert and not open to the scrutiny of the justice system. This, along with the almost annual implementation of terror laws, means the rule of law continues to be eroded and the failures of the current approach rewarded, while the threat of political violence is still at a high.

Rather, what Britain needs is a fresh, innovative approach to the problem, which addresses root causes instead of bypassing this key issue and eroding the rights of all.

Muhammad Rabbani, CAGE International Director, said:

“Both the seizure of data without suspicion and the mining of this data with algorithms whose creation and methodology remain far from public scrutiny are a violation of due process. The public is unable to challenge the state’s methods and assumptions in both cases.”

“Rather than serving justice, prediction of future activity serves commercial and political interests which are orientated around an Islamophobic worldview, but which can be extended to other communities. As such they are nothing less than an attempt to extend the grip of the security state over all of us, and will create ever higher levels of mistrust and fear.”

“We call for an end to these counterproductive methods and a return to due process. Predicting the future by those intent on securing their political position is unprecedented, bound to be inaccurate, and is a threat to society.”

https://cage.ngo/press-release/new-algorithm-to-predict-crime-will-bring-on-a-full-spectrum-surveillance-state/

Salaam

Another update.

Boris Johnson’s attempt to whitewash British foreign policy is a denial of reality

London – Boris Johnson’s speech at the Foreign Office today claiming that British foreign policy is the solution for and not the cause of political violence, represents a complete denial of reality and an attempt by the government to dodge any responsibility for our current situation.

Armed groups and those imprisoned for political violence, cite British foreign policy as a key grievance. This has been acknowledged by countless voices of authority including, Baroness Manningham-Buller, a former director-general of MI5, who in 2010 said: “Our involvement in Iraq, for want of a better word, radicalised a whole generation of young people, some of them British citizens who saw our involvement in Iraq, on top of our involvement in Afghanistan, as being an attack on Islam.”

In fact, Britain cites threats of violence or actual violence by these armed groups as a justification to carry out its own violent military strikes.

Before he left office US President Barack Obama admitted that the creation of Islamic State was an “unintended consequence” of the US-led invasion of Iraq and its subsequent dismemberment.

Considering Iraq was invaded based on flawed evidence centred on “dodgy dossiers” and tortured evidence, Boris Johnson’s assertion that problems in the Middle East have increased because of Britain’s “aloofness” beggar belief. When he says “British foreign policy is not the problem; it is part of the solution” Johnson tramples on the beliefs and views of millions of ordinary British people.

Dr Adnan Siddiqui, director of CAGE, said:

“Mr Johnson’s comments give air to right-wing groups and follow on from his earlier statements on Brexit which have inspired a narrow, insular nationalism, the consequences of which are being felt not only by Muslims, but all right-minded people concerned with justice.”

“Mr Johnson makes no mention of the swathe of evidence testifying to how the rule of law has been consistently and brutally eroded by the ‘War on Terror’ both abroad and at home. Not acknowledging this as a root cause of violence that needs to be tackled urgently, is quite simply a denial of reality, if not an outright deception. As such, it takes us further from solutions and simply reinvigorates an already failing approach.”

https://cage.ngo/press-release/boris-johnsons-attempt-to-whitewash-british-foreign-policy-is-a-denial-of-reality/

Salaam

Another update.

New counter-terror rules give GPs bizarre incentives to refer mental health patients as radicalisation threat

London – New counter-terrorism rules that will give doctors incentives to refer individuals with mental health issues to PREVENT shows that the government is exploiting the doctor-patient care responsibility in an attempt to increase subscription to its toxic PREVENT programme.

The rules stipulate that urgent psychiatric care will now be provided by mental health trusts to those people with psychological problems who are referred to Prevent. This will influence doctors to refer patients to PREVENT in order to speed up treatment times.

Dr Adnan Siddiqui, CAGE Director and GP said:

“This latest move highlights the government’s determination to further the toxic PREVENT agenda under the guise of safeguarding even if it is as the expense of the wellbeing of societies most vulnerable people.”

“The government is effectively channelling psychiatric cases into a securitised policy that has been proven to damage individuals and families. The effect on doctor-patient trust and patient health will be devastating.”

“Safeguarding and public sector ethics rely on trust, and making public sector workers the handmaidens of the state, not only erodes that trust but has made no tangible improvement to national security.”

https://cage.ngo/press-release/new-policy-exposes-how-the-government-exploits-mental-health-patients-by-incentivising-referrals-to-its-toxic-prevent-programme/

Brilliant! So the paranoid psychotics wont go to the doctor for help because of this "1984" Orwellian policy. Why is Britain as red as Mao's China these days? May as well burn the flag and put up a hammer and sickle.

Salaam

Another video.

https://vimeo.com/219594941

Salaam

Another update

By casting teachers as informants, British counter-extremism policy is promoting violence

The Muslim children in my classroom withdrew from political debate when the Prevent counter-terrorism strategy cast me as an informant.

Prevent infers a duty on all teachers and doctors in England, Scotland and Wales to report signs of so-called “extremism” and “radicalisation” in their pupils and patients. Applying this duty is particularly difficult as “extremism” has not been legally defined by the Home Office.

Working as a secondary school teacher in London from 2005 to 2017, I was required to implement the Prevent counter-extremism strategy. My concern over the impact it was having on the dynamic of my and other classrooms led me to speak out against Prevent and counter-extremism strategy more generally.

When my Muslim students learned of my concerns, some of them approached me to express their anxiety that Prevent was a state surveillance strategy which was targeting them as a result of racial profiling – concerns supported by academic research. The children told me they hadn’t talked to other adults about this for fear that their vocal opposition to this controversial strategy would result in them being reported to the security services.

Some of the children told me that they no longer challenged the views of others that they perceived to be extreme. They feared that speaking out on sensitive issues would result in them being referred under Prevent, just by association. I have been offered examples of this happening in the classroom, on the street and in children’s homes.

Whether the children’s fears were justified or not, Prevent was altering their behaviour. I’ve heard similar examples repeated to me in focus groups I arranged of children from different schools in the London borough of Tower Hamlets.
Dialogue makes a classroom

Teachers, academics and politicians disagree over whether Prevent promotes or stifles debate in classrooms. This disagreement will continue until all of those with an interest in education recognise that there are different types of classroom debates.

The education expert Robin Alexander argues that authentic dialogue in classrooms is rare. Instead of having genuine conversations that may result in children and their teachers changing their preconceived views, children tend to be expected to offer their teachers anticipated answers. But authentic dialogue is crucial if schools are to promote a more harmonious society – for it is through genuine debate that we all moderate our views.

Before Prevent was imposed on schools, some of the children at the secondary school where I taught approached me to discuss how they had begun to feel alienated from society. Concerns such as the impact of British foreign policy on civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria were a frequent topic of conversation. When my students raised these concerns, I was often able to tell them that I shared them – and this helped us think of possible responses.

The children raised suggestions of travelling to war zones, but quickly dismissed them in favour of peaceful, democratic solutions. Through talking, they learned to write to MPs, raise funds for refugee charities and contribute to human rights campaigns. Threats of nationalist violence were also dismissed as we explored our values through dialogue – dialogue that my students have since told me they no longer engage in.

When all that’s left is violence

Many theorists have argued that peace in a democracy relies on people having their say. Belgian political theorist, Chantal Mouffe, wrote in her book On The Political that violence “tends to flourish in circumstances in which there are no legitimate political channels for the expression of grievances”. She describes the shutting down of discourse in a democracy as “letting death in”.

The late French philosopher, Jacques Derrida, in his conversations on 9/11 and other work, described what he called the “autoimmunity of liberalism”. This results from the liberal contradiction of simultaneously trying to suppress dissent while also promoting freedom. Derrida wrote that this contradiction at the core of liberalism results from an aspiration to consensual politics but can result in a violent backlash.

In my ongoing research, I am analysing over a million words of government policy on counter-extremism. It’s revealed that the definitions of “extremism” and “radicalisation” progressively changed to become synonymous with violence between 2005 and 2015. The meaning of words affects how we perceive the world and aligning extreme and radical views with violence not only creates a perceived need for counter-extremism strategy but also acts as a catalyst for the violence that the strategy purports to address.

A strategy such as Prevent that targets radical and extreme views becomes necessary if we accept this change in the meaning of what it is to be “radical” or “extreme”. However, the experiences of my pupils show that the expression of extreme and radical views can actually help to reduce violence.

This moderation of extreme views extends beyond the classroom. People protesting against fracking as well as other student protesters have been referred to the Prevent programme. Silencing dissenting voices undermines the mechanisms by which democracy helps us to avoid violence. Labelling those who oppose the status quo as violent adds a catalyst to this already dangerous situation.

The Home Office is currently in the final stages of recruitment for a counter-extremism commissioner. While the lack of a legal definition for “extremism” makes it difficult to anticipate what this role will involve, surely the successful candidate will want to reduce political violence. Removing the Prevent duty that compels teachers to inform on their students would be a good start.

https://theconversation.com/by-casting-teachers-as-informants-british-counter-extremism-policy-is-promoting-violence-85474?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twitterbutton

Salaam

Another update

Johnson’s fines for ‘no-platforming’ exposes a deep government hypocrisy

Government hypocrisy, it seems, is at an all time high as the year draws to a close. This week, with seemingly no sense of irony, higher education minister Jo Johnson announced that a new body, the Office for Students, will from April 2018 fine universities for refusing to host certain controversial speakers, while at the same time enforce the PREVENT duty.

Since the PREVENT duty already limits free speech by “disrupting” organisations and individuals in campuses under broad and malleable definitions of “extremism” that are discriminatory, we can only conclude that Johnson’s moves are a further attempt by the government to support ‘controversial’ speakers that feed its narratives, while at the same time clamping down on those who do not, under PREVENT.

When it comes to “stifling dissent”, Johnson is adept. In 2015, using his position of authority to negatively frame the National Union of Students (NUS), he asked the NUS to drop opposition to PREVENT.

All of this is taking place behind the illusion of protecting free speech, when in fact, through this duplicitous approach, the government is really becoming the sole arbiter of ‘free speech’. This political corruption feeds the government’s modified ‘muscular liberalism’. Not only this, but the moves will securitise education by streamlining by law what can and cannot be said on campuses, and by whom, according to this purported ‘liberal’ agenda.

This once again illustrates the state’s hypocritical double standards: ‘free speech’ for controversial speakers deemed palatable to the state agenda, PREVENT for all those who do not, with particular focus on Muslims.

PREVENT is toxic and has led to a corrupt environment

But it is not only Muslims that are affected. The involvement of the state within the fabric of universities deeply undermines the academic environment. It is widely acknowledged that PREVENT results in “confusion in the staffroom and suspicion in the classroom”. Now the deceptively named Office for Students (OfS) will add to this mess.

The OfS was set up by Johnson and Education secretary Justine Greening under the Department for Education. Justine Greening is an alumni the Conservative think-tank Bow Group, having formerly served its council. Pertinently, its senior patron includes the neoconservative philosopher Roger Scruton.

Unsurprisingly, Scruton is also listed as a Policy Council Member for Murray’s Henry Jackson Society – the notorious, hate-funded neoconservative think-tank that has influenced the British counter-extremism strategy.

With these links, the government has been encroaching on academic expression and chasing ghosts in it’s campaign to quell voices of dissent. The warnings of 360 academics about the consequences of state intervention in the academic environment are being realised today.

This overarching effect has also given air to alarming developments revealed through individual cases. In the case of Salman Butt vs Downing Street, CAGE published how court proceedings revealed that the government is fed data by the far-right Henry Jackson Society on individuals and organisations it deems “extremist” on campuses. This data is used as court evidence and has further bolstered a warped and neo-conservative definition of “extremism”, while criminalising dissent.

This development alone highlights the gross incompetence of this government and the grave error in providing it with any oversight in defining or protecting ‘free speech’.

How the state uses red herrings to drive their neo-conservative agenda

The enforcement of an aggressive neo-conservative agenda is often done through the sweeping application of the anti-Semitism label. Recently, hundreds of academics claimed that free speech on Israel is being suppressed by individuals and groups who deliberately seek to conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

It is no wonder then that pro-Palestine groups are among the highest referrals from Universities to PREVENT. In fact, the anti-Semitism threat has been extended to any opposition against Israel and support for Palestinian rights, despite the fact that there are many Jewish supporters for these causes.

The appropriation of the anti-Semitic label for political ends is deeply cynical and offensive. However, the utilisation of the term under PREVENT shows how far the government will go to employ red herrings in order to control spaces where students organise and attempt to take action against injustice.

The students on campus are not the threat to free speech. This threat emanates through the corridors of power by using regulators like the OfS to push an ideological agenda rather than protect student rights. Given this trend it is difficult envisage OfS becoming overtly concerned with genuine student issues such as student debts, funding, finance and the pervading rape culture.

Students and broader society should not be fooled by Johnson’s words claiming that “government [is simply] playing its part in actively creating the conditions necessary for our universities to serve as the vibrant free-trading marketplaces for ideas that we need them to be.”

On the contrary, campuses are now even more inhibited by incessant state overreach. PREVENT intends to debilitate any capacity for student organising and dissent within campuses, while this new announcement by Johnson will allow ideologues who are friendly to the state programme to speak unchallenged at universities.

https://cage.ngo/article/johnsons-fines-for-no-platforming-exposes-a-deep-government-hypocrisy/

Salaam

Another update

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h_3Bpgh-T4

Salaam

Another update

Children rounded up in Kenya madrassa raid by FBI and Scotland Yard must be returned to parents

Johannesburg – The 95 children taken into custody after a raid by the FBI and Scotland Yard on a madrassa in Likoni, Kenya, must be released and returned to their parents immediately.

The raid was conducted on 20 December by local and international forces, who claimed, without evidence, that the madrassa was operating a “terrorist cell”.

But according to the Council of Imams and Preachers of Kenya treasurer Sheikh Hassan Omar, the parents of the children are still waiting to be told exactly why their children were taken into custody. He said security forces had “picked and harassed our children without any reason”.

The latest news reports on the issue claimed the children are being interrogated by foreign agencies.

Feroze Boda, spokesperson for CAGE Africa, said:

“The fact that foreign security forces from the US and UK can swoop into a madrassa and detain almost 100 children shows how global counter-terrorism operations are a threat to international law, which is supposed to protect children from the trauma of detention and interrogation.”

“We call for the children to be released immediately and for due process. Police cannot use the results of interrogations to build a case. Justice demands that enough evidence be presented first, to determine whether it is necessary to question children, and even then strict legal standards must be maintained. However, foreign agencies are turning due process on its head, traumatising many families. Kenyans should be outraged that foreign agencies are allowed to launch operations of this nature on their soil.”

https://cage.ngo/press-release/children-rounded-up-in-kenya-madrassa-raid-by-fbi-and-scotland-yard-must-be-returned-to-parents/

Salaam

Another update

East London primary school bans the hijab

A primary school in East London with a large Muslim intake has banned the hijab for pupils up to the age of 7.

St Stephen’s Primary School in Upton Park, Newham, has already banned the hijab in sports lessons because it allegedly “hinders movement.” It also discourages fasting on “health and safety” grounds.

In a video on the right-wing The Sunday Times website the school’s non-Muslim headteacher, Neena Lall, said that she wanted to teach the children to be British and that they should feel fortunate to be in the British education system.

She added: “They can still practise their religion and their culture but also take the best that this country has to offer. And every child, every member of staff and every parent buy into that vision because it works and what we are doing here is for the good of the children so that they can integrate into society.”

The Department of Education said: “It is a matter for individual schools to decide how to accommodate children observing Ramadan, and to set uniform policies.”

It is not clear what the views of Muslim parents and children at the school are but Muslim educationalist Yusuf Patel said the move smacked of “social engineering” and “forced assimilation.”

He said: “My own view is that this is a very clear case of schools overstepping their mark and delving into parenting issues. Their role is simply to educate our children without taking over responsibility for the values that parents should be responsible for.”

In recent years there has been a campaign against the hijab in schools led by right-wing ideologues, secular fundamentalists and anti-Muslim activists.

https://5pillarsuk.com/2018/01/14/east-london-primary-school-bans-the-hijab/

Salaam

Another update, some good news.

East London primary school backs down over hijab ban

Chair of governors at St Stephen’s primary school in Newham resigns following complaints from parents

A primary school that controversially banned pupils from wearing hijabs appears to have backed down after the chair of governors announced his resignation following complaints from parents.

St Stephen’s primary school in Newham, east London, hit the headlines at the weekend after the Sunday Times reported it had banned Muslim girls under the age of eight from wearing headscarves, to the delight of campaigners who argued it enforces religious conformity on children.

That decision, along with curbs on children fasting on school days during Ramadan, upset many parents, who said they had not been consulted.
On Friday, the school’s chair of governors, Arif Qawi, said he was stepping down, telling colleagues in an email: “I wish the school continued success and am truly sorry that my actions have caused any harm to the reputation of the fantastic school.”

Qawi’s comments regarding “Islamisation” posted on social media attracted sustained criticism, while parents complained that they first heard about the ban through the media rather than the school.
The website for St Stephen’s posted a note on Friday, headlined as a uniform policy update, that read: “Having spoken to our school community we now have a deeper understanding of the matter and have decided to reverse our position with immediate effect.”

The note was later amended to read: “The school has taken the decision to make the changes to this policy with immediate effect and this follows on from conversations with our school community. We will work with out school community to continue to review this policy going forward in the best interests of our children.”

Miqdaad Versi, the assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said his organisation welcomed Qawi’s resignation because of his “appalling” statements in support of the ban.
“This decision on religious symbols did not appear to target adherents of other faiths and appears to have been made without consulting the parents or community,” Versi said. “Yet serious questions remain unanswered as to the school leadership’s attitude towards Muslims, which are potentially discriminatory.

“It is deeply disappointing that a primary school with such a reputation has acted in this way. We hope that future decisions are made carefully and with full consultation with local communities.”

Amina Lone, an activist who has lobbied the government to bar hijabs in schools for young girls, was disappointed by the school’s U-turn: “A result of clicktivism in all its polarised glory. So much for choice and individual liberty. Terribly sad day for a secular democracy,” Lone wrote on Twitter.

Earlier this week, a group of Newham councillors criticised the school’s decision for creating a “toxic atmosphere” and called for the hijab ban to be reversed.

“It is troubling that the school has decided on a course of action that has clearly divided them from the very community they look to serve,” the councillors said in a statement.

The Department for Education’s policy is for individual schools to set their own uniform policies.
The Sunday Times had previously claimed that St Stephen’s was the best primary school in England last year, based on its outstanding key stage two test results. But the DfE’s performance tables show that a small number of other primaries achieved better results.

The school did not respond to attempts to contact it.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/19/east-london-primary-school-backs-down-over-hijab-ban

Salaam

Another update

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=140&v=HnEj3ggBVDI

Salaam

Another update

Commission for Counter Extremism flawed in both purpose and function: CAGE

London – The idea of a Commission for Counter Extremism (CCE) when there is no accepted definition of “extremism” is flawed at best.
The definition can only be found in policy documents relating to Prevent and that definition has come under a great deal of fire from civil society and community organisations.
If opposition to the rule of law is a sign of “extremism”, then the systematic dismantling of due process rights in the UK legal system and silencing of dissent is indicative of state sponsored “extremism”, with the CCE being the latest manifestation.

Asim Qureshi research director at CAGE, said:

“The government has already made up its mind about where the emphasis of its counter extremism strategy should be. Throughout the history of Prevent it has relied on partners with minimal links to communities in order to prop up the policy. The appointment of Sara Khan is unremarkable considering the long history of such state nepotism.”
“CAGE calls for a complete policy of disengagement with the commission.”

https://cage.ngo/press-release/commission-for-counter-extremism-flawed-in-both-purpose-and-function-cage/