Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

Salaam

Another update

CAGE raises key concerns about PREVENT at European Education and Human Rights Forum in Vienna

CAGE recently participated in an international conference on human rights in education in Vienna, where we raised key concerns around the implementation of PREVENT in schools in the UK.

Our key message was that PREVENT is turning education into an apparatus of policing and the policy has no place in an education sector that intends to further human rights.

The meeting, Organised by the Italian Organisation for Security and Cooperation, was held in Vienna and centred on the right to education as a tool to foster peace and security.

Participating States, OSCE institutions and its executive structures, international organisations, civil society organizations and academic experts met to discuss how to advance human rights education and improve access to education.

The opening sessions and panel discussed at length that human rights and access to education is not up to standard. Participants noted some states no longer use education to foster peace and security.

CAGE community relations officer Shezana Hafiz highlighted that ‘the UK has not just stalled but has failed in this regard’, due to the government’s PREVENT strategy, a counterproductive policy based on a flawed method of evaluating “extremism” knows as the ERG22+. PREVENT is also being rebranded globally as CVE.

She raised major concerns with PREVENT and CVE, explaining how the policy, which is underpinning and steering the education system, is turning it into a apparatus of “ state” policing.

Educational Institutions should be safe spaces for all. They should promote healthy dialogue and critical thought. However what is increasingly being seen is that, in the name of countering “extremism”, the state is using PREVENT as a tool against children at school as well as young adults at university.

This happens through the criminalisation of certain beliefs, arguments, behaviours and questions by labelling them as “extremist”, under vague definitions of the term. This often means young people who challenge government policy are viewed as suspect.

She said the high number of false referrals of children and students on allegations of “extremism” by PREVENT is having a devastating impact on children and students in particular.

Students are finding it difficult to organize events or academic discussions that challenge the government narrative or question domestic and foreign policy. State policy, she said, has in fact fractured the entire education structure through the stifling of dissent.

Students have been dismissed and events shut down, meaning that students or organisations that have tried to organize healthy dialogue and debate have been criminalised.

Shezana added that it is deeply worrying to know that PREVENT is being used as a blueprint and being replicated globally as CVE.

The impact of such coercive state policy and securitisation of institutions is not just felt in the UK. The hijab ban in France opened the floodgates for further legislation creating a systemic hostile environment from schools to wider society.

CAGE stated that the Committee of Justice & Libertes (CJL) in France jointly shared our concerns that state policy is not only stripping away human dignity, but is violating human rights, especially within the education sector.

Shezana emphasised that in light of discussions around human rights in education, we must take into account that the full impact PREVENT, a deep rooted Islamophobic policy that fits into the broader paradigm of the War on Terror.

She said the trauma suffered by young people who have been viewed under a microscope through the education framework will be counterproductive in the long run.

She urged the international community to take the matter very seriously, as the state policies steering education were crucial in shaping the sector.

All participants were urged to raise these concerns and to challenge PVE/CVE to restore value in our education systems.

https://www.cage.ngo/cage-raises-key-concerns-about-prevent-at-european-education-and-human-rights-forum-in-vienna

Salaam

Another update

PREVENT policy continues a colonialist legacy of removing children from their families

Amal Muhammad introduces a new report by advocacy group CAGE which draws parallels between the US Family Separation Policy, PREVENT and the treatment of indigenous children and families

It was only months ago that the brutality of US President Trump’s Family Separation Policy was halted in the face of global outrage – an instinctive recognition of the fundamental human need of children to be with their parents.

But while news-cycle images from across the Atlantic of terrified children being hauled away towards caged detention facilities and toddlers representing themselves in court made a mockery of due process, a more covert and altogether more unsettling family separation process has gained momentum closer to home.

A recent report by advocacy group CAGE featuring an academic analysis of wardship cases involving “extremism” in the UK, as well as startling testimonies of parents who have been through attempts to remove their children or have had them removed based on allegations of “extremism” – has revealed the poisonous effects of the government’s PREVENT policy on families, particularly Muslims, in the UK.

Under the guise of counter-terrorism and through the manipulation of political rhetoric and the hijacking of established child safeguarding norms, Muslim families have become the subject of a state-led ‘witch-hunt’ looking to tear away children based on elusive and unsound notions of ‘radicalisation’ and ‘extremism’.

With counter-terrorism police spearheading social care investigations; interrogations of children (some under the age of 7) being conducted in schools and at home, sometimes without the knowledge, permission or presence of parents; the use of secret evidence and closed proceedings in wardship cases, PREVENT’s punitive policy measures are increasingly being seen as an unjustified erosion of the rule of law and the beginning of a self-made crisis.

Removing children from their parents is a legacy of colonisation

Such unconscionable overreaches of state intervention are not a novel phenomena nor are they the unavoidable consequences of twenty-first century geopolitics. Rather they are chapters taken from history – tried, tested and reflected in the stain of imperial colonialism and the legacy of state-led assimilationist policies the world over.

After all it was only in 1996 that the last of the 130 residential schools that operated across Canada for the assimilation of 150,000 Indigenous children was finally closed.

The ‘Stolen Generations’ of Australia suffered similar horrors as a result of a succession of oppressive and arbitrary legislative acts sanctioning the forced removal of 50,000 Indigenous children from their homes.

The resultant wave of devastation and shared intergenerational trauma continues to haunt these communities, with high rates of alcoholism, suicide and incarceration compounded by the current “humanitarian crisis” of disproportionate representation of Indigenous children in state care.

In South Africa, the policy of Apartheid which prohibited black adults from living in white residential areas, meant their children were left behind in “homelands” while they went in search of work.

The psychological trauma and wholesale devastation of black family and community life that ensued was the result only of calculated government strategies to maintain power.

Why is the British government adopting the same approach to Muslims?

It is imperative then, given this retrospection, to ask why the UK government has insisted on assuming a pro-separation and aggressive interventionist stance towards the family life of its Muslim citizens.

One mother In CAGE’s report describes the blinkered suspicion with which packing boxes were viewed in her new home by ‘child safeguarding agents’.

A father narrates a family’s devastating three year ordeal with PREVENT, detailing how videos of cycling routes were recorded by officers as ‘extremist material’, the act of buying kitchen knives as exhibiting an intention to attack MI5 and incredulously the absence of a TV in the house (due only to the severe lack of finances) as ‘evidence’ of ‘radicalisation’.

This assignment of meaning and intention to ordinary actions through prejudiced, subjective judgments of Islam rather than engagement in any meaningful analysis of child welfare exposes the superficiality of claims that PREVENT is about “safeguarding” – and points towards something else.

PREVENT is adopting a colonialist approach to Muslims

No account within the report fails to note the centrality of religion and religious observance in the line of inquiry by ‘safeguarding’ officers – adherence to fundamental pillars of Islam such as performance of the five daily prayers have become considered indicative of “radicalisation”.

While judges have paid lip-service to notions of religious tolerance and diversity, religious practice, expression and any genuine diversity is being steadily stifled, rejected and effectively criminalised by PREVENT, with young children dragged unnecessarily through care proceedings and parents coerced into compliance.

This is all despite repeated admissions by both social care workers and judges themselves that the children are well provided for in nurturing and loving homes.

The deliberate decision to place a teenage girl with a non-Muslim family, disallowed from conversing with her parents in Arabic or seeing them unaccompanied contextualises one father’s concerns: “I felt like it was my religion and belief that was on trial. It was not about whether I was caring for the children properly.”

It was not too long ago that Canadian assimilation agendas (the ‘Sixties Scoop’) saw Indigenous children removed from their families under the pretext of ‘child welfare’ and placed with non-Indigenous families. Prohibited from speaking their own languages and practicing their own faiths, the aim was to disrupt the natural transmission of cultural identity and ‘civilise’.

A giant step backwards for a Britain that professes to be multicultural

Much like these colonialist attitudes towards “morally deficient” indigenous communities – the precursor to the mass and systematic separation of families – PREVENT’s paternalistic framework, armed with its model of ideological “radicalisation”, necessitates a counter ideology to neutralise the threat.

A dossier released by the Legal Action for Women recognised that “Removing children from their homes is perhaps the most severe government intrusion into the lives of citizens. It is also one of the most terrifying experiences a child can have. The damage caused by disrupting these ties may be far greater than the harm agencies are trying to avoid.”

With recent numbers indicating that children under the age of 15 constitute a third of all referrals to PREVENT (not to mention the well documented harms which plague state care), it is high time to ask why the social care system is being exploited as a vehicle of encroachment into Muslim family life.

It is through our understanding of history and the acknowledgement of our shared pain, then and now, that we can bring about a unified effort to challenge and remove these policies once and for all.

https://mediadiversified.org/2018/10/22/prevent-policy-continues-a-colonialist-legacy-of-removing-children-from-their-families/

Salaam

Another update

Zionist David Toube appointed director of policy at Quilliam

A former writer for the pro-Israel blog Harry’s Place has been appointed Director of Policy at the Quilliam Foundation.

David Toube used to be an outspoken voice for Harry’s Place which supports Israel and attacks those who oppose it, often accusing Muslim activists of anti-Semitism.

Here is a video of David Toube attacking CAGE activists and several other Muslim activists at an event in London in 2009.

He has already started to make media appearances for Quilliam, which is regularly used by the mainstream media to comment on Muslim affairs.

The website of the “anti-extremism” organisation says that Toube was educated at Southampton University and at Brasenose College, Oxford, and is a barrister by training. He taught law at Queen Mary University of London and then practiced law for 25 years.

It adds: “David has been active in counter-extremism activism and writing for fifteen years, and has written for The Guardian and other news outlets, and for the prominent anti-extremist website, Harry’s Place. His focus is on far Left, far Right and Islamist extremism, and on extremism, polarisation and conspiracism within political culture.”

In recent years Quilliam, which is led by Maajid Nawaz, has taken a pro-Israel position which runs contrary to the overwhelmingly anti-Israel stance adopted by the Muslim community.

Earlier this year Nawaz won the “communal ally of the year” award at the pro Israel Jewish News Awards.

At an event packed with hard-core Zionists, Nawaz won an award designed to reward “a non-Jewish hero who has used their voice to fight anti-Semitism or delegitimisation of Israel or has simply supported the community in the media, in politics or elsewhere over the last two years.”

Once a harsh critic of Israel, Nawaz now uses his various media platforms to defend the Zionist regime and rail against anti-Semitism.

https://5pillarsuk.com/2018/10/18/zionist-david-toube-appointed-director-of-policy-at-quilliam/

Salaam

Another update

Embedded Tweet

Salaam

Another update

The Prevent strategy: From violent international terrorism to local religious conservatism

Journalist Nargess Moballeghi has written a series of in-depth articles about how the government’s Prevent counter extremism strategy targets Muslims. In this first piece, she explains the conceptual framework behind Prevent and how it has impacted on the Muslim community.

There has been a proactive effort, especially since 2006, to expand the law and broaden the definition of terrorism to no longer centre on criminal violent terrorists, but focus on the entire Muslim community.

This strategy was launched by the Labour Party, but has been particularly intensified by subsequent Tory-led governments. Central to this strategy is Prevent, also introduced in 2003, as part of the government’s wider “counter-terrorism” strategy called Contest.

Contest contains four “priorities” or departments: Pursue, Prevent, Protect and Prepare. Prevent aims to tackle “radicalisation” thus “preventing” people from turning in to extremists and terrorists.

Initially, Prevent played a minor role in Contest relative to the other strands. But following the attacks in London on 7th July 2005, the importance of the Prevent strategy increased. At its core, the Prevent strategy was built to be the “hearts and minds” dimension of the overall Contest strategy.

Prevent targets Muslims. Its very foundations assume that there is a correlation between Muslim populations and risk of terrorism. When it was first launched, funding was “allocated on the basis of Muslim population size, with those areas with the largest Muslim population receiving the most funding”.The government literature talked about the number of Muslims in a particular area being a proxy for the risk of radicalisation.

Notably, the policy doesn’t apply in Northern Ireland, even though the MI5 threat rating for Northern Ireland-related terrorism is the same as from international terrorism. When Northern Irish MP Gavin Robinson asked a government official about thishe was told “don’t push the issue too far. It is really a counter-Islamic strategy.”

In March 2009 the Government launched a revised strategy, popularly known as CONTEST II that took Prevent from the “least developed strand of Contest” to “the forefront of counter-terrorism” work. In the years since it has become a toxic policy that has been repeatedly expanded to infringe on ordinary Muslims.

Non-violent extremism and British values

Since the 2011 Prevent Strategy the government has defined “extremism” as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values.” The government has described 4 key “fundamental British Values” – “democracy”, “the rule of law”, “individual liberty”, and “mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs.”

Beyond this, there is no specific definition of “British Values” or explanation of where the lines of “opposition” – that would result in you being an “extremist” – are drawn.

It is purposefully broad and vague. If you vocally oppose the British view on democracy or liberty or tolerance then you are an extremist, even if that vocal opposition is simply a tweet.

The government uses the term “terrorism” and this broad definition of “extremism” (“opposition to British Values”) symbiotically. For example in the 2011 Prevent Strategy they state that “we will respond to the ideological challenge of terrorism and the threat from those who promote it. In doing so, we must be clear: the ideology of extremism and terrorismis the problem”.

The government believes that vocal opposition to “British values” means you are a “non-violent extremist” somewhere along the line of becoming a terrorist. This is the process the government calls “radicalisation.”

This process has become popularly known as “the conveyer belt theory of radicalisation” or as the government describe it, a “pathway to terrorism.”

The conveyor belt theory of radicalisation

“Radicalisation” is the process in which this “extremism” (opposition to fundamental British values) takes hold of ordinary British Muslims and “drives” them to terrorism. The “pathway” suggests that any Muslim who opposes “fundamental British values” is somewhere along the conveyer belt to terrorism.

Within the government there are differing views on the mechanics of this conveyer belt pathway; some staunchly believe that ideology alone is sufficient to lead to terrorism, other “more liberal” voices think ideology needs to mix with other “key ingredients” – like social deprivation, or criminal background – to take you all the way to the end of the conveyer belt to a terrorist act.

But all government views are rooted in the same foundation; that there is something inherent in their ideology that radicalises Muslims to some extent or another towards terrorism.

The main government policy to deal with this “radicalisation” is the “Prevent” policy, which sees extremism as “the foundation, the driver for terrorism.”

The research used by the government as the basis for identifying this “radicalisation” in the Prevent programme has been classified. We know that it was conducted by two psychologists at the Prison Service, and that they identified 22 risk factors that make individuals “vulnerable to extremism”. The government call this the “Extremism Risk Guidance 22+” but won’t reveal what the 22 factors are.

However the psychologists who wrote this research, which is called the “The Science of Pre-crime” have discussed their methodology in an academic journalin which amongst other things, they admit that they do not factor political grievancein to their scientific model of radicalisation.

A review of that article led to 140 academics, scientists and experts writing an open letterwarning that the government’s Prevent policy “relies on flawed science’. “Tools that purport to have a psychology evidence base are being developed and placed under [law] while their “science” has not been subjected to proper scientific scrutiny or public critique.”

In fact, the professional body that represents psychiatrists in the UK, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, has raised concerns about “the variable quality of the evidence underpinning the strategy” and called on the governmentto publish the evidence so it can be subject to scientific scrutiny.

Prevent duty

Yet on the basis of this secret research the government put Prevent on a statutory footing in its 2015 legislation. The Prevent Dutynow requires, by law, that all those in local government, criminal justice, education, child care, health and social services refer individuals who they suspect of “being at risk of radicalisation” to the authorities.

Being at risk doesn’t mean you have acted. It merely means that the person reporting you thinks youmaybe at risk of possiblybehaving a certain way.

Whilst these “risk factors” have been kept a secret by the government, teachers who have been given Prevent Duty training say they include if a child starts wearing the hijab, growing a beard or starts to pray. Teachers have been told in Prevent training that they should look out for and report this “behaviour” to Prevent if they see it happening.

The National Union of Teachers has saidPrevent has turned teachers in to “frontline stormtroopers, who listen… spy and notify the authorities” and that it is “shutting down debate”.

Amongst dozens of cases that have made the media are a 4 year old who was threatened with Prevent referralfor mispronouncing “cucumber” as “cooker bomb and a 14 year old being questioned about ISISafter a classroom discussion about environmental activism.

Prevent for the under fives

Advice given by Pacey, the professional association for childcare and early years (under five years old) illustrates the extent that “British Values” is now imbedded in Prevent and also how inherent Prevent has become. Pacey has a dedicated section for “British values the Prevent Duty”which says “British values…help keep children safe and promote their welfare….specifically to counter terrorism. Promotion of British values is firmly embedded in the work that you do”

So how does a child carer stay “alert” to the radicalisation of children under five years old? Pacey has a “British values wheel” and a “jargon-free blog”that breaks this down.

“So, let’s start with democracy. Think of democracy as a situation where everyone is treated equally and has equal rights,” the blog starts. Then using two separate photos of toddlers playing together, it says “Hollie has filled up a bucket with water and fetched a paintbrush which she’s been painting the fence with. Does she mind Sean dipping in with a brush of his own?”

In another example it says “okay, now we have just one cardboard box and two explorers who want it for their rocket. Who goes first? What will we each do while we’re in the box and out of the box?”

The implication being made is clear; how children under five play with each other can be used to assess their adherence to British values, and their non-adherence could mean they are radicalised. In short, if a four your old doesn’t share his paintbrush, he might be an extremist!

In 2016, after an investigatory visit to the UK, the UN Human Rights office made a scathing attack on the government’s Prevent programmesaying it’s focus on non-violent extremism was too broad and that;

“…students, activists, and members of faith-based organisations related countless anecdotes of the program being implemented in a way that translates simply into crude racial, ideological, cultural and religious profiling, with consequent effects on the right to freedom of association of some groups. Environmentalists, anti-capitalist groups and some Members of Parliament have reportedly been provided as examples of extremists in Prevent trainings.

“This lack of definitional clarity, combined with the encouragement of people to report suspicious activity, have created unease and uncertainty around what can legitimately be discussed in public…the spectre of Big Brother is so large, in fact, that I was informed that some families are afraid of even discussing the negative effects of terrorism in their own homes, fearing that their children would talk about it at school and have their intentions misconstrued.

“Even more disturbingly, the Government is considering using some aspects of the Prevent “non-violent extremism” framework as a model for its forthcoming Counter-Extremism Bill. For example, the Bill reportedly may authorise the issuance of civil orders to ban “non-violent extremist groups” – defined in vague terms open to arbitrary interpretation.”

“I urge the Government to carefully consider the negative unintended consequences of such provisions. It is difficult to define the term “non-violent extremist” without treading into the territory of policing thought and opinion. Innocent individuals will be targeted.”

2016 onwards – legislating against religious conservatism

What the UN describes as “even more disturbing” brings us to the latest government drive on Prevent. In recent years the government has tried to find a way to bring in to law civil orders such as “Extremism Disruption Orders”[EDOs] to give them power to ban individuals and organisations they say are “radicalised” because of their “vocal non-violent extremism” – an “extremism” that could simply be criticism of the British government. The government itself admits that EDO’s will go “beyond terrorism” and “eliminate extremism in all its form”.

As this parliamentary report states “the Government’s proposals rest on the assumption that there is an escalator that starts with religious conservatism and ends with support for violent jihadism, and that violence is therefore best tackled by curtailing or placing restrictions on religious conservatism. However, it is by no means proven or agreed that religious conservatism, in itself, correlates with support for violent jihadism. The aim should be to tackle extremism that leads to violence, not to suppress views with which the Government disagrees.”

“If extremism is to be combated through legal mechanisms, such as civil orders, clarity as to the definition of extremism will be essential. Currently, the Government defines extremism as the vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values…the question then arises, what is an extremist: if someone denounces the judiciary for being Islamophobic, is that undermining the rule of law or is it the exercise of free speech? It is difficult to arrive at a more focused definition of extremism and it does not appear that the Government so far has been successful in arriving at one. It is far from clear that there is an accepted definition of what constitutes extremism, let alone what legal powers there should be, if any, to combat it.”

What is clear is that the government views religious conservatism (that could be seen as any view counter to the liberal, secular Islam that it promotes) as part of the problem and its aim is to legislate against it.

But the broad definitions the government uses have meant they have hit a legal brick wall when trying to expand the law. They have had to backtrack on the EDO’s and are now trying to find new ways to reach their objective, by ratcheting up pressure where they can and continuing to try and find a way to legislate.

For example, in 2016, the Queen Speech (in which she announces the governments planned policies and legislation for the year ahead) did not mention EDO’s but spoke to a more vague“civil order regime to restrict activity.”

This would be just as problematic. In fact, as the Defend Free Speech coalition concludes“the chances of coming up with a definition that does not criminalise those with traditional or challenging views, such as people of faith, outspoken academics or anti-fracking campaigners seems highly remote.”

The government is already demonising those with “traditional or challenging views” but they haven’t given up on trying to criminalise them too. It is still trying to find new and innovative ways to reach its objective of legalising the banning of “non-violent extremist” groups. In 2017, just five days before the UK general election there was a terrorist attack in London. Theresa May took the opportunity to saythat “enough is enough” and that “things need to change”.

She unveiled an “enough is enough” four-point plan to tackle extremism. Criminalising non-violent extremism (the same policy she had been struggling to pass in to law for two years) was one of the four points. Except now she was saying“If human rights get in the way of doing these things, we will change those laws to make sure we can do them.”

It is also unclear what legal and political vacuum Brexit will leave, that could empower Theresa May to implement controversial new legislation. It may be that government again passes legislation that will be found to be illegal and overturned in the courts, but many of our organisations and individuals could be banned, legislated against and destroyed during that process.

It’s clear that this is the government’s intended objective. Whilst they find a way to overcome the hurdles to reach it, they are employing all other tactics available to them, to get as close to this banning as possible.

The Muslim face of Prevent

For example, as part of her “enough is enough” strategy May also set up the Commission for Countering Extremism headed by Sara Khanan unpopular establishment Muslim whose organisation Inspirereceives Prevent funding. Khan is a vocal supporter of Prevent policy, and her appointment has been slammed across the board.

Inspire provides Prevent training. In this articledescribing one of their sessions, Inspire shows a video of a teacher saying a pupil was “struggling to fit in and not sure, culturally, where she belonged … I am not suggesting she was going to support terrorism, but the opportunity was there if someone wanted to push her down that path.” It is this kind of “troubling behaviour” Inspire tells people to look out for; if you “struggle to fit in” you may be a “terrorist”.

The appointment of Khan and the Commission is just another arm in the government’s drive towards legislating against the free speech of Muslims. Prevent relies on the Muslim figures and organisations that it funds to give it legitimacy, not to the Muslim community where Prevent has no credibility, but in the broader political arena that drives the argument for legislation.

These “Prevent-funded Muslims” become the Muslim figures that support government policy to the wider public, whilst disengaging and side-lining actual Muslim community opinion. These “Prevent Proxies” become the “Muslim voice calling for legislation.”

Experts say that Prevent is also based on embedded surveillance and intelligence network. This network of Muslims work towards labelling and isolating “radicals” in their host communities as I will evidence in the next section. It is in this legal, political and intelligence paradigm that the subsequent case study of the British Shia community should be placed.

https://5pillarsuk.com/2018/11/04/the-prevent-strategy-from-violent-international-terrorism-to-local-religious-conservatism/

Salaam

Oh dear, the rulers of UAE reveal their true colours.

Embedded Tweet

Salaam

Another update.

Embedded Tweet

Salaam

Another update

Embedded Tweet

MEND responds to criticism from Iain Duncan Smith

We understand that since attending the launch of our Islamophobia Awareness Month in Parliament, the Conservative MP Iain Duncan Smith has issued a statement clarifying he does not support MEND. This does not particularly trouble us since supporting the issue of tackling Islamophobia, and more importantly working to eradicate it, is more important than supporting any one organisation.

However, our concern is that he also used the post to suggest that we are not a “force for ‘community cohesion“. Firstly, we note a conspicuous absence of any analysis of our positive work. We wish to remind Mr Duncan Smith of the appalling attack on one of his Muslim constituents in 2016, and the subsequent protest against this organised by MEND and Stand Up to Racism with the support of Waltham Forest Council of Mosques. Hundreds of people attended this event and we invite readers to decide for themselves as to whether we contributed to community cohesion or created division.

Nor does Mr Duncan Smith acknowledge our work in the Islamophobia Response Unit which has supported hundreds of victims of both hate crime and discrimination; our free Islamophobia exhibition dispelling stereotypes and showcasing positive British Muslim role models; or our provision of free masterclasses on media and political engagement which have empowered over 3,000 people in the community. It would also have been worthwhile to mention our Working Groups in towns and cities up and down the country, that have constructively engaged with councils, police and schools to tackle hate crime and Islamophobia. Finally, Mr Duncan Smith may be unaware that institutions such as the World Economic Forum and the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights have commended our work.

As evidence for his suggestion that we are not a “force for ‘community cohesion“, Mr Duncan Smith cites our opposition to the appointment of Sara Khan as Commissioner for Countering Extremism earlier this year. We would suggest that if this is what defines an organisation as not being a “force for ‘community cohesion”, it is imperative to consider the voices across the political spectrum who also opposed her appointment at the time, including Baroness Warsi (Conservative), Naz Shah MP (Labour) and Baroness Hussein-Ece (Liberal Democrat).

More importantly, over 100 Muslim organisations Imams and individuals, including the Muslim Council of Britain, FOSIS (Federation of Student Islamic Societies) and the Association of Muslim Lawyers signed a letter to the Home Secretary criticising Ms Khan’s appointment on the grounds of her lack of qualifications for the role, dearth of grassroots credibility amongst the Muslim community, and concerns over transparency. The signatories included the Waltham Forest Council of Mosques, which includes the mosque in Mr Duncan Smith’s own constituency, Chingford Mosque. It would be useful for Mr Duncan Smith to clarify if he also considers this cacophony of politicians and community organisations to be damaging to community cohesion for articulating their concerns over Ms Khan’s appointment.

Mr Duncan Smith further suggests that he will now have discussions with Ms Khan as to how he can ensure his colleagues are “made aware of the nature of groups whose activities do not promote community cohesion”. Firstly, one must question for what purpose he will now conduct this campaign. One assumes that this will be to dissuade his colleagues from engaging with us. One must, question exactly why this is? The tenets of democracy dictate that the public should be free to meet with their elected politicians. Mr Duncan Smith’s statement appears to suggest that he and Ms Khan will seek to establish a list of ‘undesirable’ organisations to ensure that only the ‘the right Muslim organisations’ are allowed to enter into our hallowed Parliamentary spaces. This is the very definition of structural Islamophobia, i.e. the denial of equal rights of access to political structures to certain organisations. It would be surprising for Mr Duncan Smith to seek to institutionalise the very thing he publicly opposed so eloquently at our event.

Secondly, it is indicative of a severe lack of confidence in Mr Duncan Smith’s Parliamentary colleagues if he feels that they need to be ‘told’ whom they can and cannot engage with. In the spirit of democracy and democratic debate, we would argue that a more constructive approach would be to encourage dialogue and discussion with varying sides of an argument in order arrive at an informed position.

MEND, like many other organisations, has met with MPs from across all political parties. Our work speaks for itself and we urge Mr Duncan Smith to examine it. We have not always agreed with the parliamentarians we have met on every issue, but this is the very nature of political engagement and debate in a democratic society. To attempt to shut down such debate is inherently undemocratic.

Indeed, Mr Duncan Smith’s parliamentary colleague Dominic Grieve QC MP, chaired the Citizens Foundation’s Missing Muslims report which recommended inter alia that the Government should end the “apparent boycott of certain organisations” and that this “could best enable the Government to hear from the widest possible cross-section of the UK’s Muslim communities”. It seems that far from ending such a boycott, Mr Duncan Smith perhaps wants to institutionalise the boycott of groups like MEND, simply for being critical of governmental policies and positions.

Finally, the focus upon Ms Khan within Mr Duncan Smith’s argument is cause for alarm. In her role of ‘countering extremism’, it would be worrying if Mr Duncan Smith is implying that she is the sole arbiter of which Muslims organisations are to be able to enter Parliament to even talk to MPs and Member of the House of Lords. We look forward to hearing more on this new proposed aspect of her role.

Since he has publicly stated his opposition to Islamophobia, we have sincerely invited Mr Duncan Smith to meet with us to allow us to address his concerns and present the positive benefits of our work, as indeed many members of both Houses have already taken the time to do. We hope that he takes this opportunity to meet, reflect and to retract and apologise for the above comments, which it appears were made without a clear and comprehensive understanding of our work. We await a response to our invitation.

https://mend.org.uk/news/mend-statement-response-iain-duncan-smith/

Salaam

Like to share

Salaam

That fraud Maajid Nawaaz and his 'government approved' Quilliam foundation have been exposed for conducting shoddy research.

Academic rubbishes Quilliam “grooming gangs” report

An academic at University College London has said that the public shouldn’t trust a Quilliam Foundation report on grooming gangs, and especially its claim that 84% of “grooming gang offenders” are Asian.

Ella Cockbain, a lecturer in Security and Crime Science, rubbished the controversial report which was released in a blaze of publicity last year.

The report was produced by Quilliam’s CEO, Haras Rafiq, and researcher, Muna Adil.

In a series of tweets Cockbain said that it is true that some Asian men have committed horrific sexual offences against children, but that it was time to call Quilliam to account for “shoddy research” and “dubious claims of conclusively irrefutable” overrepresentation of Asian offenders.

Cockbain said that from start to finish the report is a case study in “bad science” which is presented as “academic” and “evidence-based” but which exaggerates its credibility and gives readers false confidence.

Cockbain also claimed:

• There are numerous examples of unsubstantiated, misleading, misattributed, misinterpreted and/or untrue information running through the report.
• It is not clear where Quilliam got its data from as this is never stated.
• The report claims that “the Asian male/white female, perpetrator-victim dynamic is the undeniable prominent feature.” But the data analysis didn’t actually cover victims’ characteristics, so how can such a claim be justified?
• Quilliam’s involvement in the report presents a potential conflict of interest because the more “grooming gangs” are seen as a Muslim problem, the more a “counter-extremism” think-tank stands to gain.

She concluded: “In 2016/2017, the police in England and Wales recorded over 13,000 rapes of children & several tens of thousands of other child sex offences. Only a fraction of child sexual abuse is reported: studies suggest as low as 3-15%.

“Court data show Asians weren’t overrepresented among roughly 172,000 men and 27,000 women convicted of sexual offences in England & Wales in 2016. More specifically, relative to the general population, Asians were actually underrepresented (at 4%) among the approximately 6,200 defendants prosecuted in 2015/2016 for sexual offences flagged as related to child abuse.

“People often say it’s deflecting to point out that Asians are not overrepresented at national scale. They say categories like all sex offences or even all child sexual abuse are too broad and we need to look at specific subsets. I say, these categories are broad but it’s not deflecting. It’s sensible to look at the most extensive data available. It’s right to put more trust in robust, large-scale, national datasets than patchy, small-scale datasets with limited coverage and a lack of generalisability.

“I think the first thing we all need to do is stop using Quilliam’s dodgy research and its 84% statistic… Thanks in part to uncritical reporting, it seems to have become ‘fact’ by repetition alone.

“When I say Quillaim‘s statistic is not reliable, people often ask what is the ‘real’ statistic? I don’t know. Nobody does. I can’t offer you the statistic you might want, but it’s better not to use one at all than to use one so demonstrably flawed.

“We also need to question the simplistic narrative on ‘grooming gangs.’ It can distort understanding, influence decisions and fuel hate. Most of all, it detracts from the existence, importance and needs of so many victims who don’t fit the stereotypes.

“Yes, we need to tackle child sexual abuse in Asian communities. But we also need to stop scapegoating and start recognising the problem of child sexual abuse in its entirety, complexity and diversity. We need well-informed, well-executed & properly-funded responses to all abuse.”

Quilliam have not responded to Cockbain’s accusations but have said they stand by the report.

Quilliam founder Maajid Nawaz had the following to say:



https://5pillarsuk.com/2018/11/09/academic-rubbishes-quilliam-grooming-gangs-report/

Heres the research if you are interested.

Embedded Tweet

Salaam

Another update. More perspectives.

Embedded Tweet

Defining or dealing with ‘Islamophobia’?

Here’s a question: Is the ‘Islamophobia’ of Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab the same as the ‘Islamophobia’ of Trump, Gove, Blair, Douglas Murray and Sam Harris? Is it the same as the ‘Islamophobia’ of Pope Urban II, Ferdinand and Isabella, Churchill and Lloyd George, the same as that of Modi, Netanyahu, and the governments of China and Myanmar.

If the views and actions of all these people towards Islam and Muslims has some connection or common link, then to define ‘Islamophobia’ predominantly in terms of a form of ‘racism’ doesn’t make sense. Abu Lahab was not just the same ‘race’ as the Messenger of Allah ﷺ , he was his uncle!

To be sure, there is racism towards Muslims living in Britain, Europe, the USA and Australia. And there are racist attitudes towards Muslims in the Muslim world from some living in those western countries. Racism may not be the DNA of people, but the nature of secular nation state is such that people start to become cultured and indoctrinated into racist attitudes in the subtlest of ways from primary school age.

But to think that a definition rooted in racism is the dominant way to define ‘Islamophobia’ would be to misunderstand the issues that exist today - and to misinform those who eagerly waited to hear opinions from academics and activists. Racist attitudes were present during the colonial period. It wasn’t what drove the colonialists to invade and subjugate others, but it meant they had fewer inhibitions. So it is with ‘Islamophobia’ - it isn’t driven by racism, but the fact that many ‘Islamophobes’ have racist attitudes means they have fewer inhibitions about doing what they do.

Many of those who have welcomed the APPG’s definition of Islamophobia are respected voices, who are sincerely trying to find a way to help the Muslim community tackle abuse and discrimination because of their Islam. I am sure their view will be that this definition is not ‘the’ definition of ‘Islamophobia’. They will probably agree there is a connection between Abu Lahab to Douglas Murray. However, I suspect they endorse this definition because - if it were adopted into law - they probably feel it may offer some practical protection to Muslims facing discrimination and abuse.

Conversely, there are others who have welcomed this definition, who really don’t care very much for Islam - but who care for a secular framework of rights and so feel that, according to this framework, Muslims deserve some protection whilst Islam deserves to be critiqued, criticised, slandered and vilified with impunity - and that such a definition will not prevent that which they welcome from happening.
I dislike the term ‘Islamophobia’ for many reasons but not to use it in the context of this week’s discussions makes no sense.

People relate to the term because it highlights real feelings of injustice. People look to counter it because they want to see it tackled and curtailed.

But it is built upon analogies with countering anti-Semitism i.e. hoping that legal measures will bring protection for its victims. But as such, it can create a victim mentality in the minds of the subjects of the attack.

It tries to secure ‘rights’ under a secular framework of rights - which will sometimes mean that Muslims concede their Islamic principles in order to apply this same secular framework consistently.

It seeks short-term partial gains within this secular framework - which can be argued that it is better than nothing. However, a partial and limited protection from the harms of ‘Islamophobes’ doesn’t change attitudes. Britain has laws against racism, yet racist attitudes persist. Indeed, we saw similar campaigns in the past for laws to prohibit the incitement to religious hatred - but that has not done a thing to prevent a rise in religious hatred towards Muslims, and indeed others.
Some say that labels of ‘Islamophobia’ close down debate about Islam.

But others will say that ‘Islamophobia’ should only be applied to those attacks on Islam that don’t aid any reasoned debate - that use emotional manipulation to demonise Islam and silence debate.

Such crude, populist and emotive attacks on Islam demonise the advocates for Islam as an alternative way of life - and close down debate so as to prevent questions being asked about the failings of today’s secular world. When you spend time demonising Islam based on skewed caricatures of violence or attitudes to women, people don’t spend so much time thinking about the levels of violence in this secular world and its attitudes to women.

So how does one deal with the seemingly never-ending attacks and campaigns against Islam and Muslims, if not by seeking rights and protections?

The answer lies in another question: how did the Messenger of Allah ﷺ deal with the seemingly never-ending attacks and campaigns against him ﷺ and his Companions?

He ﷺ and his Companions did three things:

They trusted in Allah alone. They remained steadfast on their faith. And they continued to invite people to an alternative to the ignorant way of life that dominated their society.

Regarding trusting in Allah, so many verses from Qu’ran - in both Makkan and Madinan Surahs - remind the believer that it is Allah who is the One who protects or allows us to be harmed.
وَإِن يَمْسَسْكَ اللَّهُ بِضُرٍّ فَلَا كَاشِفَ لَهُ إِلَّا هُوَ ۖ وَإِن يَمْسَسْكَ بِخَيْرٍ فَهُوَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ - 6:17

And if Allah should touch you with adversity, there is no remover of it except Him. And if He touches you with good - then He is over all things competent.
وَإِن يَمْسَسْكَ اللَّهُ بِضُرٍّ فَلَا كَاشِفَ لَهُ إِلَّا هُوَ ۖ وَإِن يُرِدْكَ بِخَيْرٍ فَلَا رَادَّ لِفَضْلِهِ ۚ يُصِيبُ بِهِ مَن يَشَاءُ مِنْ عِبَادِهِ ۚ وَهُوَ الْغَفُورُ الرَّحِيمُ - 10:107

And if Allah should touch you with adversity, there is no remover of it except Him; and if He intends for you good, then there is no repeller of His bounty. He causes it to reach whom He wills of His servants. And He is the Forgiving, the Merciful
One who understands this will never feel a victim. Rather one would feel tested but secure if one placed one’s trust in the One who has power over all things.

Regarding remaining steadfast, the stories of the Prophets in the Quran were a motivation for the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and an education for his Companions. So they remained steadfast in their belief in Allah, following His Messenger ﷺ and adherent to their commands and prohibitions without compromise, knowing Allah is their Protector.

One who learned these lessons, knows that if one aim of ‘Islamophobia’ is to suppress expression of Islam, then doesn’t compromise their Islamic principles for the sake of one's ‘rights’.
Regarding inviting people to an alternative way of life - if the aim of this ‘Islamophobia’ is to close down debate on the dominant secular system, then surely our role is to continue to speak out and offer than alternative, with sincere concern for the millions of people who are oppressed by this system the world over.

If the price of ‘preventing Islamophobia’ is to close down debate then that is an obstacle to the robust sincere and honest debate that we should be seeking, about what kind of system is worthy of organising society, such that race, religion or class are not scapegoated in order to hide the failures of today’s false gods.

Conclusion

The purpose of this article is not to rubbish the efforts of those sincere people who are trying to help deal with a complex problem. Rather, it is to make a different point regardless of whether protections are secured or not. Protections in law don’t deal with fear and abuse that will sadly continue to exist in spite of legislation. Laws aren’t a cure for attitudes that have been nurtured at a systemic level. - they restrict behaviours of hostile people.

Even if protections are won - which I would welcome - it can come at the cost of encouraging the sense that we are a people in need of protection, which can heighten fearfulness - which I would not. For fearfulness can create a self-censorship amongst Muslim such that they depart from Islamic values due to social pressures even though they have won a ‘right’ in law to express their faith.

By contrast Tawakkul in Allah isn’t actively seeking rights - but it is the remedy for fear. Steadfastness in deen isn’t a lobbying campaign - but it subverts the aim of ‘Islamophobia’ that seeks to bully Muslims into abandoning their Islam. Inviting people to Islam is not a PR exercise - it is an Islamic good deed that can earn Allah’s pleasure which can raise one’s vision higher than mere self-defence to seeking good for the whole of humanity, if you are offering an alternative to the dominant system that has institutionalised negative behaviour towards others based on their race, religion, sex or social status at a societal level.

It remains to be seen whether defining ‘Islamophobia’ will help to deal with it. But without the three aforementioned ingredients, we will be no better off than we were before.

Abdul Wahid

https://www.facebook.com/notes/abdul-wahid/defining-or-dealing-with-islamophobia/10156969317036869/