Leaked Report Reveals Prevent Funding Used for Islamist Groups, and More Focussed on Tackling White Fascism

This obviously isn’t something you want to hear, but it needs to be recognised and the problem tackled properly. A few days ago the Shawcross Report into the operation of the Prevent programme was leaked to the press. The Prevent programme was the scheme launched by Blair as part of the ‘War on Terror’. It was set up to identify and deradicalize people, like schoolchildren, who were being drawn into Islamist terrorism. The report has been repeatedly delayed from fears that some of the individuals discussed in it would sue. It found that instead of the money being used to deradicalize people, it was instead being used by Islamist groups to fund their activities and propaganda. This included one group, who called on Muslim soldiers in the British army to disobey orders. Which is mutiny. Furthermore, the programme was more focussed on identifying and punishing White nationalists in contrast to the other anti-terrorism organisations. Of course, the report was immediately denounced as ‘harmful to community cohesion’ and racist and islamophobic.

Unfortunately, I am not remotely surprised. Private Eye a long time ago quoted a passage from Ed Hussein’s book, The Islamist, in which he described watching a long line of Muslim clergy and community leaders entering No. 10 to reassure Blair that they were all moderates and were doing their bit to tackle extremism in their communities. And he knew that every one of them was lying, and that they were all Islamist radicals. A friend of mine used to help teach Islam at university. One year his university arranged to host an interfaith conference between Christians and Muslims. He told me that the Muslim delegates were all jihadis. As for the misplaced focus on White fascism, I think this is a result of repeated criticisms from the Muslim community. Before the BNP finally collapsed, whenever the subject of tackling Muslim radical organisations was raised someone from one of the main Muslim organisations would indignantly retort that this was racist and islamophobic, and that they should ban the BNP instead. The Prevent programme has come under repeated attack from Muslims for supposedly being racist and Islamophobic. And whenever Muslim bigotry is exposed, as in the 2007 Channel 4 programme, Undercover Mosque, there are inevitably the same defensive claims about harming community cohesion. This is despite the fact that community cohesion was harmed the moment someone took the decision to invite the preachers of hate in. Simon Webb, who has very far right opinions himself, stated in one of his videos that the focus on tackling White extremists rather than Muslim was an attempt to mislead the public into believing that there were more of them and they were a bigger problem than the Islamists. Even allowing for Webb’s own views, I think he has a point. White fascists have used violence and terrorism. In the 1960s they bombed a couple of synagogues in London. Many of us still remember the mass violence between far right football hooligans and Black and Asian youths in the 70s and 80s, and the racist murder of Black kids has inspired pop songs attacking the hate and violence like ‘Down in the Subway’. In the 90s there was a bombing campaign by a member of the National Socialist party against Blacks, gays and Asians, in which nail bombs were planted in three pubs. People are very aware of the threat from White racial terrorists. Targeting these groups is also easier because it will have greater support from the left from the kind of people, who would suspect that a programme targeting Black or Asian terrorists is persecuting them unfairly. The police and local authorities, who refused to tackle the Pakistani grooming gangs in Rotherham and elsewhere did so because they didn’t want to start riots. I think the same attitude is behind the skewed focus in the Prevent programme. I think there is a reluctance amongst the political class to tackle ethnic minority criminality and extremism because of memories of the race riots of the 60s, 1981/2, and Oldham more recently, and a determination to prove Enoch Powell wrong in his lurid predictions of racial violence in the ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech.

Islamism is a real danger, but the proportion of people who hold Islamist views are trivially small. Only about five per cent of the Muslim population, according to the polls, want to be governed by shariah law. There are far greater numbers who support British democracy and values, albeit often moderated. This is why the Lotus Eaters, in order to show that the Muslim community rejects British traditional values, concentrated on single issues like Muslim disapproval of homosexuality and singing the national anthem. There is genuine opposition to Islamism and the preachers of hate from other parts of the Muslim community here in Britain. Back in the ’80s and ’90s Muslims organised their own demonstrations against the protests and hateful preaching of the extremists demanding the death of Salman Rushdie. Ed Hussein in his recent book states that his fathers’ generation came to Britain because they believed in our country and its values. I’ve heard other Muslims say that their parents came here to enjoy the freedom and opportunities they were denied in their own country. Mahyar Tousi, a true-blue Tory Brexiteer, said something similar in a recent video of his on the channel migrants. He stated that second and third generation British Blacks and Asians were against further immigration, not because they were traitors to their own kind, but because their parents and grandparents had come to this country to share and support its values and were concerned that later migrants did not share these. Tousi’s a libertarian Tory, who’d sell off the health service if he could, but he does have a point. Some of the Muslims in Hussein’s recent book stated that much of the violence and criminality their communities now suffered from came from recent migrants, like asylum seekers from war-torn parts of the world, who could not adapt to peace nor fully accept that they were not under threat from the state. One of the issues connected with immigration identified by one genuinely moderate imam, writing in the Financial Times in the ’90s, was that the shortage of home-grown Muslim clergy meant that bigoted preachers from Pakistan were being allowed in to rectify this shortage.

We really need to tackle the problem of Muslim radicalisation properly and squarely, without listening to reassuring blandishments and assurances of peace and cooperation from those who don’t believe remotely in it. And we can do so by strengthening and listening to genuinely moderate, liberal Muslims voices and supporting their protests and initiatives against such hate.

Advertisement

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to “Leaked Report Reveals Prevent Funding Used for Islamist Groups, and More Focussed on Tackling White Fascism”

  1. Brian Burden Says:

    It’s this quis custodiet argument. Imams do (or did) go into UK prisons to teach militant Muslims the positive and pacific side of Islam, but who has the job of evaluating the brand of Islam being taught by these Imams? It wd appear that a fair amount of negative indoctrination has gone on. Malcolm X converted to the Nation Of Islam while in gaol, and it changed the course of his life.

  2. Mark Pattie Says:

    I remember there was a fair old fuss kicked up by Ukip a few years ago about “Sharia courts”. Except those courts only dealt with civil issues, and do not contravene British law. Re British Muslims and integration, I do find that some Muslim ethnicities are more integrated than others. IE Turkish, Bangladeshi and Gujarati Muslims tend to be more integrated than Pakistanis and Somalis.

    • beastrabban Says:

      I think there is a problem with the shariah courts respecting marriage. At present, the other religions except Anglican churches have to register themselves in order to have their marriages legally recognised. But according to Ed Hussain, the mosques don’t do that, so that the marriages they perform aren’t recognised. This means that the wife has to observe Islamic law and custom, because she doesn’t have the rights a normal divorcing woman would have to maintenance, a share of the property, custody of the children and so on. It puts them in a very vulnerable position with women having to suffer abuse from husbands they can’t leave. That’s why one imam Hussain talked to wanted Islamic marriage recognised by British law, so that Muslim wives would enjoy the same rights automatically that other British women enjoy.

      • Mark Pattie Says:

        Another SW video I watched recently was the one he did where he skewered the notion that Islam was a singularly violent religion, using the example of the fact that the Samurai were Zen Buddhists. As for Christian violence, I wonder if the “counter-jihad” mob ever think about atrocities committed by Christians during the Balkan civil war, Putin’s wretched mob, or in NI in the 1970s, 80s and 90s?

      • beastrabban Says:

        I don’t think that would occur to them, and they’d probably play down the atrocities committed by Christians during the Balkan wars. When Islamist terrorism became an issue with 9/11, someone had a look at the global statistics for terrorism and terrorist groups. Most of them are Marxist, not Muslim.

  3. Mark Pattie Says:

    Plus, I’m not sure whether Lauren Southern, Hatey Katie, Anne Marie “we must restrict the Muslim birthrate!” Waters, Delingpole and the rest realise that there is at least one entire sect of Islam that is explicitly non-violent (Ahmadiyya). Further to my previous point about Buddhism- Aung San Suu Kyi (remember her?) is Buddhist, and she was complicit in the genocide of 1000s of Rohinga Muslims in Burma recently (as mentioned by SW).

    • beastrabban Says:

      To be fair, the counterjihad mob do know about the Ahmadiyya and the fact that they’re persecuted as heretics by the rest of Islam. But according to them, the Ahmadiyya still defend Islam as a whole, which doesn’t impress the counterjihadists, who regard Islam as intrinsically violent.

      As for Aung San Suu Kyi, yes, I remember her and how the world was taken in by her, giving her the Nobel Peace Prize and so on, and her bloodthirsty attitude to the Rohingya. There was an article a few years ago in the American left-wing journal Counterpunch arguing that Buddhism’s reputation for pacifism and tolerance is largely a creation of western admirers and converts. I’ve also heard that much of it comes from Dr Suzuki, who was shocked at the atrocities committed by the Japanese during the War.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


%d bloggers like this: