Political Islam and Civil Service Neutrality

Paul Richards talks, in the Jewish Chronicle, about how Whitehall mandarins failed to apply the centuries-old convention, which subject British civil servants to political neutrality, in the case of Azad Ali.

I am not going to blame Azad Ali. He thinks his employers helped to build “the terrorist slaughter machine of the Zionist state of Israel”.

So I would guess that he’s unlikely to be a great respecter of Britain’s quaint traditions when it comes to civil service neutrality. And I suppose you can’t blame him for pursuing his political goals, if that is what he believes.

But what about the Permanent Secretary at the Treasury, and the Cabinet Secretary, who is head of the Civil Service?

If they are remotely aware of this case, then what on earth are they thinking in allowing such an outspoken political activist to return to a job in the civil service? Have they any idea how damaging it is to its credibility if it appears that all civil servants must be politically neutral, except for the ones who raise funds for Hamas and remove Israel from the map?

If the mandarins knew, and turned a blind eye for fearing of causing “offence”, it is further proof that there are sections of the British establishment that simply fail to comprehend the true nature and intent of some of the organisations of political Islam

Quick as a flash, one political Islamist (guess who?) comes to the defence of another political Islamist, unfortunately with some rather feeble, evidence-free rejoinders. This is how Bunglawala picks up the story:

In the opening paragraph Richards tells us that the radio show Ali features on ‘is currently appealing for funds to send to Gaza’, and yet he concludes the piece telling us that the fundraising is ‘for Hamas’.

Richards cites comments Ali made on his blog during Israel’s savage bombardment of the people of Gaza in January this year, and refers to a desire to ‘remove Israel from the map’, although no such remark appears either on Ali’s blog, nor is such a remark cited directly in Richards comment piece.

Since when did fundraising for the reconstruction of Gaza after Israel’s bombardment of the Strip become synonymous with raising funds for Hamas? And since when has criticism of Israel’s brutality and committing of war crimes, recently documented by Amnesty International, mean that one was advocating ‘removing Israel from the map?.

But this is not the end of Richards’ disingenuous drivel.

I think it is Bungles who is coming out with the “disingenuous drivel” here in his defence of Azad Ali.

Let’s take just one article from his blog from earlier this year, as an example of how Ali used his position as a partisan member of the IFE to champion Hamas, criticise Fatah and break the compliance with the civil service convention of political neutrality:

Second, Hamas is a true resistance movement that is standing up for the rights of the Palestinians, whereas Fatah and specifically Abu Mazen have capitulated to the colonial mindset. Of course Abu Mazen can prove me wrong by holding a general election and allowing Hamas to participate and then we can all agree on the winner. Third, the lack of any real action by our government and the international community has been consistent throughout the many years of oppressive occupation the Palestinians have had to endure, let’s not fall out of the pram over it now! Fourth, the consequences on the Arab governments that tacitly and actively supported this massacre will come home to roost. Fifth, be wary of those that blame the victims, those who blame Palestinians or Hamas, they are like those sick men or women who blame the woman who had been raped, saying she brought it upon herself.

Here’s another by Mr Ali:

So what is the aim of this mass murder? Well it’s ideological. How you may ask? The stated aim of the Zionist terrorist state is to destroy Hamas and what it stands for, i.e. Freedom. You may notice that Fatah are not being targeted nor are they bleeding for the Muslims in Gaza, but hopefully they will once they return to their humanity.

We have seen this before in 2006 when the same Zionist terrorist state attacked Muslims in Lebanon, with the usual amount of fuel being supplied by America and the UK, so let us not be surprised by it – though we should be completely outraged.

Yes, be completely outraged.

Azad Ali has not lost his job over this incident and nor should he. However, following his exposure as a partisan advocate of Hamas and violent jihad, his consultative role in policy formation by government bodies needs to be seriously reconsidered.