John Denham, new Secretary of State for Communitites and Local Government, recently stated his desire that the government’s Prevent strategy shift its focus from being on “al-Qaida-influenced terrorism” to looking at extremism of all varieties. As outlined by David T earlier this week, there are many reasons for this being A Good Idea.
Here at the Spittoon we have been horrified by the rise of the viciously anti-Muslim BNP; a government policy to address the rise of far right politics must surely be welcomed. But then this was accompanied by the news that the Muslim Council of Britain’s banishment from Westminster may be coming to an end.
The official attempt to mend fences follows a controversial phase in the history of the programme, which culminated in an acrimonious dispute between Hazel Blears, Denham’s predecessor, and the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB).
That remains an issue, but Whitehall officials have contacted senior MCB members to discuss the best way forward.
Upon hearing this news, the MCB issued a gloating press release featuring a long, semi-coherent quotation from the MCB’s Secretary General, Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari.
We recognise the challenge that violent extremism poses to all of us, and we welcome the overdue acknowledgement that we need a judicious and collective response to the problem. Our message – ever since 9/11 – has been unequivocal and focused – to call on all members of society to eschew criminality and participate positively in society. It is the job of the professionals – the Police and intelligence agencies – to uncover criminality and ill-intent. In so doing we believe that everyone should help in efforts to prevent injustice being perpetrated. The rise of the Far Right, and the violence that has come with it means that we must redouble our efforts, and reach across the divide to foster a Britain at ease with itself.
I don’t think anybody would want to dispute much of that.
In recent years, we have endured a policy that has been at the mercy of a handful of cynical ideologues that have appeared out of nowhere, but are now the benefactors of a massive stimulus package to the ‘prevent economy’. They have sought to portray British Muslims as a policy problem through the narrow focus of security and demanded that only those who sign up to their own undefined set of values be considered part of British society. The effect is that millions of pounds and thousands of man-hours are being wasted on a PR exercise that aims to make some look more attractive to anti-Muslim bigots.
If Muslims, as individuals and groups are not allowed to take part in the life of this nation without first signing an anti-extremism waiver as defined by dogmatic and self-appointed group of ideologues, they may be forgiven for being sceptical of the message they hear from such ill-conceived initiatives.
Now now Muhammad. Have the courage of your convictions and name the group you’re getting at. You mean the Quilliam Foundation and we all know it.
Anyway, about those cynical ideologues who appeared out of nowhere, could that description not also be applied to a small group of Jamaat-e-Islami and Muslim Brotherhood linked Islamists who claim to be representative of all Muslims in Britain? And is it really wise for the MCB to start casting stones on this matter. Has it never benefited from the ‘prevent economy’? Even after the Daud Abdullah fiasco the government continued to deal with MCB affiliate FOSIS. And what about MCB spokesman Inayat Bunglawala’s wife who was a Preventing Violent Extremism Consultant for Redbridge Council?
But there are more fundamental problems. The “anti-extremism waiver” is a bizarre flight of imagination that nobody has asked for. It would appear that Abdul Bari is trying to head off a repeat of the Abdullah affair, where government coooperation with the MCB was pulled because its second in command, Abdullah, signed a pro-Hamas declaration which legitimised attacks on foreign navies. Abdul Bari wants to continue receiving government money and cooperation even if another MCBer goes off message and signs a crazed statement supporting a terrorist group. Most simply, he wants the government to resume funding the MCB regardless of the fact that its leading lights remain devoted to Islamist ideals.
As for the emphasis on people who have “appeared out of nowhere”, Abdul Bari is clearly calling for a return to the bad old days when the MCB were treated as the gatekeepers to British Muslims; rather than trusting to the democratic process to let British Muslims express their views, the government would turn to the MCB and ask them to give their views instead. These views were then considered to be representative of all British Muslims rather than the small group of Islamists who actually contributed them.
This 21st century return of the colonialist mindset – “Oh no, Mr Muslim, I don’t want to talk to you. Bring me your leader instead.” – denies British Muslims equality in their own country. It pretends that, somehow, they are not to be trusted to speak for themselves within the democratic structure of the state. Rather, decisions affecting them – counter-extremism policy, funding of Islamic groups and the like – should all be passed before the MCB for approval. If anybody else claimed that British Muslims all share the same interests, concerns and problems then they would (rightly) be condemned as Islamophobic. But, when the MCB does this, it’s the best bet to preserve community cohesion.
The upshot of this press release is, therefore, that Abdul Bari is fantasising about a return to the time when the MCB could receive government money whilst boycotting holocaust memorial day. Fortunately for us, John Denham was only talking about the possibility of a reorientation of policy, and the communications between government and MCB are, at present, still tentative. Now Abdul Bari has put out this press release we can all see that nothing has changed since the government decided to stop dealing with them. The MCB is the same organisation with the same people at the top and the same attitudes towards British Muslim life and it would be wrong to end their banishment.