Preventing Violent Extremism

Panorama’s recent programme, provocatively titled ‘Muslim first, British second’, raised some serious allegations over the government’s Preventing Violent Extremism policy. If true, this marks a serious low point in relations with UK Muslims and points to a disastrous loss of trust. (Of course this presupposes that much existed in the first place which in recent years is difficult to imagine).

 

Her Majesty’s Government has pursued an overt policy of by-passing established Muslim institutions and community based groups in an attempt to reach out directly to ‘ordinary Muslims’. As a tactic this has many ramifications, many of which are still being played out. Here we are not talking about those organisations considered by the establishment radical and as such beyond the pale such as al-Muhajiroon as well as the non-violent (but separatist) HT but bodies such as MCB and MAB amongst many others which have positively engaged with civic society on many levels. Lumped together and dismissed as Islamists, the government has sought alternative partners and is actively procuring associates to promote its programme.

 

HMG, specifically the Department of Communities and Local Government currently headed by Hazel Blears, launched its Preventing Violent Extremism strategy as part of a multi-agency programme back in 2007. Since then, it has announced intentions to provide grants of £70m to a number of organisations and government institutions and allocated much of its budget. Nothing wrong with that you might say, particularly as these funds are directed at such innocuous projects as youth centres, teaching English and strengthening community leadership.  How the success of these funds will be measured will an interesting question to ask.

 

However the Panorama programme confirmed underlying suspicion that these projects were being used as Trojan horses to infiltrate the Muslim community. Making such a statement a couple of years ago would have left you open to accusations of paranoia and of having a persecution complex.

 

But we shouldn’t be surprised and it is naive to have expected otherwise.

 

What is more worrying is that not only does this leave those well intentioned public-minded citizens who are willing to devote themselves to their communities left open to accusations of espionage (it now seems reasonably founded), but it completely undermines any residual veneer of trust.

 

The programme goes on to allege that the government has been collating the names of every Muslim who has expressed public views against foreign policy. Coupled with proposals to monitor travel patterns, force ID cards on an unconvinced population and the power of modern database technology, this has the potential to monitor those with these views as enemies. Some Muslims already feel frustrated that their views are not being taken seriously and will take this as further evidence of the futility of political engagement if this will effectively put you on a secret service black list and in effect criminalises thoughts contrary to government policy.

 

Another central thrust of the programme (supported by an alleged leak of Contest 2 in the Guardian) is that the governement also seeks to isolate Muslims who hold traditional doctrinal views. This will extend the definition of E in PVE to those who believe that, for example, homosexuality is a sin. So the government will be left appealing to a totally unrepresentative officially anointed crew that will be considered tame enough to be deserving of an audience, grants and commendations.

 

If the aim of the PVE agenda is to change Islamic beliefs and traditions, then it is well advised now that this will fail and no further taxpayer’s money should be wasted. It will only serve to reinforce existing distrust with all government initiatives vis a vis the Muslim community and demoralise those who are willing to work with them on the basis of shared values and mutual respect. The government will risk being left talking to a pre-endorsed rump which does not honestly articulate the beliefs of the majority of the Muslims.

 

It will be interesting to see development of these policies over the next few years but I suspect much money, effort and goodwill will be wasted.

 

Cricket Test

It could hardly have passed anyone’s attention that we’re in the middle of the Cricket World Cup competition. Despite following the odd match with slightly more than a cursory interest, I have to say I haven’t followed this as I would have in previous years. One just doesn’t have the time these days – even for a one day match. I don’t remember how I could have followed test matches in years gone by, which to the bemusement of non-cricket lovers every where, can last five days and still end in a draw! But with the Bengal Tigers punching above their weight and causing upsets against India and now South Africa, the hype is getting too irresistible. At time of writing England proved to be a challenge too far. Next time, just maybe……..

The current tournament (and a friend’s blog) brought to mind the old debate around which cricket team to support a.k.a. the Norman Tebbit Cricket Test. For those younger than a certain age, you probably don’t remember Norman Tebbitt. Suffice it to say he was a Conservative party big wig during the Thatcherite years, a driven ideologue whose obituaries will no doubt be filled with his contribution to the race debate in Britain. The Norman Tebbitt Cricket Test essentially is a crude test of loyalty, allegiance and identity. Stirred up by footage of Britsh born Pakistanis (and later Indians, Sri Lankans and West Indians), supporting the teams of their parent’s origin, Tebitt basically posed the question about whether you can be English and support another team.

In the days before Bangladesh was honoured with test status, I ‘followed’ Pakistan’s exploits, then a star studded team led by Imran Khan in the 1990s. It never occurred to me to do anything else. At school the black boys followed West Indies, the Indians India and the majority of the white boys England apart from the odd Antipodean. It helped that Pakistan were flamboyant and successful, but looking back even then cricketing affinities could be seen along racial lines.

As primitive as it was it seems that this did not only apply to Cricket. With no decent sub-continental team to support, we sided with Argentina or Brazil with England being a reserve for our support in the event they played Germany. Perhaps our choices were a reflection of how black players (there are/were no English Asian footballers) were treated on the pitch despite representing their country – remember how John Barnes got monkey chants and had inflatable bananas waved at him despite being the most skilful player in the side. Similarly if you went to a cricket match, you couldn’t help being put off by the antics of the ‘barmy army’, usually booze fuelled and politically incorrect to say the least. Its not surprising that few of us would pass the Cricket Test. Scottish nationalists famously printed out t-shirts with ‘I failed the English Cricket Test’ on the front.

But how does all this apply to the post modern world we live in today? Multiple identities in a multi-cultural world are de riguer with no-one batting an eyelid if for example, you celebrate Eid, enjoy a Thai curry, holiday in Africa, speak three European languages and feel at home in a sarong. Children born of immigrant parents have no problems carrying dual or more identities – its just they way they are. Whether they are bi-lingual, have multiple heritages or different religions, they can be more secure in their identity than many may think. By having to face the question about who you are it perhaps does more to query the insecurity of the questioner as well as being forced to organise the thoughts of the questioned. If someone can give me a definition or checklist of what it means to be English/British perhaps the question can be answered.

This opens a veritable smorgasbord of opportunity to muse the subject of identity of the children of immigrant communities, multiculturalism and integration, but that my dear readers, is for another day. For now, we must revel in the irrelevance of the Tebbit Test. If I was good enough, I would have almost no problem in playing for England. Just look at the ‘success’ of Monty Panesar and Sajid Mahmood to see how defunct the question has become.

Of course, not content with that, the Tebbit Test question has been replaced by a new generation with the ‘Army Test’ – Would you fight for England against the country of your (parents’) origin? The debate rumbles on….

 

Slave Trade

On 25 March 1807, Parliament passed the Act for the Abolishment of the Slave Trade, outlawing the trans-Atlantic slave trade, in my mind probably the greatest crime in human history. Britain is commemorating this bicentennial anniversary and Britons certainly should remember William Wilberforce and the abolitionist movement.

The Act passed made it illegal for British owned ships to transport slaves at the risk of being penalised £100 per slave. The trade continued and as the slaves were considered nothing more than chattel, if unscrupulous captains feared being boarded by the Royal Navy they would throw men, women and children overboard to lessen the overall penalty.

By the time that Britain had woken up to the brutality and immorality of the transatlantic slave trade, the wealth generated from the previous two centuries of legalised cruelty had already kick started the Industrial Revolution giving Britain a competitive advantage, setting her in prime position for the next stage of colonial domination and imperialist ambitions. As the headline in the Voice newspapers shouts, Britain was ‘Built on Black Blood’ with much justification. Lloyds of London, Barclays Bank, the City of Liverpool and countless other institutions, industries and towns were built, directly or indirectly, on the profits of slavery.

But should Britons today apologise for the slave trade? Whilst the devastating impact of slavery on present day Africa, their descendants in the Americas and of course on the direct experience of upto 30 millions transported slaves cannot be ignored, who do we apologise to now? What responsibility do I or anyone living in Britain today have for the actions of pirates, traders and capitalists hundreds of years ago? What would you say and to whom? If you apologise does this imply culpability and the need to make recompense. There are serious advocates claiming that the government make substantial reparations. How do you put a price on kidnap, forced labour, cruelty, dispossession, rape, oppression, murder and torture?

Despite all these imponderables, Ken Livingstone to his credit, has issued a full and unequivocal apology on behalf of all Londoners for London’s role in the slave trade. In the absence of any previous formal apology on behalf of the nation, it probably is time to finally record the country’s regret at the inhuman activities which it legalised and the blood and tears it prospered from. Germany apologised for the Holocaust and as a way of acknowledging and coming to terms with its past, this was a necessary first step.

But by doing so, it should not be implied that individuals today bear any responsibility for the actions of previous generations. That would be contrary to natural justice. The Quran states ‘that no bearer of burdens shall be made to bear another’s burden’ 53:38. Which is obviously quite different from the fundamental Christian concept of Christ suffering for the sins of others.

An apology could only be a symbolic gesture to ensure, as with any lesson from history, that we learn from our mistakes and seek to avoid them in the future. Lessons it seems we as humans have forgotten – modern day slavery is still around us in the form of trafficked women from Eastern Europe, bondaged labour in the sub-continent and exploited migrant labour in the Far East. The Quranic exhortation to free slaves (2.177) has as much resonance today as it did when revealed.

 

Enemy Combatant

I had the surprising pleasure of being at a presentation titled ‘An Audience with Moazzam Begg’. For those who have short memories he was released from Guantanomo Bay after three years in detention courtesey of the US government.

His story is a painful one for those who have any sense of justice or compassion. After managing to escape the US bombardment of Afghanistan following 9/11 (he was there setting up a school for girls) he was reunited with his family in Pakistan whom he had given up for dead. After about three weeks his house in Islamabad was raided by FBI/CIA and ISI agents and he was carted off in front of his wife and young kids. He was imprisoned and interrogated by various agencies including MI6 and the British Foreign office whilst still being denied any basic legal rights. Shortly thereafter he was taken to Bagram where he was subjected to the most obscene violence and abuse and then carted off to Guantanomo Bay where he was kept in solitary confinement for nearly two years. For anyone who believed that UK politicians and officials stood up for justice and tried to help Moazzem’s father who spearheaded a fantastic campaign for his son’s release, it seems that they were just as complicit in prolonging his suffering.

I’ve summarised the main points but what came across most in his presentation was that despite suffering various levels of mental and physical torture that could be invented by the US military and intelligence agencies, Moazzam Begg was articulate (a result of more than 300 interrogations!), clearly very intelligent, still retained a sense of humour and most of all did not display a sense of rage or anger that you might think is a reasonable reaction. I don’t think it’s anywhere close to forgiveness or anything but the forbearance and reliance on Allah developed through a renewed relationship with the Quran during those years in isolation clearly comes through.

At Guantanamo, as he was one of the few who could speak English, Urdu and Arabic, he managed to establish relations with other ‘detainees’ as well as the guards – many of whom were ignorant of pretty much everything, never mind history, politics or religion. He bore no ill-will to many of the individual guards who were assigned to him although there were many whose brutality led to the deaths of some prisoners. In fact one of the enduring ironies was that he was asked to be a witness for the prosecution in the legal proceedings against soldiers who had killed prisoners in Bagram whilst being denied due process himself.

You feel that his lectures have a cathartic effect, each time he recounts his story is part of the continuing rehabilitation for himself and family. Yet I wouldn’t be surprised if there are things that he hasn’t mentioned, things that are still too painful to said out aloud.

I bought and got a signed edition of his book, ‘Enemy Combatant’ and recommend all to read it. It humanises those men in orange suits, most of whom were ‘sold’ to the Americans for money. It definitely opens your eyes to a different perspective in the insane age of the ‘war or on terror’, or more recently renamed ‘the long war’.