Anti-terror code 'would alienate most Muslims
Oh dear.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/17/counterterrorism-strategy...
Anti-terror code 'would alienate most Muslims'
• Draft strategy brands thousands as extremists
• Ministers ponder plan to be unveiled next month
Vikram Dodd
The Guardian, Tuesday 17 February 2009
The government is considering plans that would lead to thousands more British Muslims being branded as extremists, the Guardian has learned. The proposals are in a counterterrorism strategy which ministers and security officials are drawing up that is due to be unveiled next month.
Some say the plans would see views held by most Muslims in Britain being classed by the government as extreme.
According to a draft of the strategy, Contest 2 as it is known in Whitehall, people would be considered as extremists if:
• They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.
• They promote Sharia law.
• They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.
• They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.
• They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Contest 2 would widen the definition of extremists to those who hold views that clash with what the government defines as shared British values. Those who advocate the wider definition say hardline Islamist interpretation of the Qur'an leads to views that are the root cause of the terrorism threat Britain faces. But opponents say the strategy would brand the vast majority of British Muslims as extremists and alienate them even further.
The Guardian has also learned of a separate secret Whitehall counterterrorism report advocating widening the definition of who is considered extremist. Not all in Whitehall agree with the proposals and one official source said plans to widen the definition were "incendiary" and could alienate Muslims, whose support in the counterterrorism effort is needed. There were also fears it could aid the far right.
Contest 2 is still being finalised by officials and ministers. Those considered extreme would not be targeted by the criminal law, but would be sidelined and denied public funds. Ed Husain, of the Quilliam Foundation thinktank, said the root causes of terrorism were extremist views, even if those advocating the views did not call for violence.
Husain, once an extremist himself, said: "Violent extremism is produced by Islamist extremism and it's only right to get into the root causes."
Inayat Bunglawala, a former spokesman for the Muslim Council of Great Britain, said such plans would affect many British Muslims. Bunglawala, who now runs Engage, which tries to get Muslims to participate in politics and civic society, said: "That would alienate the majority of the British Muslim public. It would be counterproductive and class most Muslims as extremists."
In a speech in December, the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, said the government's counterterrorism strategy had to include challenging nonviolent extremist groups that "skirt the fringes of the law ... to promote hate-filled ideologies".
The Contest strategy was put in place in 2003 as the UK beefed up its response to the threat of al-Qaida inspired terrorism.
But the security service's assessment shows no drop in those they consider dangerous and the UK's terror threat level remains at severe general.
The Home Office said: "We don't comment on leaked documents."
Again, if one really believes his religious values are not followed by the country he has shifted into, its up to the individual to shift to a place where his thoughtstream is more widely accepted, rather than creating trouble there. If one is Muslim first,British Next, he would certainly be better off in an Islamic country. Why try to exploit ur host's liberal/secular views and promote one's own agenda.
Radical and extremist views gain strength and spin out of ctrl from the endorsement of such thought streams. How can a cleric who preaches against democracy (in a democratic country)and preaches for separation from other communities absolve himself from the responsibility for nudging the masses into the path of lawlessness? How can they stop people who fervently believe that they are practising what these clerics preach and will be granted heaven for their efforts? Where and how do they draw the line between simply 'believing' and actually getting into rebellion?
Further, I do not see any article where they have said that such people will pe prosecuted under criminal laws. (Which would be thought policing). Only thing that has been said is that such people will be 'challenged'/'isolated', and IMHO, rightly so.
And Why not? Should a state forfeit its right to lay claim to its core values (on which it has come so far) in the name of secularism? Should they play mute witness to speeches inciting separation and hatred just beacause it has given its citizens right of speech? Shouldnt they be allowed to challenge the views of such parties? Shouldnt there be provisions to stem the rot by isolating separationists whether its in the name of religion, parochialism or whatever?
Its high time whoever is crying for unabated religious freedom understand that they have not just rights but duties too.
It's the secret service - what do you expect? It goes on in every country.
"Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365
not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the
many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers
were given. Satan - 10."
How, exactly, does one distinguish between a vociferous advocate and a violent fanatic? The law or intelligence are not clairvoyant or telepathic. They are also ordinary people. They take the blame if something goes wrong ("Were they sleeping?") and if they try to do something to prvent an outbreak they are labelled as 'suppressors of freedom'. Whoever is crying out in the name of civil liberties, hasnt, so far, come out with a solution as to how exactly these people are supposed to go about their jobs of maintaining law n order and prevent the extremists from happily blowing themselves up all over the place.
It is easy to criticise and judge. But try coming up with solutions and suggestions and then one finds himself in a tough spot.
The law and the state, in itself, cannot remain formless and malleable to any force and yet expect to maintain a semblence of order. It has to make its presence known and the limits clear.
From the newspeak dictionary, new words :
Extremist - Somebody that thinks differently than you. Anybody that has an opinion that differs from current government policy. (see : Orwell's oldthink) This term allows politicians to speak of their rival's agendas without actually having to explain exactly what their rival's beliefs are.
This is very confusiong and muddied. I am not sure if they intend these 'thoughts' to be criminal offences or just ideas to be countered?
If so, what methods are they likely to use to contain and negate these ideologies?
It is a troublesome road one weaves between free speech, countering hate speech and political correctness. I tend to always stand on the side of free speech and too bad if some are offended.
From todays BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7889631.stm
"UK to shift anti-terror strategy
Until now efforts have been focused on those who advocate violence
The UK government is preparing a major shift in its counter-terrorism strategy to combat radicalisation, the BBC's Panorama programme has learned.
Conservative Muslims who teach that Islam is incompatible with Western democracy will be challenged as part of a new approach, Panorama has been told.
A senior Whitehall source said that Muslim leaders who urge separation will be isolated and publicly rejected.
He also said this would occur even if their comments fell within the law.
This will include those who argue that Muslims should not vote and that homosexuals should be condemned on religious grounds.
Panorama's source said that Britain "needs to identify and back shared values" and that this new thinking will be central to a new counter-terrorism policy called Contest 2 due to be launched this Spring.
Intelligence gathering
Panorama has been looking at the issue of Islamic extremism for its programme Muslim First, British Second, which will be broadcast on 16 February.
Panorama has also been told by a separate counter-terrorism source that more emphasis will be placed on gathering intelligence about extremism from inside the Muslim community.
The Home Office is currently spending £80m on community projects designed to stop young Muslims from being radicalised and the source said that some of these projects are being targeted by intelligence analysts.
We want to move away from just challenging violent extremism. We now believe that we should challenge people who are against democracy and state institutions
However, this was denied by the police.
Sir Norman Bettison from the Association of Chief Police Officers, who, when asked if community projects are being used as "Trojan horses" to gather information, told the programme there was "no dedicated intelligence gathering" as part of the Prevent community work.
The government's counter-terrorism strategy is based on what officials call the "Four Ps" - prevent, pursue, protect and prepare.
The "prevent" element of the strategy aims to block radicalisation and reduce the supply of terror recruits by working with local communities.
But Sir Norman accepted that as part of the "pursue" element of the strategy, police and other officials would use "any means available to get the information that is required to prosecute people committing criminal acts".
Labour peer Lord Ahmed said he would welcome a tougher approach.
"Those who preach hate, those who preach divisions, those who create hatred within societies, I think they need to be isolated," he said.
"We need to empower the mainstream Muslim leadership and the scholars so they can actually hold the arguments and debates within the Muslim society."
Influence on the young
Up until now Britain's counter-terrorism policy has only targeted those who preach support for violent extremism. But according to Panorama's Whitehall source this will now change:
"We want to move away from just challenging violent extremism. We now believe that we should challenge people who are against democracy and state institutions", he said.
The shift in position will be welcomed by those who believe that Islamic extremism feeds off religious separatism and intolerance.
There are some well-known preachers, many of them especially popular amongst the young, who condemn terrorism, yet also emphasise Islam's incompatibility with the West.
Sheikh Khalid Yassin, one of the stars of the preaching circuit, has lectured about his contempt for homosexuals saying:
"If you prefer the clothing of the Kaffirs [non-believers] other than the clothing of the Muslims - most of those names on most of that clothing is faggots, homosexuals and lesbians."
Another influential preacher, Abdurraheem Green, whose internet lectures receive hundreds of thousands of hits, preaches that "Islam is not compatible with democracy" and that to prevent a wife committing "evil" a husband has the right to "apply some type of physical force... a very light beating" - though he says this should not leave any marks.
Problem or solution
Despite these conservative views the Metropolitan Police has sought Abdurraheem Green's advice recently.
One thing I have been very consistent on is terrorism, participating in terrorist activities, violent revolution - is not something that I have ever thought was part of the religion of Islam
And the preacher himself insists that in spite of his conservative views about life in Britain he is "part of the solution" to extremism because young people listen to him.
"I surely have said some pretty radical things and maybe even written some radical things in the past," he told Panorama. "But one thing I have been very consistent on is terrorism, participating in terrorist activities, violent revolution - is not something that I have ever thought was part of the religion of Islam."
Some senior police officers argue it is vital to work with radicals because they have credibility amongst young British Muslims.
But some moderate scholars warn this is a dangerous road.
Sheikh Musa Admani, imam at London Metropolitan University, says if advice is sought from the radicals, or if they are funded with public money, then "Muslims are going to endorse them as a whole and so there's the danger". "
"Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365
not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the
many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers
were given. Satan - 10."
Hmmmm :S it's never comforting when governments start to promote thought policing.
Well...with the kind of immigrant influx and influence on the society, I would say its quite understandable if the Brits feel that their culture is under threat in their own homeland. There are certain values and beliefs that underlies any culture and whoever has views contradictory to those is much better off somewhere else.
Secularity or civil liberties shouldnt be exploited to impose another culture or belief/value system on a country's existing legal/constituitional framework.
As an added note, i would say I'm yet to see any country with an islamic majority (in their population) truly embrace secularism. If there is any, I confess i have missed it. Point being, the attitude of viewing with suspicion, the growing influence of another religion in their own backyard is not confined to the western world.
The telegraph
By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 10:42PM GMT 16 Feb 2009
Dame Stella Rimington, the former head of MI5, has warned that the fear of terrorism is being exploited by the Government to erode civil liberties and risks creating a police state.
Dame Stella became the first woman director general of MI5 in 1992.
Dame Stella accused ministers of interfering with people’s privacy and playing straight into the hands of terrorists.
“Since I have retired I feel more at liberty to be against certain decisions of the Government, especially the attempt to pass laws which interfere with people’s privacy,” Dame Stella said in an interview with a Spanish newspaper.
“It would be better that the Government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism: that we live in fear and under a police state,” she said.
Dame Stella, 73, added: “The US has gone too far with Guantánamo and the tortures. MI5 does not do that. Furthermore it has achieved the opposite effect: there are more and more suicide terrorists finding a greater justification.” She said the British secret services were “no angels” but insisted they did not kill people.
Dame Stella became the first woman director general of MI5 in 1992 and was head of the security agency until 1996. Since stepping down she has been a fierce critic of some of the Government’s counter-terrorism and security measures, especially those affecting civil liberties.
In 2005, she said the Government’s plans for ID cards were “absolutely useless” and would not make the public any safer. Last year she criticised attempts to extend the period of detention without charge for terrorism suspects to 42 days as excessive, shortly before the plan was rejected by Parliament.
Her latest remarks were made as the Home Office prepares to publish plans for a significant expansion of state surveillance, with powers for the police and security services to monitor every email, as well as telephone and internet activity.
Despite considerable opposition to the plan, the document will say that the fast changing pace of communication technology means the security services will not be able to properly protect the public without the new powers.
Local councils have been criticised for using anti-terrorism laws to snoop on residents suspected of littering and dog fouling offences.
David Davis, the Tory MP and former shadow home secretary, said: “Like so many of those who have had involvement in the battle against terrorism, Stella Rimington cares deeply about our historic rights and rightly raises the alarm about a Government whose first interest appears to be to use the threat of terrorism to frighten people and undermine those rights rather than defend them.”
In a further blow to ministers, an international study by lawyers and judges accused countries such as Britain and America of “actively undermining” the law through the measures they have introduced to counter terrorism.
The report, by the International Commission of Jurists, said: “The failure of states to comply with their legal duties is creating a dangerous situation wherein terrorism, and the fear of terrorism, are undermining basic principles of international human rights law.”
The report claimed many measures introduced were illegal and counter-productive and that legal systems put in place after the Second World War were well equipped to handle current threats. Arthur Chaskelson, the chairman of the report panel, said: “In the course of this inquiry, we have been shocked by the damage done over the past seven years by excessive or abusive counter-terrorism measures in a wide range of countries around the world.
“Many governments, ignoring the lessons of history, have allowed themselves to be rushed into hasty responses to terrorism that have undermined cherished values and violated human rights.’’
A Home Office spokesman said: “The Government has been clear that where surveillance or data collection will impact on privacy they should only be used where it is necessary and proportionate. The key is to strike the right balance between privacy, protection and sharing of personal data.
“This provides law enforcement agencies with the tools to protect the public as well as ensuring government has the ability to provide effective public services while ensuring there are effective safeguards and a solid legal framework that protects civil liberties.”
I am very concerned about the erosion of civil liberties in the UK but I will hold opinion until the report is published next month.
"Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365
not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the
many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers
were given. Satan - 10."
They believe in armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.
So what if a british white christians beleives in above, would he also be considered extremist or will the law only apply to muslims.
apparently you're not too far PM
When do we start speaking NEWSPEAK?
utter bollocks by a bunch of elitists who have nothing better to do but persecute the little man
This is an uncorroborated leak, and as said, not finalised and still in discussion process.
An important sentence is:
"Those considered extreme would not be targeted by the criminal law, but would be sidelined and denied public funds"
I'll hold fire on this until it is published. I would be very concerned at some of the suggestions here.
"Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365
not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the
many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers
were given. Satan - 10."
No the UK is not a secular state at all! The Queen is not only Head of State but still the supreme head of the Church of England. We have all religions there and tolerate them. We have all faith schools including Jews, Muslims etc. We are very tolerant.
But the UK is a secular state. Right? Wasn't christianity sidelined many centuries ago during the enlightenment that took place in Europe?
However, there are a few wild cards that need weeding out and as people who promote Christianity in strict Muslim countries are imprisoned and then deported, perhaps it is time we were just as harsh.