A ‘Dog’s Breakfast’ – About the mildest thing that could be said about the latest attempt by David Cameron to appear to be doing something about Islamic terror, violence and sedition.
……Or rather meet the government’s new Islamic terror prevention policy because it smells very similar to the old Islamic terror prevention policy.
One definition of stupidity is to fail at something or see it fail, but to continue with the same activities that made the project or activity fail in the first place. Intelligence is stopping whatever it is that is failing and doing something else, something more effective. It was the word ‘stupidity’ that first popped into my mind when I heard about some of the provisions in the latest bit of legislation cobbled together to deal with the growing problem of Islamic terrorism and sedition.
Apart from the vague definition of ‘extremism’ which could have some nasty unintended consequences which I’ll come to later, this counter-extremism policy looks similar in parts to other previous bits of counter-extremism policy. I heard, with a growing sense of deja vu, about the courting of ‘moderate’ Muslim voices and the splurging of taxpayers money on attempts to persuade the followers of the religion of violence, rape and murder not to indulge in acts of violence, rape and murder. I thought that this sounds very much like the failed ‘Contest’ strategy of Tony Blair’s government that was brought in after the 7/7 bombings? In fact there does indeed seem to be a lot of ‘reheating’ going on.
Let’s have a look at some of the rehashed policies. The Blair counter-extremism proposals had a power to close troublesome mosques, this was dropped after objections from Islamic community groups. I suspect that Cameron’s new powers to close mosques will also be quietly dropped. After all, it would not look at all good for Cameron if a major mosque that had been in receipt of enormous amounts of public money but had also hosted numerous hate preachers was shut down. Yes, East London Mosque, I do mean you.
Moving on to the core statement from the Government which includes the ‘fluffy’ and indeed wasteful and especially useless bits of this new legislation and is brought to us by the official HMG source gov.uk. As usual for this blog, the original source is in italics, and my comments are in italics.
Her Majesty’s Government said:
“The government will invest £5 million this year to build a national network of grassroots organisations to challenge all forms of extremist ideology,
Somehow I can’t see how some Astroturf-type groups, created by government will provide an effective and convincing counter-narrative to the sort of familial and communal indoctrination that we see in the Islamic communities in the UK. A person, known and trusted by an individual Muslim and from within the Islamic community who waving around the Koran and pointing out the bits that say ‘Kill the Jews’ or ‘don’t make friends with the Kuffar’, is going to be far more compelling than anything the Government can put out. I predict that these ‘grassroots’ organisations will fail miserably at countering the violence and supremacism that is at the heart of orthodox Islam. Reams of expensive reports will be written by civil servants and taxpayer supported charity staff about the progress of counter extremism in their area, with varying levels of truthfullness. These reports will not be able to hide the fact that modern technology has enabled Muslims to read and understand the totality of the hate-filled ideology of Islam. Muslims themselves can see for themselves, texts that justify the killing and enslavement of others and the theology behind the hyper-misogyny of Islam. The influence of the raw texts is going to be far, far more influential than some nice, peaceful but ineffectual Imam like Dr Taj Hargey will be. Sadly I suspect that the much trumpeted ‘£5 million for extremism reduction will disappear in either wasteful studies or ‘consultancy’ or end up being turned into Cocaine and stuffed up some public servant’s nose.
There is also a huge danger in the new powers as if, or rather when, it is realised that throwing money on the public sector bonfire, or doing the equivalent of saying ‘pretty please, can you stop beheading people or blowing things up now’ to Muslims, is obviously failing. This danger is that these counter extremism civil servants will attempt to justify their existence (and their wages) by, with help from the Left, turning the powers onto anyone else that could conceivably be tagged as ‘extremist’.
the Prime Minister announced today on the eve of the publication of the government’s new Counter-Extremism Strategy.
Cameron does like his huge stage-managed ‘announcements’ doesn’t he. If the country could create energy from Cameron’s ‘sound and fury signifying nothing ‘announcements or his statements that ‘Islam is a religion of peace’, then we’d never have to dig any coal or import any oil ever again.
At the heart of the Strategy is a new partnership approach to strengthen community resilience and promote a coalition to speak out, challenge and ultimately defeat extremism.
Now where have we heard these words ‘partnership’, ‘community’ and ‘coalition’ before? I seem to have heard these and other similar words connected to the previously failed ‘Contest’ and ‘Prevent’ strategies. As with other failed schemes, these buzz-words throw up more questions than they do answers. When dealing with ‘partnerships’ who is the government partnering with? Last time out with similar policies under Blair and Brown, ‘non violent’ extremists were sometimes invited in to help the government formulate counter extremism policy. It also helps to be partnering with an individual or an organisation that is genuinely non-violent or non-extreme, rather than linking with entities and people that pretend to be ‘moderate’ or ‘civilised’ even when they are not. The word ‘community’ also needs to be shaken a bit as well, it’s a dishonest use of the word. The reason its a dishonest use of the word is that this violence and lust for violence is only coming from Islam and from Muslims, not coming from the Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jane or ‘Pastafarian’ communities . The use of the bland and inclusive word ‘community’ fails to emphasise that it really is only Islamic savages who behave like savages. We should be honest about that fact and not hide behind soft-soap feel good words like ‘community’.
The new funding, initially for this financial year, will be dedicated to providing direct and in-kind practical support to groups to expand the reach and scale of their work to confront extremism, and develop credible alternative narratives to the dangerous views propagated by extremists.
But as I’ve said before, these alternative narratives will not be credible or compelling to the target audience.
This could include:
-
social media training
-
technical assistance to enable a small charity to set up a website
-
targeting funding for specific projects
In other words ‘let’s chuck some money at those who say ‘I can help’ and hope they can.’ That doesn’t look like the best policy or the best use for public money to me. Instead, we should be having legislation specifically aimed at Islam and its followers. Yes, the Human Rights for Inhuman Savages brigade will whine about treating one ‘religion’ more harshly than another I disagree. In my view, it is better that the guilty ideology and its followers, in this case Islam and Muslims, are targeted for enforcement action than members of much more innocent and less violent and aggressive groups, religions and ideological paths are lumped in as generalised ‘extremists’. To target the innocent or the harmless or the peaceful in order to not look primarily concerned about Islamic ideology, is not in my view, justice.
This latest piece of counter terror legislation will not only fail, but will end up having some pretty awful unintended consequences. Apart from the general chilling effect on free speech that some of the government’s latest policies will have, there are other dangers. There is the danger that lazy and politically biased civil servants and police will go after Christians and Jews or secular campaigners and leave the Islamics alone. If you think that is hyperbole then think again. Remember well that a British Police Force, South Yorkshire, ignored well over a thousand rapes by Muslims in their area because it was politically expedient to do so. Are you absolutely sure that a similar thing will not happen again, but this time with politics rather than rape?
There is also the danger that this legislation will be used in an intra-communal manner to settle scores and by the management committees of various political and religious groups to smear and remove internal political irritants. I can well imagine how for example a small Leftist charity could use an ‘extremism’ accusation to weed out social conservatives or right wingers from positions of influence. This legislation could also be used by religious groups that have had their governing structures captured by the far Left, such as the Church of England and some of the smaller non-Orthodox Jewish movements, to shut out those who for example believe in traditional heterosexual marriage, or those who believe that it’s futile to make peace with those who want to kill you.
This new legislation doesn’t go nearly far enough in specifically targeting that ideology that causes the most problems with violence and aggression, which is Islam. It will be a waste of money, and will be exploited by civil servants, consultants and third sector organisations on the make. It will place yet another burden of beuracracy on teachers and others and will have dire consequences for freedom of speech, including the right to tell the truth and say that Islam is NOT a religion of peace, but is far from it. I’m pessimistic about these new powers and I’m pessimistic about whether they will be effective and whether they will be misused.
Links
HMG statement on new anti-terror legislation
Brietbart on the same subject ‘goodbye free speech’
More on previous anti-terror legislation
An example of that rare species, the moderate and reasonable Imam.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2623879/We-Muslims-appalled-sale-halal-meat-stealth.html
I’ll wager that these laws will be actively used against those of us who dislike Islam, just wait and see.
It’s certainly a strong possiblity. After all, there has never been an effective ‘purge’ of Islamism supporters in the civil service (many of whom are ‘non-violent extremists’ who were brought in by Labour in order to counter the ‘violent extremists’. Add onto that the number of dangerous Left wingers who have ensconced themselves in our admin and public services and you have the recipe for a free speech disaster. Without removing the ‘hidden jihadi supporters, non-Muslim quislings and the fellow travellers from the public sector, it is highly likely that these laws will be used against those who complain about the ‘religion of rape, murder, violence, misogyny and multi-generational first cousin shagging’
“Treat hate preachers like child molesters”. Daily Fail (sorry, can’t resist)
today 19:10:15.
If these nonces and nutters are to be treated like the peados in Rotherham, and
other towns and cities, then they have nothing to fear from our arse-kissing
establishment. Quite the reverse, especially with Labour councils.
Knocking bet that this on the hoof legislation will be used to the detriment
of the non-muslim occupants of these islands.
Cameron blowing smoke again. No change there then.
The ‘Treat ’em like nonces’ analogy really breaks down when you remember how the police, civil service, local government, social services and NHS, dealt with the problem of Islamic nonces in Rotherham. Agree that there is a strong chance that the legislation will be used by the Islamists, the Quislings and fellow travellers to attack those who tell the truth about Islam.
As I said, there is a lot about this legislation that looks far too much like failed legislation of the past. Until we are honest as a society and until our governments are made up of honest people who say ‘Yes, Islam is the primary problem’ then many of these sorts of initiatives will be utterly useless as a weapon against Islam and Islamic extremism.
It is still possible to have an honest conversation with fellow English people, only just. Where, in the past, one cast glances over one’s shoulder before giving opinions regarding race, we now do so when mentioning that dreadful creed. Remarkably, there are occasions when Muslims have done the shoulder check before telling me that the fault lies with the Wahabis who use their wealth to fund mosques and such like. Most Muslims in this country are not radical. It’s true that they can be radicalised easily. If they are not to be radicalised it only remains to civilise them. This will happen with or, preferably, without government intervention. After all governments do have the nasty habit of cocking thins up on a grand scale. The only way to deal with this is to let go. Stop making new laws. Use the laws which we have, there are enough of them. While we are doing that can we please identify which problem the laws are addressing, Islamic extremism or primitive practises? Do that and we may find a solution before the need for a final solution.
Very good points. Especially about using existing laws. I certainly concur that there are many born Muslim who would relish being free of this dreadful, oppressive violent creed and join civilisation. Some of Muslim heritage do escape either to atheism or to Christianity or to some other spiritual path.