The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 77: 22 September 2005

Contents

Realism - Muslim Taskforce (Doubly Ignored)

Repression - Illiberal Democrats. Free Speech, War, Insurgency and Hizb Ut-Tahrir.

REALISM - MUSLIM TASKFORCE (DOUBLY IGNORED)

FOREIGN POLICY CENTRAL TO TERROR THREAT

The only newspaper to notice the recommendations of the Muslim taskforce mentioned in earlier Media Reviews (in relation to a proposed Royal Commission on the 7/7 bombings) is the Financial Times: 'Ministers and Muslims at odds on tackling terror'. The taskforce was set up by the Government, but has come up with unpalatable truths

Among other things, the taskforce report 'will... make clear its belief that the issue of extremism among British Muslims is linked to the government's conduct of foreign policy, including the war in Iraq.'

'Similar views have been conveyed to Hazel Blears and Paul Goggins, the Home Office ministers, who have been touring Muslim communities in the past month and holding public meetings.'

' "Strong feelings were expressed about foreign policy, including Iraq. It was a running theme," said one Home Office official.'

'Shahid Malik, Labour MP and Muslim taskforce member, said that the Muslim community was positively engaged in tackling the roots of extremism but the onus was now on the government to listen to its proposals.'

'The importance being attached to foreign policy is a setback for Tony Blair, who has adopted an increasingly uncompromising line on extremism while trying to persuade Muslim leaders that the root causes of the London attacks lay in warped versions of Islam rather than political causes such as the war in Iraq.'

'Labour peer Lord Ahmed, another leading member of the Muslim taskforce, warned that any attempt by the government to reduce radicalism in the community would fail unless it agreed to a wide-ranging public inquiry into the London bombings headed by an independent judge.'

' "The inquiry would need to include an examination of the extent to which the government's foreign policy has radicalised Muslim youth. Without such an inquiry, the government is not going to win the confidence of the Muslim community," Lord Ahmed told the FT.'

'According to Whitehall insiders, ministers led by Mr Blair are strongly opposed to the idea of an independent inquiry, fearing that could open up a political and legal can of worms.'

'Ahmed Versi, editor of Muslim News, said a public inquiry along the lines being demanded by Lord Ahmed was "the key to confidence building" in the Muslim community, without which extremism would not be tackled.'

'According to Mr Versi, e-mails and chat rooms involving young British Muslims over the past few weeks show there remains a refusal to believe the police over events on July 7. "The sense of conspiracy ranges from a suspicion that CCTV footage was doctored to a broader questioning as to whether those identified by the police as bombers were really responsible," he said.'

Let's get this straight.

There is a section of the British Muslim community that is drawn to al-Qaeda-type terrorism, and which may emulate the bombers who struck on 7 July.

The Government asks leading figures in the British Muslim community to come up with recommendations which will prevent this from happening, and to draw that section of the British Muslim community back from the brink.

These eminent persons report back, saying that the most important thing that can be done is to investigate, in depth and in a judicial fashion, the roots of the bombings, and especially the extent to which Government policies contributed to the growth of hatred and anger in the Muslim community.

Without this public inquiry, they say, there is the risk that more young Muslims will follow the path of the bombers.

The Government responds by ignoring the taskforce recommendations, offering instead an 'inter-faith advisory commission on integration and cohesion' - chaired by a minister rather than by a judge.

Rather than investigating what caused the bombings, the Government presumes that the problem is an inadequate sense of 'Britishness' among certain communities: 'The commission would address the question of how to engender an increased sense of Britishness that is inclusive of all communities.'

National security is way down the list of priorities here.

Muslim leaders are being ignored by the Government, and they look set to be ignored by much of the media as well. What's the message being sent to the Muslim community?

Brilliant.

THEY'VE DONE THE INVESTIGATION

Let's just remember some relevant remarks from the Young Muslims and Extremism report (haven't heard from them in a while).

This leaked Home Office/Foreign Office report said that one problem was 'A lack of any real "pressure valves", in order to vent frustrations/anger/dissent.'

The report also said: 'Some young Muslims are disillusioned with mainstream Muslim organisations that are perceived as pedestrian, ineffective and in many cases, as "sell-outs"' to HMG.'

The Muslim taskforce initiative is a wonderful demonstration of both phenomena. Having hand-selected 'tame Muslims', the Government was not prepared to listen to what they had to say. No real pressure valve? Check. They are going to be ignored on their most important contribution. Pedestrian, ineffective sell-outs? Check.

The Young Muslims and Extremism report (from spring 2004) identified certain 'Key Actions' which would 'assist in tackling extremism among Muslim youth'. At the top of the list were actions which would 'Improv[e] our understanding of the extent and causes of extremism among young Muslims'.

At the top of this list was the following:

l. Conduct focus groups with young Muslims, exploring their views on key aspects of foreign and domestic policy, interpretations of Islam, and the compatibility of being British and Muslim. Focus groups to be drawn from a range of educational, economic and ethnic backgrounds

This is from a year and a half aog. The Government has already carried out this investigation. They know what the extent and causes of extremism among young Muslims are. They know the answers of the Royal Commission would be.

These are answers they don't want the public to hear.

REPRESSION

REALISM AND FREE SPEECH - SALIM LONE

Former spokesperson for the UN mission in Iraq Salim Lone offers more sensible commentary in the Guardian today: 'This attack on free speech will fuel Muslim hostility'. Subtitle: 'If Britain's proposed laws on inciting terrorism were applied fairly, those who incite wars of aggression would also be in the dock'.

Mr Lone remarks:

'Such incitement is more deadly due to the awesome destructive power of the states that are being urged, invariably, to attack a much weaker country.'

Some more pointed comments on the definition of terrorism:

'In any event, the world has not yet agreed what constitutes "terrorism". the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, tried to simplify matters by asserting that the killing of civilians was a terrorist act, but that was rightly rejected by the general assembly.'

'The word "innocent", contained in the original draft, was left out.'

'What about the US security firm Blackwater's security guards?'

'What about armed Israeli civilians who create settlements on occupied Palestinian land?'

'The kind of language proposed in the British legislation could easily characterise a call to resist allied occupation soldiers in Iraq as incitement. Is force now to be the preserve of the powerful?'

Why did Charles Clarke introduce the 20-year rule in relation to the 'glorification' of terrorism, so that only recent terrorism is wrong?

Among other movements, the French Resistance is almost sacred in Western culture as the embodiment of courage and nobility, but a large part of its work was the killing of informers - civilians. That is the ugly nature of insurgency.

ILLIBERAL DEMOCRATS

Yesterday, at the Liberal Democrat party conference, 'Mark Oaten, Lib Dem home affairs spokesman, said if ministers pressed ahead with longer custody powers and an offence of glorification of terrorism - two measures sprung on opposition parties without consultation - they would jeopardise Lib Dem backing for the three core proposals in the package. These are offences of acts preparatory to terrorism, training terrorists and indirect incitement of atrocities.' (FT, page 4)

These three core proposals are deeply illiberal.

'Mr Oaten acknowledged that the police might have "a difficulty in some circumstances" in assembling the forensic evidence to back up a terrorism charge against a suspect within 14 days. But he believed police would be able to hold a suspect under a lesser charge, such as acts preparatory to terrorism, pending a higher charge later on.'

In other words, don't introduce two repressive changes when only one will do the work of two.

This is the human rights analogue of the Lib Dem's 'oppose-the-war-until-people-start-being-killed' position on the war.

SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOUR

The Guardian puts an everyday story of police repression on its front page (trailing onto inside pages). An important story, and given all due prominence.

FREE SPEECH - HIZB UT-TAHRIR

Just one niggling question about that story. Would they have given the story the same prominence and length if the victim had been Afro-Caribbean or Asian, or a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir? Or do these characteristics reduce the 'innocence' of the suspect?

A student union president has been suspended by his University for holding a debate with Hizb ut-Tahrir. This is a serious attack on freedom of speech. It flows out of the 'no platform' position taken by the student left for two decades now, undermining both freedom of speech and academic freedom.

In yesterday's Guardian, Natasha Walter condemned the Government for banning Hizb ut-Tahrir - without mentioning the fact that the Guardian itself sacked a trainee reporter for refusing to resign from the organization.

Have the actions of this party caused directly or indirectly more deaths than either the Labour or Conservative Parties? Has it directly or indirectly caused more hatred of a particular religion or ethnic group? Given the disparity in power between these three parties, the answer must be no.

Any worker should be judged by their behaviour, not by their beliefs. If a member of the BNP can perform their work without racially discriminating against co-workers or customers (or readers), they should not be discriminated against for their beliefs.

JNV welcomes feedback.