How the Met Got It Wrong on Terrorism
There is a comment piece in yesterday’s Times by Andy Hayman, formerly the most senior anti-terrorist officer in the Metropolitan Police. It amounts to a partial defence of the strategy of cultivating and assisting Muslim Brotherhood connected Islamists, pioneered by the (now retired) police officer, Bob Lambert.
This is his conclusion:
The problem is that the very people who are best placed to advise on how to reach those in the community who are most susceptible to extremism are those whose own backgrounds may present a security risk. This is where the dilemma sits. The most valuable advisers are those likely to fail the vetting process and be barred from Scotland Yard.
If the claims about the background of Mr Harrath are true, questions need to be asked about how the vetting process allowed him to be recruited by the Met. But equally it is no good having a vetting process that passes only those who are safe but are not really representative and have limited insights to offer.
Yeah, well.
First of all, I should say that I support the long standing police policy of recruiting narks, snitches and grasses from among what used to be called ‘the criminal classes’. This is a strategy that is not wholly without danger: particularly if the police have cultivated a “participating informant”, where there is always the risk that the police will end up sanctioning a criminal course of conduct.
That is the course of action that the and the security services police evidently took with jihadists in the 1990s. Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri Mohammed reported having received frequent visits from the police. They’d remind the jihadist clerics that as long as they did nothing illegal, they’d be left alone to indoctrinate and recruit. And every so often, no doubt, they’d flash a picture of a particularly nasty terrorist in front of them and ask whether they’d seen any strange men hanging around the neighbourhood.
But that strategy didn’t work brilliantly did it? I suppose we’ll never know whether Abu Hamza and OBM actually helped the security services in a significant and important way. We do know what we got in return however: a generation of radicalised jihadists, some of whom went on to commit terrorist attacks. More worryingly, when Abu Hamza’s case came to trial, he was able to play the ingenue, tricked by the cunning police into believing that they had no problem with him soliciting murder, because they’d let him get away with it for so long.
A decade later, Bob Lambert’s Muslim Contact Unit pursued precisely the same strategy: with a twist. They weren’t simply getting information from those who supported and promoted jihadist and Islamist politics. They built partnerships with them.
The Muslim Brotherhood has a history of relationship-building with the states in which they operate. For example, Nasser swung backwards and forwards between cultivating the Muslim Brotherhood and persecuting and suppressing it. What makes the Muslim Brotherhood an attractive partner, is that it has cadre who are more or less obedient, which a compliant leadership might be persuaded to keep under control in return for a role in shaping and carrying out domestic policy. What makes the Muslim Brotherhood a dangerous friend, is that ultimately it wants to gain power, and create a Caliphate. If you’re not an Islamist – and Arab nationalists are not - you probably want to make sure that doesn’t happen. The problem is that if you suppress the Muslim Brotherhood, you find that its membership – brought up on a diet of jihad and longing for death in the service of God – resort readily to terrorism. This, after all, is the story of Ayman al-Zawahiri, and countless others.
Autocracies, like Nasser’s Egypt, only have two options when dealing with the Muslim Broterhood: co-opt, or repress. Democracies have a third: neutrality. If the Muslim Brotherhood engage in illegal activity, prosecute them. But leave it to democrats to oppose their jihadist message.
So why did Bob Lambert’s Muslim Contact Unit seek, not simply to cultivate Muslim Brotherhood connected figures as informants, but actively to partner with them? This is how Bob Lambert put it:
Islamists can be powerful allies in the fight against al-Qaida influence. Our experience shows they can be the levers that help get young people away from the most dangerous positions.
There is a theory, popular with the foreign policy establishment, that the best way to defeat violent extremism, is to find people who are ideologically close to violent extremism, and do a deal with them. You find the sonuvabitch who is “our friend” and pit him against the sonuvabitch who is “our enemy”. You install him in power. Big smiles for the press, handshakes all round. Then you walk away. When the whacking and chopping and mass murder starts, you shake your head in sorrow from behind your desk in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, relieved that it is now no longer “our problem”.
That model doesn’t work, as far as domestic politics are concerned. You can’t “walk away” from the problems you create here. Britain is our home.
What made the Muslim Contact Unit’s decision to partner with Islamists respectable, was the thesis that there is a “good Muslim Brotherhood” and a “bad Muslim Brotherhood”. Robert Leiken of the Nixon Centre puts the theory well here:
It became clear that there were two main currents within the Muslim Brotherhood. Some members were reactionary and dogmatic, were probably anti-Semitic and certainly anti-Zionist, wanted Israel to vanish and made that a principle of their politics and world view. The Supreme Guide expresses such views. But we found those views to be a severe embarrassment to other leading Brothers. We talked to powerful Brotherhood leaders who took public positions extolling Jews. This trend seems to be on the ascent.
Leiken expounded his theory that the Muslim Brotherhood is a “safety valve for moderate Islam” at length in his article, The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood.
I think that Leiken is off his rocker, frankly.
Certainly, there are differences of opinion within the Muslim Brotherhood. However, it is a mistake to see the “good Muslim Brotherhood” is winning the day. The trade union suppressing, missile-launching regime that controls Gaza most certainly is not the “good Muslim Brotherhood”. The recently issued “Blueprint” – the Muslim Brotherhood plan for an Islamic state in Egypt - promises Iranian style theocracy. Even more recently, the Shura Council that runs the Muslim Brotherhood purged its “reformers” and installed “hardliners”. So, Leiken is just wrong, if he thinks that the “good Muslim Brotherhood” is on the rise. It isn’t.
But I would like to question the notion that there is a “good Muslim Brotherhood”. There is a single Muslim Brotherhood that wishes to create a theocracy, but is prepared to use democratic means in order to achieve that aim. However, jihadism is absolutely central to the Muslim Brotherhood’s philosophy. The “moderates” embrace it, just as readily as the “old guard”. This is, after all, an organisation whose mission statement is:
Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.
Let’s face it. You’re going to have a bumpy ride if you join forces with a group like that. Yet that is precisely what the Muslim Contact Unit did.
We know what the Metropolitan Police hoped to gain from their partnership with Islamists: but what did the Islamists hope to get in return.
I’d suggest that Islamists have three main aims in engaging with the British state.
The first is validation. Those involved in Islamist politics are narcissistic fantasists. They imagine themselves – like the Blues Brothers – to be on a “mission from God”. Somebody like Azad Ali is, in reality, a middle aged civil servant. However it flatters him when senior civil servants and police officers treat him as somebody who matters, who is doing something meaningful and significant, and who should therefore be treated seriously, rather than laughed at as a crank.
Islamist groups also leverage validation by one organisation, to persuade others to treat them seriously. If the Metropolitian Police think you’re a serious person, then an MP will speak at your conference. If an MP speaks at your conference, you’re more likely to get an op ed in a mainstream newspaper. If you get your op ed, a senior judge is more likely to support you. That is the strategy. And, if somebody then points out that you’ve been calling for jihad, or support banned terrorist groups, the fact that you’ve got the backing of the Metropolitant Police, a mainstream newspaper, an MP, and a senior judge makes it easy for you to attack your opponent as a racist and Islamophobe who is trying to “smear” you.
The second aim is influence. There are prizes to be had for playing the game. As a reward for working with the Metropolitan Police, Bob Lambert’s team installed the Muslim Brotherhood – in place of Abu Hamza – in the Finsbury Park Mosque. One of the trustees they put in place, Mohammed Sawalha, had been named by the BBC as a fugitive Hamas commander. Muslim Brotherhood front groups have been working hard to get their hands on a share of the Preventing Violent Extremism pot. In Tower Hamlets, they succeeded. They promptly used the money to stage a ‘debate’ between the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Muhajiroun and Hizb ut Tahrir.
But the rewards on offer are not simply monetary. What the Muslim Brotherhood dearly would love, is to be treated by the state as the rightful intermediary for British Muslims. They would like input into policy formation. They would like to be able to bargain with the Government, in the name of all British Muslims. In particular, they want to appear on television, deploring terrorism, but explaining that because the Government hasn’t followed its sensible advice, there’s nothing it can do to stop the young hotheads from blowing themselves up.
There’s a telling phrase in Andy Hayman’s op ed piece, and it is this. He argues that there is no point is building bridges with Muslims who are “safe but … not really representative”. I very much hope that what Andy Hayman means is that Islamists are ‘representative’ of those who are involved in, or supportive of, violent jihad: and not “representative” of British Muslims generally. The former interpretation is spot on: the latter is simply untrue. The danger we face, however, is that by treating Islamists as the legitimate representatives of British Muslims, we will have created a self-fulfilling prophecy. We will have made them kings of their communities. What do you think they will do with that influence?
The final reason that Islamists engage with the state is to legitimate their politics. Let’s face it, Islamists have a PR problem. People hear the chanting, observe the extremism, listen to the demands: and are horrified. Making Islamist politics seem fluffy and friendly is a difficult brief. However, groups like “Conflicts Forum” – whose slogan is “Recognising Resistance” – have been working hard to create a palatable narrative that allows democrats and liberals to support Islamists. “These guys may seem to be yabbering about blowing themselves up for the glory of God in order to create a theocratic state in which minorities and women are second class citizens, religious dissenters and critics of the government are executed as apostates, and clerics are given the right to rule” – so the argument goes – “but really, they’re just resisting imperialism‘. Remember that, and forget the rest of it”.
Islamists have their own perspective on what they want to legitimate. Azad Ali’s post entitled “Defeating extremism by promoting balance” is a good example of how Islamists think about these issues. In the post, he argues that the only way to ‘deradicalise’ Muslims is to promote the thinking of an Al Qaeda related theoretician: Abdullah Azzam.
Azzam’s slogan was “Jihad and the rifle alone: no negotiations, no conferences and no dialogues”. However, Islamists urge us to accept him as a good role model for British Muslims: because in later life he argued that global jihad should not be carried out against civilians in their own countries.
You might think this is crazy. Who would give such a man the time of day?
But Azad Ali is a founder member of the Muslim Safety Forum – where apparently he “leads on the Counter Terrorism work-team for the Forum- working with the Home Office, ACPO and Security Services”. He is a National Council member of Liberty, President of the Civil Service Islamic Society. He sits on the Strategic Stop & Search Committee and Police Use of Firearms Group with the Metropolitan Police, and is a member of the IPCC’s Community Advisory Group and the Home Office’s Trust and Confidence Community Panel.
These are the sort of people who Andy Hayman thinks we ought to be using, as our secret weapon against jihadism. But many of the people with whom the Metropolitan Police were partnering in the Muslim Contact Unit are very close indeed, ideologically speaking, to the jihadists. What is the rationale? Bob Lambert appears to have believed that the only way to get through to would be British Muslim suicide bombers is for the police to say:
“Yes, we recognise that blowing yourself up for God, and taking as many other people as possible with you, is a truely glorous and noble ambition. You’re right to want to do so. But don’t do it on the No. 30 bus in London, please”
It is hugely irresponsible to promote people who support terrorism in other people’s countries. But, even if they don’t care about the dead in Baghdad, Kabul or Tel Aviv, shouldn’t we be worried that promoting jihadism will simply create more jihadists? What if some of those newly-recruited jihadist end up agreeing with the first part of the message – the bit about blowing yourself up for God – but decided that, on balance, there was no good theological reason not to do it on public transport in London, after all? Remember, this was precisely the “covenant of security” that Omar Bakri Mohammed claimed to have offered to the British state. But covenants, like pie crusts, are easily broken.
If the police want to find Muslims to help them “deradicalise” potential jihadists, they should partner with those who have been jihadists, but have turned their back on that politics altogether: not individuals and groups which support terrorism in any country but ours. There are plenty of schemes that use reformed ex-cons to persuade young hoodlums not to enter a life of crime. I don’t think the police would use active criminals for such schemes, on the basis that they agree not to burgle any houses in Britain.
What Andy Hayman would argue, I think, is that they’ve received valuable information that has helped prevent terrorism, by scratching the backs of some of the nastiest and most extreme Islamists in London. That’s fair enough. But at what cost?
I have another suggestion. From what I’ve heard from my contacts, at least some of the Islamists who Bob Lambert has had dealings are venal, corrupt and self serving. Why not treat them as you’d treat any other snout. Offer them money.
I do not know whether the policy of partnering with Islamists continues at the Met. Andy Hayman was given his marching orders. Bob Lambert is now working for the convicted terrorist, Mohammed Ali Harrath. So it would be nice to think that this little experiment has run its course.
But I bet it hasn’t.
Comments
| 17 December 2008, 7:46 am |
BTW – talk of the devil! MPAC UK are back on the trail of justifying (explaining) violence and terror, having been stirred by you http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/5159/103/
They say they wouldn’t adopt OBL’s ways and yet somewhere on a video is Asghar saying that “Brother Osama was right…”
| 17 December 2008, 8:41 am |
How very like the home life of our own dear Trots. Does the Met also recruit Trots to advise it on how to counter Trot subversion of trade unions? Does it recruit Combat 18 staff to advise it on how to counter far right racist attacks?
| 17 December 2008, 9:45 am |
Very well said DavidT. I wish you could submit articles like this to CiF just to counter the appeasement rubbish voiced over there.
| 17 December 2008, 9:52 am |
BTW – talk of the devil! MPAC UK are back on the trail of justifying (explaining) violence and terror, having been stirred by you http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/5159/103/
They say they wouldn’t adopt OBL’s ways and yet somewhere on a video is Asghar saying that “Brother Osama was right…”
What a nonsensical paranoid screed that was(the MPACUK article).
| 17 December 2008, 9:59 am |
I love MPACuk – they basically do your job for you.
| 17 December 2008, 10:08 am |
Remember, it was only a couple of years ago that MPACuk was described as “a moderate Muslim organisation”.
| 17 December 2008, 10:12 am |
Excellent post-I found myself murmuring in agreement whilst reading it. Thanks.
Barad
| 17 December 2008, 10:14 am |
The best analysis of the state’s strategy towards the Muslim Brotherhood I have yet to read.
I wonder how far this is rooted in the practices of the Raj: the way the British Government today manages (or tries to manage) ‘hot heads’ by going to ‘community leaders’ has struck me for quite a long time to echo the way the District Political Officers dealt with this (across the religious board). Apart from divide and rule there was the matter, say, of Muslim ‘personal law’ which I note the appeasers here are close to accepting (Sharia Courts). Witness the result of all this on the sub-Continent: Partition and Mass Murder.
The reason Judy that they don’t try the same best-mates thing towards the hard left (their interest in the past was expressed through the odd infiltrator, now I suppose they trawl the Web) is, I suppose, that, after having confronted and put down Chartism in the 1840s, they have accumulated plenty of experience of how to cope with us – as we have of them.
| 17 December 2008, 10:15 am |
Remember, it was only a couple of years ago that MPACuk was described as “a moderate Muslim organisation”.
And how many years since Asghar bukhari sent David Irving a donation?
| 17 December 2008, 10:24 am |
The problem is that the very people who are best placed to advise on how to reach those in the community who are most susceptible to extremism are those whose own backgrounds may present a security risk.
It’s stunning that such an approach actually gained credence amongst the intelligensia in the civil service despite being thoroughly discredited during those ‘halcyon’ days of empire.
Two glaring examples of why fostering tribal elder support and indirect rule failed so miserably are there for all to see in post-partition Pakistan with the Ahmediyyah, and in Nigeria, most recently in Jos. If such a policy misfired so spectacularly in what are now key fronts in the fight against Islamic expansionism, how could they be expected to succeed at home?
| 17 December 2008, 10:31 am |
Clearly the policy of partnering with Islamists continues at the Met. It was only a few weeks ago that ‘Muslim experts hired by Scotland Yard’ lobbied to stop any planned memorial at the London Olympics to the massacred Israeli athletes of 1972, on the gounds that it would ‘inflame Muslims’.
Details at
http://edgar1981.blogspot.com/2008/10/no-memorial-to-massacred-israelis-for.html
Edgar
| 17 December 2008, 10:42 am |
Islamists can be powerful allies in the fight against al-Qaida influence. Our experience shows they can be the levers that help get young people away from the most dangerous positions.
I’d like to see some concrete empirical research that justifies this statement. I’ve yet to see any evidence that hardcore jihadists have been co-opted or dissuaded by revisionists. Just what is his ‘experience’ and how can a man in his position make such assertions with no basis in fact.
| 17 December 2008, 10:56 am |
Perhaps the reason that Trotskyists aren’t wined and dined and consulted on a regular basis is that tehy don’t have hundreds of billions of pounds to spend on ailing British industries? Or. offer resources that will enable some people to make even bigger fortunes? Just saying like.
| 17 December 2008, 11:11 am |
Wasn’t this basically Ken’s line in cultivating al-Qaradawi? namely that if “respected” moslem religious “leaders” are prepared to say in their public pronouncements on “shared” UK platforms with UK political leaders, that they don’t believe in killing us anymore, we should treat this as a chink to penetrate in their armour, adn cultivate them to convince them we’re good guys really and can they please spread the word among the militants in their community.
Didn’t buy it then, don’t buy it now. Visiting mullahs (like Qaradawi) say one thing on visits here when enjoying our hospitality and another thing altogether for their home audiences. Similarly a lot of our own home grown “firebrands” are careful what they say in public while spouting hateful sermons in closed session at their local mosques. The police mainly seem to chose to turn a blind eye to these rants in the interests of not stirring up antagonism in their local moslem community (eg Birmingham or East London).
| 17 December 2008, 11:12 am |
It’s a terrific post, and the colonial origin of the policy is very relevant.
| 17 December 2008, 11:15 am |
This is a really important article. I’d like to see the higher echelons of the police, the home office, the Cabinet and the BBC dragged into a room somewhere and forced to read it.
| 17 December 2008, 11:17 am |
Well, this is very kind of you all.
Copy and paste it into an email, and send it to people you think ought to read it, if you’d like.
| 17 December 2008, 11:33 am |
A fine post with much to consider. As I read it however I came to think that it is a mistake to believe one’s own’ side’ has a monopoly on self-deception, delusion or simply misconceived tactics.
David T’s point which struck home with me was a reference to ‘vanity’. In my own (few) contacts with Islamists’ it was noticeable how intellectually arrogant they are; a preening quality, accompanied in one case by an ever present smirk. In their own eyes they are always right.
Any one who has read crime histories or intelligence memoirs knows that one has to deal with very unpleasant people to fight crime or frustrate plots. It is the common place of such work, one which of course created rich potential for fiction writers like G F Newman or Le Carré. Who whom? It does have considerable risks attached to it, not least when it becomes public knowledge that government employees have been plying rogues with money and favours, neglecting to point to the results of such ’softness’. But it is not, as Melanie Phillips seems to believe and her numerous supporters accept as an article of faith, a one way street.
“… From what I’ve heard from my contacts, at least some of the Islamists who Bob Lambert has had dealings are venal, corrupt and self serving….”
– David T.
I suspect this is true if one goes on past form. Some villains can be bought and ‘turned’. Several past Home Secretaries have alluded to Islamofascist activities having been ‘broken up’ but without supplying details. Effectively (and largely unreported here in England) it was the extent to which wrangles over money contributed to the downfall of IRA Sein Fein as a terrorist force. When people are driven by ideology alone the results can be difficult to contain. Once large amounts of money enters the equation – initially as ‘funding’ but increasingly as a business opportunity like NORAID – then the cracks begin to appear and that is when people can be turned. Jealousies and rivalries over the ‘cut’ generate a desire for revenge and most minor and some major crime cases are broken by that fracture, between loyalty or ideology and material gain.
Perhaps the deadliest weapon the UK has is the widespread belief that in intelligence and policing work connected to the Islamic threat it simply is not up to the job. I somehow doubt that.
| 17 December 2008, 11:44 am |
Regarding the tens of thousands of pounds from Met funds used to sponsor GPU events; I would like to know where those funds come from- is it Income Tax or Council Tax, so I can know whom to complain to.
| 17 December 2008, 11:47 am |
In my own (few) contacts with Islamists’ it was noticeable how intellectually arrogant they are; a preening quality, accompanied in one case by an ever present smirk. In their own eyes they are always right.
Welcome to theism in general, Larkers.
| 17 December 2008, 11:49 am |
‘Bob’ Lambert has his fingers in some juicy pies.
Wish I could get a copy of this, wherein he criticises Quilliam.
“Deradicalisation” and Indonesian Prisons
Beyond Terrorism:Deradicalization and Disengagementfrom Violent Extremism
Saudi Arabia’s “Soft” Counterterrorism Strategy:Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Aftercare
Radicalization or
Rehabilitation: Understanding the challenge of extremist and radicalized prisoners
| 17 December 2008, 11:50 am |
‘Bob’ Lambert has his fingers in some juicy pies.
Wish I could get a copy of this, wherein he criticises Quilliam.
| 17 December 2008, 11:55 am |
Excellent and urgent piece. You really should take it elsewhere into print. If not UK, then WSJ etc.
I wonder how much of this comes back to the understandable anxiety of Govt, Police etc to stress that they are not engaging in “a clash of civilisations”.
The brutal irony is of course that its the Brotherhood et al who’s very essence is that of “a clash of civilisations”, borne out of their foundational experiences against physical colonialism. Remember Ken Livinsgtone’s “clash of civilisations” conference? A classic example of this.
Police are deeply and rightly anxious not to be seen as playing politics. They are the last UK officialdom who can be seen to take sides in political and doctrinal clashes.
Its the Police’s job to prevent terrorism and riots. Its not their job to do the social engineering that prevents more alienation of British Muslims from the rest of UK society (and thereby in the mid and long term enables even more recruits for terrorism, isolation and social unrest).
This leaves Police wide open to Islamist manipulation –
“Here, take a stall at our Islamist conference, show that you are our friends not our enemies. Yes, lets stick your branding on the conference adverts, maybe it will help you recruit more Muslim officers, it will certainly show our community that you shouldn’t be accidentally mistaken for the UK Army of Occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
| 17 December 2008, 12:05 pm |
Just a slight clarification to my comment above:
Its not that there is a clash of civilisations – its that when the claash of civilisations bathwater is chucked out the window, it takes with it the critical fact that there is a very definite clash of ideologies.
The clash of ideologies baby is chucked out with the clash of civilisations bathwater, leaving no counter narrative.
| 17 December 2008, 12:14 pm |
Excellent post. Should be required reading in the Home Office.
| 17 December 2008, 12:17 pm |
This is precisely it.
The other problem is that there is no “constituency” of people who reject this sort of politics: even though most people do.
By contrast, there are many many constituencies of people who urge it: primarily the FCO, Islamists, and increasingly moderate “progressives” who have bought into the “this is just the same as Ireland” narrative.
The reason that we are losing, is because we are not organised.
The other side is.
| 17 December 2008, 12:27 pm |
As stated above, the view described by David T seems very close to that espoused by our ex Mayor. Who in turn was very close to our ex Commissioner of the Met police. So it is not hard to see that funding for events and units close to the Mayor’s heart run under the Met’s auspices would not have been hard to obtain.
I assume the current Mayor takes a different view but is still struggling to root out some of his predecessor’s ideological drones. (Hello ChrisC!)
For example the idealogues at the GLA wanted to call the first ever GLA Christmas Carol Service at Southwark cathedral this year a multi faith service in deference to the sensibilities of other religious groups. Boris insisted Chrismas must remain Christmas. And for the record I have no objection to other religions’ special festivals either, sacred or profane.
| 17 December 2008, 12:39 pm |
Congratulations Maven, in your first post, for doing the impossible, and actually creating a more ridiculous and cringeworthy parody than Littlejohn manages in the Mail
| 17 December 2008, 1:01 pm |
Ken, the FCO and the police have different reasons for supporting the MB: although they use each other’s explanations.
For Ken, it was all about the great hope of overthrowing global capitalism and imperialism
For the FCO, it is about using British Islamists as informal ambassadors to the Middle East and South Asia.
For coppers, it is about detecting and preventing crime, by cultivating relationships with a criminal subculture.
The coppers will, of course, screw this up in the most visible way.
| 17 December 2008, 1:02 pm |
Well… I think another factor is that it is in the nature of the sorts of people who get involved in espionage and security and such skullduggery to have a certain convoluted Machiavellian bent and also to see morality in terms which are very much not black and white.
| 17 December 2008, 1:04 pm |
Excellent Post. Why not publish it elsewhere as well?
| 17 December 2008, 1:12 pm |
Feel free to send it to anybody who you think might want to publish it.
The internet works – or should work – virally like this.
| 17 December 2008, 1:14 pm |
* For the FCO, it is about using British Islamists as informal ambassadors to the Middle East and South Asia. *
One might speculate that a mirror effect is in play here in that the British Islamists are using the FCO as an informal outpost of the Ummah?
| 17 December 2008, 1:34 pm |
FCO needs to keep its irons in the fire. They can’t get caught on the hop as happened post Khomenite takeover of Iran.
Far too much influence and business at stake old boy to worry about the odd bomb in Tel Aviv, Mumbai or London.
| 17 December 2008, 1:34 pm |
Congratulations Maven, in your first post, for doing the impossible, and actually creating a more ridiculous and cringeworthy parody than Littlejohn manages in the Mail
Why Thanks! Praise indeed. Not just by association with Littlejohn but also by the quality of the poster praising me.
| 17 December 2008, 2:02 pm |
The thing is, I WANT the FCO to be playing footsie with all sorts of nasty people. This is in this intrests of Britain. We have to do it.
What I don’t want is what has happened: namely, the purchasing of overseas influence for domestic favours: visas for Qaradawi, chumming up to the MB, appointing advisors to festivals of Muslim culture, who then ban stringed instruments etc.
Domestic influence should be a no-go area for the FCO. An incoming government should make it VERY clear that, although we’ll pay to fly Qaradawi to a nice holiday resort to participate in a conference in the Middle East – he isn’t coming into the UK.
| 17 December 2008, 2:19 pm |
From ‘Critical Studies of Terrorism’ Vol 1, Issue 2, August 2008, pp. 293-308. Aberystwyth University.
Brief cv of Robert Lambert.
1977: Joined police. Involved in counter-terrorism activities for a number of years with a focus on the Irish problems.
Jan 2002: Set up Muslim Contact Unit (MCU). Participated in pioneering and successful counter-terrorism community engagement projects.
Oct 2005: Starts academic project at University of Exeter, researching key aspects of MCU partnership experience.
Nov 2007: Presented with the first ‘Friends of Islam’ award by Dr Abdul Bari at the annual Global, Peace and Unity event.
Jun 2008: Awarded MBE for services to the Police.
Key academic influences
1. Quintan Wictorowicz: ‘Anatomy of the Salafi Movement’ (focus on Saudi Arabia and Jordan; divides movement into purists, politicos, and jihadists.)
2. Paddy Hillyard: Suspect Communities. (Minority sections of Irish communities unfairly alienated and stigmatised by draconian police powers.)
3. Basia Spalek/Salwa el-Awa: University of Birmingham. research project examining counter-terrorism policing from a community and practitioner perspective.
Key community project
During the 1990s – Salafist Brixton mosque of black converts (or reverts) led by Abdul Haqq Baker. A centre of excellence … helped to define Salafism as an effective force against Al Qaida and related ‘takfiri’ influence on the street.
Killer Quote
Robert Lambert: “More generally, unless there is a significant change in UK foreign policy, we should expect to see groups continuing to try and carry out terrorist acts in the name of al-Qaida in the UK for the foreseeable future.”
| 17 December 2008, 2:21 pm |
Basically, he’s one of these guys who thinks this is a re-run of Northern Ireland.
Of course, Northern Ireland ended with power sharing between the two most extreme communities: with the middle being utterly carved out.
So, if we do follow the same pattern the UK, we’re looking at power sharing between the BNP and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Which side do you fancy joining, guys?
| 17 December 2008, 2:36 pm |
Well I have seen Ken interviewed several times now when he was asked about his cultivation of Qaradawi. And while I know he makes it up as he going along (Ken that is), he has always been very consistent.
Basically Ken’s line is that Qaradawi is a respected religious theologian with a wide following in the arab middle east where he is seen as a moderate. At this point Ken usually quotes Qaradawi condemning suicide killings. (If challenged at this point with quotations of aradawi’s other more repressive views, he claims these are misreprented travesties of what Qaradawi says and can be discounted as Israeli translations (by memri) designed to mendaciously discredit the man for the benefit of fascist newspapers like the Daily Mail.)
He says men like Dr al-Qaradawi and his audience (the moderate moslems Qaradawi represents and addresses) are our best hope of finding an accommodation with moderate Islam to face down the militants. This is pretty much the FCO’s line isn’t it? Hence their paying for Qaradawi to attend middle east conferences.
I have never heard Ken claim we must make common cause with militant islam to see off western capitalism.
| 17 December 2008, 2:48 pm |
Livingstone is a twat over Qaradawi where it can be proven that Ken’s insistence that its a Mossad plot to discredit him via MEMRI is a lie he shouldn’t be allowed to propogate
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3875119.stm
Qaradawi, the sick piece of crap, Head of European Fatwa Council, made his fatwa about killing Israeli women and kids with sucide bombs on Newsnight.
Can we Puhlease lance this what amounts to dissembling by Ken about Qaradawi.
The only plane I’d send for Qaradawi would have a missile with his name on it.
| 17 December 2008, 2:54 pm |
“I have never heard Ken claim we must make common cause with militant islam to see off western capitalism.”
Yes, but that’s where Ken stands, politically.
When Ken supported Sinn Fein, it wasn’t because he was interested in reaching a difficult accomodation with people whose politics he abhored, but that would bring peace and prosperity to a troubled nation.
Rather, he saw SF as romantic doughty fighters against the evil British Empire, which he as a good socialist, was duty bound to support in their struggle. Because, as any good marxist knows, imperialism is the natural consequence of capitalism. And British influence in Ireland is best explained according to Marxist theory, which is the best theory for explaining everything that happens.
This is precisely what he thinks about Islamism. He may not like all of its content but as far as he’s concerned, it is just one of those things that happen when people resist “imperialism”.
He has simply substituted one bloke with a beard for another.
| 17 December 2008, 3:07 pm |
Put it this way.
Ken Livingstone didn’t invite UDF and UFF representatives to City Hall when he was leader of the GLC.
He didn’t invite representatives of the Settlers Movement to the GLA either. Nor BNPers.
Not even “moderate” ones who might have presented the “best chance for accomodation” …
| 17 December 2008, 3:11 pm |
Have sent this off to my MP Dismore, in reciprocation for the torrents of info he sends me by email and post.
| 17 December 2008, 3:14 pm |
A very engaging article, and one outlining situations and circumstances that apply to most western nations.
Particularly liked the part about craving validation and legitimacy, and the venal, narcissistic desire for attention.
Welcome to theism in general, Larkers.
There are theisms, Morgoth, and not just one ‘theism’.
And I’m grinning from ear to ear!
| 17 December 2008, 3:31 pm |
“Ken Livingstone didn’t invite UDF and UFF representatives to City Hall when he was leader of the GLC.”
At one point the UFF were planning to pay him a visit in London anyway…
| 17 December 2008, 3:38 pm |
William, had Little Green Footballs been made aware of Mr Lambert’s illustrious history he could have made it to the International Dhimmi of The Year Award voting for 2008
| 17 December 2008, 3:49 pm |
Fantastic article, David. The best I’ve read on the subject.
While I’m prepared to accept that there are a variety of deluded belief systems involved in these deals with terrorists, and, putting to one side some of the idiots who appear to have ‘gone native’ in their dealings with Islamists, I do think there is an aspect of this that hasn’t been adequately covered: namely racism.
The Met police, security services, foreign office and government, all have this (highly mistaken) belief that they are much much cleverer than the Islamists. It’s almost like they imagine that the opposition is handicapped by the fact that they are a; ‘foreign’ and b; intellectually limited by their belief in crazy, xenophobic, unforgiving gods), and that they therefore won’t stand a chance when dealing with wily British intellects.
I think they imagine it’ll be a quick battle of wits with the Brits coming out on top; the poor foreigners not knowing what hit them.
Obviously, as you pointed out, the reality of the situation is that the ‘poor foreigners’ are far better at this Machiavellian double-dealing business.
The same thing happened to the SWP.
| 17 December 2008, 4:09 pm |
Well, a lot of these guys are a bit stupid.
They’re also HUGELY fighty. They’re like a left wing sect. For all the talk of ‘brotherhood’, they’re at each others’ throats. Frankly, it is largely the fact that they’ve been rumbled and they’re feeling a little vulnerable, that is pushing them together.
But they’re well organised.
And we’re not.
| 17 December 2008, 4:10 pm |
There are theisms, Morgoth, and not just one ‘theism’.
Of course there’s one theism – its just the names that change periodically. You’re all the same, John P – genocidal hate-filled bigots who have surrended their humanity and turned into mindless morons willing to kill for their deity.
| 17 December 2008, 4:12 pm |
I think you’re way off in your assessment of Ken.
His main aim always was to be (politically) never outflanked by people claiming to more more radical – whether that was the left, republicans or more recently islamists – but this was almost always through symbolic gestures to buy them off.
It certainly maximised his vote in Tower Hamlets and Newham which his electoral strategy, in a catastrophic year for labour was based on and it nearly worked.
When it came down to it though Ken was very popular in both the city and the property world and was never genuinly anti-capitalist at all. In fact his economic policies could probably be described as neo-liberalism with affordable housing and buses. He also backed the police throughout very strongly even on things like de Menezes which alienated the radicals.
On Quaradawi I think he genuinly felt that engagement with him made London safer – I like you think he was wrong but I wouldn’t question his motives on it.
| 17 December 2008, 4:24 pm |
Feel free to send it to anybody who you think might want to publish it.
A Creative Commons licence (not one of their godawful non-commercial ones) might be a good way of flagging this.
| 17 December 2008, 4:27 pm |
You’re all the same, John P – genocidal hate-filled bigots who have surrended their humanity and turned into mindless morons willing to kill for their deity.
You’re especially high-octane to day, Morgoth
Did you write those lines while jogging on a treadmill, or something?
Or is it just that extra bowl of Wheaties you had this morning?
| 17 December 2008, 4:28 pm |
DAvid T wrote: “But they’re well organised. And we’re not.”
How true.
They’re also not held back by self doubt, cultural-cringe or political correctness.
Nor do they suffer from Quislings like Bunting, Milne and Galloway.
| 17 December 2008, 4:32 pm |
Football Manager: “When it came down to it though Ken was very popular in both the city and the property world and was never genuinly anti-capitalist at all.”
In my experience, everyone I know in the City thought he was a twat.
| 17 December 2008, 4:34 pm |
He’s a very professional politician, certainly. And to a certain extent, that means eschewing ideology. However, he does have an ideological base: an analysis from which he started.
That is why he was open to doing deals with Islamists and Republican terrorists: but not fascists and Loyalist terrorists.
Sure, he was popular in the city and property world. By the late 1990s, it was pretty clear that a socialist state in one city wasn’t going to happen. So you manage it, as best as you can, building support among various constituencies.
Part of Ken’s problem was that he is very good as getting constituencies ’sown up’. His entire strategy seems to have been premised upon building coalitions of various communal groups: batting for them, playing one off against another, building up advocacy organisations (like the 1990 Trust etc.) which he funded, and which in return were expected to support him and bash his enemies.
Part of that strategy involved building up the MB lot as “the Leaders of the Muslim Community”. But, although Qaradawi is revered as a demigod by the East London Mosque lot, his fan club aren’t universally loved, even in the East End. Bad memories of Jamaat…
What made the MB and Jamaat lot attractive to Ken is that they’re part of the great “progressive” coalition against capitalism and imperialism. The hope is, they’d bring you bloc votes. Plus, you can attack anybody who disagrees with this strategy as racists.
It must have seemed to be a win-win.
| 17 December 2008, 4:36 pm |
Perhaps I should re-phrase, I think most people in senior positions in the City and in property thought he was an effective mayor (although many probably also thought he was a twat).
| 17 December 2008, 4:46 pm |
Yes, an excellent article, but it is like letting oneself be run over by a train. I don’t suppose the Metropolitan police read HP. But is there no way of getting this sober analysis to people in ‘low’ -read ‘high’ -places? What about the opposition? Wouldn’t it give them something to get their teeth into??? I suppose I’m being desperately naive and you’d have done this long ago if possible.
| 17 December 2008, 4:53 pm |
This is excellent, David. Well done you.
Yet again we see evidence of the folly of idiots trying to connect with or otherwise “understand” the Islamist mindset by remaining firmly within their own.
It will never happen. The more I think about our safety being dependent upon these fools the more twitched I get.
I have sent this to my MP, too, David.
Perhaps send it to Comment is Free????
As a matter of interest, David T, I agree with you that we are not organised. Have you any ideas as to how we might get organised?
| 17 December 2008, 4:58 pm |
I don’t buy the ideological thing at all. Simple political calculation eschewed deals with loyalists and facists – they’re not his political base.
Ken is a classic “look at what he does not at what he says” politician. Can you name one practical thing in his eight years as Mayor (as opposed to off the cuff quotes and photo calls) with his greater than £1 billion annual budget that challenged “capitalism and imperialism” (apart from promoting an unsustainable housing boom)?
| 17 December 2008, 5:03 pm |
Maven,
They say they wouldn’t adopt OBL’s ways and yet somewhere on a video is Asghar saying that “Brother Osama was right…”
Do you have a link to that video?
| 17 December 2008, 5:15 pm |
Boffo, David T! Great post as everyone agrees. I might say that our FBI is using much the same suspect approach here in the US–particularly in the Detroit area–as has been spotlighted by Debbie Schlussel (debbieschlussel.com) and Pam Geller (”Atlas Shrugs”) Portrayed/dismissed by critics as shrill, Jewish, Zionist one-note Islamophobe publicity seeking info-babes by their critics (but who could blame them?–so great is the danger posed), they have done yeomans work in exposing the incestuous web of interlocking links between law enforcement and the radical Moslem community. And for this they are attacked not only by Moslems, but by our own FBI!
One thing NOT mentioned by Cavid T. however, which Debbie in particular has picked up on, is the extent to which much of the impetuous for these “unholy” associations comes from not misguided philosophical differences in approaches to crime/terrorist fighting; but to short-sighted, venal, and out-right blatant careerism on the part of key law enforcement types who seek to advance themselves by empire building around “community relations” and cornering the market on all known “moderates.” And to this end they are willing to deceive themselves/look-the-other-way as to the true nature of the people they are dealing with–indeed even occasionally artificially manufacture bona fides for same.
The upshot/moral? The entire process is ultimately corrupting, and exceedingly dangerous to the public in the long run–for all the reasons David T. lays out.
| 17 December 2008, 5:18 pm |
Sorry “Cavid!” And “not from” viz “from not”
| 17 December 2008, 5:23 pm |
“Can you name one practical thing in his eight years as Mayor (as opposed to off the cuff quotes and photo calls) with his greater than £1 billion annual budget that challenged “capitalism and imperialism” (apart from promoting an unsustainable housing boom)?”
Um
Not really.
Chavez?
| 17 December 2008, 5:23 pm |
Or is it just that extra bowl of Wheaties you had this morning?
With an extra topping of crushed and powered used communion wafers just to give it a little je nais se quois.
| 17 December 2008, 5:25 pm |
They’re also not held back by self doubt, cultural-cringe or political correctness.
Nor do they suffer from Quislings like Bunting, Milne and Galloway.
Surely these are good things about “our” society – that we don’t call people traitors for holding different opinions, that we worry about what we’re doing and whether we’re upsetting or harming people.
Not being held back by those things would seem to be a hallmark of fascists and psychopaths.
We probably need to find a way of continuing our liberal society without ditching half the things that make it both liberal and a society.
| 17 December 2008, 5:27 pm |
Damn, that second italics tag has run off again.
| 17 December 2008, 5:29 pm |
They’re also not held back by self doubt, cultural-cringe or political correctness.
Nor do they suffer from Quislings like Bunting, Milne and Galloway.
Surely these are good things about “our” society – that we don’t call people traitors for holding different opinions, that we worry about what we’re doing and whether we’re upsetting or harming people.
Not being held back by those things would seem to be a hallmark of fascists and psychopaths.
We probably need to find a way of continuing our liberal society without ditching half the things that make it both liberal and a society.
| 17 December 2008, 5:35 pm |
“Can you name one practical thing in his eight years as Mayor (as opposed to off the cuff quotes and photo calls) with his greater than £1 billion annual budget that challenged “capitalism and imperialism” (apart from promoting an unsustainable housing boom)?”
Imperialism, yes – using Ken’s definitions of “imperialism” and “challenged”; capitalism, no.
| 17 December 2008, 5:51 pm |
FOUND IT!!
Link to MPAC UK article and video http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/3317/34/
About 30 secs into the film, in the context of what Muslims should be doing to resist foreign policy Bukhari says
Brother Osama has given us a blueprint”.
The film cuts to the twin towers burning.
How more direct does he need to be. I am not sure if he later refutes this as a way to go about things but its is to me a clear mixed message at best.
| 17 December 2008, 5:52 pm |
Short order cook.
I agree, in part.
It’s possible to hold different opinions. But some opinions (and some people) are just wrong and incredibly dangerous. It’s this cultural relativism that has got us into this mess.
I don’t hesitate to call the individuals above, traitors, because they – in the case of Galloway – are selling out the culture that nurtured and protects them.
Milne and Bunting are, to my mind, even worse. They strike poses to appear as radical as possible. They strain to understand and forgive the monster, whilst sipping chablis in their Heals kitchens. They want all the benefits of Liberalism, Capitalism, Equality and the Enlightenment, but are prepared to deny it has any worth when held up against the achievements of Medieval butchers.
In their eyes, we are all equal. (Until the day the Jihadi threatens their child, of course).
| 17 December 2008, 6:19 pm |
Bunting is worse than Milne in that she isn’t just prepared to sell out the UK *in general* out of an understandible self-loathing, she’s also prepared to sell it out to those who despise those groups *in particular* (women, homosexusls) she has claimed to represent.
| 17 December 2008, 6:26 pm |
Excellent post David T. It would be interesting to see whether similar strategies are pursued between democratic state agencies (eg. foreign affairs departments, intelligence agencies, police, city halls, etc.) and Ikhwanis and their front groups outside the UK. And interesting as well to see whether these ‘Bob Lambertian’ strategies were exported from the UK to democratic state agencies in other countries.
In particular, I wonder where one begins to look to see if such Muslim Contact Unit “partnering” strategies are pursued in Canada. Anyone know of any Canadian reports on this subject?
| 17 December 2008, 6:28 pm |
About 30 secs into the film, in the context of what Muslims should be doing to resist foreign policy Bukhari says
Brother Osama has given us a blueprint”.
The film cuts to the twin towers burning.
How more direct does he need to be. I am not sure if he later refutes this as a way to go about things but its is to me a clear mixed message at best.
No he blooming well doesn’t!!
1. He doesn’t say BROTHER OSAMA has given us”. He says “Bin Laden has given angry young Muslims…”
2. About 10 seconds later, he says “But there is another way…” and goes on to talk about democracy.
Honestly, slag off MPACuk if you want, god knows I do.
But what’s the point in getting what he says SO wrong!!!
| 17 December 2008, 6:53 pm |
I am afraid I am more cynical I just assumed towards the end of his regime, that Ken was courting certain minority pressure groups to secure their vote. Simple as that.
While we can criticise the government and the Met police for an ill thought out strategy of cosying up to the less militant muslims, or reformed ones or even using known trouble makers as informers, the Human Rights Act must come in for its share of blame.
The UK legal profession’s interpretation of it, certainly favours militant muslims who want to impose a different society and in some cases to kill us to do so, staying here if they arrived even illegally while the police do nothing to stop the fiery preachers urging militant jihad.
Even though the Jordanians for example have offered to send moderate religious scholars to retrain them, there are now too many Labour seats dependent on the Muslim vote, even where this is militant, to seriously tackle this.
It has got so bad now that last April the British Foreign Office instructed the British navy not to apprehend pirates on the high seas, lest they claim that their human rights were harmed and request and receive asylum in Britain.
| 17 December 2008, 7:01 pm |
Andy Hayman,given his marching orders for being a member of a banned organisation,the Socialist Workers Party,after a public spirited tip-off from Mr David T.Thank you,David T,for making unAmerican activity that much more hazardous to your career in the UK.
| 17 December 2008, 7:05 pm |
Lbnaz/
I see you don’t bother to read all previous posts up thread or missed it, but I have already covered your question posed AFA
the US is concerned. As for Canada? AFAIK they are also following the same dubious strategy. I just can’t remember any of the latest specific commentary to point you to.
| 17 December 2008, 7:07 pm |
William@17 December 2008, 2:19 pm
Do you have access to a copy/subscription of Counter-terrorism and communities: an interview with Robert Lambert from Critical Studies on Terrorism, Volume 1, Issue 2 August 2008 , pages 293 – 308?
If so, could you post it somewhere for the good of mankind?
| 17 December 2008, 7:10 pm |
The authoritarian oppressors that I work for have cut off my access to Harry’s Place, though oddly they let me through to Shiraz Socialist and Socialist Unity. Corporate lawyers infiltrated now. Hedging their bets before the revolution.
Just saw this post, which is excellent. Like a lot of people here, I do hope it’s widely disseminated.
| 17 December 2008, 7:12 pm |
Mrs Ben:
Good point about the growing power of the Moslem vote. This is also true in the US to a lesser degree–especially in the Detroit area where it significantly influences Michigan politics at both local and State levels–especially, as one would expect, on security
and policing matters.
| 17 December 2008, 7:13 pm |
Maven, that is super-efficient.
Grateful thanks.
| 17 December 2008, 7:22 pm |
Maven, it was a useful clip to watch nevertheless. Thanks.
| 17 December 2008, 7:31 pm |
Arthur Small – sorry, only access via a library link. Humankind’s redemption will have to wait.
| 17 December 2008, 7:39 pm |
1. He doesn’t say BROTHER OSAMA has given us”. He says “Bin Laden has given angry young Muslims…”
2. About 10 seconds later, he says “But there is another way…” and goes on to talk about democracy.
Honestly, slag off MPACuk if you want, god knows I do.
But what’s the point in getting what he says SO wrong!!!
David T, I apologise for inaccuracy but I’d still like to argue about this.
His theme is angry young muslims who might turn to violence. He says this:-
“There are 2m Muslims in Britain and some of us are very, very angry and some of us are prepared to do something about it.Osama Bin Laden gave angry young Muslims a blueprint to bring about that change …… he found a way to challenge foreign policy. Yet there is another way”
Using the word “Yet” is not a word that denies what preceded it. It is a word that implies that there are now TWO ways in the context of what he said. Hence he doesn’t condemn what Bin Laden did. I think he cleverly allowed that section to remain so that it could be interpreted as and additional way.
If you wish to deny what has preceded as a concept you use the word “But”. “But” implies that you have discarded the previous ideas. Its the famous buttering up of someone who then says “there’s a ‘But’ coming”. If you want to be absolutely sure then you deny the OBL way completely. He doesn’t do that.
If he wanted to get people politically active then the OBL example has no place in the commentary.
I’m quite adamant about the conclusion that this isn’t a denial of OBL’s solution being invalid but a subliminal attempt to suggest that the OBL way is permissible AS well as whatever Bukhari has to say next as an alternative (I guess through political activism and democracy). I am someone who has practised at inserting subliminal messages in many forms of communication.
I haven’t watched that video for some time until today and I now recall what were my thought processes that lead me to the statement of my conclusions.
Inaccurate on detail but I don’t think on substance.
| 17 December 2008, 7:55 pm |
David T
Well of course the ultimate problem with ‘ engaging with the Muslim community’ to date at least, is that the only people offering themselves up for engagment as community representatives are the gobby islamists with Jihadi sympathies.
This grooming of activists has resulted in them being trained on how to manage the media and politicians with public money.
The left and this is the liberal left much broader than SWP/STWC, has also found them attractive as the new revolutionary oppressed and they have learned from the left entryism (a thing that the left unlike say the MB being so fractious have never succeeded at).
So we find Islamist penetration and entryism at all levels of the silent state, the Quangoes and NGOs and think tanks and local and national government.
They offer themselves as ‘the authentic voice of Muslims’ for consultation the desire of government to distribute government services through faith groups has even granted an incredibly easy way to legitimate hard line Islamism as Muslim social Welfare.
At the Bar annual conference I saw very well prepared and coordinated Islamist Lawyers working in Community law centres in Birmingham etc (I have no doubt in receit of public funds) jump up and trash anyone who dared to suggest Shariah was discriminatory to women, saying but our clinets want this.
These ambitious young radicals were no more a culturally authentic voice of Silhyeti speaking middle aged women thjan I was.
But of course their truth and wisdom comes from the racism that lies behind identity politics, as the elite promininent lawyers for whom Sharia is a done deal and who have already met these people at other consultations and colloquiia, nod sagely at the obvious truth of a community member correcting the misaprehensions and stereotypical assumptions of us who didn’t (by definition apparently) know very much about that Shareeea thingy.
you mention Azad Ali as a national council member of Liberty.
He is or was not the only Islamist as the collaboration with the British Muslim Initiative and Liberty has assisted in, together with the assistance of Shami Chakrabati, ending any internal democracy in Liberty.
The more one examines particular civic institutions, that are the mediators between individual and state in a democratic country, the more one realises that we are in a very perilous position.
Islamism through its institutional aggrandising has an anti-democratic influence that the MB in many Muslim countries would be deeply envious of.
Increasingly as you show with the mets engagement England has become a major security nigtmare in the global fight against Jihad.
I allways thought Londonistan was hyberbole, well it was in the sense that it conjoured up images of karachi Mosques and pathans in knightsbridge, but the new suited, hijabed smiley faced, apology for jihad that has now entered most key professions their regulatory bodies, major government partner NGOs and they seem to have a permanent seat at the table of ministerial departmental policy consultation, formulation
and implementation.
| 17 December 2008, 9:40 pm |
“I love MPACuk – they basically do your job for you.” davie T
Not mine they bloody don’t.
| 17 December 2008, 10:24 pm |
mettaculture,
Excellent post as usual. You’re getting (are) good at this tour d’horizon bit–a cultivated art-form. I want to thank you for the “silent state” term–don’t think I’ve seen it before. A perfectly succinct description–wish I’d thought of that, as the old saying goes. I know I will use it often from now on.
I do think, however, that time and the course of events is not proving kind to many here who have often spoken so disparagingly and condescendingly towards “Mad Mel.” The odds of the unfolding of history proving Mel to be an unappreciated Cassandra on this subject grow more favorable with each passing day…..
| 17 December 2008, 10:29 pm |
strike “unappreciated” should have said “modern day” Cassandra;
“unappreciated” is part of the very essence of the term Cassandra
itself.
| 17 December 2008, 10:36 pm |
mettaculture:
I’m embarrassed. Strike “unappreciated” should have said “modern day” Cassandra; “unappreciated” is part of the very essence of the term Cassandra itself.
| 17 December 2008, 11:19 pm |
Have just had MP Dismore’s acknowledgment with thanks for sending him this. Keep spreading the word, folks.
| 18 December 2008, 12:01 am |
With an extra topping of crushed and powered used communion wafers just to give it a little je nais se quois.
Hmm…don’t mess with the French…or their language
They are your betters!
Say cheese!
Oh…to be ‘theist’ and ‘francophone’, and from Quebec province.
What a hoot!
| 18 December 2008, 12:01 am |
With an extra topping of crushed and powered used communion wafers just to give it a little je nais se quois.
Hmm…don’t mess with the French…or their language
They are your betters!
Say cheese!
Oh…to be ‘theist’ and ‘francophone’, and from Quebec province.
What a hoot!
| 18 December 2008, 12:24 am |
Virgil
I made it up on the spur of the moment. its interesting though that it does capture a changed stste modality.
I have allways been interested in civil society and civic institutions as providing a democratic glue.
In countries that I have worked,coming outof dictatoships, the ones that have become successful democracies seem to be those who have built a strong and self conscious civil society.
The problem with this formulation is that it does not catch the increasing arms length franchised out natue of the state, that both creates quasi autonomous non governmental organisations, or pseudo civil societies, as well as recruiting civil societies to be service providers and ‘partners’ for government.
I wanted to call it an estate that now exists as a pillar stronger and more differentiated than either the media or the Church.
But the fact that so many of the circulating elites and lines of power beetween this new quasi governance and the state are hidden, I thought silent state best described it.
This all happened automatically while writing and looking for a word, but thank you for pointing it out because it deserves more work.
When i think of it this ’silent state’ has spawned an entirely new elite class of policy interlocutors, who are a for pay activist/lobbyist/advisor/sevice provider.
The problem is that despite all the community rhetoric there is nothing remotely democratic about these ambitious young things career paths entering the established channels of power .
Who votes for these community organisers and to whom are they accountable.
Barak Obama may represent the highest elevation for a functionary of the silent state.
I should say that these silent staters do have a good experience of government as they get to shortcircuit the old apprenticeship model of politician.
Its just that the whole process of dialogue and partnership and advice and research and think tank and lobbyist erodes the very nature of democratic participatory politics.
Further billions of pounds or dollars of tax payers money are now dissapearing into the accountability black hole of the ’silent state’
This model of a ’silent state’ would actually give us a theoretical and empirical means to investigate the clearly worsening endemic nature of political patronage in modern society which is not random nepotism but highly structured preferrement.
| 18 December 2008, 1:07 am |
mettaculture:
You might add to your list the kind of organization found in every major city which, while considered more “booster” than “intellectual” in reality consists, in the main, of major power players and highly educated professionals–mainly entrepreneur
businessmen and independent professionals who have the luxury of scheduling their own time: the “good government/progressive government” voluntary committees/associations with names like
“Third Century” (US) or “Leadership Louisville, etc.,” which heavily influence legislation in the City Councils, the mayor’s office and major city depts. and develop land use and town planning documents in conjunction with neighborhood associations (also dominated by the professional class and educated stay-at-home housewives of professionals with lots of free time) upon which City governments so often depend. These organizations are in one sense highly undemocratic and un-representational of the community at large,
who have neither the time nor the training, expertise and educational background to make meaningful input. Thus seen, these organizations are a powerful influential adjunct to representative government (as seen in City Councils, the Mayor’s office,etc) at best and a substitute of elected representatives responsive to the voters for unelected elites at their worst.
{If you wanted to see this sort of activity on steroids you should have come to New Orleans post-Katrina to watch the myriad
committees and neighborhood associations spring into action [or inaction as the case may be] as part of the Mayors formal “recovery” process. Plus “Urban Planners” the world over flocked in to make their “special” expertise available. When combined with State and Federal “planners” all putting their oars in, twas
a sight to behold…..)
PS: Don’t ask me how it all “worked out.” Got lots of time? Better lay in some provisions…..Don’t get me started.
| 18 December 2008, 11:48 am |
“Who votes for these community organisers and to whom are they accountable.”
I don’t know what Tory policy is on this, but certainly New Labour shows little interest in genuine democracy these days. This is not confined to treating self appointed Muslim community organisers and lawyers as if they were democratically elected representatives. What about the unelected regional assemblies being run at our expense and what about the recent attempt to force party approved voting lists onto us? And its liking for quangos packed with party supporters (interesting to see if the Tories continue this if they get into power).
“the fact that so many of the circulating elites and lines of power between this new quasi governance and the state are hidden, I thought silent state best described it.”
Maybe hedge funds and private equity investors should also come into this category – being vehicles for the savings of rich men and corporations only.
I said to Mr Ben a while back that the hedge funds – which I regard as the worst face of gangster capitalism – had become so embedded in our financial sector here and in the US, as a way for rich men and bankers to make money at our expense, that it would be hard to winkle them out.
The Medoff scandal has now shown the extent to which banks recklessly lent money to hedge funds to invest in his scam even if they did not invest directly. The entire financial sector seems to have been run as a giant scam to benefit rich men and bankers at the expense of the rest of us.
Well said David T. I like the analogy of “He might be a sonavubitch but he’s our sonovubitch”. We have tio throw in the ancient practice of “Tacky Yar” which is the oriental “Deception is War” factor.
I am always reminded of that vague link in my mind (from the Sunday Times) of the supposed back-channel agreement with MCB that if we grant dome priveliege and acknowledgement of the requirements of UK Muslims and didn’t knock too many heads against the railings then we would be left alone from suicide bombing.
The perception is that the Brits or Britain, a place where immigrants chose to live their lives and who’s children are British citizens are somehow immune from British Law and British ways and so instead of making them meet us we change ourselves to be more friendly.
“What do we have to do to satisfy you guys?”
“Change foreign policy, bomb Israel, all shops closed during Ramadan, footbaths in police stations, make it illegal to be Jewish, appoint six Muslim cabinet ministers………..”
“OK, and you promise not to kill us?”
“Maybe. We’ll have a new list every three months as we calibrate how things are going and as long as you keep up I see no reason why there should be any need to kill some of you”
“Thank You! Thank You!”
I know its another parody but sometimes the truth may not be so far away.
We don’t forget that its Islamist who we are talking about and not the majority of Muslims who want to just get on with things and who’s image is constantly hijacked by the Bakri’s, Choudray’s, Bungle’s, Bukhari’s and those of a similar ilk.