Interesting article in the Telegraph concerning the troubling news that Cameron is seeking to extend state powers to cover “non-violent extremism”. We’ve already got Extremism Disruption Orders, which prevent people that hold extremist views from having a public platform.
Pap, I hate to break this to you if you haven’t seen the actual speech, but that Telegraph article underplays the definitional reach of ‘extremism’ set out by Cameron (and presumably wholly endorsed by May).
Cameron lists among ideas to be targeted by the state those that are:
“…also based on conspiracy: that Jews exercise malevolent power; or that Western powers, in concert with Israel, are deliberately humiliating Muslims, because they aim to destroy Islam. In this warped worldview, such conclusions are reached – that 9/11 was actually inspired by Mossad to provoke the invasion of Afghanistan; that British security services knew about 7/7, but didn’t do anything about it because they wanted to provoke an anti-Muslim backlash.”
A colleague of mine resently wrote quite an influential paper saying that conspiracy theories are actually good for democracy. I don’t agree with him (I think it’s a Eurocentric view), but it’s a little weird to see conspiracy theorists having their day in the sun when the usual approach is simply to ignore them.
The full text of Cameron’s speech is here, for those with more time on their hands than they know what to do with:
He, like most other Prime Ministers before him, is being utterly fucking disingenuous when describing the issue. It reminds me of one of my kids coming in and telling me the version of the story they think will wash best, usually context free and painting them in the best possible light.
So Blair, Cameron et al have all banged the extremist drum, all played up the threat of radical Islam and both play to extremely powerful lobbying interests. Blair enables the death of over a million Muslims, yet walks free and commands six figure sums to do after dinner speeches, never acknowledging the role we’ve had in developing our world. Someone pointing that all out may be liable to arrest.
Fucking shambles, innit?
Interesting, isn’t it? By the way, the military strengh of Al Qaeda at the height of their powers was around 200.
If the law passes, couldn’t the next Labour government arrest Cameron and the Conservative leadership for their unBritish suppression of free speech?
If only that could happen, I’d be dancing a merry jig in my pants and waving at George Osborne 
It’s remarkable how limited is Cameron’s definition of free speech.
On the key question of extremist Islam, he contrasts it with ‘reforming’ Muslims. He simply doesn’t understand that within Islam, ‘reform’ is a term associated only with extremists, the Salafists in particular. ‘Reform’ is what they’ve been fighting for since at least the 1979, when Salafist gunmen invaded Mecca (and had to be removed, disastrously, by French paratroops). They demand ‘reform’ not only of the Saudi rulers of Islam’s most important sites, but reform of a religion that in their eyes has gone bad.
In fact, Islam is defined by its lack of centre - it has no Pope, no governing hierarchy. Consequently, the religion has developed in many, many varieties - something that’s been happening since its birth. Almost of all thse varieties are threatened by the Salafist ‘reformers’.
So what Cameron should have said is that he would suypport the defence of religious diversity, and tradition , in Islam - that would better protect (at least as a thought) the forms of Islam we’ve come to appreciate, like Sufism (eg whirling dervishes and the extraordinary music of Sufi musicians like Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan), the Ismailis, the Kurds, the Ahmadis - all of whom have been murdered in their thousands by the ‘reformers’. Defence of diversity and tradition would also have benefited the Yazidis, so brutally treated by the ‘reforming’ ISIS, but until that point having lived peaceably with Muslims - and who have practised their religion and culture in much the same way since Babylonian times.
Therefore Cameron, unwittingly and ignorantly, has sided with the extremists. Brilliant.
5 Likes
The big worry for me is that over successive governments, we’ve not only set several foul precedents that chip away at rights first established with the Magna Carta, but we’ve cumulatively built tools for tyranny. Cameron is trying to criminalise free speech, May’s snoopers bill wants to ban unencrypted communications, putting the futures of popular applications like WhatsApp into jeopardy.
I haven’t even talked about the huge tyranny shit-burger that we’ve got enshrined in law, which will be the Enabling Act that Blair’s government pushed through in a panic a year after 7/7. It allows laws to be created without the assent of Parliament. Right now, any laws created under the bill can carry a maximum two year custodial sentence. Phew, eh? Except the bill can be used to modify itself to remove the two year restriction.
When Hitler passed his Enabling Act in 1933, that was generally seen as the end of the Reichstag as anything more than a cheering section for his policies. Our politicians have not seen fit to use our Enabling Act in any meaningful way, but we could have a legal tyranny in place tomorrow if someone felt the urge. All the more reason to keep that fucking maniac Boris out of Number 10
1 Like
Where are we getting with the Snooper’s Bill? Here’s a little mirth from Liberty which, I think, illustrates the concerns people should have. I particularly liked the guy who had both Tindr and Gindr on his phone.
5 Likes
The next time I am to arrive in the UK I am expecting immigration to say
“Please Sir walk this way room 101 is available for an interview.”
3 Likes
Thing is the Snoopers Charter [sic.] is just legitimising what is being done already…
2 Likes
The danger in all of this is that we end up creating alternate strands of the law, requiring a much smaller burden of proof to act on, which hinge on entirely subjective terms, or those defined by the government.
We’ve already seen it with “terrorist”.
They’re trying to extend that to thought with terms like “extremist”, perhaps not realising that the policies of what Tariq Ali refers to as the “extreme centre”, pre-emptive war, privatising successes, socialising losses, and asking the public to pay for it all to be done in their name, are not fucking normal.
But they are asking it to be done in the Queens name and she has no choice in the matter,
Another reason for me not to be paying taxes.