NAMP questions ‘Prevent’ strategy

NAMP_logoBritish values are under threat because the government’s attempt to combat terrorism has left whole communities “stigmatised”, the National Association of Muslim Police has told MPs.

The Prevent strategy, designed to stop radicalisation, focuses too much on Islamic extremism rather than the threat posed by the far right, claims the association, which represents more than 2,000 police officers.

“Never before has a community been mapped in a manner and nor will it be,” the association said in evidence to a Commons select committee on the strategy, known as Preventing Violent Extremism. “It is frustrating to see this in a country that is a real pillar and example of freedom of expression and choice. Our British system is a model for the world to follow, yet we have embarked on a journey that has put this very core of British values under real threat.”

It added: “The hatred towards Muslims has grown to a level that defies all logic and is an affront to British values. The climate is such that Muslims are subject to daily abuse in a manner that would be ridiculed by Britain, were this to occur anywhere else.”

The comments are contained in a memorandum to the committee stating that the growth of the far right and its ability to carry out terror acts should not be underestimated: “All forms [of violent extremism] – rightwing, separatist, so-called Islamist, green issues … need to be addressed as opposed to the current Prevent focus on Islam.”

There was a sense of frustration among Muslims and “some serious damage” may already have been done, it said. The government’s anti-terrorism policies could not “continue unchecked”, said the memorandum, and more thorough research should have been done before any consideration was given to the Prevent strategy being formulated. The result, it said, was a rise in Islamophobia.

Guardian, 21 January 2010


Meanwhile, over at the Telegraph website, Nile Gardiner offers his thoughtful response to the NAMP’s criticisms:

“It is wrong, according to the Muslim police association, to blame Islam for being the ‘driver’ of terror attacks in Britain…. The 2,000 strong National Association of Muslim Police is clearly in a state of denial regarding the motivation and inspiration behind the vast majority of terrorists in the UK…. Islamist militants pose the biggest threat to British security since the rise of Nazi Germany…. The notion that the thousands of terrorists currently based in the United Kingdom are not acting to advance a global jihad led by Osama bin London and his barbaric cohorts is ludicrous. Their goal is simple – the destruction of the free world and the establishment of an Islamist caliphate in the West.”

Update:  Writing on her Spectator blog, Mad Melanie Phillips claims that NAMP’s letter includes an “implicit threat of violence” and she observes that: “Rather than taming jihadi extremism in Britain, the cowardice of politicians has merely resulted in fracturing the thin blue line that protects us – and turning it into a potential weapon of the jihad.”

French MPs to denounce Muslim veils, ban later

France’s parliament is likely to call in a resolution for a ban on Muslim face veils in public but take longer to turn that policy into law, deputies said on Thursday.

A parliamentary commission studying the sensitive issue, which has been discussed alongside a wider public debate about French national identity launched by President Nicolas Sarkozy, is due to publish its recommendations next Tuesday.

Polls say most voters want a legal ban on full-length face veils, known here by the Afghan term burqa although the few worn in France are Middle Eastern niqabs showing the eyes. Critics say a law would stigmatize Muslims and be unenforceable.

Jean-Francois Cope, parliamentary floor leader for Sarkozy’s conservative UMP party, told France Inter radio said the plan was for “a resolution to explain and then a law to decide.” A parliamentary resolution would not be legally binding.

Andre Gerin, head of the commission, agreed that deputies needed more time to draft a law, but told the daily Le Figaro: “The ban on the full facial veil will be absolute.”

Police reports say fewer than 2,000 women in France wear full veils, but deputies such as Gerin – whose constituency in Lyon has many Muslim residents – insist this is a growing trend that Paris must legislate to stop in its tracks.

Gerin said France also had to deal with “the French Taliban who force women to be veiled. By ‘Taliban’ I mean the husband, big brother, family, even the neighborhood, because there is a kind of sharia (Islamic law) in some areas. The full veil is the visible part of this black tide of fundamentalism.”

Reuters, 21 January 2010

No place for veil in Denmark, says prime minister

The face-covering burqa and niqab veils worn by some Muslim women “have no place in Danish society”, Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen has said.

“They symbolise a view of women and humanity that we totally oppose and that we want to combat in Danish society,” he said. Denmark was “an open, democratic society where we look at the person to whom we are talking, whether it’s in a classroom or on the job. That is why we don’t want to see this garment in Danish society.”

Mr Rasmussen said his centre-right government was “discussing ways of limiting the wearing” of the veils without violating the Scandinavian country’s constitution.

The prime minister’s comments came a day after the publication of a report which showed that use of the burqa was “extremely rare” in Denmark, though no figures were given, and that the niqab was worn by “between 100 and 200” women.

Some 100,000 Muslim women live in Denmark, representing about 1.9 per cent of Denmark’s total population of 5.5 million. Some 0.15 per cent of the Muslim women wear the niqab, according to the report.

AFP, 19 January 2010

See also Politiken, 19 January 2010

US lifts bans on Tariq Ramadan and Adam Habib

In a major victory for civil liberties, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has signed orders that effectively end the exclusion of two prominent scholars who were barred from the United States by the Bush administration. The American Civil Liberties Union challenged the denial of visas to Professors Adam Habib of the University of Johannesburg and Tariq Ramadan of St. Antony’s College, Oxford University, in separate lawsuits filed on behalf of American organizations that had invited the scholars to speak to audiences inside the United States.

“The orders ending the exclusion of Adam Habib and Tariq Ramadan are long overdue and tremendously important,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. “For several years, the United States government was more interested in stigmatizing and silencing its foreign critics than in engaging them. The decision to end the exclusion of Professors Habib and Ramadan is a welcome sign that the Obama administration is committed to facilitating, rather than obstructing, the exchange of ideas across international borders.”

ACLU press release, 21 January 2009

See also New York Times, 20 January 2010

UMP spokesperson says veiled women should be denied benefits, banned from public transport

Frederic LefebvreWomen who wear the burka in France should be banned from using public transport or receiving state handouts, a government spokesman has said.

The call came just one day after the head of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s party, the UMP, said that Muslim women wearing full face veils should not be granted French nationality. Now UMP party spokesman Frederic Lefebvre has demanded any woman breaking a proposed law making the garment illegal should be “deprived of her rights”.

He said: “When you don’t respect your responsibilities, you should not have access to any benefits. The rights and responsibilities of citizens in France are important. When you ignore rules that make things illegal, like a ban on the burka, you have have some of your rights taken away, like the right to state benefits or using public transport.”

Daily Mail, 19 January 2010

UMP leader wants law banning veiled women from acquiring French nationality

The head of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s party said on Sunday he wants a law to ensure that Muslim women who wear face-covering veils do not acquire French nationality. Xavier Bertrand, head of the conservative UMP party, said the full veil “is simply a prison for women who wear it” and “will make no one believe” a woman wearing it wants to integrate.

Daily Telegraph, 18 January 2010

Banning veil is oppressive, says Salma Yaqoob

Salma Yaqoob RespectPlans to ban Muslim women from covering their faces in public areas are oppressive, the leader of the Respect party said yesterday.

Salma Yaqoob’s comments came as the UK Independence Party (UKIP) announced a formal policy that would make the wearing of garments such as the burka or the niqab – both of which conceal most of the face – to be illegal.

Nigel Farage, the former UKIP leader and MEP, said: “In a liberal democracy we want to tolerate different religions and cultures and not have a small section of society impose their world view on the rest of us.”

Ms Yaqoob said: “We do not need a man or a woman telling people what to wear.”

Times, 18 January 2010

UKIP chief Nigel Farage calls for burka ban

The burka and other face-covering veils worn by Muslim women should be banned, the UK Independence Party says.

Ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage, who leads UKIP’s 13 MEPs in Brussels, told the BBC’s Politics Show they were a symbol of an “increasingly divided Britain”. He also said they “oppressed” women and were a potential security threat. But Schools Secretary Ed Balls said it was “not British” to tell people what to wear in the street, and accused UKIP of indulging in “unpleasant politics”.

UKIP is the first British party to call for a total ban, after the BNP called for it to be banned in Britain’s schools.

Mr Farage said: “I can’t go into a bank with a motorcycle helmet on. I can’t wear a balaclava going round the District and Circle line. What we are saying is, this is a symbol. It’s a symbol of something that is used to oppress women. It is a symbol of an increasingly divided Britain.

“And the real worry – and it isn’t just about what people wear – the real worry is that we are heading towards a situation where many of our cities are ghettoised and there is even talk about Sharia law becoming part of British culture.”

A “different” culture was “being forced on parts of Britain and nobody wants that”, added Mr Farage, but he denied the policy was an attempt to grab votes from the BNP, insisting it had “nothing to do with the BNP”. “There is nothing extreme or radical or ridiculous about this, but we can’t go on living in a divided society,” he told The Politics Show.

BBC News, 17 January 2010

See also UKIP news report, 17 January 2010

UKIP calls for ban on veil

Lord Pearson and WildersThe UK Independence Party is to call for a ban on the burka and the niqab – the Islamic cloak that covers women from head to toe and the mask that conceals most of the face – claiming they affront British values.

The policy, which a number of European countries are also debating, is an attempt by UKIP to broaden its appeal and address the concerns of disaffected white working-class voters.

UKIP would be the first national party to call for a total ban on burkas, though the far-Right BNP believes they should be banned from schools.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the leader of UKIP, said yesterday: “We are taking expert advice on how we could do it. It makes sense to ban the burka – or anything which conceals a woman’s face – in public buildings. But we want to make it possible to ban them in private buildings. It isn’t right that you can’t see someone’s face in an airport.”

Nigel Farage, the former UKIP party leader, will announce tomorrow that the party believes the fabric of the country is under threat from Sharia and that forcing women to conceal their identity in public is not consistent with traditional Britishness.

UKIP believes that the burka and the niqab have no basis in Islam, are a threat to gender equality, marginalise women and endanger the public safety because terrorists could use them to hide their identity.

Times, 16 January 2010


See also the Times editorial, “Veil of ignorance”, which condemns UKIP’s proposal as “deeply cynical and wrong”:

“They claim that the burka marginalises women. This is a new concern for UKIP. It is, after all, the party of Godfrey Bloom, the MEP who says that ‘any small businessman or woman who employs a woman of child-bearing age needs their head examined’. Perhaps Mr Bloom, who thinks that women do not clean behind the fridge enough, worries that their burkas are getting in the way.

“UKIP argues further that the burka has no place in Islam and that the religion does not require it. The Times had not hitherto realised that Nigel Farage was an authority on such matters, or that the party leader Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who was visited by God when on the operating table in 1977, thereby gained not only his Christian faith but also a mastery of the Koran. This newly acquired scholarship notwithstanding, the religious insights of politicians are entirely irrelevant when judging the right of British citizens to dress as they wish.”

Update:  The fascists aren’t happy. See “Phony UKIP steals BNP burka policy”, BNP news report, 17 January 2010

Why HT should be suppressed, according to Shiraz Maher

“There is a real danger with allowing the group to operate freely. Although it subscribes to a non-violent philosophy, on occasion its words may have inspired terrorist activity.”

Shiraz Maher in the Times, 15 January 2010

This comment piece accompanies the report “Senior member of extreme Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir teaches at LSE“. The reference is to Reza Pankhurst, who is a research student and graduate teaching assistant at the London School of Economics.

The shock-horror impact of the report is rather undermined by the revelation that HT “states on its website that its ‘political aim is the re-establishment of the Islamic Caliphate as an independent state’. It says that it rejects forcing change ‘by means of violence and terror’.” Not to mention the quote from an LSE spokesperson regarding Mr Pankhurst: “No concerns about his conduct have been raised with the school and we are not aware that he is a member of any proscribed organisation or has broken any laws or LSE regulations.”

The Evening Standard, for its part, weighs in with an article headlined “LSE’s Islamist teacher ‘groomed suicide bomber for Tel Aviv attack’” – an accusation for which it provides no evidence whatsoever.

Update:  See “Standard and Mail pay damages over suicide bomber slur”, Press Gazette, 28 July 2010