Yesterday at Party Conference, I spoke about terrorism and extremism in the UK.
The key points that I made were:
- The story of Islamist extremism in the UK is one of Danegeld, and King Canute. Danegeld, because for too long we have thought that if we appease extremists, this will stop the violence. As the Prime Minister said in his Munich speech: “When a white person holds objectionable views – racism, for example – we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views have come from someone who isn't white, we've been too cautious, frankly even fearful, to stand up to them. The failure of some to confront the horrors of forced marriage is a case in point.” We see this manifested in our universities, our approach to extremists in the UK, and in battles within Government about who should be banned from Britain. As with all Dane-geld, the policy has failed.
- Second, I want to mention King Canute, because I am not a pessimist. I believe we can turn back the tide. By the end of the Labour Government, Ministers like Hazel Blears and Tony Blair himself had started to take the right approach – although too often they had to fight the status quo, the prevailing logic of the Establishment, which said that Britain’s only hope was to appease the problem. But thanks to the work of many people here, the new Prevent Strategy and the David Cameron’s Munich speech have changed the rules of the game. This Government accepts that appeasement doesn’t work.
- Even Muslim nations think we have let extremism go too far. One story crystalises the problem for me. On a visit to Kurdistan, the Kurdish Prime Minister told me he had been to England, visiting a mosque in the north. He said if he had seen that kind of mosque in Kurdistan he would have shut it down overnight, because of its radicalism and aggression. When a Muslim leader, of a progressive Muslim nation, says that he is uncomfortable with the extremism of some British mosques – Surely, there can be no better description of the problem we face.
ACKNOWLEDGING THE PROBLEM
- There is evidence of radicalisation around us. One of the biggest challenges in this debate, is the inertia of many people who are blind to what is happening, because it has not directly affected their lives. We need to show them that this is not a new problem. In 2006, the Education Secretary set out in Celsius 7/7 how the West had failed to stand up for its liberal values, saying: “The British State does not have the courage to face down the advocates of political Islam. Islamists in Britain scent weakness.” Sadly, evidence of radicalisation on University campuses is old news: in 1997 the Committee of Vice Chancellors warned us about it; in 2006 Anthony Glees warned us again; and last year, MI5 identified more than 39 university campuses as “vulnerable to violent extremism” (according to research by Student Rights and the Henry Jackson Society). For nearly 15 years, the problem has been getting worse.
- This is not just a battle against terrorism. It is a battle of ideas. On one side there is freedom, democracy, religious tolerance, equality for women, property rights, a free press, and the rule of law. And on the other side there is holy jihad, the subjugation of women and minorities, and the aim of re-establishing a Caliphate regime. This is what we have to recognise, that there is a fifth column in our midst.
WHERE THE UK HAS APPEASED EXTREMISM
- Some of our universities have become ‘outposts’ for Middle Eastern dictators. For too long, we have done deals with barbaric regimes, like Saudi Arabia and Libya, for the sake of so-called security and commercial interests. This has slowly crept into a tolerance not just of them, but of their values and ideas: it has become a vicious circle. Student Rights has set out much of the evidence
HERE. As the Guardian has
said: in 2009, Durham signed a ‘memorandum of understanding’ with Iran, and Dr. Colin Turner, a member of Durham’s Iranian Studies Centre, later admitted to the Guardian: “Iranian money comes with strings attached, as we have found to our chagrin.”
- This is classic Entryist tactics. We have to ask: what is in this deal for them? Is it to promote their extremist ideology? What kind of legitimacy are they buying? The amounts of money may be small in comparison with British GDP, or the Defence Budget, but so much of this is about symbolism.
- One of the results is that the UK now exports terrorism, as the new Prevent Strategy notes. Since 1989, terrorism has become one of our most infamous exports, and around 70 British students have been involved in terrorist attacks. Waheed Zahman and Umar Farok Abdulmutalab were both Presidents of Islamic Societies at London Universities. The suicide bomber in Sweden last year was a British university graduate. Prevent paragraph 10.61 says that ONE THIRD of people jailed for Al Qa’ida crimes in the UK have been university graduates. In paragraph 10.66 it goes on to say: “Hizb-ut-Tahrir target specific universities and colleges with the objective of radicalising and recruiting those students.”
- Inevitably some of the old Prevent strategy was hijacked by well-intentioned but ineffective groups. Now, moving on to the extremist groups that surround our universities, I accept that Tony Blair and others had begun to get a real understanding of the problem. But it was wrong to give them taxpayers’ money. In fact, much of the Prevent money was simply wasted:
in the Wall Street Journal, Douglas Murray noted how a multicultural food-festival in Oxfordshire received Prevent funds, “as though the residents of Banbury were but one Balti away from detonation”.
- We have allowed extremist groups, or their front organisations, to operate too freely. I welcome the Government proscribing many of the 50 groups on the Home Office list – although there is the problem of hydra’s head, where they change names and pop up again. Too many of these groups are apologists for terrorism: part of the conveyor belt that is not serious about opposing extremism, alongside radical groups like Hizb-ut-Tahrir.
- Whitehall Officials have sometimes been too willing to side with hate-preachers. A year ago, in September 2010, the Daily Telegraph reported that Charles Farr, Director-General for Security and Counter-Terrorism, pledged support for Zakir Naik to enter Britain. This was against the judgement of the Home Secretary (who has taken a firm line), and Mr Farr was suspended following a row in the media.
WHAT IS TO BE DONE
- I welcome the revised Prevent strategy, for two reasons. First, it makes a much clearer distinction between counter-terrorist work, and cultural integration, which is right. Second, it stops the taxpayer funding of extremists. Public money will NO LONGER be provided to extremist groups that do not support the values of democracy, human rights, the rule of law and tolerance.
- If I have one concern, it is that there must be no excuses for inaction. There is a famous saying, that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Sometimes there is a criticism, that the Prevent strategy can read like one of Sir Humphrey’s committees: page after page of debates, discussions, forums, learning seminars, general education, conferences, training... Yes, it is important to consult people. But this must not become an excuse for inaction.
- We now need zero tolerance. No more appeasement. If Prevent is to mean anything, we need no more invitations to hate preacher Raed Salah, to speak in Parliament. No more “indefinite leave to remain” for Mohammed Sawalha,
who the BBC say is currently in London, fundraising for Hamas, although I understand that he has denied this. To those who oppose zero tolerance, I say two things: First, we cannot stop burglary, but we still chase thieves. Crime is crime. We must not appease it. Second, symbols are important. If we are determined, extremists will get the message. For example, it is incredible that Pakistan and the Palestinian Authority are now cracking down on Hizb ut-Tahrir
(according to their own website) but we still allow it to flourish here in the UK.
by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com
