We Must Not Negotiate With Terrorists

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

Reflections on the expenses scandal

As someone deeply involved in politics, I have been following every piece of news about the expenses scandal and, like most Harlow voters, find it deeply depressing. As a Parliamentary Candidate, I get no wages or expenses from the taxpayer - or the Conservative Party - and have been amazed to learn of some of the things that MPs from all parties have been claiming for. A Duck Island, fake mortgages, interior designers, tax accountants etc. etc. It is almost unbelievable.

There is something deeply rotten at Westminster, that so many MPs thought that they could get away with these things for so long. Moreover, all of this has happened at a time, when people are suffering more than ever because of the broken economy. How can it be that some venal MPs have been able to cushion themselves against the economic hardships, faced by so many people?

It has been my dream to be an MP since I was a child. As a boy, I would often go to Parliament and watch comings and goings. I had a romantic view of Westminster with its ancient building and what I thought were its honourable traditions and eccentric ways. I always wanted a chance to serve my country and a constituency such as Harlow. To help people with their problems, particularly the most disadvantaged, whilst having a serious platform (the Commons) in which one could campaign on relevant local issues - as well as other things that I care about such as education, housing, literacy, the rise of extreme Islamism, and mass genocide.

I have to admit that over the last three weeks, my romanticism about Parliament and MPs has taken a severe knock. Can MPs who have milked and abused their expenses, really be called Honourable Members? Do we have a Parliament of which we can be proud - of which once was the envy of the world? I think not. I almost dread watching the news and hearing about the latest scandal.

If there is some good to come out of all this, it certainly won't be achieved just by tightening up the system of expenses and allowances - although of course this needs to happen. Much deeper reform is needed to return Parliament back to the people and to re-engage voters with politics.

For a start, there should be many more free votes for MPs , so they can vote according to their conscience and what is best for their constituency, rather than do what they are told by the party. MPs should not be demonised if they rebel against their party policies.

Second, MPs who have been proven to be corrupt, or have abused Parliament, should be sanctioned by the Speaker. Not only should they lose their salaries, but the Speaker should be able to give permission for voters in the Constituency to collect signatures for an instant by-election. If over 50% of signatures are collected, a by-election would occur.

Third, Parliament needs to be much stronger. The reason why our economy is broken and our public services in decay is because Gordon Brown and Tony Blair had such a big majority in the Commons, they were able to do whatever they wanted without significant checks and balances. The result is disaster. We now live in a country of high debt, high unemployment and high taxes, with huge problems affecting our hospitals, policing, schools and transport system. MPs need to have more power to challenge Government.

Fourth, we should attempt to re-engage voters in politics, by making the House of Lords democratic and 50 percent of the Lords Chamber, handed over to the people. Every voter would be given a pin number in which they could vote on legislation currently before the Lords, with the voting and information being supplied on the Internet. In order not to undermine the legitimacy of the House of Commons, the Lords would still only have amending and delaying power, with the final decision being taken by the Commons.

Fifth, we should scrap all these ridiculous regional quangos and unelected assemblies - many of which are a huge waste of taxpayer's money. All the powers they have, should be pushed down to local Council level. Other Government powers that are not essential to national security and the national economy should also be devolved to local councils. Local people should have more chances to organise referenda on key issues of the day.

Sixth, we should stop handing our powers to Brussels. The Lisbon Treaty (the new European Constitution) is unacceptable). Parliament should have control over its laws and not keep ceding its powers to the European Union, which is far too unaccountable, unwieldy, and too often acts against the best interests of Britain. What is the point of having a Parliament, if we don't control our own affairs?

The expenses scandal gives politicians a real chance to reform Parliament, increase voter participation and elect MPs who are truly honourable men and women. There is a great opportunity here. Lets not miss it.

By Rob Halfon ~ Working hard for Harlow, Hastingwood, Nazeing, Roydon & Sheering. http//roberthalfon.blogspot.com