The newly independent Tory government has provided further indication of its brazen radicalism.
Following the Queen’s Speech in May, during which plans were announced for a new “counter-extremism bill” that will bring an end to a “passively tolerant society” and the confrontation of a “poisonous Islamist extremist ideology”, Prime Minister David Cameron publicly accused Muslim communities of giving credence to Islamic extremist ideologies. In doing so, the Prime Minister, whether intentionally or not, is at risk of deepening any social unease already afflicting many British Muslims, whilst aggravating hostility towards them – something Nigel Farage’s party could hardly have done better.
Furthermore, with Cameron’s open criticism comes an implicit threat: any Muslims failing to speak out against Islamic extremism will be considered sympathisers.
Even before the volume of counter-extremism was cranked up to its current levels of distorted dissonance, many young Muslims residing in the UK were living with a deep sense of insecurity. For example, earlier this year one Muslim student explained to me the precautions he felt compelled to take in order to avoid suspicion of extremist tendencies. These included the evasion of any online Islamic content and an exaggerated espousal of a “snoopers charter”. With Cameron’s recent demonisation of Muslim sympathisers, there is a risk that such precautions become amplified into actions against fellow citizens.
Most disturbing about Cameron’s message is its resonance with that of the Nazi and Hutu power regimes that threatened Jewish and Tutsi sympathisers with a similarly “with us or against us” implication.
Mahmoud Mamdani, in his close examination of the Rwandan genocide, suggests that there was a distinct “kill or be killed” element driving the atrocity, and that it was essentially fear that drove the masses to participate in slaughter.
Significantly, one of the early indicators of the genocide was a mutual distrust between Hutus and “non-indigenous” Tutsis that was being nurtured by government propaganda at the time. While this is an extreme case, the message coming from Cameron and colleagues is of a similarly scaremongering nature that threatens to divide UK society. Beyond the threat to social cohesion, this rigid Tory stance is ludicrously contradictory to so the called “British value” of “tolerance” that has been brandished about following last year’s investigations into Birmingham schools.
The tone of intolerance to ideological diversity exhibited by this government is not a general one but very much targeted. Nowhere on the government’s press release for the proposed “counter-extremism bill” is there mention of any “ideology” besides Islam. Nazism, racism, Catholicism, heterosexism, feminism, communism and capitalism – to name but a few – are apparently given free reign in the UK. It’s only Muslims, possibly the weakest and most diffident group within British society right now, that are on the receiving end of the heavy Tory boot.
This suggests that next month, when our schools, universities, and health services become legally obliged to identify and disclose any budding extremists or radicals in accordance with Tory legislation, staff will be looking specifically for signs of Islamic orthodoxy.
Even in our nurseries, staff will be expected to detect toddlers showing signs of Islamic extremism. How will this be done? Will any dummy sucking rug rat showing an attachment to sword wielding Lego pirates, or who balks at the singing of nursery rhymes and refuses to embrace his male playmates, be handed over to the authorities? Will any teacher failing to do so be accused of complicity in extremism?
Such discriminatory policies are an effective way of further alienating a minority group, which may be consistent with Conservative efforts to reduce immigration. But in light of recent efforts to curb the flow of foreign fighters to Syria and Iraq, this is entirely counter-productive. Warnings have come from several experts in the study of radicalisation that in order to prevent further radicalisation of western Muslims, the government needs to ensure a safe place for returning fighters from Syria and Iraq to speak openly about their experience.
According to the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, it is these returnees who can most effectively counter the damaging propaganda spread through social media by groups such as ISIS. But the UK government is refusing to pay heed to this advice; instead it is strengthening its anti-extremist narrative that serves to incriminate and ostracise those returning from the Middle East. A recent article by Kesvani and Thomas-Johnson revealed the perverse effect that Conservative obstinacy is having on returnees; far from encouraging them to share their experience and expose the reality of life on the Syrian frontline, the government’s incessant threats are driving these returnees into hiding.
Islamic fundamentalism is not the most pressing extremist threat facing this country. The single most powerful, influential and ideologically driven movement in the UK today is the incumbent Conservative government.
Related articles across the web
About the Author
