The 'age of impunity and over-riding human rights is over' (unless you're Saudi)

Having recently watched the Saudi King visit Britain and be duly entertained by both Gordon Brown and the Queen, I thought that it was interesting that little more than two weeks had passed before this story emerged...

Saudi gang-rape victim is jailed
An appeal court in Saudi Arabia increases the sentence on a teenage gang-rape victim.

BBC News Online, 15 November 2007

An appeal court in Saudi Arabia has doubled the number of lashes and added a jail sentence as punishment for a woman who was gang-raped.

The victim was initially punished for violating laws on segregation of the sexes - she was in an unrelated man's car at the time of the attack.

When she appealed, the judges said she had been attempting to use the media to influence them.

The attackers' sentences - originally of up to five years - were doubled.

According to the Arab News newspaper, the 19-year-old woman was gang-raped 14 times in an attack in the eastern province a year-and-a-half ago.

Having read this, I felt disgusted when I came across this news article from the Independent.

Brown 'did not discuss rights'
Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
2 November 2007

Gordon Brown did not raise alleged human right abuses in Saudi Arabia during his talks this week with King Abdullah, the Saudi Foreign Minister confirmed yesterday.

"We haven't talked of human rights," Prince Saud al-Faisal told Sky News. "Human rights is the responsibility for the government of its own people, not of other governments. We are doing what our people expect us to do."

Good to see that Gord if not Liz is being true to his word - about five weeks prior to the visit by the Saudis, Mr Brown was telling the Labour Party conference in Bournemouth that:

"the age of impunity and over-riding human rights is over".

Calling Burma's government an "illegitimate and repressive regime", Mr Brown said: "The whole issue of sanctions is going to take on a new dimension."

He called for UN envoy Ibrahim Gambari to be sent to Burma, to "make sure that the Burmese regime directly is aware that any trampling of human rights that takes place will have the whole eyes of the world upon them and will not be acceptable in future".

Mr Brown said: "I want to see all the pressures of the world put on this regime now - sanctions, the pressure of the UN, pressure from China and all the countries in the region, India, pressure from the whole of the world."
Brown urges UN action over Burma
BBC News Online, 26 September 2007

That's a clear and consistent message then...

The 'first' decade of Islamophobia: 10 years of the Runnymede Trust report "Islamophobia: a challenge for us all"

This week marks the tenth anniversary of the publication of the Runnymede Trust/ Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia report, "Islamophobia: a challenge for us all". Without any doubt whatsoever, the report has been one of the most influential documents of its kind.

In recognition of this, I have put together a short document that includes a new 'think-piece' about Islamophobia that you might be interested in reading. You can download this for free by visiting my website at:

www.chris-allen.co.uk

I would be really interested to see what you all have to say so add your comments/ thoughts/ criticisms below. Any that are sent to me via e-mail will also be added...

Chris

Birmingham Post: Is home where the heart is - or is it just where you live?

Yesterday saw the Birmingham Post print the first of my regular column pieces. Just in case you're interested, it's published in the 'Agenda' section:

"Is home where the heart is - or is it just where you live?"

Questions about citizenship and belonging have never been more intense than they are today. 7/7, immigration, new equality legislation, citizenship tests and the burgeoning war on terror have all had an impact on what it seems we as a society thinks it means to say that you ‘belong’.

Being born in London, it’s interesting to see how my children – all born in the Midlands – unquestionably belong here. They also have a really strong emotional attachment to the place, something I admit I probably lack. Yet nonetheless, I like almost 80% of the population, according to the Government’s Citizenship Survey, feel as though I belong in my local area quite irrespective of whether I have that emotional attachment or not.

Almost unexplainably, my attachment remains with London: Bermondsey in particular. Towards the south-east of the Thames, Bermondsey connects to the City via Tower Bridge (the one an American never bought and never rebuilt in the Arizona desert). It is where I was born, lived and went to school: it’s also where many of family died. Home to the Tabard Inn, a la Geoffrey Chaucer’s ‘Canterbury Tales’ and regular haunt of Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist and Little Dorrit (was there a ‘Big’ Dorrit?), Bermondsey today is a regeneration oasis of warehouse apartments and ‘Location, Location’ style residencies punctuated by the relics of my Bermondsey, the sprawling council estates that ooze poverty and deprivation. Despite it nearing twenty years since I last lived there, this is the Bermondsey that keeps my heart emotionally attached. My head though tells me that today’s Bermondsey is far from where I belong.

My head then tells me where is ‘home’. Given that I now live here, work here, my children go to school here and may even eventually die here (fingers crossed, later rather than sooner) the Midlands is where I belong. Given that I neither participate in anti-social behaviour nor do I have a penchant for criminal activity – yes, I am that boring – I guess I’m also a ‘good citizen’. All this whilst remaining a Londoner by definition.

To what extent then is an emotional attachment to elsewhere a barrier to belonging? And why do we worry so about people maintaining their identities or keeping a part of the heritage in their hearts? For me, whether the heart is attached to Mogadishu or Moseley, Kingston or Kingstanding, Warsaw or Weoley, Bermondsey or Bournville, it doesn’t stop your head from telling you where you belong. Yet in our quest for greater citizenship and belonging, we make unnecessary demands of those whose hearts may always be elsewhere: to ‘prove’ they belong, to ‘prove’ they are citizens, to ‘prove’ they are British.

For many who have an attachment outside the UK or maybe even just look as though they do - despite them being second, third or even fourth generation British-born - we make their experience difficult. Many will face interrogation and scrutiny, others unfounded mistrust and some even downright xenophobia in trying to make Britain their home. Irrespective of what their heads tell them therefore, it’s what we as a society tell them that will make the ultimate difference.

Due to the climate we currently live in, we don’t give people the opportunity to make this their home. Because of this many will never feel that they truly belong or that they can ever be citizens of a vibrant, diverse and dynamic Britain. And neither their hearts nor their heads will tell them anything different no matter how much we force-feed them messages to the contrary.

A Message to the CEHR

The 1st October sees the launch of the new Commission on Equalities and Human Rights (CEHR). This new body will bring together the work of the now defunct Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), Disability Rights Commission (DRC) and the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) to champion the cause to reduce inequality, eliminate discrimination, strengthen good relations between people and protect human rights. Bringing together, for the first time, all of the various equalities strands – race, disability, gender, age, religion and belief, and sexual orientation – it will seek to take an active role in helping to achieve change to benefit some of the most vulnerable and least well represented people in our society.

Although we are optimistic about the potential for the new Commission to provide our country with opportunities to refresh our thinking and practice on issues of equality, there is evidence that the inequalities gap is widening and we fear that a unique opportunity to make a real difference will be lost. If it is, then so too will the chance to conscientiously address the discrimination and inequality that affect the everyday lives and experiences of those many British people that exist at the sharp end of society. Because of this, discrimination and inequality thus blights all our lives.

To ensure we do not lose this opportunity, we need to move away from the recent preoccupation with ‘identity’ and ‘single’ identity politics: a point made in the Commission on Integration & Cohesion report, Shared futures. The constant focus on ‘Muslims’, for example, has meant that the ‘problem’ of extremism has become something that is seen to be about ‘them’ rather than ‘us’. Not only does this hinder the need for society as a whole to take a shared responsibility for equalities issues, but it also creates misunderstandings and barriers between us. As regards extremism in particular, this preoccupation with identity also obscures, rather than illuminates: acts of terrorism are criminal acts, committed by individuals, quite irrespective of the ideology they allege to purport. For the CEHR, continuing to focus on identity rather than inequality will be both incongruent and counter-productive, weakening rather than strengthening the kind of social cohesion most of us – including the Government - want to see: one where who I am will make me more disadvantaged than who you are.

Transitions are never easy. The CEHR should lead the way, pre-empting the typical knee-jerk responses by identifying the commonalities that exist between us: our commonalities as human beings first and foremost. To be successful, it must address the ‘issues’: those current barriers that prevent all of us from being treated equally. These are not necessarily going to be the same ‘issues’ as before, so letting go of the past will be a major hurdle.

With the establishment of the CEHR, we look forward to the challenges ahead and the opportunity to work together to extend and strengthen our shared understanding of what it is to be a citizen of Britain in the 21st century. To do this, we must not allow the crucial debates to be lost: the stakes are too high and the potential rewards too great.

(This entry will form the basis of a press release from brap due 1 October 2007)

The Tower: 'Regeneration is a form of ethnic cleansing'

Back in September 1989, Millwall Football Club unexpectedly announced that they were to follow Tottenham Hotspur and float themselves on the London Stock Exchange. In the Sun newspaper at the time, the former club chairman Reg Burr stated that he was not trying to turn the club into a 'yuppie' club.

At the same time, the Club were sponsored by the LDDC - the London Docklands Development Corporation.

The LDDC was a quango agency set up by the Thatcher Government in 1981 to 'regenerate' the Docklands areas of east and south east London. During its 18 year existence it was responsible for regenerating parts of the London Boroughs of Newham, Tower Hamlets and Southwark. It helped create Canary Wharf, Surrey Quays shopping centre, London City Airport, ExCeL Exhibition Centre and the Docklands Light Railway, bringing more than 120,000 new jobs to the Docklands and making the area highly sought after for housing.

Having lived in council housing all my life - as all my family and friends did at the time - the LDDC became known to me through their regeneration of the council estates that we lived on. Elim Estate where we lived was untouched due to the fact that it didn't have a 'river view'. But family who lived on Surrey Docks (now Surrey Quays/ Canada Water) and the Amos Estate were less fortunate. The LDDC bought the estate, moved everybody out of the area, giving them no say in whether they stayed or went and leaving Southwark Council with the task of rehousing them in less 'desirable' locations.

On hearing the announcement that Millwall was being floated on the Stock Exchange I was incensed enough to write a letter - well diatribe - to the South London Press to say that the imminent flotation was indicative of what was being played out all around us: the local people, like the local Club itself, were being exploited. The 'haves' were having more at the same time that the 'have nots' were having less.

At the time, nobody took me seriously. But visit the area now and you will see that under the guise of regeneration, the area is split more than ever along the lines of the 'haves' and 'have nots'. Those who can afford quarter of a million pounds apartments living in comfort and luxury to those living in rundown and neglected council housing below the poverty line.

Some 15 years before this, one of the places you might move to once you had a family of your own if you had been brought up on Elim or Amos estate was the Pepys Estate in Deptford. A large, sprawling estate punctuated by tower blocks, the estate overlooked the Thames. My second cousin, whose husband was later imprisoned for 'knee-capping' a Securicor van driver outside the C&A in Peckham, lived on the estate. At the time, we all felt that she was posh because of this.

Today, the Pepys Estate has gone down the route of many other council estates along the Thames and in the Docklands areas. Three years ago, Lewisham Council decided to sell the tower block closest to the Thames to private developers, Berkeley Homes. Since then, again under the guise of regeneration, the block has been emptied of the 144 people living in it so that it can be developed into a highly desirable residence with, as one resident put it, "a million dollar view". Before the private developers moved in, whilst the view was the same, the price would have been significantly lower. The building is now called the 'Z Building'.

From the other tower blocks of the Pepys Estate, the view is similar but tends to be from behind single glazed windows that are obscured by condensation and the mould that accompanies it. Despite offering a similar view, the apartments - known far less desirably as flats - are now far less sought after and instead of housing the wealthy, upwardly mobile elite, house the social outcasts and misfits that have ended up here as a result of their being less fortunate or even lucky.

'The Tower: a tale of two cities' is an eight part documentary series shown on BBC1 on Monday evenings. Filmed over three years, the series is full of real people that live on the estate: both those that live in the council owned blocks and those new residents seeking to make Deptford their new home. As one new resident put it, "The developers will make Deptford a much better place within five years. Just look at what they did with other areas - Hoxton was awful only a few years ago". Poignantly, the images that accompanied her words were of a handful of young black men being arrested by police at the foot of the recently developed building.

The series is a beautifully directed and constructed piece of documentary journalism. There are no whiffs of 'fly on the wall' overacting, no sense of anyone wanting to become 'celebrities', no need to 'doctor' the editing to make things more gritty. Instead, the series delves into the characters that comprise the Pepys Estate: sometimes disparate, sometimes desperate. The direction dips into and then out of different lives, leaving questions unanswered and on the whole, without the need for a silver lining. In many of these, I see the faces and characters of people that I know could be them. And because of this, I find the programme extremely watchable but at the same time, extremely sad which in turns makes me extremely angry. It shows real life - and death - for real people and that is not always comfortable viewing.

A recurrent image that crops up in different episodes is the graffiti of the title of this blog entry: 'Regeneration is a form of ethnic cleansing'. Seeing how people have been unwillingly and forcibly removed from their 'home' - no matter how dire or tragic that might be to the onlooker - the 'regeneration' of these and other areas has been and indeed continues to be little more than a form of ethnic cleansing. Maybe 'ethnic here is the wrong term. Instead, maybe 'class cleansing' is more appropriate.

Since the early 1980s, this form of cleansing has been systematic across much of inner London. Unconsciously we accept this and have done for more than two decades. But where do people like those from the Z Building go when they are forcibly removed from their homes? How many fall below the radar? How many disappear and end up, as the most recent episode captured so well, trapped with little else but to turn to such horrors as heroin, crack and so on?

Twenty years ago, maybe I foresaw the consequences of those such as the LDDC. For those who didn't believe me then, or don't believe me now, there's two more episodes of 'The Tower: a tale of two cities' before the end of the series. Don't miss the chance to see what other people's 'real life' looks like and decide whether 'regeneration' was a good or bad thing.

Beyond difference and towards community: a new approach to equalities

(This entry is a version of an article that will appear in the Birmingham Post within the next week)

Having watched the images of communities overcoming adversity as a result of the recent floods in Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire, you cannot help but empathise with the problems that the people living in those areas must have been facing. When events like this arise, many are quick to stress the sense of ‘community spirit’ that gets people through such times. In many ways this message can be reassuring, confirming to people that not only do communities still exist but that they are a positive influence and force for good in our rapidly changing society. Very few people would disagree with this. Yet if you look closely at the television images of those queuing for fresh water, you will see that the people themselves are widely diverse and different: a ‘community of communities’ maybe. Yet despite this vast diversity and difference, the same old sense of ‘community’ and what’s good about it appears to remain.

The dictionary definition of a ‘community’ is one where people live together in one place, sometimes with a sense of common ownership. In more recent years however, there has been a tendency to use the term ‘community’ to lump people together on the basis of their identity, stressing this aspect of the definition in preference of those merely living together in one place. This has meant that on far too many occasions, people are seen to be a community because of who or what they are rather than anything else. In doing so, the increasingly popular notion of community overlooks or even eradicates that necessary recognition of diversity and difference that vibrant and real communities – such as those overcoming adversity together in Gloucestershire or in today’s Birmingham - typically contain.

In terms of Birmingham, if we think that the people living together today are diverse, in the coming decade the city and its inhabitants will become ‘super-diverse’. To ensure that Birmingham as community therefore remains a force for good, ensuring that everyone is treated equally will become increasingly central to the city’s ongoing success.

If this is not achieved, then a lack of equality and the division of people into single identity communities could be easily used to not only identify but more worryingly single out and even scapegoat particular sections of society. This is far from being mere speculation, we only have to look back over recent months to see how events in Birmingham cause some to hold their breath in the hope that a concerted backlash against certain groups of people fail to materialise. For Birmingham as indeed elsewhere, this understanding of community can be problematic and can play into the hands of the mischief-makers who want to exploit the tensions and fractures that also clearly exist. When social and community challenges therefore arise, for many in society those challenges and ‘problems’ belong to ‘them’ rather than ‘us’. In doing so, not only do we see ‘them’ as being clearly different from ‘us’, but we also see ‘them’ presenting a challenge to ‘us’ in terms of ‘our’ values, way of life, culture and so on. Because of this, not all people in our community are treated equally.

This attitude and approach to understanding and identifying difference is sometimes reinforced both in politics and also by spokespeople for particular groups, or dare I say it, different ‘communities’. Take for instance the Government’s Preventing Extremism Together (PET) programme that is currently being rolled out across Birmingham in the form of projects (like raising awareness of Islam and training Imams). By funding ‘Muslim’ groups and ‘Muslim’ initiatives only, the programme runs the risk of inadvertently attributing the ‘problem’ of extremism to Muslim communities alone. In this way extremism – and more importantly preventing extremism – becomes something for most people in the city that is more about ‘them’ than it is about ‘us’.

With the emphasis being placed upon what Muslims should be doing, an opportunity is being squandered that might allow society as a whole to take a shared responsibility for ‘preventing extremism together’ through promoting common ownership of the problem. An approach that sees people and communities as having a ‘single identity’ alone was recently identified as problematic in the findings of the recent Commission on Integration & Cohesion’s report. Shared futures, as the report was titled, stressed the need to put an emphasis on articulating what binds communities together rather than the differences that might divide them. In prioritising a shared future over divided legacies, the report stressed that funding single identity groups or single issue projects can be regressive and divisive. Birmingham’s PET therefore seems to go against current thinking about what is good for communities.

In part, the approach to PET reflects the way Government and Local Authorities have sought to engage with black and minority ethnic (BME) communities in the past. This approach was known as ‘representation’ and was on many occasions highlighted as having serious flaws, Often used to advocate and lobby on behalf of the views and interests of those given the opportunity to ‘represent’, this has historically encouraged groups to play up their victimhood as well as their unique cultural or religious identities in a bid for more public funds or greater social influence. In a programme like PET, this can have a number of negative effects. Most significantly, divisions can be reinforced at the same time as encouraging some to believe that Muslims for example are getting preferential treatment. Consider for example the ‘grants for Muslims’ statistics used by the far-right in some of their campaign materials in certain areas of the outer city recently. Ultimately, such approaches can result in all people feeling that they are not being treated equally.

Because of this, few in society ‘buy-in’ to the challenges and problems we face in terms of ensuring all people are treated equally: few share that common ownership necessary to build a community. Yet as we saw in Gloucester, the consequences of the problems that impact upon communities affect us all, quite irrespective of what any of our differences may or may not be. The flood waters therefore failed to recognise ‘them’ and ‘us’ and so impacted upon the lives of white and black, young and old, male and female, Christian, Muslim, atheist and the not sure (as well as those who just don’t care!). Irrespective of who or what the people are that are queuing for fresh water, all that mattered was that everyone was treated equally. Whilst the challenges facing those in Birmingham may then have a different dynamic or focus, what really matters is that all are treated equally no matter what that challenge or situation might be.

Is it time then for a new approach to treating all people equally and by default, strengthening community?

As Director of Research and Policy at BRAP – a Birmingham based equalities and human rights charity – much of this is central to our day-to-day thinking. Because of this, we have been at the forefront of the shift towards a human rights based approach to equalities. Historically, equalities legislation in the UK has been largely driven in response to incidents that have had a nationwide resonance, for example the Brixton riots in 1981 and the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993. This has typically led to some form of protection being afforded to particular groups, such as ethnic minorities for example. While this has helped to rightfully protect some people, others have not been able to benefit because they have not met a particular identity or ‘profile’, something that is entirely divisive. And even for those offered some form of protection, it has not always been the case that simply reducing discrimination has been enough to prevent ongoing inequalities.

This is where a human rights based approach to equalities offers some benefits over and above what we already have. Human rights are ‘inherent’, they don’t need to be earned or bought. So groups shouldn’t have to wait for a riot or for somebody to die in order to be afforded the protection they deserve. Also human rights are universal, and all people can have them irrespective of their identity. This approach disposes of the need for knee-jerk responses and may even go some way towards identifying the commonalities that exist between us: commonalities between us as human beings first and foremost.

The slow and albeit tentative shift towards a human rights approach to equalities will gain further momentum later this year with the formation of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) in October. For the first time in Britain, the various equalities strands covering ‘race’, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation as well as religion and belief will be brought together. By moving beyond the single identities that existing approaches have preferred – including PET – we can begin to address the ‘issues’ that stop us from feeling as though we are treated equally and that cause us to blame or scapegoat others as a result.

There remains a long way to go however, but if we want to build a community with a shared future, equalities and human rights might just be the unifier – the common ownership element – that our changing society needs. Building upon what informs our understanding of ‘community’ and what’s good about it might then be the first step in a new direction towards the goal of seeing everyone as ‘us’ in preference of others being ‘them’. To ensure that people see the value of treating everyone equally, those involved in driving equalities will need to effectively communicate what this might be and what a human rights based approach to equalities might look like for all. To do this, we must ensure that we not only speak out when certain groups are scapegoated or unnecessarily targeted but also when programmes such as the PET go against current sensibilities and flout potentially divisive lines. In doing this, community will go beyond being about what you are or on what basis you are lumped together, but more importantly about treating those we live together with equally and fairly irrespective of difference or diversity.

"My plea to fellow Muslims: you must renounce terror" - Hassan Butt

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

Friday's attempt to cause mass destruction in London with strategically placed car bombs is so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that it is likely to have been carried out by my former peers.

And as with previous terror attacks, people are again articulating the line that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy. For example, yesterday on Radio 4's Today programme, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: 'What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq.'

He then refused to acknowledge the role of Islamist ideology in terrorism and said that the Muslim Brotherhood and those who give a religious mandate to suicide bombings in Palestine were genuinely representative of Islam.

I left the BJN in February 2006, but if I were still fighting for their cause, I'd be laughing once again. Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the 7 July bombings, and I were both part of the BJN - I met him on two occasions - and though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many of my peers to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain, our own homeland and abroad, was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary state that would eventually bring Islamic justice to the world.

How did this continuing violence come to be the means of promoting this (flawed) utopian goal? How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion? There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a dualistic model of the world. Many Muslims may or may not agree with secularism but at the moment, formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion. There is no 'rendering unto Caesar' in Islamic theology because state and religion are considered to be one and the same. The centuries-old reasoning of Islamic jurists also extends to the world stage where the rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) have been set down to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.

What radicals and extremists do is to take these premises two steps further. Their first step has been to reason that since there is no Islamic state in existence, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr. Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world. Many of my former peers, myself included, were taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.

This understanding of the global battlefield has been a source of friction for Muslims living in Britain. For decades, radicals have been exploiting these tensions between Islamic theology and the modern secular state for their benefit, typically by starting debate with the question: 'Are you British or Muslim?' But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Islamic institutions in Britain just don't want to talk about theology. They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex topic of violence within Islam and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace, focus on Islam as personal, and hope that all of this debate will go away.

This has left the territory of ideas open for radicals to claim as their own. I should know because, as a former extremist recruiter, every time mosque authorities banned us from their grounds, it felt like a moral and religious victory.

Outside Britain, there are those who try to reverse this two-step revisionism. A handful of scholars from the Middle East has tried to put radicalism back in the box by saying that the rules of war devised by Islamic jurists were always conceived with the existence of an Islamic state in mind, a state which would supposedly regulate jihad in a responsible Islamic fashion. In other words, individual Muslims don't have the authority to go around declaring global war in the name of Islam.

But there is a more fundamental reasoning that has struck me and a number of other people who have recently left radical Islamic networks as a far more potent argument because it involves stepping out of this dogmatic paradigm and recognising the reality of the world: Muslims don't actually live in the bipolar world of the Middle Ages any more.

The fact is that Muslims in Britain are citizens of this country. We are no longer migrants in a Land of Unbelief. For my generation, we were born here, raised here, schooled here, we work here and we'll stay here. But more than that, on a historically unprecedented scale, Muslims in Britain have been allowed to assert their religious identity through clothing, the construction of mosques, the building of cemeteries and equal rights in law.

However, it isn't enough for Muslims to say that because they feel at home in Britain they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers. By refusing to challenge centuries-old theological arguments, the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern world grow larger every day. It may be difficult to swallow but the reason why Abu Qatada - the Islamic scholar whom Palestinian militants recently called to be released in exchange for the kidnapped BBC journalist Alan Johnston - has a following is because he is extremely learned and his religious rulings are well argued. His opinions, though I now thoroughly disagree with them, have validity within the broad canon of Islam.

Since leaving the BJN, many Muslims have accused me of being a traitor. If I knew of any impending attack, then I would have no hesitation in going to the police, but I have not gone to the authorities, as some reports have suggested, and become an informer.

I believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism. (The Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from this state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists.) However, demystification will not be achieved if the only bridges of engagement that are formed are between the BJN and the security services.

If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I'd like to term the Land of Co-existence. And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.

"Not in our name" - Asim Siddiqui

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/asim_siddiqui/2007/07/not_in_our_name.html

The events of the last few days have been sobering for us all. The response from some UK Muslim groups (influenced by Islamist thinking) is still largely to blame foreign policyrevulsion against terrorist acts committed in Islam's name. By blaming foreign policy they try to divert pressure off themselves from the real need to tackle extremism being peddled within. Diverting attention away from the problems within Muslim communities and blaming others - especially the west - is always more popular than the difficult task of self-scrutiny. And what part of foreign policy do the Islamists want us to change to tackle terrorism? Withdrawal from Iraq? (undoubtedly an exacerbating influence but not the cause), rather than marching "not in my name" in

The UK presence on the ground in Iraq is minuscule compared to the US. We currently have 5,500 troops from 40,000 at the start of the invasion. We will reduce them further to 5,000 by the end of the summer. The bulk of which will be located near Basra airport in a supporting role. Next year will likely see the numbers dwindle even further. Our troop presence is far more symbolic than military. It provides the Americans with their "coalition of the willing". The US, by contrast, is the only serious occupier in the country with over 160,000 troops. The government will not (and cannot) admit it, but we have been in withdrawal mode since the end of the war.

And once we've left Iraq, will they be satisfied? Of course not. Their list of grievances is endless: Afghanistan, Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine, Burma ... so long as the world is presented as one where the west is forever at war with Islam and Muslims there is nothing we can do to appease the terrorists and those who share their world view. Instead it is this extremist world view that must change.

Take for example the idea that radical Islamists are concerned about Muslim life (let's ignore human life in general for a moment). Where is their outrage at the 400,000 Muslims slaughtered in Darfur? Where are the marches and calls for action against this ongoing genocide? Where is the "Muslim anger" boiling up amongst British Islamists? It is nowhere to be seen because the Darfurians have been massacred by fellow Muslims, not by the west. Hence it does not appear on the Islamist radar screen as a "grievance". Such is the moral bankruptcy of this ideology.

No, it's not foreign policy that's the main driver in combating the terrorists; it is their mindset. The radical Islamist ideology needs to be exposed to young Muslims for what it really is. A tool for the introduction of a medieval form of governance that describes itself as an "Islamic state" that is violent, retrogressive, discriminatory, a perversion of the sacred texts and a totalitarian dictatorship.

When the IRA was busy blowing up London, there would have been little point in Irish "community leaders" urging "all" citizens to cooperate with the police equally when it was obvious the problem lay specifically within Irish communities. Likewise for Muslim "community leaders" to condemn terrorism is a no-brainer. What is required is for those that claim to represent and have influence among young British Muslims to proactively counter the extremist Islamist narrative. That is the biggest challenge for British Muslim leadership over the next five to 10 years. It is because they are failing to rise to this challenge that the government feels it needs to act by further eroding our civil liberties with anti-terror legislation to get the state to do what Muslims should be doing themselves. If British Muslim groups focus on grassroots de-radicalisation then this will provide civil liberty groups the space they need to argue against any further anti-terror legislation.

Of course I would like to see changes in our foreign policy and have marched on the streets (with thousands of non-Muslims) in protest on many occasions. But blaming foreign policy in the face of suicide attacks is not only tactless but a cop-out that fails to tackle extremism, fails to promote an ethical foreign policy and fails to protect our civil liberties.

Who 'represents'?

Engaging with the ‘Muslim community’ is an extremely complex process and one that requires a great deal of critical thinking and meaningful endeavour on all sides. Not least because of the fact that the ‘Muslim community’ clearly does not exist. Despite this, Government and others – including some from within the ‘Muslim community’ – continue to perpetuate the idea that such a homogenous entity does exist.

Nonetheless, even when this engagement has been initiated the complexities identified and the meaningful engagement required has clearly not always occurred. Instead, many initiatives have seen groups and people thrown together largely because of their proximity to the organizers or those holding the purse strings of a given event rather than what capacity they have or more importantly, what they can contribute. Unfortunately, Government, local authorities and numerous other institutions and organisations seem to always do this and persist – to the detriment of all – to talk to none others than the same old ‘usual suspects’. This has been particularly evident when ‘Muslim’ issues have required to be addressed. It is no surprise then that the perennial question that has been required to be asked is to what extent do the ‘usual suspects’ offer the ‘representation’ required for this increasingly complex community of communities (isn’t that what Parekh described Britain as rather than the Muslim community?).

'Representation' has been the traditional means through which national and local government have sought to engage with black and minority groups in the past. In doing so, Government engaged with minority communities using the very simplistic premise that by employing ‘representatives’ they were in some way putting a safety net in place that ensured that those influencing policy represented the diversity inherent within the local population. However, this approach has been shown to have many drawbacks. For example, if the rationale for representation is to hear all voices, then representatives from all groups should be provided a legitimate platform from which to be heard. If this is the case, then one must ask whether those from the ‘fringes’ (extremists, radicals, fundamentalists and so on in common parlance) should also be given the opportunity for representation? Of course, those in authority would categorically say ‘no’ given that those on the ‘fringes’ might go against the decisions they wanted to make. Of course what is not widely announced is the fact that ‘representation’ works best when those looking for ‘representatives’ find ‘representatives’ who agree with their own way of thinking. And of course, that means being selective about the ‘representatives’ rather than about the alleged benefits of ‘representation’.

More often that not though, ‘representation’ is used to advocate and lobby on behalf of the views and interests of those groups and organisations invited to ‘represent’ and rarely for the wider community they are alleged to offering a voice for. Such a process has also tended to encourage groups to play up their victimhood and reinforce homogenous cultural identities in a bid for public funds and social authority.

What is troubling is that if the same criticism of the methods of ‘representation’ can be applied to the way in which Government has sought Muslim representation over the past few years, then it could be that some of the consequences of this have been not only the encouraging of a more aggressive Muslim identity but more importantly reinforcing the view that a single, homogenous Muslim community exists. In many ways this reflects the ‘silo’ approach to dealing with BME (black and minority ethnic) groups and the wider issue of equalities where people are only ‘allowed’ one relevant identity at a time.

Focusing on single identities makes the task of bringing a diversity of people together all the more difficult. Focusing on ‘Muslims’ rather than the issues therefore can also promote a grievance culture that reinforces division and competition in preference of strengthening the kind of social cohesion Government wants to see. Wrongly emphasising Muslim identities also makes those other communities believe that any perceived ‘problems’ are far from theirs and so responsibility and blame remain squarely fixed at the doors of Muslims and no-one else.

A new approach is now required in the way in which communities and groups are involved – not represented – in decision-making and other similar processes. By focusing on traditional – and previously rejected modes of representation – so such processes are flawed whereby critical opportunities to engage with disengaged and marginalised communities is being squandered. We should be extending and strengthening our shared understandings, going beyond over-simplified and stereotypical forms of ‘representation’ and ‘identity’ to really begin to engage and address the issues facing British society today in a more coherent and cohesive way. To do this, ‘silo’ approaches of representation need to be rejected, the ‘usual suspects’ need to be questioned and those that have the capacity to bring value to the various engagement and decision-making processes need to be driven forward.

To do this, new issues based approaches are desperately required. Such approaches should recognise and respond to the differences within Muslim communities – and indeed all other communities - but not to the extent where faith and associated identities become the sole determinant in who and what is incorporated. This should be as transparent as possible, opening up the engagement processes for all those with the necessary capacity to be as actively engaged as they want to be. To do so, it is necessary to be confident about taking the debates and processes – whether positive or negative – away from the usual suspects and the self-interested ‘representatives’: to bring the debates out from behind closed doors and into the wider realms. More importantly, it is necessary to ensure that those who can influence change and add some value to are actively sought and accommodated irrespective of who or what they are rather than who or what they claim to ‘represent’.

How to integrate and be cohesive in 6 easy lessons...

The Commission on Integration and Cohesion finally published the findings of its year-long consultation into community cohesion this week in the report entitled ‘Shared Futures’. The Commission was announced by Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 28 June 2006 and was established as a fixed term advisory body to consider how local areas can make the most of the benefits delivered by increasing diversity. It was also set up to consider how communities might respond to the tensions that increasing diversity can sometimes cause. Its remit was to develop practical approaches that build communities’ own capacity to prevent problems, including those caused by segregation and the dissemination of extremist ideologies.

Following its year-long consultation, the report amongst other things offered a ‘new’ definition of what an integrated and cohesive community might look like. Being particularly confused about what community cohesion is, I had hoped that this might provide some insight into this for me. Unfortunately, this wasn’t the case and so given that community cohesion had been since the Bradford disturbances in 2001 widely employed politically as the ‘solution’ to the ‘problem’ (I’ll leave you to better clarify what the ‘problem’ might be) what the ‘solution’ might look like remains quite unclear.

Nonetheless, the new definition (did we have an old one?) was set out as the following six easy definable steps:

“An integrated and cohesive community is one where:

1. There is a clearly defined and widely shared sense of the contribution of different individuals and different communities to a future vision for a neighbourhood, city, region or country

2. There is a strong sense of an individual’s rights and responsibilities when living in a particular place – people know what everyone expects of them, and what they can expect in turn

3. Those from different backgrounds have similar life opportunities, access to services and treatment

4. There is a strong sense of trust in institutions locally to act fairly in arbitrating between different interests and for their role and justifications to be subject to public scrutiny

5. There is a strong recognition of the contribution of both those who have newly arrived and those who already have deep attachments to a particular place, with a focus on what they have in common

6. There are strong and positive relationships between people from different backgrounds in the workplace, in schools and other institutions within neighbourhoods”

Great stuff…or is it?

Maybe unsurprisingly, the definition seems to raise many more questions than it does provide answers not least in asking ‘how’ one might measure integration and cohesion? Without this measure, how do we know if we live in an integrated and cohesive community? How can we know when we need to do something, when we need to respond, and of course, when we can sit back on our laurels and say what a good job we’ve done?

Maybe then we should ask – given that the report doesn’t answer this - ‘who’ does the measuring and when will it start?

What is interesting is that in the new definition, it states that ‘a clearly defined’ sense of contribution will be required. Again, how exactly do you measure a ‘strong sense’ of something?

Similarly, the definition also says that there will need to be a ‘strong sense of an individual’s rights and responsibilities’. Is it a good idea to have such subjective statements in a definition that is being established to offer some clarity? If you adopt the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of a ‘definition’ it says that it is “a statement of the exact meaning of a word”…is that what’s on offer here?

To illustrate this point, wouldn’t the BNP say that had a strong sense of responsibility of the individual rights and responsibilities of the ‘aboriginal white communities’ (their words not mine) over and above everyone else in places such as Barking and Dagenham where they are already the official party of opposition in the council chambers?

The problem becomes compounded especially if you consider that the definition states that all in society are to ‘have similar life opportunities, access to services and treatment’. If this is the case, doesn’t this mean that there will need to be a concerted effort on behalf of the Government to address the deep-seated socio-economic inequalities that are evident across vast swathes of our society? If this is the case, then Government – both national and local - is going to be forced to address certain communities over and above others which then seems to go against previous markers of an integrated and cohesive community. The arguments about certain communities being privileged will therefore continue to exist.

And if local councils are going to be required to respond to certain communities in this way, how will that ‘strong sense of trust in institutions’ be any different from how they are now? Or should I say, before we had this ‘new definition’?

The definition therefore is a mish-mash of nice ideas but totally impractical and non-cohesive ones. Take for example how the definition suggests that there should be a ‘strong recognition of the contribution of both those who have newly arrived’. If this is so, local institutions including local government, the NHS, LEAs and so on, will all need to put in place special procedures and policies to ensure that the newly arrived can begin to make that ‘contribution’. Again though this will cause problems because it will merely reinforce the belief that certain communities are being privileged and so those that are newly arrived will continue to be perceived as being privileged.

And with this comes the crunch, the observation that in integrated and cohesive communities ‘strong and positive relationships between people from different backgrounds in the workplace, in schools and other institutions within neighbourhoods’ will exist. When schools are increasingly segregated, when newly arrived migrant workers are being thrown into jobs that local people refuse to do at the rates of pay being offered, when communities do not integrate because of the great disparities between their economic capacity to live together in equitable areas, what realistic chance does this definition offer? Is it merely idealistic and as such should be something society aspires to, or is it a blueprint for change? Given that its initial objective was to make the most of the benefits delivered by increasing diversity, consider the tensions it can sometimes cause and develop practical approaches to achieving this, it could be that ‘none of the above’ clearly applies especially when one of the ‘practical approaches’ was providing new migrants with ‘welcome packs’ that give such information as not spitting in the street and how to queue in the Post Office.

The report is therefore another high style, low substance policy document, one that has become so commonplace in the New Labour era. Constantly trying to locate the ‘solutions’ to the ‘problems’ have been one of the many pastimes undertaken by Blair’s regime. The problem for him though, is that despite putting forward the ‘solution’, rarely does it match or eradicate the ‘problem’.

In this broader landscape then, two additional points of interest emerge from the report. The first is that if as the report suggests it is at the local level where ‘problems’ are made and by consequence need to be solved, why are we forever being told that we need to be more ‘British’? Rather than a national British day a la Gordon Brown therefore, so let’s have national ‘local’ day where we all stress our local identities, Brummie, Geordie, Scouser and so on.

Second, where did multiculturalism go? Whilst most people will acknowledged that multiculturalism has been undergoing a long and painful terminal illness for some time now, it would be fair to assume that its actual passing – and laying to rest - did pass many by.

Given that ‘integrated and cohesive communities’ is then the new solution to the problem, I wonder if I missed that recommendation in the report for euthanasia to be legislated for at the national level? The reason I ask is because if, as would seem to be the case, integrated and cohesive communities is deemed to fail as dramatically as multiculturalism has, let’s hope that the Government can put an end o its misery sooner rather than later.

Is it too premature to offer my condolences to the Commission yet? Integration and cohesion RIP - surely a sentiment to bring us all together...

More Islamic Studies - what a radical idea !!!

On the publication of the DfES's report last week, "Islam at Universities: meeting the needs and investing in the future" I became the 'official' voice of dissent for the BBC. Disagreeing with the Government and a report that came from a 'mainstream Muslim' source, I wondered whether doing interviews for the Asian Network, Radio 5 and Radio WM made me a 'radical' for the day?

Maybe I was or maybe they were just desperate for voices on the day - I don't know - maybe it was just that so many 'solutions' to the 'problem' are now being put forward by Goverment and Muslims alike that people just don't care anymore and can't be bothered to speak out. Or, being the cynic that I am, could it have been that as the Governemnt had some funding available, so the clamour to get a piece of it insisted that all those wanting a cut necessarily kept their critical eye firmly closed?

The findings of the report were in my opinion shocking, seemingly missing many points completely but at the same time having the mark of a 'rubber stamp' all over it.

The main gist of the report was that the teaching of Islamic Studies courses across Britain's universities was poor and based on out-of-date and irrelevant issues. It's author, Dr Ataullah Siddiqui (someone I know well and have respect for I hasten to add) is based at the Markfield Institute of Higher Education (MIHE) which is the educational arm of the Islamic Foundation. His research painted a somewhat damning indictment of Islamic Studies departments being places far too concerned with the Middle East and Islam's past rather than the Islam and Muslims today and the contemporary issues that are abound. Ataullah also suggested that events such as 9/11 and 7 July had passed these departments by. Because of this, the Government had decided to make Islamic Studies a "strategic subject" because of its role in "preventing extremism".

The question for me then was simply why, because from where I was standing far too many key issues seemed to have been overlooked or just plainly ignored.

Having been through a PhD course in Islamic Studies at a British university and having taught modules on Islamic Studies courses - again in Britain - there seemed to be some confusion in the report. Somewhat against what the report was suggesting, for my PhD I focused quite heavily on the aftermath of 9/11 and in my teaching, I taught modules on 'Muslims in Britain" and "Islam in Europe". In neither capacity did I learn or teach anything about the MIddle East or Islam's history. And let's not forget, if you do want to study these issues and your local, friendly university fails to offer a course on Islamic Studies (a lot of them don't) then you could always try the Sociology departments, the Politics departments, the Anthropology departments and so on as in these disciplines, a plethora of contemporary Muslim studies have recently been unfolding. And it's not just these departments, the list goes on and on.

As for too great a focus on the Middle East, for a religion that was revealed to a Prophet who lived in the Arab peninsula, it seems a bit difficult for anyone learning about Islam - as a religion, its genesis, development, expansion and history - to not focus on that particular region.

And then of course, there's the suggestion that Islamic Studies can aid the prevention of extremism. First off, this suggestion is almost farcical because for any extremist of any persuasion, the last thing they want is to be challenged, to be asked to think critically or to engage with ideas and ideologies that may well go against their own. Of course, this sort of process is what any good British university course should do, including Islamic Studies.

And from my experience, this is exactly what such courses do. No British university espouses ANY message or ideology in its lectures or teaching that in any way ferments extremism. That is of course unless you're referring to 'secularism' because let's not forget, all Britain's universities are secular institutions. To suggest otherwise is a gross misrepresentation of our higher education institutions.

And let's not forget to ask the blatantly obvious...is there even any evidence to suggest that extremists (whoever these are) even go through the higher education system? I'm not sure there is as none is provided by the report to suggest otherwise. From experience and various other snippets from other sources, it is not even clear that large numbers of Muslim students even enrol on Islamic Studies courses. Instead it is those interested in the subject: Muslim and non. And even if you were an etremist, don't you think it would appear as though you were trying a little too hard by enrolling on such a course? I think so.

As Faisal Hanjra, a spokesperson for the Federation of Student Islamic Societies said: "The vast majority of Muslims don't learn their Islam from universities, they learn it from the imams in their local communities...There's no evidence at all to suggest that students are being radicalised or anything of that nature". So what and where is the 'problem'?

One final issue however highlights just how misguided and nonsensical the rport is. Following its publication, the Government announced that an extra £1 million would be invested in Islamic Studies courses to teach imams.

Ok, let me explain...when we are speaking about 'Islamic Studies' there is a significant difference between what is taught in British universities and what the report highlights in the same section, madrasas and dar al-‘ulum. Dar al-'ulum are typically Islamically run institutions that offer traditional courses on Qur’anic interpretation, hadith, fiqh (jurisprudence) and kalam (theology) and have NO link whatsoever with universities. They are not even a part of the higher education system in this country. To make the link between these and universities - however tenuously - is therefore completely irresponsible and wholly inappropriate both for the dar al-'ulum as much as the universities. Both function completely independently of each other and the motivations for students attending both would be as equally independent. Even the report states how "the universities
have paid little attention to the need that these institutions are catering for". That is because they both fulfill totally different functions: end of story.

As an extension of this, NO imams are trained to become imams through the British higher education system. Whilst they may undertake courses in Islamic Studies - at either undergraduate or postgraduate levels - these are not to allow them to become imams but to enhance their academic or intellectual knowledge and understanding, rather like any other student in the university system. All this is without even beginning to ask for the evidence that imams are the catalysts for extremism anyway.

So what then will the extra £1 million achieve especially when you realise that such a sum will probably fund about 12 lecturers for no longer than two academic years? If the problem is so great, why then not longer or are the Government suggesting that the 'problem' will be solved in that time? If that is the case, then the impact that more Islamic Studies will have will be so great that all students entering the higher education system will want to be on such courses. In reality though, I very much doubt it.

The report therefore goes beyond being farcical: beyond this because it merely reinforces the Government's desperate search for a 'solution' to a 'problem' that in this respect at least, clearly does not exist. Yet by making such headlines, the Government and those supporting such views could be making things much worse. By offering an extra £1 million you can already hear the BNP telling disaffected voters in areas of high poverty about how the money for better housing and schools is being wasted on teacing Islamic Studies. You can feel the tensions bubbling under the surface between Sikh and Muslim communities - the former asserting that they are being overlooked by Government despite having never caused 'problems' (see Birmingham recently for evidence) - getting worse as they become increasingly disillusioned and angry. All this without the average Daily Express reader from middle England reading about it alongside the story about thr number of Polish people taking 'our' jobs. It could be that the Government's 'solutions' are deepening the problems rather than improving them.

But more importantly, these 'solutions' are also coming out of Muslim organisations and communities. Because of this, their myopic 'rubber stamping' of everything has got to stop now. A critical eye has to be retained no matter how much funding is being dangled as a carrot in front of them. In fact it is more vital now than possibly any time previously. Without this, Muslims and non-Muslims are being done a disservice and there will be no winners. That is, except for the 'winners' who end up with the large pots of money earmarked for 'projects' that will help combat extremism - which seems to bring us back to where we started.

So here's a suggestion for the Government and some Muslim organisations alike: let's be more radical by being more be critical !!!