Hazel Blears' Islamophobic advisor reveals his true colours in this week's Jewish Chronicle

Paul Richards, the former special adviser to Hazel Blears at the Department of Communities and Local Government, writes in the Jewish Chronicle this week on his expectations of Hazel Blears’ successor, John Denham.

Richards writes:

‘As her [Blears’] adviser, I saw first-hand the pressures on her to sit round the table with groups whose political outlook was the diametric opposite of her beliefs in pluralist democracy, rights for minorities and equality for women.’

And what ‘groups’ might these be?

‘For years, government ministers unquestioningly invited the leaders of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) to meetings to “represent” the political, ethnic and religious diversity of Britain’s Muslims, as though such a thing were possible. First under Ruth Kelly, then Hazel Blears, the Government wised up to the nonsense that a small, unelected group of men, drawn from the conservative elements of Islamic politics, spoke for millions of Muslims in modern Britain.’

One can only sympathise with Blears’ and her blinkered policies if this is any indication of the quality of advice she was given.

Firstly, the MCB is not ‘unelected’ – as any perusal of its AGM activities will demonstrate.

Second, the MCB has never claimed to represent all UK Muslims, no one organisation can do that. The MCB is, however, with over 500 affiliates, without doubt the UK’s largest and most diverse umbrella body for UK Muslims. Ironically, it is the Board of Deputies of British Jews that makes the ridiculous claim to be the ‘national representative body of the British Jewish community’. We wonder if Paul Richards would have told Hazel Blears to ignore them?

Third, it’s wearisome to have to repeat time and again, but the MCB is not a ‘male club’. For the duration of Blears’ term as Cabinet minister, there have been two women that have held senior posts in the MCB; a former Treasurer and a current Assistant Secretary General.

Richards writes, ‘New groups were nurtured and supported, such as the Muslim Women’s Advisory Group.’

Of course, no mention of just how ‘representative’ this particular group is. Nor details forthcoming of how or why its members were chosen to ‘represent’, who exactly it is that endorses their legitimacy to represent, or when it holds its elections, if ever. Pithy matters, it would seem, to Richards as he carps on about representation. He, no doubt, finds little objection in Blears’ assembling of a small, unelected group of women. So much for ‘pluralist democracy’.

Richards further writes:

‘The hardliners in the MCB and other groups were challenged, not fêted. It culminated in a boycott of the MCB after one of its leaders attended a conference in Istanbul dominated by supporters of Hamas.’

We’ve already written about the allegations made against the MCB’s deputy secretary general and the libel case that is currently underway.

What is of considerable significance is the mode of thinking that appears to dominate Richards’ ideas. He writes:

‘Others see the rise of political Islam as a major threat to our democracy; to the UK Jewish community; and to Britain’s interests abroad.

‘The way to tackle this strand of political Islam, which creates the environment for terrorists to brainwash and recruit potential bombers is not to debate with it, nor to invite it for tea at the Department for Communities or Number Ten. It is to expose it, disrupt it, and make it clear such views are repulsive and unacceptable. The new Secretary of State, John Denham, and the new Communities Minister, Shahid Malik, arrived at their desks this week. All eyes will be on them.’

Reducing ‘political Islam’ to a single form, one that accepts violent extremism, is a popular strategy among those that like to think of politicized Muslims as occupying a position on a spectrum that is shared with advocates of violent extremism. The only thing keeping them apart are variables which, if manipulated, could see any politicized Muslim turn into a terrorist.

The logic is flawed and deeply offensive to Muslims. Political activism and terrorism do not exist in the same political space. The former adheres and acts within the rules of the game, the latter, does not accept such rules, let alone abides by them. Would arguments similarly made of other religious communities, that their political activism is a threat to society, go unchallenged?

It is clear that to the likes of Paul Richards, the only acceptable Muslims are depoliticised and docile ones.

All eyes will indeed be on John Denham and Shahid Malik as they take up their new positions. There will be many looking to them to not repeat the mistakes of their predecessor. In their efforts to not tread in Blears’ footsteps, the calibre of advisers that they surround themselves with will be of tremendous significance.

Let’s hope that this mistake too is not repeated.

Update: You won’t be surprised that the Zionist loony David Toube has written in support of Paul Richards at the anti-Muslim website, Harry’s Place.