Martin Bright on the new Prevent strategy

Martin Bright on the Spectator’s Coffee House blog remarks on the Prevent strategy that was unveiled this week. Bright writes:

“It is now nearly five years since I wrote When Progressives Treat with Reactionaries for the think tank Policy Exchange.

“It was a plea for sanity in the debate on radical Islam, which had become poisoned by the belief in parts of government that Islamists of the Muslim Council of Britain were the genuine representative voice of British Muslims.

“At the time it was depressing how eager the Labour Party had been to rush into the arms of religious reactionaries (a problem that Tony Blair, Gordon Brown both failed to full address and Ed Miliband appears not to have even thought about). I wrote:

““There are signs that the reformist Cameron wing of the Conservative Party is beginning to grasp the urgency of the issue. On the opposition benches Michael Gove, the Conservative MP for Surrey Heath, has made it his business to harry the government over its relationship with radical Islamism.”

“This week’s new Prevent counter-terrorism strategy marks a victory for the Gove tendency in government. Despite resistance from civil servants and elements within the Liberal Democrats, the new strategy recognises that the totalitarian ideology of the radicals is a danger in itself. It is not enough simply to target violent extremism.

“It is good news that these supporters of totalitarianism will no longer be the first port of call for ministers, but they will need to develop new mechanisms of dialogue with Muslim communities. Five years ago I would have proposed an old-fashioned democratic solution and suggested ministers begin by speaking to MPs and councillors in the key constituencies. The trouble is that the Islamists have now made serious inroads into those democratic institutions too.”

Let’s take a closer look at what he argues and what it implies:

1. On the question of “genuine” representation of British Muslims – this is a well touted canard leveled at the MCB to undermine its claim that it is the most representative of Muslim organizations in the UK on account of its affiliate membership. Whether established bodies like MCB, or even the Catholics Bishops Conference or the Board of Deputies of British Jews, are to be considered “representative” of their religious communities is for that community itself to decide.

If British Muslims, in whatever numbers, see the MCB as representative of their views it is not for Martin Bright, or anyone else, to disclaim or dismiss that. As we’ve seen too often in the arguments made by Bright, Paul Goodman and Paul Richards on this issue, Muslims cannot have “genuine representation” but other religious groups can. It is a recipe for ill-treatment of Muslim organizations and an attempt at pure discrimination on engaging with Muslim community groups.

2. Bright claims of the MCB and other Muslim groups that they are “religious reactionaries” who espouse a “totalitarian ideology” in support of a “radical Islamism” and that the new Prevent strategy is to be welcomed for having no truck with such organizations and the “danger” they represent.

Like Melanie Phillips’ list of “extremist Islamist groups,” Bright falsely applies the attributes of the new definition of “extremism” in the revised Prevent strategy to engage in a polemical, and not security-focused, debate.

The definition of extremism in the new strategy is given as follows;

“…vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. We also include in our definition of extremism calls for the death of members of our armed forces, whether in this country or overseas.”

Which of these attributes is it that Bright thinks the MCB and others offer “vocal or active opposition” to? And on what basis does he think it appropriate to make the claim? Do they not support Britishness; advocate participation in the democratic process; observe the rule of law – as applied to individuals and to governments (see numerous examples of state abuse of citizens’ rights); do they hold views intolerant of other faith groups and beliefs; and when have they ever “call[ed] for the death of members of our armed forces, whether in this country or overseas”?

The disingenuousness of people like Martin Bright is a great part of the problem government will face in implementing the new Prevent strategy. If countering those who give “vocal or active opposition to democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs,” will mean dismissing the political beliefs and concerns of British Muslims that run counter to the political interests of other active lobbies, the strategy is not only doomed to failure, it will drive an ever greater wedge between Muslims and others.

It will create a gulf of separation between British Muslims and the rest of society. It will portray all Muslims who don’t fit the Phillips/Bright typology of “moderate Muslims” (and we know just who their “moderates” are) as “extremists” not for their “…vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs” but because their politics differ from the pro-Israeli politics of Bright and Phillips.

3.    Bright claims Labour patronage has given these “Islamists” a head start in the grab for power and influence. A bizarre claim indeed when such organizations have received little or no funding while the likes of the Quilliam Foundation or Sufi Muslim Council has. And it’s not been small change either.

4.    As for the claim that “Islamists have now made serious inroads into those democratic institutions too” – Bright should read more carefully the definition of the term Islamist as contained in the glossary of the strategy document.

The glossary defines “Islamism” as ”a philosophy which, in its broadest sense, promotes the application of Islamic values to modern government. There are no commonly agreed definitions
of ‘Islamism’ and ‘Islamist’, and groups and individuals described as Islamist often have very different aims and views about how those aims might be realised”.

It seems ironic and more than a little hypocritical that on a day when newspapers have reported on the Prime Minister’s reaction to criticisms of Coalition policies by the head of the Anglican Church in the UK, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Martin Bright should speak of Muslims injecting their moral and ethical values into politics as a dangerous thing.

As we’ve already stated, should the new Prevent strategy be trumpeted as a triumph for Michael Gove and lauded by Martin Bright, Dean Godson and Melanie Phillips, the government will have its work cut out for it in assuring British Muslims that “extremism” is not going to be used as a saber to arbitrarily silence politically engaged, politically astute British Muslims who absolutely adhere to “fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.” It will need to address the anxiety that will no doubt arise if the term, as Bright implies, is abused to harangue British Muslims as extremists for that thing that is the very stuff of democracy – politics.