Burkina Faso enlist civilians in fight against Islamic extremism

January 24, 2020 Article

Burkina Faso’s parliament has approved legislation allowing the military to use civilian volunteers in the fight against Islamic extremism.

The decision underscores how outnumbered soldiers are amid rising attacks across the West African country.

The tactic is not without risk.

Burkina Faso’s military has been criticised for killings carried out during its crackdown on extremism, and placing arms in the hands of minimally trained civilians could lead to more allegations of human rights abuses, observers warn.

The country’s defence minister Cheriff Sy said this week that all recruits would undergo two weeks of training, with topics ranging from how to use weapons to matters of discipline.

“It is not a question of making cannon fodder,” he said.

“We want to prevent these volunteers from becoming militias.”

Volunteers must be 18 years old and will undergo a “moral investigation” before being allowed to serve, he said.

Demobilisation bonuses will be provided to each volunteer in an effort to reintegrate them in the future.

Health benefits will be paid to those who are wounded while on duty, he added.

Burkina Faso’s military, despite training and assistance from France and the United States, has struggled to contain the spread of extremism.

Mr Sy said the use of civilian volunteers would allow the military to cast a wider net, acknowledging that: “Yes, we are understaffed.”

For years, Burkina Faso was spared the kind of Islamic extremism that affected neighbouring Niger and Mali, where it took a 2013 French-led military intervention to dislodge jihadists from power in several major towns.

Militants staged a January 2016 attack in Burkina Faso’s capital, Ouagadougou, that killed at least 30 people at a cafe popular with foreigners.

The following year, 18 people were killed at a Turkish restaurant in the capital.

Deaths from attacks have risen dramatically in the last few years, from about 80 in 2016 to over 1,800 in 2019, according to the United Nations.

Burkina Faso’s military has been criticised for committing abuses in the ensuing crackdown.

Human Rights Watch said last year that more than 150 men, mostly ethnic Peuhl herdsmen, had been killed by Burkinabe security forces after being accused of supporting or harbouring extremists.

Such killings by security forces have only increased the ranks of the jihadists, according to activists.

The post Burkina Faso enlist civilians in fight against Islamic extremism appeared first on Faith Matters.

Categories: Burkina Faso, Faso's Military, Islamic extremism, News

Extinction Rebellion is Not an Extremist Group Says Minister

January 23, 2020 Article

Home Office minister Brandon Lewis has said that Extinction Rebellion is “in no way considered an extremist group” after it was listed as a terrorist threat by police.

Mr Lewis said: “We are clear that the right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our just society and an indispensable channel of political and social expression.”

He added: “The police have recalled the guidance and are reviewing it, and I want to reiterate that Extinction Rebellion is in no way considered an extremist group under the 2015 definition of extremism and the Home Secretary has been clear on this point.

“The police have also made clear that they regret any offence caused by using the Ukrainian Tryzub symbol in their internal education document. That document was being used to help frontline officers and staff recognise and understand the wide range of signs and symbols they may come across whilst on duty.

“As the police have said it explicitly states that many of the symbols are not of counter-terrorism interest. Unfortunately far-right groups do have a history of misappropriating national symbols as part of their identity.”

Mr Lewis also said that the Government “sincerely regret any offence caused to the Ukrainian nation or its people”.

The post Extinction Rebellion is Not an Extremist Group Says Minister appeared first on Faith Matters.

Categories: Brandon Lewis, considered an extremist group, Extinction Rebellion, Extremism Group, News

After 15 Years, it is Time to Move on – Fiyaz Mughal

January 16, 2020 Article

After 15 years and founding Faith Matters on the primary basis of building stronger relations between Muslims and Jews, the organisation has developed to provide some of the most innovative and ground-breaking projects around countering extremism and hate crimes. As part of this work, we delivered over 7 years of work on supporting social cohesion, though work on this dropped between 2012-2018 as the Coalition and the successive Government significantly reduced investment in social cohesion work. This was a mistake since it did not provide communities with resilience to challenge the rise of hatred which was at its peak between 2012-2015 and where hate groups had unfettered access to social media platforms, who did not remove content.

I am proud of what I have achieved. Having set up and run Faith Matters, I founded Tell MAMA and went onto develop the annual No2H8 Crime Awards, which are recognised by statutory and civil society bodies. That has become an annual awards ceremony honouring and motivating people to challenge hatred, intolerance and prejudice where they come across it. Furthermore, with Ghanem Nuseibeh, a British Muslim of Palestinian origin, I helped to set up Muslims Against Antisemitism, which seeks to work with Muslim communities to challenge antisemitism where they come across it. Sadly, in some instances, it is rooted within parts of these communities and therefore, Muslims themselves need to challenge it with the relevant information and knowledge that we provide. I will continue to support and advice these organisations and social projects, though after 15 years, Faith Matters needs a new leadership at the helm and such change is necessary for the health and well-being of an organisation.

It has been a roller-coaster of a ride over the last 15 years. Ensuring sustainability, challenging both Islamist and far right extremism and countering the hatred which was targeted at me for setting up Tell MAMA, means that I saw the poisonous changes that were taking place within communities. The rise of social divisions, extremism and hatred were accelerated by social media, but I also saw the kindness, humanity and deep care that many provided to the weakest in society. I am proud of this country, my country and its people and I am also tired of those who seek to ‘do it down’. There is much to be proud of and protect within our society, more importantly our social values and our caring spirit.

I was at the front-line of notifying Government in 2012 as to the rise of the far right and how social media companies were shirking their responsibilities to remove illegal hateful material. In line with this, I notified both the UK Government and the Scottish Parliament about the rise and inter-connectedness of the far right and how their hate would spread and take root if there was no robust mechanism in play. At that time, in England, there was little appetite to do more than suggest that ‘free speech’ and the market of ideas would win out and that in some form, ‘good would triumph over evil’. In Scotland, I received lectures from politicians about Scottish exceptionalism and how extremism could not take root in Scotland as if Hadrian’s wall was a natural barrier against the flow of ideas. That naivety of thinking has led to the current situation where the far right have become emboldened and even tried to move into mainstream politics. The far right’s language around ‘grooming’, ‘migration’, ‘breeding of Muslims’, ‘taqqiyah’ and the ‘takeover of the UK by Muslims’ has struck a cord in some looking to blame someone for the ills in society. Obviously, those that look different and ‘Muslim’ have borne the brunt of their ignorance and anger, including on occasions, members of the British Sikh community.

Which leaves me to say the following. I was part of the initial Working Group to Counter Violent Extremism which the Rt Hon Tony Blair brought together in Windsor, a few months after the murderous 7/7 attacks. I have worked in this area for 15 years, openly challenging Islamist and far right extremism and the previous Coalition Government and the successive Government simply failed to challenge groups fomenting extremist Islamist rhetoric. When asked about what they intended to do around openly challenging such groups, the response from civil servants and Government officials was to cite projects that sought to ‘train women in online extremism’, which was laudable, but hardy supporting those voices openly calling out and challenging Islamist extremist groups. To make matters worse, departments funded organisations ‘developing networks’ led by non-Muslims, talking about challenging far right extremism, whilst seeking to look the other way around countering Islamist extremism, since it was easier for them. The resources provided to them was to challenge all forms of extremism, including Islamist extremism.

To those people, I say, you have wasted resources that British Muslims could have used to challenge the small section of their co-religionists; Muslims taking the ideological fight to others who sought to divide communities and turn some people against the State and the social values that make up our society. No longer can Islamist extremism be overlooked since it is expedient to do so and our country deserves better.

On a final note, I have repeatedly called for tougher measures to be taken against these groups fomenting extremism whilst using the language of human rights as cover for their actions. They poisoned some sections of my co-religionists to the point that they think that the State is their ‘enemy’ and by facilitating the easy and lazy position of looking at their identity solely through the prism of victimisation. With this in mind, I commend the work of the Commission for Countering Extremism and its lead Commissioner, Sara Khan, for having the tenacity and the guts to call out such groups and to provide the evidence around their toxic hate and divisiveness. The Commission has also called for practitioners to be supported who are targeted by hate by such divisive groups. Again, the hand-wringing and inability of Government to defend their very own projects and practitioners delivering them is a stain on them and totally unacceptable. It is time that Government to grow a spine in vocally supporting its practitioners, who put themselves on the line for our country.

I will be taking the time to look at what I do and where I go now. It is essential to review my direction of travel and to focus on people and the goodness around us. I leave behind a team who are committed, dedicated and driven. In the end, we must always remember that there are more good people, than divisive extremists. But maintaining that, needs consistent work and a bold Government. If anything, this election gives this Government a mandate to be bold. Let us hope they are not meek in challenging those who seek to weaken us from within.

The post After 15 Years, it is Time to Move on – Fiyaz Mughal appeared first on Faith Matters.

Categories: Faith Matters, Islamist and far right extremism, Opinions

Money Flows Funding Non-Violent Extremism Need to Be Investigated

January 15, 2020 Article

Tackling non-violent and violent extremism involves community engagement work and due diligence capabilities and interventions from security services. It also involves community based projects which upskill the knowledge based of parents and young people, provide some theological challenge and practical pastoral care to individuals. Just some of the ways to counter extremism.

Yet, as we have mentioned time and time again, where is the financing of such groups coming from? Who are the key individuals, trusts or governmental funders of such groups in the U.K? Who are the front companies and organisations that are the shells for ‘washing’ the origins of the sources as they enter the U.K? These are key questions that we have raised and which no counter-extremism organisation has delved into.

We have raised these questions before with ministers and with organisational partners challenging extremism. Yet, many counter-extremism organisations are only comfortable ‘developing networks’, talking shops which they promote as key work to tackle extremism. Very few of the network partners are willing to openly challenge extremism, taking the easy route of working under the parapet, co-ordinating further meetings and re-creating the veneer of important work.

12 years on from the introduction of the Countering Violent Extremism policy under the then Labour Government, civil society groups working with Government have been unwilling or unable to close down the channels of financing of extremist groups. Yet, the reality is that unless this work is done, toxic financing will continue to spread divisive extremist rhetoric into our communities and society.

It is time that cross-governmental agencies, from the Treasury, Inland Revenue, Home Office and MHCLG work with civil society groups who are willing and potentially able to expand this scope of work. Without this essential work, we will always remain behind the curve.

The post Money Flows Funding Non-Violent Extremism Need to Be Investigated appeared first on Faith Matters.

Categories: civil society, Community groups, Funding, Money, Opinions, violent extremism

New law to tackle terrorist propaganda considered by Government

January 15, 2020 Article

The Government is considering introducing a new law to tackle terrorist propaganda in the wake of the 2017 London Bridge terror attack.

Chief Coroner Mark Lucraft QC identified a potential gap in legislation following inquests into the deaths of the eight people killed in the June 3 atrocity and their attackers.

Ringleader Khuram Butt, 27, had looked at extremist material online, including propaganda from the so-called Islamic State, violent images and sermons from extremist preachers.

The coroner said current legislation means it may be impossible for police or MI5 to act against fanatics even when “the material is of the most offensive and shocking character”.

And he suggested a new law could be introduced to tackle possession of the “most serious material glorifying or encouraging terrorism,” in a preventing future deaths report.

Responding on Tuesday, Home Secretary Priti Patel said: “The Government accepts this recommendation and is currently considering the necessity for a further offence of possessing the most serious extremist material which glorifies or encourages terrorism.”

Mr Lucraft suggested extremist material could be criminalised in the same way as the most offensive pornography.

Ms Patel said talks are ongoing between the Home Office and counter-terrorism police “as to whether there is a gap in the current legislation”.

“Our operational partners must have the tools and powers they require to tackle terrorism,” she said.

“The Government notes the Chief Coroner’s comments regarding the evidence at the inquests, the existence of the offence for a person in possession of a prohibited image of a child, and the perception that the lack of a comparative counter-terrorism offence may sometimes prevent counter terrorism policing from taking disruptive action.”

Eight people were killed and 48 others seriously injured when terrorists used a hired van to plough into pedestrians on London Bridge before attacking people at random around Borough Market on June 3 2017.

Butt, Rachid Redouane, 30, and Youssef Zaghba, 22, were lawfully killed after they were shot dead by armed police, an inquest jury found.

A separate inquest concluded that Xavier Thomas, 45, Chrissy Archibald, 30, Sara Zelenak, 21, James McMullan, 32, Kirsty Boden, 28, Alexandre Pigeard, 26, Sebastien Belanger, 36, and Ignacio Echeverria, 39, were unlawfully killed.

The coroner identified 18 “matters for concern” in a report published in November and told those responsible to address the issues.

But Patrick Maguire, an injury lawyer from Slater and Gordon, which represents the family of Mr Thomas and some of the surviving victims, said the recommendations came too late for those maimed and killed.

“The coroner’s report, and subsequent responses, reinforce my clients’ view there were a litany of unforgivable mistakes and missed opportunities by authorities which contributed to the death toll,” he said.

“It is troubling that many of the common sense improvements in authorities’ systems, procedures and protocols had to follow such a devastating loss of life.

“My clients hope these undertakings and commitments to improve are implemented faithfully and quickly.”

The inquest heard that police and MI5 did not recognise the threat posed by Butt, despite his association with Islamic State fanatic Anjem Choudary and an appearance in the documentary The Jihadi Next Door.

He was a subject of interest in an active MI5 investigation at the time of the attack.

But the probe was twice suspended due to pressure on resources and the authorities did not pass on tip-offs about his extremism, including one from a family member.

MI5 accepted, in its response to Mr Lucraft’s report, that the suspension of priority investigations was a “matter of legitimate concern” but insisted the decisions in Butt’s case “were sound”.

The security service said it had “reviewed and refined” its processes since 2017 but rejected the coroner’s suggestion that investigations could be scaled back rather than halted at times of high demand.

MI5 said: “In light of the flexibility within the suspension process and open investigations, the security service concludes that a new category of scaled back investigation is not required at this point and would not achieve the important aim of properly diverting specialist resource to those investigations deemed to be of the highest priority at the time in order to minimise the risk from attack plans judged to be imminent or which are deemed on the information available to pose the greatest threat to the public.”

The coroner also said action should be taken to reduce the risk of rented vehicles being used in terror attacks, which could include automated checking of rentals against lists of SOIs.

But trade body the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (BVRLA), said the cost of real-time reporting needs to be considered, while the Government said there were “considerable challenges” to implementing such a scheme.

Jennifer Buchanan, a solicitor at law firm Field Fisher representing the family of Ms Archibald, who was killed when she was hit by the rented van, said: “It is encouraging that the BVRLA is taking steps to reinforce a culture of awareness among its members.

“We are concerned, however, that cost has been raised as a possible deterrent to implementing a formal system and also that there is not active consideration to introduce legislation to enforce real-time reporting.

“We hope this does not delay the introduction of vital measures to deter terrorists from being able to use vehicles as weapons which must be a priority.”

But Patrick Maguire, an injury lawyer from Slater and Gordon, which represents some of the victims, said the recommendations came too late for those injured and killed.

“It is troubling that many of common sense improvements in authorities’ systems, procedures and protocols had to follow such a devastating loss of life.

“My clients hope these undertakings and commitments to improve are implemented faithfully and quickly.”

The post New law to tackle terrorist propaganda considered by Government appeared first on Faith Matters.

Categories: Khuram Butt, London Bridge Attack, News, Terrorist propaganda

Police officer who laughed with bystanders at Hitler lookalike may face action

January 13, 2020 Article

German police have said they are considering disciplinary proceedings against an officer who failed to step in when an Adolf Hitler lookalike showed up at a motorbike meeting in the eastern state of Saxony.

State police said the incident is being investigated because the man dressed as the Nazi leader – sitting in a Wehrmacht-style sidecar – may have broken German laws on the use of illegal symbols.

A video posted on social media shows laughing bystanders, including an officer in a police van, photographing the biker and his pencil-moustached passenger.

In a post on Twitter, Saxony’s governor Michael Kretschmer said “the appearance as a mass murderer is more than tasteless”.

Mr Kretschmer said he hoped the biker meeting in Augustusburg, near the eastern city of Chemnitz, would take place again next year but that “first it needs to be clear: such behaviour is unacceptable and won’t happen again”.

Authorities in Saxony have struggled to combat the state’s image as a hive of neo-Nazi activity.

The far-right Alternative for Germany party received more than a quarter of the vote in state elections there last year.

The post Police officer who laughed with bystanders at Hitler lookalike may face action appeared first on Faith Matters.

Categories: Adolf Hitler, Alternative for Germany, German Police, News, Saxony

All Faith Delegation Considers Going to Iran

January 13, 2020 Article

Labour’s Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) raised the idea of a possible all-faith delegation, saying: “If we want peace we have got to carry on speaking to the Iranians, and all of us who’ve been campaigning for the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the other prisoners held, believe that perhaps speaking at a level of faith, an all-faith delegation going to Iran at the present time to speak to the faith leaders in Iran might actually… would he support that sort of delegation visiting Iran?”

Mr Sheerman said he had spoken to the Archbishop of Canterbury and it could take place.

Mr Raab said: “We need to keep the diplomatic lines of communication open… I sympathise very much with the spirit of the idea of an all-faith diplomatic initiative. I think right at the moment he will have seen that we advise through our Foreign Office travel advice against travel to Iran and I think for the moment that’s probably the safest bet.”

Tory Tom Tugendhat, foreign affairs committee chairman in the last parliament, said: “Reaching out through friends in the region… would be a good avenue for making sure that Iran, not only comes back into the fold and frees people from this awful tyranny, but perhaps also gives up the policy of hostage taking that has not just taken Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe away from her daughter, but many, many others and their families too.”

The post All Faith Delegation Considers Going to Iran appeared first on Faith Matters.

Categories: Archbishop of Canterbury, Barry Sheerman, Iran, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, News

Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Belief? – What Really Matters in the case of Netflix Messiah!

December 25, 2019 Article

“Freedom of speech is applied equally to everyone, but it seems not everyone is in favour of it being applied equally. This is no more true for Messiah than it is for anything else.”

Background

The Metro newspaper ran a story of how the latest Netflix show Messiah has sparked demands for it to be banned as it is “anti-Islamic” and “blasphemous”. The petition calling for the ban was started by Zeynaba Dahir and has gained nearly 4,000 signatures within three weeks. A quick scan of those that have signed the petition shows that it is prima facie both Muslims and Christians that are in support of not only the ban, but boycotting Netflix, should it go ahead and air the show.

Messiah is set in the present day and is focused on a man that first appears in the Middle East. He is able to perform miracles and rapidly gains a growing following as a result. He is presented as the eschatological return of Isa (Jesus) or Mahdi. A CIA agent is then sent to uncover if he is the real thing or just a fraud.

Freedom of Belief

The calls to ban this show seem bizarre to me, it seems and it is difficult to argue against, that the protection of religion is the primary factor driving the petition. Looking at some of the comments, many have stated, that it is disrespectful to their religious beliefs and that it is disrespectful to both Islam and Christianity, given that they both accept Jesus, albeit with different roles.

However, as disrespectful as it may be, it is not an infringement on their beliefs. The show may not accord with what they accept, but it does not prevent them from exercising their own beliefs. Both Muslims and Christians are free to be critical of the show, the storyline and exercise their freedom to call for its ban, but that’s it. That’s all they can do really. It ‘s a show that they have not watched, but one in which they have already concluded that they do not like it, because they presume it disrespects their religion. But even if it does, so what?

Given that many of those complaining about the show have called it blasphemous, only goes to highlight the issue. Blasphemy is not a crime in the U.K. (thank God) and nor should it ever be. We would get nowhere if we were to ban everything that upset everyone, especially when it does not contravene the law. The fact that there are calls to ban the show only goes to show that we as a society, at least some parts of it, are progressing by regressing. We are turning back the clocks to a time when blasphemy would lead to the death penalty, though in this instance, it would lead to economic sanctions, e.g. boycotting Netflix.

In countries where there are literally blasphemy laws, we have seen the devastation it has caused. For example, take the case in Pakistan of Asia Bibi. She was accused of blasphemy, sentenced to death by hanging and then acquitted due to insufficient evidence. However, she was not able to leave Pakistan until a review had been completed. Thankfully, she has now arrived in Canada after being given asylum. More recently, we have seen another case in Pakistan of academic Junaid Hafeez. Accused of posting derogatory comments on social media about the Prophet Muhammed and he is now facing the death penalty as a result. Of course, what I am certainly not saying here is that the same thing will happen in the U.K., rather I am highlighting the places that do take blasphemy so seriously, that it is part of their law and what happens as a result. Presumably, those signing the petition, are not in favour of the death penalty and would condemn it with the same furore that they are condemning Messiah? I hope so!

Freedom of Speech

What we enjoy in the West, far more so than in other parts of the world is freedom of speech. It is a right that many would die and have died to have. Not only do we have it, but it is also part of our constitutional law protected by human rights. Our freedom of speech allows us to be as respectful or disrespectful as we like, provided we do not incite hatred or violence. So to look at the case of Messiah, I am unclear how the incitement of hate or violence is applicable unless it was directed at religion?

Inciting hate against religion is really a non-issue because religion is not protected by the law, however, people of religious beliefs are. Even then, to claim that Messiah incites hatred, via the backdoor, towards individuals, is a tenuous claim- because to do so, would be to claim that both individuals and religions cannot be separated. This is false because a person can choose to enter and leave religion as they wish, whereas the same isn’t true for race or ethnicity, e.g. Asian, Black, Jewish etc…

Freedom of speech also gives people of religions, in this instance Muslims and Christians, the right to propagate their religion as they please, so long as it does not contravene the law. Freedom of speech is applied equally to everyone, but it seems not everyone is in favour of it being applied equally. This is no more true for Messiah than it is for anything else. The sheer hypocrisy from those signing this petition under the freedom to do so, are also the same ones not wanting Netflix to have the same freedom to put on Messiah. If Muslims and Christians are allowed to propagate their religion, then why can’t others do the same for their own beliefs, be they religious or not? This is the tension we are faced with- who’s right trumps whose?

The Law

The law is clear on this matter, the right to freedom of expression is ultimate. It does not discriminate between the two parties here, the religious and the producers of Messiah. To quote at length, Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 states the following:

“Freedom of expression

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Not only prima facie, but also on closer observation of the above legislation, I find it difficult how those signing the petition would apply this to their campaign. The show is innocuous, in the sense that it does not promote or incite violence or hate, but rather just tells the story of a religious character with a modern interpretation of it. Those that are offended by this, have the right to be offended, but in my view, their right of offence does not trump the right of the producers’ freedom of expression. It is probably why Zeynaba Dahir hasn’t yet sought to take this matter to court, because the merits of such a case appear to be non-existent. Thus- her only option is to apply economic sanctions via a boycott of Netflix.

Concluding Thoughts

The petition by Zeynaba Dahir, supported by many Muslims and Christians is a moral campaign, one which does not appear to have the merits to stand up in a court of law. So instead of taking it to court and probably losing, economic sanctions are therefore the next steps to prevent this innocuous program from airing. Fortunately for Netflix, their revenue stream is so large that this petition may not gain the publicity and support it requires to any meaningful impact.

But it is for us, both secular, religious and non-religious people to stand up against this moral posturing against a perfectly legitimate show in the name of freedom of expression because to not do so, would be to give in to the madness of group morality that is not in tune with the rest of modern society.

But I must conclude with this, a point that I think Zeynaba Dahir et al must consider carefully as they stridently push through with their “moral” campaign. Both their beliefs of Jesus are at odds with each other, blasphemous one would say, so why aren’t they proposing a ban on each others religion? The reason why they are not is because they are not willing to confront this reality with the same veracity as they are with this campaign. It is because it is a fight they are not willing to engage in because the odds appear less favourable than if they were going against Netflix. So instead they are happy to work together to defeat a common enemy, i.e. the producers of Messiah. In other words, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The views in this article do not necessarily represent the views of Faith Matters. The author of the article, Wasiq, can be found on Twitter @WasiqUK

The post Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Belief? – What Really Matters in the case of Netflix Messiah! appeared first on Faith Matters.

Categories: Freedom of Belief, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, Messiah, Netflix, Opinions, Zeynaba Dahir

The Queen’s Speech: Counter-Terrorism – The Implications

December 23, 2019 Article

The Conservative Government led by PM Boris Johnson with a majority of 80 have set out their legislative plan for the year in the Queen’s Speech. Amongst some of the most pressing matters the Government is expected to deal with, it is no surprise that terrorism is prominently featured.

With the recent London Bridge terrorist attack by Usman Khan, both the public and the authorities are rightly gathering their thoughts about how we deal with terrorists. The Queen sets out the Government’s position in this regard: “New sentencing laws will ensure the most serious violent offenders, including terrorists, serve longer in custody.”

Prima facie, it appears the Government are legislating in response to one event, rather than taking a long term and considered approach to terrorists. However, it is probably worth looking at what the proposals and implications are, before arriving at a conclusion as to how strong this move forward is.

The foundational thesis of the Counter Terrorism (Sentencing and Release) Bill (p, 64) is that the most serious terrorist offenders will stay in prison for longer. This is, of course, a move that will win a lot of public support, particularly from those that see it as the Government’s business to do whatever is needed to keep the public safe. However, there will be those that oppose this as a draconian measure, which infringes the human rights of terrorists in our system.

In an article about terrorists in prison I wrote for Kootneeti, I made the point that although we have policy measures in place to deal with terrorists in prison, neither of them are the most ideal; this is in reference to Usman Khan et al gaming the system. I further advance my argument that, unless we have qualified individuals with the knowledge, skills and dispositions to deal with radical terrorists, then our efforts may be fruitless.

Containing terrorist prisoners from the public may eliminate a direct threat by them because it reduces a very real physical threat they pose, but it doesn’t prevent copy cat or lone actors from carrying out their own or revenge attacks. In fact, it doesn’t eliminate terrorism at all.

The implication of this legislation, though well-intentioned, is that we may move towards a system of indeterminate sentences with little to no chance of release because we have no way out. This is a worrying aspect that needs to be considered. Prisons currently do not enjoy the luxury of unlimited prison spaces, this is backed by a report from the Howard League for Penal Reform in which it claims that 18,000 prisoners are living in cells designed for much fewer numbers.

The Prison Reform Trust, in their report Prison: the facts; reveal an alarming statistic in regards to safety in prisons. For example, over the last seven years from 2018, the deterioration of safety has declined rapidly. Of the 317 deaths that occurred in prison, 87 of them were self-inflicted, with men counting as 83 and women 4. The manner of deaths includes self-inflicted, natural causes and others.

In addition, the Prison Reform Trust also looked at rehabilitation and resettlement. In their analysis, they found that re-offending rates remained high and that short prison sentences were less effective. Less than half of those prisoners involved, 43%, received a positive rating for purposeful activities, such as education and work. This, of course, sends the message that whilst prisons are doing a lot to manage inmates, positive results are unfortunately not yielded and something the Government must look at in tandem with longer prison sentences.

Where does all this leave us with longer sentences for the most serious crimes? It leaves us nowhere closer to managing the problem of foreign and homegrown terrorists. Prison is a tool to be used once someone has been convicted and sentenced, therefore on the most basic level, it doesn’t serve as a deterrent. More effort, funding and resources must be put into preventing such crimes from even taking place. It is inevitable that some will slip through the net, but this shouldn’t be our reason not to focus our attention on that.

This latest measure the Government have proposed appears to be nothing but a message of reassurance for the public. With safety concerns heightened in the current climate, the Government are rightfully looking at ways to ensure the public have confidence in them dealing with the most serious offenders. But, terrorism cannot be locked away. It is a recurring phenomenon and one in which we need to deal with more intelligently. With this in mind, I am reminded of the cliche of “prevention is better than cure.” However, a prison in and of itself is no cure, at least not for many given that re-offending rates remain high. So our efforts should not only be on how we prevent crimes from taking place but also how we rehabilitate those in our prisons from not re-offending again- especially if the Government push through with this Bill.

The views in this article do not necessarily represent the views of Faith Matters. The author of the article, Wasiq, can be found on Twitter @WasiqUK

The post The Queen’s Speech: Counter-Terrorism – The Implications appeared first on Faith Matters.

Categories: Conservative Government, Opinions, Prison Reform Trust, Re-offending, terrorism, Usman Khan

MURAL – Mutual Understanding, Respect and Learning

December 20, 2019 Article

MURAL – Mutual Understanding, Respect and Learning is an international project that brings together six partners from across the EU – Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and the United Kingdom. It is led by the British Council, with participating organisations selected based on their commitment to supporting dialogue and exchange of best practice to foster tolerance and mutual respect. MURAL is co-founded by the European Commission under the Rights, Equality and Citizenship programme.

MURAL aims to address the increase in anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim sentiments in Europe by supporting tolerance and respect for different faiths, religious beliefs and ethnicities. The project promotes the principles of pluralistic and democratic societies. It aims to foster transnational cooperation, exchange of knowledge and exchange of best practice to encourage tolerance and counter attitudes that contribute towards acts of hatred and discrimination. This will be achieved as follows:

Increased tolerance and understanding of how to promote inclusion by developing a cohort of social activists committed to improving dialogue, mutual respect and valuing different perspectives
An empowered network of social activists and key stakeholders, who will be agents of positive change in their communities
Promotion of transnational learning on themes, approaches and actions to countering discrimination and promoting inclusion.

MURAL will harness people’s power for advocacy and their desire for social change to creatively engage communities. Working with local activists and leaders will enable us to build continuity and sustainability into the programme, as they will carry their knowledge and commitment to addressing religious discrimination into their careers.

Some of the MURAL social action projects led by Faith Matters’ participants were around improving critical thinking and social media literacy skills that can help counter extremist, hateful, and racist narratives online, assist in identifying bots and cyborgs, and provide practical ways to resist and counter extremist narratives. Others included toolkits to provuided legal information around discrimination and hate crimes.

MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING, RESPECT AND LEARNING PROJECT (MURAL) AND THIS WEBSITE HAVE BEEN FUNDED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION’S RIGHTS, EQUALITY AND CITIZENSHIP PROGRAMME (2014-2020). THE CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND CAN IN NO WAY BE TAKEN TO REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION.

The post MURAL – Mutual Understanding, Respect and Learning appeared first on Faith Matters.

Categories: Home Projects