Introduction
The Community Safety Forum (CSF) is an independent voluntary organisation based in Manchester and its main objectives are to support the Muslim community of the North West within key areas that adversely impact them, including but not limited to hate crime and counter terrorism.
Terrorism is a worldwide problem and although Muslims are the largest victims, they also have their share of perpetrators. CSF fully accepts the need to have a strategy or strategies in place to deal with the threats posed by terrorism and counter terrorism measures.
The Muslim community is very diverse and there is little doubt that the two key issues impacting the daily lives of Muslims in the UK revolve around Islamophobia and Counter Terrorism.
The threat from Terrorism cannot be under played and recent examples of UK and EU citizens travelling to Syria and battle zones cannot be under stated. Although the numbers are relatively small, some 700 out of a population of 2.7 to 3 million which equates to around 0.028%, we should not under estimate the dangers posed by this small proportion.
Inconsistencies have been highlighted in how we deal with British nationals partaking in international conflicts e.g. Support for Kurdish rebels, people travelling to serve in armies of dual nationalities e.g. Israel. This sends confusing and inconsistent messages to our communities.
The Muslim community do not see terrorism as just a ‘Muslim issue’ and they are frustrated that the perception seems to be that they are the problem but are rarely consulted on any potential solutions. The CSF continues to challenge and deal with these frustrations by ensuring that the Muslim Community looks at engagement rather than isolation. We feel that this vital in ensuring that the level and threat of any vulnerability is reduced.
Counter Terrorism
● Islamophobia covers not just the daily hate and abuse suffered by many Muslims, but discrimination, prejudice, as well as their political and social exclusion. Baroness Warsi whilst Chair of the Conservative party indicated that Islamophobia had passed the “Dinner Table Test”. A sad testament to the hate that has penetrated into the wider society.
● Counter Terrorism under the guise of CONTEST has impacted on the daily lives of Muslims and out of the four P’s, PREVENT has had a significant impact.
● The key focus of PREVENT has moved from Terrorism to Extremism and from radicalisation to non-violent extremism. “British values” have also having been introduced as a key indicator and base line for any assessment of individual’s extremism/radicalisation.
● Many have challenged the effectiveness of PREVENT and its focus.
● There are voices of concern cover a wide spectrum, from Eliza Manningham Buller, Dal Babu ex commander of MPS, Academics such as Peter Neumann, Arun Khundani and even Home Affairs Committees (Dr Phyllis Starkey report 2010, Home Affairs Committee report 2012), MI5 own report in 2008 and Roots of Radicalisation Report 2012. These are just some of the few credible voices cited.
● To date there has been no real definition of extremism, radicalisation or British values. This is core to having a real understanding of what the problem is, hence impact on any delivery and effectiveness maybe comprised. Police officers are attuned to being led by legal definitions to ensure any criminality or breach of law is fully understood and defined.
● The UK has various threats from counter terrorism, IRA, Real IRA, Single entity, so called Islamist (Al Qaeda/ISIS and the Far Right).
● So called Islamist terrorism is one of the current prevalent and credible threats amongst others but most if not all the efforts of government and the security services are focused on Islamists threat.
● The threat in Northern Ireland also remains severe.
● The PREVENT agenda is based on the conveyor belt theory and at its core is non-violent extremism being the root cause.
● Radicalisation is a highly complex process. Currently, there is no toolkit or an academic model of radicalisation that can cover the diverse nature of what “radicalises”. There is now over a decade’s worth of experience and research available. Therefore it is vital that we adopt a problem solving approach in tackling this threat.
● Indeed the analysis of so called terrorists arrested or killed shows no ethnic profile nor does it highlight key socio- or cultural trends.
● Islam as a Religion of perpetrators may be common but evidence has shown on many occasions that ISLAM is not the driver. MI5 own report of 2008 is a key piece of research which is also reflected in the extract from Guardian article dated 20 Aug 2008:
● Research of those arrested also shows that these individuals, whilst claiming to be Muslim are in fact “DIY Muslims”, with little understanding of their faith.
● It has been muted that PREVENT needs to be abandoned due to its toxicity and non-evidence based approach.
• Others such as Quilliam and Inspire along with the Henry Jackson Society have been consistent in their theology led and conveyor belt theory. The Government has bought into this over a period of time and failed to look at the counter narrative for a variety of reasons, however this is not to say that the government need not engage with them.
● A 2010 study conducted by Jamie Bartlett and Demos think-tank, looked at the difference between violent and non-violent radicals – a distinction that is routinely blurred in the official narrative and yet is crucial to any effective counter-terrorism policy-making. The study compared the cases of 58 individual terrorists in Europe and Canada with 28 individual radicals not involved in terrorism. It found that “al-Qaeda inspired terrorism in the West shares much in common with other counter-cultural, subversive groups of predominantly angry young men”.
From this perspective, specific kinds of extremist ideology associated with Islamism appear incidental rather than essential to the turn to violence. Having a belief in “extremist” Islam, however defined, does not correlate with involvement in terrorism. There are many good reasons for objecting to reactionary interpretations of religion but the idea that religious ideology mechanically causes terrorism is not one of them.
This is derived from sources outlined before, whilst in no way a comprehensive list but it is based on research:
● Foreign policy - the Middle East is a very unstable area and the impact of Afghanistan, Iraq, Gaza and Israel has long been muted as a driver. This has been made clear on occasions by the terrorists themselves who have our (UK) inconsistent policy with their actions.
● Discrimination - Muslims are the most discriminated group in the UK in terms employment e.g. Bristol University report 2013 shows Muslim males are 75% less likely to get a job as their white counterpart and Muslim women 65%. This is not new; other evidence shows this to be Europe wide.
● Alienation - the 2001 Race riots showed the level of discontent and disconnect by some white and Muslim youth. Again direct evidence showed they felt a strong disconnection with the wider society and the political structure of our country (Guardian 8 July 2001).
● "Them and Us" the far right and Muslim radicals/extremist amplify this divide and their language is based around creating divide between communities. Some politicians have not helped matters and may have added credibility to this area (BBC News 2 June 2004).
● Sir Alan Duncan, who served as International Development Minister between 2010-2014 under the PM Cameron, was quoted. (Huffington Post 2015) as saying,
"There are now nearly three million Muslims in the UK, getting on for nearly 5% of our population. I feel forced to admit that, politically, I think they receive less attention and enjoy less understanding than they deserve. We should make it clear, as we approach the general election, and indeed at all times, that our own Muslims matter."
● Criminality - upon looking at 9/11 killers and some of the others, there is a trace or connection with criminality/gang cultures as outlined in the MI5 report previously mentioned.
● Islamophobia - the fastest growing hate crime in Europe and UK. Following the murder of Lee Rigby some 25 Mosques were attacked, some bombed and some arson attacked. Recently a Mosque in Finsbury Park and also Scotland were subject to arson attacks. There have been two murders of elderly Muslim men based on hate. Clearly the lack of a strategy and priority of this by government is not helping the matter.
● Whilst Islamophobia has consistently risen, reports following Paris Terror Attacks of November 2015 in the Independent stated a 300 % rise. Extract from this article,
“The vast and overwhelming majority of the victims are visible Muslim women between the ages of 14-45,” the report states. “This is concerning since the cases show those women who wear the hijab are the ones being targeted for general abuse and threats.
● Internet and Social Media - these have long been muted and shown to be areas where some feel safe to mingle and espouse extreme views and engage with other like-minded individuals.
● Mentors/Hate Preachers - key areas again and these have appeared in various reports as drivers.
The Hate preachers tend to come from abroad and are more accessible via the worldwide net.
● Some would argue that policies or rather some policies of our government could be counterproductive and we refer to reports where some have been allegedly threatened to cooperate with intelligence services or face sanctions. One of Drummer Rigby’s murderers spoke of this very issue and how he previously was a target of the intelligence services recruitment focus.
● Inequality of system - the Criminal Justice system report 2013 showed that Black, Minority and Muslims are discriminated by the CJS. The report in the Daily Mail dated 23 November 2013 made an allegation that some judges were racists; a very strong statement and surprisingly made by the Daily Mail.
● Media also allegedly plays a role as a possible driver and the media is constantly making reference to the faith of a Muslim involved in any crime or act of Terrorism, regardless of whether the faith played any part in the perpetrator’s actions or not ; which contributes further to the a feeling of ‘Them and us’. For Muslim offenders there is a lack of evidence to show that the religion is responsible for the crime or drives it.
● A recent report by Prof Atran (Oxford University) looked at ISIS specific extremists and indicated that over 75% are radicalised by friends and 20% by family (Daily Mail 15 November 2015).
● Atran told a meeting held organized by the U.N. Security Council's counter-terrorism committee that "it is the call to glory and adventure that moves these young people to join the Islamic State" and that "jihad offers them a way to become heroes."
● Research shows that Mosques, Madrassas and Universities are not areas where radicalisation occurs, yet the government and organizations supporting government’s strategy keep referring to reforms, controls and work in these arenas.
● Engaging with Muslim community organizations, with grass roots links, but this may involve speaking with some that the government may find distasteful.
● Consider a community led review with serious consideration being given to abandon PREVENT and look to a problem solving and focused strategy. It must be independent and non-partisan, with credible individuals but must not be parliament or government based.
● Look at real drivers (frustrations within the community) based on research and have strategies to embed these on a long term based policy/strategy e.g. Islamophobia, ‘them and us’, discrimination, commonality etc.
● Dealing with the frustrations at an early stage to engage and debate with groups to reduce vulnerability. Ensure frustrations are channelled positively into the local and national debate via appropriate bodies, e.g. police, Local Authority, national committees etc.
● The threat should not be seen as a Muslim only issue and we must not expect the Muslim community to solve the ills of society.
● Consultation with Muslim communities that have grass roots connection. Partnership will help a buy in by communities rather than strategies that are imposed with no real consultation.
● Islam should not be seen as a problem but a potential strategy to the solution.
● More work must be done to ensure that the counter-narrative is seen as coming from a variety of credible voices rather than the select groups and government.
● Civil society, the Muslim community, private sector and members of the media and social media all have a responsibility to ensure that individuals at risk of radicalisation are being given the right preventative tools and counter information.
● We, as a society, cannot dictate how and what people should think but we can provide a strong alternative which challenges the extremist messaging and celebrates the freedoms we enjoy in the UK.
● We must celebrate Muslims as being citizens and raise the awareness of Muslims contributions to the UK, e.g. contributions to the two world wars, which is sadly almost unknown in all communities.
● The ideology of Islamic extremists provides an alternative vision of living for young British Muslims in particular, projected as it is through the prism of religion. We must empower young Muslims and scholars to challenge these independently without being directly linked to government.
● The ‘them and us’ ideology needs to be tackled by all and not just a few. Politicians, media and mainstream communities must be partners in challenging this separation from mainstream British society.
● The UK media and its partners have a responsibility to ensure that commentary and reporting on world events and domestic extremism do not perpetuate the perception amongst British Muslims that they are unwelcome in the UK.
● Civil society and the private sector should come together to support projects which emphasise the contribution that Islam has made in the UK.
● The 1001 Inventions - Discover the Muslim Heritage in Our World exhibition, which raises awareness of the creative golden age of Muslim civilisation that stretched from Spain to China, is an excellent example.
● The narrative of discovering the cultural history of science has proved to be successful in helping under-represented groups, especially Muslim communities, engage with the societies they live in.
● There is a significant network of Muslims in the UK who are actively participating in UK society and making a contribution.
● Government, civil society and the private sector should provide Muslims with a platform on which they are able to provide a clear alternative to extremist propaganda.
● There are a number of Muslim led organisations which have credibility amongst their communities but they lack resources, communications skills and the experience needed to make an impact. These organisations must be supported; the vast sums of money spent annually on PREVENT should be channelled with outcomes in mind.
● A transparent review of projects funded by PREVENT, with any outcomes to highlight best practice.
● By empowering the Muslim community we can directly counter the damaging interpretation of Islam which ISIS disseminates.
● Supporting the community in the journey of developing new and young British born Imams who can deliver Islam in a more meaningful way.
● Support the community in identifying role models as well as open and free spaces where debate and challenges can take place without fear of criminalisation.
● A review of all so called hate and banned speakers, with an independent review based on real evidence and corroborated intelligence. There must also be a transparent appeal process that is dealt with by the independent panel that must contain some police and judicial process.
● List of banned speakers, banned books, websites and materials must be available openly so that it does not lead to innocent or coerced entrapment.
● Consistency in the judicial process of all forms of terrorism and sentencing. There cannot be
divide which is focused on just Muslims e.g. right wing individuals with the capability and intent such as McGarry need to be charged under terrorism laws and given an appropriate sentence, based on precedents set.
● Consider a community led independent review of PREVENT and some CT matters e.g. S7.
● Look at real drivers (frustrations from within the community) based on research and have strategies for them.
● Deal with the frustrations at an early stage to engage and debate with groups to reduce vulnerability.
● The threat should not be seen as a Muslim only issue.
● Islam should not be seen as a problem but a potential strategy to the solution.
● More work must be done to ensure a viable counter-narrative.
● Support the community in identifying role models and open and free spaces.
● An Independent review process of all so called hate and banned speakers.
● Transparent list of banned speakers, banned books, websites and materials.
● Consistency in the judicial process of all forms of terrorism and sentencing.
● The ‘Them and us’ ideology needs to be tackled and broken by all not just a few and politicians as well as the media must play their part.
● Acknowledge and promote commonality of Abrahamic faiths and contributions of Muslims.
● Consistent application with reference to the standards of Freedoms especially speech.
● Better representation of Muslims in counter terrorism command, police, home office and local government as under representation is unhelpful.
● Acknowledge the positive work being done by Muslim individuals and organisations.
In short, we conclude that not only should we promote Muslims as being part of our modern society we must actively support this concept, rather than giving it lip service. Referring to the comments of Baroness Warsi, we must ensure that ‘Muslims are part of the team’.