Anti Terrorism laws, Briefings, IHRC at UN, Islamophobia, Minority rights, Prevent, Prevent, Shrinking Spaces, UN Report Submissions

Impact of national counter-terrorism or P/CVE laws, policies, or practices on civil society and constituencies.

29 December 2022

As part of its submission to the office of the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, IHRC has compiled this briefing regarding some of the impacts of such laws and policies in the UK, and how the revolving door between government and its agencies and institutions, mainstream media and think tanks, creates a toxic and dangerous environment for CSOs.

In the UK which often leads the world in counter-terror policy an expanded definition of extremism adopted by the government in the Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015 pulled in opposition to so-called Fundamental British Values as a signifier of extremism. The Prevent strategy criminalised “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.” The definition homed in on the pre-crime space, and the non-violent sphere of vocal opposition to FBV, and non-violent views the government defines as extremist. These views are not defined by the police, government, or other state institutions, but it has been widely reported that Prevent training has included citing pro-Palestinian views, anti-fracking, anti-capitalist protestors and other civil rights movements as indicators. People who support justice for the Palestinians, people who opposed the Iraq war, those protesting refugee deportations, even people who protested against domestic policies on austerity have been arrested and often sentenced using these laws. Others have stopped expressing their legitimate views out of fear. Universities for example have banned speakers on the basis of their (non-violent) views, prohibiting discussion of political and social issues. The impact of the legislation has been to inhibit the expression of views that are perfectly legitimate but which may be perceived by the authorities as skirting too close to or falling foul of the new definition.

Multi-agency research involving IHRC and carried out on behalf of the EU (Counter Islamophobia Toolkit 2018) has cited state institutions such as the Charity Commission as being accused of promoting an Islamophobic agenda, in particular after a former Henry Jackson Society member became its chair in 2012. In particular the focus on Muslim charities under the new regime as possible incubators or supporters of ‘extremism’ (Belaon, 2014 for Claystone) has added to pre- existing charges from Muslim civil society that their charities were always under more intense scrutiny than similar charities from different faith and non-faith backgrounds (Kroessin, 2007).

In the UK, the right-wing think tank, Policy Exchange has suggested and The Times etc have picked up on the idea of creating a government blacklist for funding certain CSOs. This has no impact on them getting government funding as they would have been declined in any event but the public blacklist creates pressure on other funders, and international and national bodies and institutions not to work with them. They use the phrase ‘enabling terrorism’ to describe critics of the anti-terrorism legislation. The revolving door relationship between members of the commentariat, the media more broadly, government and think tanks in certain countries including the UK, but also the US, Canada and some European countries means that racist and Islamophobic discourses circulate and reproduce, becoming entrenched in policy and law, and normalised as mainstream narratives. Challenging this brings CSOs from minoritised communities in particular but also mainstream human rights groups into the sights of those propagating such narratives.

There are many other recent examples of well-resourced neoliberal groups seeking to cancel Muslim opinion or blackballing them. They increasingly follow the pattern of a think-tank “exposing” something about them that is anti-democratic or “extremist”, which is then followed up, usually uncritically, by the mainstream media and which is then in turn used as a factual resource/reference point further down the line. The aim is clearly to blackball and cancel Muslim activism, particularly that section of it which is anti-Zionist and pro-Palestine.

In January 2019 the Tony Blair Institute (TBI) published a report “Narratives of Division” that sought to “name and shame” Muslim organisations that it claimed fell into the (problematic) category of “non-violent extremism”. The report sets out with the aim of “establishing” the extremism of prominent British Muslim organisations involved in campaigning, lobbying and policy-making.

At first glance, the organisations appear to have been selected on their basis of their resistance to political co-option and their strident criticism of state policies. They are CAGE, Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, Islamic Human Rights Commission, Muslim Public Affairs Committee and Muslim Engagement and Development.

Using six key themes (Victimisation, good Muslim vs bad Muslim, Islam vs the West, delegitimising the government, the centrality of Islam in Politics and the justification of violence) it seeks to show the level of overlap between views advocated by the five organisations and the group al-Muhajiroun, banned under anti-terrorism legislation in the UK for advocating violence. Unsurprisingly, it concludes that much of the five groups’ public messaging approaches or is similar to that of Al-Muhajiroun. Legitimate criticism is branded as extremist simply because the same types of criticisms are made by ‘violent extremists’.

It goes without saying that organisations’ criticisms of the state will overlap on many issues. For example IHRC often finds it views on the Prevent strategy echoing those of some non-Muslim civil and human rights groups/commentators but to brand them all divisive and dangerous is a non sequitur. In April 2016 the UN Special Rapporteur on the Freedom of Assembly, Maina Kiai, said that Britain’s anti-terrorism policies were counter-productive, undermining democracy and victimising the Muslim community. According to the logic underlying the TBI report, he should also be considered a non-violent extremist.

“Narratives of Division” is premised on the discredited concept of “non-violent extremism” which underpins the UK’s Prevent anti-terrorism strategy. It seeks to revive a pledge made by David Cameron in 2015 to tackle those in the Muslim community who “quietly condone” extremism, who “don’t go as far as advocating violence, but who do buy into some of these prejudices.” The TBI reports says that Cameron’s “vision” has fallen by the wayside. It charges the five selected organisations with perpetuating narratives that promote a divisive view of how Muslims should see their place in Britain.

The trend towards branding Muslim groups “extremist” because they espouse anti-government positions is dangerous. In recent years, largely via the Prevent anti-extremism strategy, Muslims have been increasingly required to actively promote “core British values”. Accordingly, the definition of extremism has grown to cover non-violent extremism, something which was never originally part of Prevent. Now the government defines extremism as “vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”. The definition stretches the scope of extremist activity to draconian proportions, making it so wide that it is capable of ensnaring people who oppose government policies or hold “conservative” religious views such as disapproval of abortion, music or same-sex marriage.

IHRC finds the report tendentious and Islamophobic. It aims to establish a benchmark for extremism which is well below the threshold required to be able to legitimately express one’s views and which sets the bar differentially for Muslims. “Narratives of Division” also deploys the good old-fashioned divide and rule tactics by trying to set up a binary of good Muslim/bad Muslim. The groups identified are “bad Muslims” who policymakers and government officials should steer clear of when engaging with the Muslim community. The aim seems clear – to prevent the named organisations from accessing policymakers by means of “toxification”. Label them extremist, marginalise them and thereby close the door on them to the corridors of power and influence and also delegitimise them in the eyes of fellow Muslims.

According to the report condemning or flagging up institutional Islamophobia is an example of a view which militates against social cohesion. It accuses the groups of pushing ‘us vs. them’ narratives, calling them “corrosive. This seems dangerously close to saying Muslim organisations should only be allowed access to policymakers if their views conform to a pre-determined acceptable range of opinion.

One only has to cast one’s mind back to the Macpherson report to see how the finding of institutional racism against the police did not lead to charges that racially minoritised groups were promoting a conspiratorial or divisive worldview. Yet today calling the state or part of it institutionally Islamophobic is presented as evidence that Muslim organisations are promoting a narrative of division.

The TBI report recommends pushback against “divisive narratives” to marginalise the named “extremist” groups, with the state asked to increase funding available to groups and activities that exist to combat “extremism”. It advocates promoting alternative narratives from an early age using schools as a medium. “The UK Department for Education should train teachers to facilitate discussions in schools on difficult issues, including religion and identity.” Here the report takes advantage of the opportunity to plug its own “robust toolkit for educators to lead these kinds of dialogues”. Given the content and aim of this report can only assume this means indoctrinating schoolchildren to think in non-critical state-compliant ways.

Later in 2019 the neo-liberal Henry Jackson Society, which counts many leading politicians among its alumni and members, also published a report trying to delegitimise Muslim activists, specifically those working with the Islamic Human Rights Commission. In a report “Advocating for the Ayatollahs, it accuses the organisation of so-called extremist inclinations, associations, leadership and its apparently successful attempts at “entryism”. It’s all in another day’s work for HJS which has carved out an unenviable reputation for itself in seeking to undermine any Muslim group or individual in Britain that does not conform to its neocon Zionist politics. It would be easy to dismiss HJS and its output for the bigoted right wing rubbish that it is were it not for the fact that the organisation is the most prominent neocon voice in the UK and enjoys the ear of the commentariat and politicians, thereby exerting an unmerited influence on public policy.

The report itself is riddled with embarrassing inaccuracies, too many to list in fact. Suffice it to say that HJS’ attention on Muslims falls into a wider campaign of delegitimisation against Muslim civil society operators motivated by Islamophobia. The common factor in these attacks against Muslims operating in the civil society space is the attempt to delegitimise them all by way of measuring them against loaded definitions of extremism, an approach that is actually more successful in revealing HJS’s own Islamophobic leanings and biases. It is character assassination dressed up as research. HJS’ report dredges up alleged examples of extremism in order to tarnish the targeted organisations and make them a tainted source of information or an unworthy political partner. The end aim is clearly to panic partner organisations into reconsidering their associations with IHRC. To that end the report targets IHRC’s accreditation with the United Nations, a research commission it has received from the European Union, IHRC Trust’s registration with the Charity Commission and the immigration adviser status IHRC holds with the British government.

The delegitimisation of independent Muslim voices has become a major feature of civil society activity. Earlier this year an IHRC briefing on shrinking civil society space bemoaned the fact that “for the best part of two decades, successive governments and those opposed to Muslim participation have forced to the margins authentic CSOs from the Muslim community that do not conform to preconceived official strategies or desired policy outcomes”. Almost on cue, a report by the Tony Blair Institute in January identified IHRC as one of six so-called “extremist” British Muslim groups, again measured against a problematic definition of extremism. HJS plays to the same gallery, demonising Muslim orgainsations so that Whitehall can safely ignore them and continue to employ deferential and conformist CSOs that serve as an echo chamber for preconceived government plans. It fits squarely into the strategy of establishing a binary between good and bad Muslims, the latter being those whom policymakers and government officials should steer clear of when engaging with the Muslim community.

HJS’s own associations with the Zionist-neocon power elite make it anything but a credible source of information. The arch-Islamophobe and Tory MP Michael Gove is a former trustee. He was also a signatory to its statement of principles as are many other Tory and Labour MP’s and peers giving the organisation direct access to Westminster. So is Stephen Pollard, the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, an unashamedly Zionist newspaper. According to a 2015 report into HJS by Spinwatch its financiers include prominent Zionists such as Conservative peer Stanley Kalms, who is on record as saying that “most Muslims didn’t want to integrate… Ultimately they would line up behind the fundamentalists”. Founded in 2005, by the following year, says the report, HJS “had emerged as the leading institutional expression of British neoconservatism.” In 2012 HJS’ former director William Shawcross was appointed chair of the Charity Commission carrying the organisation’s obsession with exposing supposed Islamist terrorism into the mainstream. Almost immediately he made remarks suggesting that Muslim donors’ money was leaking out to support terrorism. Between December 2012 and May 2014, 40 per cent of formal inquiries started by the commission were into Muslim charities. In 2014/15, there were 20 formal investigations by the Charity Commission under way relating to terrorist abuse of charities with more than 500 legal disclosures between the commission, police and other agencies.

HJS’s neo-fascist associations don’t stop at financing. It has praised and given platforms to far right extremists who share its antipathy to Islam and Muslims. In May 2009 HJS hosted a speech by Siv Jensen, leader of the Norwegian Progress Party and former finance minister. The Progress Party is strongly pro-Israel and rabidly anti-immigration and even more anti-Islam. The mass murderer Anders Breivik who slaughtered 77 fellow Norwegians was a one-time member of the Party. Breivik claims to have been influenced by Robert Spencer who runs the anti-Muslim conspiracy site Jihad Watch, referencing him over 50 times in his “manifesto”. HJS’ current associate director Douglas Murray has called Spencer a “brilliant scholar”.

These are just a few examples of how the revolving door of think tanks and government seeks to delegitimise CSO’s. Maligning IHRC or any other civil society organisation, activists, academics serves to exclude them from access and opportunities to participate in consultations and dialogue, and more worryingly, reproduces the type of demonization of Muslims as ‘pro-terrorist’ that results in murderous Islamophobic attacks.