Foul beliefs no barrier
Nick Cohen looks at what happened with ‘Undercover Mosque,’ specifically the interesting question of why the police and the Crown Prosecution service saw fit to accused channel 4 of making stuff up.
Its undercover journalists infiltrated radical mosques. They recorded assorted preachers calling for the subjugation of women, the murder of homosexuals and Jews, the replacement of the ‘man-made’ laws of a democracy with the religious edicts of a theocratic state and the eternal damnation of Muslims who did not follow Wahhabi doctrine and infidels who did not accept the true faith.
Well…that’s racist stuff, right? That must be why the cops got involved.
Haras Rafiq of the Sufi Muslim Council, said: ‘Wahhabis and their offshoots are teaching Muslim youngsters that America and Britain are against them and therefore they need to get up and fight with them. The radicalising power of this ideology is extremely dangerous.’ Abdal-Hakim Murad of Cambridge University described Saudi influence as ‘potentially lethal for the future of the community’.
Oh. Maybe not exactly racist then.
The many who were foolish enough to believe the police’s accusations must have accepted that, for instance, Ijaz Mian, who preaches in Derby, was a good democrat. Only trick camerawork and sly editing had turned him into the man who appeared in the film raving: ‘King, Queen, House of Commons. If you accept it then you are a part of it. You don’t accept it but you have to dismantle it. So you being a Muslim you have to fix a target, there will be no House of Commons.’ Similarly, when Abu Usamah of the Green Lane mosque in Birmingham bellowed on air: ‘Take that homosexual man and throw him off the mountain’, his apparently murderous homophobia was not a genuine expression of his prejudice, but a Truman Show illusion.
No but – but – they’re just blowing off a little steam. They have genuine grievances. They’re upset about western foreign policy. So – exposing them is a crime of some sort. Has to be.
In the case of Channel 4, however, the CPS and West Midlands police have never condescended to explain their behaviour to the public. The National Secular Society wants an inquiry to force them into the open. Until we get one, the best explanation lies in Patani’s title: assistant chief constable (security and cohesion).
Oh, gawd – cohesion again. Cohesion and community, the dread words of the contemporary UK. (Over here it’s faith and family. Different alliteration, you see.)
Since 9/11, not only police officers, but New Labour ministers, the Home Office, Foreign Office and pseudo-left journalists and councils have sought to promote ‘cohesion’ by appeasing Islamist groups which aren’t quite as extreme as al-Qaeda…Elements within the government thought that if they could co-opt the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-i-Islami and ignore their foul beliefs, they would isolate the terrorists to their right.
So you got years and years of sucking up to the all-male ‘leaders’ in the MCB. What. a. trainwreck.
South Asian and Middle Eastern women’s groups reported an increasingly widespread trend. Officials who should treat all women equally were deciding that where their community’s religious and cultural practices conflicted with the law, the law had to give way…A worker in a women’s group in the north, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisals, added she had been ‘appalled’ by an Asian ‘chief inspector who had offered to help a family track a girl down’. The report’s authors noticed that women’s groups appeared to have problems with one force in particular. It was the West Midlands police.
All for cohesion, nothing for women’s rights.
Well – it can be racist, and that is how these mistakes occur. The parallel example would be with anti-semitism. If you disagree with the policies of the Israeli government you are not necessarily anti-semitic, but if you are anti-semitic then you probably disagree with the policies of the Israeli government. There are many examples of freethinking web-sites attracting racist commenters because the deluded commenter sees a criticism of a religious belief and assumes that this means that his racism will receive a sympathetic hearing. If you are blind to the actual content of any given criticism of a religious view then you will makes these mistakes and tar reasonable views with the racist brush.
Unfortunately it’s even more complicated that that apparently. It’s possible for racists to camouflage their real message and intent by clever use of language.
I recently came across the term “dog whistle” language to describe this phenomenon. Just as dogs can hear the whistle while humans can’t, dog whistle language allows racists to spot and converse with each other while the rest of us are oblivious to their presence.
But was this a mistake? I don’t think so. The content of the programme was quite clear. It wasn’t taken out of context. These were hateful people speaking hateful words, and inciting to violence. When you try to censor someone showing this stuff, it’s not just a mistake. As Wittgenstein might say: this is simply too big to be a mistake.
Actually GT this was taken to ofcom because the CPS didn’t think it had a usable case. Even if ofcom had upheld the complaint this wouldn’t be a “conviction” as such. Given that WMP would have an interest in nipping potential trouble in the bud they do have motivation to pursue possible incitement of hatred cases whether they take place inside mosques or where ever. It is less effort that picking up body parts in the street. The proposed enquiry sounds (unusually) like a good idea as in this instance things seem to have headed off in odd directions. when the police act against their own best interests it is a good idea to find out why. The translations used by Channel 4 and the police seem to have been different – a possible explanation perhaps?
But WMP didn’t pursue a possible incitement of hatred case inside mosques, it ignored those possible incitement of hatred cases and instead pursued the people who exposed the incitement of hatred. Do the WM police have an interest in doing that? If so, what is it?
I don’t see how they have an interest in doing that. Tackling a case like this would be a public relations nightmare, but the police are used to being unpopular. It is mysterious, which is why an enquiry is a good idea. I would imagine that those folk in the WMP who weren’t involved would be interested to know as well.
Oh I see, the inquiry into the actions of the WMP – I misunderstood!
It wouldn’t surprise me [puts on tinfoil hat] if MI5 was all over those mosques, doing the great job they used to do in Northern ireland of keeping nutjobs warm and cosy while they get on with stoking hatred and plotting outrages, in the belief that more ‘intelligence’ is better than just putting a lid on it… After all the govt itself tells us they’ve got 2000 suspects under surveillance and 30 ‘active plots’ likewise… Stap me! You’d think if they knew enough to know they had an ‘active plot’ going on, they could nick someone for it…
The scuttlebutt around the web (unsourced tinfoil hat rightwinger comments) is that UK police in general enbforce political correctness at any cost to ordinary englishpeople, and are getting worse at a rate of knots.
Anyone who has watched a few minutes of ‘The Bill’ in the last few years will be entirely certain that the green and pleasant land is beyond hope. Of course, watching more than a few minutes of ‘The Bill’ would require Clockwork Orange-type physical restraint.
For the benefit of “clueless yanks” the West Midlands is an area of the UK with a large muslim population. As you don’t maintain good relations with people by deliberately winding them up WMP folk have probably been given multiple directives to tread carefully. You can call this political correctness if you like, but a less loaded term would be “being polite”. The police are a secular institution whose standing orders are to treat all citizens the same. They are however human beings so this will not happen consistently. Most of the inhabitants of the West Midlands are “ordinary English people”, unless that term is being used as a code for “white”.
Karen,
Do you really mean this: “but a larger population shields more extremists”?
As a general query: Are people allowed to be extremist? or not?