British govt to extend "War on Terror" to non-violent protest groups

[Jan Klimkowski]

My emphasis in bold:

PM wins row with Nick Clegg over crackdown on Muslim extremists

Counter-terrorism review insists groups must reflect British mainstream values to get funds

Mark Townsend and Hannah Olivennes guardian.co.uk, Saturday 4 June 2011 21.53 BST

David Cameron will emerge as the victor from a bitter cabinet battle over multiculturalism this week as the government unveils a hardline approach to tackling Islamist extremism.

Home Office sources say that Cameron has quashed Nick Clegg's argument for a more tolerant attitude to Muslim groups by insisting on a strategy centred upon the notion that violent extremism is incubated within the ideology of non-violent extremism.

The shift in approach will be outlined when the government's counter-terrorism strategy is unveiled by the home secretary, Theresa May, on Tuesday. Central to the Prevent strategy is a broader definition of extremism that will be extended beyond groups condoning violence to those considered non-violent but whose views, such as the advocacy of sharia law, fail to "reflect British mainstream values".

A Home Office source said: "There will be a direct challenge to these [non-violent] groups."

The Prevent review has been delayed for five months because of disagreements within the coalition cabinet. In his view that engaging with non-violent extremists can be used as a bulwark against violent extremists, Clegg has been joined by the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, the Tory chairman, Baroness Warsi, and others including Charles Farr, the head of the office of security and extremism. They argue it is crucial to maintain a distinction between violent and non-violent extremism and that it is necessary to engage rather than alienate.

Warsi, who sits on the cabinet subcommittee dealing with integration, is understood to disagree strongly with the new direction of Prevent but has been dissuaded from publicly criticising the strategy.

Among those supporting the prime minister on a crackdown on Muslim groups was the education secretary, Michael Gove, and Lord Carlile, who is in charge of the Prevent review.

Ostensibly the strategy echoes Cameron's contentious speech to an international counter-terrorism conference in Munich last February when he suggested that "state multiculturalism" had failed.

During the speech the Tory leader categorised those who espoused an ideology of Islamic extremism alongside those who supported violence. He said: "Move along the spectrum, and you find people who may reject violence, but who accept various parts of the extremist world view, including real hostility towards western democracy and liberal values."

A Home Office source said: "When a prime minister states something so unequivocally, it is unlikely they will be allowed to deviate from that."

The strategy will warn Muslim groups that they will only receive public funding under certain conditions. Groups would be allocated funding on short-term projects but only after proving they do not promote or support extremist views.

"Under the old Prevent strategy we sprayed a lot of cash willy-nilly and the new strategy is opposed to that," said the source.

Haras Rafiq, director of Centri, a counter-extremism consultancy, welcomed the strategy, but said the main challenge was implementation.

"They need to build a criteria to establish which organisation they fund has extremist views, which one doesn't, and ensure extremist groups do not receive funding from other pots."

One group, the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board, which has links to the hardline Muslim Association of Britain, received £250,000 in the year up to April but has already had its annual public funding withdrawn, the Observer has learned.

During the Munich speech Cameron said it was "nonsense" to fund groups with extremist elements, adding: "Would you allow far-right groups a share of public funds if they promise to help you lure young white men away from fascist terrorism? Of course not."

The strategy, however, will shy away from naming groups, effectively dismissing speculation that the initiative will proscribe non-violent, extremist Islamist groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, a step which Cameron has publicly supported but which legal sources advise is not possible.

The Conservative manifesto named Hizb ut-Tahrir as a group it wanted to proscribe; in 2009 the then shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, promised to "immediately ban" the group if the Tories were elected.

The strategy to be unveiled this week will explain that the issue of funding groups that promote community cohesion will be left to the Department for Communities and Local Government. Sources say that under the previous system community groups had to apply for support from counter-terrorism funding, which succeeded only in stigmatising them.

[Keith Millea]

insisting on a strategy centred upon the notion that violent extremism is incubated within the ideology of non-violent extremism.

Say What.....

:loco:

[Jan Klimkowski]

insisting on a strategy centred upon the notion that violent extremism is incubated within the ideology of non-violent extremism.

Say What.....

:loco:

In George Orwell's 1984, "Blackwhite" is defined as follows:

" ...this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. "
Orwell, 1984

So, dear Keith, now that the British Prime Minister has declared that "violent extremism is incubated within the ideology of non-violent extremism", Brits should cease to engage in non-violent protest because by doing so they are "incubating" violent protest.

Incubate, definition:

1. To sit on (eggs) to provide heat, so as to promote embryonic development and the hatching of young; brood.
2.
a. To maintain (eggs, organisms, or living tissue) at optimal environmental conditions for growth and development.
b. To maintain (a chemical or biochemical system) under specific conditions in order to promote a particular reaction.

Under Cameron's insane definition, merely by discussing deep political action, this forum is presumably incubating violent protest against deep political actors.

Indeed, we are the battery hens of protest....

:ballchain:

[Magda Hassan]

Oh, we are truely throug the looking glass here....

[Peter Lemkin]

Best for governments like that [and like my own] are citizens that just don't think - but instead simply accept what they are told and obey blindly; without question or even the thought of questioning anything! All others will be arrested [or forcibly reprogrammed] - as a peremptory strike against a mind that could [and likely would] 'incubate terrorism' by thinking through the force fed lies.

Free-thinkers beware, Orwellian type fascism is here already under the guise of 'democratic and civil (sic)' society!

[Jan Klimkowski]

Strike One: ConLib Prime Minister David Cameron announces a counter-terrorism strategy centred upon the notion that violent extremism is incubated within the ideology of non-violent extremism;

Strike Two: ConLib Business Secretary warns union members that daring to strike against the austerity cuts will cause the government to change the law, severely curtailing the right to strike.

And so the Powerful declare to the great mass of humanity: Just spend your days watching charisma-free celebrities obsessing about their dull and dreary desires... and worry your little brains about the most material of needs, about putting baked beans and bangers on the family table... buying some shiny trinket, on the never never of course... allow us to infantilize you whilst we loot and plunder your future, kill your children in wars launched entirely for profit, murder the innocent remotely with the flick of a joystick three thousand miles distant, and protect crooks and thieves, so long as their collars are white....

Vince Cable warns unions against widespread strikes

Business secretary heckled as he tells GMB conference that widespread action would increase pressure for tightening of anti-strike laws

Hélène Mulholland and Polly Curtis guardian.co.uk, Monday 6 June 2011 15.40 BST

The business secretary, Vince Cable, was booed and heckled as he warned unions that widespread industrial action over spending cuts could ratchet up pressure on the government to make it harder for workers to strike.

Cable's comments backed by Downing Street and the chancellor, George Osborne prompted a furious reaction from union leaders, who accused the government of issuing "veiled threats" to deny workers the basic right to strike by tightening what they say is already among the developed world's toughest strike legislation.

The Liberal Democrat minister gave a keynote address to the GMB's annual conference in Brighton, in which he set out the government's desire to have a "mature relationship" with trade unions.

But he issued a warning to the "usual suspects" calling for general strikes and widespread disruption in response to the cuts.

Cable told the conference there was currently no "compelling" reason to reform the laws an action some rightwingers, including the London mayor, Boris Johnson, have called for.

However, he said this could change if a wave of strikes caused "serious damage" to the country's economic and social fabric.

It was the first explicit acknowledgment by a coalition minister that the government could legislate to prevent widespread strikes. Other ministers refrained amid fears of increasing tensions at a crucial point in talks designed to avoid a mass walkout across the public sector.

Cable said: "Later this month, we may very well witness a day of industrial action across significant parts of the public sector.

"The usual suspects will call for general strikes and widespread disruption. This will excite the usual media comments about a summer or an autumn of discontent, and another group of the usual suspects will exploit the situation to call for the tightening of strike law.

"We are undoubtedly entering a difficult period. Cool heads will be required all round. Despite occasional blips, I know that strike levels remain historically low, especially in the private sector. On that basis, and assuming this pattern continues, the case for changing strike law is not compelling.

"However, should the position change ... the pressure on us to act would ratchet up. That is something which both you, and certainly I, would wish to avoid."

The minister's trailed comments were endorsed by government, with the prime minister's official spokesman warned that a review could be prompted by any large scale strikes.

Clearly, it's something we keep under review," a spokesman said. "If the position were to change and we saw a wave of irresponsible strikes, then that's something we would want to look at very carefully."

And prior to Cable's speech, Osborne told the BBC News Channel: "Of course we want a constructive relationship with the public sector unions. We have got important negotiations under way, for instance on pensions.

"What Vince is saying is if we go into a cycle of destructive strikes we would have to think again but let's hope we don't get there."

Paul Kenny, the general secretary of the GMB, said Cable's decision to take the "draconian move" of threatening unions was an "insult to working people".

"We wanted him to come here and talk about jobs ... not just the public sector issues, but private sector [and] manufacturing issues too.

"We've got cuts in every service, tens of thousands of vulnerable people in residential care ripped off by big business. What's his answer? Attack the unions."

Sarah Veale, the TUC's head of equalities and employment rights, said: "Restricting the right to withhold labour would also be completely at odds with the coalition's commitment to civil liberties. Disputes are always better settled through negotiation with unions, rather than veiled threats to rig the law in the employers' favour."

Mark Serwotka, the leader of the Public and Commercial Services union, said: "The right to strike is a basic human right.

"Public sector workers are currently facing unprecedented ideological attacks on their jobs, pensions, pay and conditions which will throw the economy into further recession.

"This government, and the bankers who caused the economic crisis, are inflicting the greatest damage to our economic and social fabric by cutting public sector jobs, axing vital services and attacking communities."

The Unite leader, Len McCluskey, said: "It is no coincidence that the government is engineering this fight now. All eyes have been on our comatose economy and the government's colossal failure to address this.

"Talking tough about cracking down on working people is a circus engineered by a government that is clueless about the real problems facing this country."

Cable's comment about the "usual suspects" calling for legislation to be strengthened appeared to be aimed at Johnson, who critics say is pressing the government to beef up anti-strike laws because of his failure to make progress on a no-strike agreement with London's tube unions.

Johnson has called for a legislative change that would only allow strikes to go ahead if supported by a majority vote of a union's membership rather than only those opting to take part in a ballot.

Neil Carberry, the director for employment at the Confederation for British Industry, said there was a "strong case" for changing the law.

"We hope that union leaders will work constructively with employers to avoid strikes, because the number one priority should be securing the recovery," he added.

"Strikes should always be a last resort, but the government needs a contingency plan to ensure that disruption is kept to a minimum in the event of industrial action. Our proposals include giving the public more notice before a strike goes ahead and allowing businesses to hire agency workers directly to cover striking workers."

Talks with the unions to negotiate a new pension deal for state employees the only issue all the public sector unions have in common, and therefore the only one in which they could launch joint industrial action are ongoing.

It is understood the discussions are making little headway, with ministers refusing to back down on increasing workers' contributions. Other unions representing up to six million public sector workers could then edge towards industrial action.
One breakaway group of unions representing 500,000 state employees including the PCS civil service union and some of the teaching unions is currently preparing to strike on 30 June. Schools, courts, ports and Whitehall could all come to a standstill.