Image: Theresa May and Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, March 2018. PA Images/Victoria Jones, all rights reserved.

A former Research Fellow at Chatham House and the ex-Director of the World Development Movement, British historian Mark Curtis has published several books on UK foreign policy, including 2003’s Web of Deceit: Britain’s Real Role in the World, endorsed by Noam Chomsky and John Pilger. Ian Sinclair asked Curtis about the recently published new edition of his 2010 book Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam.

Ian Sinclair: With the so-called ‘war on terror’ the dominant framework for understanding Western foreign policy since 9/11, the central argument of your book – that Britain has been colluding with radical Islam for decades – will be a shock to many people. Can you give some examples?
Mark Curtis: UK governments – Conservative and Labour – have been colluding for decades with two sets of Islamist actors which have strong connections with each other.

In the first group are the major state sponsors of Islamist terrorism, the two most important of which are key British allies with whom London has long-standing strategic partnerships – Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The second group includes extremist private movements and organisations whom Britain has worked alongside and sometimes trained and financed, in order to promote specific foreign policy objectives. The roots of this lie in divide and rule policies under colonialism but collusion of this type took off in Afghanistan in the 1980s, when Britain, along with the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, covertly supported the resistance to defeat the Soviet occupation of the country. After the jihad in Afghanistan, Britain had private dealings of one kind or another with militants in various organisations, including Pakistan’s Harkat ul-Ansar, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), all of which had strong links to Bin Laden’s al-Qaida. Covert actions have been undertaken with these and other forces in Central Asia, North Africa and Eastern Europe.

For example, in the 1999 Kosovo war, Britain secretly trained militants in the KLA who were working closely with al-Qaida fighters. One KLA unit was led by the brother of Ayman al-Zawahiri, then Bin Laden’s right-hand man. The British provided military training for the KLA at secret camps in Kosovo and Albania where jihadist fighters also had their military centre. The ‘dirty secret’ of the July 2005 London bombings is that the bombers had links with violent Islamist groups such as the Harkat ul-Mujahidin whose militants were previously covertly supported by Britain in Afghanistan. These militant groups were long sponsored by the Pakistani military and intelligence services, in turn long armed and trained by Britain. If we go back further – to the 1953 MI6/CIA coup to overthrow Musaddiq in Iran – this involved plotting with Shia Islamists, the predecessors of Ayatollah Khomeini. Ayatollah Seyyed Kashani – who in 1945 founded the Fadayan-e-Islam (Devotees of Islam), a militant fundamentalist organization – was funded by Britain and the US to organise opposition and arrange public demonstrations against Musaddiq.

More recently, in its military interventions and covert operations in Syria and Libya since 2011, Britain and its supported forces have been working alongside, and often in effective collaboration with, a variety of extremist and jihadist groups, including al-Qaida’s affiliate in Syria. Indeed, the vicious Islamic State group and ideology that has recently emerged partly owes its origins and rise to the policies of Britain and its allies in the region.

Although Britain has forged special relationships with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, it has not been in strategic alliance with radical Islam as such. Beyond these two states, Britain’s policy has been to collaborate with Islamist extremists as a matter of ad hoc opportunism, though it should be said that this has been rather regular. Whitehall does not work with these forces because it agrees with them but because they are useful at specific moments: in this sense, the collaboration highlights British weakness to find other on-the-ground foot soldiers to impose its policies. Islamist groups appear to have collaborated with Britain for the same reasons of expediency and because they share the same hatred of popular nationalism and secularism as the British elite.

IS: Why has the UK colluded with radical Islamic organisations and nations?
MC: I argue that the evidence shows that radical Islamic forces have been seen as useful to Whitehall in five specific ways: as a global counter-force to the ideologies of secular nationalism and Soviet communism, in the cases of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan; as ‘conservative muscle’ within countries to undermine secular nationalists and bolster pro-Western regimes; as ‘shock troops’ to destabilise or overthrow governments; as proxy military forces to fight wars; and as ‘political tools’ to leverage change from governments.

This collusion has also helped promote two big geo-strategic foreign policy objectives. The first is influence and control over key energy resources, always recognised in the British planning documents as the number one priority in the Middle East. British operations to support or side with Islamist forces have generally aimed at maintaining in power or installing governments that will promote Western-friendly oil policies. The second objective has been maintaining Britain’s place within a pro-Western global financial order. The Saudis have invested billions of dollars in the US and British economies and banking systems and Britain and the US have similarly large investments and trade with Saudi Arabia; it is these that are being protected by the strategic alliance with Riyadh.

IS: You include a chapter in the new edition of the book exploring the UK and West’s role in Syria. Simon Tisdall recently noted in The Observer that the West has been “hovering passively on the sidelines in Syria”. This is a common view – including on the Left. For example, in September 2014 Richard Seymour asserted “The US has not been heavily involved” in Syria, while in February 2017 Salvage magazine published a piece by Dr Jamie Allinson, who argued it was a myth that “the US has pursued a policy of regime change” in Syria. What is your take on the West’s involvement in Syria?
MC: These are extraordinary comments revealing how poorly the mainstream media serves the public. I’ve tried to document in the updated version of Secret Affairs a chronology of Britain’s covert operations in Syria to overthrow the Assad regime. These began with the deployment of MI6 and other British covert forces in 2011, within a few months after demonstrations in Syria began challenging the regime, to which the Syrian regime responded with brute force and terrible violence. British covert action, mainly undertaken in alliance with the US and Saudi Arabia, has involved working alongside radical and jihadist groups, in effect supporting and empowering them. These extremist groups, which cultivated Muslim volunteers from numerous countries to fight Assad, have been strengthened by an influx of a massive quantity of arms and military training from the coalition of forces of which Britain has been a key part. At the same time, Britain and its allies’ policy has prolonged the war, exacerbating devastating human suffering.

UK support for Syrian rebel groups long focused on the Free Syrian Army (FSA), described by British officials as ‘moderates’. Yet for the first three years of the war, the FSA was in effect an ally of, and collaborator with, Islamic State and al-Qaida’s affiliate in Syria, al-Nusra. London and Washington continued to provide training and help send arms into Syria despite the certainty that some would end up in the hands of jihadists. Some of the militants who joined the Syrian insurgency with British covert support were Libyans who are believed to have been trained by British, French or US forces in Libya to overthrow Qadafi in 2011. Some went on to join Islamic State and also al-Nusra, which soon became one of the most powerful opposition groups to Assad.

Britain appears to have played a key role in encouraging the creation of the Islamic Front coalition in Syria in November 2013, which included groups which regularly worked with al-Nusra; these included Liwa al-Tawhid – a group armed by Qatar and which coordinated attacks with al-Nusra – and Ahrar al-Sham – a hardline Islamist group that rejected the FSA. Both groups contained foreign jihadists, including individuals from Britain. Ahrar al-Sham’s co-founder, Abu Khalid al-Suri, was linked to the 2004 Madrid bombing through a series of money transfers and personal contacts; a Spanish court document named him as Bin Laden’s ‘courier’ in Europe. The same network was connected to the 2005 London terror attack.

The UK role in Syria has not been minor but has been an integral part of the massive US/Arab arms and training operations, and British officials have been present in the control rooms for these operations in Jordan and Turkey. Britain also consistently took the lead in calling for further arms deliveries to the rebel forces. British covert action was in the early years of the war overwhelmingly focused on overthrowing Assad: evidence suggests that only in May 2015 did UK covert training focus on countering Islamic State in Syria.

IS: What role has the mainstream media played with regards to Britain working with radical Islam?
MC: It has largely buried it. In the period immediately after the 7/7 bombings in 2005, and more recently in the context of the wars in Libya and Syria, there were sporadic reports in the mainstream media which revealed links between the British security services and Islamist militants living in Britain. Some of these individuals have been reported as working as British agents or informers while being involved in terrorism overseas and some have been reported as being protected by the British security services while being wanted by foreign governments. This is an important but only a small part of the much bigger picture of collusion which mainly concerns Britain’s foreign policy: this is rarely noticed in the mainstream.

IS: The British public and the anti-war movement are not mentioned in your book, though they seem a potentially important influence on the nefarious and dangerous British foreign policies you highlight?
MC: Yes, it’s largely down to us, the British public, to prevent terrible policies being undertaken in our name. We should generally regard the British elite as it regards the public – as a threat to its interests. The biggest immediate single problem we face, in my view, is mainstream media reporting. While large sections of the public are deluged with misreporting, disinformation or simply the absence of coverage of key policies, there may never be a critical mass of people prepared to take action in their own interests to bring about a wholly different foreign policy.

The mainstream media and propaganda system has been tremendously successful in the UK – the public can surely have very little knowledge of the actual nature of British foreign policy (past or present) and many people, apparently, seriously believe that the country generally (although it may make some mistakes) stands for peace, democracy and human rights all over the world. When you look at what they read (and don’t read) in the ‘news’ papers, it’s no surprise. The latest smears against Corbyn are further evidence of this, which I believe amounts to a ‘system’, since it is so widespread and rooted in the same interests of defending elite power and privilege.

The other, very much linked, problem, relates to the lack of real democracy in the UK and the narrow elitist decision-making in foreign policy. Governments retain enormous power to conduct covert operations (and policies generally) outside of public or parliamentary scrutiny. Parliamentary committees, meant to scrutinise the state, rarely do so properly and almost invariably fail to even question government on its most controversial policies. Parliamentary answers are often misleading and designed to keep the public in the dark. Past historical records of government decision-making are regularly withheld from the public, if not destroyed to cover up crimes. British ‘democracy’, which exists in some forms, otherwise resembles more an authoritarian state.

There are fundamental issues here about how policy gets made and in whose name. It’s not an issue of whether Labour or Conservative is in power since both obviously defend and propagate the elitist system. Jeremy Corbyn himself represents a real break with this but the most likely outcome, tragically, is that the Labour extremists (called ‘moderates’ in the mainstream) and the rest of the conservative/liberal system which believes in militarism, neo-liberalism and the defence of privilege, will prevail if and when Corbyn becomes Prime Minister.

The signs are already there in the Labour manifesto for the last election, which would have continued the present extremism in most aspects of UK foreign policy, even if it promised some change and still represented a major challenge to the establishment. Again, it will obviously be up to us to change policies, democratize the media and transform British governance more broadly.

Ian Sinclair is the author of The March That Shook Blair: An Oral History of 15 February 2003, published by Peace News Press. He tweets @IanJSinclair.

Courtesy: https://www.opendemocracy.net/

The post Britain’s collusion with radical Islam: Interview with Mark Curtis appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Theresa May as Home Secretary in 2015 speaking at Chatham House event ‘Countering Terrorism: A Global Perspective’. Chatham House/Flickr.

Some rights reserved.Given the recent attacks in London and Manchester, the violence of the far right in murdering the MP Jo Cox, and the images of the London bombings in 2005 still fresh in Britain’s collective memory, it is no surprise that preventing terrorism remains a high priority for the UK government. Yet, since 2005, preventing terrorism has shifted, from attempting to stop terrorist attacks, to attempting to pre-empt terrorism by discouraging the ideas that appear to be behind these attacks. Since 2005, the fear of ‘home-grown terrorism’ has led to a policy focus on ‘extremism’ – defined as a precursor stage on a ‘radicalisation’ journey towards political violence. Yet, what does ‘extremism’ mean? And what ideas are therefore considered threatening?

A certain logic appears to dictate how we comprehend an attack having taken place. The perpetrator of the violence is a ‘terrorist’ who must have been ‘radicalised’ to believe that violence is a legitimate action to achieve a political goal. Furthermore, this radicalisation must have been promoted by an ‘extreme’ political ideology that catalysed that journey. Whether we look at Mohammed Emwazi (the British ISIS fighter known more commonly as ‘Jihadi John’), or Thomas Mair (Jo Cox’s murderer), newspapers are awash with analyses of the ‘radicalisation journey’, which attempt to pinpoint the very moment, and the very factors, that caused that person to take up a violent struggle.

Yet, this fascination with journeys to terrorism, and this emphasis on ideology, is not supported by academic research. The fact of the matter is that the empirical evidence is very weak and uncertain. We simply do not have the ability to say why one person turns to violence, while another, under the very same conditions, does not. Despite this focus on ‘extremism’ and ‘extremist ideology’, we are no closer to saying what impact it has on political violence. In the words of terrorism scholar, Mark Sageman, “There is no doubt that ideology, including global neo-jihadi ideology, is an important part of any explanation in the turn to political violence, but we still don’t know how”. The American scholar Randy Borum is even more dismissive of theories of radicalisation: “None of them yet have a very firm social-scientific basis as an established ‘cause’ of terrorism, and few of them have been subjected to any rigorous scientific systematic enquiry”.

This uncertainty in the ‘science’ behind radicalisation does not appear to have translated into policy circles.

This uncertainty in the ‘science’ behind radicalisation does not appear to have translated into policy circles. In the 2011 major overhaul of the UK’s counter-terrorism Prevent strategy, the emphasis on the ‘ideology’ of terrorist groups was made objective number one. The strategy writes that Prevent will, “respond to the ideological challenge of terrorism and the threat we face from those who promote it”. It is this transformation of counter-terrorism strategy into a counter-ideological project that makes the UK’s approach to countering terrorism so threatening to democracy and political change more broadly.

Prevent explicitly aims to counter extremist ideology. One arena in which it aims to achieve this is in schools. Since 2015, schools must by law, comply with the ‘Prevent duty’ – a legal requirement that teachers are trained to identify to relevant authorities any students that might display signs of ‘radicalisation’. Such a requirement has had profound and traumatic impact on some students, the vast majority of whom are Muslim. A report by the Open Society Justice Initiative entitled Eroding Trust listed a number of troubling cases including: primary school students having their political opinions recorded by the Home Office; a 12-year-old being interviewed by school leaders after playing a ‘terrorist’ in a drama class, and a secondary school-aged student being interviewed by police for expressing pro-Palestinian views in school. All of the students involved were Muslim.

But schools must not just scrutinise and survey their students. They are also regulated on their ability to promote “fundamental British values” and their ability to “challenge extremist views”. This curious expression of ‘fundamental British values’ was conceived within the first attempt by a UK government to define extremism – within the 2011 overhaul of the Prevent strategy:

“Extremism is 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. We also include in our definition of extremism calls for the death of members of our armed forces, whether in this country or overseas.”

Despite clear divergence and contestation in the academic literature regarding the meaning of extremism, the UK government defines an extremist as someone opposed to a certain group of values. These values have been critiqued for not being uniquely British, for being vaguely grouped under the word ‘including’, and for being potentially contradictory – the Suffragettes’ necessity to break the law in order to make Britain more democratic being oft-cited in this regard. Despite this, schools make frequent reference to this definition, with common citations in school counter-extremism policies, school assemblies on fundamental British values, and in classes that teach students about terrorism and extremism.

A suffragette meeting in Caxton Hall, Manchester, England circa 1908. Image via Wikimedia Commons. Some rights reserved.But how do schools interpret ‘extremism’ and how do they challenge extremist narratives? Exploring this aids an understanding of the broader implications of this focus on ‘extremism’ in countering terrorism. This article reports findings from an on-going study, which has analysed nearly 200 lessons currently used in British classrooms that teach students about the issues of extremism and fundamental British values. Exploring schools’ teaching on the topic offers us all great pause for thought as to the dangers of current thinking about extremism and counter-extremism, and in particular its threat to democracy.

The study analysed how extremism was defined in each of these 200 lessons. It found three broad groups of definitions. Some lessons offered no definition at all – assuming students would already know what extremism is. Others would offer tautological definitions suggesting ‘extremists are people with extreme political or religious views’. The third group would cite the government’s definition straight from the Prevent strategy directly into classroom presentations.

It is heavily implied that the UK government holds British values, and that anyone who does not is therefore an extremist.

Students are thus being offered very little assistance in assessing what might be considered ‘extreme’, but they are certainly being aided in understanding what the ‘moderate’ or the ‘reasonable’ is. Through citing the government’s definition, students are being taught that the UK government is the barometer from which extremism is measured. It is heavily implied that the UK government also holds British values, and that anyone who does not is therefore an extremist. The government is thereby in a position to adjudicate the ‘normal’ or the ‘reasonable’. One sees this most clearly when the fundamental British values themselves are being taught. Democracy, for instance, is often taught in direct contrast to dictatorship. One presentation explains, “The UK is a democracy, of course”. Another compares the pros and cons of living in the UK or living in IS-controlled Syria, and asks students where they would prefer to live. That the UK could be more democratic is a suggestion that is very rarely offered.

In cases where definitions of extremism are absent or tautological, students are asked to fill in the gaps. But this does not stop these resources building up a picture of the ‘normal’ from which extremism is said to deviate. Extremists are painted as being ‘manipulated’, and ‘vulnerable’ to being ‘brainwashed’. As such, rational, moderate, correct views and values are implied into existence. Extremists are painted as abnormal. As one classroom presentation to students explained: “Extremism in its broadest sense is an individual or group of individuals who take an extreme position from that of the norm, or take an extreme action”.

Extremists are thus painted as people who have “crossed a line” from the permissible to the illegitimate. In an educational video, one interviewee explains: “Extremism for me is when somebody goes too far because of something that they believe in”. Exploring the multitude of examples of ‘extremism’ that are given across these lessons helps to explain both a lack of clarity as to what extremism is, and the sheer breadth of ideas that are seen to have crossed this line into extremism.

Alongside the many mentions of what might be termed ‘Islamic extremism’ and the frequent mentions of what might be termed ‘right wing extremism’, it is fascinating to examine the more unusual examples of extremism on show in these materials. In particular, these examples tend to focus on having crossed one of two ‘lines’ – into the realm of illegality or into the realm of violence.

Caroline Lucas MP’s arrest at an anti-fracking demonstration was given as an example of extremism.

With regard to the latter, it is interesting how often examples of genocide – the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide in particular – are given as examples of extremism. While these are both certainly forms of ‘extreme’ violence, they appear to bear little relation to contemporary threats, and are particularly at a distance from current terror threats from those inspired by white supremacists or the Islamic State. The violence of genocide is horrific, but is it terrorism? In another case of ‘extreme’ violence, students examine violent clashes that occurred between members of the EDL and anti-fascist protesters, and are asked, “when does protest cross the line?” – with the occurrence of violence demonstrating the presence of extremism.

In other cases, it is breaking the law that indicates ‘extremism’ – the rule of law being one of the ‘fundamental British values’. One respondent in an educational video, when asked ‘what is extremism?’ answers: “Anything that doesn’t obey the law of the land is extreme”. Examples included students protesting tuition fees in 2011 damaging property, or an educational play in which a fictional ‘anti-capitalist’ group had planned to break into and graffiti a bank. It seems of little surprise, therefore, that Caroline Lucas MP’s arrest at an anti-fracking demonstration was given as an example of extremism by a police officer training teachers in the Prevent duty. It appears that civil disobedience, despite it playing a vital role in struggles for women’s suffrage or employment rights, both contradicts ‘fundamental British values’ and is ‘extreme’.

What is perhaps of most concern are examples of ‘extremism’ where it is merely an opinion or view, rather than an action.

What is perhaps of most concern however, are examples of ‘extremism’ where it is merely an opinion or view, rather than an action, that has strayed across a ‘line’ too far from the norm. The Westboro Baptist Church (organisers of the  “God Hates Fags” protests) is given as an example. One presentation offered a series of examples of ‘extreme’ views that students were required to challenge including “Multiculturalism is bad for Britain” – an argument made strongly in a speech by David Cameron back in 2011 – yet, one would be hard-pressed to argue the then Prime Minister was an extremist. One can be ‘extreme’ about a whole host of issues according to some teaching materials – rights for fathers, nuclear power, whale hunting, even vegetarianism. ‘Extreme’ appears synonymous with being passionate for unpopular ideas – and yet, these ideas are also being painted as threatening.

While these examples of extremism appear broad, and at times laughable, what is of most concern is the links drawn between these ‘extreme’ views and the potential for political violence. Despite, as mentioned above, the lack of scientific support that can link so-called ‘extremist ideology’ to the use of political violence with any certainty, the linkages between ideas and violence is made very clear in educational resources. As one teaching resource explains: “Extremism can lead to violence and so it is never OK because we can’t predict what will become of extreme views and innocent people don’t deserve to suffer.” As the UK government themselves argue in the Prevent strategy: “Terrorist groups of all kinds very often draw upon ideologies which have been developed, disseminated and popularised by extremist organisations that appear to be non-violent”. Extreme ideas in non-violent organisations may lead to violence, and thus need to be discouraged: the threat to democracy appears considerable.

As someone who has engaged in civil disobedience and been threatened with arrest, I have “crossed the line” into extremism.

In compiling this research, it appears that, according to the UK government, I am an extremist. As someone who has engaged in civil disobedience and been threatened with arrest, I have “crossed the line” into extremism. But moreover, even if I had not done this, and did not ever plan to do so in the future, simply acknowledging the legitimacy of civil disobedience might be enough to be considered an extremist if, after hearing my views, someone else went to protest illegally. In linking the term ‘extreme’ both to the threat of violence and to the idea of ‘abnormal views’, the UK government is transforming diverse ideas into a threat, and narrowing the window of legitimate opinion. In countering extremism, the UK government is therefore countering a key tenet of democracy – free and open debate of a diversity of views and ideas. It is deeply ironic that in attempting to protect so-called fundamental British values, the UK government appears to endanger those very same values it champions. It is deeply troubling that the window of ‘reasonable’ and ‘permissable’ political views that we are offering to our young people in their education on extremism and terrorism is so narrow.

It is clear a new strategy is needed if the UK wishes to both counter extremism and promote democracy. Perhaps clearly discouraging the use of violence rather than discouraging diverse political views would be a good first step forward.

Kieran Ford is currently a PhD student and researcher at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago, New Zealand. Having grown up in the UK, Kieran has a background in education and activism. His research interests include education, extremism, community, peace and social change.

Courtesy: Open Democracy
 

The post The UK government thinks I am an extremist – and you might be one too appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Here is what happened:

♦ Attackers drove van into pedestrians on London Bridge before stabbing people in Borough Market
♦ Prime minister says too much ‘tolerance of extremism’ in UK
♦ 48 injured people taken to hospitals
♦ General election campaigning suspended

Full report: Police shoot dead three suspect after London attack

In the event of a major ISIS-inspired action in Britain, what principles do far-sighted – and brave – politicians need to observe? First published on 20 January 2017.
 

Stefan Rousseau/PA Wire/PA Images. All rights reserved.

"A few months before the 7/7 attacks in London in July 2005, and in the wake of the Madrid bombings, I went to a meeting that the Bishop of Bradford had convened to try and think through how a multi-confessional city like Bradford might respond if there was a similar attack in the UK. He brought together representatives from the local mosques, the police, the Council, the youth service and community groups, and I think this might have been one of the factors that helped maintain a degree of calm and resilience in the city when the 7/7 attacks came. Remembering this was part of what prompted me to write the following piece for openDemocracy in January, which was republished on 23 March in the light of the attack in Westminster.
Following last night’s terrible attack at the Manchester Arena, it may be helpful to look at the original column again. Now that we are in middle of a very fractious general election campaign it may be that the final few paragraphs, especially the last one, are particularly salient."
Paul Rogers  23 May 2017

Another 7/7-type attack in the United Kingdom is likely. In the aftermath, it will be essential to respond carefully with responses that seek to explain the wider context.
In London, the inquest has opened into the deaths of thirty British beach tourists in Sousse, Tunisia in June 2015. Eight others were killed in the ISIS-facilitated attack. Many questions remain over the warnings given and the levels of security offered.

The assault, as well as causing great grief to family and friends, had a substantial national impact. Yet this was less than the bombings of London's transport network on 7 July 2007, when fifty-two people were killed on a bus and three underground trains. (The four perpetrators also died). It remains the defining event for Britain in relation to political violence, closely connected to the Iraq war although this was strenuously denied by the Blair government at the time.

This “disconnect” has remained a feature of British attitudes to al-Qaida, ISIS and other extreme Islamist groups, even if some people pointed out at the time that the loss of life on "7/7" was no higher than the daily loss of life in Iraq.

Now, nearly twelve years later, the war goes on with a similar disconnect – there is simply no appreciation that Britain is an integral part of a major war that started thirty months ago, in August 2014. It may take the form of a sustained air-assault using strike-aircraft and armed-drones, but its intensity is simply unrecorded in the establishment media. This is a straightforward example of “remote warfare” conducted outside of public debate.

Thus, when another attack within Britain on the scale of 7/7 happens, there will be little understanding of the general motivations of those responsible. People will naturally react with horror, asking – why us? Politicians and analysts will find it very difficult even to try and explain the connection between what is happening "there" and "here".
The straightforward yet uncomfortable answer is that Britain is at war – so what else can be expected? It may be a war that gets little attention, there may be virtually no parliamentary debate on its conduct, but it is a war nonetheless.

There are several factors which underpin this approach.

The post-9/11 western-led wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya have left three countries as failed or failing states, killed several hundred thousand people and displaced millions. This causes persistent anger and bitterness right across the Middle East and beyond. While the Syrian civil war started as the repression of dissent by an insecure and repressive regime, it has evolved into a much more complex "double proxy war" which regional rulers and the wider international community have failed to address. This adds to the animosity.

The situation in Iraq is particularly grievous, given that it was the United States and its coalition partners that started the conflict and also gave rise directly to the evolution of ISIS. The Iraq Body Count project estimates the direct civilian death-toll since 2003 at more than 169,000. After a relative decline over 2009-13, an upsurge in the past three years has seen 53,000 lose their lives through violence.

Since the air-war started in August 2014 the Pentagon calculates that over 30,000 targets have been attacked with more than 60,000 missiles and bombs, and 50,000 ISIS supporters have been killed. But there is abundant evidence that western forces have directly killed many civilians. AirWars reports that:

"As ISIL was forced to retreat in both Iraq and Syria, the year [2016] saw a dramatic jump in reported civilian deaths from Coalition airstrikes. A total of between 2,932 and 4,041 non-combatant fatalities are alleged for 2016, stemming from 445 separate claimed Coalition-caused incidents in both Iraq and Syria."

ISIS, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (JFS), and other groups have no air-defence capabilities yet are determined to continue the war, seeing themselves as guardians of Islam under attack by the “crusader” forces of the west. At a time of retreat they will be even more determined than ever to take the war to the enemy, whether by the sustained encouragement and even facilitation of individual attacks such as Berlin or Nice, or more organised attacks such as in Paris and Brussels.

The aims of these groups are threefold:
* Retribution via straightforward paramilitary actions, responding especially to the current reversals in Iraq.
* Demonstrating to the wider world, especially across the Middle East, that they remain a force to be reckoned with.
* Inciting as much anti-Muslim bigotry and hatred as possible in the target countries.

In the last of these they are greatly aided by the attitudes of Trump, Le Pen, Wilders, UKIP and other western political phenomena, especially the incitement of fear of refugees which reached its height in Britain in the closing days of the Brexit campaign.

A repeat 7/7–level attack in Britain is probable, although when and how is impossible to say.  Again, it will not be easy to respond. But in trying to do so, two factors need to be born in mind.
First, the aim of ISIS and others will be to incite hatred. Any tendency to encourage that is doing the work of ISIS. This can and should be said repeatedly.

Second, the links between the attack and the ongoing war in Iraq and Syria must be made. That Britain is still at war after fifteen years suggests that some rethinking is required.

Politicians who make these points will face immediate accusations of appeasement, not least in the media. But however difficult the case, it needs to be made if the tide of war is to be turned.

About the author:
Paul Rogers is professor in the department of peace studies at Bradford University, northern England. He is openDemocracy's international security adviser, and has been writing a weekly column on global security since 28 September 2001; he also writes a monthly briefing for the Oxford Research Group. His latest book is Irregular War: ISIS and the New Threat from the Margins (IB Tauris, 2016), which follows Why We’re Losing the War on Terror (Polity, 2007), and Losing Control: Global Security in the 21st Century (Pluto Press, 3rd edition, 2010). He is on Twitter at: @ProfPRogers
 

The post A response to the London Terror Attack: The wrongs of counter-violence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The election of Donald Trump is the latest in a string of triumphs for illiberal nationalism, all of which squarely challenge the notion that governments must respect universal human rights.

It is rare, if not unprecedented, for so many leading figures in political democracies—from India to Britain, Hungary to France, the Philippines to the United States—to have so directly disparaged principles of open government, peaceful dissent, freedom from torture, and non-discrimination.

It is rare, if not unprecedented, for so many leading figures in political democracies—from India to Britain, Hungary to France, the Philippines to the United States—to have so directly disparaged principles of open government, peaceful dissent, freedom from torture, and non-discrimination.

As angry rhetoric soars, the temptation is either to lay low or to lash back in equal fury. But the present moment calls less for sudden shifts in direction than clear thinking. Advocates must examine soberly what has happened and why, as we chart a strategy to revitalize the rights cause for a new era.

For some critics on the left, the rights project suffers from association with the prevailing, top-down version of globalization—of unfettered markets, little regulation and low taxation—that has brought patterns of widening inequality to many societies. For others on the right, human rights are part of an international system that is seen to override national prerogatives, ignore national culture and demean national pride—or, as the Trump campaign has said, which “puts allegiance to international institutions ahead of the nation-state”.

Common to both lines of critique is a caricature of a movement that is elitist and out of touch with ordinary concerns. Yet this vision has gained political traction in part because it contains a glimmer of truth.

Many institutionalized efforts to advance rights—for example, NGOs with professionally trained staff and boards—depend for financial support on a small coterie of private foundations and/or individuals, overwhelmingly located in the United States, and to a lesser extent, in Europe. However well intended, these donors are the global elite; they have been spared the economic hardship others suffer. Compounding the sense of disproportion, the bulk of rights funding still goes to groups located in the global North, notwithstanding more recent efforts to change. And much of it favors issues (such as international criminal justice, LGBTI rights or internet freedom) which, however important, are not the priorities of all. Many view it as no coincidence that the most visible sites of the global rights architecture—the United Nations human rights regime, the International Criminal Court—are located in wealthy northern capitals like Geneva, The Hague and New York. Repeated assertions of US exceptionalism have not helped.

All this has fed narratives setting “human rights” in false opposition to the interests of ordinary people. Former Home (now Prime) Minister May has called for Britain to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, which, she has complained, “bind[s] the hands of parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, [and] makes us less secure.” Philippines President Duterte couldn’t “give a shit” about human rights because, he explained, he has a duty to protect children from drug dealers. In the same vein, US President-elect Trump has consistently dismissed as essentially “none of our business” reports of abuses in Russia, Syria, Turkey and other countries, because “we don’t know what we are doing and we can’t see straight in our own country.”

All this has fed narratives setting “human rights” in false opposition to the interests of ordinary people. The reality, of course, is that in most countries, most advocates of human rights are not well-paid professionals; they are common citizens and non-citizens, members of communities, victims of abuse and their loved ones—anything but elite and out of touch.

So how should rights practitioners respond to the new reality?

First, do what they do best—confront human rights violations when they happen. In the wake of Brexit and the US election, hate crimes are on the rise. Activists must deploy their core skills to document, publicize and pursue accountability. By shining a spotlight on abuses, exposing injustice and using the media and the courts, civil society groups in the US and other countries constrained some of the worst excesses of the Bush Administration’s war on terror. Worse may be soon to come, and rights actors will be sorely needed.

But that’s not enough. Advocates must intensify efforts to address the profound economic dislocations that have inspired so many political earthquakes. Numerous instances of deprivation—having to forego medical care for a serious illness for want of insurance; losing a job and having no safety net to fall back upon; being condemned to inferior quality primary schooling due to inadequate state funding—raise profound questions about social obligation, and demand public action, whether the interest at issue is framed as a “right” or not. 

Fortunately, they need not start from scratch. South Africa’s courts are hardly alone in recognizing the justiciable nature of certain “progressively realizable” economic and social rights, whether in the area of housing, health or social security. In recent years, US state courts have found that the government has a constitutional duty to fund education at minimally adequate levels. More should be done to fortify the doctrinal foundations undergirding affirmative efforts to safeguard economic and social welfare.

Beyond the letter of the law, the human rights community must expand the toolbox of rights advocacy to encompass practical, grassroots engagement through legal empowerment of the many. In recent years, civil society from Albania to Uganda has partnered with business, government and international bodies to improve access to health, water, and land by fostering more active community involvement, enhancing basic legal knowledge, securing legal identity, enabling women and girls, and training paralegals. These initiatives, which merit increased public and private support, are an increasingly critical part of the 21st century movement for human rights.
Finally, we must reject the often-cited, much-exaggerated dichotomy between domestic and international rights law as an unnecessary diversion. To be sure, international laws and institutions are the creations of states, but they are far away, and they often carry less authority than equivalent bodies closer to home. They are intended not as an alternative, but rather to backstop failing national systems. In most cases, implementation of international standards requires local action.

More to the point, from the perspective of most people seeking recognition or vindication of one right or another, it matters far less who provides it than that it is done at all. Their claims for help rarely distinguish among municipal authorities, national government and international institutions. And if their language varies from place to place, they share a common aim—to be treated with dignity by virtue of their humanity. Such an aspiration could not be more authentic. Maybe it’s enough to make the movement for human rights great—again.

(James Goldston is the director of the Open Society Justice Initiative).

(This article was first published on openDemocracy).

The post Making the Human Rights Movement Great Again—Amidst Rising Nationalism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Prime Minister Theresa May holds a meeting with her Indian counterpart, Narendra Modi, on the second day of the G20 Summit in Hangzhou, China. Stefan Rousseau/PA Images.

Britain's recently elected Prime Minister Theresa May, post-Brexit, has chosen to visit India from November 6, her first foray outside Europe after taking office. She ought to have headed to Washington given Britain’s ‘special relationship’ with the United States but presumably thanks to the presidential election due on November 8 that was ruled out. However, why did she choose India as her first port of call outside of Europe even as her country is witness to a rising spate of racist attacks including against people of Indian and other southern Asian as well as Black and Coloured origins?

The former colony which is home to the second largest population – 1.2 billion, behind China's 1.4 billion – has been pursuing pro-big-business policies since the 1990s at least. And under the current government of Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party, the country has been moving rapidly rightwards.

While domestic big business is being favoured with gifts of tax concessions and vast tracts of mineral-rich forests, mountains and land (seized from indigenous peoples), foreign domestic investment even in retail commerce is being encouraged by the very same party that previously criticised such moves while it was in the opposition.

Prime Minister May perhaps sees an opening and wants to engage with the Modi government in order to land some lucrative contracts, especially of the defence kind: much warmongering noises have been reverberating around New Delhi since an attack that left 17 soldiers dead at an army base in Uri in Indian-controlled Kashmir. Prime Minister May perhaps wants to engage with the Modi government in order to land some lucrative contracts, especially of the defence kind.

Given May’s track record thus far, especially in the face of increasing anti-immigrant sentiment in post-Brexit Britain, it is unlikely that she will raise thorny issues such as the massive human rights abuses taking place in many parts of India as also in Indian-occupied Kashmir in the north and Manipur to the northeast of India.  

The media contingent accompanying her ought to look beyond the May-Modi talks and report on what has befallen the country that preens itself as the “world’s largest democracy”.

In Kashmir alone since the anti-India uprising escalated following the killing of a militant named Burhan Wani in early July, more than 100 Kashmiri men, women and children have been killed by the Indian state. The forces’ use of pellet guns has caused massive injuries and left scores of people – including innocent children – blinded. As many as 15,000 people have been injured and 8,000 have been arrested.

In the capital itself, a young Muslim student named Najeeb Ahmed has been missing since October 15 from the prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru University but its authorities have made little effort, if any, in helping to trace the 27-year-old. Earlier this year, student leader Kanhaiya Kumar was arrested on trumped up charges of sedition, sparking protests from beyond India’s shores. Another ‘sedition’ accused is Professor S.A.R. Geelani, who had been teaching in a college under Delhi University. His crime: an address at the Press Club during which he spoke on the anniversary of the 9 February 2013 hanging of fellow-Kashmiri Afzal Guru – almost entirely wrongly convicted in connection with a mysterious attack on the Indian parliament in 2001.

In January, a brilliant Dalit PhD scholar at the Hyderabad Central University (in southern India) named Rohith Vemula committed suicide having faced months of hounding by the university authorities and a student wing linked to Prime Minister Modi’s party. Human rights groups refer to his death as institutional murder. Human rights groups refer to his death as institutional murder.

A little to the east of the capital, in Dadri in Uttar Pradesh state, a Muslim man was murdered in September on the suspicion that he stored beef (the cow being deemed sacred by Hindu fanatics) and when one of his assailants died a natural death in hospital recently, his body was covered with the national flag, Modi’s party members egging on the supporters of the attackers.

Just a few days ago, eight Muslims were killed by police in the central Indian state, Madhya Pradesh which is ruled by Modi’s BJP: extra-judicial executions or “encounters” as they are known in India, are quite rife, the National Human Rights Commission having noted that there were 206 such instances over the past year. In Manipur, to the east of India, there have been more than 1,500 “encounters” since the 1970s.   

Attacks on Dalits (members of oppressed castes) are a daily occurrence. ‘Cow vigilantes’ or Hindu fanatic hoodlums who attack Muslims and Dalits transporting meat – and not only of the cow – have been becoming increasingly brazen in their ways in many parts of India, especially in BJP-ruled states but also in others such as Karnataka, currently ruled by the Congress party.

Vast areas of mineral-rich central and east-central India have been rendered no-go zones for independent lawyers and journalists with police-raj prevailing and local Bar Associations and the media subject to police control.

May is set to end her India visit on November 8. Just the day after, unless wiser counsels prevail, the Modi regime’s bizarre order on a television channel, NDTV, to go off air for a day is to take effect: the government’s grouse is apparently that the outfit put out sensitive information about an alleged Pakistani attack on a military base in Pathankot in Punjab earlier this year. Never mind that other channels too had reported on the attack. But NDTV had earlier blotted its copybook by caving in unasked just a couple of weeks earlier when it interviewed a former Congress party minister named P. Chidambaram and then decided not to air it. Meanwhile, the Kashmir Reader remains banned.

But there certainly is resistance against Modi Raj. In fact, it is occasionally “in your face” even from the usually supine middle class: just a few days ago, when it was reported that The Indian Express, a major newspaper house, had invited Modi to present journalism awards, there were predictable expressions of consternation, which, however gave place to pleasant acknowledgements of the courage of a couple of journalists who used the occasion to signal dissent – senior journalist Akshaya Mukul refused to accept his award from Modi and Raj Kamal Jha, the newspaper’s own editor made pointed references to the need for reporters to question governments. It was similar to scholar Sunkanna Velpula’s refusal to accept his doctorate from Hyderabad Central University Vice-Chancellor Appa Rao Podile a few weeks ago in protest over the Rohith Vemula issue.

The media accompanying the British prime minister will not be able to question Modi as he does not face unscripted, freewheeling interviews or press conferences. His ministers and party leaders are also kept on a tight leash. The British reporters have their work cut out seeking other sources if they want to report on the reality of India under Modi.

(N. Jayaram is a journalist now based in Bangalore after more than 23 years in East Asia (mainly Hong Kong and Beijing) and 11 years in New Delhi. He was with the Press Trust of India news agency for 15 years and Agence France-Presse for 11 years and is currently engaged in editing and translating for NGOs and academic institutions).

(This article was first published on openDemocracyIndia.
 

The post Where is India under Modi headed? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In an Open Letter to Theresa May, hundreds of women’s human rights organisations and campaigners warn against a further slide towards privatised justice and parallel legal systems.

Protest in London against the Law Society's guidance on Sharia Wills April 2014. Photo: Wikimedia Commons/See Li

In 2015, the UK government announced that it would hold an independent inquiry into the operation of Sharia Councils in the UK.  Predictably, some dismissed the move as yet another example of ‘Muslim bashing’ and ‘Islamophobia’ because it was located within the State’s counter- extremism strategy.

But some of us welcomed the inquiry precisely because it provided a vital and rare opportunity for the state to examine the resurgence of religious fundamentalism and extremism within black and minority communities in the UK, and its impact on gender equality and justice.

We have warned against those who tout Sharia or religious personal laws as alternative and ‘authentic’ forms of community mediation and governance: a profoundly regressive idea that has increasingly gained traction in this age of austerity and the state’s retreat from its promise to look after its citizens from the cradle to the grave.

For years, many of us have been in the forefront of challenging minority religious fundamentalist and conservative forces, particularly Islamists, who want to legitimate the role of religion in the legal system. We have opposed the slow but insidious drip-drip effect of a fundamentalist agenda that seeks to communalise law and social policy in relation to women and family matters, bearing fruit in developments such as gender segregated seating in universities and the Law Society’s promulgation of ‘Sharia’ compliant legal guidance on inheritance. We have warned against those who tout Sharia or religious personal laws as alternative and ‘authentic’ forms of community mediation and governance: a profoundly regressive idea that has increasingly gained traction in this age of austerity and the state’s retreat from its promise to look after its citizens from the cradle to the grave.
 

Protesting against gender segregated seating outside the universities governing body (UUK) offices in London, December 2013

We had hoped and understood that the inquiry into these alarming developments – that are conveniently ignored by some civil rights campaigners who decry state but not fundamentalist abuse of power – would be truly independent. However, we are now dismayed to learn that far from examining the key connections between religious fundamentalism and women’s rights, the narrow remit of the inquiry will render it a whitewash; and instead of human rights experts and campaigners, it is to be chaired and advised by theologians. The danger is that the inquiry is setting out with a pre-determined objective that will approve the expansion of the role of Sharia and religious arbitration forums and their jurisdiction over family matters in minority communities, albeit with a little tweaking to make it more palatable to the state.

Those of us who work with abused and vulnerable women, largely from Muslim and other religious backgrounds, are alarmed by the prospect of a further slide towards privatised justice and parallel legal systems in the UK

Those of us who work with abused and vulnerable women, largely from Muslim and other religious backgrounds, are alarmed by the prospect of a further slide towards privatised justice and parallel legal systems in the UK.  We know that in such systems vulnerable women and children will be even more removed from the protection of the rule of law and governance based on secular citizenship and human rights norms. These are norms that we, along with others worldwide, have struggled to establish within formal domestic and international legal systems.

At a time when we are threatened with the loss of the Human Rights Act, our concerns about the make up and terms of reference of the inquiry raise profound issues of constitutionality, legality and democratic accountability. It is for this reason, that an unprecedented number of women and human rights campaigners from across the world have come together to endorse the following open letter to Theresa May, the UK’s Home Secretary.

Open letter to the Home Secretary

As a group of women’s human rights organisations and campaigners, we express our profound concern and disappointment with the terms of reference and recent appointments to the government’s 'independent review' on Sharia councils and arbitration forums in the UK. Weattach previous correspondence on the issue.

For several years, we have been highly critical of the ways in which, in the name of religious tolerance and freedom, the government and state institutions have kow-towed to demands made by leaders and spokespersons of the religious-right. This has resulted in the accommodation of arbitration systems based on minority religious personal laws. We have been alarmed at the growing acceptance of such personal laws to govern private and family matters: areas where, arguably, the greatest human rights violations of minority women in the UK take place.

There is considerable evidence to show how these parallel religious ‘legal’, mediation and arbitration systems operate in ways that violate the fundamental principles of protection, equality and non-discrimination in respect of women’s rights in relation to marriage, divorce, children, property and inheritance.

There is considerable evidence to show how these parallel religious ‘legal’, mediation and arbitration systems operate in ways that violate the fundamental principles of protection, equality and non-discrimination in respect of women’s rights in relation to marriage, divorce, children, property and inheritance. See for example: "Women and Sharia Law: The Impact of Legal Pluralism in the UK" by Elham Manea published in May 2016, which documents the harmful and even life threatening consequences for vulnerable minority women who are denied the right to equality before the law.

Precisely for these reasons, we had welcomed the 'independent review', believing it to be a genuine attempt to look at the work of Sharia councils and Muslim arbitration tribunals in the UK in the context of rising religious extremism and fundamentalism and its impact on the human rights of black and minority women. Nevertheless it is evident from the limited terms of reference and the makeup of the review panel that the review is in danger of becoming seriously compromised and as such, we fear that it will command little or no confidence.

Below we set out five of our major concerns:

1.The terms of reference of the review: The terms have ruled out a full evaluation of the harm caused by the existence of discriminatory religious ‘legal’, mediation and arbitration systems. Our information suggests that the existence of parallel or informal justice systems in itself creates conflicts in law and gaps in human rights protection. Yet we note that the review is not addressing this vital issue. Instead, the terms of reference suggest that the task of the review is to improve the functioning of systems that are discriminatory in effect and intent.We urge you to remove wording on ‘seeking out examples of best practice in relation to governance, transparency, and assuring compliance and compatibility with UK law’. Instead, the review should be free to examine whether the existence of sharia councils, mediation and arbitration systems undermine access to justice, and indeed undermine the Constitution by endorsing the existence of parallel legal systems.

2.The panel:  Although some of those appointed to the panel come from judicial and family/children law backgrounds, two Islamic ‘scholars’ have been appointed as advisers to the chair, Mona Siddiqui who is herself a theologian. This is cause for alarm: the government has constituted a panel more suited to a discussion of theology than one which serves the needs of victims and is capable of investigating the full range of harms caused by Sharia councils and tribunals, particularly for women.

The inquiry panel should be an impartial Judge-led investigation into the entire spectrum of human rights violations caused by the existence and functioning of Sharia councils and tribunals. It should be clearly framed as a human rights investigation not a theological one.

3 a) Competencies of Advisers to the panel: The inquiry should be properly advised by women’s rights advocates and legal experts in British and foreign laws and international human rights covenants. Advisers to the panel need to have a track record of respecting and protecting human rights, particularly those of women. They need to understand the impacts of informal justice and parallel legal systems on women (and indeed on minorities). They need to be conversant with existing laws regarding, for instance, the recognition of civil divorce in many jurisdictions; and be able to find appropriate experts to give evidence to the panel.  They also need to be able to assist the panel to investigate transnational fundamentalist networks in promoting Sharia law in different countries and their role in Britain. They need to be fearless in looking for evidence even if it implicates powerful interests.

3 b) Imams are not the right advisers: Theologians and religious scholars simply do not have the requisite skills or knowledge of existing legal practice and constitutional issues. Knowledge of theology is simply not the same as knowledge of the law either in Britain or elsewhere.

The government should be wary of replicating the most problematic aspects of multiculturalism in the constitution of the review. Many legal academics in Britain promote legal pluralism, which they see as community-based law. This anthropological and theological approach to law tends to ignore statutory law and evolving case law in countries that have Sharia or Muslim personal laws. The Law Society took this approach with its practice note on ‘Sharia Compliant Wills’. It   advised solicitors to ‘ask an Imam’ when drawing up a will. As you may recall, the Law Society was forced to withdraw their guidance because it was not only legally discriminatory but dangerously negligent. The government must not repeat the mistakes of the Law Society.

3 c) Imams/ Scholars cannot investigate themselves: Both ‘scholars’ advising the panel are on Imams Online. The terms of reference state that ‘the role of particular groups and Islamic authorities in England and Wales’ should be examined. The inquiry should not be deterred from investigating a particular platform because they are advisers to the panel. Nor can the inquiry be seen as impartial if it is charged with investigating itself. We are aware of extremely problematic positions taken by scholars on Imams Online on a range of issues that should certainly concern the inquiry.

4) Issues before the inquiry: It is vital for the inquiry to include examinations of whether violations of human rights are condoned or even promoted by Sharia bodies. Some examples are: women's testimony being worth half that of a man's, marital rape, sexual violence and domestic abuse, the age of consent, guardianship, forced marriage, honour based violence, ritual abuse, child custody and child protection, polygamy, divorce, sexuality, inter-religious relationships, female dress codes and abortion. Broader issues such as the treatment of religious minorities including minority sects in Islam, decisions pertaining to apostasy and blasphemy must also be examined to understand the full range of threats faced by people affected by religious laws, and indeed, by the State promoting these laws.

The reasons why Sharia councils and other religious arbitration bodies have operated with impunity need to be carefully examined. The inquiry should be able to summon witnesses who will give evidence of whether local councils, police, or departments of government have developed working relations with Sharia councils and whether these relationships have undermined the protection principle laid out in key legislation on discrimination and the rights of women and children and/or shielded  them from adequate scrutiny. Has the goal of preventing violent extremism actually led to strengthening relations with fundamentalist networks and individuals?

5) Implications for the scope and impartiality of the inquiry: The terms of reference and composition of the panel amount to an acceptance of a theological basis for laws for citizens from minority communities.
Furthermore, they evidence a capitulation to religious and conservative forces who wish to ensure that the needs and identity of minority women are addressed only through the prism of conservative religious values of which they are the sole arbiters. In effect, rather than being treated as independent persons with citizenship and human rights, minority women are regarded as members of their so-called religious communities who are assumed to be subjected to religious codes. As we understand it, the review was meant to be, not about religious or theological issues categorised as either ‘moderate’ or ‘extreme’ but an examination of women’s access to rights and justice. It is patronising if not racist to fob off minority women with so-called religious experts who are self-serving and who wish to legitimate Sharia laws as a form of governance in family and private matters. Even if some women appear to want this, we cannot stand by and watch the State being complicit in underwriting second-rate systems of justice, whereby minority women are treated as unequal before the law.

Our fear is that in these circumstances, many vulnerable women simply will not want to give their testimony before theologians who legitimate and justify the very idea of Sharia laws on the grounds that it is integral to their ‘Muslim identity’.  Indeed, the panel is set up much like the Sharia ‘courts’ themselves.

By making these religious appointments, the government has lost a vital opportunity to examine the discriminatory nature of not only Sharia councils but all forms of religious arbitration fora including the Batei Din. Our fear is that in these circumstances, many vulnerable women simply will not want to give their testimony before theologians who legitimate and justify the very idea of Sharia laws on the grounds that it is integral to their ‘Muslim identity’.  Indeed, the panel is set up much like the Sharia ‘courts’ themselves.

The makeup of the review panel betrays a complete absence of representation of the voices of the victims themselves and of women’s human rights organisations that have first hand experience of the human rights violations that take place in Sharia councils and other religious arbitration fora. We see and applaud the consideration given to victims of injustice in the context of other government reviews and inquiries such as those established to examine historic child abuse cases and the Hillsborough disaster. We would have expected the same care and consideration to be given to the victims of Sharia councils.

Black and minority women deserve the right to have a review that is led by a Judge and aided by human rights and women’s rights experts including those from across the world who have confronted religious personal laws and jurisdictional challenges in the furtherance of human rights.

6) Our Demands:

For the above-mentioned reasons, we call on the government to:

1. Ensure that the terms of reference are broad enough to have a thorough inquiry into the full range of human rights concerns raised by Sharia councils and tribunals.
2. Appoint a Judge to head the inquiry with the powers to compel witnesses to appear before it. The inquiry panel should be an impartial investigation into the entire spectrum of human rights violations caused by the existence and functioning of Sharia councils and tribunals.
3. Drop the inappropriate theological approach, and appoint experts with knowledge of women’s human rights, those who can properly and independently examine how Sharia systems of arbitration in family matters contravene key human rights principles of equality before the law, duty of care, due diligence and the rule of law. The inquiry must be clearly framed as a human rights investigation not a theological one.

The law and not religion is the key basis for securing justice for all citizens. We urge you to do the right thing to ensure that the same principles of human rights, equality before the law, duty of care, due diligence and the rule of law are applicable to all British citizens.

Signed
Diana Nammi, Director of Iranian Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation, UK
Elham Manea, Academic and Author of "Women and Sharia Law: The Impact of Legal Pluralism in the UK", Switzerland
Gina Khan, Women's Rights Campaigner, UK
Gita Sahgal, Director of Centre for Secular Space, UK
Maryam Namazie, Spokesperson of One Law for All, UK
Nasreen Rehman, Co-Founder and Chair of British Muslims for Secular Democracy, UK
Pragna Patel, Director of Southall Black Sisters, UK
Rayhana Sultan, Spokesperson of Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, UK
Yasmin Rehman, Centre for Secular Space Board Member, UK

UK Organisations
Andree Duguy, Women in Black (London), UK
Ashiana Network, UK
Basira, British Arabs for Universal Women's Rights, UK
Centre for Secular Space, UK
Community Women's Blog, UK
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, UK
Coventry Women’s Voices, UK
Culture Project, UK
Denise McDowell, Director of Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit, UK
Dianne Whitfield, Chief Officer of Coventry Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre, and Co-Chair of Rape Crisis England and Wales, UK
EileenRose McFadden, Case Manager of Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, UK
End Violence Against Women Coalition, UK
Equal Rights Now – Organisation against Women's Discrimination in Iran, UK
European College of Law, UK
Federation of Iranian Refugees, UK
Fitnah – Movement for Women's Liberation, UK
Gona Saed, Director of Kurdish Secular Center, UK
Houzan Mahmoud, Culture Project, UK
IC Change
Iran Solidarity, UK
Iranian & Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, UK
Jeena, UK
Jo Todd, Chief Executive Officer of Respect, UK
Karen Ingala Smith, CEO of NIA, UK
Karma Nirvana, UK
Kurdish and Middle Eastern Women's Organisation, UK
Kurdish Secular Center, UK
Lisa-Marie Taylor, Chair of Feminism in London, UK
London Black Women’s Project, UK
Manchester Women’s Aid, UK
Mersedeh Ghaedi, Former Political Prisoner and London Spokesperson for Iran Tribunal, UK
Million Women Rise, UK
Nari Diganta: Women in Movement for Equal Rights, Social Justice, and Secularism, UK
National Secular Society, UK
Nira Yuval-Davis, Professor and Director of the Centre for Research on Migration, Refugees and Belonging The University of east London, UK
One Law for All, UK
Polly Neate, Chief Executive of Women’s Aid, UK
Prashanta Bhushon Barua, Director of Studies & Head of Laws of European College of Law, UK
Priya Chopra, Chief Executive of Saheli, UK 
Rani Bilkhu, Founder of Jeena, UK
Respect, UK
Rumana Hashem, Founder of Community Women's Blog and Advisor to Nari Diganta, UK
Safety4Sisters North West, UK
Sarah Ager, Interfaith Activist and Curator of Interfaith Ramadan, UK
Sarah Green, Co-Director of End Violence Against Women Coalition, UK
Sarah Peace, Fireproof Library, UK
Sarbjit Ganger, Director of Asian Women's Resource Centre, UK
Sawsan Salim, Director of Kurdish and Middle Eastern Women's Organisation, UK
Secularism Is A Women's Issue
Shakti Women’s Aid, UK
Shaminder Ubhi, Director of Ashiana Network, UK
Sophie Walker, Women’s Equality Party, UK
Southall Black Sisters, UK
Tehmina Kazi, Director of Media, British Muslims for Secular Democracy, UK
Umme Imam, Executive Director of The Angelou Centre, UK
Welsh Women’s Aid, UK
Women Asylum Seekers Together, UK
Women in Black (London), UK
Women’s Resource Centre, UK
Women's Voices Manchester, UK

Individuals
Adele Wilde-Blavatasky, Writer and Activist, UK
Ahlam Akram, Founder Director of Basira, British Arabs for Universal Women's Rights, UK
Aisha K. Gill, Professor at University of Roehampton, UK
Amanda Sebestyen, Women's Rights Campaigner, UK
Beatrix Campbell, Writer, UK
Caroline Criardo-Perez, Writer and Campaigner, UK
Davina James-Hanman, VAWG Consultant, UK
Deeyah Khan, Filmmaker & CEO of Fuuse, UK
Geraldine Brady, Women’s Rights Campaigner, UK
Hana Chelache, Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain Activist, UK
Harriet Wistrich, Human Rights Lawyer and Founder of Centre for Women's Justice, UK
Heather Harvey, Women's Rights Campaigner, UK
Iman Kouchouk, Feminist, UK
Iram Ramzan, Journalist, UK
Jasvinder Sanghera, CBE and Founder of Karma Nirvana, UK
Joan Smith, Writer, UK
Joanne Payton, Women's Rights Campaigner, UK
Jocelynne A. Scutt, Barrister & Human Rights Lawyer, UK
Judy Audaer, Council Member of the National Secular Society, UK
Julia Pascal, Playwright, UK
Julian Norman, Feminism in London, UK
Julie Bindel, Justice for Women and the Emma Humphreys Memorial Prize, UK
Juyel Raaj, Editor of Bricklane, Journalist and Blogger, UK
Kalwinder Sandhu, Member of Coventry Women’s Voices, UK
Kate Smurthwaite, Comedian and Activist, UK
Lejla Kuric, Writer and Human Rights Activist, UK
Mala Sarker, Migrant Women's Rights Activist, UK
Mandy Sanghera, Human Rights Activist, UK
Mariz Tadros, Institute of Development Studies at University of Sussex, UK
Mary-Ann Stephenson, Women's Rights Campaigner, UK
Muna Adil, Journalist, UK
Nahla Mahmoud, Human Rights Campaigner, UK
Nazira Mehmari, Advice Co-ordinator of Iranian & Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, UK
Neda Barzegar-Befroei, Junior Doctor and Activist, IKWRO Survivor Ambassador, UK
Piya Mayenin, Women's Rights Campaigner and Solicitor, UK
Rahila Gupta, Writer, UK
Ranjit Kaur, Lawyer and Human Rights Campaigner, UK
Razia Begum, Vice President of Nari Diganta, UK
Ritu Mahendru, Anti-fundamentalist and anti-racist Feminist, UK
Safiya Alfaris, Women's Rights and Muslim Reform Campaigner, UK
Sara Browne, Campaign Officer of Iranian & Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, UK
Shaheen Hashmat, Writer and Activist, UK
Sukhwant Dhaliwal; anti-racist and women’s rights campaigner and founder of Feminst Dissent
Tahirih Danesh, Human Rights Researcher, UK
Vivienne Hayes, MBE, CEO of Women’s Resource Centre, UK
Zoe Fairbairns, Writer, UK

 International
Afsaneh Vahdat, Spokesperson of Children First Now, Sweden
Amel Grami, Professor at the University of Tunis, Tunisia
Anissa Helie, Professor at John Jay College, US
Anne Flitcraft, MD, Associate Professor Medicine at University of Connecticut (retired), US
Annie Laurie Gaylor, Co-President of Freedom From Religion Foundation, US
Annie Sugier, President of Ligue du Droit International des Femmes, France
Asra Q. Nomani, Cofounder of the Muslim Reform Movement, US
Association pour la mixité, l'égalité et la laicité en Algérie
Association Protagora, Croatia
Ateizm Dernegi, Turkey
Ayesha Imam, Executive Director of BAOBAB for Women’s Human Rights, Nigeria
Bader Sayeed, Founder and President of Roshni, India
Canadian Council of Muslim Women, Canada
Centro Interculturale delle donne di Trama di Terre, Italy
Djemila Benhabib, Author, Canada
Eiynah, Ex Muslim Blogger, Illustrator and Podcaster, Canada
Euromed Feminist Initiative IFE-EFI, France
Evelyne Abitbol, Executive Director and Co-founder of Raif Badawi Foundation for Freedom, Canada
Faizun Zackariya, Researcher and Activist, Sri Lanka
Farideh Arman, Activist of women's rights organisation Kvinnorättsförbundet, Sweden
Fatou Sow, Researcher in Sociology, Senegal
Fauzia Ilyas, Founder/President of Atheist & Agnostic Alliance Pakistan, Pakistan
Femmes solidaires, France
Firoozeh Bazrafkan, Image and Performance Artist, Denmark
Freedom From Religion Foundation, US
Hala Arafa, Egyptian-American Journalist, US
Hameeda Hossain, Human Rights Advocate, Bangladesh
Hasina Khan, Feminist Activist of Bebaak Collective, India
Helen O'Shea, Secretary of Atheist Ireland, Ireland
Hilda Saeed, Shirkat Gah Pakistan and Women's Action Forum, Pakistan
Homa Arjomand, Coordinator of The International Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada, Canada
Italian Feminist Magazine Marea, Italy
Jaleh Tavakoli, Blogger & Free Iran, Denmark
Jane Donnelly, Human Rights Officer of Atheist Ireland, Ireland
Khushi Kabir, Rights Activist, Bangladesh
Kuljit Kaur, Women's  Rights Campaigner, India
Kumudini Samuel, Women and Media Collective, Sri Lanka
Lalia Ducos,  Head of Women's Initiative for Citizenship and Universals Rights, France
Laura Guidetti, Italian Feminist Magazine Marea, Italy
Lila Ghobadi, Writer & Documentary maker, US
Lilian Halls-French, Co-President of Euromed Feminist Initiative IFE-EFI, France
Linda Weil-Curiel, Lawyer, France
Madhu Mehra, Partners for Law in Development, India
Maria Hagberg, Author and Member of Femmes Solidaires Secular Network, World Women's Conference  and UN Women, Sweden
Marieme Helie Lucas, Coordinator of Secularism Is A Women's Issue, Algeria/France
Mary Devery, Women's Rights Activist and Member of Terre des Femmes, Germany
Meredith Tax, Writer, Centre for Secular Space, US
Michèle Vianès, Présidente de Regards de femmes, France
Mina Ahadi, Spokesperson of International Committees against Stoning and Execution, Germany/Iran
Nada Peratovic, Founder and President of Center for Civil Courage, Croatia
Nadia El Fani, Tunisian Filmmaker, France
Nawal El Saadawi, Writer, Egypt
Nayantara Sahgal, Writer and Campaigner for Secularism, India
Nazanin Afshin-Jam MacKay, President and Co Founder of Stop Child Executions and The Nazanin Foundation, Canada
Nushin Arbabzadah, Writer, US
Ophelia Benson, Writer and Blogger, US
Partners for Law in Development, India
Raheel Raza, President of Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow, Canada
Rassemblement Algérien des Femmes Démocrates, Algeria
Regards de femmes, France
Rina Nissim, Espace Femmes International, Switzerland
Robyn E. Blumner, President & CEO of Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science and CEO of Center for Inquiry, US
Safia Lebdi, Women's Rights Activist, France
Sally Armstrong, Journalist, Canada
Sara Huassain, Advocate, Supreme Court, Bnagladesh
Sara Mohammad, Chairwomen for Never Forget Pela and Fadime Organisation, Sweden
Sarah Haider, Co-founder and Director of Outreach and Development, Ex-Muslims of North America, USA
Sheba Georg, Director, SAHR WARU: Women’s Action and Eesource Unit, Gujarat, India
Shelley Segal, Singer and Songwriter, Australia
Shirin Bahrami, Chair of Intergration i Malmö, Sweden
Soad Baba Aissa, Militante Féministe, France
Soraya L. Chemaly, Writer, US
South Asia Citizens Web, India
Stasa Zajovic, Founder of Belgrade Women In Black, Serbia
Sultana Kamal, Lawyer and Human Rights Activist, Bangladesh
Susan Saberi, Chair of Iranian Refugee Council's Federation Women's Section, Sweden
Tahira Abdullah, Human Rights Defender, Women's & Minority Rights Activist, Pakistan
The International Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada, Canada
Vahida Nainar, Founder-Director of Women’s Research and Action Group, India
Women in Black, Belgrade, Serbia
Zari Asli, Friends of Women in the Middle East Society, Canada
Zazi Sadou, Co- Founder of Rassemblement   Algérien des Femmes Démocrates, France
Zehra Pala, Editor/President of Ateizm Dernegi, Turkey

Pragna Patel is Director of  Southall Black Sisters  and a founding member of  Women Against Fundamentalism. She has written extensively on race, gender and religion. Her publications include  ‘Citizenship: Whose Rights?’ in Women and Citizenship in Europe: Borders, Rights and Duties, ed. A. Ward et al. (Trentham Books), the ‘The Time Has Come … Asian Women in Struggle’ in Black British Feminism – A Reader, ed. H. S. Mirza (Taylor & Francis), several essays in From homebreakers to jailbreakers 2003 ed. R. Gupta (Zed Books). Listen to her TEDX talk on Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. 

This article was first published on openDemocracy.

The post Theresa May’s Sharia Courts Review a ‘Whitewash’: Human Rights Campaigners appeared first on SabrangIndia.