| Why did British prime minister Cameron choose to attack 'the doctrine of state multiculturalism' and indicate the parameters of the government's new counter-terrorism policy at an international security conference in Munich? The Munich International Security Conference was founded in 1962 and focuses on transatlantic relations and global security, attracting an audience of leading US and European politicians, military, security experts, scientists. media etc. In delivering his speech, Cameron clearly had in his sights a domestic audience, wooing the Sun and the Daily Mail, both of which, in calling for the disciplining of Muslim communities, have promoted a crude British nationalism based on uncritical support for the armed services and military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Only the day before. the Daily Mail had carried a feature attacking two Birmingham Muslim councillors, Salma Yaqoob and Mohammed Ishtiaq, for refusing to participate in a standing ovation for a British soldier awarded the George Cross for bravery in Afghanistan.) But Cameron's speech was also intended to send a clear signal to the United States and the European center-Right that Britain would no longer pursue different ethnic minority and race policies from its European counterparts. In particular, Cameron was showing his support for Angela Merkel and her German Christian Democrat party's idea that security and cohesion are brought about not through integration and pluralism, but through monoculturalism and assimilation into the dominant Leitkultur (lead culture). Cameron's speech was reported as a trailer for the up-and-coming government counter-terrorism review and Lord Carlile's review of the Prevent strategy. And it is here that Cameron indicated to a German security audience support for the German intelligence services' approach to the compartmentalisng of Muslim organisations into 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate', with greater surveillance of those deemed 'illegitimate'. In his speech, Cameron promised that the British government would no longer fund or share platforms with Muslim organisations that, while non-violent, were also a part of the problem because they belonged to a 'spectrum' of Islamism. While those who openly support terrorism are at the 'furthest end' of this spectrum, it also includes many Muslims who accept 'various parts of the extremist world view' including 'real hostility towards western democracy and liberal values'. In this, what should be feared is that Cameron is indicating that the government's review of counter-terrorism policy has been greatly influenced by the approach taken by the German intelligence services (Verfassungsschutz) which has at its base a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate Muslim organisations coupled with the most widespread system of religious profiling in Europe. Verfassungsschutz manuals also outline a 'spectrum' of radicalisation' and include a classification scheme for Muslims which regard the highly religious as just a notch or two below the potentially violent on a continuation of radicalisation. The upshot of the German approach is that a number of representative Muslim organisations, while not proscribed as terrorist organisations, are deemed unconstitutional and a threat to German values. As such, they are kept out of official government dialogue mechanisms and do not receive any public funding. Not only are they placed under state surveillance, even though the government acknowledges that they do not promote violence, but members of so-called unconstitutional organisations may also be subjected to reduced employment opportunities in certain professions, and excluded from citizenship via naturalisation. It is an approach that, in 2007, came under severe criticism from the International Crisis Group which defined it as comprising a 'slippery slope' view of Islamic extremism, which by lumping together many non-violent organisations with 'a few potentially violent group's created a blunt instrument for countering terrorism that leads to stigmatisation (Read an IRR News story: 'Germany: intelligence services target Muslims'). Another point of note is that Cameron in attacking 'the doctrine of state multiculturalism' was sending a signal that government policy in future will not be built on pluralism or integration but monoculturalism, assimilation, exclusion (and surveillance) of those Muslim organisations which refuse to play ball. With the ditching of multiculturalism, also goes the ditching of 'race relations' based on the Roy Jenkins model of 'equal opportunity accompanied by cultural diversity in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance'. And if we are really to go down the German route of monoculturalism, 'race relations' policy will also transform beyond recognition, as monoculturalism presupposes the subsumption of the minority under the majority. From now on, 'ethnic minority' policy will not only be securitised but will act as an adjunct to anti-terrorist laws. Read an IRR News story: 'Germany: intelligence services target Muslims' Germany: intelligence services target Muslims By Liz Fekete 19 April 2007, 11:00am As the UK government publishes new proposals to combat violent Muslim extremism, we examine two reports critical of the German approach. Since September 11, European security services have been given unprecedented powers to define which Muslim organisations are 'legitimate' and which 'illegitimate'. Two new publications from internationally-respected bodies are critical of the crude way in which German intelligence services have been evaluating the 'Islamist threat'. The International Crisis Group, in its report 'Islam and Identity in Germany', has criticised the Verfassungsschutz (German Intelligence Service) for adopting a 'slippery slope' view of Islamic extremism.[1] And the Open Society Institute EU Monitoring and Advocacy Programme, in a briefing paper on Muslims in Germany by cultural anthropologist Nina Mühe, has similarly criticised 'the role and power of definition' that has been given to German intelligence services to distinguish between 'real' and 'misguided' Muslims.[2] How religious profiling works The extensive religious profiling adopted by the Verfassungsschutz deems any 'Islamist' group an automatic 'threat' to the German state. The Crisis Group points out that this has led the intelligence services to lump together the many non-violent organisations with the 'few potentially violent' groups. It terms this a blunt instrument that leads to 'stigmatisation'. The Crisis Group cites a pyramid structure, which appeared in a 2005 interior ministry publication on 'entry ways into radicalisation', with the lowest level being Muslims in Germany (3.2 million) followed by 'Sporadically religious Muslims', then 'Muslims who live religiously', followed by 'Moderate Islamists', then 'Islamists', and, finally 'Those who tolerate violence' and then at the tip 'Those who are ready to commit violence'. Groups in the upper three echelons which merit 'constitutional observation' include supporters of the Caliphate State, Hizbullah, Hamas and Hizb Ut-Tahir (banned in Germany in 2003). Among Iranian organisations under observation are the Islamic Centre Hamburg and the Imam Ali mosque. Milli Görüs stigmatised by security services Both the Crisis Group and the Open Society Institute single out the intelligence services treatment of Milli Görüs (IGMG), which, though it represents a large number of Turkish-Germans, is being marginalised from mainstream debate. Milli Görus has been the target of investigations for anti-constitutional activities at the federal level as well as in nearly every region where it is active. Also several clerics linked to it as well as ordinary members have been prosecuted. Nina Mühe, author of the Open Society paper, points out that Christian organisations, which have attempted to work with Milli Görüs at a grassroots and practical level, are being discouraged from so doing. In December 2006, the Evangelische Akademie Loccum planned to host a conference to promote its charitable aid work in East Africa - which is based on inter-faith cooperation in the region. The ministry of interior initially promised to fund the event. But funding was withdrawn when it was discovered that a participant- and one of the initiators of this inter-faith project - was Mustafa Yoldas, a member of Milli Görüs. The organisers from the Evangelische Akademie could not let the ministry's action go unchallenged. And it refused an offer by Yoldas to withdraw from the Conference on the basis that his work was far too respected and it could not just 'uninvite' him through fears that the funding would be cut. (Yoldas had already lost his job as a translator for the federal refugee service after the intelligence services denounced him as a member of Milli Görüs.) In fact the intelligence services' approach is beginning to be scrutinised and challenged. Milli Görüs members themselves have successfully launched lawsuits against the intelligence services in North Rhine-Westphalia and Bavaria - showing that Verfassungsschutz reports have sometimes included basic translation errors, defamatory material or unfair innuendos and accusations. Successful legal actions have led to court orders preventing officials from reprinting 'falsehoods and hearsay' against the organisation. Harassment through local authority administrative measures According to the Crisis Group, in the absence of legally actionable offences, local authorities are relying on administrative measures bordering on harassment to deny Milli Görüs' members and officials legitimacy. The rejection of naturalisation applications, the refusal of visas for imams and expulsion orders for activists, 'translates into an exclusion policy from which only a handful of administrators have dared to deviate'. The director of an IGMG branch in Cologne says that 200 cases of IGMG-employee naturalisation requests have been turned down, with most cases cited in Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg and Hessen. Liberals join the Right Opposition to Turkish-Muslims connected to Milli Görüs is not confined to Conservative and Christian Democrat officials. When an administrative court in Hessen ruled that four IGMG members could keep German citizenship even though they were members of an organisation under observation by the Verfassungsschutz, local Social Democratic Party (SPD) and Green officials proposed a new procedure to prevent 'extremists' from becoming citizens. For as Nina Mühe points out, though centre-left and left parties may have more liberal views when it comes to immigration, when it comes to the Muslim community they can fall prey to Islamophobia, as they have 'stronger resentments ... nourished by a mixture of feminism and secularism'. [1] Islam and identity in Germany, International Crisis Group Europe, Report no. 181, 14 March 2007. Read and download here . [2] Nina Mühe, Muslims in the EU - Cities Report, Germany, Open Society Institute, EU Monitoring and Advocacy Programme. Download a pdf file here (pdf file, 667kb). The Institute of Race Relations is precluded from expressing a corporate view: any opinions expressed are therefore those of the authors. |