| | The Muslim News today prints an interview with the Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron MP, in which he proclaims that the Conservatives, if they form the next government, ‘won’t do formal things with the Muslim Council of Britain’, citing the Istanbul Declaration as reasons for suspending links.
|
In an interview with the editor of the Muslim News, Ahmed Versi (AJV), Cameron (DC) answered questions posed on the Conservatives’ approach to dealing with Muslim organizations.
AJV: You have broken off relations with the Muslim Council of Britain, so had the government but then it was patched up. Why did you do that?
DC: We won’t do formal things with the Muslim Council of Britain until either they distance themselves from the individual concerned, or he distances himself from the support for violence that he has set out in the past. Until one or other of those two things happen, we wouldn’t want to have formal meetings with the MCB.
AJV: The person you have mentioned has clearly said to the Communities Secretary that he has never supported or condoned violence against the British troops.
DC: As I say, more clarity is needed on one of the two things I said earlier.
AJV: What kind of relationship should a government have with Muslim organisations especially ones like the MCB which is that largest umbrella Muslim organisation.
DC: We should have a very positive relationship with the Muslim community and representatives of the Muslim community. There are other representative bodies. We would be fully engaged with them. We just have this particular issue at the moment with the MCB because of this individual. This is not to say that we have put a blanket ban on Conservative candidates or MPs talking to the MCB. I’ve bumped into them at public events myself. But in terms of holding official meetings and speaking at official functions I think the issue needs to be resolved.
AJV: So when you are in government, would you then invite them to talk about issues that are of concern [regarding Muslims]?
DC: If the issue is resolved, the one I referred to, then yes but if isn’t, then no.
The Conservatives’ position echoes the argument propounded by the Board of Deputies and the Community Security Trust in their joint submission to the CLG inquiry into Prevent that:
“Any future engagement with umbrella groups such as the Muslim Council of Britain must be contingent on them representing a greater range of views than those of the Islamists, and firmly rejecting violence in all circumstances, including in overseas conflicts.”
As we noted in that earlier article, the BoD/CST and, as it now seems, the Conservatives, conveniently choose to ignore the outright rejection of any such inference that the MCB or its office bearers condone the use of violence, as evidenced by the statement released by the MCB:
‘In response to recent media reports (IoS, 22nd March) about the Gaza Declaration in Istanbul, the Muslim Council of Britain wishes to make clear that it no way supports the targeting or killing of British soldiers anywhere in the world. This is the agreed position of all MCB Office Bearers without exception including the MCB's Central Working Committee.
‘As an independent community organisation, the MCB is committed to faithfully representing the views of all our affiliates. As such we reaffirm the right under international law of the Palestinian people to resist the ongoing illegal and brutal occupation of their land.’
And by Dr Daud Abdullah himself, in an open letter to the Communities and Local Government Secretary, John Denham MP.
So when Crispin Blunt MP, the Shadow Minister for Home Affairs and Counter-Terrorism, stated that:
‘…when a member of the Muslim Council of Britain goes to Istanbul and is reported as encouraging fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan to attack British troops the British state should make clear those views are wholly unacceptable, certainly in a public body that regularly wishes to engage with the government. If the views were correctly reported there should also be an opportunity for the individual to rethink the consequences of what was said and to restate their views in light of better understanding of their import.’
And that restatement of views, or correct reporting of them, has been offered, what possible reasons remain for the Conservatives to bury their heads in the sand and insist on ‘more clarity’? How much more clarity is the MCB to provide and many more hoops is it expected to jump through?
By preferring to deal with allusions and aspersions, rather than the facts, the Conservatives appear to have mapped out their strategy already for relations with the Muslim community as suggested by Cameron’s remark that ‘There are other representative bodies. We would be fully engaged with them.’
For those who perhaps hoped that the Conservatives, traditionally the party to champion liberty and the minimal state, would roll back the frontiers of the worst of Labour’s attempts to manufacture consent through the creation of docile Muslim entities, by allowing Muslim civil society to flourish independently, will take note of just where Tory policy is likely to be heading.
And one further point: will the Conservatives also seek ‘clarity’ from the Board of Deputies for its role in supporting the Rally for Israel in Trafalgar Square at the time of the savage assault on Gaza? Was that not an instance of the BoD contradicting its own condition that groups should ’firmly reject violence in all circumstances, including in overseas conflicts’?
|
