.... is a good example of the clique within the civil service and elsewhere that Tim Montgomerie recently warned about. This clique argues that non-violent Islamists should be empowered so long as they oppose terrorism on British soil. Their key rhetorical argument is that, although all terrorists may be extremists, this does not mean that terrorism should be addressed by combating extremism.
For example, Githens-Mazer suggested on Sky that there is “no evidence base” for the argument that Islamist terrorism can be addressed by tackling Islamist ideology in all its forms. This is a bizarre position for many reasons, not least because the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre based at Thames House has warned that increased spread of non-violent Islamism facilitates recruitment to Islamist terrorism. [Harry’s Place] Read more
Another story of government advisers undermining government ministers (this time in the battle against extremism) .... Farr, in common with John Denham and Ken Livingstone, believes that anti-Western fanatics like Zakir Naik and Yusuf al-Qaradawi have the credibility to persuade young British Muslims not to blow themselves up on tube trains.
David Cameron came into office with a clear and oft-stated desire to reverse this approach. The Prime Minister believes that we should have learned from 7/7 that ideology matters – and that those who preach 'non-violent' extremism sow the seeds for future jihadism by fomenting division and legitimising hatred. Not every non-violent extremist becomes a jihadist – but if you are a non-violent extremist, your chances of becoming violent are infinitely greater. [ConservativeHome] Read more
