The Cold War on British Muslims:An examination of Policy Exchange and the Centre for Social Cohesion
Year: 2011
Type: article
Abstract: T his report attempts to understand the current climate of fear being whipped-up against Muslims in Britain by examining two right-wing think-tanks: the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC) and Policy Exchange. The report maintains that the arguments advanced by these thinktanks represent a reversion to the failed counter-subversion strategies of the past.The report also argues that right-wing think-tanks have understated the rise of Islamophobia on the far-right and in some cases condoned the rise of groups such as the English Defence League (EDL) because of their own links to the counter-jihad movement. The hisTory of counTer-subversionOfficial counter-subversion was stepped-up in the wake of the explosion of popular protest in the late 1960s.Under pressure from ministers, MI5's Director-General agreed 'to stretch the [Service's] Charter as far as it would go', 1 which in practice led to increasingly spurious security justifications for political surveillance.While ostensibly aimed at communists and the 'far and wide left', this surveillance covered a whole generation of Labour activists, including Jack Straw, Peter Mandelson, Peter Hain, Patricia Hewitt, Harriet Harman, Cathy Ashton and Joan Ruddock. 2 Hewitt and Harman were targeted because of their work with the National Council for Civil Liberties, whilst Ruddock and Ashton were monitored because of their links to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.The counter-subversion thinking of this period had a problematic influence on counterterrorism policy.At the height of the 1970s counter-subversion campaign in Ireland, MI5 identified the Official IRA as a greater long-term threat to UK than the Provisional IRA. 3 As the official historian of MI5 notes, this seems perverse in hindsight given that the Official IRA had embarked on what became a permanent ceasefire.In effect though, MI5 was fitting Ireland into its wider counter-subversion campaign, identifying the political 'threat' of the Official IRA, and discounting the violent threat of the Provisional IRA. 4 This illustrates that far from being a rational response to terrorism, there is a two-fold danger in a counter-subversion approach that risks repressing those who are engaged in legitimate political activity while misunderstanding those who present a genuine threat of violence.Whilst the expansion of counter-subversion was undertaken in response to ministerial pressure, a private counter-subversion lobby also played a part.Amongst the most notable are those groups which were funded by the US-based Heritage Foundation between 1982 and 1985, which included the Institute for European Defence and Security Studies (IEDSS).5 Founded in 1979, the IEDSS's critique of unilateral disarmament would target a number of institutions that have more recently been attacked for being too open towards engagement with political Islam.Examples include Christian churches, considered in T.E.Utley's Ethics and Nuclear Arms, and higher education, the focus of Roger Scruton and Caroline Cox's Peace Studies: A Critical Survey.67 This preoccupation was shared by other elements of the countersubversion network, notably 'British Briefing' a clandestine newsletter written by former MI5 officer Charles Elwell.It warned of 'the problem of Christian left-wing groups' and cited the Jubilee Group, whose members included the future Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, as 'the best known and probably the most influential' of these.8 In the early 21 st Century, former IEDSS writers like Caroline Cox and Dean Godson would be at the forefront of those advocating a campaign against political Islam modelled on the Cold War counter-subversion narrative. executive summaryThE ColD WaR on BRiTiSh MuSliMS counTer-subversion ToDay: The cenTre for social cohesionThe Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC) was founded in 2007 as a project of the conservative think-tank Civitas.9 Its emphasis was in line with Civitas' previous work on the subject.A key example was The 'West', Islam and Islamism: Is ideological Islam compatible with liberal democracy?, a 2003 pamphlet whose authors Caroline Cox and John Marks would later become directors of the CSC.They argued that Islamist terrorism was only part of a broader ideological challenge comparable to communist propaganda efforts during the Cold War. 10 This vision was reflected in the appointment of Douglas Murray as the Centre's director; the author of Neoconservatism: Why We Need It.By the time he joined the CSC, Murray had already established a reputation as a critic of Islam, most notably in a 2006 speech in which he argued that 'Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board'.11 The CSC's first full length report, Hate on the State: How British Libraries Encourage Extremism, criticised the London Borough of Tower Hamlets for stocking 'several hundred books and audio tapes by radical Islamists' in its libraries; 12 it also criticised the failure to include Stephen Schwartz and ibn Warraq, two writers associated with the counter-jihad perspective.13 An intriguing aspect of Hate on the State was the credit given to Dominic Whiteman, the central figure in a now defunct amateur counter-terrorist group called Vigil, members of which have been implicated in fabricating online terrorist threats.One Telegraph report on Hate on the State went so far as to describe it as a joint publication of the CSC and Vigil.14 Vigil's Dominic Whiteman was also one of a number of people credited in another CSC report, Virtual Caliphate.15 After the publication of Hate on the State, Douglas Murray joined with local Conservative councillors in launching a petition calling on Tower Hamlets to 'remove all Hate Books identified in the Centre for Social Cohesion's Report'.16 In November 2007, the Government announced that it was working on new guidance 'to deal with the inflammatory and extremist material that some seek to distribute through public libraries'.17 However, the initial guidance was revised after the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals warned of a possible 'chilling effect' on libraries, similar to that of the 'Clause 28.' 18 Universities too have been a key focus for the CSC.A Degree of Influence for example, published in 2009, considered the issue of funding for Islamic studies.It made a number of criticisms of universities in receipt of such funding, but its strongest claim was that there had been censorship of certain aspects of Islam in universities.19 The report however provided no basis for this claim.Professor Denis Hayes of Academics for Academic Freedom, told the Guardian the real threat was closer to home, arguing that 'The British government, ruling through the quangocracy, operates much more effectively to influence academic life.' 20 While many of the report's recommendations for greater transparency about university donations were unexceptionable, its findings as a whole nevertheless conformed to the consistent pattern of the Centre for Social Cohesion's output on universities.In each case Muslim support for terrorism was exaggerated or mischaracterised in ways that sought to make counter-terrorism the basis for a more broadly targeted counter-subversion approach.Ironically, it is arguably this counter-subversion strategy that is the greatest threat to the independence of British universities.The CSC has not focused solely on Islam and has produced two reports on the British far-right: The BNP and the Online Fascist Network (2009) and Blood & Honour: Britain's Far-Right Militants (2010).The latter of these was produced with Nothing British, a Conservativealigned campaign against the far-right.Mainstream conservatives may well have a key role to play in opposing the far-right.However, given the growth of far-right Islamophobia, it must be questionable whether the CSC is an appropriate partner.The BNP report in particular underplays the extent to which the BNP has been influenced by other Islamophobic currents.The BNP's alliance with the counter-jihad movement and the subsequent emergence of the English Defence League were among the most significant developments on the British Who funDs The Think-Tanks?The authors of this report wrote to Policy Exchange and the CSC requesting in the interests of transparency that they disclose its sources of funding.The CSC stating in its response only that it is funded by private donations and has 'neither sought nor received public funds.'42 Policy Exchange failed to respond.Research has however uncovered a number of the donors behind both think-tanks.Research identified four foundations which have directly funded CSC since it split off from Civitas in June 2008: the Traditional Alternatives Foundation, the Bernard Lewis Family Charitable Trust, the Phillips & Rubens Charitable Trust and the New Heritage Foundation.By far the most significant of these donors is the Traditional Alternatives Foundation, a grant making trust run by the Thatcherite businessman Lord Kalms, owner of Currys, Dixons, The Link and PC World.A member of Conservative Friends of Israel, in 2003 Kalms called on Jonathan Sacks to resign as Chief Rabbi, alleging that he had failed in his duty to provide sufficient support for Israel.43 Kalms was also highly critical of the current Foreign Secretary William Hague during the 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.After Hague described the Israeli assault as
Authors: Tom Mills, Tom Griffin, David Miller
Language: English
Subfield: Sociology and Political Science
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
Funder: China Scholarship Council
OpenAlex ID: W191115135