Islamism in the Labour Party, hypocrisy in the Telegraph
Allegations by the Sunday Telegraph that there are “Islamists” at work in the Labour Party won’t come as a galloping shock to anyone who regularly reads Private Eye. That organ has contained plenty of juicy gossip about Lutfur Rahman, leader of Tower Hamlets’ council, and the goings on in that area. The Telegraph simply attempted to put a name and formal structure to the influence peddling and dodgy politics.
That name is, allegedly, the Islamic Forum of Europe. The scoop was in getting Jim Fitzpatrick, Minister for the Environment, to denounce them as “entryists” and to say that they are, “completely at odds with Labour’s programme, with our support for secularism.” Hereafter everyone will be able to talk about the process like it’s a conscious infiltration rather than part of a broader trend that requires no secret conspiracy.
Islamisn and Labour
Read through the Telegraph articles and comment pieces on the subject. This group, the IFE, have only gained ground as people “moved away from secular, Left politics”. This move shouldn’t surprise anyone; the secular Left has been caught in an impossible position between a Labour government waging war on Muslims and a Labour Party that would prefer its genuinely Left members to shut up and gormlessly pound the pavement, rather than expect to have any say on policy.
By ‘genuinely Left members’, I mean those who still hold to all the old chestnuts: redistribution, universal public services where corporations don’t turn a profit, liberal values of free speech and civil rights and so on. The splitting of this Left across Greens, Labour, the Socialist and Socialist Workers Parties and a welter of independents, plus the crushing weight of bureaucratic power in Labour that prevents a coagulation of the Left within the Labour Party, leaves the way open for fundamentalist groups to win people to other avenues.
We’ve witnessed it with the BNP, and every time a genuine take-no-shit socialist runs against the BNP, with a sufficient campaign to back them, the BNP get hammered back. This will be much more difficult if the link between the Left and minority communities is broken by religious extremists, and in turn this will create a feedback loop that polarizes the white working class away from uniting with minorities to the good of all.
Andrew Gilligan, in his piece, compared the Islamic Forum of Europe to the Militant Tendency, a revolutionary socialist group that picked up thousands of members due to agitations against the inaction of Labour’s leaders over the Miners Strike and the other Thatcherite attacks on the working class. The irony here is that only groups like the Militant can win people back from religious extremism, because only those groups can be unambiguous and forthright in their class politics and class demands – but Labour’s leadership does its level best to kill those groups.
In the case of the Militant, this was done through expulsions – but for those who survived the Labour Party purges of the 1980s, it has continued in the bureaucratic attitudes and structures of the labour movement that sees union leaders act as New Labour backscratchers, leaves the Party NEC as a puppet for the parliamentary leadership, and leave Labour conference as a figleaf democracy.
Hypocrisy and ignorance in the Telegraph
Beyond the immediate concerns of preserving Labour’s secularism (for which the leadership’s first recourse won’t be a change in policy, to quit alienating Labour votes, it’ll be expulsions or NEC control of local selection procedures), I found the holier-than-thou attitude of the Telegraph Op Ed piece on the subject to be really quite amusing:
“If the Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) was open and frank about its aims, voters would be able to make up their own minds about whether they wanted to see its members in any form of government in Britain. It is part of any democratic system worthy of the name that those who abide by the rule of law are entitled to campaign in elections, even if we find their beliefs objectionable. But some members of the IFE demonstrate in private that they have an agenda that they are not willing to share with the electorate.”
Hypocrisy! Both the Labour leadership and its Tory counterparts quite happily hold off on announcing policies and plans because they might alienate voters. The Tories are especially guilty of this at the moment, with their loud claims that they can’t really say anything definite until they are in office and can see the book-keeping. Which is precisely why this “Change” guff is so all-pervasive. The Op-Ed continues:
[The IFE] would be more credible if, in public, the IFE was not presented as simply a “social welfare organisation” committed to “community cohesion” and “tolerance” – while in private, it shows itself to be committed to replacing democracy by a theocracy based on Islamic law.
This type of sentiment displays a staggering ignorance. The reason extremist organisations gain influence is precisely because of their roles as ‘social welfare organisations’ – in the absence of a State prepared to step up and fulfil its responsibilities. Has no one noticed the proliferation of extremist Christian churches in the shittiest parts of this country, with their Bible groups and focus on helping the sick, the old, mothers etc? It’s the same principle – and whilst not especially violent, can be just as antithetical to liberal secularism.
All talk of community cohesion and tolerance is to Brit politico-speak what “Freedom”, “Truth”, “Justice” etc are to US political discourse. Who the hell is going to admit to being against them? There’s a fair argument to be made that with their emphasis on nuclear family values, harsher sentencing, less redistribution and the odd slip back into anti-immigration rhetoric, the Tories aren’t exactly contributing to community cohesion and tolerance – but damned if the Telegraph spends pages arguing about that, because they agree with Tories.
Part of the problem
This rise of ethnic extremism is the precise counterpart to the continuing nationalist, xenophobic diatribes of the Waily Mail, Telegraph, Sun etc. If the conditions of the British working class are presented as being the result of mass immigration, and disenfranchisement a result of individual corruption or ‘political correctness gone mad’, then we’re pushing for the rejection of the big minority communities that form a part of the UK, and capitulation before the hysterical “cultural Christianity” of Melanie Phillips et al.
By doing so, we’re inviting others to take advantage of the resentment stoked up in both majority and minorities. And still nothing will be solved; disenfranchisement will continue, declining public services will continue. The ‘British’ far Right are interested in the same harmful privatisation and cut backs as the mainstream – they vote for them in local councils like Kirklees on a regular basis. The ethno-nationalist Right – as demonstrated across the Islamic world – is equally little interested in social welfare and the liberation of the individual.
The socialist answer – one that has an immensely powerful pull when talking to people of all races, cultures and creeds on the ground – is simple: we fight extremism and we fight the indifference of our political class by the same methods. Building the democratic organisations for a fighting working class, to secure the most basic demands; employment, housing, universal healthcare, education and public services and a government form which does not breed an unaccountable political class.
“the secular Left has been caught in an impossible position between a Labour government waging war on Muslims”
Are you consciously echoing Islamist discourse?
“only groups like the Militant can win people back from religious extremism, because only those groups can be unambiguous and forthright in their class politics and class demands”
What an unpleasant choice – and a false one, I’d say!
“The reason extremist organisations gain influence is precisely because of their roles as ’social welfare organisations’ – in the absence of a State prepared to step up and fulfil its responsibilities. Has no one noticed the proliferation of extremist Christian churches in the shittiest parts of this country, with their Bible groups and focus on helping the sick, the old, mothers etc? It’s the same principle – and whilst not especially violent, can be just as antithetical to liberal secularism.”
I accept this.
My language above was chosen to reflect what could be so easy for any Muslim to imagine from British foreign policy – wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, posturing against Iran, chaos in Pakistan and Yemen, all of which is directly attributable to Western foreign and economic policy over decades.
As regards Militant, well of course you’d say that. My point is that only groups prepared to advocate a) grassroots democracy, where people can have their voices heard and can determine policy and b) an umambiguously pro-working class platform can break the rise of religious extremism.
You can deny this – but then you go on to accept my thesis on the rise of extremist organisations. It logically follows from this that forcing the State to fulfil said responsibilities is necessary, and the only way to do this is through a democratic socialist party – which Labour has ceased to be.
Shorter Gilligan: I went to a mosque and there were Muslims there! Some of them even believe Islam is a superior way of life! Some of them are voting, and joining political parties!!! With a camera up my jumper, some well-chosen talking heads, a portentous voiceover and a bass-heavy soundtrack – we can make this look incredibly sinister!
There may or may not be something dodgy about the IFE, but Gilligan (and the Harry’s Place cut-and-paste articles in Private Eye) haven’t succeeded in demonstrating that to anyone who doesn’t buy in to the entire HP worldview. Lutfur Rahman was absolutely pisspoor, and Gilligan still didn’t land a blow.
*chuckles* Amusing as ever Splinty.
Sinister or not, it’s worrying that some Muslims are feeling compelled to engage on the basis of an Islam that is not imbued with a spirit of great tolerance. I say the same about extremist Christians. That’s mostly what I try to address through this article, and the specific allegations of Gilligan notwithstanding.
It’s a bit strange, though, that Jim Fitzpatrick weighed in if it’s all bollocks.
Two things worth bearing in mind. One is that Tower Hamlets Labour is a factional bearpit and has been for years. There are all sorts of odd Bangladeshi details I don’t know but I’m sure Fitzpatrick does.
The second is that Fitzpatrick will be facing Galloway, and the clear strategy will be to squeeze Tory and Lib Dem voters by saying only Labour can beat Galloway. It actually worked for Oona King, just not enough for her to win. And also, Tower Hamlets being what it is, once you make that pitch everything becomes racially polarised very quickly.
It’s all a bit murky at this stage just.