The curious case of Priti Patel

She strides confidently towards the centre podium. Shoulders upright, chin held aloft, signature smirk cocked and locked.

“Good afternoon. Welcome to Downing Street for the government’s daily press conference on Coronavirus.”

She shoots her signature smirk at the audience before introducing the person on her left and then the person on her right.

She is composed, determined and unapologetic from the outset.

~

Priti Patel is Britain’s first Home Secretary of Indian origin. Her family are originally from Tarapur in the state of Gujarat but migrated to Uganda. They were left penniless and homeless after Idi Amin’s regime ordered the expulsion of his country’s Asian minority.

Sushil and Anjana Patel, Priti’s parents, fled to the UK where they set up a chain of successful convenience stores. Priti was born in London on 29 March 1972 and went on to attend the prestigious Watford Grammar School before studying Economics at Keele University.

(Fun fact: Spice Girl Geri Halliwell was in the year above Patel at Watford Grammar School.)

Patel began her career lobbying for the tobacco and alcohol industries before switching to politics.

~

Her notes read ‘Three hundred and thirty-four thousand, nine hundred and seventy-four’. This is the disappointingly low number of Covid-19 tests carried out in the UK as of Saturday 11 April 2020.

“The number of Covid-19 tests carried out in the UK: Three hundred thousand, thirty-four, nine hundred and seventy-four…thousand…”

She remains composed, determined and unapologetic, despite the blunder.

~

Patel’s role model growing up was Margaret Thatcher, from whom she has derived her classically conservative political instincts.

She was appointed International Development Secretary in July 2016. Her elevation to the post was controversial given her earlier comments that the department – which is responsible for overseas aid and the elimination of global poverty – should be replaced with another department focused more on trade with poorer nations. Sources within the department reported that her priority was protecting British taxpayers, in true Thatcherite fashion.

In August 2017, whilst on a “private holiday” in Israel, Patel held illegal meetings with Israeli officials without telling the Foreign Office. She was accompanied by Lord Polak, honorary president of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI). Her covert summer trip was seen by some as a gift to Israelis seeking to influence British foreign policy.

~

She digs her heels deeper and deeper into the ground as she tries desperately to hide her utter contempt at being asked – for a third time – if she would apologise for the lack of personal protective equipment being provided to healthcare workers on the frontline of the battle against the Coronavirus. Through gritted teeth she finally concedes:

“I’m sorry *if* people feel that there have been failings.”

The ultimate non-apology as – even when pushed – she remains unwaveringly unapologetic. Government officials are never ones to admit their mistakes and Priti Patel is as unapologetic as they come.

~

Charges of incompetence and allegations of bullying have followed Patel’s political career.

Boris Johnson’s choice of Patel as Home Secretary had left some at the centre of the party quite perplexed. Among peers she has a poor reputation as a minister, with officials whispering that she was not intellectually up to scratch.

But she is a fierce Brexiter and her hard-line politics have got her this far (to the centre podium!). She has built her reputation as being tough on criminals and illegal immigrants, with striking views on the death penalty, thus appealing to a core base of Tory voters.

~

Patel has been embroiled in a furious row with MPs over when she will answer questions in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee. She is said to have turned down four invitations to appear in front of the committee since January.

Her last public appearance is thought to have been Home Office questions in the House of Commons in mid-March. In the days and weeks leading up to her eventual appearance at the daily press conference on Coronavirus on 11 April, Downing Street were under pressure to explain her somewhat startling absence.

~

“Home Secretary, where have you been for the last three weeks?”

This causes more of a smile than a smirk. She is ready for this one.

“I’ve been in the Home Office working virtually every single day on a range of policy areas.”

Chief among these policies is her new points-based immigration system.

~

Under the new rules, those earning under £25,000 per year will be deemed “low skilled” and thus denied entry to the UK (unless the government deems there to be a shortage in a particular sector). This includes those looking for work as nurses, paramedics and almost certainly Patel’s own parents.

Indeed, Patel was chillingly unapologetic when conceding on LBC Radio that her parents would probably be denied entry to the UK under her new immigration rules.

She has also ignored pleas from charities to take children from Greek camps (who have already been accepted into the UK) as refugees joining their family but who are trapped in the current travel chaos.

And despite the global health emergency caused by the Covid-19 outbreak, Patel has pressed ahead with her changes to the immigration rules.

~

To some she is the heroine of right-wing conservative politics, with unreconstructed Thatcherite views. To others she is a villain, evil smirk and all.

Her dogged insistence on furthering the government’s “hostile environment” toward migrants and refugees – even in a global health emergency – certainly paints a chilling picture of a callous Westminster villain.

 

What I learnt from watching Bollywood films in Quarantine

How have you been spending your time in quarantine? I’ve been idly re-watching some old Bollywood films.

Bollywood was never a big part of my childhood. My dad used to rent a couple of films a week and we would sometimes watch them together. My brother and I were mainly interested in the films with the most outrageous fighting scenes, Sunil Shetty was our favourite actor cum fighter.

I remember visiting the Indian rental film shop on Westbury Avenue with my dad in the late 90s. It was a tiny shop crammed with VHS tape cassettes and permeated by the aroma of sweet paan and incense.

The two films I recently re-watched were Dil Se and Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge.

Dil Se and Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge

Dil Se involves Shah Rukh Khan’s relentless pursuit of a mysterious woman who – it later transpires – ends up being part of a separatist movement classified as terrorists by the Indian government. It’s a pretty good film with one of the catchiest Bollywood tunes of all time.

Dilwale is shot across Europe and India and is packed with spectacular scenery, more catchy tunes and colourful costumes. The story follows yet another tireless pursuit of a beautiful woman but in more typical Bollywood fashion.

Two things struck me whilst watching Dil Se and Dilwale.

Firstly, that Indian films were lewder than I remembered. This is surprising considering how socially conservative Indian society was known to be. Could Bollywood be responsible for the rapid rise in India’s rape culture?

Secondly, that Shah Rukh Khan is a terrible actor. How had he become the “King of Bollywood” and what does his success mean for the Muslim population living in Modi’s India?

Let’s take each of these issues in turn.

Rape Culture in India

The creepy pursuit of beautiful women seems to be a consistent theme in Bollywood films. Critics have argued that the continual sexual objectification of women on screen can have a harmful impact on women in the real world and can lead to acts of violence.

I counted at least 5 criminal offences Shah Rukh Khan committed over the course of Dil Se and Dilwale: stalking, harassment, sexual harassment, assault and sexual assault.

Add to this: crimes against fashion!

Many Bollywood films follow a familiar pattern: boy likes girl > girl says no > boy dances through Swiss Alps with scantily dressed girl > boy finally wins girl.

India’s male population has thus been raised on a diet of grotty films portraying unrealistic expectations of romance and strict societal norms that act as barriers to marriage. This results in a frustrated and ultimately dangerous demographic.

Indeed India’s New Delhi has become one of the worst places in the world for sexual violence against women. The 2012 Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case in Delhi is a case in point. It involved the horrific gang rape of a 23-year-old medical student on a bus in Delhi which resulted in her death and made headlines worldwide.

The incident led Shah Rukh Khan to tweet: “I am so sorry that I am a part of this society and culture.  I am so sorry that I am a man.”

Male stars in Bollywood films are often characterised by a flawed masculinity and their female counterparts as tools for subjugation. This portrayal of the genders condones a culture of misogyny and sexual harassment that contextualises India’s rape culture.

Muslims in Modi’s India

India is home to the second biggest Muslim population in the world, with over 200 million Muslims living in India. But Muslims remain a small minority in a county of nearly 1.5 billion, accounting for less than 15% of the population.

The recent rise in Hindutva ideology in Indian politics thus poses a dilemma for an influential film industry that is dominated by Muslim actors, directors and crew but caters for India’s broader, predominantly Hindu population.

Recently, outrage over a Muslim congregation which sparked a new wave of Covid-19 cases in India has taken an Islamophobic turn. #CoronaJihad, #NizamuddinIdiots, #Covid-786 (a number that carries religious meaning for Muslims) began trending online as details about the congregation emerged on national news. Islamophobic memes have also been circulating – one meme, for instance, shows China as the “producer” of the virus, and Muslims as its “distributors”.

With all their fame and influence, surely Shah Rukh Khan and his namesakes in Bollywood lie in the perfect position to speak out against Islamophobia and rising Hindu nationalism?

One of Bollywood’s leading directors has called on Bollywood’s Khans to break their silence about the new citizenship law that had triggered riots in India, rightly claiming that they could influence millions of fans. “I am really angry at anyone who has not spoken out,” director Anubhav Sinha, a critic of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist government, told Reuters news agency. “These three actors and their fan following is something else. One word from them can influence millions,” added Sinha, referring to Aamir Khan, Salman Khan and Shah Rukh Khan.

So, what did I learn watching old Bollywood films during quarantine?

Well firstly, in Dil Se and Dilwale, Shah Rukh Khan gets away with manhandling strange women and then climbing into their bedrooms. Exchange his dimples for a Freddy Krueger mask, and these could be horror films not light-hearted rom-coms. Secondly, it is clear that the famous Khans of Bollywood stand at the apex of an extremely influential and multi-billion-dollar industry. Their silence in the face of rising Islamophobia is deafening.

 

 

 

 

Review of BBC’s Informer: a scathing critique of the Government’s anti-terror strategy

From novelists to political cartoonists, artists have long approached important social and political issues with unique viewpoints. Shakespearean tragedies such as King Lear and Macbeth dramatise political leadership and the lust for power. David Simon’s hit TV Show The Wire has been described as a “Greek tragedy for the new millennium,” a story about “the triumph of capitalism over human value”; and as a chronicle of “the decline of the American empire”. Likewise, Informer is more than just a crime drama; it’s a scathing critique of our Government’s anti-terror strategy.

The Show follows Detective Sergeant Gabe Waters and his partner, new recruit DC Holly Morten who, together, work with informants to foil terror plots for London’s Counter Terrorism Special Unit (CTSU). Raza Shar, played by impressive debutant Nabhaan Rizwan, is on a night out with his girlfriend when he is arrested for drug possession and subsequently blackmailed into becoming their latest informant. Set in inner-city London, Informer is a gritty thriller which addresses the terror threats facing Britain in a courageous and intelligent manner.

“I don’t know any terrorists, bruv!”

“Well you’re not that kind of informant. You go to the places I can’t.”

“What, like Ministry of Sound and Cargo? Or like mosques and pan wallahs and that?”

Spoiler alert. Raza isn’t sent to “mosques and pan wallahs” but, instead, to a poverty-stricken and drug-laden estate in East London to score from a small-time dealer by the name of Dadir Hassan (played by the excellent Roger Jean Nsengiyumva) in the hope he can gather information which may eventually lead to scuppering a future terror attack. The implication here being an obvious one: that terrorists will be found not among observant Muslims but among those engaged in criminal activity.

Informer dismisses the ‘conveyor belt’ theory of radicalisation which is at the heart of our government’s current anti-radicalisation strategy. The conveyor belt theory asserts that the more conservative a Muslim is in their beliefs, the more fundamentalist they will become, which will ultimately lead to radicalisation and then to terrorism.

Empirical evidence suggests that there is no linear, unpreventable progression from “non-violent extremism” to “violent extremism”.

In July 2010, a leaked memo prepared by officials for ministers on the cabinet’s home affairs subcommittee concluded that it was wrong “to regard radicalisation in this country as a linear ‘conveyor belt’ moving from grievance, through radicalisation, to violence … This thesis seems to both misread the radicalisation process and to give undue weight to ideological factors”.

Then there is the 2008 study by MI5’s behavioural science unit. It emphasised that the several hundred terrorists it analysed “had taken strikingly different journeys to violent extremist activity”; few had followed “a typical pathway to violent extremism”.

Marc Sageman, a forensic psychiatrist and former CIA case officer, agrees that the “conveyor belt” theory is flawed. In his 2008 book Leaderless Jihad, based on an analysis of more than 500 terrorist biographies, he argues that radicalisation shows no such linear progression, and that “one cannot simply draw a line, put markers on it, and gauge where people are along this path to see whether they are close to committing atrocities”.

Nevertheless, the Home Office vouches for the ‘conveyor belt’ theory of radicalisation, and it forms the basis of the government’s flagship counter-terrorism policy Prevent.

One of the most interesting characters in the show is Akash Williams played by Kaine Zajaz. A young, frustrated juvenile radicalised by the internet and the product of a broken family and a failed social care system. Akash’s character demonstrates how Britain’s homegrown religious extremism threat is rooted more in various social factors like poverty and not in ideological factors per se. And poverty, wrote Aristotle, “is the parent of crime.”

“Prevent? The only thing it has prevented is our internet access!” – Akash’s incredulous career-grandparents disclosing how the Government’s Prevent Officers had blocked their internet access due to Akash’s suspicious online activity.

Informer also draws interesting parallels between religious extremists on the one hand and right-wing extremists on the other. Through its exploration of Detective Sergeant Gabe’s past as an undercover officer investigating hate crimes perpetrated by the far right, Informer portrays the threat from radical right wing extremism as very real and deeply rooted in white supremacist ideology. This is, of course, a view backed by experts.

The former head of the Metropolitan police’s counter-terrorism unit, Mark Rowley, warned that the UK has not “woken up” to the threat posed by the far right. He recently urged politicians, the media and communities not to underestimate the threat of far-right groups, citing how National Action, a proscribed neo-Nazi organisation, has “a strategy for a terrorist group” with online materials advising on how to sow tension and discord in communities and evade police surveillance.

The far right are becoming increasingly radicalised by white supremacist ideology and this is a worrying trend right across America, Western Europe and the UK. “For the first time since the second world war we have a domestic terrorist group, it’s rightwing, it’s neo-Nazi, it’s proudly white supremacist, portraying a violent and wicked ideology,” Rowley told BBC Newsnight.

An analysis of social media content has found right-wing extremists and Islamists share fundamental similarities. The racism of the far-right and religious beliefs of the Islamists result in similar viewpoints. Between 2013 and 2017, researchers from the Jena Institute and the London Institute for Strategic Dialogue examined more than 10,000 pieces of Islamist and right-wing extremist Facebook content, as well as more than 1 million German Twitter contributions. The analysis of the social media content found the mobilization and radicalization strategies of the two groups were similar, but anti-Muslim contributions by comparison were “more radical and more widespread.”

BBC Dramas have recently been used as a tool to shed light on various political and societal ills; from the depiction of British politics in Bodyguard to the depiction of the police as internally corrupt in Line of Duty (widely judged to be a convincing picture of the modern force).

Art and literature have thus long been a forum for expressing opinions about the state of politics and society and Informer brings a refreshing perspective to the discussion surrounding counter-extremism.

Trump and American History X

“We’re here tonight because we’ve got immigration problems spiralling out of control”, decried Derek Vinyard to an audience of white supremacists in the 1998 Hollywood drama American History X. “They treat us like criminals while they reward them with jobs and welfare checks. And it’s only getting worse. Look at our country. It’s a haven for criminals and every problem in this country is ‘race’ related, not just crime. Minorities don’t care about this country! They’re here to exploit; not embrace.”

American History X is an important film in light of the rise in racial tensions and police brutality in modern day America. The film looks at racism from the perspective of a white supremacist that is desperate to put his past behind him and prevent his younger brother from the dangers that led him down the same destructive path. Empire Film Magazine describes American History X as “a terrifying look at the humanity implicit in hatred” and it’s easy to see why. In the following monologue the protagonist’s younger brother summarises contemporary white supremacy ideology:

“I hate everyone that isn’t white Protestant because they’re a burden to the advancement of the white race. I hate this hip hop influence on white suburbia. I hate Hilary Clinton and all of her Zionist MTV pigs telling us we should get along. Save the rhetorical bullshit honey, it ain’t gonna happen.”

White supremacy culture has long lurked in the dark corridors of American history in one guise or another. The Alt Right Movement is the latest instalment of extreme white nationalist ideology. That Hilary Clinton was the candidate that the Alt Right portrayed as the corrupt establishment figure that needed overthrowing in the recent US Presidential Election is prescient. And such oratory about immigration and the perceived failure of multiculturalism in the twenty first century would not seem out of place at a Trump rally where divisive identity politics defined Trump’s success.

Trump’s election was essentially a backlash against the demographic and cultural shift that made it possible for Americans to elect the first black president. The politics of “Yes We Can!”, with all the hope and optimism it oozed, quickly rescinded into spiteful angst and bitter regret embedded in the slogan “Make America Great Again”. It was a slogan that resonated so well with much of the white-working class electorate but what exactly does it mean? And when did America stop being great?

Richard Spencer, Director of The National Policy Institute, believes America stopped being great in 1965 when the Immigration and Nationality Act 1965 shifted America’s immigration policy towards multiculturalism. Prior to 1965, net migration was kept at neutral levels which, Spencer argues, was designed to maintain the racial and cultural balance of country. The years of 1924 – 1965 were also seen as a period of great economic prosperity for America (hence the “Make America Great Again“).

Spencer, also the founder of the Alt Right movement, calls for the restoration of homogeneous societies instead of the heterogeneous societies we are accustomed to in the twenty first century. The Alt Right movement advocates an immigration policy that prefers white Europeans because, Spencer claims, they are closer to the core of US identity.

Trump’s election has energised the white supremacist movement well documented in Tony Kaye’s ‘American History X’. Trump’s appointment of Steve Bannon as chief strategist has legitimised the Alt Right Movement. Bannon was the former Chairman of Breitbart News and has described the right wing news website as the “platform for the Alt Right”. On the neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer, a poster referred to Bannon as “our man in the White House.” According to Breitbart’s own “guide to the alt-right,” they’re “unapologetically embracing a new identity politics that prioritizes the interests of their own demographic.”

It was previously a fringe movement, but given Trump’s victory in the election, the Alt Right is fast establishing itself as the mainstream of the political right. Trump is the rebranding of white nationalism. Trump’s supporters consisted of overwhelmingly white working class males. 63 per cent of white men voted for Trump. Compare this to the 80 per cent of black men and 93 per cent of black women who did not. Trump went hard for the white vote and won. America is a wounded, divided nation. Trump abandoned large sections of ethnic minorities with his divisive rhetoric about building walls and banning Muslims and it worked. Is “Make America Great Again” just another way of saying “Make America White Again”?

Beyond the building of walls and the banning of Muslims, the Alt Right movement so crucial to Trump’s success see legal immigration as the root problem, let alone illegal immigration. The Alt Right Movement perceive multiculturalism and diversity as conspiracies designed to undermine the white race. They portray themselves as the vanguard in this battle to restore white privilege.

It is this same perceived danger to the White-European race that motivated Anders Brevik to kill 77 people in the deadliest attack in Norway since World War II. And it was this same ideology that motivated Thomas Mair to murder Jo Cox in cold blood. White supremacy is fast becoming a major problem for Western nations and it can no longer be ignored. The election of Donald Trump is part of the same movement but with much wider consequences.

‘American History X’ addresses America’s white supremacy movement with brutal honesty and sinister foresight. In its grisly exploration of the dark underbelly of American society, it has all the ingredients of a genuine horror film. Despite its candour and 118 minutes of squeamish tension, comfort was sought in the fact that it was, after all, a piece of fiction. Fast forward eighteen years however and the bogeyman may well have crept out of our screens and into the White House.

Thoughts on the EU Referendum

The tale of Brexit is one of two privileged Etonians: one a King’s scholar; the other the aristocratic son of a stockbroker. One a blonde, bumbling buffoon; the other a giant arsehole. One promised the nation a referendum he had no right to promise; the other duped the public into cashing out. Together they have thrown the political jigsaw up into the air as we wait to see where it all lands.

A few days before Brexit, I travelled from the polite middleclass metropolis of Highbury and Islington to the boisterous bustling hubbub of West Croydon. Leaving the station, I was greeted by a peculiar incident that left me pondering Brexit with great perplexity. Sat patiently amongst the crowds of people swarming through the high street was an elderly Caucasian gentleman offering ‘Vote Leave!’ leaflets to an uninterested public. This seemingly hopeless endeavor left the man a blink away from a snooze before his attention was seized by an altercation played out in front of him. A large African lady, after snatching a leaflet from his sleepy stall, began to abuse an innocent passerby with a Nigerian accent even more prodigious than her embodiment; “I am going to vote LEAVE so that people like YOU will not be allowed in the country!” The subject of this abuse was an incredulous Indian man.

Croydon, this great multicultural melting pot, is home to the Home Office. This young man may have been on his way to Lunar House, the headquarters for UK Visas and Immigration. He may have been an “irregular migrant” in the eyes of the Home Office. Whoever he was, he did not deserve to be singled out in this manner. Home Office policy over the years has moved rapidly toward the criminalisation of irregular migration, often lumping together migrants without sufficient leave to remain with the most despicable criminals in the eyes of the public. These policies – propagated by the trivialisation of the plight of immigrants on TV shows like UK Border Force – undeniably breed the type of bigotry and xenophobia espoused by the Nigerian lady and ultimately seek to undermine social cohesion.

Official discourse on immigrants, especially in such times of economic depression, is deeply troubling. Terms like “Illegals”, “overstayers”, “foreigners” seek to dehumanise migrants and have a very harmful impact on their lives. Unless their immigration status can be regularised, migrants remain without any legal status and are subsequently condemned as aliens. This can have the effect of depriving them of their very identity. And what are we without an identity?

The debate surrounding immigration has become toxically politicised. It is ridiculous to allow, as Brexit did, immigrants of any shade to be blamed for the failings of our hospitals, schools or housing when our government so stubbornly implements economic austerity as a political choice. The UK is the fifth largest economy in the world – why can’t we build more hospitals, schools and houses? Immigrants are the convenient scapegoats.

I found this incident at West Croydon Station increasingly disturbing in the weeks after Brexit. The abuse hurled at the Indian student by the Nigeran lady was completely misplaced. The incident is indicative of the pathetically low level of intelligence which characterized the referendum and which caused the growth in racist incidents in the immediate aftermath of Brexit. Why had immigration overtaken the economy as the primary concern of much of the electorate? Why, even if immigration may be a legitimate concern to some in the country, are non-EU nationals being subjected to abuse?

I can’t help feeling that the British public has been sold a nasty lie. Dave offered a referendum on a monumental decision that the electorate wasn’t sufficiently qualified to pass judgment on. And he only did so to settle a dispute within the fringes of his own party. Boris went against his natural instincts to selfishly exploit the opportunity for personal gain. If Boris were to have run for Mayor after outing himself, any electoral success would be remote. Boris met Dave at Oxford in the mid 1980s at a time when Thatcherism infected young minds with a ruthless, greedy, pursuit of selfish ambition that would, many years later, see the former stab his junior classmate in the back at the denouement of a petty, personal rivalry acted out on the largest public stage possible with cataclysmic political circumstances.

 

Thoughts on the London Mayoral Election

The ‘One Nation Tory’ brand is a crafty attempt to remodel the Conservative Party as the party for all Britons. It is the party that now cares for the poor and vulnerable, not just the white and wealthy, Cameron and Osbourne are keen to tell us. Of all Tory politicians, it is with great irony then that the mild-mannered libertarian Zac Goldsmith is the one to bring back the ‘Nasty Party’ label to the Conservative Party.

“This election was not without controversy”, declared an exhausted Sadiq Khan in his victory speech, confronting at first opportunity the repellent campaign led by his opponent. “And I’m so proud that London has today chosen hope over fear and unity over division. I hope that we will never be offered such a stark choice again. Fear does not make us safer, it only makes us weaker and the politics of fear is simply not welcome in our city.”

Zac Goldsmith stood behind his victor, his arms dangling down languidly like a marionette abandoned by its puppeteer. A faint look of embarrassment ran across his face. Sadiq deserves plenty of sympathy for being on the receiving end of a relentlessly racist smear campaign. But Zac doesn’t deserve all the blame.

It was the hero of last year’s Conservative general election victory, Lynton Crosby, that was hired to take charge of Zac’s campaign. Crosby’s right-wing dog-whistle brand of politics has been employed on several previous occasions by the Conservatives. The Daily Mail reported that Crosby, when running Boris Johnson’s successful 2008 Mayoral campaign, told Boris to concentrate on traditional Tory voters instead of chasing “fucking Muslims.” Crosby was the brains behind the brutal attack on Ed Miliband during the last general election when it was said that: “Miliband stabbed his own brother in the back to become Labour leader. Now he is willing to stab the United Kingdom in the back to become prime minister.”

He is known as a “master of the dark arts” and “an evil genius” for good reason.

Zac Goldsmith’s campaign was not one of his own making but one orchestrated directly from Number 10. It was an act of desperation from Zac’s camp to dedicate the final phase of the campaign to portraying Sadiq as a security risk and a terrorist sympathiser. In one Tory pamphlet under the heading ‘The Risk Of A Corbyn-Khan experiment’, David Cameron described the policies of “Jeremy Corbyn’s candidate Sadiq Khan as “’dangerous’”. If Khan won, Cameron said, “Londoners will become lab rats in a giant political experiment”. Zac’s own column for the Mail on Sunday ran with the headline: “Are we really going to hand the world’s greatest city to a Labour Party that thinks terrorists are its friends?”

Anita Vasisht, a lawyer, found the campaign so unpalatable that she filed a police report arguing it may constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, both crimes in Britain.

Crosby’s puppeteering robbed Zac Goldsmith of his authenticity. Close family struggled to recognize the Zac Goldsmith on the podium behind his victor. Jemima Goldsmith admitted that her brother’s campaign did not reflect who she knew her brother to be.

Zac did not begin his career like this. His policy stances prior to the Mayoral elections were principled, progressive and respectable. He gained a reputation for being an ardent environmentalist and a liberal democrat; he was a vocal opponent to the third runway at Heathrow Airport and an admirer of Swiss-style referendum politics.

He began this contest as the favourite, promising to be the greenest Mayor London has ever had. He ended it like Pinocchio with a nose that continued to grow because of all the fibs he was forced to tell.

If only he was allowed to focus purely on policy rather than dabble in the dark arts. Perhaps then his views on climate change would have won over a larger portion of the green vote. Perhaps his Brexit views could have tempted the UKIP-inclined. Perhaps his opposition of the third runway would have improved his performance in the South West of the city. Perhaps this maverick could have even one day carried the torch for the One-Nation Tories?

Instead, attempts from the very top of Tory Headquarters were made to portray Sadiq Khan as an extremist Muslim. In doing so they once again made the dangerous mistake of conflating in the minds of the public religious conservatism with violent extremism. The politics of fear and division promoted by Crosby and the Conservatives threaten to undermine community cohesion in one of the most electorally diverse cities in the world. Such insidious tactics may cause an irreparable rift with the Muslim community.

So much for the One Nation Tories.

A collection of Photos from my time in Lahore, Multan, Islamabad & beyond

A young girl plays in the water on a hot day at Shalimar Gardens, Lahore.

A familar cricket scence with Minar-e-Pakistan in the background.

A boy dangles a piece of cloth in front of a wild kitten outside Pak Tea House, Lahore.

Children playing cricket on an empty plot in the residential area of Johar Town, Lahore

Seen outside Mayo Hospital, Lahore.

A worshipper enters Wazir Khan Mosque for sunset prayers.

General Post Office, Lahore. Built by the British in 1887 to celebrate the Golden Jubilee of Queen Victoria.

A lizard lurking inside a lamp at Company Gardens, Multan.

A shoe cobbler working outside a fashion outlet, Multan.

Islamabad, the capital city of Pakistan, which has been ranked second in the list of the world’s most beautiful capitals.

Khanpur Dam, about an hours drive from Islamabad.

Khanpur Dam

Khanpur Dam

Police Station, Nathia Gali

Nathia Gali

A goat looks on at the beautiful scenery in Kohala, a small town north of Murree and south of Muzaffarabad.

Haseeb, a young boy I met in Kohala, playing cricket with sticks and stones.

A woman carrying a stack of hay, Kohala

A flowing stream in Kohala.

Sirkap archaeological site in the ancient city of Taxila, a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

“The known history of Taxila begins from 6th century BCE when it formed a part of the Achaemenid Empire of Persia. It was subsequently conquered by Alexander the Great in 326 BCE.”

“The Greeks described it as ‘the greatest of all the cities’ in this part of the world.”

Taxila Railway Station where my maternal grandfather worked from 1967-1972.

Britain’s Dirty Secret

It is often said in jest that justice in the UK is open to all, just like the Ritz Hotel. The irony, however, is not lost on those loitering in the bowels of Britain’s ‘secret justice system’. A legal system that was once the envy of the world is fast losing plaudits as the government continues its assault on some of the most basic principles of justice. The highest Court in the land has launched a scathing attack on the Government’s use of secret justice, describing it as ‘not justice at all’.

The past decades have seen some notable miscarriages of justice. The ‘Birmingham Six’; the Hillsborough Disaster and the racially motivated murder of Stephen Lawrence all stand out as ugly stains on the reputation of British justice. In a direct challenge to the Magna Carta, Guardian v AB and CD threatens to set a precedent for further miscarriages of justice. The case of two men known to us only as AB and CD was held behind closed doors; the first secret trial in British history. The Justice and Security Act, passed last year, already allows for the use of ‘closed material procedures’ to be extended on the dubious grounds of national security, clearly violating the key principles of natural and open justice. “Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done” is a legal maxim that may soon be confined to the corridors of British legal history. Dark days lie ahead for British justice. Miscarriages of justice may no longer be the exception but the norm.

Another deeply worrying attack on the rule of law is the use of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), arguably the most unjust and unfair court in Britain. As well as using secret evidence that is not disclosed to the defendant, SIAC reserves the almost tyrannical power to deport foreign nationals on spurious grounds of national security despite them being previously cleared of wrong doing in an ordinary criminal court. Its proceedings have rightly been described as ‘Kafkaesque’ by the joint committee on human rights. With the same exclusive access to secret evidence, the Home Secretary also has at her disposal the controversial use of Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs), which include restrictions on overnight residence, travel and finance. The door to justice is slammed shut and fundamental tenants of the rule of law violated when forced to defend your liberty in such iniquitous circumstances. One is reminded here of Benjamin Franklin’s immortal phase; ‘He who would put security before liberty deserves neither.’

Britain’s secret justice system also brings into considerable disrepute the cardinal rule of law principle that all are equal under the law. ‘Let no one be in any doubt, the rules of the game are changing’, Prime Minister Blair warned ominously in 2005. He was not bluffing. No longer are we all subject to the same laws of justice. ‘Non-citizens’ are vulnerable to having their due process rights trampled on in the name of anti-terror laws. Clive Stafford Smith has described the Home Secretary’s rendering stateless terror suspects as the most ‘pernicious’ of all counter terror policies perused by governments either side of the Atlantic. Relying again on secret evidence that the defendant is unable to access, the Home Secretary often waits for the targeted individual to leave the country before revoking citizenship. Leading human rights lawyer Gareth Peirce has likened this process to ‘medieval exile’. Along with their citizenship and identity, their rights as citizens of Britain – including due process and the presumption of innocence – are also revoked. Stripping citizenship from individuals and rendering them stateless thus makes their assassination at the hands of American agents less politically complicated. The policy director of Liberty, Bella Sankey describes the citizenship-stripping policy as ‘lawless’ and a hallmark of ‘oppressive and desperate regimes.’ Once stateless and a ‘noncitizen’, all rights owed to the individual by the state are dissolved and they become fair game for American drones.

From Guy Fawkes right up until the troubles with Irish Republican Army (IRA), Britain had always treated terrorist violence as a civil emergency rather than an out-and-out war. As a result, due process and the rule of law were (somewhat) respected. A potential terrorist, under a criminal model based on justice and due process, is treated as a criminal suspect and therefore subject to criminal law. A potential terrorist, under a security model based on fear and suspicion, is treated as a war criminal and therefore subject to much harsher laws with lower standards of proof. Professor Conor Gearty has described the post 9/11 supersession of the former model by the latter as ‘the single greatest disastrous legacy of the war on terror from a human rights point of view.’ Fundamental and basic legal principles like the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence are being violated as a two-tier legal system emerges seemingly designed to victimise Muslims in Britain. Britons are being detained unlawfully without charge or trial; stripped of their nationality and smuggled out of the country through secret Immigration courts.

‘One of the most dangerous temptations for a government facing violent threats is to respond in heavy-handed ways that violate the rights of innocent citizens. Terrorism is a criminal act and should be treated accordingly – and that means applying the law fairly and consistently.’ These were the words of US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on 17 April 2000. Drone warfare, crippling economic sanctions and extraordinary rendition have since become the hallmarks of the US’ belligerent flouting of the rule of law on the international stage. Britain has chosen instead to tiptoe around the rule of law and due process by prioritising draconian security measures over civil liberties. The guiding principle behind the Government’s counter terrorism efforts has been Cicero’s phase: ‘Salus populi suprema est lex’ (the safety of the people is supreme law). Tony Blair described it as a ‘dangerous misjudgement’ to put civil liberties first. To do so was ‘misguided and wrong’. Rights and liberties that were fought hard for throughout history are under serious threat as the State, exploiting the often illusory threat to national security, usurps more and more power.

As an overbearing executive, then, encroaches further and further into judicial territory, we are forced-fed the same efficacious lies about how there is an exceptional need for ordinary justice to be suspended in order to avert the threat of global terrorism. Our movements are monitored by an invasive government; ‘for our own good’, we are told. We need not worry about having our emails read by the Security Services; if we are innocent we have nothing to fear. Mothers are requested to spy on their sons; doctors on their patients. Justice is supposedly dispensed behind closed doors as the Government deals fatal blows to a legal system that once produced the Magna Carta. Is this the new face of justice in Britain?

 

 

Akhi and his pretences

 

Akhi turns up at the Masjid on Jummah nice and early. Front row is his. He’s with his cousins but also notices a few friends slowly filtering in. Dhuhr adhaan is not due for another 15 minutes, the khutbah not for at least another 30. Akhi’s recently started practicing, done Umrah ‘n’ all. His beard’s coming along nicely too, gets it styled at the barbers fortnightly. Even has a slight prayer bump, just above his freshly plucked eyebrows – incessant prostrations? Huh. He slips off his trainers and rushes to pray the sunnah prayer recommended for entering the Masjid, a sweet-smelling ittar scent follows him. After a slightly elongated two-rakkahs, he spots some brothers entering the prayer hall  and decides to bust out a few more rakkahs.

Ostentation grips him, swallows him as he lengthens his prayer traitorously to impress his companions. Akhi! You’re bowing before your Rabb, instead of spiritual nourishment, you seek lowly praise? Shame on you! What a calamity!

“Come to prayer! Come to success!” the Muazzin later calls out. Akhi’s heading towards neither if he continues his pretension.

 

“He knows that which deceives the eyes and what the breasts conceal.” Qur’an 40:19