The NZ Herald Quotes Leaders Of The English Defense League On ISIS?

The MSM Presstitudes rag the NZ Herald reported today on the latest and greatest False flag operation to once again scare us into submission and fear for the “Muslim Enemy”. In the article the quoted Charlie Cooper, a researcher for the Quilliam counter-extremism think-tank.

The funny thing is that the Quilliam foundation, financed by the UK Government to the tune of £ 1 million and originally started by two Muslim Extremists is now also home to none other than two very notorious characters. Namely Tommy Robinson and Kev Carroll, leaders of the infamous EDL (English Defense League).

This curious mix of Muslim and English extremists in one Government funded secretive “think thank” should raise eyebrows and should be watched with caution instead of quoted in our mainstream media.

 

This article was originally published here.

The Quilliam Foundation, another political pawn

Yesterday Tommy Robinson and Kev Carroll, leaders of the EDL held a press conference stating that they were leaving the EDL and taking a new path in their fight against extremism.  They were accompanied by the Quilliam Foundation at the press conference.

Tommy Robinson quit because he says he can no longer control extremists within the far-right group, saying that the EDL had become influenced by elements that did not represent what he stood for.  He stated at his news conference yesterday, “I don’t hate Muslims. Luton is a completely multicultural town and from day one we’ve wanted to embrace everyone; all colours and creeds.”
Furthermore, now Tommy wants to “lead a revolution against that ideology, but I don’t want to lead a revolution against Muslims.”  This turnaround comes after spending several months in solitary confinement, where he had a good long think.  Mr Robinson now thinks, “the revolution needs to come from within the Islamic community and they need to stand up. And I believe this is a step forward not a step back.”

Tommy and co-founder Kevin Carroll announced their departure through counter-extremism think tank Quilliam Foundation, who are claiming to have facilitated the pair’s departure.  QF chairman Maajid Nawaz said: “We have been able to show that Britain stands together against extremism regardless of political views and hope to continue supporting Tommy and Kevin in their journey to counter Islamism and neo-Nazi extremism.”
The Quilliam Foundation‏ is a controversial London based think-tank which claims to challenge Islamic extremism in the UK.  Set up by self-styled ex-extremists Maajid Nawaaz, Ed Husain and Rashad Ali – all former members of the political Islamic group, Hizb ut-Tahrir.  Quilliam’s ‘about us’ page says that the think tank was set up to address the unique challenges of citizenship, identity and belonging in a globalised world.
Launched in April 2008 and backed by the British government to wage the ‘ideas’ part of the so-called ‘war on terror’, it is said to have links to neo-conservative initiatives such as the Centre for Social Cohesion and Harry’s Place. However with CSC, the relationship appears strained.

The CSC, another think tank was set up by Civitas whose focus is to encourage racial and religious harmony in communities with a large focus on Muslim society in the UK and the radicalized sections of that society.  The Centre is under the direction of Douglas Murray who argues that radical Islam is the greatest threat to community cohesion in the UK.  Former CSC researcher James Brandon after joining Quilliam criticised Murray in 2009 and has claimed his time spent with CSC was focused on de-radicalising Murray to focus on Islamists and not Muslims as a whole.
Murray then wrote about Quilliam:  “The nature of QF and its funding arrangements ought to be a source of concern to all British taxpayers, no matter what their political or religious opinions, and finally be brought out in the open.”

Murray formerly employed some of the QF players; he recruited Husain through Civitas, but found his views increasingly ‘odd’ in relation to freedom of speech.  He feels that QF has done “nothing substantial to challenge Hizb ut-Tahrir in the UK or radicalisation on UK campuses”, its original purpose.
Murray accused Husain of promoting police state tactics by informing on suspicious acting Muslims. Husain has been quoted as saying, “It would be morally wrong of a taxpayer-funded programme designed to prevent terrorism if it was not designed to gather intelligence in order to stop that terrorism from happening.”
Murray has accused Husain of using public money to advocate an increasingly totalitarian attitude towards the general public.  Also linked to QF is Harry’s Place whose main task appears to be to be the smearing of anti-Zionists and voices critical of Israel.
Although the exact funding figure is unknown, the Quilliam Foundation has reportedly received £700,000 as part of the government’s Preventing Violent Extremism Programme, £400,000 of which was given by the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism (OSCT).  It has been reported that it attracted funding worth several million pounds from the Home Office and the Foreign Office.  However they deny this source of funding on their website.
The think tank has been embroiled in several controversies since its founding for encouraging domestic spying and preparing secret blacklists of citizens and groups that it alleges share the ‘ideology of terrorists.
A report produced by Redbridge Faith Forum (RFF) found that contrary to the views articulated at Harry’s Place, the QF had no following whatsoever among British Muslims.  Citing respondents’ views, the report reveals a universally collective disdain for organisations like QF which have been financed by the government to manufacture consent. Respondents said: “there is big scepticism towards the Quilliam Foundation, with its staff on £80,000 salaries”, calling them an example where the government is giving £1m to individuals who have no contact with the local community. “Problems will come from this. It is not good giving money to the wrong people, with those who will all sing from the same hymn sheet that the government wants, because they appear to be meeting the government’s set objectives.”
Nawaz has denied that they have received PVE funds, despite them being offered to them, but then Quilliam supporters came out to urge the government to continue funding it. These supporters include Nick Cohen from the Spectator, Martin Bright – political editor of the Jewish Chronicle and Robert Halfon MP – a former political director of the Conservative Friends of Israel who tabled an early day motion in parliament calling on continued funding for Quilliam.  So which is it, private funders or government funding?
The Foundation has endorsed hard-liners of the Israel lobby such as Michael Gove.  During his 2008 tour of the US, Majid Nawaz spoke at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which has been described as the “most important Zionist propaganda tool in the United States” by Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian-American professor and director of Columbia University‘s Middle East Institute.  Nawaz was in the US to testify before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs where he appeared along neo-conservatives the Hudson Institute and was hosted by the Center for National Policy.
The three public founders are all ex-activists of the UK branch of the Islamic political party Hizb ut-Tahrir, and yet throughout their history, no member has undertaken such a high profile u-turn. Simiilar to the U-turn Tommy and Kev Carroll have just taken.
Their profiles on the Quilliam Foundation website contain selective histories with questionable gaps. Ed Husain’s claim to fame is his time with Hizb ut-Tahrir chronicled in his book “The Islamist”. His critics see his narratives full of inconsistencies and factual inaccuracies, so much so that a friend of his reminisced ,“The accounts he gives are pure fiction.”  However, neo-cons Nick Cohen, Melanie Phillips, Michael Gove and David Aaronovitch provide him rave reviews.
Funnily, Hizb ut-Tahrir categorically denied Husain has ever been a member. Following the publication of his book, Husain alleged there were attempts of intimidation against him. His hatred drove him to inform the Syrian secret service of Hizb ut-Tahrir members he encountered in Damascus and he has called for them to be banned in the UK. Critics argue Husain was never known in any of Britain’s Mosques, Muslim charities or youth organizations.
Maajid Nawaz entered the spotlight when jailed in Egypt in 2002 and there he underwent the Egyptian dictatorship’s ‘detox’ program developing his new ideological positions. Nawaz argues his studies in prison made him realise Hizb ut-Tahrir had provide a false ideological narrative.  Sound like anyone else we know?

On his return (BBC Hardtalk) he claimed that Hizb ut-Tahrir’s ideas were peaceful and continued to work with them for over a year since returning from Egypt.  It is believed his early release from prison has been facilitated by the British government, with Nawaz continuing with Hizb ut-Tahrir to cement a high-profile position before leaving.
Nawaz’s previous knowledge of Islam, like Husain, is based on some introductory Hizb ut-Tahrir texts having never studied any of the more sophisticated. Like Husain, Nawaz’s narratives are reported to have an inconsistent quality. Nawaz’s claims to have established branches in Pakistan and Denmark singlehandedly are unsubstantiated and disputed by his contemporaries.

Is this think tank little more than a public relation front for those they serve?  A policy proposal has been published for the British government and journalists. Copies appear to have been sent to the Muslim community in hindsight with no prior consultation. Again this reeks of a front organisation and not one truly interested in the community they claim to represent.
More alarming is their primary recommendation which refers to rehabilitation centres and a proposal to ‘detox’ extremists based on the success of Egyptian and Saudi programmes.  Could Tommy have been detoxed in solitary for the past 18 months?  Interesting how the people tied to this programme have all done U turns from their original liaisons.

Other recommendations by this Foundation include instructing communities, groups and leaders to exclude ‘Islamists’ from their midst denying free debate in a so called open society.
While their target audience is said to be Muslims in Britain their focus has mainly been non-Muslim audiences across Europe and the Middle East.  Their advisors, publications and events designed for a governmental audience which include civil servants and politicians.

The Quilliam Foundation claimed its source of funding is from anonymous Kuwaiti businessmen, allegedly in excess of £0.5 million. But they haven’t openly declared their sources.  Apparently their accounts are audited and there are annual reports, but these are not made available on their website.  Who are the actual sources of their funding and what are the conditions associated with this funding?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s