Confusing Terrorism with Extremism

The Guardian Editorial view on Theresa May’s plans on terror.

“Mrs May wants us to believe that we face a threat from doctrines that do not espouse violence but somehow mutate into terror. Confusing extremism with terrorism risks dividing us as a people when we need to be united.”

TM focuses on policing thoughts rather than acts, and countering ideology rather than terrorism. Penalising people for holding unspoken beliefs would end up with a legal minefield of dogma and piety. Will animal rights, ecological defence or anti-arms-trade activists (who do not subscribe to violent belief systems when criminal acts – sometimes amounting to terror – have been carried out in their name) be banned too?

Non-violent extremism is difficult to define. Banning so-called adherents from public positions would hinder, not help, the fight against terrorism, when we need to exploit every possible avenue to prevent it. This includes cooperation with the very people who might be best placed as discouragers of terrorism: those who hold similar “extremist” beliefs but who are non-violent and are opposed to the methods of violence. Mrs May’s plans criminalise the eyes and ears you need to spot terror.

We need unity. The three recent terror attacks were immediately linked to a “single evil ideology of Islamist extremism”; politicians should take care in the language they use. We should not play into the hands of al-Qaida and Islamic State and lump together murderers and peaceful Muslims who are simply observant rather than violent. Crude Islamophobia risks pulling people apart when they need to come together.

It seems we have learned nothing from our own history. In October 1974, people were killed and injured within a week of a general election. A few months later MPs voted for the Prevention of Terrorism Act, with emergency “temporary” powers so draconian they have to be renewed yearly. These crisis measures became permanent. Terrorism aims to scare us into changing the nature of our democracy; sweeping new measures with alacrity in response to terrorist acts is no way to proceed. Politicians should steer public sentiment on matters of national security but with reasoned debate.

Source: Editorial in The Guardian, Sunday 4 June 2017

Theresa May’s talk about British values puts all Muslims under suspicion by Myriam François

Mrs May’s recent  statement following the London Bridge attack, condemned “evil ideology of Islamist extremism” and set out a familiar action plan. But terrorists’ stated motivations focus on more tangible goals - a response to Britain’s “transgressions against the lands of the Muslims”, a victory against “the crusaders” of the west, and a response to airstrikes in Iraq; their primary motivation has always been to create a pseudo “Islamic state” in the Middle East.

Without suggesting abandoning territorial fightback against Isis, we must recognise that the fate of European capitals is tied up with a very real war in the Middle East. British foreign policy, whether or not you agree with it, impacts on British society, with the marginalised, the angry, the alienated; those looking for a higher cause to bring meaning to an often dead-end existence.

The intelligence services are clear that while they have thwarted many attacks, they won’t be able to stop all of them. It is a false idea that the real problem is a set of ideas pushed by the Muslim community. Intelligence analysts highlight that families – let alone “the community” – are often the last to know, and when they have had suspicions, recent cases show that families and mosques have approached the authorities. Communities work, and will continue to work, with the police to stop those who wish to harm us all.

This relationship of trust and cooperation is made harder, not easier, when the government casts a wide net of suspicion over the entire Muslim community, suggesting that it is a suspect group that needs to be re-educated with a predetermined set of ethics. The truth is that British values are no superior to those of any other nation; the idea is patronising to anyone of non-British origin. Improving social cohesion is a laudable objective – but linking terrorism to integration produces a dangerous confusion over the roots of the problem, which ultimately stigmatises and alienates some of the poorest communities in this country.

Terrorists are not motivated by the faith of the 1.6 billion regular folk walking this planet; Muslims aren’t immune to bombs and bullets and they experience a double penalty in such attacks: the same trauma as all other citizens, plus the guilt cloud that hangs over them all thereafter.

"The government could be honest about the risks to domestic security of foreign military interventions – risks the public may or may not wish to accept. It can invest heavily in the security services working to keep the country safe. This means more resources, but it also means not creating a climate of suspicion around Muslims, who, like everyone else, are partners in the common goal of preserving life – incidentally, the highest of values in Islamic law. Creating dichotomies between British and Islamic values only feeds a toxic narrative."

The aftermath of recent horrific events shows that people from all faiths and none, with diverse value systems, can come together to emphasise love, solidarity and unity. We don’t need lessons in British values; but our politicians need to learn about not widening the very divisions they believe to be the problem.

Source: Theresa May’s talk about British values puts all Muslims undersuspicion by Myriam François, in The Guardian, Sunday 4 June 2017

Phage Therapy on Farms

Therapy could stop superbugs on farms, by Pallab Ghosh, BBC News website.

Researchers at Leicester University have identified a range of viruses, called bacteriophages, that can be used to kill common pig infections. The aim is to reduce the risk of antibiotic resistant bacteria emerging on farms that could also infect humans. In the UK, 40% of all antibiotics are used to treat animals - they are the same as those used to treat people.

Phages occur in nature and are the natural enemy of many infectious agents. Each of the many phages is specific to different infectious bugs, homing in on them and injecting the phage's DNA into the bug, thus rendering it harmless. Like all viruses, phages reproduce inside the infectious bug and these new phages then hunt other infections.

Attempts to develop phage treatments have been carried out for more than a century but have mostly proved unreliable. However, researchers have now found more precise ways of isolating phages and assessing their effectiveness.

The research team has identified a range of disease-killing phages, and more importantly, have developed a powdered form of the phage which remains active. This would enable researchers to add the powdered phage to pig feed and see if it works in practice.

If trials in pigs work, other phage treatments could be developed for a range of animal diseases, and would speed the development of phage treatments for people.

Source: Therapy could stop superbugs on farms by Pallab Ghosh, Science Correspondent, BBC News 8 June 2017

Migrants and Cultures

Understanding motives is vital to combating terror.

In his Church Times column, Paul Valley notes that a Muslim psychiatrist "recently suggested that there are four ways in which the children of immigrants may react to the clash between the culture of their parents and that of the nation in which they have been brought up. All are stressful in different ways."

Deculturation: This leads them to reject their past in favour of their present.

Assimilation: This is where they retain a loose association with the old ways, but essentially adopt the host culture.

Integration:  This keeps stronger cultural ties, but the children of migrants function fully as members of the host society.

Rejection: They rebuff the host culture entirely. Violent jihadists are drawn from this group, but the process is not simple. There can be huge cognitive dissonance in the process of their rejection,

The crucial task is to re-educate fundamentalists into a more complete understanding of their faith so that they can no longer wrench verses of the Qur'an from their wider context.

While not becoming illiberal in our defence of our liberty, we need to consider a broader understanding of what kind of behaviour ought to be illegal - for example, should people who glorify terrorism, as well as those who incite it, be guilty of an offence such as breach of the peace?

However, it is important that anyone convicted and imprisoned under such new regulations should not simply be detained, but also be subjected to an intensive deradicalisation programme, run not just by secular psychiatrists but also by mainstream Muslim scholars.

Source: Column piece: Inside the mind of extremists by Paul Vallely in The Church Times, 9 July 2017

Passport Facts 2017

Avoid last minute passport panics by:

# Check your passport before booking a holiday. Your insurance will not pay out if you miss your trip because your passport is out of date.

# Remember some countries require it has 6 months left before expiry date, while others (e.g. South Africa) insist you have a least two blank pages in your passport. Check these requirements (and whether you need a visa) at gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice.

# Do allow four to seven weeks for a new passport to arrive. Streamline the service by using the Passport Check & Send service at the Post Office. It costs an extra £9.75 (2017) but useful if you are short of time.

# If you end up needing a last-minute passport, there is a premium one-day service costing £128 (2017).

Source: Item in Good Housekeeping, June 2017

Pensions, Triple Lock and Hoarding

Pensioners will carry on hoarding cash if state won’t step in by Phillip Inman.

The question over the state pension triple lock is part of a wider debate about incomes and wealth in old age and how, as a society, we adapt to the escalating costs of improved life expectancy, increasing care costs and, crucially, property prices.

Many do everything to avoid paying higher taxes and hoard whatever assets they have accumulated, as state support decreases. Now grandparents and parents feel obliged to provide more than just a good start in life for the youngest members, possibly for as long as they are alive. This explains why the Tory promise to raise the inheritance tax threshold for couples to £1m by 2020, and also why wealthy pensioners argue the state pension and winter fuel allowance should remain a universal benefit.

No one should want house prices to rise at double or treble the rate of earnings growth to reach affordability levels that effectively mean homes in places with decent jobs are out of reach for most people, but home owners are happy when a house or flat sells for more than the previous one and predictions of a downturn can spark panic. Pay as little stamp duty or capital gains tax as you can and recycle the proceeds to provide a leg-up for your own offspring.

In early 2017, a weakening economy, a squeeze on disposable incomes from higher inflation and stagnant wages growth, and the knock-on effect of lower tax receipts, means money must be raised elsewhere. One option is scrap the 2.5% annual rise part of the pensions triple lock, which links the basic state pension to whichever is the higher of earnings growth, inflation or 2.5% and scrapping the 2.5% lock.

Pensioner groups argue those on the lowest incomes will be the worst affected, which is true, especially when cuts in the real value of the state second pension, and the move to a flat-rate pension, are taken into account.

But keeping a universal benefit also benefits the better off. Why should today’s workers make sure pensions increase at a faster rate than their own pay, especially when it leads to greater income inequality among the country’s 12 million pensioners.

One answer is to means-test the basic pension. An alternative would be to design an income tax system specifically for the country’s 12 million pensioners; one that increases the tax burden for the third who have more than enough money to enjoy their retirement. Or, at least, charge the 1.1 million retirees who are still working national insurance.

It is impossible to change pensions and taxation while the state refuses to look after the elderly in care, and build enough homes for those on low and middle incomes to bring down prices, so wealthy pensioners will continue to take more out than they put in and hoarding it.

Source: Pensioners will carry on hoarding cash if state won’t step in, by Phillip Inman, The Guardian, 29 April 2017