There is a fascinating article in Fathom magazine written by a former civil servant which illustrates clearly just how screwed up Britain’s public sector really is. The writer, Anna Stanley, whilst a member of the Civil Service attended a course on anti-terrorism and found that the course was stuffed with moral relativism, political bias and a failure to understand the nature of terrorism.
Ms Stanley, over the period of a three day course on anti-terrorism, discovered that the academics who were delivering parts of the course were woefully biased towards leftist ideology and the naive idea that ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ accepted without question. She also found that some participants and trainers were reluctant to accept that the bulk of terrorism in the UK is Islam related on the grounds that it would upset Muslims. The course also contained some worrying instances of vetting failures such as a civil servant who admitted that her brother had been radicalised by ISIS and had gone to Syria to fight for them. In my view someone with that close a familial association with radical Islam and Islamic terror groups should never have got through the sort of vetting that would have allowed her to rise in the Civil Service.
The article by Ms Stanley goes on to explain how some participants on this course were obsessed with Israel and even tried to paint Hamas as some sort of freedom fighters when in reality this group is clearly a terrorist entity with a mission to kill Jews. On this matter Ms Stanley said:
Israel was referenced throughout the course. We were told some consider Hamas terrorists as freedom fighters whereas Israel was provided as a prime example when considering the question of whether a state can commit terrorism. In the introduction, one slide read ‘Condemning terrorism is to endorse the power of the strong over the weak’, a dangerous conclusion breeding anti-Israel positions. In this perspective, Israel is seen as a powerful aggressor and the Palestinians militarily disadvantaged in asymmetric warfare. Thus, the Palestinians are inherently oppressed an axiom that fuels the view that Israel is a terrorist state and Hamas’ atrocities are justifiably ‘contextualised’. To call Hamas terrorist – as the BBC is so pointedly resistant to doing – would be to ‘endorse the power of the strong over the weak’.
I must admit that although I knew that the Civil Service had become bent with left wingery and identity politics I didn’t realise that the problem was this bad. Whether you like it or not Hamas and similar entities do meet the various definitions of being terrorist groups but to have trainers and participants on an anti-terror course denying this fact is exceptionally worrying.
We should not be in the situation where politically and ideologically biased trainers are running courses that minimise the threat from Islamic terrorism and the threat posed by groups like Hamas to the UK. It’s my belief that allowing those with such pro-jihad and pro-terrorist bias or who hold naive views about such Islamic terror groups is a national security threat. In effect we are in a situation where those who believe that Hamas and similar groups are ‘freedom fighters’ are now in positions of power and that cannot be good for Britain’s national security.
Anti-terror training whether it is given to Civil Servants or police or members of the armed forces should be clearly based on the concept of the defence of the realm and not whether or not Muslims might be ‘offended’ by anti-terror policies such as those that come under the umbrella of the Prevent scheme. Britain would never have tolerated the idea that we should not be beastly to the Germans during WWII so why is the concept that we shouldn’t be beastly to Islamic extremists being pushed on our Civil Servants?
Britain’s anti-terror landscape is an utter and complete mess but Ms Stanley’s article shows us all just how much of a mess it is.
If Britain is to have an effective anti-terror policy then it must be based on honesty. It should be honest about the fact that the vast majority of terrorism and related social disorder is coming from Islam and its leftist handmaidens with only a very tiny amount coming from what is termed the ‘far right’.
If Ms Stanley’s article is correct then it’s clear to see that Britain has a problem with those in charge of it. The sort of politically bent identity politics shysters whom Ms Stanley describes should not be in a position where they can influence the policies related the safety and security of Britain and its inhabitants.
