Registered user login:

Bright'sBlog

Bright's Blog

Politics uncovered by Martin Bright, New Statesman political editor

Bright's Blog Homepage

Silly Bunt

  • Posted by Martin Bright
  • 10 July 2007

Within Whitehall the terms of the debate on radical Islam have changed, but some on the left still don't get it

Madeleine Bunting's Guardian article yesterday made the mistake of treating international Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-i-Islami as if they are the primitive products of third world victims of colonialism rather than sophisticated totalitarian movements.

The errors in the piece are too numerous to mention, although David T at Harry's Place has done an excellent job of dismantling it.

But there is one curious passage towards the end which should not go unchallenged. Bunting makes the following claim: "A recent meeting at the Home Office on how to combat extremism attracted few Muslims but several journalists - including those who have lobbied hard that the government should withdraw from any engagement with organisations with historical links to Islamism, the broad 20th-century movement of political Islam. Their lobbying succeeded in freezing out a wide range of organisations, including the Muslim Council of Britain."

It is sometimes difficult to work out Bunting's cryptic language but I can only think she is referring to a meeting held by Home Office minister Tony McNulty last month. I was one of two journalists present (there were not several of us). An academic and a representative from an American think tank were also there. I don't know what counts as few, but out of the eight invitees there were four Muslims representing a range of views. The meeting was held under Chatham House rules, so I won't go into what was discussed, but the debate was extremely robust.

If Bunting is referring to me as someone who has "lobbied hard that the government should withdraw from any engagement with organisations with historical links to Islamism", then she has wilfully misunderstood one of the conclusions of my Policy Exchange pamphlet When Progressives Treat With Reactionaries. This called for "an end to the Government’s policy of 'engagement for engagement’s sake' with the MCB." It continued: "Any body that represents itself as speaking for the Muslim community must demonstrate that is entirely non-sectarian and non-factional. The MCB has consistently failed in this area and the Government should consider cutting all ties until it has thoroughly reformed itself. For too long, the Government has chosen as its favoured partner an organisation which is undemocratic, divisive and unrepresentative of the full diversity of Muslim Britain."

The key phrase is "until it has thoroughly reformed itself". Indeed, since Ruth Kelly began the process of freezing out the MCB, the organisation has begun that process of reform. It now seems likely that it will vote to attend Holocaust Memorial Day next year, for instance. This process of internal reform may be a strategic move to win back favour with ministers (the organisation's stance on homosexuality and "apostate" Muslim sects my take longer to change). But it should never the less be encouraged.

The MCB no longer recieves government funding, it no longer has the monopoly on advice to ministers and its senior officers no longer travel the world as de facto ambassadors for the UK. This is also to be welcomed. If my lobbying has in any way helped, then I am delighted.

But the MCB has not been frozen out entirely. What Madeleine Bunting fails to mention (perhaps because it does not suit her argument, or perhaps because she didn't know) is that one of the Muslims present at the Home Office meeting was Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain. But such organisations are now being held at arm's length from government rather than driving the agenda. And as a result,the process of reform is beginning.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

8 comments from readers

dsquared
10 July 2007 at 12:46

[The meeting was held under Chatham House rules, so I won't go into what was discussed]

If it was under Chatham House rules, then

a) you can go into what was discussed; you're free to use the information, but

b) you've broken them by saying that Inayat Bungwala was present (and Tony McNulty, and by giving the affiliations of some of the other people present).

The Chatham House rule is that you can use the information, but mustn't identify the people. If the meeting was under Chatham House rules then you need to get rid of the last paragraph and change some others - if it was under some other set of groundrules then probably best delete the reference to Chatham House.

Martin Bright
10 July 2007 at 13:17

Thanks for your advice about Chatham House rules dsquared. I understood them and have bent them where necessary by identifying the minister and Bunglawala.

By describing one person as an academic and and another as representing an American think tank I have not identified them. The other three Muslims apart from Bungalwala and the other journalist are not identified, It would have been difficult to publish details of the discussion without identifying people further.

Now perhaps you could address the real issues

dsquared
10 July 2007 at 13:47

[bent them ]

that would be "bent" in the sense of "broken". If you've got Inayat Bunglawala's permission to identify him then I obviously apologise, but if not, then you've broken the Chatham House rules (and even then I would have thought you also ought to have got the permission of whoever organised the meeting). That's a pretty unfair way to treat people if you're just doing it on purpose for a blog post.

I'm trying to help you avoid a gaffe here, although if you genuinely do understand the Chatham House rules and are breaking them on purpose, maybe you can tell us what you discussed at this meeting and then I'll "address the real issues", when I've got the fullest picture of what you think they are. If the nature of the meeting really was that you can't say anything about it without breaking confidences, maybe it would have been better not to mention it in the first place.

Martin Bright
10 July 2007 at 13:49

Thanks again for your help

Tom Paine
10 July 2007 at 14:32

He can't spell language either.

PJ
10 July 2007 at 17:46

I think it's important that we concentrate on the REALLY important issues: why the reference to the Chatham House rules (plural) when in fact there is only a Chatham House rule (single)?

;)

Chris Blackburn
15 July 2007 at 12:47

Madeleine Bunting is dangerous and misinformed, I’ve tried to talk to her on issues relating to the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) but she chooses to ignore my findings. This is the main reason why I have categorised her as dangerous. She is still trying to protect the MCB no matter what hard evidence is presented to her which supports the government’s policy of disengagement with the group.

It seems that her role as an extreme multi-culturalist is stopping her from withdrawing her support and appeasement for the MCB. Bunting often gives off vibes that she is constantly wrecked by post-colonial guilt because of the way the British Empire ruled over large regions of South Asia, which to her credit was often to exploit people and resources. It’s a topical stance especially as our strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan are looking precarious people are looking to compare our modern policies with those we had during our colonial times as a way of self reflection and assessment. However it appears Bunting wants to right the wrongs of a long dead generation, by protecting a radical ideology which was born from the ashes of the Empire.

Her unwarranted burden has led to a serious misunderstanding of radical Islamism and has caused considerable damage to community cohesion. If it wasn’t for John Ware and Martin Bright the MCB would have continued to grow and consolidate- they both helped to destroy the MCB’s monopoly while Bunting helped to strengthen it. Reassessment is fashionable in British politics at the moment; maybe Bunting should indulge herself in a period of introspection.

John Webster
12 November 2007 at 09:40

In India I saw the Muslim Council of Britain described as a 'closet fundamentalist' outfit (Outlook, July 2007).

Perhaps this is a helpful designation to keep in mind.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Martin Bright began his journalistic career writing in very simple English for a magazine aimed at French school children. This experience has informed his style ever since. He worked for the BBC World Service, and The Guardian before joining the Observer as Education Correspondent. He went on to become Home Affairs Editor before becoming the New Statesman's political editor in 2005.

Recent Posts

When Marx met Mill

  • By Martin Bright
  • 24 July 2008

Karadzic: the Weight of History

  • By Martin Bright
  • 24 July 2008

Libel Tourism Revisited

  • By Martin Bright
  • 22 July 2008

Karadzic and Srebrenica

  • By Martin Bright
  • 22 July 2008

Obama, Brown and the Commentators

  • By Martin Bright
  • 21 July 2008

A Big Beast Speaks

  • By Martin Bright
  • 18 July 2008

Hazel Blears and IslamExpo

  • By Martin Bright
  • 18 July 2008