Britain can’t seem to kill itself fast enough to suit British authorities. “Islamic ‘radicals’ at the heart of Whitehall,” by Andrew Gilligan, the Telegraph, February 22, 2015:
Entryism, the favourite tactic of the 1980s’ Militant Tendency, is when a political party or institution is infiltrated by groups with a radically different agenda. Since Militant’s Trotskyites were expelled from the Labour Party, the word has rather fallen out of fashion.
But now, according to one Muslim leader, Islamic radicals are practising entryism of their own — into the heart of Whitehall – courtesy of a woman who was until recently a government minister.
Baroness Warsi, the first Muslim woman to sit in Cabinet, handed official posts to people linked to Islamist groups, including a man involved in an “unpleasant and bullying” campaign to win planning permission for the controversial London “megamosque” proposed by a fundamentalist Islamic sect.
He sits – alongside other radicals or former radicals and their allies – on a “cross-Government working group on anti-Muslim hatred” set up by Lady Warsi and Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister.
Some members of the group are using their seats at the table to urge that Whitehall work with Islamist and extremist-linked bodies, including one described by the Prime Minister as a “political front for the Muslim Brotherhood”. Some are also pressing to lift bans on foreign hate preachers from entering Britain, including Zakir Naik, who has stated that “every Muslim should be a terrorist”.
Fiyaz Mughal, a former member of the working group, told The Telegraph that he had resigned in protest at its activities. “I was deeply concerned about the kinds of groups some of the members had connections with, and some of the groups they were recommending be brought into government,” he said. “It seemed to me to be a form of entryism, by people with no track record in delivering projects.” Mr Mughal is head of Tell Mama, the national organisation for monitoring anti-Muslim attacks.
If Fiyaz Mughal, a discredited liar, thinks the situation was bad, it must have been very, very bad. But why is Telegraph reporter Andrew Gilligan, who broke the story about Mughal’s distorting evidence of “hate crimes” against Muslims, going to him for comment now? Did his superiors order him to make nice with Mughal? Or did he decide that while Mughal is dishonest, he isn’t as bad as Islamic jihadists? Whatever is going on here, treating someone like Fiyaz Mughal as if he were a valid authority is just another sign of the deep trouble Britain is in today.