Islam is the real positive change that you need to change for being a better person or a perfect human being, you can change yourself if you read QURAN, IF YOU DO THAT !! you will change this UMMAH, say I am not A Sunni or Shia, BUT I am just a MUSLIM. Be a walking QURAN among human-being AND GUIDE THEM TO THE RIGHT PATH.
52 areas blockaded, almost all by regime troops, new figures suggest, as UN
warns using food as a weapon is a 'war crime'
2K
0
0
2K
Email
Jordanian soldiers carry Syrian refugee
children stranded in the makeshift camp into Jordanian territory
through the Hadalat border crossing, located near the northeastern
Jordanian border with Syria Photo: AP
By Louisa Loveluck, Middle East Reporter
7:25PM GMT 14 Jan 2016
Sieges across Syria
have left more than a million people at risk of starvation, new figures
suggested on Thursday, as Ban Ki-Moon, the UN secretary general, warned
that "the use of food as a weapon of war is a war crime".
According to Siege Watch, a study of populations living under blockade,
49 out of besieged 52 areas are encircled by troops loyal to Syria’s
president, Bashar al-Assad. Another two have been cut off by rebel
forces and one by Isil terrorists.
The most extreme effects have been felt in Madaya, the opposition enclave near the Lebanese border, where stories of almost 70 deaths by starvation have horrified the world. A second convoy of UN aid trucks reached the town last night, bringing flour and other essentials.
Syrian refugees inside the border wait to be approved to get into Jordan Photo: AP
As the trucks arrived, some residents wept with relief. But others said
the aid would remain as mere “crumbs” as long as the source of their
misery - the regime’s crippling siege - remained in place.
“The whole world must know that this aid is not enough, it will not
last more than 15 days,” said one man, Abdullah. “What we really want is
to break the siege.”
After four months under medieval siege, civilians had survived on boiled leaves and dwindling bottles of cough syrup. Elderly residents died alone and from starvation, their bodies found days later. • Assad supporters taunt starving Syrians in Madaya with pictures of food Syrian refugees fleeing the violence in their country, walk with their families after crossing into Jordanian territory Photo: REUTERS
In a video posted online earlier this week, an emaciated boy whose
pleas for aid had been broadcast around the world was again shown
calling for help. Suppressing a smile at first, Mohamed Eissa, said he
was happy that aid had finally arrived. But his face quickly fell when a
voice off-camera asked if he was tired. “Yes,” he said.
UN
officials said last week that the suffering in Madaya was worse than
anything seen in Syria’s war. But other towns have come close. Aid
groups say more than 560 people have died from blockades elsewhere, some
from starvation, others from the toxins they ingested after foraging
for dirty food.
Last night, activists in Moadamiya, seven miles
from Mr Assad’s Damascus palace, said that six people had died since a
regime siege on area was tightened on Christmas Day. "We're completely
isolated from the outside world," said Dani Qappani, a local activist.
"The people here boil olives and herbs in water. They burn plastic and
old cloth for heat."
Four people died there in the besieged
suburb on Thursday, after their families were unable to take them out of
the area for lifesaving treatment. One was a 15 year old boy with
special needs, according to reports. A
Jordanian soldier carries a Syrian refugee child after his entry into
Jordanian territory with his family through the Hadalat border crossing Photo: AP
Thursday’s aid delivery was also bound for Fouaa and Kefraya, two
northwestern towns encircled by fighters from Syria’s al-Qaeda group,
Jabhat al-Nusra.
In a letter published on Thursday, more than
100 Syrian community and health workers accused the UN of failing to
help besieged communities until it was too late. They accused the
organisation of “creating unnecessary hurdles” to aid, waiting on regime
permission despite two Security Council resolutions that authorise the
practice without Mr Assad’s consent.
Many of the besieged areas close to Damascus, notably Ghouta and Douma, are only minutes away from UN warehouses full of aid.
Critics also say the aid deliveries, which come as part of a
UN-brokered ceasefire agreement between regime and rebels, effectively
reward siege tactics, encouraging commanders to use them for as long as
they elicit concessions from the international community.
Staffan de Mistura, the UN envoy to Syria, said on Wednesday that world
powers would push for "immediate action" to deliver aid to besieged
areas, after talks in Geneva with ambassadors from the Security
Council's permanent members: Britain, China, France, Russia and the
United States.
But inside Madaya, residents said they had lost
faith. “The entry of crumbs... does not eliminate the hunger of hundreds
of thousands of other people in this country,” said one man. “Even
Madaya will return to hunger soon.”
Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/12100633/More-than-a-million-Syrians-under-siege-at-risk-of-starvation.html
A young boy, his haunting eyes wide open, lies on
a hospital bed in Houdieda, a port city in western Yemen. His lips are
wrapped around his stick-thin arm, while a fly rests on his skeletal
body. He is bare-chested and the outlines of ribs are clearly visible
though his skin. A syringe lies on the sheets patterned with clouds and
cartoons.
The raging civil war in Yemen, one of the world’s
poorest nations, has been largely ignored in the deluge of news from
the region. But a series of images of starving and malnourished children
in Yemen show the nation’s mounting crisis.
A malnourished boy cries in his home in Sanaa June 20, 2012. (Reuters /Mohamed al-SayaghiA family with a malnourished child is pictured in their home in Sanaa June 21, 2012. (Reuters/Mohamed al-Sayaghi)A
doctor holds a malnourished boy as his mother sits at a therapeutic
feeding centre in the southern Yemeni city of Taiz June 30, 2012.
(Reuters /Khaled Abdullah)
Hostilities
have escalated between forces loyal to former president Abdu Rabbu
Mansour Hadi, who was driven into exile last February, and those of
Shiite Houthi rebels loyal to a party of former president Ali Abdullah
Saleh. Since March 2015, a Saudi Arabia-led coalition of Gulf Arab
states has launched airstrikes on Houthi targets at Hadi’s request. More
than 10,0000 civilians have been killed and wounded since then, according to the United Nations.
Air strikes and a Saudi imposed naval, land and air blockade
on Yemen, which imports over 90% of its staple foods, have caused food
prices to soar, making it impossible for Yemenis to afford food to feed
themselves and their families. According to recent figures from the
United Nations, more than 14 million Yemenis (about half of the
country’s population) are going hungry and urgently need food and
medication.
A
doctor attends to a newborn baby in a special care unit at a hospital
in Yemen’s capital Sanaa May 7, 2015. (Reuters/Khaled Abdullah )A woman holds her malnourished daughter at a hospital in Yemen’s capital Sanaa July 28, 2015. (Reuters/Khaled Abdullah)
The
food crisis is particularly harsh for children – at least 370,000
suffer from severe malnutrition. “We’re talking about a 50% increase
compared to the number we had earlier this year,” Mohammed al-Asaadi, a
spokesman for the UN children’s agency in Yemen told Al Jazeera.
Acute malnutrition, as evidenced in the frail children recorded in
these photographs, has become a major cause of death for children under
five in the country.
Ali
Mohammed al-Tawaari, a six-month-old malnourished boy, cries as he is
weighed in a malnutrition intensive care unit in Sanaa, Yemen July 30,
2015. Ali suffers from malnourishment and complications from a botched
circumcision performed by an unqualified practitioner. (Reuters/Khaled
Abdullah)Two-year-old
Hanadi Dawod cries as she is weighed to check for acute severe
malnutrition in a malnutrition intensive care unit in Sanaa, Yemen July
30, 2015. (Reuters/Khaled Abdullah)A
malnourished boy cries as he sits on a bed at a malnutrition intensive
care unit in Yemen’s capital Sanaa February 10, 2016. (Reuters/Khaled
Abdullah)
Peace has been elusive. Last month, talks backed by the United Nations ended without an agreement
after Houthi rebels and the party of Saleh announced the formation of
new governing body to run the country. Airstrikes have often targeted
civilian areas and on Sept. 12, an airstrike on a water well
in Northern Yemen on the eve of the Eid al-Adha, reportedly killed 30
and wounded 17, including children and first responders. The US is
complicit in the conflict, according to an editorial in The New York Times in August 2016, because it sells arms to Saudi Arabia.
A
woman holds her malnourished child at a therapeutic feeding centre at
al-Sabyeen hospital in Sanaa April 15, 2013. (Reuters /Mohammed
al-Sayaghi)A
malnourished child is seen at a therapeutic feeding centre at
al-Sabyeen hospital in Sanaa April 15, 2013. (Reuters/Mohammed
al-Sayaghi)
A food crisis
has been building in the conflict-ridden country for some years now, as
is depicted in the pictures going back to 2012.
“Children are paying the highest price,” the UN said.
This unjust programme alienates law-abiding British Muslims,
undermining the police’s ability to actually prevent terrorist attacks
Children at the Victor Street Mosque in Bradford. ‘Prevent creates a
systemic risk of violations of the right to freedom of expression, the
right against discrimination and the right to privacy.’
Photograph: Murdo Macleod for the Guardian The problem of “homegrown” terrorism inspired by Islamic State
is front and centre of the counter-terrorism agenda in western Europe.
In the UK, the government estimates the terrorist threat to be “severe”.
It also estimates that about 850 individuals “of national security
concern” have travelled from the UK to Iraq and Syria since the conflict
there began, and about half of them have returned.
But what is the most effective way for governments to respond to this
threat, without undermining the very values of democracy and freedom
that they claim they want to defend?
In the UK, this debate has focused, particularly over the past year,
on the government’s Prevent programme – which seeks to stop individuals
being drawn into terrorism. Since 2015, the so-called “Prevent duty”
has in effect required teachers, doctors and other frontline
professionals to report individuals at risk of being drawn into violent
and non-violent extremism to the police-led “Channel” support programme.
Is this the correct and proportional response?
A report released today by the Open Society Justice Initiative, Eroding Trust:
The UK’s “Prevent” Counter-Extremism Strategy in Health and Education
says that it is not. Based on legal analysis, case studies and numerous
interviews, we argue that Prevent is not only unjust but also
unproductive.
Prevent’s overly broad definition of extremism – vocal or active
opposition to fundamental British values – creates a systemic risk of
violations of the right to freedom of expression, the right against
discrimination and the right to privacy. Scottish government officials
told me that although the term “British values” was in the Prevent
guidance, they “don’t ever use that phrase” because “it could be
damaging or unhelpful if it endorses a ‘them and us’ mentality”.
Current Time 0:00
/
Duration Time 9:36
Loaded:
Having spoken to more than 80 experts and individuals affected by the
programme, my research found that Prevent was creating a climate of
fear and a chilling effect on free expression. Case studies in the
report describe children in schools being targeted and intimidated under
Prevent for expressing political views. In UK universities – considered
by many to be bastions of academic freedom – Prevent is apparently
leading to the cancellation of conferences and debates about
Islamophobia, and students are being targeted for reading course
materials on terrorism.
Advertisement
Conversations
about terrorism are being driven underground, where they are less
likely to be challenged. In healthcare facilities, doctors fear that
their obligation to report patients to the authorities is in conflict
with their duty of confidentiality and will undermine the doctor-patient
relationship. One psychologist quoted in the report says, “we are being
encouraged to police thought crimes and political opinions” and
describes another psychologist being fed questions by Prevent officers
to ask her patient.
For these reasons, we are calling for the repeal of the Prevent duty
in health and education so that frontline professionals can be free to
get on with their jobs and apply their professional judgment to respond
appropriately to cases that genuinely warrant intervention.
A particularly troubling case study in the report describes an
organisation collecting names and sensitive political information for
the Home Office – apparently under Prevent, and apparently without
informed consent – from nine- and 10-year-old children from a
predominantly Muslim area. A questionnaire distributed to the children
to elicit their opinions is included in the report.
It asked whether they agreed or disagreed with statements such as: “I
think most people respect my race or religion”; “People should be free
to say what they like, even if it offends others”; “People from a
different race, religion or community are just as good as people like
me”; and “Women are just as good as men at work”. It also asked the
children how much they trusted people of their race or religion, people
of another race or religion, school teachers, police officers,
journalists and the UK government. Would these children have been
targeted in this manner had they not been predominantly Muslim?
In a climate of intense anti-Muslim sentiment, the report argues,
Prevent gives frontline professionals broad discretion to act on their
conscious and unconscious biases. The report notes that the government’s
own figures show that in the past, 80% of referrals to the police-led Channel programme were rejected. Since the statutory “Prevent duty” took effect in 2015, the number of referrals to Channel has skyrocketed. The government’s annual report on Contest, its counterterrorism strategy,
notes that “during 2015, there were several thousand referrals to
Channel; around 15% of these were linked to far-right extremism, and
around 70% linked to Islamist-related extremism”; but that of those
referred, only “several hundred” were provided with support in 2015.
This suggests that a significant number of individuals were wrongly
referred.
Advertisement
Unsurprisingly,
Prevent is alienating many law-abiding Muslims wrongly targeted and
causing them to question their place in British society. David Anderson
QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, observed in his testimony before parliament’s home affairs select committee
that “Prevent has become a more significant source of grievance in
affected communities than the police and ministerial powers … that are
exercised under the Pursue strand of the Contest strategy”. Prevent’s
alienating effect in turn undermines the ability of law enforcement
officials to elicit the cooperation of Muslim communities for countering
future terrorist attacks.
There are parallels here with another policing issue affecting
minority communities: the disproportionate use of stop and search. In
2014, Theresa May, then home secretary, told parliament:
“Nobody wins when stop and search is misapplied. It is a waste of
police time. It is unfair, especially to young, black men. It is bad for
public confidence in the police.” Surely the prime minister’s words are
also true for Prevent when it is misapplied to Muslims?
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/19/terror-prevent-muslims-police-terrorist-attacks
The British government’s key counter-radicalisation policy is badly
flawed, potentially counterproductive and risks trampling on the basic
rights of young Muslims, a new study has concluded.
Following a nine-month examination of the programme known as Prevent, the Open Society Justice Initiative has recommended a major government rethink, particularly on its use in the education and health systems.
The US-based NGO studied 17 cases in which individuals had apparently
fallen foul of the Prevent programme, or had been referred to a sister
programme, called Channel, both of which are intended to prevent
individuals from being drawn into terrorism.
They included instances in which information was apparently gathered
from Muslim primary school children without their parents’ consent;
Prevent being used to bypass disciplinary processes during the attempted
dismissal of a school dinner lady; a 17-year-old referred to the police
by his college authorities because he had become more religious; and
the cancellation of university conferences on Islamophobia.
It is the second time in three months
that Prevent has faced criticisms following a major study. In July,
another NGO, Rights Watch UK, concluded that the programme stifles free
speech.
A United Nations special rapporteur has also warned that the programme may stifle healthy discussion and debate.
The Justice Initiative report, entitled Eroding Trust,
says: “The current Prevent strategy suffers from multiple, mutually
reinforcing structural flaws, the foreseeable consequence of which is a
serious risk of human rights violations.
“These violations include, most obviously, violations of the right
against discrimination, as well the right to freedom of expression,
among other rights. Prevent’s structural flaws include the targeting of
‘pre-criminality’, ‘non-violent extremism’, and opposition to ‘British
values’.” This leads the government to interfere in everyday lawful
discourse, the report says.
“Furthermore, Prevent’s targeting of non-violent extremism and
‘indicators’ of risk of being drawn into terrorism lack a scientific
basis. Indeed, the claim that non-violent extremism – including
‘radical’ or religious ideology – is the precursor to terrorism has been
widely discredited by the British government itself, as well as
numerous reputable scholars.”
The report says that there is cause for serious concern about the
treatment of children who come into contact with the Prevent programme,
arguing that the best interests of the child are not always regarded as a
primary consideration.
It says that the statutory responsibility on public bodies to take
steps to prevent radicalisation, introduced under the 2015
Counter-Terrorism and Security Act, jeopardises health bodies’
responsibility of confidentiality to their patients.
Finally, the report says there are serious indications that Prevent is counter-productive. According to police figures,
only around 20% of the people referred to in the Channel programme are
subsequently assessed as being at risk of being drawn into violent
extremism. The report concludes: “Being wrongly targeted under Prevent
has led some Muslims to question their place in British society.”
Among the case studies in the report is that of a four-year-old who drew a picture of a cucumber
while at nursery, and then told staff it was a “cuker-bum”. The staff,
believing he was referring to something called a cooker bomb, told the
child’s mother that he was being referred to Channel, and might be taken
away from her.
In her panic, the mother says she instructed the boy to stop drawing
pictures. She is quoted in the report as saying: “I’ve never felt not
British. And this made me feel very, very, like they tried to make me
feel like an outsider. We live here. I am born and bred here, not from
anywhere else. I feel this Prevent duty is picking on you because you
are Muslim, Asian, Pakistani, or whatever. I don’t feel it’s working at
all. They need to look at it and change it.”
The Prevent programme was launched in 2003, but its existence went
unacknowledged by the government for some years. Earlier this year the
Guardian disclosed
that one component of Prevent has been a covert propaganda campaign
that aims to bring about “attitudinal and behavioural change” among
young British Muslims.
Among the people interviewed as part of the study was Sir David Omand,
who was the UK’s security and intelligence co-ordinator when the
Prevent programme was launched. He said he would not have placed it on a
statutory footing, on the grounds that “if you can persuade people of
why it benefits everyone to do what you consider best, you will get a
more positive response than you would if you simply instructed them on
what you want them to do”.
Omand also stressed the need for public support for the programme:
“The key issue is, do most people in the community accept [Prevent] as
protective of their rights? If the community sees it as a problem, then
you have a problem.”
The author of the report, Amrit Singh, said: “This report shows that
Prevent is a serious problem, not only because it creates a systemic
risk of human rights violations, but also because it is
counterproductive. We urge the government as well as health and
education bodies to heed the voices in this report and abandon the
fundamentally flawed aspects of this strategy.”
The Justice Initiative is calling on the government to commission a
public inquiry into the programme, publish whatever scientific data it
possesses relating to extremism risk assessments, halt the targeting of
non-violent extremism, and to place the health and education systems
outside its remit.
It is also calling on the Children’s Commissioners for England, Wales and Scotland to assess the impact of Prevent on children.
Responding to the report, the security minister Ben Wallace said:
“The threat from radicalisation, both Islamist and extreme rightwing, is
very real. Helping to protect those vulnerable to radicalisation is
challenging but absolutely necessary work. It is disappointing to see
conclusions that risk damaging work that is essential to keeping
vulnerable people safe from extremism and terrorism.
“The findings contain inaccuracies and lack balance. They take no
account of the severe nature of the terrorism threat and nor do they
offer any solutions for how we protect vulnerable individuals.”
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/19/uks-prevent-counter-radicalisation-policy-badly-flawed?CMP=share_btn_fb
Inside Mogadishu’s Rajo camp, cheers can be heard from the family and
friends of Mohamed Noor and Huda Omar, a Somali couple, who have just
married.
As they walk arm-in-arm through the place that will be their home,
onlookers and guests dance in celebration of the start of their new
journey. “Life is about who you marry, not the type of home you live in.
I love him” Huda Omar told Reuters photojournalist and reporter, Faisal
Omar, who visited the makeshift camp and documented its colourful
nature in the days leading up to the wedding, as well as the
celebrations that followed. Mohamed Noor and Huda Omar walk through Rajo camp during their wedding ceremony in Mogadishu. Feisal Omar/ ReutersYoung boys dance during the wedding ceremony of Somali couple Mohamed Noor and Huda Omar in Mogadishu’s Rajo camp. Feisal Omar/ ReutersMohamed Noor and Huda Omar feed each other during their wedding ceremony in Mogadishu’s Rajo camp. Feisal Omar/ Reuters
The Rajo camp is home to roughly 400 internally displaced people and
is located in the capital of Mogadishu. Most of those who live there
came during the early 1990s, as fleeing the famine. Years of conflict
ravaged the Horn of Africa gave them no choice but to remain at Rajo. The newly married Somali couple Mohamed Noor and Hoda Omar are seen inside their home in Mogadishu’s Rajo camp. Feisal Omar/ ReutersA woman paints henna on bride Hudo Omar’s feet in Mogadishu’s Rajo camp. Feisal Omar/ ReutersNewly married Huda Omar rests at the family home in Mogadishu’s Rajo camp. Feisal Omar/ ReutersNewly married Huda Omar and her sister-in-law Rahma Noor look at tomatoes at Mogadishu’s Rajo camp. Feisal Omar/ ReutersMohamed Noor and Huda Omar sit with their family in front of their home in Mogadishu’s Rajo camp. Feisal Omar/ Reuters
Noor has built a simple home for himself and Omar to start their new
life, a small shack, divided into a bedroom and eating area which is
part of Noor’s family’s larger makeshift house. Omar left her family hut
in a farming area in Afgoye, roughly 20 miles away, for Rajo to live
with her husband. For the wedding, the couple’s bedroom has been
decorated with colorful balloons and flowers. “We have loved each other
for a very long time,” the 20-year-old groom said. “I could not afford
to build a house and marry her, so my mother helped with the little
money she had.” The family home of newly married Mohamed Noor is seen in Mogadishu’s Rajo camp. Feisal Omar/ ReutersThe bedroom of newly married Somali couple Mohamed Noor and Huda Omar is seen in Mogadishu’s Rajo campFeisal Omar/ Reuters
Noor, who was born in the camp, works as a mason with his father. His
family were forced to move out of their hometown of Baidoa, after
losing their livestock to the famine. Other’s who live in the camp are
builders, or sell sweets, nuts and stick toothbrushes to make money.
Some beg around the seaside city, which like the rest of Somalia has
been gripped by violence since the toppling of dictator Mohamed Siad
Barre in 1991. “Life is tough here. Sometimes there are explosions
nearby and the roads are blocked so I can’t get to work,” Noor explained
to Reuters. Newly married Mohamed Noor walks home from his job in Mogadishu’s Rajo campFeisal Omar/ ReutersNewly married Mohamed Noor prepares to take a shower after returning from work, in Mogadishu’s Rajo campFeisal Omar/ Reuters
After the wedding, the couple celebrate a week-long honeymoon at
their new home. After seven days, Omar is joined by other women for more
festivities, during which guests bring presents, utensils and cakes.
The bride’s mother and mother-in-law place a coloruful scarf on her, in a
symbolic gesture indicating she is married. Huda Omar feeds her
husband Mohamed Noor at their home after the end of week-long
celebrations for their wedding in Mogadishu’s Rajo campFeisal Omar/ ReutersWomen dance on the last
day of week-long wedding celebrations for newly married couple Mohamed
Noor and Huda Omar in Mogadishu’s Rajo camp. Feisal Omar/ ReutersA woman dances on the last
day of week-long wedding celebrations for newly married Somali couple
Mohamed Noor and Huda Omar in Mogadishu’s Rajo camp. Feisal Omar/ ReutersA woman dances on the last
day of week-long wedding celebrations for newly married couple Mohamed
Noor and Huda Omar in Mogadishu’s Rajo camp. Feisal Omar/ ReutersThe bride Huda Omar walks
to a ceremony where women put a scarf on her to mark the end of
week-long wedding celebrations in Mogadishu’s Rajo camp. Feisal Omar/ ReutersThe families of newly
married Somali couple Mohamed Noor and Huda Omar gather to give them
gifts for their new home in Mogadishu’s Rajo camp, Somalia. Feisal Omar/ Reuters
In the days that follow, life returns to normal. Omar will undertake
chores at home, while Noor goes back to work. “I hope we will have
children and I will be able to educate them,” Noor said. “If I get a
good job, I will save my money and open a shop for my wife so she can
become a trader”. Newly married Huda Omar cleans outside her house in Mogadishu’s Rajo camp. Feisal Omar/ ReutersA wedding photograph of
newly married Somali couple Mohamed Noor and Huda Omar is seen on the
dressing table in their bedroom in Mogadishu’s Rajo camp. Feisal Omar/ ReutersSomali couple Mohamed Noor
(L) and Huda Omar pose for a photograph at their makeshift home during
their wedding ceremony in Mogadishu’s Rajo camp.. Feisal Omar/ Reuters
The photos were taking by Feisal Omar for Reuters. The story first appeared on International Business Times. Read rest here
PORTLAND — Republican Donald Trump has a new target when it comes to immigrants: Somalis.
Trump told an audience Thursday at packed Merrill Auditorium in
Portland that Maine is a “major destination” for Somali refugees and
that they’re coming from some of the “most dangerous places.” He said
the nation’s acceptance of refugees is a problem that must stop.
“We’ve just seen many, many crimes getting worse all the time, and as
Maine knows — a major destination for Somali refugees — right, am I
right? Well they’re all talking about it. Maine. Somali refugees. We
admit hundreds of thousands — you admit, into Maine, and to other places
in the United States — hundreds of thousands of refugees,” Trump said.
“And they’re coming from among the most dangerous territories and
countries in the world,” he added. “This is a practice that has to
stop.”
Somali immigration has been a political flash point in largely white Maine, particularly in Lewiston,
where officials estimated last year that between 4,000 to 5,000 Somalis
live in a community with an official population of 36,000.
Trump also cited a story by The Washington Times that said efforts to resettle Somali refugees in Minnesota are straining resources and gathering potential targets for “Islamist terror groups.”
“You see it happening. You read about it,” Trump said. “You see it,
and you can be smart, and you can be cunning and tough, or you can be
very, very dumb and not want to see what’s going on, folks.”
In Lewiston and Portland, where large numbers of Somali immigrants
reside, reaction was swift in response to the story, although not
everyone agreed about whether Trump was right or wrong in his
assessment.
“Yes, they’re coming from dangerous places,” Patricia Washburn, of
Portland, wrote on Facebook, “that’s why they’re leaving! Judge them on
what they do here — in many cases, raising families, going to school,
starting businesses, learning English, practicing their religion in
peace, and working.”
Sources used in the story: Associated Press, Main Sunjournal, Boston Globe, and Maine Public Broadcasting.
Amrit SinghChildren at the Victor Street Mosque in Bradford. ‘Prevent creates a systemic risk of violations of the right to freedom of expression, the right against discrimination and the right to privacy.’ Photograph: Murdo Macleod for the Guardian
The problem of “homegrown” terrorism inspired by Islamic State is front and centre of the counter-terrorism agenda in western Europe. In the UK, the government estimates the terrorist threat to be “severe”. It also estimates that about 850 individuals “of national security concern” have travelled from the UK to Iraq and Syria since the conflict there began, and about half of them have returned.
But what is the most effective way for governments to respond to this threat, without undermining the very values of democracy and freedom that they claim they want to defend?
In the UK, this debate has focused, particularly over the past year, on the government’s Prevent programme – which seeks to stop individuals being drawn into terrorism. Since 2015, the so-called “Prevent duty” has in effect required teachers, doctors and other frontline professionals to report individuals at risk of being drawn into violent and non-violent extremism to the police-led “Channel” support programme. Is this the correct and proportional response?
A report released today by the Open Society Justice Initiative, Eroding Trust: The UK’s “Prevent” Counter-Extremism Strategy in Health and Education says that it is not. Based on legal analysis, case studies and numerous interviews, we argue that Prevent is not only unjust but also unproductive.
Prevent’s overly broad definition of extremism – vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values – creates a systemic risk of violations of the right to freedom of expression, the right against discrimination and the right to privacy. Scottish government officials told me that although the term “British values” was in the Prevent guidance, they “don’t ever use that phrase” because “it could be damaging or unhelpful if it endorses a ‘them and us’ mentality”.