Thread by @MPACUK

In this tweet-chain, we'll break down & explain why the Tony Blair Institute's (@InstituteGC) report is ideologically motivated, legitimises shutting down of Muslim voices & just generally so shockingly poor (& also currently taken off their website). (1/27)

Firstly, it completely ignores the varied methods of civic & democratic engagement that define each organisation's ethos to address the grievances spoken about.

Instead it creates a guilt-by association by framing those grievances as inherently "extreme". (2/27)

E.g, MPACUK scores 4/5 on the "extremism level" for "Delegitimising the Govt".

Apparently, we not only see little value in engaging the system but we also "actively delegitimise govt". Yet it ignores we mobilise Muslims to lobby, vote & use their democratic rights. (3/27)

Also, what about the millions of non-Muslims that "delegitimising the government" democratically right now inside & outside of Parliament? Are they extremist too?

So, is it "delegitimising the government" or "holding them to account" that's the problem? (4/27)

@UK_CAGE has submitted papers to Parliament, takes on legal cases & has relationship with several organisation in the same field. The paper ignores that too & just scores CAGE 4/5 for the same category. Is it just cos we are critical of foreign & counter extremism polices? (5/27)

Similarly, the report scores CAGE 3/5 for "Victimisation" simply because they see the victimisation in PREVENT.

It doesn't mention they deal with ACTUAL victims & report those cases. (6/27)

MPACUK & @ihrc are 4/5 for "Islam vs the West" JUST because we acknowledge current levels of Islamophobia to be systematic & historical.

Would it be extremism aswell to talk about the historical legacy of racism, anti-Semitism & sexism of the West too?? (7/27)

Additionally, it's language whitewashes the reality of Islamophobia by conflating commentary of the Islamophobia Industry & co-ordinated efforts of Islamophobia as "conspiracy", as if this hasn't been well documented & reported by countless credible sources. (8/27)

Secondly, the report, like the widely criticised PREVENT strategy, makes ideology the primary reason for radicalisation.

Therefore any content that tries to pragmatically explain why violence is happening is glossed over as "justification of violence". (9/27)

As a result, anything that points to their actions as consequences of rising terrorism *cough Iraq War cough*, is "justification of violence". Because the West can never do any wrong & it's just the ideology of Islam that is to blame. (10/27)

That's not us making stuff up, those are Blair's words himself.

Welcome to the mad mind of the neo-conservative. Always ready to defend it's own war criminals. (11/27)

What’s typical of neo-cons is their use of dumb strawmen when blame is focused on the powerful. E.g.:

Issue: "The powerful's foreign policy is killing millions of Muslims"
Neo-con strawman: "You hate our civilisation & creating Islam vs the West narrative" - WHAT?? (12/27)

Neo conservatism legitimises state tyranny & terror by constantly silencing & demonising those who speak truth to power.The report takes this as a "neutral objective" position & just regurgitates these views.

Like Blair as Peace Envoy, this report offers NO VALUE AT ALL (13/27)

Thirdly, its uses Al Muhajiroon as a "objective benchmark", but as explained, the whole methodology has a pre-determined belief about these groups &, more specifically, the political grievances expressed. (14/27)

The point of the "objective benchmark" is establish guilt-by-association, whilst ignoring our activities, by labelling political grievances about suffering & injustice as "extreme".

That might as well label humanity as "extreme" too. (15/27)

Ironically, this report is an example of why making ideology a sole cause of radicalisation creates academically bad science & counter productive policy. (16/27)

Simultaneously, at the end of the report they state that conclusions are based on the researchers' personal opinions.

Presumably to protect themselves from any following legal action. (17/27)

Fourthly, it assumes Muslims who have the govt backing, e.g. Fiyaz Mughal & Sara Khan are "good", just because they have govt backing. Those that do not are "bad".

Therefore, the litmus test is not morality, but obedience to the state. (18/27)

The report defends the establishment that created the "good" vs "bad" Muslim scenario by blaming those who point it out.

Just as it defends state "extremism" & terrorism by labelling those who point it out as "extreme".

How very neo-conservative of them. (19/27)

@InstituteGC pitches the report as a model definition of extremism, but it only succeeds in advocating authoritarianism in the guise of liberty, by legitimising Islamophobic tropes

No surprise, given Saudi & UAE, financial backers of Blair, are doing the exact same thing (20/27)

It’s not surprising that this report both support & is supported by the Commission of Counter Extremism, given their head's relationship to UAE & the UK's relationship with Saudi. (21/27)

So, what is the difference between Sara Khan's liberty & Mohammad bin Salman’s? (22/27)

The report's rhetoric is not just dangerous for Muslims however, but also to everyone else.

If they can successfully shut down Muslim political views against the powerful, they can do it everyone else too. And no doubt, they will. (23/27)

So the report isn't aligning to its own words of "aims to help make globalisation work for the many, not the few".

But we did find it amusing Blair stole the slogan off Corbyn’s Labour. (24/27)

MPACUK also found it generally amusing that we are being told by a war criminal who caused a genocide in Iraq that we are "extreme". (25/27)

But more seriously, whilst Blair should be referred to the Hauge, he should also be referred to a psychiatrist.

His behaviour is typical of genocidal maniacs who refuse to see they are the bad guy who did bad things. Atonement would be good therapy for him..& the world (26/27)

We continue to hope Blair gets the attention he deserves. (27/27)

@InstituteGC