As the director of @QuilliamOrg@maajidnawaz should today disassociate from this toxicly anti-Muslim coauthor of his China's Covid Conspiracy open letter to the FBI and MI5. Could @davidtoube & others please apply their principles to this v clear case?
It is a small group of 10 people who coauthored or consigned the letter
This is Sabhlok, one of the group of 10 with Nawaz (director of Quilliam) and Dolan (of KBF). He has a full house of strange and cranky views and no boundaries against overt anti-Muslim prejudice
Since @QuilliamOrg is a major voice in the counter-extremism debate, it is reasonable to ask that its director spend more time countering conspiratorial propaganda & place at least some boundaries on his susceptibility to extreme sources and conspiracies in his personal capacity.
There appear dozens of reasons not to treat Sabhlok as a credible co-contributor on Covid but this overt anti-Muslim prejudice is core business for @QuilliamOrg even if they are turning a blind eye to the promotion of conspiracy, authoritarianism & legitimising violence in the US
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is certainly arguable. (A lot of people argue it).
Different types of claim - principled/ethical ones, and consequential ones (about impact of various courses of action or inaction). It would be interesting to look seriously at what we might predict about the latter.
A tweeter called magalawbrian who claims to be an associate of Powell and Wood sees Trump using the Jan 20th inauguration as a Stop the Steal sting operation, using Space Force. (A revival of the "SCIF" conspiracy theory, where Trump exposes the plot in Scooby Doo style).
It would be interesting to see polling on support for fraud claims (35%) and/or Jan 6th insurrection (which has been 10-20%) segmented by
- have or have not heard/seen claims that Trump has a plan
- believe Trump can emerge President by Jan 20th (or eg March 5th).
How do we solve a problem like Maajid Nawaz, given what now appears to have become a journey to re-radicalisation?
Your advice please - on how some dangers may be averted.
I've been chronicling this but want to step back, by late Jan. So a few ideas on how others might help.
"Don't feed the trolls" is often good advice. There are limits to how much anyone can worry about online misinformation.
I see these 3 reasons why Mr Nawaz is a different case to AN Other tweeters
They may suggest some 'horses for courses' approaches to who could address what.
In November, I thought this was a knockabout online politics debate: was saying Trump could win the Presidency, after Nov 4th, just clutching at straws?
The content in last 3 days & since Jan 5th has been much worse. Hitting a dangerous new low today
"Watch Mike Pompeo" is the code to Anerican Patriots
It is about creating a heightened sense of excitement about a major event to change the outcome.
Similar method to the Jan 6th march
The clearly now re-radicalised Maajid Nawaz is on message, tweeting "every 30 minutes"
This is what all the QAnon and pro-Trump networks have been asked to do.
We really must see @lbc & @QuilliamOrg finally stage some intervention after 2 months of increasing reradicalisation
Few of the contributors to the China conspiracy letter have any Covid Covid credentials. Most have championed the Trump fraud claims. The glossy video suggest the letter's timing may be coordinated rather than coincidental
It's good to see pro-Leave voices making this accurate distinction. The conflation of Trump fraud claims and violence/Remain campaigns is mainly childish knockabout politics for clicks that therefore fails to take the foundations of democracy seriously
Its legit to make arguments like: the Leave campaign made promises they couldn't keep. Or second referendum campaign deserved to suffer because democratic case for implementing first vote before rejoin debate.
Having tweeted Americans should "arm themselves to defend rights" so as to "end any politician or lobbyist" who are "collaborators", Brian O'Shea says its a typo (?). 'Stalkers' lost their minds" by imagining any openness to violence in literal call to arms against collaborators
I am left unclear as to how the priority given to procuring guns (as well as to using cash) would help in what is now (thankfully) an entirely non-violent advocacy of how to defend rights and save the free world from any politician or any lobbyist identified as a "collaborator"