Thursday, 20 March 2014

Laura Zahra McDonald (Birmingham Uni) imposes her ‘shared values’ on others

First posted: 11 April 2011





[Left: the monomaniacal 'anti-Zionist' Sue Blackwell, also of Birmingham University. She's probably a dinner-party friend of Zahra's.  Top: Laura Zahra McDonald. Judging by the photo and her name, this academic must be a convert to Islam. Oh!That sweet fusion of Leftism and Islamism has clearly been the result.]


Introduction

This paper, and even this synopsis alone, is deeply ideological. It's also intent on achieving the political ends which will express those ideologies.

Don’t be fooled by the academic style. Because that’s what it is - only a style. Despite the tons of footnotes, references, the academic prose style and pseudo-technical terms, even the lack of ‘rhetoric’, ad hominems and ‘poetic hyperbole’: this is still an blatantly ideological paper bent on specific political ends.

If an academic is part of a department which has a particular ideological or political slant on things, such blatant politicising will never be challenged simply because it fits in with the general political tenor of the department concerned. So there is no real academic freedom in such departments - especially social sciences/studies departments like this one at Birmingham University. The only thing required is not ideological objectivity, but the academic style which attempts to hide that ideological lack of objectivity. That way you can get away with blatant ideologising simply because it is all carried out in the academic style with its infinite footnotes, references as well as zero swear words and even zero poeticisms.

But you only require a minute to ‘deconstruct’ her synopsis, never mind the paper itself, to uncover the deeply ideological nature of what Laura Zahra McDonald is offering us and what she wants to follow from it, politically speaking.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract, by Laura Zahra McDonald [comments are in red]


This article discusses recent research into engagement and partnership work between Muslim communities and police for the purposes of counter-terrorism. It is argued that asserting a notion of ‘shared values’ as a foundational criterion for choosing which individuals/groups to engage in countering terrorism is strategically flawed. [But as a Leftist and Muslim, McDonald does believe in ‘shared values’ - but only the right shared values! That is, the shared values of the Left and Islam; or even the shared values of Muslims. As well as the shared values of various patronised ethnic groups (except Anglo-Saxons and even Celts - the white ones). Just not the shared values of the English or white people.


In this case, these Leftist social scientists (most social scientists are of the Left, it is an essentially left-wing invention), along with the more blatant leftist politicos and activists who work on this material, think that English shared values either don’t exist at all (or as Ratna Lachman, of JUST West Yorkshire and other revolution-through-rights-activism groups, said that the ‘white working class doesn’t exist’), or that they are pernicious, or ‘reactionary’, or ‘racist’, etc. in nature.


So it's not shared values in themselves that Laura Zahra McDonald is against. Or even the imposition of such values on others. It’s the wrong shared values and the imposition of these wrong values on others. 
The universities, colleges and schools have been imposing Leftist and politically-correct values on generations of working-class kids since the 1960s and even before. But that was the right kind of imposition of the right kinds of values.


Besides which, even according to Leftists, shared values are indeed necessary to create a ‘cohesive society’ and make things all hang together. You cannot have Community Cohesion without shared values. And that’s why authors like McDonald have been trying to stamp out and destroy values which they see as working against society and Community Cohesion, such as ‘racism’, ‘fascism’, the values of the EDL and BNP and, yes, even conservatism.]


Not only is the notion of ‘values’ overly diffuse and conceptually ill-defined [a classic social-science soundbite/cliché/piece of jargon - the notion of being ’conceptually ill-defined’ is itself conceptually ill-defined. But what she really means is that she’s against (right-wing, etc.) values politically], it is dangerous in its potential to construct even the most normative Muslim practices and beliefs as ‘anti-social’ and ‘extreme’. [Considering that just about everyone outside the EDL, and other patriots, stands on eggshells when it comes to ‘Muslim practices’, I find it hard to understand the accusation that everyone except Leftist/Muslim social scientists like McDonald class these 'normative Muslims practices’ as ‘anti-social’ and ‘extreme’. Here I’m not talking about the ‘far right’ - I’m talking about all national and regional newspapers (even the Daily Mail), every councillor in the UK, every politician in the UK, etc. Unless we are not allowed to call Sharia genital mutilation or Sharia amputation ‘extreme or ‘anti-social’. Is that how far social-scientist Leftists/Muslims have gone in their patronisation of Muslims?]

This is likely to further alienate Muslim communities in general and to exclude those groups with whom the State has so far successfully engaged to counter terrorism. [Hasn’t this ‘scientist’ noticed, after all the books she’s read and the lack of Muslim ghettos she’s visited, that Muslims tend to be ‘alienated’ by anything and everything? And that’s the means Muslims use to further Islam itself and ‘empower’ Islam and themselves within our communities?]

The article further reflects upon engagement and partnership work between police and Muslim minorities perceived as ‘radical’ [‘perceived as radical’? - therefore not really radical to McDonald at all?], highlighting how the goal of terror crime prevention can be – and is – shared between police and communities, despite negative and stigmatizing impacts of the ‘War on Terror’. [This is pure SWP or Hamas, despite the academic jargon, the pseudo-objectivity and the infinite number of footnotes, references and quotes of other Leftist social scientists at other universities.]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Full unexpurgated and purely objective version of the abstract

"This article discusses recent research into engagement and partnership work between Muslim communities and police for the purposes of counter-terrorism. It is argued that asserting a notion of ‘shared values’ as a foundational criterion for choosing which individuals/groups to engage in countering terrorism is strategically flawed. Not only is the notion of ‘values’ overly diffuse and conceptually ill-defined, it is dangerous in its potential to construct even the most normative Muslim practices and beliefs as ‘anti-social’ and ‘extreme’. This is likely to further alienate Muslim communities in general and to exclude those groups with whom the State has so far successfully engaged to counter terrorism. The article further reflects upon engagement and partnership work between police and Muslim minorities perceived as ‘radical’, highlighting how the goal of terror crime prevention can be – and is – shared between police and communities, despite negative and stigmatizing impacts of the ‘War on Terror’."

No comments:

Post a Comment