2013-05-23T11:12:10-04:00 Humza Yousaf http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=humza-yousaf Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Humza Yousaf Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1746959 2012-08-06T09:57:27-04:00 2012-10-06T05:12:17-04:00

Humza Yousaf http://www.huffingtonpost.com/humza-yousaf/
There seems to be a collective spring in the nation's step which is rubbing off onto our heroic sports men and women with GB now sitting third in the medals table. Incidentally, it is also our Scottish athletes' best showing in almost a hundred years with our sports men and women notching up nine medals.

However, in the midst of all this collective euphoria, there seems to be politicians out there hell-bent on ruining the Olympic experience for all of us.

"Never forget, small minded nationalists are out to destroy Team GB!" came the apocalyptic tweet from failed Scottish Tory leadership candidate Murdo Fraser after Andy Murray's sensational thrashing of Roger Federer to claim Olympic gold on Sunday. Similar tweets have been commonplace amongst anti-independence politicians and commentators over the last week.

The truth is that London 2012 will not swing the referendum on Scottish Independence one jot. I am sure those who are passionately committed to remaining as part of the United Kingdom and those who vociferously believe in independence for Scotland will remain staunchly entrenched in their respective positions regardless of how many medals we chalk up. However, the undecideds, who may well hold the key in the referendum battle, are canny enough to know the debate is much bigger than what colour of kit Andy Murray wears.

That is why the latest poll, which came out during the Olympics and after the Diamond Jubilee celebrations, showed support for the SNP had risen 2% from our historic landslide victory in May 2011.

The vast majority of people understand that independence isn't, as our opponents incorrectly assert, about flag-waving, kilt-wearing or shortbread-eating romanticised Braveheart nationalism.

In fact those who believe in independence for Scotland, including Alex Salmond himself, have been saying for years that our cause is not about flags or anthems but fairness and compassion.

The referendum that will take place in 2014 is a referendum about whether we want to have the full powers to create jobs for our children, whether or not we want to rid ourselves of the obscenity of nuclear weapons or whether or not we should have the powers to create a welfare system that pays for work and doesn't harm the most disadvantaged in our communities.

Fundamentally, our premise is very simple, we believe in independence because we think every decision about Scotland should be made by those who care the most about the interests of our nation, which by definition is the people of Scotland.

So there is no contradiction in cheering on Ennis, Hoy or Farrah, as I have done over the last week and yet believing in Scotland's ability to completely run her own affairs, just as she has been doing in-part, since the advent of the Scottish Parliament.

Just as Murray trained in Spain with Rafa Nadal to perfect his tennis skills, I see no reason why Scottish athletes, in an independent Scotland, couldn't train in whatever city in the world that helps them progress in their chosen sporting field - be that within or outside of the UK.

The discussion on Scottish independence has a long way to go, but politicians of all hues have a responsibility to raise the level of debate. Arguing over whether or not Andy Murray's lips were moving during God Save the Queen is frankly pathetic. As a 27 year old, perhaps it is unusual for me to tell other politicians this - but guys grow up, get a grip and let us enjoy the Olympic Games in peace!

Humza Yousaf is the SNP's Member of the Scottish Parliament for Glasgow.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1408879 2012-04-06T19:00:00-04:00 2012-06-06T05:12:01-04:00

Humza Yousaf http://www.huffingtonpost.com/humza-yousaf/
Not only are fellow Arab Spring countries relying on Tunisia to be the post-revolution success story but those across the world - from the Gulf right through to the European Continent - need a positive outcome.

The early signs are good, but fundamental challenges remain and many, especially the Tunisian youth are growing increasingly impatient.

On the political front, Tunisia is progressing incredibly well. The President, Moncef Marzouki, is an impressive individual and gifted academic. As well as being a renowned human rights campaigner he has extensively studied post-Apartheid South Africa and Mahatma Ghandi's non-violent resistance movement. He clearly hasn't forgotten his roots, raising a smile when he introduced himself to our delegation by saying: "My name is Moncef Marzouki, a human rights activist who happens to be the President of Tunisia."

His experience of the South African experience clearly shapes a lot of his philosophy and approach in shaping the new Tunisia. Adopting the principle of rainbow government and power sharing he is happy that there is an electoral system in place that is biased against majority government. He went one step further during our discussions and stated his preference that the same party should not be both the biggest in the Parliament and occupy the role of the presidency.

Unsurprisingly, Ennahda, Tunisia's main Islamic party was the big winner in the recent parliamentary elections gaining the most seats in the parliament. However, in the constitutional assembly, the body tasked with developing the country's new democratic constitution, there is a real sense of working consensually. Compromise is at the core of the discussions core and there is a fundamental understanding that this must be a constitution that carries the hopes and aspirations of all Tunisians not simply one or two factions.

Ennahda is also aware of the concerns many in the East and West have about an Islamic party, with close links to the Muslim Brotherhood, becoming the dominant force of Tunisian politics.

They have stated from the offset that they do not wish to include any reference to Sharia law in the new constitution and go as far as saying that they do not view the installation or implementation of Sharia law as a central aim of political Islam - a hugely significant shift in position.

However, for all the political progress being made we must remember that Mohamed Bouazizi did not only protest against a corrupt state regime but also as a street trader who was being crippled by the economic situation of the country. It is on the economic front that the country has stalled since the toppling of Ben Ali.

During our discussions the President put it well, saying "Freedom of expression and assembly are all good and well but you cannot eat them or sustain your family with them".

The Tunisian tourism industry has also evidently paid a heavy price for the revolution, even though it was short and compared to Egypt, Libya and currently Syria not nearly as bloody.

Our visit took place during the Easter break and our hotel was ghostly quiet most evenings. Every Government official we met highlighted how significant a priority this was for them.

Extending closer trade links and partnership with Europe was often stressed as was building upon relationships with Gulf states in addition to talk of creating a North African trading bloc.

However, it is important to remember the overwhelming majority of those now charged with improving Tunisia's economic situation have no experience in the complex role of running a country, government or political institutions. While this lack of political experience can often be refreshing it is clearly a risky strategy.

One political leader told us that of the 217 newly elected members only two had previously ever set foot inside the Parliament.

The country is being hailed as the post-revolution triumph, but there is a sense that toppling the dictator was the easy part. If the Arab Spring is to be successful we need Tunisia to perform economically and Europe has a key role to play - be this in relaxing trade barriers or promoting tourism.

This is especially important as other Arab Spring countries are having mixed success. Egypt's progress is moving at a snail's pace, with the military still being seen as far too dominant and trepidation growing over the increased strength of the Salafist movement. The Libyan National Council is struggling to keep control over the entire country with violence breaking out in the South and Syria and Bahrain continuing to brutally cracking down on any opposition.

Being the spark that lit the fuse of Democracy in the Arab Spring and having made great political and democratic strides means the hopes of an entire region are resting on the positive outcome of the Tunisian revolution. Right from the highest office of the President himself to market traders selling baklava in the narrow streets of the city souks, everyone feels the heavy weight of expectation on their shoulders.

The more significant the prize of success, so too the cost of failure. The political and economic impact of not succeeding will have a devastating impact not just across the region but will be a setback for democracy everywhere - for this reason alone Europe cannot afford to let Tunisia fail.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1196576 2012-01-10T19:00:00-05:00 2012-03-11T05:12:01-04:00

Humza Yousaf http://www.huffingtonpost.com/humza-yousaf/
Independence is about making Scotland more successful. At its most basic it is about the ability to take our own decisions on the issues that affect life in Scotland, Scotland's economic prospects and our position in the world. And that is something the people of Scotland understand.

Being able to take those decisions in Scotland would see a Scottish Parliament able to bring an end to nuclear weapons off Scotland's shores and the billions of pounds spent to maintain them.

Independence would enable a Scottish Parliament for example to develop a pensions system that supported our elderly properly.

It would mean that when the people of Scotland oppose illegal wars we cannot be forced into them and it would see a Scottish Parliament able to make the economic decisions on taxation and investment that would grow our industries and take full advantage of our second energy windfall.

In the most recent survey of social attitudes in Scotland 43% of people in Scotland wanted the Scottish Parliament to make all decisions for Scotland. That is independence and support for making all decisions in Scotland is on the increase.

The fact that only 21% wanted to keep things the way they are may hold the key to David Cameron's panicked intervention.

People in Scotland also understand clearly how independence will be achieved.

In May's elections the SNP said we would hold a referendum on independence in the second half of this parliamentary term and that is exactly what we will do.

If others who favour more powers - the devo max option - want to ask a question on that we are open to their ideas, but for us and for me it is independence that presents the best opportunity for Scotland.

What David Cameron and his colleagues do not understand is that a referendum on independence is an exciting opportunity for the people of Scotland, not a party political game, and we owe it to the people who voted in May to stick to our word.

The unwise intervention of Westminster politicians seeking to dictate the timing and questions of a referendum for which they have no mandate demonstrates that the only confusion on the issue is amongst the anti-independence parties who don't seem able to accept that as a government we will stick to the promise we made to the electorate.

Instead of putting themselves into a state of disarray the anti-independence voices at Westminster and the prime minister would be wise to hold to the position that they have all previously acknowledged, that the Scottish Parliament has the right to hold the referendum and that all these matters will be determined by the people and parliament of Scotland.

And the PM's argument that this is all about economic uncertainty does not hold up to scrutiny. When the same claim was made by George Osborne and Danny Alexander neither could produce any evidence to back it up.

The prime minister himself unveiled record new investment in the North Sea by BP and the Scottish government has worked hard to attract new investment into Scotland from global companies such as Avaloq, Dell, Gamesa, Amazon, Doosan Power Systems and Michelin, to name just a few.

So what should the UK government be doing? In May the SNP said one of our priorities would be improving the economic powers of the Scotland Bill - a piece of Westminster legislation that currently does little to transfer the levers of economic growth.

Last month a Scottish parliamentary committee sent the UK government our recommendations for enhancing that legislation and for limiting the damage it will do. Next week the House of Lords will begin to discuss the bill. While David Cameron interferes with Scotland's referendum he has yet to confirm if he will make the changes Scotland is asking for to his own legislation.

Instead of sabre-rattling on the referendum, the UK government should be amending and improving the Scotland Bill to give the Scottish Parliament the economic and financial powers so we can do something about the disastrous impact of Tory/Lib Dem policies in Scotland.

Whatever the prime minister and his colleagues do, independence will be decided by the people of Scotland in a referendum taking place in the second half of this parliamentary term.

The anti-independence parties will have their case to make - once they've worked it out - but that case is increasingly damaged by blundering interventions seeking to dictate terms to the Scottish people and their democratically elected Scottish Parliament as voters contrast the behaviour of the Tories and their allies with the Scottish government's commitment to the people of Scotland.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.918564 2011-08-04T15:21:47-04:00 2011-10-04T05:12:02-04:00

Humza Yousaf http://www.huffingtonpost.com/humza-yousaf/
Recently, on this very forum, I wrote about the need to tackle the ideological roots of Al Qaeda inspired terrorism. Going after the figureheads has its benefits but to defeat this scourge of extremism you have to deconstruct and dismantle the Jihadist's rhetoric and perverted ideology. Exactly the same approach must be taken if we wish to overcome violent far-right extremism.

As Breivik's 1,500 page manifesto demonstrates, from burkas to the BBC and Marxism to Muslims, there is much that angers those on the far-right. However, central to all of their reasoning is the notion that a minority are in the process of suppressing the rights and values of the so-called indigenous majority.

Over the last two decades and in the case of Anders Breivik, this notion has manifested itself through claims that Europe and the West are at risk of Islamisation. The far right presents an almighty clash of civilisations and seeks to convince us that in 50 years' time Islam will dominate Europe with the Anglo-Christian way of life buried under a pile of headscarves and halal meat.

The response to this notion should be to ridicule, to deconstruct and to challenge, but instead has been to give it validation through the reaction of the mainstream media and certain sections of the political classes.

Where we should take on the issues that drive people to the far right and address the misconceptions about immigration and integration, we have instead created a battleground in which mainstream media and politicians fan the flames of far-right extremism.

When we are inundated with stories about how Christmas trees and Christmas lights must now be replaced with "winter" decorations and hot cross buns to be substituted with fruit scones to appease the minority Muslim population, as is claimed by the peddlers of the Islamisation myth, their extreme views are given mainstream airtime. However, when Muslim communities are approached about such stories most of them shrug their shoulders, say they quite like hot cross buns and believe it or not even some Muslims put up fairy lights outside their house at Christmas time.

Such stories only serve to give strength to the central tenant of far-right extremism; that the West's centuries old Anglo-Christian traditions, customs and way of life are being polluted by incoming and settling minorities.

Last year two British daily newspapers ran a story regarding an Englishwomen's battle to save her Café's extractor fan being pulled down by the Local Council. The Daily Mail originally went with the following headline 'Café Owner Told to Remove Extractor Fan In case Smell of Frying Bacon Offends Passing Muslims'.

This story was designed, and was successful, in causing outrage that the traditional British breakfast staple, the bacon roll, was under attack from Islam and Muslims.

Once the facts of the case were examined it became clear that no Muslim actually objected to the application for an extractor fan. The successful objection was from a Mr Graham Webb-Lee, a non-Muslim who lived next door to the Café. He made mention of his Muslim friends who he believed may not visit him because of the smell of bacon frying, which he said made him 'physically sick'. He also made reference to non-Muslim friends not liking the smell, his daughter having an eating disorder which was exacerbated by the odour and his clothes smelling of bacon - but of course this was all conveniently left out of the story.

The failure to challenge these stories and the notion they promote of Islam dominating the domestic culture of a country builds a baseless fear that has led to a ban on minarets in Switzerland, the portrayal of the headscarf as a political symbol against France's proud tradition of secularism and regular reports that the availability of halal meat is a sign of Muslims forcing their traditions and customs on our animals as well as humans.

Far from giving far-right groups and individuals a platform and legitimising their myths we should be challenging their rhetoric. The truth is Britain's Nick Griffin, France's Marine Le Pen and the Netherland's Geert Wilders are hate preachers who are no different to Anjem Choudary of Islam4UK or Omar Bakri Muhammad of Al Muhajiroun.

All of these extremists claim to be non-violent, however, there is little doubt that the message of hate they regurgitate is designed to cause fear, alarm and mistrust between communities. And it only takes one person, like Breivik, who is a deadly product of this hate preaching and believes that there must be a revolution in Europe, to act on it.

This is not to say anyone who has concerns over immigration, worries over community integration or who harbours conservative-right wing views is to be silenced. Nor am I advocating a ban on any group, I never have. However, we cannot continue to give those who espouse hate a free ride, they cannot be viewed as a mainstream of public opinion and we cannot give a platform, or even worse legitimise by accident or design their warped views.

Yes challenges exist, in all communities and nations they do, but if we continue down the path of mainstreaming the views of the far-right then the consequences will undoubtedly be deadly.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.901824 2011-07-18T19:00:00-04:00 2011-09-17T05:12:01-04:00

Humza Yousaf http://www.huffingtonpost.com/humza-yousaf/
After 11 years of gruelling warfare, the insurgency in Afghanistan is far from quashed but rather gathering momentum and looking stronger as the years pass by - just last week claiming responsibility for the assassination of the President's powerful and influential brother Ahmed Wali Karzai.

Over the border in Pakistan we see a country, at best, struggling to stem the wave of Talibanisation and extremism and at worst on the brink of civil war.

While those in the East suffer the most from the rise in Al-Qaeda inspired terrorism, those in the West are also constantly at risk. As the tenth anniversary of 9/11 looms closer perhaps it is a good time to reflect and evaluate the effectiveness of our approach in tackling this threat.

With the war in Iraq and Afghanistan being the dominant news stories over the last decade, there is little doubt that Western Governments have tried to defeat Al-Qaeda inspired terrorism by cutting the head off the beast, while forgetting the sting is sometimes in the tail.

If looked at through a purely militaristic prism then there have been some notable successes, most recently bagging the biggest scalp of all with the capture and killing of Osama Bin Laden. While removing such figureheads and leaders is no doubt important it is certainly not addressing the root of the problem.

It doesn't answer the question as to why Shehzad Tanweer, born, bred and educated in England, a keen sportsman excelling in cricket, who had a girlfriend, decided one day to strap a homemade bomb to his back and detonate it at a London's Aldgate Station killing himself and seven others.

If we wish to answer this question we have to first understand the ideology that drives a reasonable, rational individual like Shehzad Tanweer to become a cold-blooded killer.

Islam, like any other religion in the world, has its many factions and sects. However, the difference with many other world religions is that it does not have one universal over-arching authoritative body or figurehead.

This has its benefits for sure, but also comes with it particular dangers. It means that although there are recognised schools of Islamic teaching - like Al-Azhar University in Cairo - there are many more that will claim to be institutions of Islamic learning operating without regulation.

That means any old Abdul, Mohammed or Abu can put on some Arabic garb, look the part and sound the part of a religious cleric and yet have no religious qualification whatsoever.

From Bin Laden to Al Zawahiri, the majority of extremist preachers are just that - preachers, not Islamic scholars. They may talk the talk but certainly cannot walk the walk when put to the test.

In fact Bin Laden's lack of religious authority was a point of contention amongst other radicals when he first embarked on his campaign of hate. Mullah Omar, the spiritual leader of the Taliban, initially refused to acknowledge Bin Laden's fatwa on legitimising the killing of innocent civilians on the basis he was not qualified enough to issue religious rulings.

What angers Muslims living in the West even more is the amount of airtime fake Sheikhs, like Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri, get and how they are often portrayed as 'clerics' i.e. people with some religious qualification and grounding.

Dr Azeem Ibrahim, a highly respected counter-terror expert and World Fellow at Yale University, makes a useful comparison in this regard. He asks Christians living in the West how they would feel if every time Al-Jazeera wanted a Christian-West perspective on matters they went straight to Pastor Terry Jones of Quran-burning infamy?

They would, quite rightly, be jumping up and down in anger claiming that Terry Jones does not represent mainstream Christian beliefs - but he is a Pastor is he not? Well not really, he reportedly only has an honorary degree from an unaccredited school of theology and even that can't be confirmed.

It is herein that lies part of the solution. Al Qaeda inspired terrorists and those who radicalise others do not fear Western interventions and bombing campaigns in Muslim countries. If anything they probably pray for more 'collateral damage' in the form of Muslim lives - surely no better propaganda tool exists.

No, what they fear is the teaching and spreading of mainstream Islam, backed by scholars qualified in traditional, classical and authentic texts. Recently, Dr Muhammed Tahir Al-Qadri, an Islamic Scholar from Pakistan, wrote a 600-page Fatwa dismantling, point by point, the dogmatic rhetoric often espoused by extremists. Such texts are seen as a direct threat to radical preachers because it takes away the motivation and religious hook they need to secure young people into their way of thinking.

In Scotland, we are leading the way in this approach in the form of an initiative called the Solas Foundation. At the Foundation a classical and traditional approach to Islam is taught, which is yet flexible and fit for the 21st century in Scotland.

Furthermore, the scholars have not come from a foreign country with broken English and no understanding of the culture here. Instead they are born and bred Scots educated in Universities in Glasgow and have then gone on to study for a decade or more in various different recognised schools of Islamic teaching from here in Europe to the Middle East and Asia.

I sat in one of their lectures recently where the Scottish born scholar Amer Jamil was going through, with his class, the so-called 'Verse of the Sword' from the Quran, which is often twisted and abused by extremists to fit their own evil ends.

With authority and clarity he deconstructed the radicals thought process and demonstrated how the idea that this verse commands indiscriminate killing of non-Muslims was not just completely absurd but illegitimate from a qualified religious-science point of view.

So successful has the Solas Foundation been in its approach it has already received recognition from the US Congress and praise from Pentagon officials as a model of best practise.

Western Governments, none more so than the Scottish Government, are now realising that tackling radicalisation is going to require us to empower Muslim communities as they themselves are the greatest weapon we have against Al Qaeda inspired terrorism.

It is a tough battle, particular Islamic ideologies and strands, which are more open to abuse and perversion are being promoted and funded by certain foreign wealthy backers. But one thing is for sure, there is a will from the Muslim community to tackle this problem, they have lifted their heads out of the sand and ready to confront the challenge ahead.

Only with the Muslim community leading from the front will we defeat this scourge of global terror and replace hate with hope.




]]>