The hate preacher, Zakir Naik, who was banned from the United Kingdom, is applying to court to have his ban overturned.
As part of their case, they have disclosed a good deal of private correspondence, between the civil servant Charles Farr and Naik’s team. Here’s the story, in The Telegraph:
However papers lodged as part of Dr Naik’s High Court challenge to the ban appear to show the extent of support for his entry among top Home Office officials, including Charles Farr, Whitehall’s top security adviser.
They claim that at a meeting on 3 June with Dr Naik’s representatives Mr Farr said he would “put himself on the line” to secure Dr Naik’s entry.
The documents say: “Mr Farr was ‘in favour’ of the claimant coming to the UK and would do ‘all he could’ with the decision makers to encourage it”.
Mr Farr added, according to the papers, that “if necessary [he would] ‘put himself on the line’ as he felt ‘to exclude Dr Naik would be wrong’”.
Mr Farr was appointed director general of the Home Office’s Office for Security and Counter Terrorism in July 2007.
His responsibilities reportedly include examing the security challenges from the 2012 Olympics. He was once tipped to be the next head of MI6.
According to the court papers, filed ahead of the start of a High Court hearing next month, Mr Farr said he felt Dr Naik had “a key role to play” and that he can “reach the people we simply cannot”.
This is the Moderate Islamist thesis: that we should support hate preachers who promise only to support terrorism, outside Britain. The idea is that Muslim preachers who oppose terrorism, who fully support democracy, equality and universal human rights, will not be regarded as “authentic” by British Muslims, and so will not be trusted.
It is a deeply anti-Muslim perspective. This is pretty much what the worst Muslim haters say as well.
Paul Goodman at Conservative Home says that it is time for Farr to go.