Monthly Archives: November 2006

BNP on banning the ‘burka’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The British National Party has posted the resolutions adopted at its conference in Blackpool last weekend. This is the one on the “burka” – presumably it is directed at the niqab too – which was “passed by a large majority”:

“The British National Party is the party of freedom and democracy. We are also, however, the party of the British people, of British culture, of British heritage, of British traditions and of the British way of life. The wearing of the burka is not a religious requirement and is not stipulated in the Koran; it is, instead, a symbol of the wearer’s repudiation of traditional Britain. Furthermore, the burka has been used as a disguise which has enabled suspects wanted by the police in connection with serious terrorist offences to evade capture. The wearing of the burka is therefore both a political act of hostility to Britain and a serious security risk. Banning the burka will not inconvenience the indigenous British people and will increase their security and freedom from terrorism. We therefore believe this is an entirely sensible and proportionate policy.”

BNP news article, 29 November 2006

Blair considering veil ban, Mirror claims

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Tony Blair has held secret talks about banning Muslim women wearing veils in public.

Leaked documents seen by the Mirror reveal the Prime Minister has already had meetings with Islamic scholars about the controversial issue. He is considering new measures to stop the Niqab – the full face veil – being worn in public buildings such as schools, courts and hospitals.

It comes as a survey published yesterday revealed one in three people supports a total ban on veils which completely cover womens’ faces. The BBC survey said 60 per cent of people backed a ban in airports and at passport control, 53 per cent in schools and 40 per cent in the workplace.

Zareen Roohi Ahmed, chief executive of the British Muslim Forum, said there was no religious reason for a full veil to be worn. She added: “If security is at stake, then yes, the veil should be removed.”

Daily Mirror, 30 November

‘Brave Trevor makes so much sense on race’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“There are quite a few useful rules of thumb in life. If something seems too good to be true, it almost certainly is too good to be true. If a book is still boring after 100 pages, it’s not going to improve. And if Ken Livingstone violently disapproves of someone, the chances are that they are an admirable person. The London mayor keeps company with Jew-hating, gay-baiting Muslim extremists such as Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi. But he can’t bear the black, liberal chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips. Which is odd, as Phillips has so many brave and sensible things to say….

“It would have been easy for the chairman of the CRE to stay in the comfort zone of ‘diversity policy’ and the unquestioning defence of minority rights. Instead, Phillips supported Jack Straw’s expression of concern about Muslim women covering their faces in his constituency surgery. He criticised ‘so-called Muslim leaders’ for attacking Straw: ‘They were overly defensive and need to accept that in a diverse society we should be free to make polite requests of this kind.’ And he called on the teaching assistant Aishah Azmi to drop her discrimination case after she was suspended for refusing to remove her veil during lessons. Most of all, Phillips wants us to be able to talk about race freely, to bust the last taboo….

“Forget Ken Livingstone: Phillips talks a lot of sense. And it is not just ‘so-called Muslim leaders’ who should be listening to him. We all should.”

Mary Ann Sieghart in the Times, 30 November 2006

Gay Muslims clash with Tatchell

Posted on by Bob Pitt

OutragePeter Tatchell has been caught up in a war of words with British Muslims, who have accused him of “Islamophobia”.

In an article written for Guardian Unlimited, Tatchell argued that Muslims often failed to make the distinction between legitimate criticism of Islam and insults against their faith. He singled out hardline groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir (HuT), which “used to openly call for the killing of gay people” and said that HuT’s agenda was one “for clerical fascism”.

Citing a Channel 4 poll, where two-thirds of British Muslims said they oppose free speech if it offends their faith, Tatchell wrote: “They want to make it a crime to cause them offence they want privileged legal protection against criticism of their beliefs.”

Tatchell’s comments were attacked by the LGBT Muslim group Imaam. Farzana from the group told GT: “We feel that OutRage! doesn’t understand our cultural and religious sensitivities. Often, the way they word and phrase their press releases can and does antagonise Muslims. Much as we’ve invited them to meetings so we can talk about the best way to tackle Muslim LGBT issues, they insist on doing things their way.”

The debate was addressed on a strand on Imaan’s messageboard, titled “Homophobia & Islamophobia”. One posting reads: “Why is it that we, as gay Muslims, are so willing to attack the people that stand up against the homophobic Islamic clerics, who call for our death, by calling them Islamophobic, yet are too afraid to go out there and stand up and be counted?”

Gay Times, December 2006

Continue reading →

Profiling Muslims is like profiling the Ku Klux Klan says Coulter

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Right-wing US buffoon Ann Coulter expresses surprise that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has “piped in to complain about racial profiling of Muslims. The only reason Americans feel guilty about ‘racial profiling’ against blacks is because of the history of discrimination against blacks in this country. What did we do to the Arabs? I believe Americans are the victims in that relationship. After the attacks of 9/11, profiling Muslims is more like profiling the Klan.”

Front Page Magazine, 30 November 2006

Muslim graves attacked by vandals

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Gravestones in the Muslim section of a Bradford cemetery have been attacked and damaged by vandals. Police have appealed for information and witnesses after vandals knocked over headstones at the Bowling Cemetery in Rooley Lane, Brierley.

A spokesman for West Yorkshire Police said officers and council park rangers were now patrolling the area in an effort to deter further attacks. House to house inquiries have also been carried out in the area.

Insp Suzanne Akeroyd said: “This type of damage causes great distress to surviving family members, and so we are working closely with Bradford Council to catch the culprits and prevent any further damage.”

BBC News, 30 November 2006

Update:  See “Fury as vandals target Muslim graves”, Northern Echo, 1 December 2006

Council mosque decision ‘flawed’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A council which refused to sell land for a new mosque has been criticised for its handling of the case. Ribble Valley Borough Council provoked anger when it refused the application in Clitheroe, Lancashire, in 2004. Local Government Ombudsman Anne Seex investigated a claim that the decision was taken in response to racially motivated opposition in the area.

An application was made to buy some council-owned land for a mosque in September 2004, but was met with opposition. The British National Party was active in the area and two Muslim men were racially abused by members of the public at a council meeting on the issue. Lancashire Police apologised after its officers failed to intervene and paid £5,000 to the town’s Medina Islamic Education Centre, which the men represented.

The council deferred a decision until it had received a report on the impact of the proposal on the “social well-being” of local residents. But the planning committee decided to use the entire site for elderly people’s accommodation – even though the district valuer said the authority would make more money through the mosque plan.

Mrs Seex criticised the council for not following accepted good practice and reaching a decision that was not supported by the information the committee was supplied with.

BBC News, 30 November 2006

Babar Ahmad loses High Court appeal against extradition

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Ashfaq AhmadTwo terrorist suspects today lost their high court battle to avoid extradition to the United States.

Lawyers for Haroon Rashid Aswat and Babar Ahmad argued that, despite US assurances to the contrary, there was “a real risk” that the men would be mistreated, or tried and sentenced as enemy combatants if sent to America.

Dismissing their appeal, Lord Justice Laws, sitting in London with Mr Justice Walker, said the allegation that the US might violate undertakings given to the UK “would require proof of a quality entirely lacking here”.

The judges said they would take time to consider whether both men should be given permission to take their case to the House of Lords, the highest court in the UK, for a final ruling. They will announce their decision at a later date.

Guardian, 30 November 2006

The Islamic Human Rights Commission has stated: “The decision highlights the manifest injustice of the Extradition Treaty whereby innocent British citizens can be extradited to the US on the flimsiest of evidence. To date, not a shred of evidence has been produced against these men which would warrant charges being brought against them in the UK. In light of claims of the highest level of intelligence-sharing, IHRC finds it puzzling why evidence against the men, if it does exist, has not been passed on to British authorities in order to charge them in Britain.”

IHRC Chair Massoud Shadjareh said: “Since Britain has some of the most comprehensive terrorism laws in the world, if there is any evidence against these men, they should be charged and tried in a British court. Without any evidence being produced, innocent British citizens will be subjected to an American criminal justice system which has done away with due process and legitimized torture in its ‘war on terror’.”

IHRC press release, 30 November 2006

Dutch Muslims protest against face veil ban

Posted on by Bob Pitt

About 80 people protested outside the Dutch parliament on Thursday against a recent government decision to ban Muslim burqas and face veils, the toughest ban thus far in Europe.

Seven women clad in niqabs – a veil concealing the face except the eyes – and loose robes that covered them from neck to toes, and 20 women in headscarves gathered in front of parliament, which was to convene on Thursday for the first time after national elections were held last week. Around 50 supporters carried banners written with the phrases: “Before you judge me, try hard to know me” and “The first lesson of integration: the constitution is for everyone.”

Earlier this month, the outgoing government agreed to a total ban on burqas and other Muslim face veils in public, citing security concerns. Critics said the move was likely to alienate and victimise the country’s 1 million Muslims.

“Every time there is an election, the thing with the burqa comes up,” said Aishah Bayrat, a 41-year-old teacher and mother of five. “The burqa is a religious thing, nobody should interfere with it.”

Clad in a black and blue niqab, 17-year-old Tamara dismissed official concerns that the robe would make it hard for people to identify the wearer or serve as a cover for criminals and terrorists. “What about Santa Claus? He can go out on the streets with his long beard and we can’t recognise him.”

Reuters, 30 November 2006