Monthly Archives: February 2009

Labour’s cricket test for British Muslims

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Inayat B“So, almost 20 years after Norman Tebbit devised his famous cricket test for immigrants to the UK, we learn that the Labour government is seriously discussing how to set up its own modern version for British Muslims….

“Asim Siddiqui observed yesterday on Cif that the government’s ‘tests’ were nonsensical and if pursued would destroy the already precious little credibility that its Preventing Violent Extremism (soon to be simply Preventing Extremism) agenda has. I would go even further and say that if these foolish proposals are adopted by our politicians then it will result in the government being viewed by the majority of UK Muslims as trying to actively undermine Islam and will do fatal damage to the hard work that has gone on in the last few years to try and build trust between Muslim communities and the police….

“The proposals are essentially foolish because they utterly fail to distinguish between what a person may believe and how that same person actually acts. It is perfectly possible for people to believe in the desirability of a caliphate in Muslim countries, the superiority of sharia law and to regard the practice of homosexuality as a sin, but as long as they are prepared to abide by UK law while they reside here and do not discriminate against gays, why on earth should the government classify them as extremists?”

Inayat Bunglawala at Comment is Free, 18 February 2009

Continue reading →

Anti-terror code ‘would alienate most Muslims’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The government is considering plans that would lead to thousands more British Muslims being branded as extremists, the Guardian has learned. The proposals are in a counterterrorism strategy which ministers and security officials are drawing up that is due to be unveiled next month.

According to a draft of the strategy, Contest 2 as it is known in Whitehall, people would be considered as extremists if:

  • They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.
  • They promote Sharia law.
  • They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.
  • They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.
  • They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Inayat Bunglawala, a former spokesman for the Muslim Council of Great Britain, said such plans would affect many British Muslims. Bunglawala, who now runs Engage, which tries to get Muslims to participate in politics and civic society, said: “That would alienate the majority of the British Muslim public. It would be counterproductive and class most Muslims as extremists.”

Guardian, 16 February 2009

Continue reading →

Who is responsible for the attack on civil liberties?

Posted on by Bob Pitt

In response to criticism of the government’s record on civil liberties by the former head of MI5, Stella Remington, Sunny Hundal writes:

“The fact that this government has exploited terrorism fears to curtail our civil liberties is… well, obvious. But it’s no use just blaming the government, there’s a whole industry of newspaper columnists, think-tanks, writers, bloggers and general wingnuts who have also contributed to this state of affairs because of their obsession with finding Islamists Under The Bed. Who do you think is also to blame? I’ll start with the easy ones: Melanie Phillips and Douglas Murray.”

Liberal Conspiracy, 17 February 2009

Rowan Williams ‘gives succour to extremists’, claims extremist

Posted on by Bob Pitt

douglas_murrayThe Archbishop of Canterbury has defended his controversial comments about the introduction of Islamic law to Britain and claimed that public opinion is now behind him.

On the anniversary of the interview in which Dr Rowan Williams said it “seems inevitable” that some parts of sharia would be enshrined in this country’s legal code, he claimed “a number of fairly senior people” now take the same view. He added that there is a “drift of understanding” towards what he was saying, and that the public sees the difference between letting Muslim courts decide divorces and wills, and allowing them to rule on criminal cases and impose harsh punishments.

But Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “He has started a process which is deeply dangerous, damaging to Britain and to Muslim women in Britain. It was a wicked move because it undermines the progressives and gives succour to the extremists.”

Daily Telegraph, 16 February 2009

Yes, that’s the same Douglas Murray who said: “It is late in the day, but Europe still has time to turn around the demographic time-bomb which will soon see a number of our largest cities fall to Muslim majorities. It has to. All immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop…. Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look like a less attractive proposition.”

The Douglas Murray whose slanders against Salma Yaqoob in a television discussion led to the programme being pulled by Central TV for fear of legal action. According to Salma: “He made all sorts of wild claims about me. He said that I was a supporter of terrorism, that I didn’t care about Muslims in Iraq and that I’d taken part in an anti-war riot. It was all such libellous nonsense I thought they would just halt the recording there and then…”

Storm grows over National Theatre play dubbed racist and offensive

Posted on by Bob Pitt

National TheatreIt has incestuous, pig-breeding, drunken Irishmen, snooty Frenchmen, farcical Jewish anarchists and the animated presence of a mad mullah ranting about how women must be subservient to men. It reminded the Daily Telegraph of the Carry On films and the London Evening Standard of “the slick, cruel, abusive style that Bernard Manning perfected ages ago”.

Its director and writer may well have anticipated controversy, but shortly after opening at the National Theatre, England People Very Nice, a new play by the award-winning dramatist Richard Bean about successive waves of immigration to the east end of London, has been labelled racist and offensive by the communities it portrays.

A delegation of writers and community activists from the East End will meet on Friday with Nicholas Hytner, the National’s director who is also directing the play, to protest against what they regard as a caricature of Britain’s racial history.

“The National represents modern Britain, and in particular London, and I don’t see how Muslims can identify with the National Theatre when it puts on this kind of racist work,” Hussain Ismail, a playwright from Bethnal Green who has demanded the meeting with Hytner, told the Guardian. “I have been going to the National for 20 years, but I don’t see how I can identify with a place that stages what I see as a personal attack on me and the community I belong to. I’ve been telling everybody I know to go and see it, so they can see how bad it is, unfortunately, and to see what the level of debate is around multiculturalism at our national theatre.”

Rabina Khan, a novelist from Tower Hamlets who was invited by the National to take part in a panel discussion about the play as a representative of the Bangladeshi community, said she was concerned by the script. She will see the play next week. “I don’t want to rush to judgment, but from reading the script it feels to me that the play belittles people. Of course as a writer this is [Bean’s] interpretation and by all means he is entitled to express himself. But he is having a laugh at my community. This must be his way of being funny, to belittle other communities. I would like to know why Nicholas Hytner wanted to do it. It leaves you with the sense the Irish are all wife-beaters and the Bangladeshi all jihadis.”

In an interview this week, Hytner said: “I get a little suspicious when everybody likes something. I start to think: ‘Are we getting bland?'”

Guardian, 14 February 2009

Well, we haven’t seen the play either, so we can’t offer an opinion on it. However, we would note that Hytner was one of the most vehement, and ignorant, opponents of a law penalising the incitement of religious hatred.

Read press release by EQUAL PLATFORM here.

See also Socialist Worker, 14 February 2009

For Nicholas de Jongh’s review of the play (“I have never had a more uncomfortable or unpleasant experience at the National Theatre than at the premiere of Richard Bean’s England People Very Nice. I hated this gross, cartoon history of English reaction to four centuries of refugees arriving in London’s East End…. I am all for withering satire. I approve of bad taste and comic mischief, but in the sensitive field of immigration, it seems irresponsible to fan the ever-ready flames of prejudice by characterising the broad mass of refugees in Bean’s simplistic manner: the odd Muslims, for example, appear as muggers and drug-dealers, and rejoice that 9/11’s catastrophe has come to pass”) see the Evening Standard, 12 February 2009

‘The shrill whistle of appeasement’ – Gaunt on the Wilders ban

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Jon Gaunt and SunIn the soaraway Sun Jon Gaunt adds his ten cents to the Wilders debate, claiming that he “can clearly hear the shrill whistle of appeasement to a vocal minority community” and denouncing “double standards”. He tells us:

“After having 52 people slaughtered on 7/7, we spent millions on roadshows and diversion projects to keep young lads away from extremism. However, at the same time Labour allowed Muslim hotheads to preach death to the infidels on the streets of London, stirred up by radicals such as Abu Hamza.”

Er… actually, Abu Hamza is now serving a seven-year prison sentence and the idiots who took to the streets with provocative slogans during the 2006 demonstrations against the Danish cartoons have also been jailed.

Gaunt goes on to outline his position on the issue of freedom of expression: “As far as I’m concerned, in a mature democracy such as ours you should be free to worship who you like and criticise any belief structure you fancy as long as you don’t incite hatred.”

Sentiments with which we entirely concur. But the whole point about Wilders is precisely that he does incite hatred – in fact this is the charge on which he’s currently being prosecuted in the Netherlands. Hasn’t Gaunt watched Fitna? Well, since you ask, no: “I haven’t seen the film, just like I haven’t read the Koran. And I haven’t got any intention of doing either in the near future. Why? Because I am simply not interested.”

Still, never let your own ignorance stand in the way of a good rant about appeasing Muslims, eh Jon?

Sweden: Muslim woman reports college to Equality Ombudsman over veil ban

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A Stockholm woman has reported an adult education college in Spånga to the Equality Ombudsman (DO) after being told that she could not wear an Islamic headscarf in class.

The woman was told on January 15th that she was no longer welcome at Västerort Vuxengymnasium, an adult education college in Spånga, if she persisted in wearing her. The woman has now reported the matter to the Equality Ombudsman (DO) alleging discrimination.

In her report to DO dated January 20th, the woman alleges that she was told that she could not wear her niqab in class or in contact with the school’s staff. The woman explains that the school justified its decision by referring to a recent decision by the National Agency for Education Skolverket) which banned the wearing of some Muslim headscarves in class.

“But this is just a ruling, it is not a law and the ruling concerns those who wear a burqa, covering the whole face. I have a niqab which shows the area around the eyes,” the woman argued. The woman writes that she finds it “offensive” to be expelled for her “personal style” and argues that the ruling is confusing as some schools permit the niqab.

But the college’s rector, Britt-Marie Johansson, has defended the school’s right to exclude the student from classes, referring to the education agency’s ruling. “At Västerorts vux it is not allowed in the classroom to cover one’s face, with a veil or similar. This rule also applies in contact with staff. This means that neither a niqab nor a burqa can be worn.” According to Johansson, the choice facing students is thus clear. “Accept the rules stated above or discontinue your studies.”

But the student is keen to continue her studies and claims that she has offered the school a compromise. “I have said that I can sit at the front of the class, and remove the niqab during classes and to identify myself. I have even spoken to the men in the class … and they have said that it doesn’t bother them.”

The student argues that freedom of religion is enshrined in law in Sweden and this should take precedence over the education agency ruling.

The Local, 12 February 2010

A comment on the Wilders controversy

Posted on by Bob Pitt

FitnaDuring a discussion of the Geert Wilders/Fitna controversy on Newsnight yesterday, Kirsty Wark demanded to know whether a similar fuss would be made if the film had been “anti-Christian”.

This question, which carried unfortunate echoes of the right-wing myth that Muslim sensibilities are treated with a respect not accorded to the “indigenous” Christian population, summarised the confused thinking of those who have opposed Jacqui Smith’s admirable decision to exclude the Dutch far-right racist from the UK.

First of all, if an Islamist extremist were to visit the UK to promote a film whose aim was to incite hatred against Christians among Muslim communities, the Home Office would undoubtedly impose a ban on that individual just as readily as they did on Wilders. And rightly so. Freedom of movement does not include the right to enter this country in order to poison relations between our diverse communities.

Kirsty Wark’s argument also missed the obvious point that Christianity is the religion of the majority white population in the UK, whereas Islam is the faith of a predominantly non-white minority community. Attacks on Christianity may be offensive to believers, but they do not serve as a cover for the incitement of racial hatred. In the hands of far-right provocateurs like Wilders, attacks on Islam are used for precisely that purpose.

A more appropriate question to ask is how we would respond if a far-right politician made a film misrepresenting Judaism as a violent, barbaric religion in the same way that Fitna misrepresents Islam.

The film would perhaps feature footage of the Israeli army’s devastation of Gaza, with the bodies of dead children lying among the rubble that used to be their homes, followed by clips of Zionist extremists applauding the killing of Palestinian civilians and conservative rabbis opposing women’s rights and gay sex. Over these pictures are projected verses from the Old Testament that celebrate the Lord raining down burning sulphur on Sodom and Gomorrah and killing all their inhabitants, or that call for adulterers and homosexuals to be put to death. The film goes on to claim that Jews are taking over Europe and concludes with an appeal to defend western civilisation against the insidious expansion of Jewish influence.

Does anyone seriously think that those who currently defend Wilders on the basis of “freedom of expression” would support the right to promote a vile, antisemitic film like that? Would such a film conceivably be allowed a showing at the House of Lords? The reality is, if this film were to be shown anywhere in the UK, those responsible would undoubtedly be prosecuted under the racial hatred laws.

With the exception of the fascist movement and a few right-wing cranks like the Libertarian Alliance, nobody these days would argue that freedom of expression should include the right to incite hatred against the Jewish community. Antisemites are not treated as the standard bearers of free speech, but as hate-filled bigots whose racist propaganda has no place in a civilised society. It is time that the same treatment was applied equally consistently to Islamophobes like Geert Wilders.