Author Archives: Bob Pitt

German state bans hijab-clad teachers

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The western state of North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany’s most populous, has banned teachers in public schools from wearing hijab.

The state’s regional parliament, where the conservative Christian Democrats hold a majority, adopted a law banning hijab on Wednesday, May 31. The law was voted against by the Greens and the Social Democrats. North-Rhine Westphalia became the eighth of Germany’s 16 federal states to ban hijab in public schools.

The Muslim minority blasted the hijab school ban as unconstitutional. The Central Council of Muslims in Germany said the new law does not treat all religions as equal, banning only the hijab and not the Christian cross or other religious symbols.

The constitutional court, Germany’s highest tribunal, ruled in July 2003 against a decision by the Baden-Wuerttemberg state to forbid a Muslim teacher from wearing hijab in the classroom. But it said Germany’s 16 states could issue new legislations to ban the Muslim headscarf if they believe it would influence children.

A number of states, including Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia, still allow hijab at schools. Others, including Baden-Wurttemberg, Saarland and Lower Saxony, ban teaching staff in state schools from wearing symbols that express religious, political, or ideological affiliation, including hijab.

Islam Online, 1 June 2006

The Muslim-Leftist alliance

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Perhaps the greatest idea of the Leftist parties after the Cold War was to re-invent themselves as Multicultural immigration parties and start importing voters from abroad. In addition to this, they have managed to denounce the opposition as racists, bigots and extremists. A new alliance of convenience between Leftists and Muslim immigrants is taking shape in Europe. I think the deal is that the Leftist parties get a number of new clients, I mean voters, in return for giving Muslims privileges and subsidies, as well as keeping the borders more or less open for new Muslims to enter.”

Fjordman at Dhimmi Watch, 30 May 2006

Ontario’s ‘Sharia Law’ controversy: how Muslims were hung out to dry

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Arjomand and mediaRichard Fidler provides a useful overview of last year’s hysterical campaign against the “introduction of sharia law” (i.e. faith-based arbitration for Muslims) in Ontario. He writes:

“Among the most vociferous of the ‘anti-Sharia’ opponents was Homa Arjomand, a Toronto-based transitional counselor and refugee from Iran. She is the Coordinator of the ‘International Campaign Against Shari’a Court in Canada’, which claims a membership of 87 organizations from 14 countries with over a thousand activists. Much of the material on its web site is outrageously Islamophobic.

“One such piece, by Elka Enola of the Humanist Association of Toronto, sketches a startling ‘Worst Case (but probable) Scenario’ of the effect of allowing Muslim FBA, starting with ‘Stage One – Using the Arbitration Act, the Shari’a courts appear to get legal sanction’ and ending with ‘Stage Three – Muslims now outnumber Christians and the majority rule of democracy is turned on its head as the majority Muslims make Shari’a the law of the land’. It concludes, ‘We must protect Canada from such a scenario’. Not surprisingly, the Humanist Association of Toronto proclaimed Arjomand its ‘Humanist of the Year’ in 2005.”

MR Zine, 27 May 2006

The inconsistencies of Nick Cohen

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“The Satanic Verses, Behzti, Theo van Gogh’s Submission, Jerry Springer: The Opera, the Danish cartoons of Muhammad … now we can add the London exhibition of the work of Maqbool Fida Husain to the rapidly expanding list of works of art and satire targeted by militant religion…. Asia House closed the show on Monday after threats of violence from anonymous Hindu fundamentalists.”

Nick Cohen in the Observer, 28 May 2006

Not only does Cohen lump together a number of different cases, all of which have to be assessed on their own merits and in their social context, but he also omits to mention another recent example of a minority ethno-religious community calling for the suppression of offensive material, as described by Gary Younge:

“In January 2002 the New Statesman published a front page displaying a shimmering golden Star of David impaling a union flag, with the words ‘A kosher conspiracy?’ The cover was widely and rightly condemned as anti-semitic. It’s not difficult to see why. It played into vile stereotypes of money-grabbing Jewish cabals out to undermine the country they live in…. A group calling itself Action Against Anti-Semitism marched into the Statesman‘s offices, demanding a printed apology. One eventually followed. The then editor, Peter Wilby, later confessed that he had not appreciated ‘the historic sensitivities’ of Britain’s Jews.”

I don’t recall Cohen defending the right of the New Statesman to publish anti-semitic illustrations, or condemning members of the Jewish community for invading the magazine’s office to protest. Presumably, in this case, he was capable of distinguishing between freedom of expression and racism. Perhaps he should consider making the same distinction in cases involving other ethno-religious communities.

New Humanist justifies Islamophobia

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Yusuf Smith has picked up on an article in the latest issue of New Humanist magazine (a sponsor of the “March for Free Expression”) by one Ben Marshall, which defends Islamophobia as “an entirely reasonable and honourable intellectual position”. According to Marshall, high levels of unemployment among British Muslims are nothing to do with racism but are the result of their religious beliefs. Marshall has a go at Islamophobia Watch, describing it as “a shady confederacy of Islamists, woolly-headed, well-meaning dunces and Marxists” and he goes on to accuse us of condoning anti-semitism.

Indigo Jo Blogs, 28 May 2006

Islam ‘fused with an agenda of murder’ – Mad Mel

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Melanie Phillips claims that after the Satanic Verses controversy “the promotion of Islam in Britain became fused with an agenda of murder”.

Observer, 28 May 2006

You might wonder why a liberal newspaper gives space to a hard-right journalist like Phillips to promote her vile opinions about Muslims. But Phillips’ views are not that far removed from those expressed on a weekly basis by Observer columnist Nick Cohen, and the paper has given prominence to Martin Bright’s campaign to depict maintream Muslim organisations in Britain as supporters of violent extremism. As we never cease to point out on this site, when it comes to Islamophobia the differences between liberals and the racist right have become increasingly blurred.

Denmark condemned for mishandling cartoon crisis

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The Danish government has been condemned in an official report for its mishandling of the cartoon crisis sparked by the publication of 12 caricatures that lampooned Prophet Muhammad in the Danish mass-circulation paper Jyllands Posten in September.

“The government’s management of the Muhammad (cartoon) affair was a bigger problem than the caricatures themselves and the prime minister … should have entered into dialogue with the Muslim ambassadors,” said the government-sanctioned study, a copy of which was obtained by Jyllands Posten, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP).

Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen refused in October 2005 to meet with 11 ambassadors from Muslim nations who had asked to see him in a bid to nip a looming crisis in the bud.

The study said that the Danish government has not proved forthcoming and responded negatively to Muslim bids to break the standoff. “Denmark, in practice, did not want dialogue,” said the Danish university researchers who wrote the study. “It did not acknowledge the points of view of the other party (Muslim nations) and … saw being open to dialogue as compromising its own values.”

Danish Muslim leaders had taken pains to settle the crisis, but they were given the cold shoulder by the government. They then took their case to the Muslim world, embarking on a multi-leg Arab tour that outraged the government which accused them of “internationalizing” the issue and inciting anti-Danish hatred.

Islam Online, 26 May 2006

National Post ‘sorry’ about publishing wrong story

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Iran eyes badges for JewsCanada Paper Sorry About Erroneous Story on Iranian Jews and Christians

Associated Press, 26 May 2006

A Canadian newspaper apologized Wednesday for publishing an erroneous story last week claiming that an Iranian law would require Jews and Christians to wear badges identifying them as religious minorities.

The National Post article Friday caused an international uproar. Tehran on Wednesday summoned Canada’s ambassador to its foreign ministry.

Iran’s conservative parliament last week began debating a draft law that would discourage women from wearing Western clothing and encourage citizens to wear Islamic-style garments.

The Post erroneously said the bill included provisions requiring Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims to wear a patch of colored cloth on the front of their garments.

That incorrect description appeared to many as a chilling throwback to Nazi Germany when Jews were forced to wear the yellow star of David.

The United States, which is locked in a standoff with Iran over its nuclear program, criticized the bill. The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, a Jewish human rights group, had sent a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan asking him to investigate, according to the National Post.

Iranian officials labeled the newspaper account a lie and a copy of the bill, obtained by The Associated Press in Tehran on Saturday, made no mention of requiring special attire for religious minorities.

Continue reading →