Author Archives: Bob Pitt

Clinton warns of rising anti-Islamic feeling

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Former US president Bill Clinton warned of rising anti-Islamic prejudice, comparing it to historic anti-Semitism as he condemned the publishing of cartoons depicting Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper.

“So now what are we going to do? … Replace the anti-Semitic prejudice with anti-Islamic prejudice?” he said at an economic conference in the Qatari capital of Doha. “In Europe, most of the struggles we’ve had in the past 50 years have been to fight prejudices against Jews, to fight against anti-Semitism,” he said.

Clinton described as “appalling” the 12 cartoons published in a Danish newspaper in September depicting Prophet Mohammed and causing uproar in the Muslim world. “None of us are totally free of stereotypes about people of different races, different ethnic groups, and different religions … there was this appalling example in northern Europe, in Denmark … these totally outrageous cartoons against Islam,” he said.

AFP, 30 January 2006

Danish paper sorry for Muhammad cartoons

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Denmark’s largest selling broadsheet newspaper last night issued an apology to the “honourable citizens of the Muslim world” after publishing a series of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that provoked protests across the Middle East. In a lengthy statement the editor-in-chief of Jyllands-Posten admitted that the 12 cartoons, one of which depicted Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban, had caused “serious misunderstandings”. Carsten Juste said: “The 12 cartoons … were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims, for which we apologise.”

Guardian, 31 January 2006

Robert Spencer reports this under the headine “Danish newspaper caves to Muslim intimidation”.

Dhimmi Watch, 30 January 2006

And the fascists chime in with a report headed “Denmark on Islamic jihad list”. They suggest: “Perhaps this is just a taster of things to come, an opportunity for Muslims to test the backbone of western governments and opinion formers, a ‘recce’ mission to see just how far the Muslims have to push before the west gives way.”

BNP news release, 31 January 2006

‘What’s at stake is the right to insult and cause offence’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Polly ToynbeeSo Polly Toynbee claims in a Guardian article attacking the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. In fact, what’s actually at stake is the right to incite hatred.

Toynbee criticises the “free speech” clauses in the government’s amendment (which as we have already pointed out make dangerous concessions to the opposition). She asserts that these legal guarantees “would not protect Rowan Atkinson’s sketch showing men bowed down praying in a mosque with the voiceover intoning: ‘And the search goes on for the Ayatollah Khomeini’s contact lens.’ Many were insulted. It would not protect Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, let alone Christ in nappies on the cross in Jerry Springer – the Opera. Nor would it stop Behzti being closed down by angry Sikh mobs.”

There is nothing in the Bill that would prevent Rowan Atkinson from taking the piss out of the Ayatollah Khomeini, or Salman Rushdie from publishing The Satanic Verses or any theatre from staging Jerry Springer – the Opera. What the proposed legislation criminalises is not ridicule or insult but incitement to hatred. As for Bezhti, Sikhs are defined as a mono-ethnic faith group and are therefore already covered by the law against racial hatred. The new legislation won’t make the slightest difference to the legal position in relation to the incitement of hatred against Sikhs.

Continue reading →

Muslim woman kicked out of US court over hijab

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A Tacoma judge is under fire for kicking a Muslim woman out of his courtroom after she refused to remove her head-scarf. “I felt humiliated,” said 37-year old Mujaahidah Sayfullah, who has worn her head-scarf in court before.

She says she couldn’t believe it when first the bailiff and then Tacoma Municipal Court Judge David Ladenburg told her as she sat in the audience that either her head-scarf could go – or she could. “He said, ‘well, if you’re not gonna do it then I’m going to have to ask you to remove yourself from the courtroom,'” she said.

She left, fearing the judge would take it out on the relative who was on trial.

Judge Ladenburg stands by his decision. “It’s my understanding and belief that the Muslim religion does not prohibit the removal of head-coverings either for males of for females,” he says…noting that unless he learns that an exception should be made, there’s a courtroom standard that must be upheld.

Ladenburg says it wasn’t religious discrimination…but Mujaahidah says it sure felt like it, and that’s why she’s telling her story. “Just for it to be exposed, and the public be aware that people are able to blatantly discriminate based upon their position of power,” she said.

The Council on American-Islamic relations has sent a note to Ladenburg, notifying him of the allegations against him. Ladenburg says he plans to respond.

KOMO 1000 News, 30 January 2006

‘The legacy of jihad’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Jamie Glazov:  There are scholars and critics amongst us who argue that the terrorists have exploited and hijacked Islam to serve their own violent ends. In their view, Islamist terror is a perversion of the true Islam. What do you think?

Andrew Bostom:  This is ahistorical prattle, which unfortunately appears to have been accepted by President Bush and his key advisers…. Furthermore, in a recent speech President Bush insisted that the “ideology” of the most notable Muslim terrorists, who he maintained “distort the idea of jihad,” is “very different from the religion of Islam” and indeed “exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision.” The President’s even more specific and assertive comments regarding jihad were a profound disappointment. Indeed, such words could have been written and uttered by the most uninformed, or deliberately disingenuous apologists for this devastating, and uniquely Islamic institution, well over a millennium old, and still wreaking havoc today.

Front Page Magazine, 30 January 2006

Religious hate bill changes urged

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A coalition of politicians, writers and artists is trying to persuade ministers to accept changes made by peers to the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. The bill will return to the Commons on Tuesday after being substantially amended in the House of Lords.

BBC News, 30 January 2006

See also “Atkinson in last-gasp bid to bury religious hate bill”, Observer, 29 January 2006

Needless to say, these democrats are not worried about the clause in the government’s amendment that recognises the right to incite hatred against religion, which could strengthen the hand of the BNP. Rather, they support the Lords amendment that would restrict the offence of inciting religious hatred to “threatening” words and behaviour and would moreover require the prosecution to prove intent – which would, of course, destroy the possibility of ever securing a conviction.

How to become a ‘national treasure’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

OutrageA Guardian piece on Peter Tatchell quotes right-wing columnist Peter Hitchens paying tribute to him as “a man of great physical and moral courage, honesty and personal rectitude, superior in every way to the run of politicians”. It continues:

“Such praise must make a welcome change from what Tatchell endured in the past. First, there was the name-calling – ‘pervert’, ‘loony’ and ‘homosexual terrorist’. Then the death threats – he still sleeps with a fire extinguisher next to him in case of arson. And finally, the wholesale condemnation, in 1994, of Outrage!’s threat to out the Bishop of London. Tatchell then was ‘pernicious’ and ‘vile’, a ‘hysterical self-publicist’ and ‘hypocrite’, guilty of organising a ‘witch-hunt’. Rehabilitation began when Tatchell attempted a citizen’s arrest on Robert Mugabe. Suddenly, he was lauded as ‘a man of principle’ (the Daily Telegraph), who ‘may call himself a queer, but he’s got a real man’s courage’ (the Mail).”

And Tatchell appears to have drawn the obvious conclusions. If you’re a gay rights activist campaigning against the Anglican Church and other establishment targets, favourable coverage will be restricted to the liberal media. However, if you concentrate on attacking black Africans, Palestinian Arabs and, in particular, Muslims – the Tory press, who welcome such contributions to their own racist agenda, will treat you like a hero.

Muslim student calls on SOAS Director to quit

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A Muslim student who was reprimanded for criticising the Israeli army in a student union publication has called on the Director of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) to quit. Nasser Amin, a masters student at the University of London, initiated a formal student grievance procedure against the School and Director Colin Bundy for failing to follow their own procedure.

Indymedia, 29 January 2006

Were we held at airport because we are Muslims?

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A Muslim couple are threatening to take action against the police after they were held by Special Branch detectives at Cardiff Airport – missing their flight as their luggage and identities were checked. Aisha Pritchard and her Palestinian husband Sadi Eihaloul claim their detention was racist and are now considering bringing a test case against South Wales Police.

The couple, from Pentwyn, Cardiff, were due to fly to Dubai via Amsterdam for a four-day break on December 14 but they never made the trip after being stopped by security at the boarding gate. Ms Pritchard, 40, said: “We understand that there have to be security measures at all airports. It is the way we were treated we cannot accept. We feel we were deliberately stopped from boarding the plane, that it was racist and because we are Muslims.”

By the time they had been given the all-clear by the detectives, the couple’s flight had already left. And because their tickets were non-transferable, they were faced with having to pay out £1,500 if they wanted the next flight. Instead, they caught a taxi home.

Wales Online, 28 December 2006

See also the Independent, 29 December 2006

Muslims spread disease in hospitals, Sun claims

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Some Muslims are undermining the battle to rid Britain’s hospitals of killer infections by refusing to wash their hands when visiting sick relatives. Dispensers containing anti-bacterial gel have been placed outside wards at hospitals all over Britain in a bid to get rid of superbugs like MRSA and PVL. It prevents people bringing in more infections. But some Muslims refuse to use the hand cleansers on religious grounds because they contain alcohol. Health watchdogs are so concerned they intend to meet with NHS bosses in the New Year to try and hammer out a solution.”

Sun, 29 December 2006

(Note also the accompanying “Outrage at ethnic pool” story.)

For a discussion of the Sun article see Rolled Up Trousers, 29 December 2006