Author Archives: Bob Pitt

The role of right-wing anti-Muslim bloggers

Posted on by Bob Pitt

AAH logoSara Rosenbaum writes on the phenomenon of right-wing US bloggers inciting hatred against Muslims, with particular emphasis of Joe Kaufman’s Americans Against Hate site (which in the interests of accuracy should be required to change its name to “Americans For Hate”):

“Kaufman’s site is only one of a constellation of blogs with names like JihadWatch.com, MilitantIslamMonitor.org, and WesternResistance.com that are dedicated to the surveillance of American Muslims. The blogs link to one another, with more-traveled sites amplifying stories from more obscure ones, like Kaufman’s. He claims he has not found a single mosque in Florida that is not linked to terrorists.

“A lot of people are listening. Last month, after Kaufman called a Tampa Muslim religious retreat a ‘jihad camp for children’ and wrote that the speakers were ‘linked to al-Qaida’, death threats poured in to the Presbyterian camp hosting the event. Muslims say the blogs breed hate. ‘He’s spreading lies, slandering individuals’, said Ahmed Bedier, spokesman for the Tampa Bay chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. ‘These are vigilantes’.”

St Petersburg Times, 16 January 2006

For Kaufman’s reply (condemning Rosenbaum as “biased and irresponsible”!) see here.

And for Western Resistance’s equally irony-free complaint that Kaufman et al have been subjected to a “smear campaign”, see here.

Robert Spencer isn’t happy either. He rejects Rosenbaum’s claim that he admitted to her that Jihad Watch attracts contributions from racists (see for example these comments on the London bombings) on the grounds that he has “pointed out ad infinitum that Islam is not a race” – and he says he never reads the comments anyway.

Jihad Watch, 16 January 2006

Osama Saeed argues that the lesson to be drawn from Rosenbaum’s article is that Muslims need to “get blogging” and counter the influence of the hate-sites.

Rolled Up Trousers, 16 January 2006

BNP boss faces race hate charges

Posted on by Bob Pitt

bnp-islam-posterBritish National Party leader Nick Griffin made a speech claiming white society had turned into a multi-racial hell-hole, Leeds Crown Court has heard. Mr Griffin is accused of using abusive, threatening, or insulting words towards people of Asian ethnicity, in speeches filmed in West Yorkshire in 2004. Party activist Mark Collett is charged with similar offences. Both men deny the charges. The speeches were filmed in 2004 for the BBC documentary, The Secret Agent.

The court heard how Mr Griffin addressed a crowd at the Reservoir Tavern in Keighley on 19 January 2004 and told them that white society had turned into a multi-racial hell-hole as Asian Muslims aimed to conquer the country. Rodney James QC, prosecuting, told the jury Mr Griffin had concentrated on allegations of paedophile drug rapes by Asian Muslims in Keighley. Reading excerpts from the speeches, Mr Jameson said Mr Griffin had urged the crowd to vote for the BNP in order to ensure “the British people really realise the evil of what these people have done to our country”.

BBC News, 17 January 2006

Another case for Interpal’s lawyers? And George Galloway’s?

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Remember how the Board of Deputies was forced to pay out a large sum to Interpal, after falsely accusing the Palestinian charity of funding terrorism? Presumably right-wing journalist Stephen Pollard has forgotten.

Commenting on George Galloway’s participation in the Big Brother reality TV show, Pollard writes: “Interpal, his ‘designated charity’ is described by the US Treasury as a ‘Hamas-related charity’ and has been listed as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist. So a vote for Galloway is, quite literally, a vote for terror.”

Stephen Pollard’s blog, 15 January 2006

Update:  A new post (dated 18 January) on Pollard’s blog reads: “You might notice that a posting from yesterday on Interpal is no longer up. I removed it after a few minutes (although I understand that it remained visible for a little while afterwards). It concerned its nomination by George Galloway in the Big Brother programme. I want to make clear that the charity operates as an entirely legitimate organisation for the relief of suffering and no evidence has ever been produced to suggest otherwise.”

This defence is, to put it mildly, full of holes. Pollard posted his comment on “Big Brother’s terror drive” on 15 January, and we didn’t post on it here till 17 January, so the libellous attack on Interpal and Galloway had been online for two days by then. The original post contained the phrase “a vote for Galloway is, quite literally, a vote for terror”. Pollard’s initial response was not to remove the post but to amend it so it read “a vote for Galloway is, quite literally, a vote for an organisation described by the US government as terrorist”, and the title was changed to  “Big Brother’s warped fundraising” (see here). This version still hasn’t been removed from Pollard’s site.

Far-right ‘charity’ that leaves Muslims hungry

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Far-right groups in France are distributing ham sandwiches and pork soup to homeless people in an attempt to discriminate against Muslims and Jews, forbidden to eat pork products. Food hand-outs, which have already taken place in Paris, Nice and Nantes, and in Brussels and Charleroi in Belgium, have now spread to the eastern French city of Strasboug.

At the weekend, Strasbourg’s prefect banned the extreme right association Solidarité Alsacienne from distributing its soupe au cochon (pig soup) to poor and homeless people in the city centre. On Saturday, police intervened to close the soup kitchen after Solidarité Alsacienne defied the ban and began distributing food in one of Strasbourg’s main squares.

Chantal Spieler, Solidarité Alsacienne’s president, was escorted to police headquarters and given a formal warning before being joined by her husband, Robert Spieler, a former MP for Jean-Marie Le Pen’s far-right National Front party. Mr Spieler denounced “a totalitarian regime” where soon “they’ll be banning salami”.

However, few accept Solidarité Alsacienne’s protests that it is a victim of the infringement of civil liberties. The association is close to Le Bloc Identitaire, an extreme-right umbrella group led by Fabrice Robert, a former leader of Unité Radicale, a neo-Nazi cell which broke up in 2002 after one its members attempted to assassinate the president, Jacques Chirac.

Soulidarieta, an extreme-right group based in Nice, which is also a Bloc Identitaire member, provoked outrage over Christmas when it began distributing soup made with pork once a week to homeless and poor people in the south-eastern city’s port area. Its operation drew as many protesters as homeless people. They accused the group of blatant discrimination by offering pork soup only, deliberately to exclude poor Muslims.

The philosophy behind Soulidarieta, which means solidarity in the local dialect, is made clear in the association’s literature, in which it claims: “Our people face being submerged by a rising black demographic tide,” and announces “the launch of a voluntary social and political action in favour of our most deprived blood brothers”. The group’s slogans call for “solidarity with our European brothers”, and “Our own kind first before others”.

Pierre Levy of the Council Representing Jewish Institutions in France, who attended the first distribution of pork soup last month, denounced Bloc Identitaire’s operations as “using human misery to establish ethnic separation”.

Scotsman, 17 January 2006

Students’ anger over ‘veil ban’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Muslims are urging Imperial College to reconsider a dress code which prevents them wearing a full religious veil.
The college has banned students, staff and visitors from wearing clothing which obscures the face, such as veils, “hoodies” or motorcycle helmets. The measures where introduced last year in an attempt to tighten security.

Imperial College says the dress code has been agreed by the Student Union, but the Federation of Student Islamic Societies says it is “unacceptable”. The federation (Fosis) said the veil, or niqab, was “central to the religious beliefs of those who wear it” and, by banning it, Imperial College was “forcing students to choose between their religion and education”.

Fosis president Wakkas Khan, said: “The decision taken by Imperial College to maintain the ban on the veil has shocked Muslim students across the country. The majority of universities have responded excellently to accommodate the needs of Muslim students, but regrettably, and rather disappointingly, it would seem that Imperial College is not amongst these institutions.”

The college said its new college dress code followed the “security concerns raised by the terrorist incidents which had occurred over the summer”.

BBC News, 17 January 2006

See also “FOSIS astonished by Imperial College policy”, FOSIS press release, 16 January 2006

‘The hypocrisy of the Muslim Council is beyond belief’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Joan SmithThus the title to an article by Joan Smith in yesterday’s Independent on Sunday.

She condemns a letter from Muslim leaders in Saturday’s Times supporting the view of homosexuality expressed by Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain. She goes on to point out that the MCB “has supported Section 28, opposed lowering the age of consent for gay sex and has worked with evangelical Christians to oppose gay adoption”. She quotes Peter Tatchell’s statement: “How can the MCB expect to secure respect for Muslims when it shows such obvious disrespect to other people because of their sexual orientation?”

As we have already pointed out (see here) the views of Iqbal Sacranie and the MCB on homosexuality are not easily distinguishable from those of the Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, and the Orthodox Jewish community. Indeed, a statement issued by Dr Sacks’ office – “There is no prospect of the mainstream Orthodox community permitting same-sex commitment or marriage ceremonies. Orthodox Jews are bound by biblical and rabbinic law, which only condones sexual relationships between a man and a woman who are married” – is identical to the position taken by the Muslim signatories to the Times letter.

Would Tatchell think it appropriate, then, to issue a statement such as: “How can the Chief Rabbi’s office expect to secure respect for Jews when it shows such obvious disrespect to other people because of their sexual orientation?” And would Joan Smith feel happy about publishing an article headlined “The hypocrisy of Orthodox Jewry is beyond belief”?

Smith argues that the MCB is guilty of hypocrisy because it wants to criticise homosexuality while at the same time supporting the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, which she claims “would open critics of religion to the threat of a prison sentence”. This is of course a complete misrepresentation of the proposed legislation (see, for example, here). What the new law would do is illegalise incitement to hatred. Liberal secularist bigots like Smith could continue to express their prejudices against Muslims without hindrance.

Dutch MPs to decide on burqa ban

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The Dutch government will announce over the next few weeks whether it will make it a crime to wear traditional Islamic dress which covers the face apart from the eyes.

The Dutch parliament has already voted in favour of a proposal to ban the burqa outside the home, and some in the government have thrown their weight behind it. There are only about 50 women in all of the Netherlands who do cover up entirely – but soon they could be breaking the law.

Dutch MP Geert Wilders is the man who first suggested the idea of a ban. “It’s a medieval symbol, a symbol against women,” he says.

“We don’t want women to be ashamed to show who they are. Even if you have decided yourself to do that, you should not do it in Holland, because we want you to be integrated, assimilated into Dutch society. If people cannot see who you are, or see one inch of your body or your face, I believe this is not the way to integrate into our society.”

Mr Wilders has explicitly linked his wish for a burqa ban with terrorism. “We have problems with a growing minority of Muslims who tend to have sympathy with the Islamo-fascistic concept of radical Islam,” says Mr Wilders.

BBC News, 16 January 2006

Right-wing rants – a selection

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A short selection of anti-Muslim rants from the last week. There’s so much of this stuff on the internet these days, particularly on right-wing US sites, that it becomes tedious to chronicle it all. But here’s a few examples:

“Islam is worse than a plague, worse than leprosy, worse than hunger and famine, which cause bodily damage to humans. Islam slowly, like a canker, gnaws at the soul and the spirit. Islam stops your brain from thinking, and empties out your love and kindness for others. Islam will turn you into a killing machine.”

“Islam as a cult is based on blood letting. Either Muslims kill one another or they kill non-Muslims. For them to kill one another because of something in the Koran agreeing with same, then no crime has been committed.”

“Of course, the Koran is a poison book scribed by demons. It is laden with killing and torture dictates from Allah that must be carried out if one is to call himself ‘Muslim’.”

“The abuses at Abu Ghraib Prison were wrong. But they seem like adolescent pranks (e.g. naked human pyramids and underwear put on a head) when they are compared with Muhammad’s methods of torture…”

From Think and Ask, MichNews, MichNews again, and American Thinker.

Students demonstrate in support of victimised colleagues

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A demonstration will take place outside a Birmingham college today after two students were expelled for distributing a newsletter criticising managers. Matthew Boulton College has been accused of over-reacting by the National Union of Students and scuppering the pair’s chances of applying for university.

The newsletter questioned a decision by the college to ban religious groups on campus and highlighted what it claimed were “rude security guards” at its new £40 million city centre campus. Managers ruled the material constituted “grounds for misconduct” and cancelled the enrolment of the two students.

The pair – Assed Baig, aged 24 and Darrel Williams, aged 21 – who are on an access to higher education course, now face missing the January 15 deadline for applying to university.

NUS Black Students’ Officer Pav Akhtar said: “This situation comes at a crucial time for university applications and could seriously jeopardise their chances of finding a place for next year. We believe the college has over-reacted by expelling the students and call on them to reverse their decision with immediate effect.”

The NUS is now calling on student activists across the country to put pressure on Matthew Boulton College to get it to back down.

Birmingham Post, 13 January 2006

The sickness of Front Page Magazine

Posted on by Bob Pitt

David Horowitz and his friends are not about to let an appalling human tragedy get in the way of a piece of rampant Islamophobia. They offer a link to an Associated Press report on the deaths in Mina, Saudia Arabia, under the headline “Muslim Pilgrims Kill 345 in Hajj Stampede”.

Front Page Magazine, 13 January 2006

See also CAIR’s selection of comments from Jihad Watch applauding the deaths.

CAIR action alert, 13 January 2006