Author Archives: Bob Pitt

Conspiracy to take over Labour Party exposed

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Shocking news from the Sunday Express:

“The growing influence of the Golders Green Synagogue, whose education wing was built with Israeli money, on the Labour party is causing concern in Downing Street. Gordon Brown, Justice Secretary Jack Straw and new Communities Secretary John Denham have been briefed on Zionist groups based there. Party officials have held crisis talks about one group in particular, the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Senior party members fear it has infiltrated Labour and exerts too much power over MPs and councillors in areas with large Jewish populations. Politicians fear that the BoD can persuade rabbis to direct bloc votes at elections.”

Oh no, hang on, this how the article actually reads:

“The growing influence of the East London Mosque, whose education wing was built with Saudi money, on the Labour party is causing concern in Downing Street. Gordon Brown, Justice Secretary Jack Straw and new Communities Secretary John Denham have been briefed on Islamic groups based there. Party officials have held crisis talks about one group in particular, the Islamic Forum of Europe. Senior party members fear it has infiltrated Labour and exerts too much power over MPs and councillors in areas with large Muslim populations. Politicians fear that IFE can persuade imams to direct bloc votes at elections.”

Update:  See IFE media release here.

‘Fear and hatred on the streets of Luton’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Luton riotDavid James Smith reports for the Sunday Times on tensions and conflict between communities in Luton, following the highly-publicised Al-Muhajiroun protest in March.

The article includes an interview with Mikey Birch, one of the organisers of the counter-protests against Al-Muhajiroun, including the notorious 24 May demonstration that ended in rioting.

Birch has presented himself as the voice of moderation, publicly declaring his opposition to fascist involvement in the 24 May protest. The Sunday Times article, however, indicates that Birch’s attitude to far-right racism and violence is rather more sympathetic than he made out:

“Birch said he had no affiliations with a far-right party, but he did say that if the BNP were in charge at the town hall, Luton would not be so biased towards Muslims. ‘I’m not being racist, but…’, he said, ‘…I don’t want my kids being Islamified. I don’t want them forcing their religion on us.’ He was concerned about the number of Muslim councillors in Luton…. ‘Have Al-Muhajiroun or Al-Qaeda infiltrated the council? That’s what people are saying.’ It was Birch who told me that people had talked of storming the town hall in protest. ‘The BNP will get a stronghold here because people feel they are the only party prepared to take on the Muslim extremists. And if the police and the council won’t fight the war against Sayful Islam, then we will fight it for them’.”

Update:  Over at his Lionheart blog Paul Ray, the defender of the 24 May rioters (“No one thinks that removing the militant wing of Islam from our land is going to be easy, and if the government will not do it then the people will, and they will quite obviously be wearing balaclavas to do that”) takes exception to Smith’s report:

“His upper-class Liberal view is that the lower-class white community are all racists, even though I am not a racist, and those involved with UPL including ‘Mikey Birch’ are not racists, but this journalist doesnt care, he just wants his Liberal anti-white, pro-Moslem, racist, story for the Times magazine, and doesnt care what he writes about people so long as it is in line with the Liberal world view according to David James Smith.”

There, there Paul, of course you’re not a racist. Although, to be fair, you are currently on bail facing a charge of incitement to racial hatred, aren’t you?

Further update:  And I can’t resist quoting this introductory paragraph from a post on another far-right blog attacking the Sunday Times report:

“I had the displeasure of reading what has to be one of the worst pieces of journalism in a British broadsheet. It stinks with appeasement and of course its underlying message is that British people should accept multiculturalism. No doubt the author (David James Smith) is either an immigrant, anti British, a student of Marxism or all three.”

‘Radical Islamists must be exposed, not invited to tea’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“One of the bravest things I have witnessed is the stand taken by ex-Cabinet Minister Hazel Blears against political Islam. As her adviser, I saw first-hand the pressures on her to sit round the table with groups whose political outlook was the diametric opposite of her beliefs in pluralist democracy, rights for minorities and equality for women. She consistently stood firm.

“For years, government ministers unquestioningly invited the leaders of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) to meetings to ‘represent’ the political, ethnic and religious diversity of Britain’s Muslims, as though such a thing were possible. First under Ruth Kelly, then Hazel Blears, the Government wised up to the nonsense that a small, unelected group of men, drawn from the conservative elements of Islamic politics, spoke for millions of Muslims in modern Britain….

“The hardliners in the MCB and other groups were challenged, not fêted. It culminated in a boycott of the MCB after one of its leaders attended a conference in Istanbul dominated by supporters of Hamas…..

“The way to tackle this strand of political Islam, which creates the environment for terrorists to brainwash and recruit potential bombers is not to debate with it, nor to invite it for tea at the Department for Communities or Number Ten. It is to expose it, disrupt it, and make it clear such views are repulsive and unacceptable. The new Secretary of State, John Denham, and the new Communities Minister, Shahid Malik, arrived at their desks this week. All eyes will be on them.”

Paul Richards in the Jewish Chronicle, 11 June 2009

Given Richards’ former role as Hazel Blears’ SpAd, this article provides a useful insight into the sort of ignorant, bigoted thinking behind DCLG’s decision to sever links with the MCB. At least we’ve now got rid of the truly appalling Blears, whose backstabbing antics in relation to her own party have hopefully destroyed any future revival of her political career. Things, as they say, can only get better.

Update:  See also ENGAGE, 12 June 2009

Holocaust museum attack – Muslims are to blame

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Debbie_Schlussel“Much is being made by Muslims and their many defenders on the left … that the shooter of several people (one now dead) at the U.S. Holocaust Museum is not a Muslim but a White guy, James W. Von Brunn, who is a neo-Nazi.

“But that is a distinction without a difference. In fact, it is because of Muslims – who are the biggest contributor to the worldwide rise in anti-Semitism to Holocaust-eve levels – that neo-Nazis feel comfortable – far more comfortable! – manifesting their views about Jews. Until 9/11 and our resulting new tolerance for Islam, the neo-Nazi types were marginalized and howling at the wind.”

Debbie Schlussel identifies the root cause of the shooting in Washington.

Via Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion.

Minarets to be banned in Switzerland?

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Wird Luzern ilamisiert“An overwhelming rejection of the ‘minaret initiative’ would serve as encouragement to all Muslims in Switzerland.

“And treating Swiss Muslims as respected and loyal residents would enhance openness and mutual trust in the country.

“It is crucial to continue to cultivate a tolerant, multicultural and multi-confessional society, which would act as the foundation of our shared future. Swiss society as a whole would come out the winner.”

Emir Cengic reports on the referendum over the proposal to ban the construction of minarets in Switzerland, to be held later this year.

Common Ground News Service, 9 June 2009

Police appeal for witnesses after Stortford mosque attack

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Police are today (Thursday, June 11) appealing for witnesses and information following a racially aggravated assault and criminal damage at Bishop’s Stortford’s mosque.

On Monday, April 25 at around 9pm a group of about five men approached the Islamic cultural centre at Millars 2, off Southmill Road, and had a verbal altercation before one of them punched a community member and smashed a window. They returned shortly after and there was a further confrontation.

Sgt Keith Cassells, investigating, said: “We are appealing for anyone who was in the area at the time who may have seen these men or the altercation take place to contact police on 0845 3300222.

“This was an unprovoked incident which has been distressing for all those involved. Bishop’s Stortford Neighbourhood Team is working closely with the community members at the mosque and will be increasing patrols in the area.”

Alternatively, call Crimestoppers free and in confidence on 0800 555111.

Two men, a 30-year-old and a 26-year-old, both from Bishop’s Stortford, have been arrested and released on police bail until June 22.

Herts & Essex Observer, 11 June 2009

Are BNP voters racist?

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Rise_FestivalThere’s an informative YouGov opinion poll on the Channel 4 website which provides a useful basis for an assessment of the BNP vote.

Unfortunately, the analysis in the accompanying article by Peter Kellner is deeply flawed. Kellner plays down the racism of BNP supporters and claims that “depending on how the term ‘racist’ is precisely defined, our survey suggests that the label applies to only around a half of BNP voters”.

But the poll itself demolishes this assertion. It found that 94% of BNP voters thought “all further immigration to the UK should be halted” – way ahead of supporters of other political parties, with the exception of UKIP. 79% of BNP voters agreed that “even in its milder [sic] forms, Islam is a danger to western civilisation” – again, far higher than Labour, Tory, Lib Dem or Green voters.

Kellner sees it as a positive result that “just 44 per cent” of BNP voters “agreed with the party in rejecting the view that non-white citizens are just as British as white citizens”. However the question didn’t concern all British citizens, but rather “British citizens who were born in this country”. If the question had included people born abroad who have come to the UK and subsequently acquired citizenship, the percentage of BNP voters denying that non-white citizens are “just as British as white citizens” would undoubtedly have been even higher.

In that connection, it’s worth noting that 81% of BNP voters disagreed with the proposition that “Britain has benefited from the arrival in recent decades of people from many different countries and cultures”. Only 8% of BNP voters agreed with this proposition, compared with 63% of Green voters, 55% of Lib Dem voters, 53% of Labour voters and even 31% of Tory voters.

What the poll reveals is that racist attitudes exist among supporters of all political parties (which is what you would expect, given the migrant-bashing, Muslim-hating propaganda that pervades the popular press) but that people who vote for the BNP are much more racist than those who vote for mainstream political parties.

Yet, bizarrely, Kellner states emphatically: “most BNP voters do NOT subscribe to what might be described as ‘normal racist views’.” This is in line with the analysis of other pundits, who have strenuously denied that the majority of BNP voters are racists.

It is of course true that the vast majority of BNP voters are not fascists and that they would be shocked by the neo-Nazi views that Griffin and other BNP leaders actually hold. But the majority of BNP voters certainly do hold racist views, and if we’re to develop a strategy for resisting the BNP it serves no useful purpose to deny that fact.

Indeed, it was precisely in order to combat the racist ideology on which the BNP feeds that the annual Rise festival was held in London. And that is why Boris Johnson’s decision to cancel Rise was so utterly irresponsible.

FBI chief defends use of informants in mosques

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Robert MuellerFBI Director Robert Mueller on Monday defended the agency’s use of informants within U.S. mosques, despite complaints from Muslim organizations that worshippers and clerics are being targeted instead of possible terrorists.

Mueller’s comments came just days after a Michigan Muslim organization asked the Justice Department to investigate complaints that the FBI is asking the faithful to spy on Islamic leaders and worshippers. Similar alarm followed the disclosure earlier this year that the FBI planted a spy in Southern California mosques.

“We don’t investigate places, we investigate individuals,” Mueller said during a brief meeting with reporters in Los Angeles. “To the extent that there may be evidence or other information of criminal wrongdoings, then we will … undertake those investigations,” Mueller added. “We will continue to do it.”

He called relations with U.S. Muslims “very good,” but acknowledged disagreements without providing specifics.

The Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder after mosques and other groups reported members of the community have been asked to monitor people coming to mosques and donations they make. The FBI’s Detroit office has denied the allegations.

In the California case, information about the informant who spied on the Islamic Center of Irvine came out at a February detention hearing for a brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard, an Afghan native and naturalized U.S. citizen named Ahmadullah Niazi who is accused of lying on his citizenship and passport applications about terrorism ties.

Local Muslim leaders say they suspected since at least since 2006 that the FBI was trying to infiltrate Muslim organizations in the area.

“History disputes Mr. Mueller’s statements, at least in Southern California,” said Shakeel Syed, executive of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California. “It doesn’t alleviate anything. It only continues to show the sheer arrogance demonstrated by the bureau in holding Muslim community members, clerics, mosques, as suspects,” Syed said. He is among community leaders in court seeking government records of surveillance.

FBI agents and prosecutors say spying on mosques is one of the best weapons to uncover lurking terrorists or threats to national security, but it has posed a politically and legally thorny issue with Muslims who see themselves as unjustly monitored. “The FBI needs to do what it needs to do, certainly,” Syed said. But the agency is “trying to incite and entrap” law-abiding people.

Mueller also said that there will be no change in the FBI’s priorities in the new administration. “I would not expect that we would in any way take our foot off the pedal of addressing counterterrorism,” he said.

“My expectation is that we’ll see an uptick in terms of resources devoted toward our domestic criminal responsibilities, but we will not … relax our responsibilities when it come to counterterrorism or counterintelligence,” he added.

Associated Press, 8 June 2009