More self-justifying nonsense from Tatchell

namazie and racist placards 2In an article in the current issue of Tribune, headed “Free speech is under attack – even from the Left”, Peter Tatchell accuses National Assembly Against Racism chair Lee Jasper of smearing him in a letter to the magazine.

Defending his decision to speak at the “March for Free Expression” rally in Trafalgar Square on 25 March, Tatchell claims, yet again, that “there was no visible BNP presence at the rally. No Union Jack flags. No leaflets or placards attacking Muslims or promoting fascist ideas”.

Reading Tatchell’s denials, you’re reminded of the Vatican scholar in Brecht’s play who, invited by Galileo to observe the movement of the planets through his telescope, shakes his head obstinately and refuses to look. And Tatchell pretends to be a defender of Enlightenment values!

See here for pictures of fascists with Union Jack flags at the Trafalgar Square rally. The literature they are holding is the pamphlet produced by the BNP’s front organisation, Civil Liberty, which was openly distributed to the demonstrators by BNP activists without any interference by the stewards.

Placards featuring reproductions of two of the most blatantly racist of the Danish cartoons – one of the Prophet with a bomb as a turban and another of the Prophet threateningly wielding a large knife with two terrified-looking veiled women cowering behind him – were enthusiastically displayed by the protestors. The latter cartoon was accompanied by the slogan “Religion – hands off women’s life”, implying that the oppression of women is intrinsic to Islam, which of course is precisely the message the caricature sought to convey.

The placards had been brought to the demonstration not by fascists but by Tatchell’s allies in the Worker Communist Party of Iran, whose platform speaker Maryam Namazie provocatively brandished these racist caricatures and urged the crowd to pass them around and do likewise. They were only too happy to oblige.

The Bolsheviks and Islam

“Faced with a possible disaster in Iraq, the political establishment has closed ranks to scapegoat Islam. On the day of the London bombings in July 2005, Blair’s foreign secretary Jack Straw set the tone for a renewed onslaught, crudely dismissing any connection with Iraq. Solidarity with Muslims in the anti-war movement has been pilloried by the right’s most effective allies – critics with left-liberal credentials. The response to the racist cartoons published in European newspapers has highlighted the extent of Islamophobia in so called liberal circles – and confusion on the left.”

Dave Crouch in International Socialism No.110, Spring 2006

Regarding the Bolsheviks’ practice in government, Crouch writes:

“Sharia law had been a central demand of Muslims during the February Revolution of 1917 and, as the civil war drew to a close in 1920-1921, a parallel court system was created in Central Asia and the Caucasus, with Islamic courts administering justice in accordance with sharia law side by side with Soviet legal institutions. The aim was for people to have a choice between religious and revolutionary justice.

“A Sharia Commission was established in the Soviet Commissariat of Justice to oversee the system. In 1921 a series of commissions were attached to regional units of the Soviet administration with the purpose of adapting the Russian legal code to the conditions of Central Asia, allowing for compromise between the two systems on questions such as under-age marriage and polygamy.”

A million miles away from the Islamophobic absurdities of Maryam Namazie, Homa Arjomand and their fellow sectarians in the Worker Communist Party of Iran, you’d have to agree.

The birth of a global civil society

Soumayya GhannoushiSoumaya Ghannoushi, writing for Al Jazeera, has an extremely astute analysis of the world in the early 21st century. The whole article is worth reading but there is one section that is particularly pertinent to the analysis that Islamophobia Watch has carried of the trajectory of some on the socialist left:

“Some from the Left have deserted their old positions and have moved to the side of power and big business, turning into cheerleaders for wars of aggression and the trampling of the principle of national sovereignty and norms of international law. While speaking the language of liberalism and tolerance, these have recycled rightwing racist clichés about Islam to dismiss the rapprochement with Muslims as an ‘unholy alliance’.”

Al Jazeera, 5 April 2006

Islamophobic? Not us, says UKIP MEP

Nigel FarageUK Independence Party MEP Nigel Farage has threatened to sue over Tory leader David Cameron’s claim that UKIP contains “closet racists”. According to the Guardian, Farage cited the recent expulsion of four Italian Northern League MEPs from UKIP’s grouping in the European parliament after one of the League’s leaders wore a t-shirt printed with cartoons satirising the prophet Muhammad. Farage said: ‘We thought the Italian Northern League were OK. But they have become Islamaphobic to an extent we find unsettling … We adopt a firm line on immigration and asylum. But you haven’t got to be racist to do that’.”

This would be the same Nigel Farage who, according to former UKIP leader Alan Sked, rejected the inclusion of a statement on the party’s membership form opposing discrimination against minorities. “We will never win the nigger vote”, Sked quotes Farage as saying. “The nig-nogs will never vote for us.” As for anti-Muslim bigotry, former UKIP member Aidan Rankin has recounted his disillusionment with the party: “I listened, with increasing loathing, to a repertoire of anti-Muslim barbs from people who knew nothing whatsoever about Islam and were proud of their ignorance…. Islamophobia pervades its internal dialogue.”

Gay Muslim claims Islamophobia denied him post as student leader

Pav AkhtarThus the headline to a Pink News article analysing the narrow defeat of Pav Akhtar in the elections for National Union of Students president last week.

Over at Harry’s Place, the inimitable David T has suggested that homophobia on the part of the Federation of Student Islamic Societies was to blame: “FOSIS refused to back Akhtar. It isn’t clear exactly why that was, although the rumour is that the ‘sinister reason’ was his sexuality.” (Needless to say, David also implies that Pav is a member of a left group called Socialist Action. But then, it seems there are very few of us on the left who David doesn’t think are members of Socialist Action.)

As for the reasons for Pav’s defeat, Pink News quotes him as saying that both Islamophobia and homophobia might each have played a minor part but that the result had more to do with “factional politics”, with FOSIS failing to back him as part of “a deal to get their preferred candidate elected as secretary”. Does David T ever get any of his facts right?

A ‘swvil-eyed’ attack on Islamophobia Watch

We appear to have upset the comrades over at Tribune, who have taken exception to our criticisms of their readiness to give a platform to Islamophobes, and to Peter Tatchell in particular (see here).

An item in the magazine’s “John Street” gossip column in the current issue reads: “Tribune has fallen foul of the sane and rational people at Islamophobia Watch. This website, run by self-proclaimed defenders of the faith, claims to expose anti-Islamic sentiments. Journalists, particularly on the Left, who deemed to be the slightest bit anti-Muslim, are subject to self-righteous abuse. More sinisterly, their pictures and details are posted on the website. Tribune‘s latest ‘crime’ was to publish a piece by Peter Tatchell which was critical of Muslim Council of Britain leader Iqbal Sacranie’s swvil-eyed [sic] rantings on homosexuality. Anyone wishing to complain to Islamphobia Watch is advised that they would be wasting their time. It is run by couple of devout democratic centralists and does not countenance debate, disagreements or alternative viewpoints. How very fundamentalist of them.”

You do wonder whether this is an entry for a competition in which journalists were set the task of fitting the maximum number of factual errors into a mere eight sentences.

Continue reading

Mad Mel and Condoleezza Rice

While the rest of us were applauding the withdrawal of Condoleezza Rice’s invitation to visit Masjid Al Hidayah in Blackburn, Melanie Phillips saw it as another example of intimidation by Muslims hostile to western values:

“The decision by the Blackburn mosque to cancel the planned visit by Condoleezza Rice is utterly unacceptable and deeply troubling. A mosque spokesman has said that it was cancelled not through dislike of Dr Rice but because of the threat by Muslim anti-war protesters to invade the mosque, thus compromising the safety of the visiting dignitaries. What an appalling state of affairs where the safety of the Foreign Secretary and a distinguished overseas visitor cannot be guaranteed against the threat of violent disorder. Aren’t we all supposed to be engaged in a war against this kind of menace to life and liberty?

“… the fact is that British Muslims are British and should afford Dr Rice – a principal member of the government of our major ally – an elementary degree of courtesy. After all, if the US government is to be treated in this way over the Iraq war, logic dictates that these British Muslims would regard the British government with identical hostility over its own part in that war. And that is a very troubling thought indeed. It implies that some of them do not identify themselves as British but adhere to a hostile set of values.”

Continue reading

Johann Hari on the ‘March for Free Expression’

johann hariJohann Hari offers his assessment of last Saturday’s protest. “Communists mingled awkwardly with fascists”, he tells us approvingly, though unlike Tatchell he does at least have the honesty to admit that fascists participated in the demonstration.

Hari complains that a member of the Worker Communist Party of Iran was arrested for provocatively brandishing “silly cartoons of the Mohammed that some fundamentalist Muslims have declared to be blasphemous”.

The cartoons in question were in fact the most explicitly racist of the series published by Jyllands-Posten: one of the Prophet with a bomb as a turban and another of a wild-eyed Prophet wielding a knife, with two terrified veiled women cowering behind him – the implication of course being that Muslims are terrorists and misogynists.

We look forward to Hari defending the right of anti-semites to parade round Trafalgar Square with a caricature of a hook-nosed Jew counting money. After all, we have to defend freedom of expression at all costs, don’t we?

Evening Standard, 31 March 2006

Fascists at ‘March for Free Expression’

defenders of free expressionThose who question whether the far right was present at Saturday’s ‘March for Free Expression’ in Trafalgar Square are referred to the BNP’s report, which states that the rally was attended by “a delegation from Civil Liberty, the organisation established earlier this year to defend the rights of patriotic Britons…. Whereas there are scores of organisations, some of which are publicly funded, that defend ethnic minority groups in their usual divisive way by excluding the indigenous majority from taking advantage of their services, until recently there has not been one single organisation that was prepared to defend the hard won freedoms of the British majority…. About 40 CL supporters attended the protest rally and handed out literature which was well received by other defenders of our fundamental liberties.”

BNP news report, 27 March 2006

See also Civil Liberty news report, 27 March 2006

Cf. Peter Tatchell’s claim: “Contrary to the lies and scaremongering of the far left, there was no BNP presence at Saturday’s rally.” Or the assertion by Tatchell’s sidekick Brett Lock that fascists “were explicitly banned from the march”. Odd that. I don’t recall seeing stewards intervening to prevent “Civil Liberty” distributing its glossy literature at the demonstration.

For the LAGCAR statement that Tatchell and Lock polemicise against, see here.

‘No Danish cartoons, please’ – appeal from protest organiser

Over a month ago Peter Risdon, organiser of the “March for Free Expression”, posted a notice on their website encouraging those attending Saturday’s protest to bring along and display copies of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. He wrote: “Since we are in favour of free speech, and because the reason why newspapers and magazines across Europe (though not, shamefully, in the UK) have republished the infamous cartoons was principally ‘We are Spartacus’ – we stand together – we will be happy to see reproductions of the cartoons in question at the rally.”

March for Free Expression website, 19 February 2006

Now Risdon is frantically backtracking: “At the outset, we said that displays of the Danish cartoons would be welcome on Saturday. No, let me rephrase that: At the outset, I, Peter Risdon, said the cartoons would be welcome. I am going to take full responsibility for this. I now think that was a mistake…. I now appeal to people not to bring the cartoons on T-shirts or placards.” Not only that, but “Muslims are welcome” at Saturday’s protest.

March for Free Expression website, 23 March 2006

But what about the other t-shirts you advertise on your site, Peter? You know, the ones with slogans like “Get your fatwa out of my face. Support Denmark. Support free speech”, “Up yours, ‘religion of peace’!”, “Viking jihad” and “Islam is a blast”. Are you still encouraging people to wear these?

Well, apparently not. If you click here you’ll find that the advert, headed “T-Shirts – But Be Quick!“, has mysteriously disappeared from the MFE site.

Peter states piously: “The principle of freedom of expression is used, by some, as a trojan horse, as a proxy for racism and islamophobia. Not by me. Not by us. Not by this campaign.” No, no, Peter – of course not.

Some of Peter’s followers are not best pleased about this liberal backsliding over the right to display racist caricatures: “This is surely what the march is about. By restricting the free speech of the protestors you will play into the hands of Islamophobia Watch…” . “I’m hugely disappointed by this. You’ve done exactly what the censors want. I’m really not sure I’ll bother coming along now, to be honest, and I’m guessing plenty of other people who have supported this campaign feel the same. I donated money to this campaign in good faith, and right now this feels like a betrayal of that faith. Will you be reimbursing people?” “I gave you money because I thought you were standing up to the tyranny of Islam, you sniveling coward. Either reverse course once again and welcome those cartoons back again THAT WERE THE ORIGINAL REASON FOR THIS MARCH or refund my money.” “Another pathetic example of grovelling to Muslim ‘sensibilities’.” “I don’t see how you can claim this march to still be in favour of free expression.” “I am incredibly disappointed by this – it is nothing but dhimmitude.” “YOU ARE A JOKE. Maybe it would be better if the march was cancelled! Hello we want free speech, but remember not to talk about the cartoons!!!! I feel sorry for people that sent you money.” “Unless you reverse this decision ASAP, I hereby withdraw my support unreservedly.” “What a bunch of wimps. You have obviously caved in to the Islamic pressure groups and the Mayor of Londinistan. Another victory for Sharia law and another defeat for Liberty.”

It can only be a matter of hours before Peter makes an appearance on Dhimmi Watch!

Postscript:  Yes, here it is.