Category Archives: Analysis & comment

Tariq Ramadan = Hitler, according to Phyllis Chesler

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Phyllis Chesler“As Americans, we have a long and legendary history of welcoming and assimilating immigrants. This includes granting political asylum to those in flight from political persecution. But, as Americans, we must also ensure that what has gone wrong in Europe – or what some are now calling ‘Eurabia’ – does not happen here. At this moment in history, we cannot allow a large influx of Arab and Muslim immigrants who have no intention of assimilating into a western, modern, and democratic American way of life…. I am talking about the ways in which a small but organized number of Muslim-Americans and Muslim immigrants, aided by their many Christian- and Jewish-American supporters, are currently seeking to begin the Islamization of America.”

Phyllis Chesler in Front Page Magazine, 21 March 2006

Along with references to “Eurabia” and Bat Ye’or, it’s always a sign that Islamophobia has reached the point of total dementia when a commentator launches into a diatribe against Tariq Ramadan. And Chesler does not disappoint:

“Ramadan is … a suave apologist for Islamic religious and gender apartheid and is, arguably, pro-jihad. He is, no doubt, a ‘moderate’ compared to al-Qaeda’s Bin Laden and Iran’s Ahmadinejad. Yet Ramadan may outdistance such terrorist counterparts in terms of his far more sophisticated disinformation capability…. Why did PEN – a distinguished Association of Writers of which I am a proud member – feel obliged to honor or to ‘invite’ Ramadan to their festive annual conference which will take place at the end of April of 2006? Would they extend a similar honor to Hitler?”

Tatchell loses Muslim speaker, Maryam Namazie steps in as replacement

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Advance publicity for the annual Peter Tatchell Human Rights Fund fundraiser, which was held last night, made much of the fact that Sheikh Dr Muhammad Yusuf, Chair of the Council of University Imams, was billed as one of the speakers.

However, Sheikh Yusuf withdrew from the engagement, apparently because of pressure from “senior Muslim figures”. Presumably they made clear to Sheikh Yusuf that Tatchell would use his presence at the event to give credibility to Outrage’s anti-Muslim campaigns.

And how did Tatchell spin the news? In characteristically Islamophobic fashion. It was reported under the headline “Liberal Muslim theologian pulls out of Tatchell lecture after threats: Lecture cancelled after fears for Sheikh’s safety”!

Happily, Maryam Namazie of the Worker Communist Party of Iran stepped in to replace Sheikh Yusuf. Yes, that’s the same Maryam Namazie who described the Islamic headscarf as “comparable to the Star of David pinned on Jews by the Nazis to segregate, control, repress and to commit genocide”. Much more in keeping with the spirit of the event, I’d have thought.

The far right, racists and the ‘March for Free Expression’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Over at the “March for Free Expression” website they’ve taken issue with this post on Islamophobia Watch, where we referred to the support given to their demonstration by the “Civil Liberty” campaign, which is a far-right front headed by a BNP organiser.

March for Free Expression blog, 17 March 2006

In fact, contrary to the assertion by “Voltaire”, our point was not that the MFE supports the far right, but rather that the far right supports the MFE.

And while we’re on the subject of the far right, one of the organisations listed as a supporter of the “March for Free Expression”, and who have a platform speaker at Saturday’s protest, is the “Libertarian Alliance”. This is an organisation that welcomed the acquittal of BNP führer Nick Griffin and his fascist sidekick at Leeds Crown Court and expressed concern that the acquittal was only “partial” (because the CPS intends to have the case re-tried).

Sean Gabb, director of the Libertarian Alliance, who will be speaking at Saturday’s rally, commented: “Doubtless, there are people who take offence at the expression of certain views on race and immigration. But free speech that does not include the right to give offence is not free speech. It is the political equivalent of decaffeinated coffee. If people are upset by what they read or hear, let them ignore it or argue against it. There is no place in these debates for the Thought Police.”

Libertarian Alliance press release, 3 February 2006

As can be seen, the Libertarian Alliance stands for the repeal of all legislation against racial hatred and discrimination, and proposes that “the Commission for Racial Equality and all similar organisations should be abolished, and their records burned”.

We also note that “various branches of UKIP” are listed among the sponsors of the MFE. UKIP’s manifesto declares that Britain is “bursting at the seams” due to an influx of foreigners, and one of its leaders, Nigel Farage, is reported to have stated: “We will never win the nigger vote. The nig-nogs will never vote for us.” See What Next? No.29.

Still, not to worry, we have Nick Cohen’s assurance that the protest will be “filled with democratic leftists, Liberal Democrats, secularists and Iranian and Saudi Arabian dissidents”.

Nick Cohen supports anti-Muslim demo

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Nick Cohen (surprise, surprise) throws his weight behind the “March for Free Expression”:

“Next Saturday at 2pm in Trafalgar Square, there will be a rally for freedom of expression. I think it’s fair to say that previous generations would be astonished that their descendants would have to take to the streets to demand such a basic right, but after the death threats against cartoonists, it seems we do. Fortunately, the British National Party is nowhere to be seen and the rally will be filled with democratic leftists, Liberal Democrats, secularists and Iranian and Saudi Arabian dissidents.

“With the white far right out of the picture, the brown far right has barged in and Islamic fundamentalists are proposing to hold demonstrations against free speech away from central London. So, if you want to protest on Saturday, you have a choice: for free speech or against? Come on, it’s not that hard a choice. All will be welcome in Trafalgar Square. Dress? Danish.”

Observer, 19 March 2006

Well, we’ll see how it turns out. I would expect the “Free Expression” event to attract a full complement of right-wingers and racists. But then, as we’ve pointed out before, it’s not that easy to distinguish them from “democratic leftists” of Cohen’s ilk.

As for the “brown far right”, this refers to the Muslim Action Committee, an umbrella organisation that includes Q News among its affiliates. You begin to wonder whether Cohen has finally lost his marbles.

‘Alliance with bigots won’t halt fascists’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Another anti-Muslim diatribe from Peter Tatchell, who resurrects his campaign to get the MCB banned from February’s Unite Against Fascism conference. A phrase involving the words “dog” and “own vomit” immediately springs to mind. For coverage of this issue on our site, see here, here, here, here and here.

While the uncritical support given to Tatchell by Tribune may serve the personal political agenda of the magazine’s deputy editor, it is extremely damaging to the Labour Party’s relations with Muslim communities, which are already under severe strain following the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps readers of our site might like to point this out (in appropriately restrained language) to Tribune‘s editor, Chris McLaughlin?

Alliance with bigots won’t halt fascists 

By Peter Tatchell

Tribune, 17 March 2006

Human rights campaigners claiming victory after Sir lqbal Sacranie failed to speak, as advertised, at the recent trade union-sponsored Unite Against Fascism (UAF) conference in London. His no-show followed widespread protests against his participation. Sacranie has condemned gay people as immoral, harmful and diseased.

Supported by London Mayor Ken Livingstone, plus five trade unions and the South East Region of the TUC, the UAF conference theme was “Stop the BNP”. Why did UAF invite a speaker whose views on homosexuality echo the bigotry of the far Right?

Continue reading →

Fascists support ‘March for Free Expression’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Islam is a blastThe “March for Free Expression” (which, as we have already noted, is essentially a march for the right to incite hatred against Muslims) is due to go ahead in Trafalgar Square on 25 March. Its website today features an attack on the Muslim Action Committee, a broad-based body involving Muslim organisations from Q News to Hizb ut-Tahrir which organised a mass protest over the Danish cartoons in London on 18 February.

The “March for Free Expression” organisers take particular exception to an Islamic Human Rights Commission press release which quotes Faiz Siddiqi of MAC condemning the “Free Expression” protest as “a provocation to 1.6 billion Muslims”. Faiz Siddiqi goes on to state that “The continued irresponsible actions of the BNP in distributing leaflets with the cartoons on across the country are also provoking anger throughout the Muslim community.”

The MFE statement complains: “We think the inclusion of a reference to the BNP in this press release is an attempt to associate this campaign with that political party which, as anyone who has looked at this site will know, is deeply dishonest.”

Oh yeah? Well how about this press release from the so-called “Civil Liberty” campaign, a fascist front organisation headed by the BNP’s North East organiser Kevin Scott? It states: “Civil Liberty are to attend the Support Free Speech Demo and rally in Trafalgar Square between 2:00pm and 4:00pm on Saturday March 25th 2006…. We ask all supporters to attend the rally.”

Backing from the extreme right is hardly accidental. One of the posters available for promoting the “March for Free Expression” is a version of the Danish flag, described as the “Heart for Freedom“, which plainly solidarises with the decision of Jyllands-Posten to publish racist anti-Muslim caricatures. And the MFE site advertises T-shirts carrying slogans such as “Get your fatwa out of my face. Support Denmark. Support free speech”, “Up yours, ‘religion of peace’!” and “Islam is a blast”.

The claim by the organisers that “This will be a march in favour of free expression, not a march against Muslims” can, I think, be treated with the derision it deserves.

Oriana Fallaci: Muslim takeover of Europe was planned by Palestinians

Posted on by Eddie Truman

Oriana FallaciOriana Fallaci claims that when she interviewed George Habash in 1972 he let slip the Muslim grand strategy of conquering Europe by breeding.

At first she thought the leading Palestinian politician was just talking about terrorism but now she realises that he “also meant the cultural war, the demographic war, the religious war waged by stealing a country from its citizens … In short, the war waged through immigration, fertility, presumed pluriculturalism.”

This of course fits in with her statement that Muslims have “multiplied like rats” in Europe.

If only she’d spotted it then, she could have told, and presumably saved, the world.

And of course the dear old lady is “stricken with cancer and has been hounded by death threats and charges of ‘Islamophobia'”.

We’re genuinely regretful about her medical condition; the longer Oriana Fallaci is on this earth spouting her foul racist poison, the more the true motivations of the Islamophobes are exposed.

LA Weekly, 15 March 2006

Use the LA Weekly Feedback facility to let them know what you think about this ultra racist garbage being given credibility.

Islamophobia Watch articles on Oriana Fallaci here.

Telegraph accused of capitulation to ‘Islamic threat’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Noble Qur'anThe latest cause célèbre adopted by right-wing bloggers in their campaign to defend free speech (i.e. the right to vilify Muslims) is the Sunday Telegraph‘s decision to remove from its website an interview by Alasdair Palmer with Patrick Sookhdeo, head of the Christian evangelical organisation the Barnabas Fund, which originally appeared in the 19 February issue of the paper. The Telegraph has explained that this was for “legal reasons”.

The “legal reasons” undoubtedly refer to Sookhdeo’s attack on the book The Noble Qur’an: A New Rendering of its Meaning in English. “It calls for the killing of Jews and Christians”, Palmer’s article quoted Sookhdeo as saying, “and it sets out a strategy for killing the infidels and for warfare against them. The Government has done nothing whatever to interfere with the sale of that book. Why not? Government ministers have promised to punish religious hatred, to criminalise the glorification of terrorism, yet they do nothing about this book, which blatantly does both.”

The book named by Sookhdeo is a highly-regarded translation of the Qur’an by Abdalhaqq and Aisha Bewley. His attack, which provoked an international outcry, was plainly libellous, and it would appear that the Bewleys asked for, and received, a retraction by the Telegraph. (For details, see here, here and here.)

For the Islamophobic inhabitants of the blogosphere, the removal of the article from the Telegraph site is just another example of western capitulation to the “Islamic threat”. Western Resistance, the Infidel Bloggers Alliance and Exit Zero are among the blogs that have reprinted the Sookhdeo interview, all in the interests of freedom of expression, you understand. Hopefully the Bewleys will sue the lot of them.

The Infidel Bloggers site goes so far as to claim that, by publicising and denouncing the Sookhdeo interview, Islamophobia Watch was responsible for the sacking of former Sunday Telegraph editor Sarah Sands. Publishing Alasdair Palmer’s article without checking the facts may have been an act of incompetence on Sands’ part, but we doubt this was the cause of her dismissal. A rather more pressing reason was the continuing decline in the paper’s circulation that accompanied her nine-month period as editor.

‘Islamo-fascists threaten British freedom of speech’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Thus the headline to the latest BNP news release. The fascists’ indignation is directed against the Muslim Action Committee’s statement, as reported in Eastern Eye, that they want legal action to be taken against the BNP over its latest anti-Muslim leaflet. The Eastern Eye report claims: “Under the government’s new race and religion law, the BNP can be prosecuted if its leaflets stir up hatred and pose a direct threat to Muslim people.”

Unfortunately, this is not true. The Racial and Religious Hatred Bill was wrecked by the “Lester amendment”, formulated by Lib Dem peer Lord Lester, which rejected the government’s proposal to illegalise material that has the effect of stirring up hatred against Muslims. For a successful prosecution, it would be necessary to prove that the BNP intended to incite hatred through their leaflet, and proof of subjective intent is notoriously difficult to establish. Nor does the law, as neutered by Lester and his friends, criminalise material that poses an objective threat to Muslims. Rather, it would be necessary for the prosecution to demonstrate that the words contained in the BNP pamphlet are themselves “threatening”. And the fascists have taken care to ensure that they are not.

Daniel Pipes finds comfort in Muslims killing Muslims

Posted on by Bob Pitt

John Walsh on America’s leading Islamophobe, in Counterpunch 9 March 2006

Whether it is accurate to describe Pipes as a neocon in questionable, though, in the sense of advocating an aggressive US foreign policy aimed at removing hostile regimes under cover of imposing democracy. He has always been sceptical that “brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene” are ready for democracy.