A shocking picture from the current issue of Gay Times. Brett Lock, of Outrage and GALHA, looms threateningly over Ken Livingstone!
Don’t worry, it’s only a dummy. And the figure of the Mayor is a waxwork from Madame Tussauds.
Category Archives: Analysis & comment
‘We’ are quite distinct from Muslims, Telegraph asserts
“Muslims who choose to live in the West must accept that we, too, have a right to our values, and to live according to them. Muslims must accept the predominant mores of their adopted culture…. Those Muslims who cannot tolerate the openness and robustness of intellectual debate in the West have perhaps chosen to live in the wrong culture.”
Thus an editorial on the Danish cartoons controversy in the Daily Telegraph, 3 February 2006
Note the familiar use of “we”, evidently referring to the white majority community. “We” are to be distinguished from Muslims, who are presumably to be categorised as “them”. Muslims are instructed that they “must accept” the dominant non-Muslim culture, and are told that, if they refuse to do so, they should go back where they came from.
The Guardian is much more measured: “Yesterday’s acquittal of two British National party officials on race hatred charges for attacking Islam – and the triumphalist scenes as the two freed men emerged from court – are part of the context that must be weighed in asserting any right to publish cartoons that offend Muslims. So too is the political situation in Denmark itself, where the cartoons were first published, and where a large and strongly anti-immigrant party provides part of the parliamentary coalition supporting Denmark’s centre-right government. What is the message that is being sent, both in the BNP acquittal context and in the Danish context, by insisting on publishing such images? Those questions cannot be ducked – and nor can the answers.”
Editorial in Guardian, February 2006
‘Humiliating’ attack on London mayor in pro-imperialist US magazine
“Bad news for London’s Mayor: he has a humiliating cameo role in the latest issue of America’s most venerable Left-wing journal, Dissent. In an illuminating account of how the remnants of the radical Left in Britain have aligned themselves with fundamentalist Muslims, it mentions Ken Livingstone’s embrace of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Qatar-based cleric who supports homophobia, suicide-bombers in Palestine and the subordination of women. For the benefit of American readers who haven’t heard of Livingstone, the author describes him as ‘Galloway-lite’. Even before Celebrity Big Brother, this would have been pretty rude. Since the recent televised shenanigans, it is surely the most wounding insult in the political lexicon.”
Francis Wheen writes in the Evening Standard, 31 January 2006
Muslim terrorists organising in British prisons, Mad Mel claims
Quoting a Daily Mirror article, Melanie Phillips tells us “this is what’s going on in Belmarsh prison where a number of Muslim Brotherhood terror suspects are being held”:
“Violent Islamic extremists are terrorising inmates at Britain’s toughest jail with an iron fist as they trawl for al-Qaeda recruits. The gang of thugs – known as The Muslim Boys – intimidate frightened inmates at Belmarsh into joining their faith, beating those who refuse their bullying demands. Some bloodied victims have been slashed by razor blades attached to toothbrushes. Others have had boiling water hurled over them. Prisoners say they are in fear for their lives.”
Melanie Phillips’s Diary, 31 January 2006
Er … except that the Muslim Boys have nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood. They’re a criminal gang based in South London. But, what the heck, they both have the word “Muslim” in their name, so there can’t be that much difference can there, Mel? And it goes without saying that they all have links to al-Qaeda.
‘What’s at stake is the right to insult and cause offence’
So 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.
Religious hate bill changes urged
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.
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’
A 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.
New religious hate plans unveiled
Compromise plans to create a new offence of incitement to religious hatred while protecting free speech have been unveiled by ministers.
The government’s original plans for the new offence were heavily defeated in the House of Lords last year. Critics said the proposed legislation was drawn too widely and could outlaw criticisms of beliefs.
Ministers have now published their revised plans, which have been welcomed by some opposition peers.
They have bowed to the critics’ demand that incitement to religious hatred be covered by separate legislation rather than be joined to race hate laws.
Somebody could only be convicted of the new offence if they intended or were reckless about inciting hatred. And there is a new clause in the legislation declaring that a person is not guilty of an offence if they debate issues, insult or ridicule a religion – unless they intend to stir up religious hatred.
The Home Office says the original plans would not have stopped comedians telling religious jokes but the new plans give an “absolute guarantee”.
Home Office Minister Paul Goggins said the amendments would mean it would be an offence to incite hatred against Muslims, Hindus and Christians. It is already an offence to stir up hatred against Sikhs and Jews through race hate laws.
Lib Dem peer Lord Lester, a leading critic of the original plans, said the new amendments had sprung from talks with the government. “They are a great step forward for free speech,” he said.
The deal the government has done with the opposition is mainly unobjectionable. They have conceded Lord Lester’s demand that a separate Part 3A should be added to the Public Order Act which will deal exclusively with religious hatred, but that’s not a problem in itself. Where Lord Lester’s amendment, adopted by the Lords last October, restricted the offence of inciting religious hatred to words and actions that were “threatening”, the compromise deal changes this back to “threatening, abusive or insulting”. And where the Lester amendment required proof of intent, the new version criminalises the incitement of hatred by means of “reckless” behaviour.
So far, not so bad. But here’s the spoonful of tar. The new version includes a passage which states that “a person is not guilty of an offence … of intending to stir up religious hatred if he intends to stir up hatred against a religion, religious belief or religious practice but does not also intend to stir up hatred against a group of persons”. This looks to me like a major loophole in the legislation which will work to the advantage of the far Right.
The BNP’s anti-Muslim hate propaganda is always carefully crafted so it is formally directed against Islam as a religion rather than against Muslims as people. The defence that BNP führer Nick Griffin used at Leeds Crown Court this week was that, while he stood by the speech in which he denounced Islam as a “vicious, wicked faith”, he denied that his views were an attack on the adherents of that faith. “There’s a huge difference”, he stated piously, “between criticising a religion and saying this is an attack on the people who follow it. When I criticise Islam, I criticise that religion and the culture it sets up, certainly not Muslims as a group and most definitely not Asians.” (Guardian, 26 January 2006.)
The argument that you can incite hatred against a particular faith without also inciting hatred against the people who practise it is of course entirely bogus (see for example Osama Saeed’s comments), but the government is proposing to insert a clause into the Bill that gives credibility to Griffin’s position. Someone needs to get onto this quick. The Commons debate is scheduled for next Tuesday.
Geoff Martin on Respect and Islamophobia
“By the time you read this, Respect will be finished as a political organisation – not just because of the Galloway nonsense but for far better reasons which are bound up with their hopeless attempt to tie religious fundamentalism in with progressive left policies…. Ask them why they don’t challenge the rank homophobia of leading figures in the Muslim Association of Britain and ask them why they share platforms with the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood. Ask them any of these questions and the convenient accusation of Islamaphobia will be slung back at you.”
Geoff Martin in Labour Left Briefing, February 2006
More misrepresentation of Manji
Another puff piece for Irshad Manji, who is apparently a leader of “reform-minded Muslims”.
This despite the fact that Manji is almost universally loathed by Muslims, including the most “reform-minded” of her co-religionists. On the other hand, Manji is greatly admired by the likes of Melanie Phillips and Daniel Pipes.
And while the Murdoch press is happy to promote Manji, it has no hesitation in also publishing articles entitled “How my neighbourhood was lost to the multiculture“.