Tribune joins the witch-hunt against Adam Yosef. Deputy editor Barckley Sumner mainly restricts himself to parroting Outrage’s stupid press release portraying Adam Yosef as a violent racist homophobe. But Sumner goes further, suggesting that Adam Yosef’s NUJ card should be withdrawn. Yosef’s article on Birmingham Pride is of course entirely ignored, as it wouldn’t fit in with Sumner’s own bigotry. Unfortunately this is par for the course with Tribune. We have already drawn attention to the magazine’s recent disgraceful attack on the Muslim Association of Britain. Sumner and his friends appear intent on destroying any remaining credibility the Labour Party has among British Muslims.
Category Archives: Analysis & comment
Fascist predicted London bombings claim
Media coverage of the trial of fascist supremo Nick Griffin is not exactly helpful. The Times reports yesterday’s court proceedings under the headline “BNP chief predicted an Islamist attack on British city, court told”, the Telegraph article is headlined “BNP leader predicted attack a year before London bombs”, BBC News has “BNP boss ‘predicted bomb attacks'” and Channel 4 “BNP leader ‘predicted’ July bombings”.
Of course, it is true that the defence did make these claims at Leeds Crown Court. But in the aftermath of the Blair government’s participation in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq there was hardly anyone who didn’t predict that the UK would be subjected to reciprocal terrorist attacks. The effect of these headlines is to give the impression that the fascist leader possessed some unique insight into the situation.
The Nazis themselves are well pleased with the media coverage: “When Nick told a packed private meeting at Morley Town Hall that ‘sooner or later there’s going to be Islamic terrorists letting off bombs in major cities’ the number of people in that hall numbered about 120. Now tens of millions of newspaper readers, web viewers and radio listeners in the UK and beyond have heard this prophetic statement….”
The witch-hunt against Adam Yosef
What with Outrage, the Gay & Lesbian Humanist Association and (even further to the right) Flame Out all dedicated to attacking Muslims’ attitudes to LGBT rights, you might think that the market for gay Islamophobia was already a bit crowded. But the new year has brought us yet another organisation, the previously unheard-of Gay Action Media Watch.
GAMW launched itself on 5 January with a campaign against Adam Yosef, who writes for the Asian entertainment magazine Desi Xpress. In a statement posted on Indymedia and headed “Muslim journalist attacks Gays – please complain!“, GAMW objected to an article Yosef had written for Desi Xpress containing the following passage: “Hmmm… gay weddings… Gay people and commitment? I don’t think so… They’ll be shagg*ng the neighbours before they even cut the cake. Bad idea I’m afraid. Great way of evading tax though…” GAMW called for letters of protest to be sent to local papers in Birmingham where Desi Xpress is based, and for formal complaints to be made to the Press Complaints Commission.
On the face of it (allowing for the fact that we are dependent on an edited extract from Yosef’s article) this does look like a clear example of anti-gay stereotyping. However, it falls well short of “bigotry and hate against gay people eminating from the words of young Muslims”, which was how GAMW characterised Yosef’s remarks. Furthermore, as a contributor to Indymedia immediately pointed out, GAMW’s portrayal of Adam Yosef as a hate-filled homophobic bigot was rather undermined by the fact that he had posted an article on Indymedia in June 2005, headed “Pride – The Real Rainbow“, that offered a glowing review of Birmingham Pride. In the article, Yosef had written:
“I saw a lot of ordinary-looking people – that is, without elaborate costumes, gay and straight, people of all races and all ages – just relaxing, enjoying the weekend and having fun. I saw adults, children, families, couples and pets. I saw black and white and young and old alike. I saw a trustee of a major city mosque cheer with glee as the procession of dancers and drag queens paraded into the heart of Hurst Street. I saw Sikh men with beards and turbans browsing through the stalls and loving the atmosphere, I saw Muslim girls with hijabs shouting ‘Gay, Muslim and Proud’ as part of Asian lesbian project SAFRA, there were black and Asian youngsters, people of all backgrounds and origins, OAPs, students – heck, I even saw Darth Vader! … In all my experience of attending cultural or diverse festivals, Pride is the only event where I have really seen such a diverse range of people from so many social and ethnic backgrounds. To have streets crammed with so many different people all enjoying themselves and accepting each other is, to me, what Pride represents.”
As one commentator on the GAMW post observed: “If it wasn’t for the pride article, maybe I would say Adam Yosef is a little homophobic but it’s hard to once you read the article.” Others were equally critical of GAMW’s attack on Yosef. One commentator asked: “Of all the journo’s and celebrities that have recently said dodgy stuff about gay marriage why have you selected Adam Yosef?” Another agreed: “Yes, why Adam Yosef? Would attacking a non-Muslim NOT have been in keeping with the current political climate? Are you more likely to get press coverage if you attack a Muslim?”
Another case for Interpal’s lawyers? And George Galloway’s?
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.
‘The hypocrisy of the Muslim Council is beyond belief’
Thus 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.
Plaudits for Tatchell from right-wing racists
Another day, another tribute to Peter Tatchell from right-wing Islamophobes. Over at Western Resistance, a renewed attack on the Muslim Council of Britain – “Sacranie and Inayat Bunglawala are unapologetic anti-semites” – features a lengthy declaration of admiration for Tatchell as “a brave and committed individual”.
Scroll down to the first entry under 10 January, and you’ll find the racists of Western Resistance taking a very different view of another gay Green party politician, Australian senator Bob Brown – who, unlike Tatchell, has taken a clear stand against Islamophobia, condemning the Attorney-General for insulting Australian Muslims (see here).
“What is so weird about Senator Bob Brown’s position on Islam”, Western Resistance complains, “is that he is the first openly homosexual member of Australia’s parliament. Surely, he is not too naive to know that he would be one of the first to be metaphorically ‘thrown to the wolves’ by true followers of the rules and customs of Islam?”
Some of us might not find it so “weird” that gay non-Muslim politicians can take a principled position against anti-Muslim bigotry. Furthermore, by his actions Senator Brown undoubtedly makes a vastly more effective contribution than Tatchell does to encouraging more positive attitudes within Muslim communities towards the issue of gay rights.
British Muslim group declares new jihad – twice!
Hide under your beds, Robert Spencer has uncovered “A new declaration of war on Britain and the West – from Omar Bakri, formerly one of Britain’s highest-profile jihadists”.
I think Robert must be running short of jihadists to frighten us with. He’s already announced this “new declaration of war”, based on the same YNet story, back in October last year.
The Muslim Council of Britain and Holocaust Memorial Day
“… the anti-semitic cabal running the MCB has announced that as the Holocaust Memorial Trust has not given in to their blackmailing, it will continue its boycott”.
Western Resistance, 5 January 2006
Ah yes, this would be the same “anti-semitic cabal” who, explaining why the MCB would not be supporting Holocaust Memorial Day last year, wrote:
“The Nazi Holocaust was a truly evil and abhorrent crime and we stand together with our fellow British Jews in their sense of pain and anguish. None of us must ever forget how the Holocaust began. We must remember it began with a hatred that dehumanised an entire people, that fostered state brutality, made second class citizens of honest, innocent people because of their religion and ethnic identity. Those who were vilified and seen as a threat could be subjected to group punishment, dispossession and impoverishment while the rest of the world stood idly by, washing its hands of despair and suffering….”
MCB statement, 24 January 2005
For an example of the views of those opposing MCB participation in Holocaust Memorial Day in its present form, see the comments by Osama Saeed of MAB. Rolled Up Trousers, 19 December 2005
Can ‘we’ tolerate homophobia for much longer?
Benjamin Cohen responds to Iqbal Sacranie’s views on homosexuality and civil partnerships:
“It used to be the case that libertarians and liberals could argue with some justification that tolerance is a necessary part of a liberal society. As a liberal, I could say to Sir Iqbal: ‘I disagree with you but I tolerate the right for you to be intolerant.’ However, I’m not sure that we can continue be tolerant of those who show so little respect for our liberal way of life….
“Perhaps he needs to consider what the inclusion of ‘Britain’ in the name of his organisation means. In my view, this means engaging with the realities of modern British life, engaging with our tolerance of views and practises alien to our own and our desire for liberty and equality to be spread across our nation. As an alternative, there are many other countries where one could reside in order to escape these peculiar liberties of modern British life.”
You can’t help but be struck by the casual racism underpinning this comment piece. We, the British, show “tolerance of views and practises alien to our own”, which presumably includes Islam. So Muslims are somehow different from “us”, the British, and if they don’t like “our” liberal way of life they have the option of leaving “our” country and pursuing their “alien” practices elsewhere.
You can imagine the outcry if similar comments were made in relation to Orthodox Jews in Britain, on the basis of Jonathan Sacks’ views on homosexuality – which aren’t, in fact, greatly different from Iqbal Sacranie’s. Sacks is on record as warning against “a real danger that the abolition of Section 28 will lead to the promotion of a homosexual lifestyle as morally equivalent to marriage” (see here) and, like Sacranie, he opposes civil partnerships as contrary to his religious principles (see here).
It’s also worth noting the comments section to the Pink News article. “Sam” observes: “There are plenty of countries where it is ok to discriminate against gays but not this one. Why doesn’t he go and live in one of them like Iran?” And “Don” responds: “I agree. If Iqbal doesn’t like it here, he could go to any number of Islamic countries where he would no doubt be warmly welcomed.” This is followed by the note that an “offensive comment” has been removed by Pink News staff. But the above remarks are apparently not deemed offensive by the moderators. Would they be equally happy with comments suggesting that, since the Chief Rabbi is opposed to Britain’s liberal legislation on gay rights, he too should leave the country?
Update: Someone has posted excerpts from our piece in the Pink News comments box, and the article has now been rewritten to take account of our criticisms.
Islamophobia Watch ‘ridiculous’, Spencer claims
Islamophobia Watch comes in for some stick from Robert Spencer and his chums. We are pleased to hear that Spencer is not a supporter of imperialist warmongering. In the event of a decision by the US government to bomb Iran, we are sure we can count on his resolute opposition to such an act of aggression.