Category Archives: Analysis & comment

Dog returns to vomit

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Harry’s Place resumes its attack on Yusuf al-Qaradawi as an anti-semite, with the use of material provided by … yes, I know, this does all have a wearying familiarity … the Middle East Media Research Institute.

Harry’s Place, 10 June 2005

Perhaps the author of that post would be advised to consult another piece from MEMRI which gives a fuller and relatively accurate of Qaradawi’s position on Judaism. (Quite why MEMRI published this latter excerpt is unclear – it was in the context of a widely publicised attack on their self-proclaimed objectivity, and was perhaps a defensive manoeuvre. Whatever the explanation, the change of line didn’t last long.)

MEMRI Special Dispatch Series No.858

Liberal joins neocons in anti-Amnesty campaign

Posted on by Bob Pitt

irenekhan2The speech by Amnesty general secretary Irene Khan describing Guantánamo as the “gulag of our times” (see here) reduced the US right to apoplexy. From Donald Rumsfeld down, they united to deny there was any parallel between incarcerating millions of Soviet citizens and locking up a mere 600 Muslims. See here, here, here, here, here and so ad infinitum.

Now here’s a test for you. Which journalist on a liberal Sunday newspaper could be relied upon to echo the anti-Amnesty propaganda of the US neocons?

Continue reading →

Interview with Tariq Ramadan

Posted on by Bob Pitt

SIThere’s an interesting interview with Tariq Ramadan in the current edition of the French journal Socialisme International. Among other issues, Professor Ramadan deals with the media bias against him, the hostility he provokes among a section of the far left, Islamophobia and racism, relations between Muslims and the left, and his views on Malcolm X and Karl Marx.

Socialisme International, Spring 2005

The journal is not available online but subscription details can be obtained from their website or from John Mullen at john.mullen@wanadoo.fr

Because of the prominent role he has played in the European Social Forum, Tariq Ramadan has been a controversial figure on the French left. Catherine Samary mounted a vigorous defence of Ramadan’s participation in the 2003 ESF (see here and here), though her article does not pretend to offer an overall evaluation of Ramadan’s ideas and political engagement.

Continue reading →

Discover the terrorist-supporting commies

Posted on by Bob Pitt

guantanamo-bay“The detention facilities at Guantánamo, including Camp X-ray and Camp Delta, were constructed specifically to house individuals apprehended in the war on terror. Enemy combatants held at the camp must be foreign nationals who have either received training from al Qaeda, or who have been in command of 300 or more military personnel. They are among the world’s most brutal and committed Islamist enemies of the United States. By incarcerating and interrogating them, the U.S. hopes to gain crucial intelligence that could thwart future terrorist attacks against America and to keep them from returning to the terror war against the United States.”

Well, that’s reassuring. Thank God for Discoverthenetworks.org, is all I can say. They also provide a useful exposé of the Guantánamo Human Rights Commission, succinctly defined as a “human rights group committed to defending Islamic jihadists captured on the field of battle in Afghanistan and being detained at Guantánamo Bay”.

The piece continues: “The GHRC was founded by actress Vanessa Redgrave, a Trotskyite with a venomous hostility towards the state of Israel, and her brother, actor Corin Redgrave. A founder of the Marxist Party and a supporter of the Communist Workers Revolutionary Party, Ms. Redgrave has a long history of supporting terrorists…. GHRC co-founder Corin Redgrave is also a committed Communist and an apologist for terrorists.”

Discoverthenetworks.org, 1 June 2005

Discoverthenetworks deserve credit for exposing this plot against the free world. As a glance at its website reveals, the Guantánamo Human Rights Commission includes among its sponsors such notorious figures as Peter Bottomley, Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP, Margaret Drabble, the Bishop of Oxford and other well-known supporters of Islamist terrorism.

Why pick on Pipes?

Posted on by Bob Pitt

PipesIn a recent email to Islamophobia Watch, George Carty writes: “…why have you included a lot of stuff about Daniel Pipes – a pretty bog-standard neoconservative – but nothing about far more extreme Muslim-haters such as Ali Sina (http://www.faithfreedom.org) or Jamie Glazov (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/authors.asp?ID=3)? It pains me to see Glazov’s sexualized ranting, or the warmongering of Victor Davis Hanson, go unrefuted. By the way I suggest you link to LGF Watch at lgfwatch.blogspot.com and Warblogger Watch at warbloggerwatch.blogspot.com.”

I suppose the reason for picking on Daniel Pipes is that he does exercise (or has done in the past) some influence on mainstream politics in the United States. Although Pipes now seems to have been rather sidelined by the administration, in 2003 Bush asserted his presidential powers to ensure Pipes’ appointment to the board of the United States Institute of Peace, overruling objections by a Senate committee. Last year, through his widely published articles on the issue, Pipes played an important role in justifying the decision by the Department of Homeland Security to withdraw Tariq Ramadan’s work permit and prevent him taking up his post at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana.

The other figures mentioned by George have received some coverage on Islamophobia Watch, and perhaps should have received more. But there is the question (and the same consideration applies to reporting the postings on Jihad Watch) as to whether comprehensively covering the ravings of individuals from the lunatic fringe of the US Right gives undue weight to their views. See for example yesterday’s demented rant by Ali Sina on FaithFreedom.org.

Of course, I lack any in-depth knowledge of US politics, and perhaps people like Sina have more influence than I attribute to them.

If anyone feels we’ve missed out on any relevant material please email us the details at editorial@islamophobiawatch.co.uk

Jihad Watch goes UK

Posted on by Bob Pitt

madmel“Political correctness is turning lethal. Stockport Council is now using resource packs provided by the Muslim Council of Britain to teach schoolchildren about Islam, an initiative which is to be extended across the nation.” Melanie Phillips in another frothing-at-the-mouth attack on the MCB.

Melanie Phillips’s Diary, 30 May 2005

Here’s a further reason why it would be a mistake to dismiss Robert Spencer as a politically marginal fruitcake. Mad Mel (whose views reach a mass audience via her Daily Mail column) not only bases her article on a post from Spencer’s blog (see here), she even borrows the title for her article from him – “Dhimmi Britain”.

Spencer, for his part, reciprocates with a tribute to “the incomparable Melanie Phillips”.

Dhimmi Watch, 30 May 2005

For a reply to Phillips by Yusuf Smith, see Indigo Jo Blogs, 30 May 2005

Spencer spells it out

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Spencer“I have written on numerous occasions that there is no distinction in the American Muslim community between peaceful Muslims and jihadists.” Robert Spencer spells it out.

Jihad Watch, 30 May 2005

This is the man who has also written: “Islam is not a monolith, and never have I said or written anything that characterizes all Muslims as terrorist or given to violence.” See here.

So, while it’s tempting to dismiss Spencer as an irrelevant right-wing crank, his pious declarations that he doesn’t regard all Muslims as terrorists, accompanied by more hardline statements that this is exactly what he does think they are, presents in a particularly crude and transparent form the sort of double-talk we hear from more sophisticated Islamophobes like Daniel Pipes.

Update:  For Spencer’s response, see here.

Another secularist rant from Nick Cohen

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Oriana FallaciIn today’s Observer, Nick Cohen rallies to the defence of Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, who published a book immediately following the Madrid bombing in which she argued that Muslim immigration is turning Europe into “an Islamic province, an Islamic colony” and that “to believe that a good Islam and a bad Islam exist goes against all reason”. In an earlier book, published after 9/11, she wrote that Muslim immigrants in the West have “multiplied like rats”. (See here.)

Cohen takes a relaxed view of this racist filth. He opposes a decision by the Muslim Union of Italy to take legal action against Fallaci, portraying it as an attempt to suppress free speech. “What she says may not be true”, he concedes (may not be true?!), but he defends her right to say it. “Fallaci is a raging prima donna. Still, since when has it been a criminal offence for prima donnas to sing, however tunelessly?”

Would Cohen take a similarly relaxed view of a book which claimed that Jews are breeding like rats and turning Europe into a Jewish colony? I think not. In any case, under existing race relations legislation, the author of that sort of writing would be open to prosecution in this country. If that happened, I rather doubt that Cohen would write a column for the Observer condemning legal action being taken.

Continue reading →

Nick Cohen and Bethnal Green

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Philip Dore writes:

Hi

Just drawing your attention to an error on your website.

The entry “Nick Cohen – telling lies about Bethnal Green (2)” (Islamophobia Watch, 12 May 2005) states that Oona King’s press release on the attack of Jewish mourners by Muslim youths makes no mention of the attackers spitting, throwing eggs or shouting “you fucking Jews”.

There are in fact news reports of such actions having taken place. You can find a report detailing this here.

I draw your attention to the following paragraph: “One theory is that the abuse was directed at Oona King (…). However, quite a number of the attendees were wearing kippot (skull caps), and some of the abuse shouted was vocally anti-Semitic. I heard people shouting ‘you f***ing Jews’, he declared.”

I would also draw your action to a Guardian report on the incident here which reports those mourners present as stating that they believed they were attacked because they were Jewish, rather than because they were with Oona King. It also quotes a local youth as telling the reporter, “There’s a lot of hatred towards the Jewish. We’ve got hatred towards them.”

Given these two reports providing evidence of antisemitic attitudes, you might wish to consider removing or amending this post. Also, since the post accuses Nick Cohen of “telling lies”, I strongly suggest you remove that before he sees it, since the corroboration of his claims makes your post a defamatory one.

Cheers

Phil Dore

Continue reading →

The Evening Standard, Mad Mel and the Muslim Council of Britain

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Flames of HateOn 20 May, during a protest outside the US embassy in London against the desecration of the Qu’ran at Guantánamo, a minority of demonstrators chanted extremist slogans. The Evening Standard reported:

“Led by a man on a megaphone, they chanted, ‘USA watch your back, Osama is coming back’ and ‘Kill, kill USA, kill, kill George Bush’. A small detail of police watched as they shouted: ‘Bomb, bomb New York’ and ‘George Bush, you will pay, with your blood, with your head’.”

Though the Standard mentioned that only “some among the crowd” were responsible for chanting these slogans, the overall impression given was that the demonstration was dominated by such elements. If more moderate voices were present, you’d never have known it from the Standard report.

Evening Standard, 20 May 2005

Predictably Melanie Phillips leaped on this. Basing herself on the Evening Standard report, she claimed that “among the organisers of this revealing hate-fest” was the Muslim Council of Britain.

Melanie Phillips’s Diary, 24 May 2005

Yeah right, Melanie. The MCB is well known for its support of Osama bin Laden and its enthusiastic endorsement of 9/11. But why let facts get in the way of an outburst of anti-Muslim prejudice, eh?

For the MCB’s letter to the Evening Standard, see here.

See also Yusuf Smith’s comments, though he mistakenly accepts as good coin the Standard‘s false report that the MCB helped organise the demo.

Indigo Jo Blogs, 25 May 2005