Category Archives: Analysis & comment

Norway: how the ‘experts’ at Quilliam helped to stoke fears of Islamist terrorism

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The Sun wasn’t alone in jumping to the immediate conclusion that “Islamist fanatics” were behind the terror attacks in Norway.

A piece by Jerome Taylor in the Independent, headed “Analysis: Jihadist networks have long singled out Norway”, stated:

Jihadist networks have long singled out Norway as a legitimate – if low priority – target. As early as 2003 al-Qa’ida’s then number two and now leader Ayman al-Zawahiri specifically called on militants to attack the country in an audiotape condemning the invasion of Iraq. Norway also continues to have a small contingent of troops in northern Afghanistan.

The source given to back up this speculation, which had no basis in any actual evidence that had emerged regarding the events in Norway, was Quilliam’s James Brandon, who was quoted as saying:

Norway is part of Nato’s mission in Afghanistan and as far as jihadists are concerned, any country involved in what they see as an illegal occupation of Muslim territory is a legitimate target.

Continue reading →

It was the Muslims wot done it – Sun’s knee-jerk response to terrorist atrocities in Norway

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Sun Norway's 9-11 headline“NORWAY’s 9/11” – that was the headline in the first edition of today’s Sun, with the strap “‘AL-QAEDA’ MASSACRE”.

As we now know, far from being a member of Al-Qaeda, the individual charged with carrying out the terrorist attacks is an extreme right-wing Islamophobe, and his hatred of the governments and political parties whose immigration policies he holds responsible for allowing the “Islamisation” of Europe was evidently inspired by the “counter-jihad” movement promoted by Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller and their European counterparts.

However, even a physical description of Anders Behring Breivik could not shake the Sun‘s initial conviction that Muslims were behind the atrocities. The paper reported: “Cops fear Islamist fanatics were out to kill PM Jens Stoltenberg, who was due to visit his political party’s youth camp on Utoeya Island – where a man was arrested. Witnesses claimed the gun maniac was blond with blue eyes and spoke Norwegian – raising fears that he was a homegrown Al-Qaeda convert.”

Norwegian police warned of rising far-right extremism

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Ahead of Friday’s terror attacks in Norway, Norwegian police intelligence had warned of rising activity in far-right and anti-Muslim extremist groups, but didn’t view it as a major threat to Norway.

The man charged in the attacks, which killed at least 92 people, has been identified in media reports as Anders Behring Breivik, a 32-year old with right-wing extremist and anti-Muslim views.

The Norwegian Police Security Service, or PST, in an annual threat assessment published in March, said “a higher degree of activism in groups hostile to Islam may lead to an increased use of violence.” PST also noted an “increase in the activity of far-right extremist circles in 2010,” and said, “This activity is expected to continue in 2011.”

However, the security service viewed Islamist extremism as a larger threat and concluded that far-right fringe groups or individuals wouldn’t constitute a major threat against Norwegian society.

The rhetoric on immigration and Islam in Norway has become harder in some fringe groups, Kari Helene Partapuoli, director of the nongovernmental Norwegian Centre against Racism, told Dow Jones Newswires.

Although the suspect’s online postings seem to express views largely consistent with anti-immigration right-wing movements, the apparent targeting of the Labor Party sets him somewhat apart, she said. “I think he views them as a party which represents multiculturalism,” she added.

She noted that the extreme-right movement in Norway is small and lacks the kind of organization it has in several other European countries, including neighboring Sweden. The lack of leading figures was also cited by PST as a factor hampering the growth of organized right-wing extremism.

Ms. Partapuoli noted that the discussion on immigration has been less prominent in Norway than in many other European countries. “We have seen relatively less of it in Norway; it has never been like in Denmark and Netherlands with their big debates about how multiculturalism has failed,” she noted.

“In that movement, they do label social democrats weak and naive, but this kind of hatred is not commonplace,” she said, adding that in his online rhetoric, the man “calls just about everyone who doesn’t agree with him a ‘Marxist’.” “I think he views them as a party which represents multiculturalism and this ‘Marxism’ threatening Norway,” Ms. Partapuoli said.

Wall Street Journal, 23 July 2011

Breivik’s hatred of the Labour Party certainly didn’t set him apart from the English Defence League, an organisation for which he expressed his admiration. When the EDL was founded, a Labour government was still in office in Britain and EDL propaganda consistently vilified Labour for having supposedly sold out to Muslims, as the placards below illustrate. They are from the first Dudley protest which took place in April 2010, in the run-up to the general election.

EDL anti-Labour placards

Results of ComRes poll on Islamophobia

Posted on by Bob Pitt

comres_logoComRes has conducted a poll on Islamophobia for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association. It produced some interesting results.

Asked who they thought was “most to blame for Islamophobia, fear of Islam, in the UK”, 29% of respondents replied that it was the media, while 14% blamed Muslims abroad, 13% far right political groups and 10% politicians and government.

Only 11% held Muslims in the UK to be most to blame for Islamophobia – which, considering the campaign of demonisation waged by the right-wing press against the Muslim community, is lower than you might have anticipated.

Unsurprisingly, given that they have been on the receiving end of that campaign, the poll found that a much larger proportion of Muslim respondents – 53% – believed that it was the media who were mainly responsible for Islamophobia.

There was also an interesting difference here based on age, with 40% of those aged 18-24 blaming the media, compared with 18% of those 65 or over.

Asked whether “the Islamic holy book, the Qur’an, justifies the use of violence against non-Muslims”, only 14% agreed, while 65% disagreed and 20% didn’t know. Only 9% of 18 to 24-year-olds agreed and 75% disagreed. Again, those results are reassuring, given the efforts made by the media, the far right and certain politicans to associate Islam with violent extremism.

Overall, these figures give the likes of the EDL little cause for optimism. Their campaign of abuse and intimidation against Muslims will no doubt continue, but most of the public – and an even larger majority of young people – appear to reject one of the central assumptions on which the far right’s anti-Islam offensive is based.

Nor does the poll provide good news for proponents of the view that Islamophobia is a myth. Only 1% of respondents replied that they “do not think that Islamophobia exists in the UK”.

EDL protestors who armed themselves with stolen pool balls meant no harm (according to their lawyer)

Posted on by Bob Pitt

EDL Halifax April 2011 (2)Two English Defence League supporters who armed themselves with pool balls stolen from a pub have been ordered to do unpaid work.

Michael Riley, 23, and Peter Craven, 28, travelled to Halifax from their homes in Hull for the far-right group’s town-centre demo in April. They were arrested after the landlady of the Beehive and Cross Keys pub reported the balls stolen from the premises.

Prosecutor Niall Carlin told Bradford Crown Court the men were part of a group that had gone into the King Cross Street pub, near the predominantly Asian Park ward. They were chanting racial slurs and breaking pool cues, making the licensee and regulars nervous, he said. The men were stopped and searched after leaving the pub, and Riley and Craven were found with the missing pool balls.

Riley, of Binbrook Garth, and Craven, of St Aidan’s Way, both admitted theft and possessing an offensive weapon. Ian Brook, mitigating, stressed they were supporters of the EDL, but not members, and there was no evidence they had been involved in any public disorder or breaking of pool cues.

Mr Brook said a group of Asian males had come towards a police cordon near the pub but neither group had made any attempt to get to the other. He said: “The defendants and their group were moving away from them, and it would appear they had wrongly stolen the pool balls and taken them up as weapons in case they needed to use them. There was no suggestion they were going to use them offensively against any of the Asian youths.”

Recorder Amanda Rippon said: “Nonetheless it was theft, first of all, and you armed yourself with a potentially dangerous weapon.”

The men, who have no previous convictions, were each sentenced to a 12-month community order with supervision, and must complete 80 hours of unpaid work.

Halifax Courier, 21 July 2011

“Stressed they were supporters of the EDL, but not members”? The EDL has no formal dues-paying structure, so all of its members are technically just supporters. Why are EDL protestors so pathetically eager to dissociate themselves from their own organisation whenever they get hauled up in front of a magistrate? Perhaps from now on they should sign off their racist Facebook rants with “NFSE – unless of course we find ourselves in court”.

Tory MPs packed APPG on Islamophobia meeting to remove ENGAGE

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Writing in the Jewish Chronicle Martin Bright provides an insight into how ENGAGE was removed as the secretariat of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Islamophobia earlier this week. It was accomplished by “a highly organised phalanx of 50 backbench Conservatives” who packed the meeting that took the decision to remove ENGAGE.

Continue reading →

Breastfeeding is banned – it offends Muslims

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Apparently it’s not just Christmas that has been banned because it offends Muslims but public breastfeeding too.

Last week the Daily Mail published a report under the headline “Breast-feeding mother ‘told to leave council headquarters because she would offend Muslim visitors’.” The Metro covered the story too, headlining their report “Breastfeeding mother ‘told to leave centre to prevent offending Muslims’.”

As the Press Not Sorry blog has pointed out, there is no evidence presented, either in the Mail or Metro articles or in the original Oldham Evening Chronicle report on which they were based, that the officials at Oldham’s Civic Centre who (entirely illegally) asked Emma Mitchell not to breastfeed her 19-week-old son in the building made any reference to Muslims.

The nearest we get to finding any basis for the “offence to Muslims” angle is in the Metro report, which quotes Mrs Mitchell as saying: “A member of the complaints department said, ‘You’ve caused an uproar in there.’ She must have been talking about the Asian people who were in a room.”

The Mail has since amended its report. The article originally began: “A breast-feeding mother has been ordered out of council offices after staff said it would ’cause an uproar’ among Muslim visitors, it has been claimed.” This has now been changed to: “A mother was ordered not to breastfeed her baby in public because she was in a ‘multicultural building’.”

So the Mail can’t pretend it is unaware of the inaccuracy of its original report. But that hasn’t prevented the paper retaining its misleading headline blaming the problem on Muslims.

Wilders serves freedom’s cause

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Geoffrey AldermanWell, that’s the view of Geoffrey Alderman, writing in the Jewish Chronicle. But don’t get the idea that Alderman is entirely uncritical of the Dutch far-right anti-Muslim racist.

Alderman applauds Wilders for being “absolutely unrepentant – and unrelenting – in his insistence on telling the truth about militant Islam”. And he continues:

“The very public statements that landed him in court included the challenging assertion that ‘Islam is a fascist ideology’ and the equally provocative allegations that ‘Islam and freedom, Islam and democracy are not compatible.’ Each of these statements is credible (or at least plausible) and each can be supported by evidence.”

On the other hand, in supporting a ban on ritual slaughter, which would result in the illegalisation of shechita, Wilders “has displayed a limited vision that does neither him nor his party any credit”. As Alderman explains:

“Shechita is in peril in the Netherlands partly because of the propaganda put out by the Freedom party against religious slaughter of food animals, which most Dutch people take to mean Muslim slaughter. In a frenzy of passion against Islam, the Dutch have punished the Jews.”

Whereas, in Alderman’s view, the Dutch should lay off the Jews and stick to punishing the Muslims.

‘It’s a white country, not a Muslim state’, BNP supporter told Asian neighbours

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Nigel HesmondhalghA man who made his Asian next door neighbours’ lives a misery with his anti-social and racist conduct was spared immediate jail.

Burnley Crown Court heard how Nigel Hesmondhalgh, 36, who had a British National Party sticker in the window of his Accrington home, was abusive and insulting to the couple, repeatedly picking on the wife. He piled dog dirt up in the alley outside their home and told them: “It’s a white country, not a Muslim state.”

Hesmondhalgh, said to be the carer for his brother, who has learning difficulties, told the husband of the couple he should be scared and shouted support for the BNP. The couple had lived in their home for 14 years before he moved in.

The defendant, of Stanley Street, Accrington, was given 36 weeks in custody, suspended for two years, with 18 months supervision and the Thinking Skills programme. Martin Hackett, defending, said Hesmondhalgh had been very close to his mother who died last July and he may have been adjusting.

Lancashire Telegraph, 13 July 2009

Consulting Hesmondhalgh’s Bebo profile, we find him indignantly denying that any racist language was directed against his neighbours – a claim rather undermined by the accompanying messages Nigel Hesmondhalgh says:”Kill All The Fuckin Pakkis”and What Is The Difference Between A Tea Towel And A Baseball Bat? FUCK ALL The Both Wrap Nicely Round A Pakkis Head.

And this thug has escaped a prison sentence.

Lies, damned lies and statistics – misinterpreting the homophobic hate crime figures for Tower Hamlets

Posted on by Bob Pitt

In an article published in yesterday’s Guardian, Jack Gilbert of Rainbow Hamlets, the Tower Hamlets LGBT community forum, writes: “In June, we obtained a month-by-month analysis of homophobic crime figures in the borough. It reveals that incidents in Tower Hamlets have risen by a third (33%) between April 2009-March 2010 and April 2010-March 2011, much more than the 21% widely reported in the media.”

The reported 21% rise over that 2009-11 period was based on earlier figures provided by the Metropolitan Police which showed that recorded homophobic crimes in Tower Hamlets had increased from 67 to 81. The Met’s statistics are being continuously revised, and if we look at the latest figures to which Jack Gilbert refers we find that the numbers now show a rise to 81 from 61, which does indeed give an increase of 33%.

However, as you can see, the reason for this higher percentage change is not that the Met’s figure for homophobic crimes in Tower Hamlets during 2010-11 has increased, but rather that the figure for 2009-10 has been revised downwards. Which means that the total figure for homophobic crimes over the period 2009-11 has also been reduced – from 148 to 142. Using these figures to suggest that homophobic crimes in Tower Hamlets are at a higher level than has been reported is disingenuous to say the least.

It would also be interesting to see the 2008-9 figure for comparison, because it seems possible in view of the latest statistics for 2009-10 that the level of recorded homophobic crime in Tower Hamlets might even have fallen over the 2008-10 period, or at least that any increase was lower than previously thought.

The reason why a longer time-frame would be useful in assessing the actual development of homophobic crime levels in Tower Hamlets is that over shorter periods the statistics often show sharp percentage changes for no obvious reason. This becomes clear if you break down the figures for the period from April 2009 to March 2011 into six-month rather than one-year segments.

Between April and September 2009 there were 38 recorded homophobic hate crimes in Tower Hamlets. Over the next six months, October 2009 to March 2010, the figure came down to 23 – a fall of almost 40%. In the following six months, April to September 2010, the figure rose to 46 – an increase of 100%. It then fell to 35 during the six months between October 2010 and March 2011 – a decline of 24%.

It seems highly unlikely that such wild fluctuations reflect the actual rise and fall of homophobia in Tower Hamlets. It’s just that when you are dealing with relatively low figures like these even small numerical changes produce dramatic-looking percentage shifts. Nor do the statistics show that the level of homophobic crime in Tower Hamlets at the end of the two-year period from April 2009 to March 2011 was any higher than at the beginning, as the figure for the final six months is slightly down on that for the first six months (35 as against 38).

The problem is that when people are intent on “proving” that there has been a dangerous increase in homophobia in Tower Hamlets they just interpret the statistics to justify their own prejudices.

The recent notorious Homintern statement denouncing rising homophobia in the borough gave headline prominence to the 21% figure. However, an earlier version of the same statement, published under Andy Tippetts’ name on the National Secular Society website, took the view that there might have been a fall in homophobic crime in Tower Hamlets – but argued that this was because “there are many gay people who have been forced out of the borough, unable to cope with the harassment”. So, according to this reasoning, if there has been an increase in anti-gay crime in Tower Hamlets, that shows a rise in homophobia, and if there has been a fall in anti-gay crime in the borough that shows a rise in homophobia too!

The purpose of exaggerating the level of homophobia in Tower Hamlets is of course to imply that Muslims are primarily responsible for anti-gay hatred in the borough. But the statistics that are available do not bear that out. The only figures I have seen are for violent homophobic crime in Tower Hamlets over the three-year period 2006/7 to 2008/9. These show that 36% of such crimes were committed by people of Bangladeshi heritage, who form 33% of the total population of Tower Hamlets according to the last available census figures. So there is no evidence that Muslims are mainly or disproportionately responsible for homophobic violence in the borough.

Now, it may be that over the past two years there has been a big surge in the proportion of homophobic crimes in Tower Hamlets committed by Muslims. But unless they can produce any evidence that this is the case, LGBT organisations would be advised to avoid giving credence to accusations that have a basis in Islamophobic mythology rather than facts.

And while we’re on the subject of statistics, it would be helpful if those who blame the East London Mosque for the supposed rise in homophobia among local Muslims could provide a figure for the number of speakers who have used the mosque as a platform to preach hostility towards the LGBT community.

In his Guardian article Jack Gilbert argues that the ELM “has accepted it has hosted at least one homophobic speaker, Abdul Karim Hattin, in 2007, whose Spot the Fag lecture was featured on Channel 4’s Dispatches programme”. This lecture was delivered at an event organised by an outside body who had hired a conference room at the London Muslim Centre. And, as Gilbert notes, the ELM’s website now states firmly that “those hate preachers who circumvented our bookings policy in the past are now barred; our vetting procedures for speakers and guests appearing at our mosque and centre have been significantly tightened over the past year”.

The basis on which Islamophobes like the signatories to the Homintern statement justify their charge that the East London Mosque is guilty of “allowing its premises to be used to promote gayhate campaigns” is to compile a list of preachers who have spoken at the mosque over the years, together with homophobic statements these preachers are alleged to have made. But nobody, so far as I’m aware, has claimed that any of these alleged statements, with the sole exception of Abdul Karim Hattin’s 2007 lecture, were actually made at the ELM itself.

In short, the answer to the question of how many speakers have used the East London Mosque as a platform to preach hostility towards the LGBT community would appear to be – one, four years ago, at an event booked by an outside body, and he’s now been banned.