Right-wing press continues witch-hunt of IFE, with the assistance of Jim Fitzpatrick

Under the headline “Extremist Muslims have ‘wormed their way into Labour Party’ minister warns”, the Daily Mail offers a rehash of yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph article, with one accompanying picture suggesting that IFE supports the terrorist acts of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan while another illustrates the mythical “hijab-inspired arch Tower Hamlets council has proposed be built at either end of Brick Lane”.

The Daily Star tells its readers that “Muslim extremists are plotting to take over the Labour Party and turn Britain into an Islamic state…. Extremist groups hope their followers will become councillors and MPs. But their allegiance will be to Jihad, or holy war, and enforcing sharia law across the UK. Sharia imposes punishments including stoning and amputations.”

And this piece comes complete with a picture of the well-known IFE supporter Abu Hamza al-Masri.

Meanwhile, over at the Daily Telegraph, Andrew Gilligan is intent on generating the maximum publicity for his anti-IFE documentary, “Britain’s Islamic Republic“, due to be screened in Channel 4’s Dispatches slot this evening.

Under the headline “Sir Ian Blair’s deal with Islamic radical”, Gilligan reveals that the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner had close contact with Azad Ali through the latter’s leading role in that notorious agency of jihadist terrorism, the Muslim Safety Forum. In fact, relations were so close that “Sir Ian or his deputy committed to meet Mr Ali and the MSF at least twice a year”.

Gilligan’s scaremongering over the MSF is rather undermined by a Metropolitan Police spokesperson who states: “We are currently working with the Muslim Safety Forum to review how it can best represent London’s diverse Muslim Communities so that we can better understand and then act on their concerns about safety and security.”

Update:  Over at the anti-Muslim blog Harry’s Place Tory London Assembly member Andrew Boff  has been receiving some stick because of his backing for the East London Mosque.

Indeed, at last week’s Mayor’s Question Time, Boff put the following question to Boris Johnson: “Would you Mr Mayor along with me support the efforts of the many faith communities especially in East London in the way in which they work together, and I mention in particular the role of the East London Mosque and the London Muslim Centre, which you so kindly visited last year, working with the other faith communities in order to break down the misunderstandings that can exist?” To which Johnson replied “Yeah”.

Boff has responded to Harry’s Place in the following terms: “‘Some in Labour’ may be right to think that there are votes in Islamaphobia. Forgive me if I decline to take up your kind offer of pursuing them too. I don’t want to feel that dirty when I go to bed at night.”

And quite right too. True, Boff’s stand may be motivated in large part by concern for the electoral prospects of his friend Tim Archer, the Tory candidate standing against Jim Fitzpatrick in the Poplar and Limehouse constituency. But at least Boff is taking the right stand, which is more than can be said for Fitzpatrick and others in the Labour Party.

Defend Jamaat-e-Islami against ‘secularism’

Jamaat Gaza protest
Jamaat-e-Islami demonstration against Israel’s attack on Gaza

Under the heading “Bangladesh set to become again a secular state”, left-wing blogger Andrew Coates has enthusiastically hailed what he claims is a decision by the government of Bangladesh to restore the secular foundations of the country’s constitution.

He bases his post on reports that the Supreme Court in Dhaka has upheld a ruling that the government can reverse amendments made to the constitution in the period following the military coup of 1975. Coates approvingly quotes law minister Shafique Ahmed as saying: “In the light of the verdict, the secular constitution of 1972 already stands to have been revived. Now we don’t have any bar to return to the four state principles of democracy, nationalism, secularism and socialism as had been heralded in the 1972 statute of the state.”

There were indeed amendments made to the 1972 constitution after 1975 that undermined the secular basis of the state. The religious invocation “Bismillah-ar-Rahman-ar-Rahim” (“In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful”) was added to the preamble of the constitution, and Islam was declared to be the official state religion of Bangladesh. To overturn those amendments would of course be entirely legitimate from the standpoint of establishing a secular state, and if the government of Bangladesh were proposing to change the constitution accordingly there would be no objection.

However, the government has shown little enthusiasm for such a change. Following a meeting last month between the ruling Awami League and its coalition partners, one of whom urged that the constitution should be amended along those lines, prime minister Sheikh Hasina stated firmly that the words “Bismillah-ar-Rahman-ar-Rahim” would be left unchanged in the constitution, as would the declaration that Islam is the state religion.

It is not difficult to identify the motive behind this decision. During the 2008 election campaign the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and its Islamist ally Jamaat-e-Islami accused the Awami League of hostility towards Islam, and Sheikh Hasina no doubt reasons that if her government were to abolish the religious elements in the constitution this would be exploited by the opposition. So an entirely justifiable change that would restore the secular principle to the constitution has been rejected on pragmatic, not to say opportunistic, political grounds.

What, then, are the “secular foundations” of the 1972 constitution that the Bangladesh government wishes to restore? Well, crucially they want to reinstate a provision, subsequently removed, which declared that “no person shall have the right to form, or be a member or otherwise take part in the activities of, any communal or other association or union which in the name or on the basis of any religion has for its object, or pursues, a political purpose”.

Indeed, following the Supreme Court’s verdict, Shafique Ahmed was quoted as saying that all religion-based parties should “drop the name of Islam from their name and stop using religion during campaigning”, and he went on to announce that religion-based parties are going to be “banned”. In short, what the government of Bangladesh is planning to do is to amend the constitution in order to illegalise Jamaat-e-Islami.

What does this have to do with secularism? Nothing whatsoever. If a secular constitution required the suppression of faith-based political parties, then secularism in Germany would require a ban on the Christian Democrats. And nobody, not even a secularist ultra like Andrew Coates, is calling for that.

You can imagine how different the response would be if a government headed by Jamaat-e-Islami were to propose a ban on secular parties in Bangladesh, on the grounds that they conflicted with the Islamic basis of the constitution. Coates, along with the likes of Harry’s Place and the Spittoon, would be furiously denouncing “totalitarian Islamism” and its contempt for democratic principles. But a secular party proposes to ban an Islamist party and you don’t hear a peep from them.

Fitzpatrick joins Torygraph in witch-hunt of IFE

Jim FitzpatrickA Labour minister says his party has been infiltrated by a fundamentalist Muslim group that wants to create an “Islamic social and political order” in Britain.

The Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) – which believes in jihad and sharia law, and wants to turn Britain and Europe into an Islamic state – has placed sympathisers in elected office and claims, correctly, to be able to achieve “mass mobilisation” of voters. Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, Jim Fitzpatrick, the Environment Minister, said the IFE had become, in effect, a secret party within Labour and other political parties.

“They are acting almost as an entryist organisation, placing people within the political parties, recruiting members to those political parties, trying to get individuals selected and elected so they can exercise political influence and power, whether it’s at local government level or national level,” he said. “They are completely at odds with Labour’s programme, with our support for secularism.”

Sunday Telegraph, 28 February 2010


See also “Inextricably linked to controversial mosque: the secret world of IFE“, by Andrew Gilligan, in the same issue. Gilligan reveals that IFE “is dedicated, in its own words, to changing the ‘very infrastructure of society, its institutions, its culture, its political order and its creed … from ignorance to Islam’.” That would be as distinct from, say, the Roman Catholic Church, which of course has no intention of transforming society in line with the principles of Christianity.

According to Gilligan, members of IFE are required to read “the key works of the revolutionary political creed known as Islamism, which advocates the overthrow of secular democratic government and its replacement by Islamic government”. Which those of us who reject Gilligan’s Islamophobic hysteria might think is hardly an imminent prospect in the UK, where 97% of the population is non-Muslim.

Not that this concerns the Telegraph. Under the headline “This secretive agenda must be taken seriously“, an editorial warns that “developments in Tower Hamlets are worrying news for British democracy”.

Did the ‘war on terror’ damage Muslims’ support for Labour?

Iraq war protest placards

Yesterday’s Comment is Free featured a piece by Nick Spencer on “Muslim voters’ loyalty to Labour” which made the following bizarre claim:

“The Iraq war was supposed to have poisoned Labour’s relations with British Muslims. Tony Blair’s apparently unqualified support for a bellicose Republican administration despised around the Muslim world was deeply unpalatable. Years of anti-terror legislation were judged by some to have stigmatised Muslims and fanned Islamophobic flames. The government’s attempt to outlaw religious hate speech was seen, by sceptics at least, as simply a desperate, ill-thought through peace offering with which they might woo disaffected Muslim supporters.

“According to new Theos/ComRes research, however, no wooing is necessary. If there were a general election tomorrow, 35% of voting Muslims (meaning those Muslims who claim they are more likely than not to vote) would vote Labour.”

Spencer does not provide earlier figures that would allow us to determine whether Muslims’ support for Labour has risen or fallen. He would have been advised to consult a Guardian/ICM poll from November 2004 which showed a dramatic decline in the number of Muslims who said they would vote Labour compared with the period before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The Guardian reported at the time:

“The Guardian/ICM poll confirms that political support for Labour has halved since the 2001 general election and the Liberal Democrats have emerged as the leading political party within the Muslim community.

“The role of Britain in the Iraq war and Tony Blair’s strong support for the war on terror which is widely seen by the Muslim community to be an attack on Islam, has undoubtedly played a part in eroding Labour’s support among British Muslims. In the 2001 general election it is believed that 75% of those who voted backed Labour.

“The voting intention figures in this poll show that support in the Muslim community for the government is slipping away fast. In March, ICM recorded Labour support at 38% and it has now fallen a further six points to 32% of Muslim voters.”

And now the Theos/ComRes poll shows that 35% of Muslims would vote Labour. What that statistic quite clearly demonstrates is that Labour has failed to win back most of those Muslim voters who abandoned it in response to the government’s support for the “war on terror”.

Brick Lane plan for ‘hijab gates’ angers residents

Brick Lane archesThe Guardian of all papers endorses the myth of the “hijab gates” in Brick Lane. Even the Daily Express had the honesty to at least quote the architect, David Gallagher, who was responsible for designing the arches, as saying:

“We were briefed to design something that celebrates the demographic changes of the area. The arches were not designed to look like hijabs. Huguenot and Jewish women wore headscarves. The arches are just modern curves and they will have symbols on them reflecting the different immigrant communities. Having the Star of David on them is one option we have considered, but no decision has been made yet.”

Update:  See also “Tracey Emin leads protest at ‘hijab gates’ for Brick Lane”, Evening Standard, 16 February 2010

Further update:  The relevant section of the Design and Access Statement can be consulted here.

Another update:  See Lutfur Rahman, “These are not ‘hijab gates’ – they represent the whole community”, Guardian, 26 February 2010

The neo-Nazi who works for Richard Barnbrook

By a guest contributor

This is a crosspost from Socialist Unity

Tess Culnane at a Nationalist Alliance meeting in Brighton in July 2005 with John Wood, Sid Williamson and John Tyndall – the ‘Free Speech for White Patriots’ slogan is in defence of Tyndall, who in April 2005 was charged with incitement to racial hatred

UNDER the headline “‘Neo-Nazi gran’ hired as aide to BNP member on London Assembly”, the London Evening Standard has exposed the fact that the notorious far-right activist Tess Culnane is working at City Hall as a PA to Richard Barnbrook. There is also good coverage of the case by Adam Bienkov at Liberal Conspiracy. It is however worth examining Culnane’s political record in more detail, since the employment of such an individual in the office of the BNP’s most prominent London politician tells us a lot about the BNP’s claim that it is now a mainstream party that has put its neo-Nazi past behind it.

Who is Tess Culnane?

A well-known figure on the far right in South East London for many years, Culnane has never shown any sympathy with Nick Griffin’s attempts to hide the BNP’s core fascist ideology and present a more respectable image in the interests of electability. On the contrary, she has always been a supporter of the hardline politics of John Tyndall, the veteran fascist ousted as BNP chairman by Griffin in 1999. When Tyndall died in 2005 a Guardian obituary described him as “a racist, violent neo-nazi to the end”. Culnane, for her part, hailed Tyndall as “a wonderful orator, a brilliant mind, a true patriot who inspired us all. A gentleman in every sense of the word”.

Culnane stood as a BNP candidate in the Downham ward in the Lewisham Council elections in May 2002 and then in a by-election in the same ward in November that year. She did particularly well in the by-election, gaining 519 votes (20.1%) and finishing third behind the Lib Dems (998 votes) and Labour (769). It was a mark of Culnane’s political status within the BNP that she was No.2 on the party’s list for the 2004 European Parliamentary elections in London and No.5 on the list for elections to the London Assembly held on the same date.

Culnane’s failed libel action

During the November 2002 Lewisham by-election the Lib Dems circulated a leaflet headed “Don’t be fooled by the BNP” which referred to the fact that leading figures in the BNP had convictions for violence and other crimes. “When you go to vote on November 7th,” the leaflet concluded, “ask yourself – is this the kind of person you want as your elected councillor?”

Culnane launched a libel action against Mark Morris, the Lib Dem candidate who won the by-election, and his agent on the basis that she personally didn’t have convictions for the crimes mentioned in the leaflet, but she lost the case, lumbering herself with some £100,000 in costs. She appealed but lost again, with the Court of Appeal finding that there was “no arguable basis” for overturning the verdict.

The case was reportedly the source of conflict between Culnane and the BNP leadership, who claimed that they had advised her against the libel action. The advice was sound – as the verdict showed, it isn’t easy for a notorious far-right racist to persuade a court that their reputation has been damaged.

Culnane splits from the BNP

However, the immediate cause of Culnane’s 2005 split from the BNP was that she refused to accept the BNP leadership’s demand that she should cease associating with other more extreme far-right organisations, including an openly Nazi groupuscule called the British People’s Party.

In October 2005 the BNP announced that the BPP was proscribed along with another Nazi group, the Nationalist Alliance, with which Culnane had also been involved. The BNP stated that these two organisations “are used by hostile media elements to link our party to them. We don’t need or want the skinhead and nazi image which the NA and BPP thrive on and so it is necessary for us to make it very clear that there is a complete separation”. It was declared “a serious disciplinary offence for any BNP member to attend any event organised by these groups, to bring any of their propaganda to our events, or to be a paid up member of any of these groups”.

The press report on the failure of Culnane’s libel action also stated that the BNP “says she is no longer a member of the party”. There was some confusion over whether Culnane had in fact been expelled, and she herself appeared uncertain as to whether she was still in the party. However, at the end of November, in a post on the white supremacist Stormfront website, Culnane resolved the situation by announcing that she would not be renewing her BNP membership, on the grounds that she refused to cease associating with the likes of the BPP. Indeed, she made it clear that she had more in common with these open Nazis than she did with leading figures in her own party.

“I will not be instructed”, she wrote, “to dis-associate myself from certain other true nationalists many of whom, in my opinion, have been unjustly proscribed and by rights should be in the highest echelons of the British National Party thus replacing certain people that are obviously unsuitable to hold their current positions in the party.”

In December the BPP’s e-zine Nationalist Week published a message from Culnane backing their open letter to the BNP objecting to proscription. “I am somewhat puzzled”, she wrote, “as to how, by any stretch of the imagination, the leadership of the BNP can possibly proscribe another White nationalist party.”

What Tess did next

The BPP was too small to give Culnane any effective backing in elections after she left the BNP, so she joined the National Front. She contested a by-election in the Lewisham Whitefoot ward on behalf of the NF in September 2007, getting 95 votes (3.6%). (Due to an administrative cock-up on the part of the NF she had to stand as an independent, though the ballot paper carried the NF logo next to her name.)

Culnane again stood for the NF in the London Assembly elections in May 2008 in the Greenwich and Lewisham constituency, where she got 8,509 votes (5.8%). This compared favourably with the BNP’s vote for the Londonwide list in Greenwich and Lewisham (9,764 votes – 6.6%), even though the BNP had a much more high-profile and effective campaign than the NF, while the BNP’s mayoral candidate Richard Barnbrook got only 5,170 first preference votes (3.5%) in the same GLA constituency. Culnane was also the NF candidate in the Haltemprice and Howden parliamentary by-election in July 2008, where she got 544 votes (2.29%).

Culnane addresses the National Front Remembrance Day parade in November 2007

Her involvement with the NF did not prevent Culnane from continuing her association with the BPP. In April 2007 she was a speaker at the BPP’s St George’s Day meeting in Hove, where she shared the platform with notorious Holocaust denier Lady Michele Renouf, against a backdrop of fascist symbols and posters bearing slogans like “Hang paedophile scum”. The BPP proudly posted photos of the event on its website, with the picture of Culnane captioned “Tess Culnane – respected British patriot”.

As late as September 2008, only a few months before she rejoined the BNP, the BPP announced that Culnane would be a featured speaker at its Nationalist Unity Rally in London. In the run-up to the meeting Kate Dermody of the BPP Women’s Division published a helpful summary of her party’s political views (“we have to witness our children being brainwashed into believing Hitler killed six million Jews despite OFFICIAL figures being put at less than 300,000 NATURAL deaths”), and at the rally itself “an original authenticated photograph of Hitler” was raffled.

It was quite clear that Culnane retained her links with the most hardline elements on the far right.

Culnane speaks at the British People’s Party St George’s Day meeting in April 2007

Culnane rejoins the BNP

Nevertheless, in January 2009 the BNP announced that Culnane had rejoined the party and that she would stand as the BNP candidate in a by-election in the Downham ward the following month (she got 287 votes – 10.6%). In a reference to Culnane’s split from the BNP over her insistence on consorting with openly Nazi organisations, the BNP report of Culnane’s return made passing mention of previous “clashes between people that at the time may have seemed important, but with the perspective of time, pale into insignificance”.

Presumably, as an incentive to rejoin the party, the BNP leadership offered Culnane some leeway on this issue, in line with that accorded to another unreconstructed Tyndallite, Richard Edmonds, who has been allowed to organise the Friends of John Tyndall as a vehicle for bringing dissident BNPers opposed to the “liberalising” of the party together with similarly minded fascists from outside the BNP.

Culnane is welcomed back into the BNP by the party’s national organiser Eddy Butler and London Assembly member Richard Barnbrook

In June 2009 both Culnane and Edmonds spoke at the annual Friends of John Tyndall Memorial Meeting. It was jointly organised by Edmonds, Rick Fawcus of the fascist marketing group Tyr Services and Anna Seymour of the England First Party, and was chaired by Keith Axon, formerly of Sharon Ebanks’ now defunct New Nationalist Party. The other speakers were Mike Easter, campaign manager for Chris Jackson’s failed 2007 leadership challenge to Griffin, Ian Edward of the NF, Steve Smith and Peter Rushton of the EFP and Tyndall’s widow Valerie, who told the meeting that before his death her late husband had become reconciled with Colin Jordan, his former associate in the White Defence League and National Socialist Movement of the late 1950s and early ’60s. Among those attending the meeting were Jim Lewthwaite of the Bradford-based Democratic Nationalists, the BNP’s former Croydon organiser Bob Gertner, another Croydon BNP hardliner Paul Ballard who was convicted of inciting racial hatred together with Griffin back in 1998, and the ubiquitous Holocaust denier Michele Renouf.

On rejoining the party Culnane was immediately put to work speaking at BNP meetings in London. Her speech to Bromley and Lewisham BNP in April 2009, a video of which was posted on the BNP website (it has since been removed, but can be viewed here), was particularly well received. “I like especially her comments about the behaviour of her neighbours,” one admirer wrote, “and the way black immigrants so often destroy the quality of people’s lives. ‘They have ruined the lives of my family since 1969’, she said – by bringing unbearable levels of noise and the constant fear of crime into their lives.” Culnane also indignantly related the tale of how her bus driver son was sacked after he told a passenger to “shut her black mouth” and his trade union refused to defend him. She claimed that this was an example of “the tragedy that’s hit my family because of multiculturalism”, attributing it to the fact “successive governments have done nothing to stem the tide of invasion into this country”.

Culnane speaks to Bromley & Lewisham BNP in April 2009 (Barnbrook’s researcher Chris Roberts is on her right)

Why did the BNP have Culnane back, and why did she rejoin? “It’s an odd choice on the surface for the respectability seeking euro nationalist BNP,” a local blogger wrote, “who have moved in an almost opposite way to Tess of recent years who seems far too much of an unreconstructed racist for whom the BNP were nowhere near as extreme as she would have liked them to be.”

However, from the standpoint of the BNP leadership, it was a problem for them that the most prominent figure on the far right in South East London was not a member of the party. Culnane’s personal following locally was enough to win her a fifth of the vote in the 2002 Downham by-election and a bigger share of the vote than the BNP’s mayoral candidate in the 2008 London elections. As for Culnane’s own motives, by rejoining the BNP she became part of an organisation that could at least mobilise a significant number of activists to support her in elections, which is more than the BPP or even the NF could do.

The BNP leadership’s decision to offer Culnane employment in Barnbrook’s City Hall office looks like part of a tactic of neutralising Tyndallite dissidents by incorporating them into the party apparatus, comparable to Griffin’s decision to co-opt Richard Edmonds onto the BNP’s Advisory Council in September 2008. Her new position will certainly make it impossible for Culnane to appear on the platforms of outfits like the BPP, or defect to the NF as Chris Jackson and Mike Easter have recently done, if she wants to keep her job.

Culnane may have renounced public appearances on the platforms of rival organisations to the right of the BNP, but there is of course no indication at all that her political views have changed. The fact is that Barnbrook’s office staff now includes an individual with a long record of links with unashamed Nazis. As Labour’s London Assembly member Murad Qureshi is quoted as saying in the Evening Standard report: “In this instance the BNP has revealed its fascist underbelly, and voters should not be fooled by the party’s attempts to present a more moderate image.” This point needs to be advertised by anti-fascists in London in the run-up to the elections in May.

EDL cancels Bolton demonstration

EDL Oldham Division

The English Defence League has announced that it has postponed its planned demonstration in Bolton on 6 March, supposedly because it would clash with a Hindu festival. According to the EDL:

“We have received information that far-left groups were planning to attack Hindus whilst dressed in EDL clothing, which may be purchased freely from our internet shop. This cowardly attack, had it taken place, was to be blamed on our organisation with the intent of discrediting our stated aim of peacefully protesting against radical Islam. Due to the respect we have for the peace loving Hindu community, we deemed it only right and proper that we cancel our own plans to ensure their safety.”

Yeah, sure. A more likely explanation for the cancellation of the Bolton protest is that the EDL leaders recognise that the gangs of thick racists who are drawn to their intimidatory demonstrations would be unable or unwilling to make a distinction between Muslims and other brown-skinned minority communities. And the suggestion that “far-left groups” were intending to disguise themselves as EDL supporters is laughable. The left has little need to discredit the EDL’s “stated aim of peacefully protesting” when the EDL’s violent hooligans are quite capable of doing that for themselves.

Update:  See Stephen Hall’s comments at Socialist Unity, 8 February 2010

And the UAF statement here.

Sunday Times witch-hunts Moazzam Begg, tries to discredit Amnesty International

Moazzam_BeggA senior official at Amnesty International has accused the charity of putting the human rights of Al-Qaeda terror suspects above those of their victims.

Gita Sahgal, head of the gender unit at Amnesty’s international secretariat, believes that collaborating with Moazzam Begg, a former British inmate at Guantanamo Bay, “fundamentally damages” the organisation’s reputation.

In an email sent to Amnesty’s top bosses, she suggests the charity has mistakenly allied itself with Begg and his “jihadi” group, Cageprisoners, out of fear of being branded racist and Islamophobic.

Sahgal describes Begg as “Britain’s most famous supporter of the Taliban”. He has championed the rights of jailed Al-Qaeda members and hate preachers, including Anwar al-Awlaki, the alleged spiritual mentor of the Christmas Day Detroit plane bomber.

Sunday Times, 7 February 2010


Read Amnesty’s response here.

Gita Sahgal is a member of a nutty group called Women Against Fundamentalisms. In a 2006 radio programme she defended the view that by consulting the Muslim Council of Britain the government was encouraging fundamentalism. In the same radio programme she also accused Tariq Ramadan of being a fundamentalist. Had she actually read any of his books, Professor Ramadan politely inquired. It was quite clear that she hadn’t. In fact she was completely unfamiliar with his writings. However, she did know that he was a fundamentalist.

It appears that Sahgal has now been suspended by Amnesty. Their mistake was in ever employing a crank like that in the first place.

Update:  Read Moazzam Begg’s letter to Richard Kerbaj, the author of the Sunday Times report, here.

Further update:  Read Andy Newman’s comments at Socialist Unity.

Muslim women ‘radicalised’ in UK

“On Monday a female suicide bomber killed 54 people in north-east Baghdad. The attack may have happened on another continent, but there are increasing concerns that violent extremism among women may now also be increasing in the UK. It is believed that the process of radicalisation often takes place at universities. One Islamist group linked with this practice is Hizb ut-Tahrir.”

BBC News, 4 February 2010

The suicide bombing not only happened on another continent, it had no connection with Hizb ut-Tahrir whatsoever. The article goes on to say that HT is “not itself connected to any terrorist acts”. So what possible relevance does the attack in Iraq have to HT? This is the kind of scurrilous journalistic amalgam that you’d expect from the likes of the Daily Mail or the Sun.

The effect of the article is to portray Muslim women in the UK as some sort of terrorist threat. Unsurprisingly, this gets the support of the Centre for Social Cohesion, on whose behalf Houriya Ahmed explains:

“You do see women being radicalised in the UK. You also have terrorist organisations like al-Qaeda which state that it is an obligation for women to take part in jihad. For example, the wife of al-Qaeda’s second-in-command issued a letter to Muslim women worldwide. You have also seen suicide bomb attacks by women in Iraq supported by the al-Qaeda narrative, so there is a strong possibility that this could occur in Britain and this needs to be taken seriously.”

Predictably, the article has been seized on by Robert Spencer over at Jihad Watch.

Joan Smith tells Muslim women how to dress

Joan_Smith“Islam doesn’t demand that men cover their faces before they go out, but its more extreme advocates place special conditions on how women dress outside the home. It’s a typical example of patriarchal practice, based on the notion that women should be under the control of their male relatives at all times, and it’s incompatible with any notion of universal human rights….

“In effect, a woman in a niqab is wearing a mask, signalling her deliberate separation from people unlike herself. It’s hard to think of another form of dress which is so highly politicised – or so rejectionist of mainstream culture. This is the point missed by liberal defenders of the niqab and the burka.”

Joan Smith in the Independent, 19 January 2010

Last week the Independent itself published an article in which Muslim women were given space to explain their own understanding of why they wore hijab (and, in one case, didn’t). But Joan Smith doesn’t bother herself with that sort of nonsense. She thinks she knows more about the motives and meaning of Muslim women’s preferred form of dress than Muslim women themselves do.

You might have thought that an avowed feminist would have some sensitivity to the idea that women could legitimately prefer to cover themselves because they find it demeaning to have men judging them by their physical appearance. Back in the day, there was tendency within the women’s movement, much derided by the anti-feminist political right, who preferred to dress in overalls and boots as a stand against the commodification of women’s bodies. But then, those women were mainly of Western origin and white, so obviously that was different.

Update:  See also ENGAGE, 19 January 2009