Damian Thompson on ‘the Islamic settlement of Britain’

Damian Thompson 2Torygraph blogs editor Damian Thompson offers his thoughts on the demolition of the migrants’ camp in Calais:

“How interesting that French police waited until the end of Ramadan before forcibly dismantling the Calais ‘jungle’. That tells us something we really need to remember about a huge proportion of the illegal immigrants seeking to enter Britain: that they are pious Muslims.

“Note that there was a bigger fuss about the taking down of the mosque than there was about the removal of the makeshift houses. And note, too, that the refugees declared their determination to enter Britain (‘nothing will stop us’) almost in the same breath as their devotion to their place of worship.”

Thompson observes resignedly that he’ll “no doubt be accused of Islamophobia”. But that would be unfair. He isn’t some bigot who thinks Muslim migrants are all potential terrorists, he explains. He’s just against them because … well, because they’re Muslims.

‘Mohammed is now the third most popular boy’s name in England. So why this shabby effort to conceal it?’

Max HastingsMax Hastings poses the question, in the Daily Mail. He writes:

“This week, the Office of National Statistics published a list of the most popular boys’ names in Britain: Jack, Oliver, Thomas, Harry, Joshua, Alfie, Charlie, Daniel. They reflect a cultural tradition as old as the nation’s history, and would provoke approving nods from Jack the Ripper, Oliver Cromwell, Thomas Becket and Harry Hotspur.

“There is just one small problem: the list is deceitful. In reality, the third most popular choice for boy children born last year in England and Wales was not Thomas, but Mohammed. The ONS explains blithely that it had no intent to deceive. Its normal practice is to catalogue different spellings separately, as in Mohammed, Muhammed and so on. But if you add these variants together, as surely seems logical, then Mohammed is right up there, near the top of the list.”

If the ONS has indeed manipulated the list, which I very much doubt, it would be because the popularity of the name Mohammed is regularly misrepresented as evidence that, as Hastings puts it, “a host of migrants is here, most of whom espouse an entirely different cultural tradition from our own”. According to Hastings, unless Britain can reclaim the inner cities from these “huge immigrant communities which may live in this country, but are tragically not of it”, then “we shall become a divided society, no longer recognisably British, of which a host of young Mohammeds and Muhammeds will be the symbols”.

In reality, as Alex Massie recently pointed out in the Spectator: “Muslims are much more likely to name their sons Mohammed than Christians are to call their son any single name. That is, there’s much greater variance amongst non-muslim families. In other words, unless you’re wanting to stoke panic and resentment what kids are called is not a terribly useful metric.”

Update:  See Mehdi Hasan’s comments on his New Statesman blog, 10 September 2009

Ed Husain explains terrorism

Ed_HusainEd Husain draws the lessons of the airline bomb plot:

“Although one fanatical Muslim cell has been caught, this is no time for complacency. Make no mistake, terrorism is flourishing in our country as never before.

“Why? Because a toxic combination of politically correct policy, denial and fear have opened the way for hate to grow in our midst. Unwilling or unable to recognise the scale and cause of the danger we are all facing, our leaders have turned a blind eye to what is going on.

“There are now tens of thousands of Muslims living in Britain, physically present in our country, but psychologically attached to Muslim-dominated countries. Large parts of our cities have become Muslim ghettos, where you can wake up in the morning and go to bed at night without seeing a non-Muslim face. They might as well be in Pakistan or Afghanistan for all the contact they have with ordinary Britain. They can send their children to Muslim state schools, go to Muslim NHS doctors, and do business at the Islamic bank.

“Not only this, but we, the taxpayers, fund many of these Muslim ghettos. When immigrants arrive in this country to claim free housing from the Government, they are given a choice of Muslim areas to settle in….

“Because of their stronger national identity, the Americans encourage immigrants to join their culture and newcomers are expected to be loyal to the U.S. For us, it is not too late. We can reverse the damaging policies that have made Britain a seedbed for terrorists. But if we fail to do so, I fear we will see further carnage unleashed on our streets.”

Daily Mail, 9 September 2009

See also “Ed panders to the Daily Mail rightwingers”, ENGAGE, 9 September 2009

Postscript:  Just to add, there is of course no evidence whatsoever to link areas that have a high proportion of Muslim inhabitants with terrorism. In their book ‘Sleepwalking to Segregation?’ Challenging Myths About Race and Migration (pp.109-10), Nissa Finney and Ludi Simpson analyse the data for the districts of origin of Muslims charged with terrorist offences. They write:

“If ‘segregated areas’, where there are the largest concentrations of Muslims, were hotbeds of terrorism … then one would expect more to be charged in these areas. Seventeen of those charged in the period August 2004 to October 2006 were residents of Bradford, Luton, Newham or Wandsworth, four of the seven most Muslim districts where 18% of the population is Muslim. But just as many lived in other areas; for example, 16 lived in districts with on average only 1% Muslims, coming from Breckland in Norfolk, Doncaster, Bournemouth, Reigate in Surrey, Bexley, Brighton and Hove, Aylesbury Vale and Greenwich. The only set of districts where more Muslims were charged than others was those with the second-lowest concentrations, including Crawley, Lambeth, Wycombe and Manchester. So, Muslims living in highest concentration Muslim areas are not more likely to be terrorists than Muslims living in any other type of area. There is no reason to link particular levels of concentration with terrorism.”

An earlier summary of Finney and Simpson’s research can be read here.

Trying to be charitable, you might explain Ed Husain’s baseless accusations about so-called “Muslim ghettos” as the result of sheer ignorance based on incompetent research. After all, Quilliam is the self-styled “think-tank” that recently produced a paper on the British National Party which claimed that the BNP vote in the 2009 elections to the European Parliament was “actually down on 2004“, when in reality the fascists got 943,598 votes this year compared with 808,200 five years ago.

But there is more to it than that. Ed Husain has clearly made a conscious decision to bolster the anti-Muslim myths promoted by the hardline right-wing press. It is no wonder that Husain is so keen to deny the existence of Islamophobia, because he himself has made a significant contribution to encouraging and legitimising it.

From the life of St Peter

Tatchell No Islamic StateOver at Harry’s Place they’ve been celebrating Peter Tatchell’s success in bullying a small publisher into making a public apology for supposedly libelling him. The issue arose from criticisms of Tatchell made in the chapter “Gay Imperialism: Gender and Sexuality Discourse in the ‘War on Terror'” (pdf here) by Jin Haritaworn, Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem, from the book Out of Place: Interrogating Silences in Queerness/Raciality, published last year.

The publishers’ statement of apology is comprehensive, not to say grovelling. It concedes that the offending chapter “contains serious, defamatory untruths concerning Peter Tatchell”. Tatchell apparently “is not Islamophobic” and “the insinuation that he is anti-Muslim is untrue”. In fact, “Mr Tatchell has never criticised Muslims in general, only Muslim fundamentalists”.

The publishers say they now recognise that “the human rights work of Mr Tatchell and OutRage! is motivated by a sincere support for people struggle against tyranny and injustice, and has involved valuable assistance to many LGBT campaigners in the UK and worldwide…. Peter Tatchell was one of the first LGBT campaigners to reject a western-centred approach to LGBT human rights and, from the early 1970s, to campaign for LGBT human rights universally and internationally.”

Indeed, it would appear that Tatchell bestrides our world like a colossus:

“From the 1960s, he has been active in anti-imperialist solidarity campaigns, supporting the national liberation struggles of the peoples of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Eritrea, Oman, Nicaragua, Palestine, Western Sahara, East Timor and West Papua…. Mr Tatchell continues to campaign for the independence of the Western Sahara, Palestine and West Papua. He supports the struggles for democracy and human rights in Iran, Russia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Burma, Turkey, Columbia, Somaliland, Baluchistan, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Belarus and elsewhere.”

It is evident that the author of this statement would fully endorse the adulatory description of Tatchell, by David Toube at Harry’s Place, as a “brave and saintly man”. And that is hardly surprising, since the statement was obviously dictated by Tatchell himself. Those of us who regretfully decided long ago that Tatchell had degenerated into a self-promoting narcissistic parody of his former self can only conclude that our judgement was spot on.

Continue reading

Fitzpatrick calls for ‘crackdown on extremists’

“Ban HateBan Hate Meetings Meetings”. That is the front-page headline in this week’s East London Advertiser.

The subheading is “MP urges crackdown on extremists”, and the paper reports that Jim Fitzpatrick has called on Oxford House, a community centre in Bethnal Green, to stop hiring out meeting rooms to a youth group called Young Muslim Cooperation, which he claims is “a front for extremists”.

The report states that Islam for the UK, a successor organisation to al-Muhajiroun, has held a couple of meetings at Oxford House, and the suggestion is that YMC too is an arm of Anjem Choudary’s organisation.

As it happens, this contributor to Islamophobia Watch has a far from libertarian stance when it comes to al-Muhajiroun. I think Ken Livingstone was right to ban them from holding their provocative demonstrations in Trafalgar Square, and in my view their notorious protest against British troops in Luton earlier this year should have been suppressed under the Public Order Act. If Oxford House has indeed allowed Islam for the UK to book meetings there, I think that was a mistake (even though the East London Advertiser comes up with no evidence that any meetings at the centre were in fact used to incite “hate”).

If Fitzpatrick was genuinely interested in constructively addressing this issue, however, then the solution would have been to approach the management at Oxford House and raise his concerns with them privately. Instead he has gone running to the press in search of yet another scaremongering headline.

Anyone who was inclined to take the charitable view that Fitzpatrick’s recent much-publicised walk-out from a gender-segregated wedding at the London Muslim Centre was just an example of clodhopping cultural insensitivity was obviously wrong. It now seems clear that Fitzpatrick has consciously launched a campaign aimed at whipping up a moral panic over Islamism in the East End.

Continue reading

Tory blogger defends Western values

“I bloody knew it! I had a feeling that this story didn’t quite ring true and – surprise, surprise – we learn today that Noor Ramjanally lied when he said that he had been abducted by two men, was bundled into a car boot, driven to Epping Forest and ordered to stop his religious work.

“These self-styled, unelected community leaders only continue to wield the power that they do by perpetuating stereotypes in their communities. For them no level of division is too great if it advances their politically correct, anti-integrationist victimological agenda. We saw it in the US (with tales highlighted by Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter proving that supposed racist attacks on jihadists at Gitmo (the Koran down the lavatory lie) and on campuses are routinely faked by leftists with warped political agendas to advance). Now we see it here.”

Donal Blaney offers a characteristically reasoned response to the arrest of Noor Ramjanally.

Blaney’s Blarney, 4 September 2009

You might have thought that the “Western values” Blaney is so enthusiastic about defending (at the cost of other people’s lives rather than his own, of course) would include the principle of being presumed innocent until proven guilty, but apparently not. But then, what can you expect from a man who declares his admiration for right-wing fruitcakes like Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter?

Update:  Blaney replies: “He owned up and admitted his guilt, dumbass!”

What a charming man. But the Daily Mail article to which Blaney links doesn’t state that Noor Ramjanally has admitted his guilt, nor does any other report that I’ve read. So how could “we learn today that Noor Ramjanally lied”? The most we know is that he has now been charged with perverting the course of justice.

Scottish Labour accuses Scottish-Islamic Foundation of financial irregularities

SIF

The right-wing blogosphere has been cock-a-hoop at news that the Scottish-Islamic Foundation “have been forced to repay” £128,000 to the Scottish Government for “an event that never took place”.

The news was covered by the Daily Mail and Express, peddled by Centre for Social Cohesion’s Douglas “Neoconservatism: why we need it” Murray and Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens, and repeated by Harry’s Place.

The story is that SIF last year received £200,000 to organise IslamFest, a large event planned for this summer 2009 aimed at the public on Muslim culture, but which also had a Middle East trade expo as part of it. The original plans were to cost over £1m to hold, but there were difficulties in obtaining the remaining funding due to the economic crisis.

As a result, the plans were scaled back and pushed back. It has been split into two elements – Salaam Scotland and Etisal. The former is a four month festival of events taking place around Scotland from December this year, while the latter is the trade expo which will also take place this year.

The work is important given the level of Islamophobia in Scotland and the wider UK, and the project also has the potential to attract investment and jobs into Scotland – something you would have thought would be supported given the economic climate. The Scottish Government are still considering the new timetable.

Anyone with any knowledge of the voluntary sector knows that if a grant is given in a financial year, 08/09 in this case, and is underspent, the remainder is returned. This is not unusual. Perhaps what is unusual is SIF’s scrupulous approach to the money. SIF CEO Osama Saeed told the Express:

“Many in our position would simply have cobbled something together and spent the money. This would not have been good enough for the high standards we set ourselves”.

The full picture has not been reported anywhere. The event that “did not take place” claim is not the full story, and SIF’s critics know this.

If this was just a case of misrepresentation, that would be one thing. But SIF’s critics have had to add some spice to the story by claiming financial “irregularities”. The word has been repeated ad nauseam in quotation marks, but no one has been able to back it up.

Continue reading

Another anti-Muslim lie from the BNP

Last week, under the blaring headline “Muslim Post Office Manager Bans Woman from Sending Parcel Because Her Son Serves in Afghanistan“, the British National Party reported:

“A Muslim post office manager in Cardiff has refused to serve a British soldier’s mother – because her son serves in Afghanistan. The shocking story, which shows precisely how far mass Third World immigration has created a fifth column of anti-British elements in this country, has emerged after the woman, Mrs Maria Davies, contacted the British National Party in Wales to ask for assistance.”

Brian Mahoney, BNP leader in Wales, was quoted as saying:

“For many mothers with sons on active service for their country, it can be a constant worry until they return safely. It is of great importance for a mother to be able to go to her local post office to send her son a parcel or money. Imagine, then, Mrs Davies’ shock when the owner of her local post office in Wilson Road, Ely, Cardiff, a certain Mr Khan, asked her where her son was serving. When she told him Afghanistan, he informed her that she was not welcome to send him anything from her post office, either packages or money.”

Helpfully providing a photo of Mr Khan’s shop, for ease of identification, the BNP urged its supporters to contact him and make their feelings known. (Perhaps Mr Khan should be grateful that he lives in South Wales rather than Essex, otherwise Councillor Pat Richardson might have paid him a visit with a brick.)

And, wouldn’t you know it, the story turns out to be complete nonsense. Mr Khan had in fact banned Davies from all of his shops as the result of a dispute over a technical glitch concerning charges to her debit card. It had nothing to do with her son serving in Afghanistan.

Mr Khan and the post office manageress Mrs Thomas have issued the following statement:

There is absolutely no truth in the allegation made to the British National Party that the Post Office in Wilson Road, Ely, Cardiff will not accept parcels for British troops in Afghanistan.

It should not be repeated and we reserve the right to pursue legal action against any person or body repeating the allegation and call for its removal from any website or other publication.

The Wilson Road Post Office has always accepted and continues to accept such parcels. Indeed the Wilson Road shops including the Post Office recently held a ‘Heroes Collection’ for British troops.

The allegation is false and malicious and related to a separate dispute with a customer.

As a result that customer is not welcome at these premises but our services can be accessed by someone else on their behalf if they so wish.

Lancaster Unity has the story.

As for the BNP, they have now removed the story from their website, but hopefully that won’t deter Mr Khan from taking them to court.

How Quilliam smears anti-fascists

Red White and Blue protest

On 18 August we posted a piece entitled “Quilliam accuses anti-BNP protestors of ‘thuggery and hooliganism’“, which criticised an article by Lucy James of the Quilliam Foundation that had appeared on the Progress Magazine website.

Our criticisms provoked a hostile reaction from one of the Harry’s Place wannabees who run a blog rejoicing in the name of the Spittoon, where we were accused of producing “an amateurish bit of slime” against Lucy James. I hadn’t intended to post on it here, but as the Spittoon piece is being punted around as a “comprehensive rebuttal” of our article, I think it’s necessary to place an answer on record.

Continue reading