Category Archives: Analysis & comment

Not so Bright

Posted on by Bob Pitt

In a recent post on his New Statesman blog Martin Bright takes issue with an article written by the notorious Holocaust denier Lady Michele Renouf who, he reports, “develops the most detailed description yet of the Zionist conspiracy of which I am supposed to be a part”. Bright’s piece is headed “Where the hard left and extreme right meet”, and he claims that Renouf’s article is “almost indistinguishable from the attacks on me from supporters of Ken Livingstone and the likes of Islamophobia Watch”.

Really? We’ve written quite a lot about Martin Bright over the years and you can check it all out here. We challenge Bright to produce a single post in which we’ve depicted him, à la Renouf, as part of some “Zionist conspiracy”. If Bright wants to polemicise against Islamophobia Watch, surely he could come up with something slightly less stupid than this.

Renouf’s position – she has a soft spot for the Islamic Republic of Iran because it organised a conference on the Holocaust which provided a platform for nutters like herself to promote their “revisionist” gobbledegook – is in any case hardly typical of the extreme right.

Nick Griffin of the British National Party – the only far-right organisation of any size and influence in the UK – no doubt had people like Renouf in mind when he condemned “those ‘hardliners’ who would rather attack the Jews than the Muslims”. He continued: “To even hint of making common cause with Islam – or put ourselves in a position when opponents can suggest to the masses that this is the case – is political insanity.” Instead, Griffin told BNP members: “We should be positioning ourselves to take advantage for our own political ends of the growing wave of public hostility to Islam currently being whipped up by the mass media.”

A wave of public hostility, we might add, to which the self-confessed Islamophobe, Martin Bright (“there is a lot in Islam to be afraid of”, as he explained to a FOSIS conference at City Hall a few years ago), has made a far from negligible contribution. And the BNP is happy to acknowledge his efforts. In 2006 the fascists applauded a Channel 4 documentary by Bright which chimed in with their own poisonous propaganda about the threat posed by mainstream Muslim organisations in Britain:

“Martin Bright of the New Statesman illustrated how the MCB which purports to be a ‘moderate’ organisation actually represents the most extreme and militant Islamic fundamentalists with links to the Jamaat al Islami [sic] and the Muslim Brotherhood which is itself linked to terror groups and has defended them.”

A case of “where liberal Islamophobes and the extreme right meet”, you might say.

Liddle explains terrorism

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“I’ve always held that Islam is largely to blame for the viciousness which is periodically unleashed upon us all in the form of bombings – that it is the credo, rather than the individual, which is principally to blame”, explains Rod Liddle in the Spectator.

But the broadminded Rod is prepared to concede that there are other causal factors. And no, of course it’s not foreign policy. Young Muslims drawn to terrorism are “narcissistic adolescent halfwits”, according to Liddle, who are “simply a different side of the coin to the stabbers, muggers and thugs of young, modern Britain: over-indulged, forever demanding of respect and redress”.

I ask you, where would British journalism be without Rod Liddle’s insightful political analysis?

BNP church fire comment ‘despicable’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Fat fascistA top Lincoln Tory has branded the words of BNP leader Nick Griffin as “despicable” after he commented on a fire at a church in the city which was about to be converted into a mosque.

The leader of the far-right party sent a statement to the Echo in the wake of a blaze at St Matthew’s Church. Griffin, who lives in Wales, said: “Perhaps a local householder was driven mad by the thought of being engulfed by a miniature version of Lahore.”

Lincolnshire Echo, 3 September 2008

Update:  Meanwhile, over at the BNP website, Voice of Freedom editor Martin Wingfield advances the bizarre theory that the Muslim community itself is responsible for the fire! “It’s a scorched earth policy which starts with the destruction of the places of worship of non-Muslims and it is happening in towns and cities across Britain where Islam is on the offensive.”

Mind you, Wingfield’s grip on reality is a bit weak generally when it comes to Islam. He goes on to warn his readers:

“The growing influence of Islam within Britain continues apace and the silence that greets this colonisation by stealth is deafening…. In those areas where Muslims are now the majority, they have moved from claiming ‘equal rights’ with the host population, to imposing their demands on the non-Muslim population….

“In many areas of Britain, it is we, the British, who are now the minority! From London boroughs such as Tower Hamlets and next door Newham (where over 75% of births are of babies not of British origin) to towns and cities such as Peterborough, Luton, Leicester, Bradford, and Birmingham, entire districts have been Balkanised by the ever increasing Muslim population creating within Great Britain, ‘Greater Pakistan’, ‘Greater Bangladesh’, and even ‘Greater Somalia’!

“Within these semi-autonomous areas there is no ‘host community’ for the colonists to integrate with – the ‘host’ British have been ethnically cleansed. Hence the new ‘majority community’, these very colonists, are now re-engineering local society to replicate the Muslim societies they ostensibly left behind in Pakistan, or wherever, when they came to Britain.”

The 2001 census puts the Muslim population in Tower Hamlets at 36.40% and in Newham at 24.31%. Further east, in Barking & Dagenham – where the BNP has been gaining ground by appealing to paranoid fantasies about Christian civilisation succumbing to the spread of “Muslim majority” areas – the figure falls to 4.36%, compared with a Christian population of 68.99%.

‘Decents’ on the Muslim threat

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Why is this man regarded any more favourably than Pat Robertson or Stephen Green’s Christian Voice?”

The question is posed by one Max Dunbar in the current issue of Democratiya, house journal of the “decent left”, and the man in question is Tariq Ramadan.

This sort of thing does our job for us. As we’ve remarked in the past, those who promote the view that Professor Ramadan represents some sort of fundamentalist threat to Western society discredit themselves more effectively than we ever could.

Continue reading →

‘Muslim council chiefs ban tea and sandwiches during Ramadan’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Tower HamletsCouncillors have been ordered not to eat during town hall meetings while Muslim colleagues fast during the holy month of Ramadan. All elected members at Left-wing Tower Hamlets Council in East London have been sent an email asking them to follow strict Islamic fasting during September no matter what their faith.

But some members of the Labour-run council say the demands favour one religious group over the others. Dr Stephanie Eaton, leader of the Liberal Democrat group, said she would ignore the restrictions. She said: “We object to the request that non-Muslim councillors observe the fasting rules for Ramadan. Our community consists of a huge number of different religions, all of which should be valued, and no one religion should be accorded more status or influence than others.”

This is not the first time the council, which has a broad ethnic make-up, has courted controversy. It has been criticised in the past for being “overly politically correct” after calling its staff Christmas meal a “festive meal”. And it has also staged a Bonfire Night party which featured a Bengal tiger instead of Guy Fawkes.

Daily Mail, 29 August 2008

See also World Net Daily, 29 August 2008

And, of course, the story has been seized on by the British National Party, who declare it to be “a dramatic example of how Britain is being steadily colonised by Islamic culture”.

Update:  You thought this was probably one of those”political correctness gone mad” stories, of the type that was pioneered back in the ’80s in order to discredit left-wing councils and is now used to encourage paranoid fantasies about a Muslim takeover of the West?

You’d be right. See “Tower Hamlets denies imposing Ramadan request on council staff“, which reports:

“The authority today strongly denied the claims that all staff had been told to follow rules governing Ramadan, including suggestions that councillors would be stopped from consuming drinks and biscuits during meetings. A spokeswoman said the memo had been intended to stop non-Muslims eating the Iftar packs. She said: ‘At no stage have we imposed Ramadan arrangements on all staff’.”

Dawkins blames Muslims for ‘importing creationism’ into classroom

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Dawkins God DelusionDevout Muslims are importing creationist theories into science and are not being challenged because of political correctness, one of the country’s most famous scientists said tonight.

Professor Richard Dawkins argued that as a result teachers were promoting the “mythology” of creationism over the science of evolution.

Professor Dawkins, a geneticist and author of the best-selling book The God Delusion, said:

“Islam is importing creationism into this country. Most devout Muslims are creationists – so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught. Teachers are bending over backwards to respect home prejudices that children have been brought up with. The Government could do more but it doesn’t want to because it is fanatical about multiculturalism and the need to respect the different traditions from which these children come.”

He added: “It seems as though teachers are terribly frightened of being thought racist. It’s almost impossible to say anything against Islam in this country because if you do you are accused of being racist or Islamophobic.”

Daily Mail, 4 August 2008

On the other hand, there are those of us who would argue that paranoid delusions about the impact on educational policy of a minority faith community who comprise less than 3% of the population of the UK are quite accurately categorisable as Islamophobia.

See also the Daily Telegraph, which reports: “Prof Dawkins said the failure in classrooms meant religious fanatics had a chance to get hold. ‘Because we are all brought up to respect faith, it leaves open a gap through which fanatics can charge’, he said.”

Update:  Predictably, Dawkins’ views are approvingly reproduced by the British National Party. Of course, the BNP’s own position is that they’re defending “Christian civilisation” against Islam. But they’re prepared to overlook minor differences like that when it comes to whipping up hatred against Muslims.

Update 2:  See Terry Sanderson, “Is Bob Pitt a new McCarthy?”, National Secular Society, 8 August 2008

‘A third of Muslim students back killings’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Almost a third of British Muslim students believe killing in the name of Islam can be justified, according to a poll. The study also found that two in five Muslims at university support the incorporation of Islamic sharia codes into British law.

The YouGov poll for the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC) will raise concerns about the extent of campus radicalism. “Significant numbers appear to hold beliefs which contravene democratic values,” said Hannah Stuart, one of the report’s authors. “These results are deeply embarrassing for those who have said there is no extremism in British universities.”

The report was criticised by the country’s largest Muslim student body, Fosis, but Anthony Glees, professor of security and intelligence studies at Buckingham University, said: “The finding that a large number of students think it is okay to kill in the name of religion is alarming. There is a wide cultural divide between Muslim and non-Muslim students. The solution is to stop talking about celebrating diversity and focus on integration and assimilation.”

Sunday Times, 27 July 2008

See the FOSIS press release which quotes Faisal Hanjra, President of FOSIS, as stating: “This is yet another damning attack on the Muslim community by elements within the academic arena whose only purpose seems to be the undermining of sincere efforts by mainstream Muslim organisations to tackle the threat of terror which wider society faces. The report is methodologically weak, it is unrepresentative and above all serves only to undermine the positive work carried out by Islamic Societies across the country.”

Wes Streeting, president of the National Union of Students, is also quoted as condemning the study: “This report is a reflection of the biases and prejudices of a right wing think tank – not the views of Muslim students across Britain. Only 632 Muslim students were asked vague and misleading questions, and their answers were then wilfully misinterpreted in order to fit this organisation’s own tawdry obsession with Islam.”

See also the Sunday Herald, which reports that Muslim students’ leaders in Scotland have dismissed the CSC’s research as flawed. Adel Daas, president of Strathclyde University Muslim Students’ Association, said: “What scares me is how this report is going to be used. It will be used to divide Muslims from non-Muslims. This is not working to bring communities together, it is trying to highlight the things that separate us from others, which is wrong. This study is going to cause more pressure, more separation, more issues and more problems.”

The Scottish Islamic Foundation also expressed reservations about the findings. Noman Tahir, a Glasgow University student who is also from the foundation, said of the Centre for Social Cohesion: “Despite the pleasant name, it has become increasingly apparent over the last few years that this organisation is less concerned about social cohesion and instead more apt at spreading vicious lies and hatred towards Muslims.”

Usman Anwar, a member of the Federation of Student Islamic Societies’ student affairs committee, said: “You can tell by the language the report uses throughout that it has a specific agenda to paint a bleak picture. We meet many students on a regular basis and our findings do not correlate with the findings of this survey. This report serves only to vilify Islamic societies and undermine the sincere efforts by mainstream Muslim organisations to tackle the threat of terror which wider society faces.”

See also the Sunday Times where Minette Marrin asks: “how can young Muslims fit into a liberal western democracy if they believe things that are intolerant, illegal and, in plain English, unBritish?”

Marrin offers a solution: “There must be no public recognition of religious associations as representatives of anything or anybody: not on campuses, not in student unions, not in government consultations or in parliament. So-called religious community leaders, or umbrella groups of religious bodies, must of course be free to associate as they like in private, in a free country, but publicly they must be ignored.”

The CSC report is available (pdf) here.

Update:  The YouGov poll asked Muslim students: “Is it ever justifiable to kill in the name of religion?” Only 4% agreed that it was justifiable “in order to preserve and promote that religion”, while 28% agreed with the view that it was justifiable “only if that religion is under attack”. This is where the “third of Muslim students back killings” headline comes from. In fact 53% agreed that killing in the name of religion is “never justifiable”.

Imagine a polling organisation asking students whether they think killing is ever justifiable in the name of their country. 4% say yes, in order to preserve and promote that country, 28% say yes, but only if that country is under attack, and 53% say never under any circumstances. Would the right-wing press report this as “one third of students back killings”? No, they’d report it as “half of students would refuse to fight to defend their country” and denounce the iniquitous influence of pacifism on university campuses!

In fact, it looks to me as though the YouGov poll revealed that the British Muslim student population holds much more moderate views than the Islamophobes of the Centre for Social Cohesion had anticipated, which is why they have to spin the results so dishonestly.

Islamophobe joins team Boris

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Anthony Browne (2)Boris Johnson has appointed the director of a leading Tory think tank as his director of policy at City Hall. Anthony Browne of Policy Exchange will play a senior political role. The former journalist has headed the think tank since last May and will be responsible for developing new policy ideas for the Mayor.

Mr Johnson said of the appointment: “I am delighted that Anthony is joining my team at City Hall. As a policy expert in the fields of environment, health and politics for the influential Policy Exchange and a former journalist on the Times and Observer, I am sure Anthony will be a valuable asset in helping to shape London’s future over the next four years.”

However, Mr Browne’s appointment is certain to cause a degree of concern among his political opponents as he is known for his strong Right-wing stance on immigration.

He first came to prominence when he was denounced by then home secretary David Blunkett for “bordering on fascism” after a series of articles on immigration.

Mr Browne has also been criticised for “demonising” Muslims in an article headlined “the Muslims are coming – there’s no plot: Islam really does want to conquer the world” in The Spectator.

Former Mayor Ken Livingstone said: “Anthony Browne’s extensive Rightwing track record and his divisive attacks on immigration, are an indication that Boris Johnson’s administration is deeply at odds with the needs of a multicultural city like London.”

Evening Standard, 22 July 2008

For more on Browne see here.

Update:  Over at the hardline right-wing New English Review blog, one Mary Jackson welcomes the appointment of Browne in a post headed “Boris employs good egg“. In connection with Browne’s “The Muslims are coming” article published in the Spectator in 2004, with its “Islam really does want to conquer the world” standfirst, she observes: “Good title – it sounds like Boris used to before he stopped putting his foot in it.” Which is hardly surprising, given that Johnson was editor of the Spectatorat the time that Browne’s paranoid piece of anti-Muslim scaremongering was published.

Express denounces the Dudley mosque

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Dudley mosqueAn £18million mosque which will dwarf everything around it has got the go-ahead – des­pite objections from 22,000 people.

It had even been turned down by the local authority, but that refusal has now been over-ruled by a Government inspector.

Angry residents say allowing the 65ft tower and dome is simply pandering to the 7,000-strong Muslim com­munity – which makes up just two per cent of the local population.

The vast building in Dudley, West Midlands, will become as visible as the town’s historic castle, built in 1070, and its main Christian church.

Last night one local resident, who wished not to be named, said: “This mosque, which will be one of the biggest outside London with a 65ft tower, will dwarf Dudley church and the wishes of 22,000 people who protested against it.”

Daily Express, 22 July 2008

In an editorial the paper comments: “Perhaps Dudley’s Islamic population could agree a compromise: their mosque should get the go-ahead but only after a series of cathedrals have been built in Muslim countries throughout the world so as to allow local Christians to worship free from the fear of persecution.”

The Express editors will be gratified to hear that their proposed series of cathedrals has in fact already been built, and Anorak helpfully provides a select list:

Cathédrale de Notre Dame d’Afrique, Algiers
St Mary’s Cathedral, Dhaka
Katedral Santa Maria Diangkat ke Surga, Jakarta
Dormition of the Virgin Mary Cathedral, Damascus
St. John’s Cathedral, İzmir
St. Joseph’s Cathedral, Abu Dhabi
Saint Mark’s Coptic Orthodox Cathedral, Alexandria
Cathedral of Sts. Peter and Paul, Faisalabad
Vank Cathedral, Isfahan

Anorak also provides a link to a (pdf) factsheet on the Dudley mosque proposals, which points out that, at 65ft, the mosque’s minaret will in fact be be dwarfed by the 175ft spire of St Thomas and St Luke’s C of E church.

Blears justifies IslamExpo boycott

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Hazel BlearsIn Hazel Blears’ speech today to a seminar organised by the right-wing think tank Policy Exchange, she outlines “the Government’s strategy for engagement with different Muslim groups”:

“As a minister dealing with this every day, I can tell you there is no easy answer to the questions of when, who and how to engage with different groups. When my predecessor Ruth Kelly became Secretary of State, she made it clear that the Government would not do business with any groups who weren’t serious about standing up to violence and upholding shared values, and that has been our approach ever since.

“Take the Islam Expo at the weekend. I was clear that because of the views of some of the organisers, and because of the nature of some of the exhibitors, this was an event that no Minister should attend. Organisers like Anas Altikriti, who believes in boycotting Holocaust Memorial Day. Or speakers like Azzam Tamimi, who has sought to justify suicide bombing. Or exhibitors like the Government of Iran.

“Not because the vast majority of Muslims at the event were not decent citizens; they were. But because the organisers were trying to influence the audience in certain directions. And by refusing to legitimise the event for these specific reasons, we would hope to isolate and expose the extremists and ensure they were not part of the event next year. Our policy is designed to change behaviour.

“Our strategy rests on an assessment of firstly whether an organisation is actively condemning, and working to tackle, violent extremism; and secondly whether they defend and uphold the shared values of pluralist democracy, both in their words and their deeds. By being clear what is acceptable and what isn’t, we aim to support the moderates and isolate the extremists.”

So Blears is opposed to any official contact with representative Muslim figures like Anas Altikriti and Azzam Tamimi. But she will happily lead a seminar organised by Policy Exchange, a body headed by the raving right-wing anti-Muslim extremist Dean Godson.

Not content with imposing a government boycott of one of the most popular and mainstream Muslim events of the year, Blears chooses to announce her justification for this disgraceful decision from the platform of a Tory think tank notorious for its hostility to British Muslims.

It’s difficult to see this as anything other than a conscious provocation directed against the Muslim community. Either that, or Blears is even more stupid than I’d imagined.

Update:  Read IslamExpo’s response to Blears here.