Category Archives: Analysis & comment

Freedom of expression for the BNP … but not Hizb ut-Tahrir

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Simone Clarke protestSunny Hundal is back from his hols and immediately launches into an attack on last week’s UAF demonstration: “A mis-guided group of people held a protest on Friday against the ballerina Simone Clarke and her continued employment by the English National Ballet.”

Sunny assures us that “there is no evidence that Simone Clarke was ‘using her position as a platform for the far-right party’.” Well, apart from a double-page spread in the Mail on Sunday headlined “The BNP Ballerina”, of course, in which Clarke states:

“Sometimes it feels as though the BNP are the only ones willing to take a stand. I have been labelled a racist and a fascist because I have a view on immigration – and I mean mass immigration … Britain isn’t really very big. And it’s an island. I really cannot see the logic of allowing so many people in…. I don’t regret anything. I will stay a member…. I’ve never been clearer in my head that I’m moving in the right direction and at the right time.”

Sunny takes an uncompromising stand in defence of freedom of expression: “I’m opposed to people getting persecuted for being members of organisations that are universally disliked but not illegal”.

So, a clear commitment to opposing people being sacked from their jobs on the basis of their political affiliation, then? No, apparently not: “I did earlier support the Guardian firing HuT’s Dilpazier Aslam because he was clearly trying to influence others with his views without declaring his membership and because they were incompatible with the Guardian‘s own liberal leanings”!

Pickled Politics, 14 January 2007

See also Karen Chouhan’s open letter to David Lammy: BLINK website, 15 January 2007

‘Islamists use raid to stir up UK Somalis’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Islamic extremists are exploiting American air strikes in Somalia to try to recruit British Somalis to their cause. Hizb ut-Tahrir, a global Islamic group whose activities are currently proscribed in Germany, Russia and Pakistan, was last week circulating leaflets in London, accusing the US of state-sponsored terrorism…. In August 2005, Tony Blair said he would ban Hizb ut-Tahrir, but the plans were reportedly shelved last year after officials said there was insufficient evidence to support a ban and that action might inflame Islamic extremism.”

Sunday Telegraph, 14 January 2007

And what is the extreme action that HT is accused of? The Sunday Telegraph reports that “the organisation plans to demonstrate outside the US embassy next Saturday”! It would appear that, as far as the Torygraph is concerned, peaceful protest is to be condemned, whereas killing over a hundred Somali civilians in what can only be described as acts of state terrorism doesn’t merit a word of criticism.

Read HT’s statement on the US airstrikes in Somalia here.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad supports restoration of caliphate shock

Posted on by Bob Pitt

HizbMore nonsense from Mad Melanie Phillips. She writes: “Hizb ut Tahrir, which has been banned in the Middle East, the United Kingdom and Germany, was going to host a Sydney conference this month to promote the takeover of Australia as part of an Islamic caliphate.”

And she quotes a Herald Sun report describing the HT video advertising the event: “In what appears to be a call to arms, the video features slogans attacking the United States and capitalism, and features militant anti-Western Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shaking his fist, before the slogan ’embrace the revival’.”

Mel welcomes the news that Bankstown City Council whose town hall was to be used for this event has cancelled it. She concludes: “Let’s hear it for Bankstown, which understands the difference between a liberal principle and being played for suckers in the attempt to destroy it. But the incident also dramatises the extent to which Australia is squarely in the global Islamisation frame.”

Melanie Phillips’s Diary, 11 January 2007

It’s difficult to know where to begin. HT has not been banned in the UK, nor does it aim to take over Australia – its objective of restoring the caliphate is restricted to majority-Muslim countries. But perhaps the most bizarre claim is that the HT video included a clip of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Does Phillips really think that a video promoting the re-establishment of the caliphate would feature a prominent Shia politician? Or perhaps she should make the effort to view the HT video on YouTube. Does the individual concerned even look like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Read HT’s own response here.

‘Clash of Civilisations – what’s that about then?’ asks Vanessa Feltz

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Today’s Vanessa Feltz show on Radio London (listen here) featured a discussion of the forthcoming Clash of Civilisations conference in London. Perhaps not the ideal subject for that particular presenter, given that she expresses total ignorance of what the “Clash of Civilisations” is about. Oliver Kamm is featured on the programme. For his take on the issue see here and here.

Kamm places an attack on Yusuf al-Qaradawi at the centre of his critique of the Clash of Civilisations event. Not only is it difficult to see the relevance of this – Qaradawi isn’t speaking at the conference – but Kamm gets his facts wrong. Qaradawi doesn’t support suicide bombings directed against Israeli civilians and he didn’t visit London “three weeks after the 7/7 bombings” but a year earlier, in July 2004.

Inciting racial hatred and murder – double standards?

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A British Muslim called for American and Danish people to be murdered, at a protest against cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad, a court has heard. Umran Javed, 27, of Washwood Heath Road, Birmingham, took part in the event on 3 February last year after the cartoons were published in Denmark. Prosecutor David Perry QC told the Old Bailey Mr Javed “encouraged killing and incited racial hatred”. Mr Javed denies charges of soliciting murder and stirring up racial hatred.

BBC News, 3 January 2007

Of course, if Javed is guilty of these charges there can be no objection to convicting him. However, there do appear to be some double standards at work here, when websites like this are able to consistently stir up racial hatred and even solicit the murder of their political opponents without any action being taken against them. (It’s not as though the police would have any difficulty identifying who is behind this loathsome website – see here and here.)

‘The Veil… and why these leading Muslims won’t wear it’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“As Channel 4 controversially celebrated women covering their faces and critics are dismissed as Islamophobics, Joan Smith talks to a group of women who fear the consequences of the veil’s acceptance.”

Independent on Sunday, 31 December 2006

Yes, it’s the familiar strategy pursued by Islamophobes of finding some Muslims who agree with them on a particular issue and then using this as a cover for attacks which feed into the wider media campaign being waged against the entire Muslim community. You’d have hoped that people wouldn’t fall for this, but they do. The irony here is that Khadijah Atkinson, the presenter of Channel 4’s “alternative Christmas message”, is a member of Minhaj-ul-Quran, which has aligned itself with an Islamophobic campaign against the proposed so-called “mega-mosque” in Newham. And now some of her fellow Muslims are collaborating with an anti-Islamic bigot like Joan Smith in attacking Khadijah and other veiled women. It’s not really the business of Islamophobia Watch to intervene in these matters, but surely some basic solidarity and an elementary sense of tactics wouldn’t come amiss here?

For the sort of comment Smith’s article has prompted from right-wing bloggers, see here and here.

Daily Mail ‘unmasks’ woman behind alternative Christmas message

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“She was presented by Channel 4 as an authentic – but anonymous – voice of moderate British Islam. And on Christmas Day the veiled woman described only as ‘Khadijah’ was given a national televison platform for propagating her views in an ‘alternative Christmas message’ designed to rival the Queen’s. She told viewers Jack Straw was wrong to criticise the veil, claiming concealing facial features ‘liberated’ women. But the Daily Mail can now unveil ‘Khadijah’ – and reveal that she is in fact Elaine Atkinson, an English convert to Islam who travels the country working for a radical muslim group trying to take political control of Pakistan.”

Daily Mail, 29 December 2006

The “radical Muslim group” is Mihaj-ul-Quran, an organisation associated with a political party – Pakistan Awami Tehrik – that gained precisely 0.7% of the popular vote in the last parliamentary elections in Pakistan and elected just one MP. So clearly it has some way to go before it takes political control of Pakistan.

And although the Daily Mail pours scorn on Khadijah’s “claims of being moderate”, the same paper recently quoted another supporter of Minhaj-ul-Quran as an example of the “moderate Muslims” who the Mail claims are opposed to Tablighi Jamaat building a new mosque in Newham.

The BNP have applauded the Mail for exposing Khadijah Atkinson’s “rejection of her traditional English background, and her determination to embrace radical Islam”. BNP news article, 30 December 2006

‘Ministers compared to Nazis over Islam stigma’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

dr bariFollowing on from the Sunday Times attack on Osama Saeed, we have yet another attempt to misrepresent a leading figure in the Muslim community as claiming that Muslims in the UK today are in the same position as Jews in Nazi Germany. This time it’s Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, who is accused by the Torygraph of comparing government ministers to Nazis.

Sunday Telegraph, 18 December 2006

In fact, on the basis of the Torygraph’s own report, Dr Bari did nothing of the sort. In almost identical terms to those used by Osama Saeed, he warned of the possible consequences of a systematic campaign of vilification amed at a minority community, asking: “What is the degree of xenophobia that tipped Germany in the 1930s towards a murderous ethnic and cultural racism?”

Predictably, Jon Benjamin of the Board of Deputies backs the Torygraph’s attack on Dr Bari. He is quoted as saying: “To try to recast modern Britain as equivalent to Nazi Germany is equally offensive and disingenuous, but also dangerous in that it will fuel alienation and anger, particularly at a time when conciliation is vital.”

Yes, well Benjamin would know all about building good relations between communities wouldn’t he? This is the man who was reported as describing the Mayor of London as “a lackey of the Muslim agenda in this country“.

See also Western Resistance, 17 December 2006

Khadija Ravat pulls out of ‘alternative Christmas message’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The Daily Telegraph reports that Khadija Ravat, who was due to deliver Channel 4’s “alternative Christmas message” has pulled out of the programme. A spokesman for Channel 4, however, is quoted as saying that they are trying to find another Muslim woman to replace her.

A “source close to the programme makers” is quoted as saying that Khadija had been “pressurised by senior members of the community who felt it was not her place to talk about Islam”. More likely, it was pointed out that Channel 4’s provocative stunt could only play into the hands of anti-Muslim bigots intent on portraying Islam as an alien ideology.

Treatment of Muslims ‘echoes Jews under Nazis’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Osama Saeed (4)One of Scotland’s most prominent Muslims has compared the treatment of Asians in Britain with that of Jews in Nazi Germany.

Osama Saeed, Scottish spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain and a former Scottish National party candidate, said the growing number of attacks on Muslims echoed the state-sponsored persecution of Jews in pre-war Germany.

Saeed said many middle-class Muslims were considering leaving the country because they feared that they or their families would be attacked because of their religious beliefs. He fears tensions could spill into violent confrontations unless the government tackles souring relations with the Muslim community.

“We didn’t get to the situation in world war two out of nowhere,” said Saeed. “Hitler was a product of a German society where anti-semitic attitudes had existed unchecked for decades. We have got to listen and learn from what happened there and be vigilant. I am not talking about large numbers of people being rounded up, but we could be looking at situations where Muslims are routinely assaulted in the streets.

“We have got to be conscious that we are stoking an unpleasant atmosphere for the people that come after us. In Europe in the 1990s a slaughter of Muslims took place in Bosnia so we are not talking ancient history or pie in the sky. The climate can change quickly.”

Murdo Fraser, the deputy Scottish Tory leader, said the comments were ill-judged. “I don’t think it’s a rational response to compare the treatment of Muslims in today’s Britain in any way to the horrific treatment that the Jewish people suffered at the hands of the Nazis,” he said. “An approach of this sort will win no friends.”

Sunday Times, 10 December 2006

It will be interesting to hear Osama’s response to this. However, even judging by the Sunday Times‘ own report, it is clear that he was not saying that the level of oppression suffered by Muslims in the UK today is equivalent to that of German Jews under the Nazis. Rather he was making the point that the persistent demonisation of a particular community can establish the conditions under which violence against that community is incited and legitimised. But then, when did the right-wing press ever give fair coverage to spokespersons for the Muslim community?