Category Archives: Resisting Islamophobia

Houston debuts Muslim billboards

Posted on by Bob Pitt

CAIR billboard

The local chapter of the Council on American-Islamic relations debuted today billboards that promote Muslim patriotism to counter Islamophobia in the months leading up to the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

The 10 billboards, located along area interstates, read “Proud Americans, Proud Texans, Proud Muslims,” and display faces of members of the Houston Muslim community.

One billboard shows Muslims serving in a variety of professions – including a doctor and soldier – and another illustrates interfaith relationships by showing an imam with a Jewish rabbi and Christian pastor.

Houston is the first city to display such billboards, though other markets may adopt the campaign, said Ibrahim Hooper, national spokesman for CAIR.

A grant from private donors enabled the organization to afford the $54,000 cost, said Mustafaa Carroll, director of CAIR-Houston.

The billboards are meant to promote a positive image of local Muslims in response to recent incidents in the community, including two Houston-area mosques that were deliberately set on fire this spring.

Houston Chronicle, 10 June 2011

Trade unionists and youth unite against racist EDL in Dewsbury

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Trade unionists came together with Muslim young people to oppose the racists and fascists of the English Defence League in Dewsbury today.

Around 200 people from Dewsbury and neighbouring areas of West Yorkshire showed their support for multiculturalism and their opposition to the EDL thugs at the event organised by Kirklees UAF and supported by the local Unison branch, other trade unionists and faith leaders.

The antiracist demonstrators included trade unionists from the Unison, NUT, CWU and GMB unions among others, plus a large and lively contingent of young Muslims, standing up proudly against the Islamophobic EDL.

Speakers at the rally included NUT rep Martin Jones, Pat Jones of Kirklees Unison, CWU rep Simon Midgely, Ashiq Hussein, chair of We are Bradford, and UAF joint secretary Weyman Bennett.

The EDL mobilised across the North of England and the Midlands to bring between 300 and 400 to their racist “protest”, with racist and fascist thugs coming from as far afield as Leicester, Newcastle and Merseyside.

They had attempted to assemble in nearby Bately before heading for Dewsbury, but were gathered up by police and escorted on buses into their assigned spot in a Dewsbury car park.

UAF news report, 11 June 2011

EDL demonstration: counter-protesters rally at Maidenhead Mosque

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Maidenhead Mosque counter-protestCounter-protesters staged a demonstration at Maidenhead Mosque today following a march by the English Defence League (EDL) in Maidenhead’s town centre.

The EDL held a protest in the town from about 10.30-1pm today, against the Islamic Trust’s plans for a new cultural centre near Maidenhead Mosque.

Police lined the town centre streets during the demonstrations today. They also patrolled surrounding areas including Moor Lane in the North Town area of Maidenhead, where about 100 Muslims, Unite Against Fascism members (UAF) and residents, staged a counter march – heading their way towards Maidenhead Mosque.

UAF members, many of whom were not Muslim, went inside Maidenhead Mosque at about noon before sitting inside – where members from the Muslim community prayed.

Talking outside the mosque, members of the crowd said they were there to defend the place of worship. “Many of us are worried that EDL members will come here and try to deface or ruin the mosque. It is our place of worship so we are here to defend it if we need to,” said a 22-year-old man who wished not to be named through fears he will be targeted.

Maidenhead Advertiser, 11 June 2011

See also “EDL protest: Protesters march and make speeches in town centre”, Maidenhead Advertiser, 11 June 2011

Homophobia in Tower Hamlets: how a small group of bigots are trying to stitch up the East London Mosque

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The statement by a group of LGBT activists reported yesterday by the Guardian, Pink News and the East London Advertiser draws attention to the worrying rise in homophobic crimes in Tower Hamlets, which increased by 21%, from 67 to 81, during the year up to April. But the statement fails to mention that this phenomenon is to be found across many London boroughs and that Tower Hamlets is by no means the worst example.

Indeed, when the Pink Paper reported last month on increases in homophobic crime revealed by the latest Metropolitan Police statistics, Tower Hamlets didn’t even rate a mention:

“Homophobic attacks in London’s Soho and the gay-friendly borough of Westminster increased last year, according to the Met Police. New figures released by Scotland Yard revealed that anti-gay hate crime increased by 26 per cent, from 117 to 148 incidents, from April 2010 to April 2011…. The borough of Harrow suffered the biggest increase in assaults, with crimes soaring by 125 per cent. Likewise, Islington saw a significant jump with incidents rising from 82 to 131, a surge of 60 per cent. The boroughs of Havering, Kingston-upon-Thames and Enfield weren’t dissimilar, joining Westminster as some of the worst offenders in the Greater London area.”

Continue reading →

French Muslims use our cash to fight burkha ban (not)

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The Express had two of its perennial bugbears – immigration and Europe – in its sights this morning when it reported that a Muslim couple that had settled in Britain were to use taxpayers’ cash to fight France’s burkha ban in the European Court of Human Rights.

Its headline boldly declared that: “French Muslims to use our cash to fight burkha ban.” The first paragraph fleshed this out in more detail: “A French Muslim couple sparked fury yesterday by using a free legal service paid for by British taxpayers to challenge their country’s controversial burkha ban.”

However readers able to splutter their way through to the end of the article might have noticed a slight problem: none of the story as told in the bulk of the article was actually accurate.

The Express includes a cursory quote at the end of its article explaining that the couple concerned were not actually receiving public money, as was loudly proclaimed in the headline.

It read: “But a Legal Services spokesman said that even if taxpayer-funded IAS lawyers were representing the couple, that service would not be paid for by legal aid. He added that they only gave legal aid to cases involving British law and concerned with immigration.”

While the Express no longer subscribes to the Press Complaints Commission, we hope its editors would agree that articles such as this mislead and misinform the paper’s readers. We will therefore be asking the Express to print a correction.

Full Fact, 10 June 2011

EDL swallows Express fairytale

Herman Cain would require Muslim appointees to take a special loyalty oath

Posted on by Bob Pitt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnm0x3xeH_M

In March, former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain burst onto the presidential scene when he told ThinkProgress that he “will not” appoint Muslims in his administration.

Under intense pressure, Cain’s campaign walked back the candidate’s words, saying that he would appoint “any person for a position based on merit.” However, the next week, Cain hedged his retraction, telling the Orlando Sun Sentinel that he would only appoint a Muslim who disavowed Sharia law, but that “he’s unaware of any Muslim who’d be willing to make such a disavowal.”

On the Glenn Beck Show today, the host asked the Georgia Republican about his refusal to appoint Muslims. Cain told Beck that he would be willing to appoint a Muslim only “if they can prove to me that they’re putting the Constitution of the United States first.” Beck followed up by asking if he was calling for “some loyalty proof” for Muslims. Cain said, “Yes, to the Constitution of the United States of America.” When Beck then asked “Would you do that to a Catholic or would you do that to a Mormon?” Cain told the host, “Nope, I wouldn’t.”

BECK: You said you would not appoint a Muslim to anybody in your administration.

CAIN: The exact language was when I was asked, “would you be comfortable with a Muslim in your cabinet?” And I said, “no, I would not be comfortable.” I didn’t say I wouldn’t appoint one because if they can prove to me that they’re putting the Constitution of the United States first then they would be a candidate just like everybody else. My entire career, I’ve hired good people, great people, regardless of their religious orientation.

BECK: So wait a minute. Are you saying that Muslims have to prove their, that there has to be some loyalty proof?

CAIN: Yes, to the Constitution of the United States of America.

BECK: Would you do that to a Catholic or would you do that to a Mormon?

CAIN: Nope, I wouldn’t. Because there is a greater dangerous part of the Muslim faith than there is in these other religions. I know that there are some Muslims who talk about, “but we are a peaceful religion.” And I’m sure that there are some peace-loving Muslims.

Scott Keyes at Think Progress, 8 June 2011

British couple challenge French veil ban

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A Muslim husband and wife are using a British legal team to launch a landmark human rights challenge to the French ban on face-covering veils.

The couple are taking the French government to the European Court of Human Rights over its prohibition on wearing the niqab and burka in a case of importance across the European Union. They are seeking damages and a ruling that the ban on the full-face veil is “unnecessary, disproportionate and unlawful”. They also contend the blanket ban restricts their right to free movement across the EU.

The husband is a French national living with his wife and two children in the West Midlands. They are being represented by Robina Shah from the Birmingham-based Immigration Advisory Service, who has lodged their application with the human rights court in Strasbourg, and barrister Ramby de Mello.

Ms Shah said: “The case clearly is of importance to my clients. As a result of the ban they have had to leave their country of nationality, as the ban restricts their freedom of choice, and that of their daughters.”

The couple wish to remain anonymous, saying there is “considerable hostility” in both the UK and France to Muslim women who go fully veiled in public.

Asian Image, 9 June 2011

Court upholds Catalan city’s veil ban

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A Spanish court has upheld a ban by a city on face-covering Islamic veils worn in municipal buildings.

In 2010, the city of Lleida became the first Spanish one to impose such a ban. But the Catalan regional Superior Justice Tribunal suspended it following an appeal by a Muslim association that claimed it violated basic rights.

The court ruled Wednesday that the northeastern city was within its rights to ban the clothing in municipal buildings for security and identification purposes. It also backed Lleida’s argument that the veils are discriminatory.

Other Spanish towns have taken similar steps but their burqa bans have yet to take effect.

Lleida’s one is largely symbolic since only about 3 percent of Lleida’s population is Muslim and very few wear face-covering garments.

Associated Press, 9 June 2011