Category Archives: Resisting Islamophobia

Timothy Garton Ash tells Islamophobes to stop whingeing

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“The most tiresome argument in this whole debate is that the niqab makes white, middle-class English people feel ‘uncomfortable’ or ‘threatened’. Well, I want to say, what a load of whingeing wusses. Threatened by drunken football hooligans or muggers – that I can understand. But threatened by a woman quietly going about her business in a veil? As for uncomfortable: myself, I feel uncomfortable with a certain kind of pink-faced Englishman wearing crimson braces, a white-cuffed pinstriped shirt and a bow tie. Their clothing is a fair predictor of the views that will come out of their mouths. But I don’t ask them to take off their braces.”

Timothy Garton Ash in the Guardian, 12 October 2006

Rabbi condemns Straw’s veil comments

Posted on by Bob Pitt

An Ilford rabbi yesterday condemned Jack Straw after he said he would prefer it if Muslim women did not wear the full veil.

Writing to the Chair of the Ilford Islamic Centre, Ilford Federation Synagogue’s Rabbi Alex Chapper said: “I feel his comments were totally unacceptable and display, at best, insensitivity to, and at worst, an ignorance of the laws, customs and practices of Islam. It is nonsense to suggest that, ‘women who wore veils made community relations more difficult’, rather it is remarks such as these that create divisions and intolerance in Britain.”

Rabbi Chapper told the Jewish News: “If you’re going to single out for condemnation, or even ban, one style of dress where do you draw the line? Could the kipah or sheitel be next, are they divisive in Mr Straw’s eye?”

TotallyJewish.com, 12 October 2006

Muslim politicians criticise CofE report

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Muslim politicians have condemned claims by a former Birmingham vicar that Islam is receiving preferential treatment at the expense of Christianity.

Guy Wilkinson, former vicar of Small Heath, said the Government had given “privileged attention” to Muslim communities and spent public money in an attempt to win them over. He is now interfaith advisor to the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams and made the comments in a report for the House of Bishops.

But the claims were denied by MP Khalid Mahmood (Lab Perry Barr), who said: “It’s simply not true that the Government has diverted funding to Muslim organisations.” Birmingham councillor Salma Yaqoob (Respect Sparkbrook) said: “There is attention focused on Muslims but it’s extremely negative and we’d rather not have it.”

Birmingham Post, 10 October 2006

Lecture from Ruth Kelly

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Ruth KellyThe government will fund Muslim groups according to how active they are in fighting extremism, the communities secretary said today, warning that paying “lip service” to the struggle was not good enough.

Ruth Kelly urged members of Britain’s Muslim communities to do more in what she herself said would be a “challenging” message to some listeners.

She also attacked the Muslim Council of Britain – without actually naming it – by criticising organisations which had boycotted Holocaust Memorial Day.

Praising the contribution of many groups to good relations with other communities, she added:

“It’s not good enough to sit on the sidelines or pay lip service to fighting extremism. I want a fundamental rebalancing of our relations with Muslim organisations. In future our strategy on funding and engagement must shift significantly to organisations taking a pro-active leadership role in tackling extremism and defending our shared values.”

Guardian, 11 October 2006

This rather reinforces suspicions that Kelly wants to sideline the MCB and deal with the Sufi Muslim Council, whose launch she attended in July. The SMC is irrelevant and unrepresentative but has the advantage for Kelly that it places the blame for the development of extremism on the community itself rather than on the government’s foreign policy.

Postscript:  Yup, that what’s going on. See the Times, 12 October 2006

See also Osama Saeed’s comments at Rolled Up Trousers, 12 October 2006

Islamophobia is part of the ‘war on terror’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

SW War and Racism“For many Muslim women in Britain and Europe, the decision to wear a veil is not about ‘internalising oppression’. It is a statement of identity adopted in the face of rising Islamophobia and government demands to step through yet one more hoop to prove you are a ‘good Muslim’.

“Muslim women have been to the fore in the anti-war movement – something that has truly brought people together in common cause and given confidence to Muslim women to speak out.

“It ill behoves middle class Westerners, whether Jack Straw or supposed feminists, to dictate what women should wear. What’s at issue is not women’s rights, but an Islamophobic agenda which is the battle cry of the US led global ‘war on terror’.”

Editorial in Socialist Worker, 14 October 2006

See also “Stop scapegoating Muslims – it’s war and racism that fuel division“, “Jack Straw’s veil comments are ammunition for racists” and “A right wing attack on multiculturalism“, plus reports on the Blackburn demonstration against Straw and the so-called “race riot” in Windsor.

Media blasted for blind eye to white terrorism

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Lee JasperLeading race campaigner Lee Jasper attacked the British media for “double standards” after the case of two white far-right activists arrested over a massive suspected bomb-making operation was ignored. Jasper, secretary of the National Assembly Against Racism, contrasted the virtually non-existent coverage given to the alleged terrorism haul with the media firestorm around Muslim terrorism.

Jasper said the lack of attention give to this story contrasted with the way any hint of Muslim terrorism sends the media into over-drive. He said: “The level of Islamophobic press coverage stands in stark contrast to the complete disregard shown for the possibly the biggest act of terrorism ever planned. One can only imagine what the coverage would have been like if the suspects had been Muslim. This amounts to racist double-standards where the media seeks to vilify Muslims while ignoring those who are allegedly engaged in acts of racial terrorism.”

BLINK news report, 11 October 2006

Rammell backs university’s Muslim veil ban

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Bill Rammell, the higher education minister, today weighed into the debate over Muslim women wearing the veil by offering his support to universities that banned the full-face veil.

He repeated the views he expressed on EducationGuardian.co.uk last month after a year of visits to university campuses to talk to Muslim students. Muslim students were entitled to ask for tolerance and consideration but there were limits to what they could and should ask for, argued Mr Rammell.

He said that Imperial College was wrong to attempt to ban women students from wearing the hijab, which covers their heads. The university’s proposed code was amended after protests. But Imperial was right to insist on banning the niqab which covers the face, argued Mr Rammell.

Today he told the Evening Standard newspaper: “I’m not dictating hard and fast rules, as dress codes are a matter for university authorities. But Imperial College recently banned the face veil and I think that this is arguably the best decision. Many teachers would feel very uncomfortable about their ability to teach students who were covering their faces.”

Mr Rammell added: “And I doubt many students would feel it was acceptable to be taught by someone who had chosen to veil their face.”

The National Union of Students (NUS) condemned Mr Rammell’s comments as “unproductive”.

Ruqaayah Collector, the NUS’s black students officer, said Imperial was considered a bad example of how to tackle the issue among other universities. “As a Muslim woman who wears the hijab, I’m worried the debate will go the same way as in France and other countries in Europe. It starts off with this and could move onto other forms of clothing.

“We need the Muslim community on board if we are going to fight extremism. Muslims should feel comfortable going to their MP, however they want to dress. It’s important to respect personal choices. It is a woman’s right to choose how they dress and not be told by men,” said Ms Collector.

Guardian, 11 October 2006

The jackboots of our time

Posted on by Bob Pitt

George Galloway“Sunday saw people gathering to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the great battle of Cable Street. On that day progressive people of all kinds rallied to protect the significant minority of immigrants in London’s east end against the strutting jackboots of a domestic fascism, one of whose very arguments was against the very ‘separateness’ of the Jews who lived there. Their very garb, unusual diets, habits of living in close proximity to each other was a standing affront to the beef-eating Englishness of the Moselyites. ‘Leave the Jews alone’ was the response of the best of the British left. Let them eat dress and live as they want. It is a call that should be echoed about today’s whipping boys, the Muslims.”

George Galloway at the Guardian’s Comment is Free, 9 October 2006

Thinly veiled Islamophobia

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“… does wearing a veil make multi-culturalism more difficult? Does it stoke racial tensions? Is it anti-social? Is it right to ask Muslim women to remove their veils?

“I would answer no. It is true that for a society, multi-cultural or otherwise, to function properly its citizens must observe certain basic, shared values. For example, that the law of the country is paramount, and must be observed by everybody. If this value was not common throughout British society, we would have people of every religious or cultural sect acting according to their own specific laws, society would degenerate into chaos and would, effectively, cease to exist.

“So it is right, then, to say that even in a multi-cultural society (indeed; especially in a multi-cultural society), we must expect all citizens to observe certain common values (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.). However, ‘not wearing a veil’ is not a common value, nor should it be. Mr. Straw makes a mistake by conflating ‘difference’ and ‘separation’. The whole point of a multi-cultural society is that we allow people to express their differences, in fashion, in religion and in culture, within certain limitations (based on public safety)….

“Wearing a veil is, then, a ‘visible statement’ of ‘difference’, but this is not a negative thing. The freedom to express difference is what liberal, progressive democracies are all about. If it is true that ‘people who don’t understand [Muslim] culture’ can find women in veils ‘frightening and intimidating’, as a minister for Communities and Local Government (strangely, the Sunday Mirror described him as ‘Race Minister’) Phil Woolas put it, then the solution is to help people to understand Muslim culture, not to urge Muslims to ‘Westernise’ in order to to fit in better. Multi-culturalism is about embracing cultural differences, not seeking to homogenise society to make everyone look and act the same.

“… the truth is that there is no ‘issue’ with veils; the issue is one of intolerance among some white Britons to people of different cultures. This has been illustrated perfectly over the last few days, with yobs around the country committing hate crimes against Muslims. For example, yesterday a man in Liverpool attacked a Muslim woman, pulling the veil from her face. Earlier this week a 16-year old Asian youth was stabbed in Preston in a racially motivated attack, after a flare-up involving up to 200 people. Local yobs had been chucking bricks and concrete blocks at cars parked outside a mosque.

“This is the real issue, the real obstacle to the success of multi-culturalism; Islamophobia due to fear, ignorance and association with terrorism….”

The Heathlander, 9 October 2006

Also features an effective reply to Joan Smith’s Independent on Sunday article.