Category Archives: Resisting Islamophobia

Muslim leaders join condemnation

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Muslim leaders have condemned the terror attacks on London and called for full co-operation with police.
Muslim Council of Britain spokesman Inayat Bunglawala called on worshippers to pray for victims at Friday prayers.

And Ahmed Sheikh, president of the Muslim Association of Britain, said he feared a backlash and added that the Muslim community would feel less safe. He warned that Muslims, especially women in headscarves, might fall prey to vigilante attacks..

BBC News, 7 July 2005

See also Islam Online, 7 July 2005

Attack on Ian Blair continues

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A letter in the Sun (4 July 2005) reads: “Arrogant Sir Ian Blair is unrepentant about the racism case, saying the Met can’t expect to win the confidence of the Muslim community if they ignored issues like this. Doesn’t he care about losing the confidence of the white community if he is blatantly pro-Muslim and anti-white?”

In a letter to the Guardian, Glen Smyth of the Metropolitan Police Federation complains that: “The commissioner continues to assert that the comments of one of the officers involved in the recent high-profile employment-tribunal race-discrimination case taken against the service by three white officers were ‘Islamophobic’: ‘That language was gratuitous, offensive and deliberate’.”

Which of course is exactly what it was. Smyth’s claim that he and his colleagues in the Police Federation “understand and endorse the need to understand and respect all of London’s communities” rings a little hollow.

Post-9/11 workplace discrimination continues in USA

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Nearly four years after the terrorist attacks, Muslim, South Asian and Arab-American employees continue to report discrimination on the job.

Compared with the first two years after the Sept. 11 attacks, the number of employees saying they’ve been discriminated against as a form of backlash because of the attacks has declined. But charges continue to come in, indicating that Arab-American and other workers still feel discriminated against.

“People are being called ‘terrorist’ at work, things of that sort,” says Arsalan Iftikhar, national legal director at Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). “A lot of cases continue to go on. People have been called Osama bin Laden, told they are going to mosque to learn how to build a bomb.”

Nearly 280 claims of discrimination in the workplace were received by CAIR in 2004, and the workplace was the second-most-common location for an alleged incident. The first was government agencies.

At the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, about 980 charges alleging post-9/11 backlash discrimination have been filed through June 11 since the 2001 attacks. Most involved firing and alleged harassment; the EEOC specifically tracks “backlash” cases, where employees claim discrimination relating to 9/11.

Likewise, religious bias charges are higher today than before 9/11. From Sept. 11, 2001, through June 11, the EEOC received 2,168 charges of discrimination based on an employee’s Muslim religion. That compares with 1,104 such charges in the same time span before the attacks.

The agency has obtained more than $4.2 million on behalf of employees alleging post-9/11 backlash. The EEOC has filed lawsuits against employers such as MBNA America Bank, the Plaza hotel in New York, Alamo Rent A Car and construction giant Bechtel.

USA Today, 5 July 2005

Hamza and hatred

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri has appeared in court at the start of his trial on terrorism charges. The 47-year-old, who denies any involvement in terrorism, has been held at Belmarsh prison since May 2004…. He faces 10 charges alleging he solicited people at meetings to murder non-Muslims, including Jews. A further four charges allege he used ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up racial hatred’.”

BBC News, 5 July 2005

Though the question of Abu Hamza’s guilt remains open, of course, it might be noted that the latter four charges are under Section 18(1) of the 1986 Public Order Act, which states:

“A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if –
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred by thereby.”

The current Racial and Religious Hatred Bill proposes to amend this so that “racial hatred” becomes “racial or religious hatred”. At the risk of repetition, the purpose is to extend to Muslims and Hindus the right to protection from hatred presently enjoyed by Jews and Sikhs under the Act.

If, as its critics allege, the Bill represents a terrible attack on the right to free speech, it is difficult to see how they can in all consistency refuse to condemn the suppression of free speech under the existing racial hatred sections of the 1986 Act.

We look forward to Nick Cohen, Melanie Phillips, the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, Harry’s Place et al publishing indignant articles defending Abu Hamza’s democratic right to incite hatred against Jews without action being taken against him under the Public Order Act.

Lawrence isn’t over yet

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“They went to law and won their case, but as symbols of a policing service focused on diverse communities, former Detective Constable Tom Hassell, Detective Sergeant Colin Lockwood and Detective Inspector Paul Whatmore leave something to be desired. During a training course, Hassell erroneously referred to “Shi’ites” as “Shitties”. He likened the headwear worn by Muslims to tea cosies – surely a lame observation for the 21st century, when we know so much about the need to respect other cultures. When Hassell was also flippant about the demands of Muslim fasting, someone – senior colleagues, perhaps – might have thought it prudent, given the demands of basic civility, to take him to task. But neither Lockwood or Whatmore did so. Lockwood merely corrected Hassell’s mispronunciation.

“… one can easily see the subplot of what is happening here. It is already being said that the officers suffered from the politically correct regime forced upon Scotland Yard by the Lawrence inquiry. They themselves have claimed to be victims of a witch hunt, and the commissioner is portrayed as a destructively liberal figure who, because of the failings of those who should have known better, has been allowed to take the helm. ‘Is this man destroying the Met?’ the Daily Mail asked last month.”

Hugh Muir argues that “reactionaries are trying to use an employment tribunal decision to scupper the drive against police racism”.

Guardian, 4 July 2005

Dutch draft law to monitor imams’ sermons

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The Dutch parliament is currently debating a draft law presented by the government on combating Islamic radicalism, including a TV show to monitor sermons delivered by imams.

The controversial measure drew rebuke from a prominent Dutch Muslim scholar who told IslamOnline.net it would deepen Muslim isolation in the country.

According to the 32-item measure, one mosque sermon would be televised each week without the prior knowledge of the imam. It would then be debated by the programme’s guests.

Minister of Immigrants and Integration Rita Verdonk told parliament the aim of this program is to draw the attention of young Dutch of foreign origin to the grave consequences of religious extremism.

Islam Online, 3 July 2005

I’m not sorry, says police chief

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Sir Ian Blair, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, has admitted that his methods may be unpopular within his force. He added that his mission to modernise the force would not be jeopardised by the fallout from this week’s employment tribunal, in which he was accused of having hung three of his officers out to dry.

His force was found to have racially discriminated against three white officers who were disciplined after allegedly making racist remarks about Muslims at a training day. Sir Ian was unrepentant and described the remarks, which were at the heart of this week’s tribunal, as Islamophobic, promising that there would be no room in his force for racism.

The Times, 2 July 2005

The Daily Mail, meanwhile, returns to the attack, devoting an entire article to one of the officers, DC Hassell, who is portrayed as the innocent victim of “bosses obsessed with political correctness”:

“The case, which revolved around a bungled presentation on Islam in which DC Hassell – woefully unqualified for the task – mispronounced Shi’ites as ‘Shitties’ and described Muslim headgear as ‘tea-cosies’, was eventually exposed as one of the most ludicrous and unfair procedures ever brought against serving officers.”

The Mail reports that Hassell also “told his colleagues that he would not want to be ‘that lot’, referring to Muslims fasting and abstaining from sex in daylight hours during the holy month of Ramadan. He still fails to see why any of that should cause offence”.

Daily Mail, 2 July 2005

The Mayor of London has issued the following statement: “Sir Ian Blair deserves full backing for his firm action in initiating disciplinary proceedings. We cannot go back to the bad old days when many of London’s diverse communities had no confidence in the police because they believed that allegations of racism in the Met were ignored.”

GLA press release, 30 June 2005

Muslim woman sues real estate company, alleges discrimination

Posted on by Bob Pitt

scarfsuit9.jpgAn Orlando Muslim woman is suing a Florida real estate company for religious discrimination after being told she could not wear a head scarf and long sleeves at work.

Danine Hammond, 27, said the office manager of Chapel Trace Apartments in east Orange County told her she couldn’t wear her hijab, a head scarf donned by some Muslim women.

Hammond is suing the Miami-based Housing Trust Management Co., which owns the complex, under Florida’s Civil Rights Act and requesting that the company compensate her for lost pay and benefits, punitive and compensatory damages, and legal fees, according to the lawsuit.

“I feel I have the right to work here in the U.S., and I shouldn’t have to compromise my religion,” Hammond said during a news conference Wednesday at the entrance to the complex, where she lives.

Orlando Sentinel, 23 June 2005

Robert Spencer offers this as an example of the “clash of civilizations”.

Dhimmi Watch, 1 July 2005

Over at Militant Islam Monitor, they’re convinced that it’s another CAIR-inspired plot to destroy western society.

Militant Islam Monitor, 24 June 2005

IHRC demand end to SOAS student witch hunt

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“SOAS masters student Nasser Amin wrote an article in his university paper defending the right of Palestinians to resist occupation by violence. After the publication of the article Amin became the focus of a bitter witch hunt which resulted in him being reprimanded by SAOS University. The reprimand was published on the university’s official website without even informing Amin. His article ‘when only violence will do’ was written in response to one published by Hamza Yusuf which said, in effect that Muslims in Palestine should ‘turn the other cheek’ when facing Israeli violent antagonism.

“The article was not extreme nor even unusual, and similar arguments have been used and promoted in academia e.g. by Professor Michael Neuman. The article was set in a context of open debate about the moral rights and wrongs of Palestinian resistance, and SOAS’s response is at best bizarre.”

IHRC action alert, 30 June 2005