Category Archives: Right wing

Regional authority in Czech Republic provides financial support to anti-mosque movement

Posted on by Bob Pitt

AntiMesitaThe Hradec Králové Regional Authority is financially supporting the AntiMešita (Anti-Mosque) movement, which holds discussions on the danger of Islam for citizens of Hradec Králové, establishes petitions against the existence of mosques in various towns and fights the spread of Islamic culture on Czech territory.

Despite the controversial nature of their activities, the association has received financial support from the Regional Authority in the amount of CZK 15 000. Imrich Dioszegi, press spokesperson for the Regional Authority, told local daily Hradecký deník that:

“…just as the region contributes to the activities of various cultural or sports clubs and associations on its territory, the Regional Council decided to support the activities of the civic associations AntiMešita and AntiMešita-envi with CZK 15 000. The money corresponds to an application intended for the activity of both associations, the creation of a web page and legal services.”

As a result of the governing coalition agreement in that region, the Christian Democrats have the greatest influence over allocating financial gifts.

AntiMešita founder Kusák perceives the financial gift as a way for Regional Governor Lubomír Franc (ČSSD), the Regional Council, and the Regional Authority’s leadership to express their moral support for his cause. He is using the financial support to design and implement anti-Islamic discussions in Hradec Králové and to make the AntiMešita movement visible.

Romano Vod’i, 19 July 2011

Radio talk show host warns Georgia Tea Party of global Islamic agenda

Posted on by Bob Pitt

More than 130 people filled the meeting room at The Carnegie in Newnan July 12 to hear radio talk show host and former pastor Dr. Jody Hice explain that Islam, far from being only a religion, is actually a totalitarian way of life that stands in opposition to the freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

From one perspective and to some Muslims, said “Let Freedom Ring” radio show host Jody Hice, Islam is a religion where Allah is worshiped. But Islam is much more than a religion. It is a complete way of life that encompasses financial, judicial (through Sharia law), political, military and religious aspects of life, he said. That way of life, said Hice, stands in diametric opposition to the American belief in human rights based on Judeo-Christian concepts and the U.S. Constitution.

“Most people think Islam is a religion, It’s not. It’s a totalitarian way of life with a religious component. But it’s much larger. It’s a geo-political system that has governmental, financial, military, legal and religious components. And it’s a totalitarian system that encompasses every aspect of life and it should not be protected (under U.S. law),” Hice said.

The Citizen, 17 July 2011

Southern Baptist leader defends US Muslims against Herman Cain

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Richard LandSouthern Baptist leader Richard Land chided presidential candidate Herman Cain for disregarding the constitutional rights of U.S. Muslims during a Monday C-SPAN interview.

He reminded Cain that as a Christian and an African American, he should have a special interest in the enforcement of the constitution in all communities.

Last week, Cain told reporters that the plan to build the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro in Rutherford County, Tenn., is “an infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion.” He sided with community members who have protested the center saying the center is “another way to gradually sneak Sharia law into our laws.”

Cain, an associate pastor at Antioch Baptist Church North and a GOP presidential hopeful, argued last week that the ICM is not an “innocent mosque” and warned of the threat of Sharia (Islamic law) to American laws. He asserted in a Sunday Fox News interview that the Murfreesboro community has the right to ban the center’s construction.

Land said he agrees that allowing Sharia law in the courts is unconstitutional, as it also violates the rights of women. He agreed that it should not be enforced in America’s legal system or government, but reminded the public that that the First Amendment allows for religious freedom.

“I think the First Amendment is one of those amendments that is too important and protects rights that are too central to our guaranteed rights in this country to be left with a local option,” he asserted.

Like Christians, Muslims have the right to have places of worship near where they live, Land said. Additionally, Muslims and Christians have the shared right to abide by the rules of their faith as long as that faith is not imposed on the government, he argued.

Muslim women in America have a right to choose to be veiled and abide by Sharia in their marriages. Land said that he would fight to the death to protect Christians’ right to abide by biblical precepts in their marriages. Similarly he contended, “I defend to the death of their (Muslims’) right” to marry according to their customs.

The Southern Baptist also asserted that Cain, who boasts that he is the descendent of slaves, should defend Muslims’ rights under the Constitution so that they are upheld in every community, city and state.

“Mr. Cain of all people, as an African American, should understand that our civil rights have to be guaranteed on a federal level,” he said. “I don’t think he would want to leave the civil rights of an African American to the local voters in Philadelphia and Mississippi where they buried three civil rights workers – one black, two white – under a dam after they had killed them.”

Christian Post, 18 July 2011

Watchdog recommends Tory U-turn on banning Hizb ut-Tahrir

Posted on by Bob Pitt

HizbThe counter-terrorism watchdog has recommended that the government back down on a manifesto promise to ban a British radical Islamist group.

In a report submitted to parliament, David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, says he does “not recommend changes to the system for proscription” that would allow the non-violent organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir to be banned.

As recently as May this year, David Cameron was explicit about his desire to see the group banned. In reply to a question from the Labour MP and former home secretary Alan Johnson, he said: “We are clear that we must target groups that promote extremism, not just violent extremism. We have proscribed one or two groups. I would like to see action taken against Hizb ut-Tahrir, and that review is under way.”

It is understood that Anderson’s review is likely to force the government into a U-turn over the issue. In his report Anderson said there were “formidable difficulties” to changing the proscription system, “which appear amply to justify the decision to stick with the status quo”.

In the aftermath of the 7 July attacks Tony Blair promised to ban HT but failed to get around legal obstacles. Currently only groups involved in violence or those directly “glorifying terrorism” can lawfully be banned.

In opposition, Cameron raised the issue during Gordon Brown’s first prime minister’s question time, asking: “We think it [Hizb ut-Tahrir] should be banned – why has this not happened?” In 2009 Cameron again upbraided Brown for not banning the group.

The Tory 2010 election manifesto was explicit in its promise to ban the group. It stated that a Conservative government would “ban any organisation which advocates hate or the violent overthrow of our society, such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir.”

Tory ministers have backed the pledge to ban the group. In 2009 the then shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, said in a speech to his party conference: “I will immediately ban Hizb ut Tahrir.” In November of that year, the shadow education minister, Michael Gove, said a Tory government would proscribe the group, which has branches in dozens of other countries around the world.

Anderson told the Guardian he believed that the government would ultimately drop its plans to ban the group. “I’m not part of the government … but I’m aware that it has been very carefully looked at … and I’m not aware of any immediate plans to put them on the list,” he said.

Lord Carlile, the previous counter-terrorism reviewer, told the Guardian he was not aware of any plans to ban the group and believed that the government would be forced into a U-turn. “I don’t think anything is going to happen … I think the general view is that Hizb ut-Tahrir are best dealt with in public debate rather than by proscription,” he said.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “We welcome David Anderson’s thorough and considered report – his first on the operation of the terrorism acts since becoming the independent reviewer. He has raised a number of issues and made detailed recommendations which we will consider carefully and respond to formally in the autumn.”

Guardian, 19 July 2011

We look forward to The Spittoon denouncing David Anderson and Lord Carlile for having come to much the same conclusion about Hizb ut-Tahrir as Islamophobia Watch has.

Breastfeeding is banned – it offends Muslims

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Apparently it’s not just Christmas that has been banned because it offends Muslims but public breastfeeding too.

Last week the Daily Mail published a report under the headline “Breast-feeding mother ‘told to leave council headquarters because she would offend Muslim visitors’.” The Metro covered the story too, headlining their report “Breastfeeding mother ‘told to leave centre to prevent offending Muslims’.”

As the Press Not Sorry blog has pointed out, there is no evidence presented, either in the Mail or Metro articles or in the original Oldham Evening Chronicle report on which they were based, that the officials at Oldham’s Civic Centre who (entirely illegally) asked Emma Mitchell not to breastfeed her 19-week-old son in the building made any reference to Muslims.

The nearest we get to finding any basis for the “offence to Muslims” angle is in the Metro report, which quotes Mrs Mitchell as saying: “A member of the complaints department said, ‘You’ve caused an uproar in there.’ She must have been talking about the Asian people who were in a room.”

The Mail has since amended its report. The article originally began: “A breast-feeding mother has been ordered out of council offices after staff said it would ’cause an uproar’ among Muslim visitors, it has been claimed.” This has now been changed to: “A mother was ordered not to breastfeed her baby in public because she was in a ‘multicultural building’.”

So the Mail can’t pretend it is unaware of the inaccuracy of its original report. But that hasn’t prevented the paper retaining its misleading headline blaming the problem on Muslims.

Herman Cain: Americans have the right to ban mosques in their communities

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Herman Cain said Sunday that Americans should be able to ban Muslims from building mosques in their communities.

“Our Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state,” Cain said in an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. “Islam combines church and state. They’re using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their morals in that community, and the people of that community do not like it. They disagree with it.”

Last week, the Republican presidential candidate expressed criticism of a planned mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, telling reporters at a campaign event that “This is just another way to try to gradually sneak Sharia law into our laws, and I absolutely object to that.”

“This isn’t an innocent mosque,” Cain said.

On Fox News Sunday, Wallace pressed him about those comments. “Let’s go back to the fundamental issue,” Cain said. “Islam is both a religion and a set of laws – Sharia laws. That’s the difference between any one of our traditional religions where it’s just about religious purposes.”

“So, you’re saying that any community, if they want to ban a mosque…” Wallace began. “Yes, they have the right to do that,” Cain said.

Huffington Post, 17 July 2011

See also Mediaite, 17 July 2011

Update:  See “Local Muslim representative says Cain’s comments hurtful”, Daily News Journal, 18 July 2011

Quilliam’s ‘Former EDL members speak out’ stunt unravels

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Quilliam_logoOur friends at Quilliam have proudly announced that they will be holding a roundtable event next week at which ex-members of the English Defence League will condemn their former organisation.

This would appear to be in line with the view promoted at the Summit Against Violent Extremism in Dublin last month, with which Quilliam was actively involved, namely that individuals who have renounced extremist violence are among the best placed people to campaign against it.

As Quilliam’s publicity for the 20 July roundtable explains, while the EDL has gained prominence through its often violent public activities, “relatively little is known about the group’s internal workings, its methods of recruitment, its overall strategy and its future plans. For the first time ever, Quilliam is able to bring together former senior members of the EDL who have renounced the group and are willing to speak out against it publicly and to answer questions about the organisation and their time inside it.”

Continue reading →

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain backs opponents of Murfreesboro Islamic Center

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Murfreesboro mosque protestMURFREESBORO, Tenn. — Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain opposes a planned Tennessee mosque that has been the subject of protests and legal challenges.

Cain didn’t bring up the controversial facility in a campaign rally on Thursday, but told reporters afterward that he’s concerned about the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. “It is an infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion,” he said. “And I don’t agree with what’s happening, because this isn’t an innocent mosque.”

The new mosque has been the subject of protests and counterprotests in the city about 35 miles southeast of Nashville. A county judge ruled in May that the mosque construction does not harm the residents who sued to try to stop it, but he allowed them to move forward on claims the county violated an open meetings law in approving it.

Opponents have used the hearings to argue that the mosque is part of a plot to expand Islamic extremism in the U.S. Cain appeared to agree. “It is another example of why I believe in American laws and American courts,” Cain said. “This is just another way to try to gradually sneak Shariah law into our laws, and I absolutely object to that.”

Huffington Post, 14 July 2011

See also Adam Serwer, “Herman Cain winning the anti-Muslim primary hands down”, The Plum Line, 15 July 2011