‘Instead of confronting extremism, Muslim leaders bleat about Islamophobia’

“The widespread refusal to face up to the reality of Muslim extremism is one of the most dispiriting and dangerous traits of modern Britain…. Instead of confronting extremism, the majority of Muslim leaders prefer to bleat about so-called Islamophobia, parading their grievances over everything from the veil to British foreign policy. Any reference to the terror threat is airily dismissed as the work of a tiny criminal element divorced from the moderate mainstream. But this will not wash, for there is mounting evidence that a singifican number of Britain’s 1.7 million Muslims are sympathetic to violent jihadism.”

Leo McKinstry in the Daily Express, 13 November 2006

Muslim women shouldn’t wear veils in public, says Archbishop

One of the Church of England’s most senior figures today risks a row with the Muslim community by suggesting that Islamic women should not wear veils in public.

In a wide-ranging interview with the Daily Mail, Dr John Sentamu warns that “no minority” should impose its beliefs on the rest of society and that the veil causes Muslim women to “stick out”.

The Archbishop of York – who ranks second in the Church’s hierarchy – also says the BBC is biased against Christians because Anglicans don’t threaten to “bomb” the corporation.

Daily Mail, 13 November 2006

See also “Archbishop questions role of veil”, Evening Standard, 13 November 2006

Scrap the Human Rights Act and ban Hizb ut-Tahrir, says Cameron

David CameronResponding to Eliza Manningham-Buller’s speech, Tory leader David Cameron makes his recommendations for countering the threat of terrorism: “… we need to change our attitude to human rights. The Human Rights Act was a new Labour flagship but its totemic status has made ministers unwilling to acknowledge how much it is hampering the fight against terrorism.”

Cameron also advocates “a much more rigorous approach to combating Islamic fundamentalism. The government seems confused as to what fundamentalism actually is. On the one hand ministers – perfectly reasonably – express concern about women who wear the veil while teaching. On the other hand they pay for extremist preachers of hate such as Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who supports suicide bombings, to attend conferences. We need to embrace genuinely moderate Muslims…. Those who distance themselves from terrorism while seeking to radicalise young Muslims into despising the West are part of the problem. Groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir should be banned.”

Sunday Times, 12 November 2006

As Osama Saeed points out, here Cameron rejects one of Manningham-Buller’s own points – that it is a mistake to “confuse fundamentalism with terrorism”.

Rolled Up Trousers, 12 November 2006

Double think on incitement

In the wake of BNP leader Nick Griffin’s acquittal on a charge of inciting racial hatred against Muslims, editorials in both the Sunday Telegraph and the Observer come out against tightening the law.

Their arguments are ignorant – the Torygraph is evidently labouring under the impression that Mizanur Rahman was convicted of incitement to murder, when he was of course convicted of inciting racial hatred – and also incoherent. The Observer argues that Griffin’s case was different because his speech was made “in private” – though what that has to do with the issue of incitement is unclear. Does the Observer think it would have been OK for Griffin to incite people to go out and murder Muslims, as long as his speech was made at a BNP internal meeting?

Both the Telegraph and the Observer argue that words which fall short of actually inciting violence should not be criminalised – which is in fact an argument for abolishing most of the existing legislation against inciting racial hatred. No doubt the Telegraph would welcome such a step. We can only assume that the Observer agrees.

Mad Mel rejects ‘Jewish/fascist axis’

“In the Communist Party’s Morning Star newspaper last September, Geoff Brown cited both the BNP’s support for Israel against Hezbollah, and chairman Nick Griffin’s support for the Jewish writer Bat Ye’or who has warned of an Islamist takeover of Europe, as evidence of a Jewish/fascist axis. As was clear from this article, such a vicious attempt to link the Jews with the fascists was prompted in large measure by an attempt to bury the link between Islamic fascism and the left.”

Melanie Phillips in the Jewish Chronicle, 10 November 2006

In fact Brown’s article was mainly a critique of the ludicrous claim made by the All-Party Parliamentary Committee on Anti-Semitism (under the influence of Searchlight) that the far right has allied itself with Islamists in order to incite hatred against the Jewish community. Brown pointed out that, as far as its public propaganda is concerned, the BNP has almost entirely ditched anti-semitism in favour of inciting hatred against Muslims, and in doing so openly promotes the Islamophobic rantings of Bat Ye’or.

Addressing the future evolution of the BNP under Griffin’s leadership, Brown wrote that “the possibility of the BNP making a pitch for the support of a right-wing minority within the Jewish community on an anti-Muslim programme, as the far-right party Vlaams Belang has successfully done in Belgium, cannot be excluded” (emphasis added). How exactly does that amount to “a vicious attempt to link the Jews with the fascists” or to “smear Jews … as being the neo-fascists’ natural allies”?

You can understand why Mad Mel might be a bit sensitive about the idea of fascists finding common ground with right-wingers in the Jewish community. Last year a BNP writer name-checked Phillips as one of the newspaper columnists whose opinions BNP supporters “feel most closely match their own”.

Netherlands moves toward total ban on Muslim veils

The Netherlands may become the first European country to ban Muslim face veils after its government pledged yesterday to outlaw the wearing in public spaces of the niqab, or veil, and the burka, or full-length cloak covering the head.

The right-leaning coalition said last night that it would look for a way to outlaw the wearing of all Muslim face veils. The grounds for a ban were laid last December when parliament voted in favour of a proposal to criminalise face coverings, as part of a security measure proposed by a far-right politician, Geert Wilders.

Rita Verdonk, the immigration minister, signalled that the government would now push for a total ban, even though the legislation would be likely to contravene Dutch religious freedom laws.

“The cabinet finds the wearing of a burka undesirable … but cannot at present enforce a total ban,” the Dutch news agency ANP quoted her as saying after a cabinet meeting.

Ms Verdonk suggested that existing legislation which limits the wearing of burkas and other full-body coverings on public transport and in schools did not go far enough, and that the cabinet would discuss as wide a ban as possible in the coming week.

“The government will search for the possibility to provide a ban,” her spokeswoman told the Reuters news agency.

Guardian, 11 November 2006

‘Fury as top judge gives in to Muslim hardliners on veils’

Now Law Backs Veils“A High Court judge sparked outrage last night after he gave lawyers the green light to wear veils in court. The ruling was made after a Muslim solicitor twice refused an immigration judge’s request to reveal her face – despite him explaining that he could not hear her speak.

“Mr Justice Hodge, who was asked to issue guidance over the case, yesterday defended the right of lawyers to wear the niqab and said it was ‘important to be sensitive’. His decision was widely condemned by critics, who claimed he had caved in to Islamic hardliners….

“David Davies, Conservative MP for Monmouth, said the decision caved in to Islamic pressure. He added: ‘British courts are there to determine whether the truth is being told. How can they do that if they cannot hear? Allowing people to hide their faces in a court where all should be laid bare in the search for truth and justice is not good enough. If we were in a Muslim court we would be expected to abide by their rules on dress. So why is it that this lady can work in a British court and wear whatever she likes?'”

Daily Express, 10 November 2006

The Express editorial, headed “Allowing veils in court is a deeply disturbing move”, condemns the decision as “yet another act of multicultural surrender” which has allowed “Islamic pressures to undermine yet another foundation of our society”. It adds: “The very idea of a disembodied voice, steeped in a defiantly alien culture and covered entirely in black, being able to take away the liberty of any Briton is quite disgusting.”

Sacked Muslim officer wants police protection

The Muslim firearms officer who was sacked from an elite Scotland Yard unit guarding dignitaries, including Tony Blair, is seeking special police protection after he was forced to move to a secret location amid fears for the safety of his family.

Pc Amjad Farooq, 39, is suing the Metropolitan Police for race and religious discrimination after he was removed from Scotland Yard’s Diplomatic Protection Group (S016) when he was told he had failed a security check because his children went to the same mosque as an imam suspected of having links to terrorism.

Yesterday, friends of Pc Farooq said a house where he had been staying had been visited by an unknown man who made unfounded accusations linking Pc Farooq’s friends to al-Qa’ida. Pc Farooq also feels harassed after an article was published yesterday that he believes links him to the international terrorist group. Friends say that the officer, his wife and five children have been exposed to a possible backlash from far right groups after his legal action against the Met was made public on Tuesday. He denies any links or sympathies with any extremist group.

In a letter to Dr Tim Brain, Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Police, Pc Farooq’s lawyer, Lawrence Davies, has officially requested police protection for his client and his client’s family. The letter makes the police aware of an incident in which an “unnamed person approached the person with whom our client is temporary staying at a secret location and falsely accused that person of having links to the same imam which is entirely untrue”.

Continue reading

First Muslim congressman elected

Keith Ellison, a Democrat, has become the first Muslim to be elected to the US Congress by winning a Minnesota seat in the House of Representatives. He has called for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. On the campaign trail, he also urged a greater reliance on renewable fuels and the establishment of a government-funded universal healthcare system.

BBC News, 8 November 2006

Charles Johnson comments: “They’ll be celebrating in Gaza tomorrow.”

Little Green Footballs, 7 November 2006