Category Archives: Right wing

‘A post-9/11 vocabulary test’ from Michelle Malkin

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“What have you learned since the Sept. 11 attacks five years ago? The mass murder of 2,996 innocent people on American soil forced open my eyes to the Islamic holy war against the West, freedom and modernity. The battle has raged not for years or decades, but for centuries – well before the Crusades began.

“The indelible sight of workers plunging from the Twin Towers – head first, feet first, solo, hand-in-hand – roused me from slumber. The photos of children who were incinerated on United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 77 compelled me to start paying attention to the beliefs, goals, language and lies of those who would gladly kill my children the same way. The United Airlines Flight 93 hijackers’ final exclamation as they drove the plane into the ground is a Muslim warrior leitmotif I will never again ignore: ‘Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!'”

Michelle Malkin at Townhall.com, 6 September 2006

Ban the ‘burka’ – Daily Express

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“The Daily Express revealed yesterday that a burka-style garment is being introduced in hospitals to allow Muslim women to wear the dress of the oppressed. The readership of this newspaper was horrified: in a poll, 96 per cent said that there should not be an exception for any ethnic group. And how do hospitals across the country respond to this? By extending the scheme.

“There can be no fudge about this: it is absolutely clear that the majority of the British people do not want this offensive apparel to appear on our hospital wards. It is also clear that, just as they have done so often in the past, the powers that be are going to ignore the people and press on with plans designed to keep Muslim culture apart from ours. This wicked policy has already resulted in homegrown British suicide bombers. We must not let this nonsense go ahead.”

Editorial in Daily Express, 6 September 2006

Another Standard poll

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The Evening Standard reveals the results of a new YouGov poll, commissioned as part of its “great Muslim debate”:

“People were split over whether Muslim girls should be allowed to wear a veil, such as the hijab, in schools, with 44 per cent supporting a ban and 37 per cent opposing such a restriction…. Nearly 11 per cent said Britain should keep the religious schools it has but not allow any new Muslim, Hindu or Sikh schools…. Seven per cent said Christian and Jewish schools should be allowed but not Muslim, Hindu or Sikh ones….. Overall, three quarters of people believe Muslim leaders could do significantly more to prevent the growth of extremism in their own community, with only 14 per cent saying they are doing all they reasonably can.”

Evening Standard, 6 September 2006

Evening Standard attacks ‘self-appointed’ MCB

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Terrorism and the London response

Editorial comment, Evening Standard, 5 September 2006

THE POLL that we publish today of Londoners’ attitudes to Muslims and terrorism raises some disturbing conclusions about the social impact of terrorism.

More than a third of all Londoners – and more than a quarter of non-white Londoners – say they have felt uncomfortable near people of Asian or North African appearance on public transport. One-sixth of all Londoners surveyed have felt unhappy enough to move seats in such a situation.

Despite those anxieties, London has not been riven by the communal strife or racism predicted by some in the wake of the 7 July bombings last year.

Yet there is a clear warning in these poll figures for both the Government and for leaders of the Muslim community.

Only a quarter of those surveyed said they had confidence in the Government’s ability to tackle Islamic extremism. There was a clear majority in favour of extending the limit for the police holding terror suspects to 90 days, as originally proposed by the Government, and significant support for racial profiling of passengers to be searched at airports.

This will be a boost to those ministers, including the Home Secretary, John Reid, who favour tougher measures – although it is scarcely an endorsement of the Government’s response to extremism.

But the poll should send an equally clear message to Muslim leaders: three-quarters thought they could do much more to tackle extremism. The response of organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain to terror raids and tougher laws has almost invariably been to cast Muslims as the victims, effectively playing down the anxieties of the majority of Londoners, whites and non-whites alike.

The Government needs to take a less indulgent line towards such self-appointed leaders – and the community leaders themselves need to prove that they are actively working against extremism.

London’s tolerance and openness has held up amazingly well to date. It would be a tragedy if it were damaged by one community’s reluctance to face up to the threat.

Massachusetts governor denounces Khatami visit to Harvard

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Mitt RomneyGovernor Mitt Romney today ordered all Massachusetts state government agencies to decline support, if asked, for former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami’s September 10 visit to the Boston area, where he is scheduled to speak at Harvard University.

“State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel,” said Romney.

Romney’s action means that Khatami will be denied an official police escort and other VIP treatment when he is in town.

Romney criticized Harvard for honoring Khatami by inviting him to speak, calling it “a disgrace to the memory of all Americans who have lost their lives at the hands of extremists, especially on the eve of the five-year anniversary of 9/11.”

Press release, 5 September 2006

But this doesn’t go far enough for Charles Johnson: “Unfortunately, Khatami’s security is already being provided by the same agency that authorized this outrage, the State Department, so Romney’s move is unlikely to make him forgo such a priceless opportunity to spread Islamic propaganda at one of America’s most prestigious schools.”

Little Green Footballs, 5 September 2006

More ignorance from Sookhdeo

Posted on by Bob Pitt

You might have thought that, after he made a fool of himself by calling for a major translation of the Qur’an to be banned, there would be few people who could take Patrick Sookdeo’s self-appointed role as an “expert” on Islam seriously. Unfortunately, the press has an insatiable appetite for attacks on Muslims and multiculturalism, no matter how discredited the author may be.

Thus the London Evening Standard had no hesitation in publishing a piece by Sookhdeo which tells us that: “The Islamic creed is non-negotiable. Those who do not share this creed are despised as kafir (infidels). Hatred of non-Muslims is preached in many British mosques.”

Sookhdeo continues: “the UK’s well-meaning policy of validating every faith and ethnic community culturally, in a depoliticised way, is naive when it comes to Islam. For Islam does not separate the sacred from the secular: it seeks earthly power over earthly territory. The result is that already the UK has reached the stage of parallel societies, where purely Muslim areas function in isolation. Worse, this is about to be made semi-official. In West Ham a gigantic mosque is planned by the radical Tablighi Jamaat group. The London Thames Gateway Development Corporation says that the new mosque will make West Ham a ‘cultural and religious destination’. This will be nothing less than an Islamic quarter of our capital city. But has anyone asked the people of West Ham?”

Summarising his argument, Sookhdeo writes: “I believe Islam needs different treatment from other faiths because Islam is different from other faiths. It is the only one which teaches its followers to gain political power and then impose a law which governs every aspect of life, discriminating against women and non-believers alike. And this is ultimately why a naive multiculturalism leads not to a mosaic of cultures living in harmony, but to one threatened by Islamic extremism.”

Continue reading →

Express opposes ‘burka-style’ hospital gowns

Posted on by Bob Pitt

express hospitalsThe Express reports on plans to offer “burka-style” gowns to Muslim women hospital patients:

“Last night Conservative MP Philip Davies, who has campaigned against political correctness, said the dress would stir up resentment on wards because patients would believe others were getting special treatment…. ‘It is another example of political correctness because it is the sort of thing that has been brought in because the words “faith” and “race” have been mentioned. The average patient on a ward will look at this and be resentful because they will say to themselves: “This has been brought in because it is a Muslim request”. They themselves may have other requests, like more visiting hours, more flexible meal times or a brighter lamp for their bedside table, but they know they’ve got less chance of achieving this. A burka-style hospital gown is only high on the priority list because of the politically correct world we live in.’ … The burka is the latest move to stir debate on priorities in the hard-pressed NHS.”

Of course, the garment in question has nothing in common with a burka, but the term is presumably chosen because it has associations with Afghanistan and the Taliban.

Daily Express, 5 August 2006

Media stereotyping in the ‘Molly Campbell’ case

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Misbah and fatherMolly’s case holds lessons for us all

By Sarfraz Manzoor

Guardian, 4 September 2006

When the news first broke that a 13 year old girl called Molly Campbell – also known as Misbah Iram Ahmed Rana – had been “abducted” by her Pakistani father and taken to Lahore the media appeared certain what kind of story this was: a vulnerable Asian girl is plucked from her Scottish home and forced into an arranged marriage.

The Independent quoted Molly’s grandmother claiming the schoolgirl had been taken to Pakistan and forced to marry a 25 year old man. Meanwhile, in the Times, Mary Ann Sieghart was bemoaning how “even the Outer Hebrides failed to provide sanctuary for Molly Campbell against a father determined to take her off to Pakistan”. Fellow columnist Camilla Cavendish waded in, noting that Molly’s “abduction” raises “fundamental issues of equality that cannot be swept under the carpet to protect ‘cultural sensitivities’.”

Cavendish was right that the alleged abduction raised fundamental issues, but wrong about everything else. On Friday afternoon Molly appeared on television with her father to announce she had left Scotland of her own free will and that she wanted to stay in Pakistan because she wanted to remain with her father. When the reporters continued referring to her as Molly she told them: “My name isn’t Molly, it’s Misbah.”

What I find particularly powerful about the case of Molly/Misbah is that it illustrates the dangers of racial profiling as practised by some of the media. No sooner had the story emerged than the news editors were preparing special reports on abductions and child brides, and the white middle-class columnists were busy revealing their lack of insight.

Continue reading →

US Muslims see a growing media bias

Posted on by Bob Pitt

On a typical workday, Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations talks to a dozen or so print and broadcast reporters.

“The vast majority does a pretty good job and they need to be congratulated,” he said.

It’s another story when Hooper watches cable TV commentators, listens to talk radio or surfs hundreds of anti-Islamic Web sites. “The level of anti-Muslim rhetoric is growing in quantum leaps since 9/11,” he said.

Hooper and other experts addressed “Islamaphobia” in the media during a panel discussion Sunday at the Islamic Society of North America’s annual convention at the Donald E. Stevens Convention Center in Rosemont.

Web sites are especially virulent, Hooper said. Consider these comments recently posted on the blog of Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades).

• “If I happen to wax hateful and angry from time to time when it comes to the subject of Islam, that is the fault of Islam and its thriving terrorist establishment. . . . It is good to hate your enemies: We are going to have to kill them.”

• “Islam is not only a cult, it’s a political movement. As such it contravenes the constitution and espouses treason.”

• “I hate is-lame with an incandescent intensity.”

(Spencer says he does not hate Muslims. Postings from others “are unmoderated and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer.”)

Anti-Islamic prejudice “is increasingly bleeding into mainstream media,” Hooper said. After Sept. 11, columnist Ann Coulter wrote, “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”

Before Sept. 11, Coulter “would have faced swift repudiation from her colleagues,” Hooper said. “Now it’s accepted as legitimate commentary.”

Chicago Sun-Times, 4 September 2006

‘Speak out against terror’, Australian Muslim leaders are lectured

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Islamic leaders must do more to denounce terrorism and direct young people away from extremists, Treasurer Peter Costello said yesterday. In a wide-ranging critique of the failure of Muslim leaders in Australia to speak out against extremism, Mr Costello also backed calls by the Prime Minister for Islamic migrants to learn Australian values.

“This is where we really need the Islamic leadership of this country to stand up and contend unequivocally that terrorism, no matter who it is perpetrated by, is never justified under the cover of religion and to make it clear to would-be converts when you join this religion, you do not join a radical political ideology,” Mr Costello said.

Daily Telegraph (Australia), 4 September 2006