Category Archives: Right wing

Another case for Interpal’s lawyers? And George Galloway’s?

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Remember how the Board of Deputies was forced to pay out a large sum to Interpal, after falsely accusing the Palestinian charity of funding terrorism? Presumably right-wing journalist Stephen Pollard has forgotten.

Commenting on George Galloway’s participation in the Big Brother reality TV show, Pollard writes: “Interpal, his ‘designated charity’ is described by the US Treasury as a ‘Hamas-related charity’ and has been listed as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist. So a vote for Galloway is, quite literally, a vote for terror.”

Stephen Pollard’s blog, 15 January 2006

Update:  A new post (dated 18 January) on Pollard’s blog reads: “You might notice that a posting from yesterday on Interpal is no longer up. I removed it after a few minutes (although I understand that it remained visible for a little while afterwards). It concerned its nomination by George Galloway in the Big Brother programme. I want to make clear that the charity operates as an entirely legitimate organisation for the relief of suffering and no evidence has ever been produced to suggest otherwise.”

This defence is, to put it mildly, full of holes. Pollard posted his comment on “Big Brother’s terror drive” on 15 January, and we didn’t post on it here till 17 January, so the libellous attack on Interpal and Galloway had been online for two days by then. The original post contained the phrase “a vote for Galloway is, quite literally, a vote for terror”. Pollard’s initial response was not to remove the post but to amend it so it read “a vote for Galloway is, quite literally, a vote for an organisation described by the US government as terrorist”, and the title was changed to  “Big Brother’s warped fundraising” (see here). This version still hasn’t been removed from Pollard’s site.

Right-wing rants – a selection

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A short selection of anti-Muslim rants from the last week. There’s so much of this stuff on the internet these days, particularly on right-wing US sites, that it becomes tedious to chronicle it all. But here’s a few examples:

“Islam is worse than a plague, worse than leprosy, worse than hunger and famine, which cause bodily damage to humans. Islam slowly, like a canker, gnaws at the soul and the spirit. Islam stops your brain from thinking, and empties out your love and kindness for others. Islam will turn you into a killing machine.”

“Islam as a cult is based on blood letting. Either Muslims kill one another or they kill non-Muslims. For them to kill one another because of something in the Koran agreeing with same, then no crime has been committed.”

“Of course, the Koran is a poison book scribed by demons. It is laden with killing and torture dictates from Allah that must be carried out if one is to call himself ‘Muslim’.”

“The abuses at Abu Ghraib Prison were wrong. But they seem like adolescent pranks (e.g. naked human pyramids and underwear put on a head) when they are compared with Muhammad’s methods of torture…”

From Think and Ask, MichNews, MichNews again, and American Thinker.

The sickness of Front Page Magazine

Posted on by Bob Pitt

David Horowitz and his friends are not about to let an appalling human tragedy get in the way of a piece of rampant Islamophobia. They offer a link to an Associated Press report on the deaths in Mina, Saudia Arabia, under the headline “Muslim Pilgrims Kill 345 in Hajj Stampede”.

Front Page Magazine, 13 January 2006

See also CAIR’s selection of comments from Jihad Watch applauding the deaths.

CAIR action alert, 13 January 2006

British Muslim group declares new jihad – twice!

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Hide under your beds, Robert Spencer has uncovered “A new declaration of war on Britain and the West – from Omar Bakri, formerly one of Britain’s highest-profile jihadists”.

Jihad Watch, 9 January 2006

I think Robert must be running short of jihadists to frighten us with. He’s already announced this “new declaration of war”, based on the same YNet story, back in October last year.

Jihad Watch, 20 October 2005

Islamophobia in Denmark

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A balanced and informed article from the NYT  by Dan Bilefsky on the controversy in Denmark arising from the decision by the newspaper Jyllands-Posten to publish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, including one in which he is shown wearing a turban shaped as a bomb with a burning fuse. Bilefsky places the issue in the context of “an intensifying anti-immigrant climate that is stigmatizing minorities and radicalizing young Muslims” and the rise of the far-right Danish People’s Party.

New York Times, 8 January 2006

It is articles like this, of course, that lead to angry denunciations of the NYT by Jihad Watch et al.

Muslims have always hated Jews, Mad Mel claims

Posted on by Bob Pitt

There was an interesting debate on Radio 4 yesterday between Melanie Phillips and Tony Lerman, incoming director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, on “Muslim anti-semitism”. Lerman argued that a rise in anti-Jewish sentiment is largely due to resentment at Israeli policy towards the Palestinians. Mad Mel, needless to say, asserted that Muslims are by nature and tradition anti-semites. Because Lerman, who has a rational and liberal approach to this issue, rejects her own demented Islamophobia, Phillips now proposes that the Jewish community should withhold funding from the JPR.

Melanie Phillips’s Diary, 8 January 2006

The Radio 4 debate between Lerman and Phillips can be heard (audio) here.

‘The pope is no dhimmi’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

US right-winger Hugh Hewitt interviews Father Joseph Fessio, Provost of Ave Maria University in Naples, Florida – mainly on the subject of the threat posed by Islam to the West. They both endorse Mark Steyn’s recent article claiming that higher birthrates among Muslim communities in Europe are bringing about the extinction of Western civilisation. Interesting insight into right-wing Catholics’ view of Islam – and that of Pope Bendedict in particular.

Hugh Hewitt blog, 6 January 2006

Robert Spencer welcomes the revelation that “the Pope is no dhimmi”. Dhimmi Watch, 6 January 2006

Migration Watch chief ‘on brink of racism’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Migration WatchImmigration campaigners accused Migration Watch chairman Andrew Green of “verging on the point of racism” yesterday after he called for harsh restrictions on arranged marriages.

The rightwinger said that the minimum age for admission to Britain for marriage should be raised from 18 to 21, with action taken to restrict the number of children born to foreign mothers. Regarding potential spouses who were born in a “particular country” or whose parents were born there, the minimum age for both parties should be raised to 24 if the other suitor came from that country, he claimed.

“We’ve seen the problems that can come from failure to integrate and we’ve got to look at this problem frankly and openly”, declared Mr Green, before trying to link immigration and terrorism. Asked if he was referring to the July 7 terror attacks on London, he replied: “What else has got to happen before we look seriously at the real problems of integration?”

Immigration Advisory Service director of operations Michael Pickett pointed out that Mr Green’s views appear to be incredibly bigoted. “When he refers to a ‘particular country’, he is referring to the Indian subcontinent, not to countries such as Russia and the Ukraine”, Mr Pickett noted.

“To make a connection between the July 7 terrorist attacks on London and arranged marriages is ludicrous”, a claim for which there is “not a single scrap of evidence”, he said. “The reason the bombers were able to go unnoticed is that they were fully integrated. It is a crap argument, once again verging on fantasy.”

Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants chief executive Habib Rahman said that it sounded as if Migration Watch was arguing that restrictions should be put on the right of British nationals to marry the person of their choice.

“Migration Watch’s claims do not seem to be underpinned by any systematic evidence”, he added. “For example, migration to Britain takes place from all over the world, so we cannot see any evidence of any special connection between arranged marriages and the rate of births to foreign mothers or the ability to integrate successfully with British society.”

“In the end, migrants’ integration should be measured by the values they hold, not their customs”, insisted Mr Rahman. “Participation in our society and attachment to principles of law-abiding and democratic behaviour should be the measures, not a marriage custom.”

Morning Star, 5 January 2005

For Osama Saeed’s comments, see Rolled Up Trousers, 5 January 2006

Migration Watch’s “findings” are enthusiastically endorsed by the fascists: “According to immigration think tank, MigrationWatch ‘chain migration’, mainly through bringing partners from overseas, produces even higher proportions of such births for communities of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin, thus intensifying the formation of ghettos and setting back integration for a generation.”

BNP news report, 5 January 2006

Battle waged in Boston over new mosque

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Boston MosqueWorshippers at the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB) still pack into their cramped mosque in Cambridge, Mass. The crowd spills out into the parking lot for the Friday prayer service. Their hopes of celebrating this past Ramadan in a brand-new mosque and cultural center were dashed.

The stated aim of the quarter-century-old society was to build a center for worship, education, and community outreach. Instead, the $24 million project in Boston’s Roxbury neighborhood is snarled in accusation, acrimony, and lawsuits. It’s a microcosm of the suspicions about Islam that have played out across America since 9/11.

After the city of Boston conveyed a parcel of land to the ISB, articles appeared in the Boston Herald in 2003 linking society leaders to Islamic extremists. The ISB denied the story, responding in detail to what it saw as inflammatory distortions. “When you place a picture of Osama bin Laden next to a picture of our mosque, that is completely misrepresentative of who we are,” says Salma Kazmi, assistant project director.

Four years after 9/11, mosques in many communities continue to encounter wariness and resistance ranging from suspicions raised at zoning hearings to vandalism and worse. On Dec. 20, two pipe bombs damaged an Islamic center in an upscale neighborhood of Cincinnati. The FBI said the powerful explosion could have been deadly had people been present.

“It’s all part of the unfortunate temper of the times,” says John Esposito, a professor at Georgetown University in Washington. “There is such a thing as Islamophobia.”

Christian Science Monitor, 5 January 2006