Category Archives: Right wing

Which Islamists to talk to

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Marc Lynch takes up US-Israeli academic Martin Kramer’s analysis of which Islamists are worth talking to and which aren’t.

“I would differ with Kramer’s assertion that dialogue advocates do not discriminate among different Islamist groups – I haven’t seen many calls for a dialogue with al-Qaeda, for example, and I at least have been all about making distinctions. It is conservatives who lump all Islamists together as ‘Islamofascists’, in my experience – and attack people like me for making distinctions between, say, Qaradawi and Bin Laden. But set that aside, because there are some really interesting moves here. First, simply admitting that there are politically meaningful distinctions among Islamist groups is an important step forward for folks on Kramer’s side of the aisle. Not all Islamists are the enemy anymore….”

Abu Aardvark blog, 24 October 2005

Islamophobia? Nah, says Daniel Pipes

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Pipes 9-11“Muslims should dispense with this discredited term and instead engage in some earnest introspection. Rather than blame the potential victim for fearing his would-be executioner, they would do better to ponder how Islamists have transformed their faith into an ideology celebrating murder (Al-Qaeda: ‘You love life, we love death’) and develop strategies to redeem their religion by combating this morbid totalitarianism.”

Daniel Pipes rejects the term “Islamophobia”. He takes particular exception to the fact that he himself is regularly described as an Islamophobe. (“What I really am is an ‘Islamism-ophobe’.”)

Note the ludicrous claim that “Muslims acting in the name of Islam today make up the premier source of worldwide aggression”! Whereas US imperialism is of course a source of peace and harmony.

Note too that Kenan Malik (described as a “British Muslim”!), Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Irshad Manji get favourable name-checks.

New York Sun, 25 October 2005

Robert Spencer for his part applauds Pipes’ “cogent and much-needed observations about the spurious phenomenon of ‘Islamophobia'”. Dhimmi Watch, 25 October 2005

Times attacks Racial and Religious Hatred Bill (again)

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The level of argument by opponents of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill is quite unbelievably low. A case in point is the editorial in today’s Times.

The Bill has nothing to do with the blasphemy laws, as the Times implies. And Salman Rushdie would be no more likely find himself prosecuted for publishing The Satanic Verses than the Birmingham Rep was for staging Behzti (Sikhs as a mono-ethnic faith are already protected against incitement to hatred under Part 3 of the 1986 Public Order Act). The idea that people choose their religion but not their race ignores the obvious fact that culture (which includes religious belief) is an integral part of a minority community’s ethnic identity.

Nor is the government “proposing a law that would allow people to ridicule ideas as long as they were not religious ideas”, as the Times quotes Rowan Atkinson as saying. The new law wouldn’t ban ridicule of people on the basis of their religion any more than earlier race relations legislation criminalised ridicule of people on the basis of their ethnicity (if it did, Bernard Manning would have been locked up long ago). In both cases what is made illegal is the incitement of hatred.

The Times is, however, correct to point out that the amendment to the Bill proposed by Lords Lester, Hunt, Carey and Plant would make an “important distinction between laws against racism and those that seek to protect the religious from persecution”. Their lordships aim to introduce a new Part 3A to the Public Order Act, the result of which would be to make it much more difficult to succcessfully prosecute someone for inciting hatred against Muslims or Hindus than it is to prosecute them for inciting hatred against Jews or Sikhs. In other words, it would preserve the injustice, inequality and discrimination embodied in current race relations law which the Bill seeks to rectify.

Postscript:  For another example of the ignorance demonstrated by opponents of the Bill, see Harry’s Place where we are referred to the Times editorial for “a succinct and persuasive argument against the proposed Racial and Religious Hatred legislation”!

More echoes of the ‘Baa Baa Black Sheep’ ban

Posted on by Bob Pitt

HogwashThe Express (24 October) reports that piggy banks have been banned in high street banks in order to avoid offending Muslim customers.

A leader in the same issue pontificates:

“This is nonsense, piffling nonsense but dangerous nonsense, too. It is unhealthy to indulge in the sort of political correctness that makes us trim our popular culture in ludicrous ways.”

Hogwash: Now the PC brigade bans piggy banks in case they upset Muslims

By Tony Brooks

Daily Express, 24 October 2005

Piggy banks are being banned in case they offend Muslim customers, it emerged last night.

The decision by high street banks was condemned as “barmy” and “bonkers” by critics. They warned that such moves would only fuel inter-community tensions. Branch bosses imposed the ban because they fear the time-honoured symbol for thriftiness could upset ethnic customers.

All promotional material bearing the figure has now been scrapped because the Koran forbids Muslims from eating pork and pigs are considered by them to be unclean. Muslim leaders in East Lancashire, where there is a large immigrant community and the first bans were imposed, applauded the action by the Halifax and NatWest.

But the move was condemned by critics headed by a leading Church of England clergyman. The Dean of Blackburn, the Very Reverend Christopher Armstrong, said: “This is petty and political correctness gone mad. The next thing we will be banning Christmas trees and cribs and the logical result of that process is a bland uniformity. We should learn to celebrate our differences, not be fearful of them.”

He was supported by Andrew Rosindell, Tory MP for Romford, who said: “Those responsible for this decision are making themselves look extremely foolish. It is quite absurd. In no way can piggy banks be termed offensive. I cannot believe the majority of Muslims genuinely object to seeing a picture of a piggy bank on a wall or in a leaflet. This is the sort of political correctness that makes normal-thinking people very angry. It’s barmy.”

Mike Penning, Tory MP for Hemel Hempstead, described the decision as “bonkers”. He said: “I have never met a single Muslim, and I know many, who would be offended by the image of a piggy bank. It is sheer stupidity.”

But the plan was backed by Salim Mulla, secretary of the Lancashire Council of Mosques, who said: “Within our faith there are strict rules about not consuming pork or coming into contact with pigs. “This is a sensitive issue and I think the banks are simply being courteous to their customers.”

The Halifax will base future promotions around Howard Brown, the customer services adviser who fronts their “Who gives you extra?” TV ads.

A spokesman said: “We no longer have any advertising that features piggy banks or is piggy bank related.” NatWest admitted that piggy banks had been removed from branches in the area but insisted there had been no direction from head office. “The decision has been taken at local branch level, ” said a spokesman.

Carey opposes religious hatred bill

Posted on by Bob Pitt

CareyMuslims and members of other religions should get used to being mocked, the former Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday. Lord Carey of Clifton said he passionately believed it was good for members of a religion to have their faith criticised on certain occasions.

Speaking as a member of an all-party group of peers opposing the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, Lord Carey said he wanted to live in a society where people were sensitive to the feelings of others. “But in being sensitive, what we mustn’t do is create a society in which certain stories are not told,” Lord Carey told a news conference.

Daily Telegraph, 21 October 2005

Of course, as anyone who’s read the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill will know, it proposes to illegalise actions that incite hatred, not ridicule or criticism. It would extend to Muslims, Hindus and other “multi-ethnic” faith groups the protection presently enjoyed by Jews and Sikhs as adherents of “mono-ethnic” religions. In all consistency, Carey should be calling for the abolition of existing racial hatred laws on the basis that “Jews should get use to being mocked”.

Yesterday Carey and his fellow lords Lester and Hunt, together with Lisa Appignanesi of PEN, issued a statement in support of a wrecking amendment to the bill in the Lords. They observed blandly that “there are no pressing practical problems that require such a broad sweeping measure”. Readers of this website, not to mention the victims of the hatred and bigotry we record, might think otherwise.

When professors fail to do their homework

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Following the London bombings of 7/7 Salim Mansur, a newspaper columnist for Sun Media, stated with absolute certainty: ‘It is now abundantly clear the source of Muslim terrorism is situated within the body politic of Islam and its adherents, irrespective of how many times, on the one hand, some Muslim spokespersons try to obscure this reality and, on the other, politicians of whatever stripe for electoral purposes behave as ostriches with their heads in the sand.’

“Mansur should know better. As an academic and associate professor of political science, he should know from the outset that for any credible analysis you must get the facts right and stay away from provocative, self-serving rhetoric.”

Mohamed Elmasry exposes academic Islamophobia in Canada.

Media Monitors Network, 21 October 2005

WPI ‘liberals’ try to wreck CND meeting

Posted on by Bob Pitt

WPI CNDOver at Harry’s Place, they’ve just cottoned on to the fact that there was a clash at last weekend’s CND conference when our dear friends from the Worker Communist Party of Iran were thrown out for disrupting a session at which the Iranian ambassador was speaking.

There are a couple of points to be made here. The first is that the leaflet distributed by the WPI at the conference (see image, left) featured a picture of the Mashhad hangings accompanied by the statement that “In July this year two gay teenagers – one under 18 at the time of arrest – were publicly hanged in the Iranian city of Mashad for having a sexual relation.” This quotation is reproduced uncritically by David T at Harry’s Place without any indication that this claim has been rejected by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and others (see here).

The other point is that the WPI were allowed into the lunchtime session at which the Iranian ambassador would be answering questions. Jeremy Corbyn, who was chairing the session, took four or five questions from WPI supporters. He answered one himself, explaining that whatever their views on the present government all Iranians would agree that they didn’t want their country bombed by the USA. The problems began when other contributors took a different line from the WPI, who shouted them down along with the ambassador’s replies and refused to allow the meeting to continue. They were then ejected from the room. As they were bundled out, one was heard to shout “Bomb the fascists!”

That same weekend, Nick Cohen devoted his Observer column to a gushing tribute to WPI leader Maryam Namazie (see here). “She ought to be a liberal poster girl”, Cohen declared. It’s a strange form of liberalism that believes it is acceptable to shout down your political opponents and try to wreck democratically organised meetings.

All this gives an indication of the sort of regime the WPI would establish if they ever took power in Iran – one characterised by lying propaganda and the suppression of political dissent. Fortunately, as I’ve pointed out before, there isn’t the slightest prospect of that ever happening.

‘Anti-Muslim’? – not me guv, says Robert Spencer

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Robert Spencer ponders the question: “am I indeed, and is the entire Jihad Watch enterprise, ‘anti-Muslim’?” The answer, you’ll be surprised to hear, is no – though “the jihadists and their allies would say yes”.

Spencer observes: “If jihadists use the Qur’an, Sunnah, and Islamic law to justify their violence, and I explain how they do it, I do not become anti-Muslim, any more than a scholar of the Hitler period becomes a Nazi if he writes about how the Nazis appealed to ordinary Germans.”

Yusuf Smith gets a name check as someone who, in an earlier exchange with Spencer, supposedly “saw a call for equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies, including freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, and equal employment opportunities, as a challenge to his religion”.

Jihad Watch, 19 October 2005

Tariq Ramadan – ‘extremist preacher’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Tariq_Ramadan“Obviously, even if Blair affirmed that ‘the rules of the game have changed’ after the attacks on London, they clearly have not when it comes to extremist preachers. And that, quite clearly, is what Tariq Ramadan is…. In France, during most of the 1990s, Ramadan preached to young Arabs the solution to their everyday problems: Islamic fundamentalism.”

Olivier Guitta makes an idiot of himself.

Tech Central Station, 18 October 2005

‘The threat of quiet Islam’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Just about every conscious human in the free world knows about Islamic suicide bombers, train bombers, and night club bombers. Everyone knows that Muslims flying large commercial planes crashed into the World Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon on 9/11. Those are the actions of the obvious terrorist side of Islam….

“‘Peaceful Islam’ has been just as busy as the terror wing. Large numbers of Arab-Muslims have immigrated all over the world. European countries are alarmed at the number of Muslims within their borders. The attack on America was like a fire-bell ringing, waking other countries up to the growing masses of Muslims in their midst. It was noticed that these Muslims made no effort to blend in with the local population. Instead, Muslims banded together, taking over neighborhoods and eventually driving out the non-Muslims. Any acceptance of the local culture and customs was strongly discouraged and often severely punished. These Muslim neighborhoods set up their own legal system of Islamic law, ignoring the laws of the land. Immigrants were encouraged to have very large families to form huge voting blocks to maneuver Muslims into positions of power within the government.”

Another helpful contribution to community relations from the inimitable Barbara J. Stock.

Renew America, 19 October 2005