Category Archives: Right wing

Dutch unveil the toughest face in Europe with a ban on the burka

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The Netherlands is likely to become the first country in Europe to ban the burka, under government proposals that would bring in some of the toughest curbs on Muslim clothing in the world.

The country’s hardline Integration Minister, Rita Verdonk, known as the Iron Lady for her series of tough anti-immigration measures, told Parliament that she was going to investigate where and when the burka should be banned. Mrs Verdonk gave warning that the “time of cosy tea-drinking” with Muslim groups had passed.

The proposals are likely to win the support of Parliament because of the expected backing by right-wing parties. But they have caused outrage among Muslim and human rights groups, who say that the Government is pandering to the far Right.

Times, 13 October 2005

See the comment by Yusuf Smith, who points out the misapplication of the term “burka” to any form of Islamic veil – which is in fact what Verdonk is proposing to ban. He also takes on the raving Islamophobes at Harry’s Place. And he introduces us to the term “jafi“, which I think should enjoy wider currency.

Indigo Jo Blogs, 13 October 2005

Klinghoffer killed by ‘Islamic terrorists’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Debbie Schlussel marks the twentieth anniversary of the murder of Leon Klinghoffer on the hijacked cruise ship Achille Lauro by accusing “Islamic terrorists” of responsibility for his death. Schlussel concludes:

“Klinghoffer’s murderers weren’t Christians. And they weren’t from Samoa or Fiji, either. They were Arab Muslims. The same group we keep denying is after us, today. WAKE UP, AMERICA!”

Front Page Magazine, 11 October 2005

Which of course rather overlooks the fact that Klinghoffer was killed by members of the Abu Abbas faction of the Palestine Liberation Front, a secular nationalist organisation.

Christian group may seek ban on Qur’an

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A Protestant evangelical pressure group has warned that it will try to use the government’s racial and religious hatred law to prosecute bookshops selling the Qur’an for inciting religious hatred.

Christian Voice, a fringe fundamentalist group which first came to public prominence this year when it campaigned against the BBC’s broadcasting of Jerry Springer The Opera, was among the evangelical organisations taking part in a 1,000-strong demonstration against the bill outside parliament yesterday as the House of Lords held a second reading debate on the measure.

Its director, Stephen Green, said the organisation would consider taking out prosecutions against shops selling the Islamic holy book. He told the Guardian: “If the Qur’an is not hate speech, I don’t know what is. We will report staff who sell it. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that unbelievers must be killed.”

Guardian, 12 October 2005

It seems to have escaped Green’s attention that under the provisions of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill it would be necessary for the Attorney General to initiate a prosecution. And what are the prospects of the Attorney General acceding to demands from a nutty Christian sect that Muslim bookshops should be prosecuted for selling the Qur’an? Precisely nil.

What is more worthy of comment is the fact that yesterday’s protest against the bill involved a block between right-wing evangelical Christians and militant secularists. According to reports in the Morning Star and the Metro, the former group brandished placards reading “Freedom to Preach” and “Don’t Let Terrorism Win”, and joined together in singing “In the Name of Jesus We Have the Victory”, while Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society hailed the demonstration (which had the official backing of the NSS) as “a measure of the breadth of the opposition to this bill”.

You might wonder what such disparate groups have in common. An interest in fomenting hatred against Muslims free from state interference, perhaps?

’60 percent of British Muslims support Al-Qaida’ claim

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“I happened to hear President Bush’s speech last week in its entirety. It was a pretty mixed bag. Some of what he had to say obviously needed to be said – that there is no compromising or appeasing Islamic fascism is obvious. But he again either chose to ignore or was simply unwilling to bring up the fact that it’s not just Osama and al Qaeda we’re up against – it’s a substantial part of Islam. In Britain, after the 7/7 bombings, over 60 percent of British Muslims polled said they would not help the British government against al Qaeda or other Islamic terrorists.”

Robert Miller in the Jewish Weekly, 11 October 2005

And where exactly did Miller get that figure from? A YouGov poll conducted for the Daily Telegraph in the immediate aftermath of 7/7 asked British Muslims who they would tell if they suspected someone they knew might be planning a similar attack. 73% said they would inform the police, others said they would tell their family, friends or the local council, and only 3% said they wouldn’t tell anyone. I imagine this compares favourably with the percentage of non-Muslims prepared to inform on someone they suspected was planning a violent attack on Muslims.

Miller has an equally informed opinion on US foreign policy, where he suggests that the appropriate response to the current dispute with the government of Iran would be “a devastating raid on the Iranian oil fields”.

This only goes to prove that the US is the undisputed world leader when it comes to pop-eyed Islamophobia. By comparison, Melanie Phillips, Nick Cohen or GALHA appear almost level-headed.

Target Muslims says Daniel Pipes

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Pipes“The detailed texture of Mr. Bush’s speech transforms the official American understanding of who the enemy is, moving it from the superficial and inadequate notion of ‘terrorism’ to the far deeper concept of ‘Islamic radicalism’. This change has potentially enduring importance if finally … it convinces polite society to name the enemy. Doing so means, for example, that immigration authorities and law enforcement can take Islam into account when deciding whom to let into the country or whom to investigate for terrorism offenses. Focusing on Muslims as the exclusive source of Islamists permits them finally to do their job adequately.”

Daniel Pipes in the New York Sun, 11 October 2005

Marc Lynch reports on Pipes’ performance on al-Jazeera: “Bush’s speech, according to Pipes, indicates that the American government is worried about what is in the Arab media, and that the governments and institutions running those media should expect greater American pressure to behave responsibly. (He does have a point, you know: it’s hard to argue that al-Jazeera doesn’t give a platform to extremists when Pipes keeps getting invited back…)”

Abu Aardvark blog, 12 October 2005

US neocons embrace Nick Cohen

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Nick Cohen holds forth about the supposed rise of anti-semitism on the left. As an example he offers the observation that “Ken Livingstone embraced a Muslim cleric who favoured the blowing up of Israeli women and children, along with wife-beating and the murder of homosexuals and apostates”. Even leaving aside the predictable lies about Dr al-Qaradawi’s views, it’s difficult to see how welcoming a leading Muslim figure to a conference, and defending him against attacks by the right-wing press, constitutes anti-semitism.

It’s also worth noting that not so long ago Jonathan Freedland interviewed Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks for the Guardian. The interview featured the following exchange: “But aren’t there some differences too wide to bridge? Could Sacks ‘hear the voice of God’ from the mouth of a Muslim extremist who approved of terrorist violence? Could he even bring himself to meet such a man? ‘Yes’.  Would he meet, say, Abu Hamza, the sheikh of Finsbury Park, a Taliban sympathiser who admits to sharing the views of Osama bin Laden? ‘Yes’.”

I don’t recall Cohen denouncing Dr Sacks for expressing such views, yet when the Mayor of London welcomes one of the leading opponents of Al-Qaida to City Hall, Cohen presents this as evidence of anti-semitism.

And where, I hear you ask, does Cohen’s article appear? Well, it was originally published in the New Statesman, but the folks at Front Page Magazine were so impressed by his arguments that they reproduced his piece on their site. See here

For a detailed reply to Cohen, see Indigo Jo Blogs, 9 October 2005

‘The sick face of Islam’ – GALHA

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Sick Face of IslamThe latest issue of GALHA’s Gay and Lesbian Humanist magazine contains a feature on what they call “The sick face of Islam”.

Editor Andy Armitage explains: “Our front-page headline this quarter is deliberately ambiguous: it could be saying this is only the sickening face of this religion called Islam (implying that there is possibly another face); or it could be saying this is the face of Islam, and its face is sickening. Interpret it as you will. But I suspect that many who thought the former some years ago may well now be thinking the latter…”

The issue includes quotes such as: “There are two terms that, increasingly, annoy us: Islamophobia and moderate Muslims. What we’d like to know is, first, what’s wrong with being fearful of Islam (there’s a lot to fear); and, second, what does a moderate Muslim do, other than excuse the real nutters by adhering to this barmy doctrine?” … “for homosexuals, it is doubtful that there is any such thing as a ‘moderate’ practising Muslim, or that the Koran can be regarded as anything more than just a squalid murder manual” … “it is not racist to be anti-immigration or anti-Islam” … “the reckless and mismanaged immigration polices of successive governments have led to the demographics of our major towns and cites being for ever changed by huge numbers of foreign settlers” … “Legal or illegal, many of these Third World and Eastern European newcomers are criminals of the worst kind, and many more are hopelessly ill equipped to live in a complex Western democracy, unable even to speak English in some cases. A parasitic few are bent on the destruction of Western civilisation” … “Redundant churches are sprouting onion domes and minarets. We are becoming strangers in our own land” … “the fastest-growing religion is Islam. Chillingly, it continues to grow like a canker, both through immigration and through … unrestrained and irresponsible breeding” … “In the Netherlands, the warnings of popular gay politician Pim Fortuyn were tragically snuffed out by a left-wing assassin before he could sufficiently alert people to the damage the influx of Muslims is doing to his own native land”. And these are just a sample.

I believe Brett Lock of Outrage is a member of GALHA. Perhaps he’d care to comment on these articles on his blog?

‘Danger signs’ of Islamic extremism

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The United American Committee, which describes itself as “a federation of concerned Americans, promoting awareness of Islamic extremist threats in the US”, have asked Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch for a list of warning signs that a given Muslim spokesperson may be a terrorist supporter. He has supplied them with a 7-point summary which features such self-evident indications of Al-Qaida sympathies as “demanding that Americans accommodate Islamic customs and practices”, “denying that Sharia forbids equal rights for women” and “complaints of Muslims being unfairly targeted in the War On Terror”. The UAC have included Spencer’s list in a draft statement which they intend to distribute among US Muslims, and have appended the following helpful advice: “If you hear or see any of these danger signs in your Mosque or neighborhood, leave the area immediately. Do not speak with anyone and call the local authorities right away.”

See Jihad Watch, 10 October 2005

Muslims rate alongside fascists as threat to Jews – Mad Mel

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Mad Mel takes issue with a Radio 4 programme claiming that the Community Security Trust (whose leading light is Mike Whine) has exaggerated the current level of anti-semitism in Britain: “Anyone who talks to the police will know that the Jewish community in Britain has to be guarded against the very real threat of attack from both Muslims and neo-Nazis.” She is particularly outraged that Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain was among those interviewed on the programme.

Melanie Phillips’s Diary, 10 October 2005