Category Archives: State Oppression

Swiss far right forces vote on minaret ban

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Wird Luzern ilamisiertFar right groups in Switzerland have collected enough signatures to force a nationwide referendum on banning minarets, the distinctive towers of Islamic architecture.

In what is being seen as a sign of growing Islamophobia in Europe, more than 100,000 Swiss citizens signed a petition to halt the construction of minarets. Under Switzerland’s direct democracy rules, that level of support is enough to trigger a referendum. The Swiss interior ministry today confirmed a vote would take place, without setting a date.

The petition was launched by Ulrich Schlüer an MP from the controversial Swiss People’s party, which was accused of racist campaigning last year. In a bid to get immigrants’ families deported if their children had been convicted of violent crime, the party ran an advertising campaign showing three white sheep on a Swiss flag kicking out a black sheep with the caption: “For more security.”

The president of Switzerland, Pascal Couchepin, said the government would recommend that voters rejected the proposed minaret ban.

The organisers of the petition argue that the minarets, which are used on mosques, are a symbol of political and religious claims to power, not just a religious sign. Schlüer said last year: “We’ve got nothing against prayer rooms or mosques for the Muslims. But a minaret is different. It’s got nothing to do with religion; it’s a symbol of political power.”

If Schlüer’s camp wins the referendum, the Swiss parliament must pass a law enshrining a minaret construction ban in the constitution. Opponents say such a ban would violate religious freedom.

The UN expert on racism, Doudou Diene, has said the campaign is evidence of an “ever-increasing trend” toward anti-Islamic actions in Europe.

Guardian, 8 July 2008

See also BBC News, 8 July 2008

Muslims after police raid: ‘We feel betrayed’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Two of the men at the centre of anti-terror raids say they feel “betrayed” by the police. Abu Bosher and Abu Saif had always thought they had a healthy relationship with the police, until their Stoke-on-Trent homes were raided on Tuesday. They are members of a group of young Muslims who have regularly manned stalls around the city for two years, preaching to passers-by and distributing leaflets and DVDs.

Police raided five homes this week as part of an investigation into a small group of people suspected of being involved in promoting violent extremist views, and radicalising vulnerable members of the community. But the men insist their activities have always been entirely legal and peaceful, and deny any links to terrorism or extremism. They say that as well as preaching Islam, they draw young people away from drugs and gangs, and encourage them to become better Muslims.

Abu Bosher, aged 24, of North Road, Cobridge, said he was shocked to find himself implicated with extremism. He said: “Why did they do this now? Why not two years ago? We have the same leaflets; we’re not doing anything different. So we’re asking them to produce the evidence.”

The group have become a familiar sight in Stoke Road, Shelton, and Waterloo Road, Cobridge, where they engage Muslims and non-Muslims in faith discussions. They say the fact they carry out their activities on busy main roads, in full view of CCTV, shows they have nothing to hide. Although they admit their discussions sometimes touch on controversial political issues, such as the war in Iraq, they deny preaching hatred or encouraging violence.

Mr Bosher added: “We disagree with the Government’s foreign policy, and we will debate with people on that, but they are free to disagree with us. We don’t want to force our views down anyone’s throat. The police come to our stalls regularly and take away our leaflets. I’m sure every police officer in Stoke-on-Trent has one. Some of them know us by our first names, so we don’t know why they’ve done this. We feel betrayed.”

Abu Saif, aged 17, whose sister’s Cobridge home was raided, said: “The police were welcome to come and speak to us at our stall, or come and look in my house. I would have invited them in for a chat and a cup of tea. But they came to my house at 7am, and knocked my door off its hinges. I think that’s disgusting.”

Fellow group member Abu Abdullah, aged 35, whose Cobridge home was not raided, said: “Muslims are being victimised and demonised in this country. We’re coming up to the anniversary of 7/7, and on previous anniversaries we found that Muslims were coming under increased scrutiny by the security services.”

Stoke Sentinel, 5 July 2008 

Racial profiling eyed for terror probes

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The Justice Department is considering letting the FBI investigate Americans without any evidence of wrongdoing, relying instead on a terrorist profile that could single out Muslims, Arabs or other racial and ethnic groups.

Law enforcement officials say the proposed policy would help them do exactly what Congress demanded after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: root out terrorists before they strike.

Although President Bush has disavowed targeting suspects based on their race or ethnicity, the new rules would allow the FBI to consider those factors among a number of traits that could trigger a national security investigation.

Currently, FBI agents need specific reasons — like evidence or allegations that a law probably has been violated — to investigate U.S. citizens and legal residents. The new policy, law enforcement officials told The Associated Press, would let agents open preliminary terrorism investigations after mining public records and intelligence to build a profile of traits that, taken together, were deemed suspicious.

Among the factors that could make someone subject of an investigation is travel to regions of the world known for terrorist activity, access to weapons or military training, along with the person’s race or ethnicity.

Associated Press, 2 July 2008

See also “CAIR calls new FBI profiling policy ‘un-American'”, CAIR press release, 3 July 2008

Muslim physicist says feds retaliated against him

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Abdel-Moniem El-GanayniPITTSBURGH — An Islamic nuclear physicist on Thursday accused the U.S. Department of Energy of revoking his security clearance in retaliation for his criticism of the government’s treatment of Muslims.

Moniem El-Ganayni had worked at the Bettis Laboratory in the Pittsburgh suburb of West Mifflin for 18 years. He was fired in May after the department revoked his security clearance, according to a federal lawsuit filed on his behalf Thursday by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Department of Energy denied El-Ganayni the right to appeal the revocation by saying its reasons are classified and could violate national security if made public. El-Ganayni is demanding that he be allowed to contest it before a “nonpolitical, neutral arbiter as mandated by DOE regulations.”

“Everything I strived for all my life came to an end without a chance to defend myself,” said El-Ganayni, 57, an Egyptian who moved to the United States in 1980.

Bettis Laboratory works on the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, a joint Navy-Energy Department program responsible for nearly all aspects of U.S. nuclear-powered warships. El-Ganayni’s security clearance granted him access to classified information needed for his job.

El-Ganayni has been active in Pittsburgh’s Muslim community, helped establish one of the area’s first mosques and is a past president of the Islamic Center of Pittsburgh. He has given speeches critical of U.S. foreign policy, the war in Iraq and attempts by the FBI to recruit Muslim tipsters inside mosques. El-Ganayni has also ministered to Muslim prison inmates.

El-Ganayni has never received a negative report or evaluation from Bettis Laboratory, and even after the revocation process began, his superiors made it clear they would like to have him back, said Vic Walczak, the ACLU’s Pennsylvania legal director.

“The Energy Department knows it cannot admit that it revoked Dr. El-Ganayni’s clearance because he has been an outspoken critic of the U.S. government’s treatment of Muslims, so it is hiding behind ‘national security’ to avoid having to explain itself,” Walczak said.

El-Ganayni said he was questioned twice since October, when the Energy Department said disclosing the reasons for the revocation would hurt national security.

According to the lawsuit, officials with the Energy Department and FBI asked about El-Ganayni’s speeches, his views on suicide bombings and the Quran, and a conflict he had with the Pennsylvania prison system over a decision to bar him from raising funds for a Muslim religious feast.

Associated Press, 27 June 2008 

See also ACLU press release, 26 June 2008

Update:  See “Muslim physicist leaves U.S. after losing security clearance”, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 28 November 2008

Hizb ut-Tahrir challenges German ban in European court

Posted on by Bob Pitt

HizbAn internationalist Islamist organisation is submitting an application to the European court tomorrow in an effort to overturn a ban on its activities in Germany. Hizb ut-Tahrir, or the Party of Liberation, believes that the five-year-old ban is unlawful and argues it should be free to campaign in the country and have all frozen assets released.

Britain has twice considered proscribing Hizb ut-Tahrir, most recently after the July 7 2005 bombings, and decided each time that there were not grounds for doing so. Last week Denmark’s senior state prosecutor also advised that the organisation should not be banned, as it has not breached that country’s constitution.

Prohibited in several Middle Eastern and central Asian countries, Hizb ut-Tahrir operates legally in Israel, and is not banned in any EU country other than Germany. Although membership of the party remains legal in Germany, it has been prohibited from public activity since 2003, on charges of spreading antisemitic propaganda following the publication of a leaflet the previous year.

More recently, Germany has accused the party of breaching the “concept of international understanding” enshrined in the country’s constitution, a charge more usually levelled against parties of the far right.

The party denies it is antisemitic and, says it is against violence and that its aim is to unite Muslim countries into a single state ruled by Islamic law.

Guardian, 24 June 2008

Losing the hearts, upsetting the minds: Brown’s 42-day detention

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Since terrorist threats today are presumed to be Islamic, this new distressful piece of legislation will increase the fear of Muslims, increase injustice and discrimination against Muslims, produce alienation among the British Muslim communities, but I suppose will not save one single life from a recondite terrorist attack. ”

Islam, Muslims, and an Anthropologist, 12 June 2008

Ireland: intercultural adviser warns against hijab ban

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Banning the hijab or other religious symbols which are important to minorities is “likely to result in tension with those communities where no tension existed before”, according to the director of the State’s advisory body on intercultural affairs.

In a detailed intervention in the debate over whether Muslim pupils should be allowed wear the headscarf in State schools, Philip Watt of the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism said most schools had already found their own “sensible and sensitive compromise” by allowing it to be worn provided the colour was consistent with the school uniform.

Mr Watt suggested that those advocating a ban on the hijab “may, or may not, have fully considered the consequences of such a ban, for example in respect of all religious symbols and obligations in Irish schools”. While much of the focus had been on the Muslim headscarf, other religious symbols were worn in Irish schools, including the Sikh kara (a bangle), the Sikh patka (a scarf worn by boys and young men), the Jewish kippah or skullcap and Christian crucifixes. The pioneer badge, the sacred heart and crucifixes are worn by some teachers.

“The banning of religious symbols or obligations solely aimed at one religious community or indeed all religious faiths is potentially discriminatory and likely to be tested in Irish law,” Mr Watt said. “In 2004 the French government considered the issuing of a ban on the wearing of the hijab in French schools, but after legal considerations decided that the only way that such a ban would be legal would be to ban virtually all religious symbols and obligations, including large crucifixes.”

Fine Gael education spokesman Brian Hayes and his Labour counterpart Ruairí Quinn said separately last week that they opposed the wearing of the hijab in the country’s secondary schools, though Mr Hayes made a distinction between State-run VEC schools and those run by religious orders, which decide their own rules. “There is enough segregation in Ireland without adding this to it. Segregating in this way is not helpful to Muslims and not helpful to anybody,” Mr Hayes said.

In yesterday’s statement, Mr Watt also sought to correct the impression that all Muslims are recent immigrants. Just under a third of the 32,500 Muslims in the Republic are Irish.

An Irish Times/ TNS mrbi poll conducted last week found that 48 per cent of people feel the wearing of hijabs should be allowed in State schools. Some 39 per cent disagree and 13 per cent have no opinion.

Irish Times, 10 June 2008

MCB joins coalition to oppose extension of pre-charge

Posted on by Bob Pitt

MCB banner“The Muslim Council of Britain joins human rights groups, a growing body of thinkers and policymakers dealing with our security, together with a large proportion of the British public who oppose the extension of pre-charge-detention. Any further extension of pre-charge detention risks being counterproductive, damaging community relations and undermining the UK’s moral authority around the world. We oppose terrorism in all its forms. We are all concerned about the right to security, free from terror, but this proposal serves to compound the problem, not resolve it.

“We do not believe that the government has made a convincing case for extending the pre-charge detention period from 28 days to 42 days. We are very concerned about the negative impact that this proposed legislation could have on relations between younger members of the Muslim community and the police. Of course it is right that we take proper precautions against the threat of terrorism, however, it is our view that this legislation will be counterproductive and will play into the hands of extremist groups,” said Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain.

MCB press release, 10 June 2008

‘UK’s top Muslim’ backs 42 days

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Khurshid Ahmed“Britain’s top Muslim [sic] last night praised Gordon Brown and demanded MPs back new laws to hold terror suspects. Khurshid Ahmed, chairman of the British Muslim Forum, the UK’s largest representative Muslim organisation [sic], called for 42 days’ detention without charge. He said it was vital to protect the nation.”

Sun, 10 June 2008

Yes, that’s this Khurshid Ahmed.

For Yusuf Smith’s comments, see Indigo Jo Blogs, 10 June 2008

Update:  The Guardian Diary quotes Khurshid Ahmed as saying on behalf of the BMF: “We don’t support the extension. We have never supported it.”

Further update:  But see Khurshid Ahmed’s Comment is Free piece (originally given the misleading heading “The BMF opposes 42-day detention” and now retitled more accurately “Supporting tough measures”) where he writes:

“… our strategy was to campaign against the proposal while at the same time seeking concessions to secure a balance between the need to safeguard the security of the country and provide protection of civil liberties. The package of concessions reinforced by the proposal to compensate for the damage done in loss of opportunity, reputation and the accompanying stigma goes a long way in addressing our concerns. The legal process now proposed renders the use of these powers to very exceptional circumstances only. In these circumstances, by agreeing the package, we are acknowledging the severity of the threat to this country and playing our part in securing the safety of all our citizens.”

In other words, after the government made what it considered to be adequate concessions, the BMF did come down in support of 42 days. As Inayat Bunglawala observes in the Cif comments section: “I have to say that I have not actually come across many British Muslims at all who support the 42 day detention legislation.” So whose views does the BMF actually represent?