We’ve rather given up responding to the appalling Harry’s Place over the past couple of years, mainly because keeping up with the Islamophobic posts on that particular blog would be a full-time job in itself.
However, if anyone needs convincing of the culture of anti-Muslim bigotry that pervades that obnoxious site, it’s worth scrolling through the comments on their recent “Berks and Burqas” thread.
It is a city that has found itself at the heart of the debate about Muslim extremism after providing a home to three suicide bombers who brought devastation to London in the July 7 2005 attacks. And in Leeds yesterday the number of women clad head-to-foot in burkhas provoked anger among growing numbers who believe they should be banned.
Groups of Muslim women dressed in the restrictive robes refused to comment on their personal reasons for wearing the garment which continues to cause controversy. And even though they were walking along a busy street among shoppers and workers, most refused to be seen engaging with a non-Muslim man in public.
Leeds has a fast-growing Muslim population of at least 40,000 – double the number of 10 years ago. Locals say that since the 7/7 attacks in July 2005 – three of the gang hailed from Leeds – there has also been a increase in the number of Islamic women choosing to wear the burkha, much to the anger of many of the city’s inhabitants.
German-born au-pair Chantal Manzal, 23, has been living in Leeds for a year but returns home next month. She said yesterday: “I cannot believe what I have seen in Britain. In Germany the burkha is hardly ever seen but here I see women wearing them whenever I go out. I find them really scary.”
Hairdresser Sarah-Jane Martin, 21, said: “There is no doubt these terrible things should be banned immediately. It is a sign of oppression against women and on those grounds alone, in this day and age, they should be outlawed.”
Businesswoman Marcia Booth, 37, said: “There is no more prominent sign of female oppression by men than the burkha. I find it so demeaning and whenever I see these women hiding themselves away my blood reaches boiling point and I just want to scream at them.”
See also ENGAGE, 24 June 2009
“… the burka and all ostentatious religious signs have already been banned in state-run schools since 2004. And in hospitals or municipal offices, anywhere where people interact as equal citizens, staff are not allowed to wear hijabs or burka, and patients or members will be told to unveil.
“The ban in schools was passed in 2004 as a reaction to the Socialist Government of Lionel Jospin, which was seen as violating the spirit of the 1905 law on the separation of Church and State. Its laissez-faire attitude allowed a handful of teenagers to start wearing the hijab in school, provoking national outrage and a debate that lasted until the 2004 law finally enforced the Republican principle.
“That such a debate is taking place again reveals the sturdy health of secularism in France, a tradition that doesn’t shy away from being confrontational even in a country with the largest Muslim and Jewish communities in Europe.
“Similar debates seem impossible in Britain. When Jack Straw dared to state the obvious in 2006 by saying that the burka and the niqab were ‘visible statements of separation and of difference’ before asking politely that women visiting his constituency surgery consider removing them, it provoked angry protests from Islamic associations and the British liberal-Left, always inclined, it seems, to defend the rights of liberty’s enemies.
“Seen from France, Britain’s tolerance of extremist views looks at best naive, at worse dangerous…. Seen from Britain, French principles of equality and secularism are often misinterpreted, and dismissed as authoritarian or prejudiced. But critics of the French approach don’t seem to understand that secularism is neutral – the State doesn’t recognise any religion in particular but protects them all, guaranteeing cultural and religious diversity by ensuring that one faith does not get the upper hand.”
Agnès Poirier in the Times, 24 June 2009
Yes, that’s the same French state that is so committed to observing strict neutrality towards all faiths that it banned the Islamic headscarf from schools but ordered flags on all public buildings to be flown at half mast to mark the death of the Pope.
And it’s the same Agnès Poirier who is so committed to the principle of public debate that she rejected an invitation to speak at Ken Livingstone’s “Clash of Civilisations” conference because she would have faced other platform speakers who disagreed with her narrow and dogmatic interpretation of secularism.
Sarkozy Defies Universal Values as he tells Women What Not to Wear: French leader’s Burqa remarks are designed to whip-up further xenophobia against Muslims
The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) criticised French President Nicholas Sarkozy’s intention to ban the wearing of Burqa – a garment worn by a minority of Muslim women in accordance with their religious belief. Reiterating its long established position that individuals must have the freedom to choose their attire on the basis of deeply-held religious beliefs, the MCB called upon the French President to desist from engaging in and promoting divisive politics towards its Muslim inhabitants. In this respect, the MCB echoes the US President Barack Obama’s caution that “it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practising religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.”
Assistant Secretary General of the MCB, Dr. Reefat Drabu said: “It is patronising and offensive to suggest that those Muslim women who wear the burqa do so because of pressure or oppression by their male partners or guardians”. She added: “Such suggestions can legitimately be perceived as antagonistic towards Islam. Instead of taking a lead in promoting harmony and social cohesion amongst its people, the French President appears to be initiating a policy which is set to create fear and misunderstanding and may lead to Islamophobic reaction not just in France but in the rest of Europe too”.
MCB press release, 23 June 2009
Update: See also the Daily Telegraph, 24 June 2009
One of Radio 2’s most popular religious presenters has launched a stinging attack on the BBC suggesting the broadcaster is biased against Christianity. Don Maclean, 66, who hosted Good Morning Sunday for 16 years, said the broadcaster was “keen” on programmes that attack the Christian church.
He said programming chiefs were keen to take a “negative angle at every opportunity” in a way they do not with other faiths like Islam. He admitted that he was dismayed that the BBC recently appointed Aaqil Ahmed, a Muslim, as its new head of religious programming.
Mr Maclean said: “They’re keen on Islam, they’re keen on programmes that attack the Christian church. They seem to take the negative angle every time. They don’t do that if they’re doing programmes on Islam. Programmes on Islam are always supportive.”
The presenter claimed “the last thing we want is war on the streets” adding that “we need all the moderate Muslims to stand up and be counted”.
He added: “They’re all in private telling you how dreadful they think Islamic terrorism is, but they’re not forming together in a group and standing up against it. But it’s as big a threat as Nazism was in the 1930s when Germans stood back and didn’t stand up against that, and if they had maybe the Second World War wouldn’t have started.”
The presenter said when he had presented Good Morning Sunday he argued with bosses who claimed the show was a “multi-faith” programme. He added: “I said ‘No, it’s a Christian programme because the presenter is a practising Christian and this is a Christian country, so it’s a Christian programme’.”
Recent attacks on British mosques show that our freedom of worship is under threat from extremists, argues Inayat Bunglawala.
British National Party supporters cheered for one of their candidates to be awarded a Nazi military medal at a Euro election after-party.
A member of the crowd made the call after learning that Charlotte Lewis had travelled to Calais to lead a protest against the refugee camp there, taking placards reading “Britain’s full up” and “Asylum seekers don’t unpack, you’re going back”.
Bob Bailey, 43, a BNP councillor in Barking and Dagenham, gave two talks at the event, with Lewis – a candidate for Waddon, South London – giving a third.
Talking about her trip to Calais, she said: “The invaders are dangerous and they are not people we want in England or Europe or anywhere in the civilised world.” She claimed they “swaggered” around Calais before recounting a story about her Afghan neighbour.
She said: “The Afghan who lives in the flat above me… well, I say that, he hasn’t been seen for two weeks, so I’m hoping him, Fatima and the brat have moved out.” After a pause, and to raucous laughter, she added: “I don’t think they could take any more of my penchant for playing heavy metal music at 1am. It’s wishful thinking that they have gone back to Afghanistan, but it’s more than likely they have been allocated one of numerous brand-new housing association flats in the area.”
Lewis then described people who work in soup kitchens to provide food for refugees as “idiotic dim-witted liberals”. It was after this that Bailey made his ridiculous pledge to give Lewis a medal if the BNP get into government.
Sipping a pint, he said: “Under the BNP people like Charlotte would get a medal… there is no doubt.” Someone in the crowd then shouted out “the Iron Cross”. The German medal is closely associated with the Nazis – Hitler reintroduced it and added a swastika.
Bailey then went into an anti-Muslim rant. He said: “We do not need Islam in Europe and we do not need it in the UK. In London we know the stark realities of Islam more than anywhere else. They bomb buses, they bomb trains, they have created terror here.”
A Scottish man who describes himself as a “proud racist” has admitted threatening to bomb Glasgow Central Mosque and engage in targeted killings of Muslims. Neil MacGregor has been convicted of a breach of the peace but there has been surprise in some quarters that he was not charged with terrorist offences. Critics have also said that the case would have attracted considerably more media interest if the man’s motivation had been Islamic rather than anti-Islamic.
In an email to Strathclyde police, MacGregor demanded the closure of all mosques in Scotland, threatening to kidnap and behead one Muslim each week if this demand were not met. He later called police to say that he had planted a nail bomb in Glasgow Central Mosque but police found nothing suspicious after evacuating 100 worshippers. MacGregor pleaded guilty and has been remanded in custody but sentencing was deferred yesterday by Glasgow Sherriff Court.
Comparisons have been made with the case of the Islamic militant Mohammed Atif Siddique, who was sentenced to eight years imprisonment in 2007 for collecting and circulating terrorist material. Siddique’s lawyer Aamer Anwar, suggested this week that the authorities would bring terrorism charges against Muslims but not against white racists.
However, a spokesperson for the Crown Office insisted that “The facts of the case made it clear that this was a hoax bomb threat which was racially aggravated. There was no evidence of terrorist motivation or intention.”
Osama Saeed of the Scottish Islamic Foundation responded by saying “It’s all too easy to dismiss MacGregor as a fantasist and lunatic – many of the Muslims convicted of terror offences could be similarly described.”
Saeed, who is also the Scottish National Party’s prospective Parliamentary candidate for Glasgow Central, criticised the lack of media coverage. “Imagine if a Scottish Muslim pleaded guilty to threatening to blow up Glasgow Cathedral and behead one Christian a week until all British troops were pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said. “It would be splashed over every newspaper in the land.”
But the story has spread quickly in online discussions, not only amongst Muslims. “I just feel angry that a chance to convince the Muslim community that there is no bias against them has fallen flat on its face” wrote the Christian blogger Graham Martin yesterday. “This whole situation might actually be used to justify further violence.”
Well, so the Jewish Chronicle claims:
“Muslim interfaith activist Fiyaz Mughal is upset at the non-attendance of MCB representatives at a meeting held under the aegis of Faith Matters at Westminster last Friday. Mr Mughal – the Faith Matters director who was awarded an OBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours – had invited 25 ‘key figures’ from ethnic and religious groups to discuss the way forward after the BNP had taken two seats in the European elections. The absence of MCB delegates was ‘disappointing because this was an opportunity to learn from other communities about dealing with a common enemy,’ he said.”
It’s only when you get to the bottom of the column that you find:
“An MCB spokesman said he was unaware of the invitation. He indicated that the council would consider becoming involved in the initiative if approached by the Board of Deputies.”
A brave caretaker was hurt as he risked his life to save a mosque torched by arsonists in the second petrol bomb attack in a week.
Mohamed Koheeallee, 62, raced to tackle 7ft flames at the Greenwich Islamic Centre in Plumstead Road at 12.15am on Tuesday. Grabbing a bucket of water, he extinguished the fire as it spread inside but when he opened a fire exit, he was engulfed by flames burning his arm and his face.
Choking with smoke inhalation and despite his injuries, he carried on dousing the fire until the mosque was safe but when he tried to tackle the source of the blaze he was pushed back by its intensity.
Holy texts, including the most sacred in Islam – the Koran – were burned.
Mr Koheeallee, who believes the attack was racially motivated, was taken to Queen Elizabeth Hospital by ambulance to be treated for smoke inhalation and burns and was later discharged. He said: “It makes me feel really bad to see the burnt holy scriptures. If these people have a problem they should be brave enough to say it to my face, but not like this.”
The caretaker had also dealt with another arson attack at the mosque which had been less serious but had taken place a week before at approximately the same time of night.
The centre’s director, Dr Tariq Abbasi, said “enough is enough,” and has called on the new Greenwich borough commander Richard Wood to take action.
Dr Abbasi said: “This is as bad as it can get. Nobody deserves this. Seeing burnt copies of the Koran, the emotional impact has been devastating. Monetary loss is one thing, the building can be re-built, but the emotional scars can last for years. The Muslim community see this as a racist attack on a place of worship.”
He said a racist minority may have been encouraged after BNP members won seats in the European elections.
Via ENGAGE See also Asian Image, 18 June 2009
In the European elections the four London boroughs in which the BNP registered its highest votes were Barking & Dagenham 19.3%, Havering 14%, Bexley 12.3% and Greenwich 8.4%.
Update: See “CCTV images released after Mosque fire”, Bexley Times, 31 July 2009