Police rethink use of ‘stop and search’

Police are holding a review of much-criticised “stop and search” powers over concerns the tactic used to target possible terrorists was causing more harm than good by alienating the Muslim community.

Senior officers are warming to “new thinking” about the powers which would see people only stopped on the basis of prior intelligence and not their appearance, according to the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).

“I think we need to move from the concept of stopping on appearance and ethnicity,” Richard Gargini, ACPO’s national coordinator for community engagement, told Reuters at a conference to discuss Islamophobia. “I sense an atmosphere among police leaders that it’s time to reflect upon where we go with stop and search. Is it having an adverse impact on police and community relations?”

Under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, officers have the power to stop and search people in an area seen as being at risk from terrorism even if they are not suspected of any breach of the law.

Many Muslim groups have argued the powers have been abused by police, particularly after the bomb attacks on July 7, 2005 when four British Islamists killed 52 people on London’s transport system.

Figures show that use of the power against those of Asian appearance has rocketed since the September 11, 2001 attacks, and Muslim community leaders have warned it has helped alienate Britain’s Muslims, so helping the cause of extremists. “We know the levels of trust and confidence that the community has in the police has gone down,” Azad Ali, chairman of the Muslim Safety Forum, which advises police on Islamic issues, told Reuters.

Continue reading

MWAW replies to ‘Undercover Mosque’

Dave Crouch of Media Workers Against the War takes on Channel 4’s Dispatches:

“The media must be so grateful to Jade Goody. Thanks to her and Big Brother they have a scapegoat for the racism that they themselves have made respectable. The same newspapers that fill their pages with hate for asylum-seekers, immigrants and multiculturalism suddenly declare themselves anti-racists.

“Not for one second have the print and broadcast media relented in their barrage of racism against Muslims. The latest example is Channel 4’s Dispatches documentary ‘Undercover Mosque’, broadcast on January 15. The documentary is a textbook example of Islamophobic reporting. It has set the right-wing blogosphere on fire; clips from the programme on YouTube have gone straight into the top ten.

“The message of ‘Undercover Mosque” is that, however ‘moderate’ Muslims claim to be, it is the fundamentalists who are really pulling the strings, using the cover of moderation to preach racism, bigotry and holy war.”

MWAW website, 22 January 2007

Dave also refers us to a detailed response to Channel 4 by Shafiq ur-Rehman, president of the UK Islamic Mission. See (pdf) here.

A clash of civilisations?

TOM MELLEN sees neocons and progressives clash over war and torture at a London conference.

Morning Star, 22 January 2007

CAMPAIGNERS, academics, religious figures and thousands of working people engaged in a fierce battle of ideas at the weekend on what the so-called “clash of civilisations” means to Londoners. Whitehall’s QE2 centre was packed to the rafters on Saturday, with people eager to discuss the urgent issues thrown up by globalisation and the “war on terror.”

The World Civilisation Or a Clash of Civilisations? conference saw notorious rightwingers Daniel Pipes and Douglas Murray rub shoulders with Venezuelan government official Andres Izarra and anti-racism campaigner Denis Fernando. Discussions ranged from Democratic Solutions in the Middle East to Anti-Semitism and were marked by a high level of popular participation.

BBC news presenter Gavin Esler chaired the opening debate between London Mayor Ken Livingstone and neocon US foreign policy adviser Mr Pipes, who claimed that the world faces a “clash between civilisation and barbarism.”

Noting that London itself draws strength from the diverse cultures that co-exist in the city, Mr Livingstone said: “People have the choice to select for themselves what they find attractive in all cultures – we are witnessing the emergence of a global civilisation. If you go onto the streets of a modern world city, whether that’s London or New York, Shanghai or Mumbai, you see young people working together, using the same technology and sharing the same concerns.”

But Mr Pipes sneered at the mayor’s “complacency,” describing Islamists as “ideological barbarians.” He claimed that this “tyrannical, woman-oppressing terrorist movement” threatens civilisation and that, “while Mr Livingstone looks to multiculturalism, I look to win the war.”

Respect councillor Salma Yaqoob pointed out that Mr Pipes’s logic lay behind the carnage in Iraq and Afghanistan, noting that that conflict has “decreased, not increased our security.”

Mr Pipes responded by smearing critics of neoliberal terrorism as “poor benighted souls,” drawing howls of anger.

Continue reading

Hitch confronts ‘the Islamist menace’

HitchensIn the Winter 2007 issue of City Journal Christopher Hitchens reviews Mark Steyn’s book America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, not uncritically. He does take issue with Steyn’s sneers at Martin Amis, pointing out that liberals like Amis share much of Steyn’s hostility towards Islam and Islamism.

Hitchens writes: “Mark Steyn’s book is essentially a challenge to the bien-pensants among us: an insistence that we recognize an extraordinary threat and thus the possible need for extraordinary responses. He need not pose as if he were the only one with the courage to think in this way.” To prove his point Hitchens quotes Amis’s vile anti-Muslim diatribe from last September – which proposes subjecting the Muslim community as a whole to travel bans, racial profiling, strip searches and deportation – while at the same time describing his chum as “profoundly humanistic and open-minded”.

(To be fair, Hitchens does baulk at a statement from Sam Harris, who has written: “The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.” Hitch characterises this as an “irresponsible remark”. You could say.)

The basic problem with a lot of liberals, Hitchens says, is that “they cannot shake their subliminal identification of the Muslim religion with the wretched of the earth: the black- and brown-skinned denizens of what we once called the ‘Third World’.” Furthermore, this inexplicable sympathy with the oppressed has given rise to “the stupid neologism ‘Islamophobia’, which aims to promote criticism of Islam to the gallery of special offenses associated with racism”.

Like Steyn, Hitchens warns against “the Islamist project of a ‘soft’ conquest of host countries”. He tells us that “Europe’s multicultural authorities, many of its welfare agencies, and many of its churches treat the most militant Muslims as the minority’s ‘real’ spokesmen … encouraging the sensation that many in the non-Muslim Establishment have a kind of death wish”. With evident approval, Hitch cites Steyn’s complaint that “most of the Christian churches have collapsed into compromise: choosing to speak of Muslims as another ‘faith community’ … and reserving their real condemnation for American policies in the war against terrorism”.

Overall, despite minor criticisms, Hitchens endorses “Steyn’s salient point that demography and cultural masochism, especially in combination, are handing a bloodless victory to the forces of Islamization”.

Muslim majority schools ‘pose security threat and should be closed’

An influential government education adviser said today that schools dominated by Muslim children should be closed and replaced with “multi-faith” academies to integrate pupils. Sir Cyril Taylor, chairman of the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, said the concentration of ethnic minorities and religious groups in certain schools had created a “strategic security problem”.

He said that allowing significant numbers of ethnic minority children to lead virtually separate lives was fuelling extremism and harming academic standards. The call for forced integration came as a Government commissioned report is this week set to recommend that values such as justice and tolerance should be at the centre of citizenship classes for secondary pupils.

Daily Mail, 22 January 2007

Inayat Bunglawala on Enlightenment values

Inayat“Last Saturday I took part in a panel discussion on ‘Enlightenment values and modern society’ as part of a large conference on the theme of the clash of civilisations, organised by the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone.

“It has been disconcerting recently to see that many of the most vocal advocates clamouring for the spread of Enlightenment values have also been those most keen on waging war on Iraq and now, Iran. Still, I argued that the peaceful spread of the values of the Enlightenment offers protection for people of different faiths and none. The Qur’an itself calls upon people to be prepared to question inherited beliefs and urges them to examine the universe around them and use their reason….

“A couple of the speakers at Saturday’s conference, including the American neocon columnist Daniel Pipes (founder of the McCarthyite outfit Campus Watch), pointedly criticised Livingstone for hosting the highly influential Egyptian Islamic scholar Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi when he visited the UK in 2004. Yet Livingstone was surely right: how can you hope to challenge someone’s views if you do not engage with them? Engagement in that case certainly seemed the more ‘enlightened’ policy to me.

“Unless, of course, the kind of engagement you are really calling for is one from 50,000 feet in the air.”

Comment is Free, 22 January 2007

And while we’re on the subject of the Clash of Civilisations conference, one of the questioners from Daniel Pipes’ side was Stephen Schwartz’s sidekick (sorry, “European director”) Irfan al-Alawi, who also featured in a recent broadcast by Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network (watch video here). Yet, when al-Alawi appeared in the “Undercover Mosque” documentary, he was filmed with his face obscured, on the basis that he feared violence as a result of his campaign against the proposed Islamic Centre at Newham in London! Which just goes to illustrate the dishonest scaremongering tactics employed by that programme.

Muslim woman PC could face sack says Mail

“A Muslim woman police officer has sparked a new debate by refusing to shake hands with Britain’s most senior police chief for religious reasons. The incident happened at a passing-out parade where Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair was inspecting a line-up of 200 recruits…. An inquiry has now been launched and the unidentified WPC – described as ‘a non-Asian Muslim’ – could face the sack if it is considered that her strict religious beliefs prevent her performing as an effective police officer.”

Mail on Sunday, 21 January 2007

Postscript:  Brett Lock of Outrage offers the following advice to the WPC: “act reasonably, or find another occupation.”

Harry’s Place, 22 January 2007

Meanwhile one of Brett’s fellow bloggers is extending his range of prejudices from Islamophobia to homophobia. David T, commenting on the Clash of Civilisations conference which he refused to attend, writes that he “missed the opportunity to see Oliver Kamm in discussion with the Islamist activist, Inayat Bunglawala, and Linda Bellos: a former politician whose name is an anagram of ‘lesbian doll’.”

Harry’s Place, 22 January 2007

Dispatches and the demonisation of Muslims

This week, Channel 4 broadcast a very controversial documentary, Dispatches: Undercover Mosque, which appeared to have a clear agenda to demonise Muslims and incite fear of and hatred against them. Preachers’ statements were taken completely out of context … that a mainstream figure like Lord Nazir Ahmad was even castigated as having extremist tendencies indicated the immense bias which ran throughout the documentary.

Moreover, by singling out Muslims for demonisation for holding beliefs shared by many other religious communities, the programme’s inherent Islamophobia was all too clear to see. Certain Muslim beliefs which were negatively portrayed as the doctrine of extremists are actually shared by Judaism and Christianity.”

Fahad Ansari at Open Minds, 19 January 2007

Muslims can never be British say fascists, citing Dispatches programme

BNP Islam Out of Britain“Gordon Brown today signalled that his first task as Prime Minister would be to get Muslims to rally around a ‘Churchillian’ pride in Britain. Admitting that he expected to take over from Tony Blair this year, the Chancellor said that he wanted to promote a ‘modern patriotism’ as an alternative to Islamic extremism. Mr. Brown said: ‘I believe we can do more to separate some Muslims from the dark forces that they can be susceptible to.’

“His apparent lack of understanding of the word ‘patriotism’ is a characteristic symbol of the vapid thinking of desperate liberal-leftists clinging onto power. Patriotism is loyalty to one’s own country and one’s own nation. Muslims can never be part of the British family of nations – they will always be outsiders because that is the basis of their faith, thus any attempt, which Brown doesn’t detail, to force Muslims to be patriotic to Britain is futile from the outset.

“Clearly Gordo didn’t get to see the C4 Dispatches documentary broadcast on Monday evening. The voice of ‘moderate’ Muslims in that programme confirmed what many have known for a long time. One is either a Muslim or one isn’t. There are no moderate or extremist Muslims, all Muslims believe in the writings of the Prophet laid down in the Koran and accept the struggle to achieve total domination of the world’s free people under the embrace of Islam.”

BNP news article, 19 January 2007

Like ‘a cheap Fox News report’ – Press Gazette on Undercover Mosque

Zoe Smith reviews the Channel 4 Dispatches “documentary” Undercover Mosque:

The reporter attended talks at mosques run by key organisations claiming to be ‘mainstream’and found preachers condemning integration, democracy and homosexuality. The hour limped on with little new or revealing information. So some Muslims hate non-Muslims. Some Christians hate gays and some Jews hate Arabs, but broadcasters don’t feel the need to make hour-long programmes insinuating that entire religions are to be mistrusted.

The irritating background music, which cranked into gear whenever a preacher used the word kaffir or kuffr, gave the feel of a cheap Fox News report. Patronising in the extreme, the decision to make dramatic cuts to footage of women in hijabs and burkhas whenever ignorant mullahs spouted off about male supremacy, was bewildering. Does Dispatches think the majority of viewers equate the hijab with the subjugation of women? I expected a huge pay-off. ‘Our programme has uncovered bigotry and intolerance,’ it concluded. What else would one expect from an hour-long programme about religion?

Press Gazette, 18 January 2007