Category Archives: UK

Women who wear the niqab are the same as terrorist bombers, says Hirsi Ali

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Ayaan Hirsi AliAnother plug for the provocateur Ayaan Hirsi Ali, currently pursuing her career in a right-wing US think-tank. She offers the following helpful contribution to the “debate” over the veil:

“… what increasingly alarms me is the emergence of a post 9/11 generation of young women in the West who are out to make a statement by wearing the niqab. They enjoy all the western freedoms but choose to flaunt the veil. They are the female equivalent of the radical young men who travel to Pakistan and come back wanting to blow up trains.”

Sunday Times, 29 October 2006

Secret Cabinet memo admits Iraq is fuelling UK terror

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Tony Blair’s claim that there is no link between Britain’s foreign policy and terrorist attacks in this country is blown apart by a secret cabinet memo revealed today. A classified paper written by senior Downing Street officials says that everything Britain does overseas for the next decade must have the ultimate aim of reducing “terror activity, especially that in or directed against the UK”.

It admits that, in an ideal world, “the Muslim would not perceive the UK and its foreign policies as hostile” – effectively accepting the argument that Britain’s military action in Iraq and Afghanistan has served as a recruiting sergeant for Islamist terrorist groups. Publicly, Mr Blair has resisted this line fiercely. During his final speech as leader to Labour’s annual conference last month, he described such claims as “enemy propaganda”.

His cabinet allies have supported his position. Earlier this year, John Reid, the Home Secretary, said: “I think it is a dreadful misjudgment if we believe the foreign policy of this country should be shaped in part, or in whole, under the threat of terrorist activity, if we do not have a foreign policy with which the terrorists happen to agree.”

But the memo leaves no doubt that all foreign policy must be driven by the goal of thwarting terrorism in Britain. It demands a “significant reduction in the number and intensity of the regional conflicts that fuel terror activity”.

Sunday Telegraph, 29 October 2006

Posted in UK

‘Muslim anger’ over council school snub

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Osama_SaeedScotland’s biggest council believes that a state-funded Islamic faith school would lead to the “social isolation” of young Scottish Muslims, a secret document has revealed. Despite publicly saying it would consider a school if community leaders could prove the demand, a memo obtained by Scotland on Sunday shows that Glasgow’s education chiefs have voiced “serious concerns” about any such plans.

Muslim leaders have reacted with concern to the memo. Osama Saeed, Scottish spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain, said: “It’s disappointing that they haven’t raised these concerns with us up to now, the issue has always been one of proving the demand, which we are confident we can do. The concerns are completely misplaced, studies of pupils from Islamic schools in England have shown that they are more tolerant and open than those not in Islamic schools.”

Scotland on Sunday, 29 October 2006

You’ll note that a quote from Osama saying that the failure to consult was “disappointing” becomes translated in the headline into “Muslim anger”. It appears that Muslims can’t express disagreement with anything, however politely and reasonably, without being accused of aggressive hostility.

CPS rules out Forest Gate child porn charges

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Prosecutors have advised police not to bring child pornography charges against the man who was shot by police during a counter-terrorist raid earlier this year, it was announced tonight. A Crown Prosecution Service spokesman said Mohammed Abdul Kahar would face no charges over allegations that 44 indecent images had been found on electronic equipment at his home.

Mr Kahar, 23, was shot in the shoulder when 250 police officers raided properties in Lansdown Road, Forest Gate, in east London, in June. He was freed without charge after a week of questioning by anti-terror officers at the high-security Paddington Green police station.

In a statement tonight, Mr Mohammed Kahar’s family said: “Kahar was first shot, and then very publicly accused of things he knew nothing of and of which he is completely innocent. We cannot help but observe that there was a never-ending avalanche of leaked stories to the press. We have the right to expect that a proper inquiry be made of who provided the stories and why.”

Guardian, 27 October 2006

See also Lenin’s Tomb, 27 October 2006

Faith schools – they’re no threat at all … unless they’re Muslim

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Charles Moore 2Charles Moore argues that the history of Christian faith schools shows that they represent no threat at all to social cohesion, and that the government was mistaken in proposing a compulsory quota system. He continues:

“So what is behind all this anxiety? The answer, of course, is Islam…. There are said to be about 115 Muslims schools now seeking state money, on top of the half-dozen that already receive it. Most people do not like the idea of Muslim schools acquiring this status, but few, except Lord Baker, dare say so. In order to euphemise the problem, the Government thought up a general rule to apply to all religions, and so prevent the Muslim expansion that it fears. You could call it the veil wagging the dog.

“People are right to worry. Unlike church schools where, in the great majority of cases, the Government can deal with the clearly recognised command structures of bishops, Muslim schools have no such central authority. Sunni Islam is as fragmented as extreme Protestant sects: it will be very hard for the people paying out the taxpayers’ money to know with whom they are dealing.

“The more fundamental problem lies with the state of the religion itself. Just as, once upon a time, it was the case that being a Catholic in England put great strain upon your loyalty to the nation, so in Islam today. Although most Muslims seem pleased to be British, polls also show significant minorities who support or condone terrorism. Many repudiate the way of life, even the language, of the host nation.

“That is why the Archbishop of Canterbury is wrong to equate the wearing of a cross and of the veil. The first is not intended, in most cases, as an angry statement of difference. The veil is…. Inside Islam is a strong strand, currently growing stronger because of the propaganda of the radicals, which believes in ‘territoriality’. Such Muslims – for example, Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, whom Mayor Ken Livingstone greets as a hero – reject the legitimacy of all non-Islamic society. They regard what they call ‘man-made’ laws as non-operative. Only the laws of God apply, and these laws, expressed in the Sharia, should turn our land Muslim by imposition. It would seem mad that people who believe such things should get state money to teach our fellow citizens.”

Daily Telegraph, 28 October 2006

From which you can only conclude that Moore hasn’t hasn’t made the slightest effort to acquaint himself with Qaradawi’s views. But why go to the bother of studying a subject when it’s so much easier just to rely on ignorant bigotry?

Right wing Christians and secularists join in condemnation of Rowan Williams

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Anger Over Church BackingThe Archbishop of Canterbury prompted anger yesterday by putting Muslim veils on an equal footing with Christian crosses.

Britain’s most senior churchman, Dr Williams, said talk of banning the full-face niqab reminded him of China, where the state controls all religious life. He said: “The ideal of a society where no visible public signs of religion would be seen – no crosses around necks, no sidelocks, turbans or veils – is a politically dangerous one.”

But Stephen Green, the national director of fundamentalist group Christian Voice, said Dr Williams appeared to be ranking Islam alongside Christianity. He said: “We Christians should be more ready to stand up and be counted. We have to say that our faith is a world view and it’s not just something we do on a Sunday.”

Alison Ruoff, a member of the CofE General Synod, said: “The Archbishop should be standing up for the Christian faith in a much more visible way. He should be making a more public stand for Christianity and not for other religions.” Roy McCloughry, director of evangelical think-tank the Kingdom Trust, said: “The veil is not a religious issue – it is a cultural issue.”

Terry Sanderson, vice-president of the National Secular Society, which campaigns against all religious interference in non-believers’ lives, said: “Minority religions are now demanding a place at the table. Dr Williams is using phony arguments. Comparing ministers’ criticism of veils in Britain with what goes on in China is ridiculous. He’s running a hare that does not exist. There is no ban on veils in this country.”

Daily Express, 28 October 2006

Did Italian right-winger take inspiration from Maryam Namazie?

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Daniela SantancheBritain and Australia are not the only countries where debate is raging over the Islamic veil. In Italy, the issue burst into the news this week after the interior ministry ordered round-the-clock police protection for an MP, believing she had been threatened for expressing her views on the subject.

Daniela Santanche, an MP for the formerly neo-fascist National Alliance, clashed in a TV chat show with the imam of a mosque near Milan. After Ms Santanche insisted that the Qur’an did not call for women to wear a veil, the other guest, Ali Abu Shwaima, angrily replied: “I am an imam and I will not permit those who are ignorant to speak of Islam. You are ignorant of Islam and do not have the right to interpret the Qur’an.”

The ministry said it had been advised that the words used by the imam might amount to a coded death sentence – which the imam has vigorously denied.

Continue reading →

Ian Buruma and Muslims – what a liberal wimp

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Nick Cohen 2Reviewing Ian Buruma’s book Murder in Amsterdam Nick Cohen takes exception to Buruma’s willingness to appease the Muslim hordes:

“Buruma shows that Muslim immigration pushed the fantastically vituperative van Gogh and at least a part of the Dutch left into the appalled realisation that they were going to have to fight the old battles for free speech and the emancipation of women and homosexuals all over again. Interestingly, given his anti-fascist pedigree, Buruma won’t go along with them.

“He doesn’t quite say it, but he implies that it is one thing to make a stand against the ayatollahs’ Iran or al-Qaeda in the Middle East, and quite another to take on the same ideas at home when they are found in a minority community that is already vulnerable and often powerless….

“Murder in Amsterdam is well written, well researched and often wise, but a faint whiff of intellectual cowardice rises from its pages none the less.”

New Statesman, 30 October 2006

It’s reassuring to know that, unlike the cowardly Buruma, Cohen has the courage to wage a battle against the vulnerable and powerless.

Why Labour should reject Jack Straw’s comments on veil

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Muslims under siege

Owen Jones, Poplar & Limehouse Constituency Labour Party, surveys the responses to Jack Straw’s comments on the niqab.

Labour Left Briefing, November 2006

“Ministers caught telling the truth!” announced the BNP on their website on 15th October as they hailed “a series of statements which show that some of our rulers are capable of speaking the truth and acknowledging commonsense after all.” No wonder the BNP feels vindicated. Over the past month, the already besieged Muslim community has faced a barrage of denunciations from the British political establishment.

The increasingly thuggish John Reid fired the opening shots in east London on 20th September by haranguing Muslim parents to spy on their own children “before their hatred grows and you risk losing them forever.” This carefully choreographed political stunt was followed by a further tirade at Labour Party Conference in which he pledged that Islamist terrorism would have “no no-go areas”. David Cameron momentarily forgot his cuddly rhetoric and pledged “break up Muslim ghettos.”

However, it was Jack Straw who opened the floodgates of the current deluge of anti-Muslim hysteria. His description of the niqab – a full body veil worn by a tiny minority of Muslim women – as a “sign of separation and difference” was music to the ears of the right wing media. “Ban the veil!” screeched the Daily Express, revealing that 98% supported such a ban in order to “safeguard racial harmony”.

In The Times, Simon Jenkins suggested that if Muslim women were unable to understand why a “westerner” might be offended by the veil, “it is reasonable to ask why they want to live in Britain.” Jon Gaunt in The Sun offered the nuanced argument that “no group has been such a pain in the burka as some of the Muslims in recent years…” Others took the opportunity to declare open season on the Muslim population. “Muslim cabbie bans guide dog” was the almost farcical Evening Standard headline.

Continue reading →

Battle lines have been drawn

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“The battle lines have been drawn. First human rights were thrown out of the window by targeting all Muslims as terror suspects. Then there has been the curtailing of the freedom of speech and right to demonstrate by invoking new laws and proposals to spy on Islamic and Muslim groups, including at universities.

“It would appear that the other democratic principle of tolerance is to be prised away in Britain. Should we now expect that the next step will be a new British version of The House Un-American Activities Committee during McCarthyism that blacklists all Muslims?

“The most dangerous path clearly spelt out by the Prime Minister is that the real intent is the sinister attempt somehow to change Islam and its basic tenets. The Government’s offer of a genuine ‘dialogue and open debate’ has proved to be nothing more than a façade as it has not shown the slightest inclination to listen, but rather, it is clear it wants brow-beat the Muslim community and force its own agenda upon it.”

Editorial in the Muslim News, 27 October 2006