More nonsense from the pro-imperialist ‘Left’

“Left anti-Zionism inflates Israel into a symbol for all that is wrong with a world dominated by US imperialism…. It is Manichaeism: the world is a great struggle between heroes and villains, only to be resolved by a great revelation and final undoing…. Some on the left seem to think that the only role that Muslims are able to play in this global showdown is to transform themselves into human bombs. They imagine glorious and tragic deaths as the only option left open to Muslims.”

Jane Ashworth and David Hirsh in Progress magazine, November 2005

Oddly enough, I’ve yet to meet anyone on the Left who supports “suicide bombing” as a tactic in Palestine/Israel or anywhere else, still less anyone who holds that this is “the only role that Muslims are able to play” in the struggle against US imperialism. I didn’t come across any leftists trying to dissuade Muslims from participating in the mass political protests against the Iraq war on the grounds that they would be better occupied turning themselves into human bombs. Perhaps I lead a sheltered life. Alternatively, it could just be that, to adopt their own terminology, Ashworth and Hirsh are intent on attacking “symbolic” leftists rather than real ones.

As is usual in the outpourings of pro-imperialists, “left” and right, who of course have their own list of heroes and villains, the Mayor of London’s welcome to Yusuf al-Qaradawi is held up as an example of leftist capitulation to anti-semitism: “Some recent incidents … are open to other than anti-semitic interpretations. But Ken Livingstone’s warm embrace, on behalf of London, of Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an openly anti-semitic cleric, shows a disregard for the importance of anti-semitism.”

That would be this Yusuf al-Qaradawi, would it? Furthermore, if willingness to engage in dialogue with Qaradawi is a sign of softness on anti-semitism, then the Foreign Office are clearly anti-semites too. See (pdf) here.

Continue reading

Guardian interviews Qaradawi

Qaradawi ban“Qaradawi and western governments have a strong mutual interest in the struggle against Islamic extremism; he is as anxious as any western government to ensure young Muslim men don’t blow themselves up on tube trains, or hijack planes. He abhors the traducing and corruption of the faith that such actions expose, and says so to his audience of millions of young Muslims. The fact that the audience is still listening to this ageing scholar, is due to his independence of mind – and it is precisely that which, to western sensibility, can make him an uncomfortable ally.”

Madeleine Bunting meets Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

Guardian, 29 October 2005

Ex-Marxist and darling of the US neocons Norman Geras is not happy. He expresses his revulsion at Qaradawi’s support for Palestinian militants who resort suicide bombings that kill innocent people.

Normblog, 29 October 2005

Others of us might prefer to express their revulsion at the hypocrisy of a man who supported the invasion of Iraq and the consequent deaths of perhaps a hundred thousand innocent people. But, then, when have the cheerleaders for US imperialism ever shown the slightest concern for its victims?

Meanwhile, over at Harry’s Place we find the usual ignorant diatribes against Qaradawi. (See here and here.) David T and his friends pour scorn on the notion that Qaradawi is “some kind of moderate seeking tolerance and understanding between Muslims and the outside world” (sic), claiming that he “endorses the punishment of homosexuality by stoning” and is “the leading theoretician and spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood”. Ah, the wonders of “Enlightenment values” – so clearly superior to the irrationality of religious belief!

And Paul Hampton of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty complains that “Bunting is typical of the post-modern left in her softness on Qaradawi”.

AWL website, 29 October 2005

British Anti-Terrorism: A Modern Day Witch-hunt

Islamophobia Awards“Must Read – ‘British Anti-Terrorism: A Modern Day Witch-hunt’, new report by IHRC. Fahad Ansari revisits Britain’s anti-terrorism policies a year after his report, ‘Terror in the Name of Anti-Terrorism’. From Control Orders, proposals to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir and other Muslim organisations, new legislation and police powers, this report covers the gamut of the British government’s latest anti-terrorism proposals.”

IHRC alert, 27 October 2005

And the IHRC’s famous annual Islamophobia Awards are due to be presented on 17 December. Click here to vote now!

Tariq Ramadan and Inayat Bunglawala – Al-Qaida supporters!

“Britain’s submission to Islamic will … did not help stop the July 7 bombings or the later bombing attempts. But even after the attacks, the Prime Minister appointed to the new anti-terror task force, which they call ‘the working group on tackling extremism’, Muslim advisers who are known to support Radical Islam, including Tariq Ramadan. Ramadan’s U.S. visa was revoked last year, and he is believed to have connections to al Qaeda. Furthermore, last August, to enable Ramadan to speak at a gathering of Muslim youth in London, Scotland Yard contributed $15,000 of taxpayers money. Ramadan, who is also believed to have organized a meeting between Ayman al Zawahiri and Sheik Abdel Rahman currently teaches at St. Antony College, in Oxford. Another advisor to the Prime Minister’s task force, Inayat Bunglawala, was appointed despite his public praise of bin Laden as a ‘freedom fighter’.”

Rachel Ehrenfeld in Front Page Magazine, 26 October 2005

This in the course of an article complaining that Britain’s libel laws are too restrictive. You can see why Ehrenfeld might have a problem with those laws, can’t you?

Lords defeat for religious hatred bill

BNP Islam Out of BritainA new clash between the House of Lords and the Commons looks increasingly likely after peers voted overwhelmingly last night to amend the planned law against religious hatred to introduce safeguards protecting freedom of speech.

Although ministers indicated that they were prepared to compromise on aspects of the controversial proposals, the government appeared determined to reverse at least some elements of the Lords vote.

During a committee stage debate yesterday the Lords backed an all-party amendment substantially restricting the grounds on which the law could be applied. The government defeat, by 260 votes to 111, toughens the bill so that prosecutors must prove intent to cause religious hatred.

The amendment, which was sponsored by Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers as well as the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, also tightens up the definition of language needed to bring a prosecution. This is now restricted to “threatening” rather than “insulting and abusive” language.

Guardian, 26 October 2005


In other words, if their lordships’ amendment were accepted, material such as the BNP leaflet referred to below would probably still not be liable to prosecution because it restricts itself to inciting hatred against Muslims by means of abuse and insults, rather than through explicit threats of violence. The present disparity between the legal protection provided to Jews and Sikhs against incitement to hatred, and the much weaker protection provided to Muslims and Hindus, would remain.

House of Lords asked to reject amendments to Religious Hatred Bill

The Muslim Council of Britain calls on the House of Lords to reject the amendments proposed today by those opposed to the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill.

“These proposed amendments will allow the current unfair situation whereby we have a hierarchy of rights for members of different faith groups to continue. The amendments – if accepted – will mean that British Muslims will continue to remain second-class citizens and denied the same level of legal protection that is given to some racial and religious groups including Jews and Sikhs under existing racial incitement laws,” said Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain.

The MCB believes that some opponents of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill have been engaged in a campaign to misrepresent its purpose and have misleadingly claimed that it will prevent criticism or ridicule of religion. This is demonstrably untrue as will be clear to anyone who has read the actual wording of the Bill.

“The opponents of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill have yet to provide a credible answer as to why we can trust our judicial system to be able to make a distinction between criticism of the Jewish and Sikh religions and incitement to hatred against Jews and Sikhs, while not being able to do the same in the case of other faith groups, including Muslims,” added Sir Iqbal.

Without the proposed extension of the existing incitement law, Muslims and other faith groups remain unprotected, since they do not fall into a single racial group. The purpose of the proposed law is to protect people belonging to a particular faith identity and not the faith itself. Existing incitement laws in England and Wales and Northern Ireland have proved that it is possible to give protection to people without infringing on the right to free speech and the right to criticize religious beliefs.

MCB press release, 25 October 2005

CRE on Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

bnp-islam-poster“… in May 2004, following the receipt of complaints from members of the public, the CRE wrote to the West Yorkshire Police Constabulary to ask that it investigate the distribution of a BNP leaflet, ‘The Truth About Islam: Intolerance, Slaughter, Looting, Arson, Molestation of Women’, in Dewsbury where there is a sizeable Pakistani community, locally referred to as ‘the Muslims’.

“We received the following reply from the West Yorkshire branch of the CPS: ‘[T]he leaflet is quite clearly insulting and abusive and arguably, in its talk of war and crusades, threatening too. The stirring up of fear and hatred against Muslims is … a likely result of its publication given the strength of the language used. Muslims are not, however, a racial group … and the hatred stirred up could not therefore be defined as racial hatred … [I]t might be that evidence could be gathered to establish whether or not the term “Muslim” is generally understood to mean “Pakistani” or “Indian”. The difficulty in relation to this particular leaflet … is that [it states] “This problem is not a matter of race. Those Muslims oppressing and murdering infidels and women have included Arabs, Pakistanis, Black Nigerian and White Bosnians”. Given this specific statement it would not be possible to infer incitement to racial hatred’.”

The Commission for Racial Equality explains why it is necessary to extend the present laws against incitement to racial hatred to cover religious hatred.

CRE briefing, 11 October 2005

Perhaps someone might explain this to James Jones and Joan Smith.

Times attacks Racial and Religious Hatred Bill (again)

The level of argument by opponents of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill is quite unbelievably low. A case in point is the editorial in today’s Times.

The Bill has nothing to do with the blasphemy laws, as the Times implies. And Salman Rushdie would be no more likely find himself prosecuted for publishing The Satanic Verses than the Birmingham Rep was for staging Behzti (Sikhs as a mono-ethnic faith are already protected against incitement to hatred under Part 3 of the 1986 Public Order Act). The idea that people choose their religion but not their race ignores the obvious fact that culture (which includes religious belief) is an integral part of a minority community’s ethnic identity.

Nor is the government “proposing a law that would allow people to ridicule ideas as long as they were not religious ideas”, as the Times quotes Rowan Atkinson as saying. The new law wouldn’t ban ridicule of people on the basis of their religion any more than earlier race relations legislation criminalised ridicule of people on the basis of their ethnicity (if it did, Bernard Manning would have been locked up long ago). In both cases what is made illegal is the incitement of hatred.

The Times is, however, correct to point out that the amendment to the Bill proposed by Lords Lester, Hunt, Carey and Plant would make an “important distinction between laws against racism and those that seek to protect the religious from persecution”. Their lordships aim to introduce a new Part 3A to the Public Order Act, the result of which would be to make it much more difficult to succcessfully prosecute someone for inciting hatred against Muslims or Hindus than it is to prosecute them for inciting hatred against Jews or Sikhs. In other words, it would preserve the injustice, inequality and discrimination embodied in current race relations law which the Bill seeks to rectify.

Postscript:  For another example of the ignorance demonstrated by opponents of the Bill, see Harry’s Place where we are referred to the Times editorial for “a succinct and persuasive argument against the proposed Racial and Religious Hatred legislation”!

More echoes of the ‘Baa Baa Black Sheep’ ban

HogwashThe Express (24 October) reports that piggy banks have been banned in high street banks in order to avoid offending Muslim customers.

A leader in the same issue pontificates:

“This is nonsense, piffling nonsense but dangerous nonsense, too. It is unhealthy to indulge in the sort of political correctness that makes us trim our popular culture in ludicrous ways.”


Hogwash: Now the PC brigade bans piggy banks in case they upset Muslims

By Tony Brooks

Daily Express, 24 October 2005

Piggy banks are being banned in case they offend Muslim customers, it emerged last night.

The decision by high street banks was condemned as “barmy” and “bonkers” by critics. They warned that such moves would only fuel inter-community tensions. Branch bosses imposed the ban because they fear the time-honoured symbol for thriftiness could upset ethnic customers.

All promotional material bearing the figure has now been scrapped because the Koran forbids Muslims from eating pork and pigs are considered by them to be unclean. Muslim leaders in East Lancashire, where there is a large immigrant community and the first bans were imposed, applauded the action by the Halifax and NatWest.

But the move was condemned by critics headed by a leading Church of England clergyman. The Dean of Blackburn, the Very Reverend Christopher Armstrong, said: “This is petty and political correctness gone mad. The next thing we will be banning Christmas trees and cribs and the logical result of that process is a bland uniformity. We should learn to celebrate our differences, not be fearful of them.”

He was supported by Andrew Rosindell, Tory MP for Romford, who said: “Those responsible for this decision are making themselves look extremely foolish. It is quite absurd. In no way can piggy banks be termed offensive. I cannot believe the majority of Muslims genuinely object to seeing a picture of a piggy bank on a wall or in a leaflet. This is the sort of political correctness that makes normal-thinking people very angry. It’s barmy.”

Mike Penning, Tory MP for Hemel Hempstead, described the decision as “bonkers”. He said: “I have never met a single Muslim, and I know many, who would be offended by the image of a piggy bank. It is sheer stupidity.”

But the plan was backed by Salim Mulla, secretary of the Lancashire Council of Mosques, who said: “Within our faith there are strict rules about not consuming pork or coming into contact with pigs. “This is a sensitive issue and I think the banks are simply being courteous to their customers.”

The Halifax will base future promotions around Howard Brown, the customer services adviser who fronts their “Who gives you extra?” TV ads.

A spokesman said: “We no longer have any advertising that features piggy banks or is piggy bank related.” NatWest admitted that piggy banks had been removed from branches in the area but insisted there had been no direction from head office. “The decision has been taken at local branch level, ” said a spokesman.

Muslim prayer room in parliament? NSS is not pleased

sadiqkhan“Sadiq Khan, Labour MP for Tooting, is calling for a Muslim prayer centre to be installed in the House of Commons. His idea is being ‘seriously considered’ by the powerful all-party Commons Administration Committee. Mr Khan said: ‘The Anglicans are the only people among the staff and politicians at Westminster who have a place to pray. Even the Roman Catholics do not have somewhere they can use all the time. The place needs to be dragged into the 21st Century. It is only right that Parliament should provide a prayer room for people of other faiths.’ A spokesman for the Administration Committee said that they were ‘seriously considering’ the proposal, but that a multi-faith prayer room would be more appropriate. Someone needs to tell them, though, that Muslims often refuse to share prayer facilities, regarding other faiths as having ‘polluted’ them.”

National Secular Society news report, 21 October 2005