Category Archives: UK

This law won’t fight terror – it is an incitement to terrorism

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“… as the mayor of London pointed out yesterday, support for Nelson Mandela, the wartime resistance and any number of anti-colonial liberation movements would all have been crimes under this bill. In practice, of course, the law is intended to be used selectively: it is aimed not just at those who praise bomb attacks on the London tube, but at Muslims and others who believe that Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans and others have a right to resist occupation.

“If there were any doubt about that, Blair’s stated intention to use this bill to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir – reaffirmed this week by the Home Office – should dispel it. There is little love lost among many Muslims – let alone non-Muslims – for Hizb ut-Tahrir, which campaigns for a restored caliphate (or unified Islamic political authority) throughout the Muslim world and against participation in elections. Although it denies being anti-Jewish, the organisation had on its website until recently a statement which by any reckoning crossed the line from anti-Zionism into anti-semitism.

“But there is also no evidence at all that it is involved in terrorism – it condemned both the London bombings and the 9/11 attacks. It does not, however, condemn armed resistance in Iraq and Palestine, which is how the government plans to catch it. Along with the criminalisation of support for resistance movements, such a ban on a non-violent political party would be unprecedented in modern British history. When set against the toleration of the routinely violent and relentlessly racist British National party, it is scarcely surprising that Muslim opinion is overwhelmingly hostile to all the main planks of the legislation.”

Seumas Milne in the Guardian, 13 October 2005

US chaplain condemns ‘war on Islam’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A Muslim chaplain working for the US Army in Guantánamo Bay condemned his country’s “war on Islam” yesterday. James Yee told BBC radio that Islam is currently seen by US forces as the “religion of terror.”

When soldiers saw the chaplain practising the same faith as the prisoners that he ministered, he was treated with great suspicion and eventually arrested for “espionage,” he revealed. Mr Yee was accused of adultery and storing pornography on a government computer and was locked up in solitary confinement for 76 days, before all charges against him were suddenly dropped.

He spoke yesterday of the “atmosphere of hostility” toward all Muslims at the torture camp. “We say that the war on terror is not a war against Islam. But that is not how it felt most days at Guantanamo,” Mr Yee said.

“Every man behind the steel mesh wire of the cages practises the same religion, a religion that many people who work inside the prison understand only as the religion of terror. I was praying like the Muslims prisoners prayed. That must have meant to many people there that was somehow connected to extremism or terrorism,” he said.

All of the British citizens locked up at the US outpost in Cuba have been brought home, but one British resident remains there, in limbo and on hunger strike, because the Foreign Office refuses to help him. Libyan refugee Omar Deghayes lived in Britain for 20 years but never registered as a British citizen, so the government says that it has no duty to intervene on his behalf.

Independent peace campaigner Rachel Critchley will stage a 12-hour peace walk through London tomorrow, dressed in a bright orange Guantánamo-style boiler suit and shackles, to raise awareness of Mr Deghayes’s plight.

Morning Star, 13 October 2005

See also Islam Online, 13 October 2005 

Dutch unveil the toughest face in Europe with a ban on the burka

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The Netherlands is likely to become the first country in Europe to ban the burka, under government proposals that would bring in some of the toughest curbs on Muslim clothing in the world.

The country’s hardline Integration Minister, Rita Verdonk, known as the Iron Lady for her series of tough anti-immigration measures, told Parliament that she was going to investigate where and when the burka should be banned. Mrs Verdonk gave warning that the “time of cosy tea-drinking” with Muslim groups had passed.

The proposals are likely to win the support of Parliament because of the expected backing by right-wing parties. But they have caused outrage among Muslim and human rights groups, who say that the Government is pandering to the far Right.

Times, 13 October 2005

See the comment by Yusuf Smith, who points out the misapplication of the term “burka” to any form of Islamic veil – which is in fact what Verdonk is proposing to ban. He also takes on the raving Islamophobes at Harry’s Place. And he introduces us to the term “jafi“, which I think should enjoy wider currency.

Indigo Jo Blogs, 13 October 2005

Trevor Phillips is in danger of giving succour to racists

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Lee JasperLee Jasper replies to the chair of the Commission for Racial Equality: “Asked whether the word multiculturalism should be killed off, he replied: ‘Yes, let’s do that. Multiculturalism suggests separateness.’ Confronted by the Spectator‘s Rod Liddle and asked if Islam was an issue for the CRE – in particular if it was ‘merely a matter of culture’ rather than race – Phillips’s response spoke volumes. ‘Well privately I would go quite a long way down the route you’re taking. It is not primarily an issue of race.’ … But the truth is that vile anti-Muslim prejudice, using the religion of a community to attempt to sideline and blame it for many of society’s ills, is the cutting edge of racism in British society. Those who consider themselves anti-racists need to wake up to this fact.”

Guardian, 12 October 2005

Christian group may seek ban on Qur’an

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A Protestant evangelical pressure group has warned that it will try to use the government’s racial and religious hatred law to prosecute bookshops selling the Qur’an for inciting religious hatred.

Christian Voice, a fringe fundamentalist group which first came to public prominence this year when it campaigned against the BBC’s broadcasting of Jerry Springer The Opera, was among the evangelical organisations taking part in a 1,000-strong demonstration against the bill outside parliament yesterday as the House of Lords held a second reading debate on the measure.

Its director, Stephen Green, said the organisation would consider taking out prosecutions against shops selling the Islamic holy book. He told the Guardian: “If the Qur’an is not hate speech, I don’t know what is. We will report staff who sell it. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that unbelievers must be killed.”

Guardian, 12 October 2005

It seems to have escaped Green’s attention that under the provisions of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill it would be necessary for the Attorney General to initiate a prosecution. And what are the prospects of the Attorney General acceding to demands from a nutty Christian sect that Muslim bookshops should be prosecuted for selling the Qur’an? Precisely nil.

What is more worthy of comment is the fact that yesterday’s protest against the bill involved a block between right-wing evangelical Christians and militant secularists. According to reports in the Morning Star and the Metro, the former group brandished placards reading “Freedom to Preach” and “Don’t Let Terrorism Win”, and joined together in singing “In the Name of Jesus We Have the Victory”, while Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society hailed the demonstration (which had the official backing of the NSS) as “a measure of the breadth of the opposition to this bill”.

You might wonder what such disparate groups have in common. An interest in fomenting hatred against Muslims free from state interference, perhaps?

’60 percent of British Muslims support Al-Qaida’ claim

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“I happened to hear President Bush’s speech last week in its entirety. It was a pretty mixed bag. Some of what he had to say obviously needed to be said – that there is no compromising or appeasing Islamic fascism is obvious. But he again either chose to ignore or was simply unwilling to bring up the fact that it’s not just Osama and al Qaeda we’re up against – it’s a substantial part of Islam. In Britain, after the 7/7 bombings, over 60 percent of British Muslims polled said they would not help the British government against al Qaeda or other Islamic terrorists.”

Robert Miller in the Jewish Weekly, 11 October 2005

And where exactly did Miller get that figure from? A YouGov poll conducted for the Daily Telegraph in the immediate aftermath of 7/7 asked British Muslims who they would tell if they suspected someone they knew might be planning a similar attack. 73% said they would inform the police, others said they would tell their family, friends or the local council, and only 3% said they wouldn’t tell anyone. I imagine this compares favourably with the percentage of non-Muslims prepared to inform on someone they suspected was planning a violent attack on Muslims.

Miller has an equally informed opinion on US foreign policy, where he suggests that the appropriate response to the current dispute with the government of Iran would be “a devastating raid on the Iranian oil fields”.

This only goes to prove that the US is the undisputed world leader when it comes to pop-eyed Islamophobia. By comparison, Melanie Phillips, Nick Cohen or GALHA appear almost level-headed.

Kenan Malik resumes his assault on multiculturalism

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Multiculturalism did not create militant Islam, but it helped create a space for it within British Muslim communities that had not existed before. It fostered a more tribal nation, undermined progressive trends within the Muslim communities and strengthened the hand of conservative religious leaders – all in the name of antiracism. It is true that since 9/11 and particularly since 7/7 there has been growing questioning of the consequences of multiculturalism. From former Home Secretary David Blunkett to CRE chief Trevor Phillips many have woken up to the fragmenting character of pluralism and have talked of the need to reassert common values. Yet the fundamental tenets of the politics of difference remain largely unquestioned. The idea that society consists of a variety of distinct cultures, that all these cultures should be respected and preserved and that society should be organised to meet the distinct needs of different cultures – these continued to be regarded as the hallmarks of a progressive, antiracist outlook. The lesson of the past two decades, however, is this: a left that espouses multiculturalism makes itself redundant.”

Kenan Malik in Prospect, October 2005

Heavy metal, Islam and us

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“If you were a Muslim artist, who would you fear more: your government, Islamists, or the free market? Judging by President Bush’s recent speech at the National Endowment of Democracy, it’s the fanatics of radical Islam, with undemocratic governments running a distant second. Yet however logical on the face of it, for the Muslim artists who participated in an extraordinary meeting organized by the anti-censorship group Free Muse last week in Beirut, the near unanimous answer was the market, not oppressive governments or religious zealots. The reasons for their choice offer important insights into what is motivating the unprecedented anger at the West, and US particularly, across the Muslim world today, and why neoliberal globalization has been seen as a threat to the their cultures and larger societies for at least a generation.”

Mark Levine blog, 11 October 2005

US neocons embrace Nick Cohen

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Nick Cohen holds forth about the supposed rise of anti-semitism on the left. As an example he offers the observation that “Ken Livingstone embraced a Muslim cleric who favoured the blowing up of Israeli women and children, along with wife-beating and the murder of homosexuals and apostates”. Even leaving aside the predictable lies about Dr al-Qaradawi’s views, it’s difficult to see how welcoming a leading Muslim figure to a conference, and defending him against attacks by the right-wing press, constitutes anti-semitism.

It’s also worth noting that not so long ago Jonathan Freedland interviewed Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks for the Guardian. The interview featured the following exchange: “But aren’t there some differences too wide to bridge? Could Sacks ‘hear the voice of God’ from the mouth of a Muslim extremist who approved of terrorist violence? Could he even bring himself to meet such a man? ‘Yes’.  Would he meet, say, Abu Hamza, the sheikh of Finsbury Park, a Taliban sympathiser who admits to sharing the views of Osama bin Laden? ‘Yes’.”

I don’t recall Cohen denouncing Dr Sacks for expressing such views, yet when the Mayor of London welcomes one of the leading opponents of Al-Qaida to City Hall, Cohen presents this as evidence of anti-semitism.

And where, I hear you ask, does Cohen’s article appear? Well, it was originally published in the New Statesman, but the folks at Front Page Magazine were so impressed by his arguments that they reproduced his piece on their site. See here

For a detailed reply to Cohen, see Indigo Jo Blogs, 9 October 2005

‘The sick face of Islam’ – GALHA

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Sick Face of IslamThe latest issue of GALHA’s Gay and Lesbian Humanist magazine contains a feature on what they call “The sick face of Islam”.

Editor Andy Armitage explains: “Our front-page headline this quarter is deliberately ambiguous: it could be saying this is only the sickening face of this religion called Islam (implying that there is possibly another face); or it could be saying this is the face of Islam, and its face is sickening. Interpret it as you will. But I suspect that many who thought the former some years ago may well now be thinking the latter…”

The issue includes quotes such as: “There are two terms that, increasingly, annoy us: Islamophobia and moderate Muslims. What we’d like to know is, first, what’s wrong with being fearful of Islam (there’s a lot to fear); and, second, what does a moderate Muslim do, other than excuse the real nutters by adhering to this barmy doctrine?” … “for homosexuals, it is doubtful that there is any such thing as a ‘moderate’ practising Muslim, or that the Koran can be regarded as anything more than just a squalid murder manual” … “it is not racist to be anti-immigration or anti-Islam” … “the reckless and mismanaged immigration polices of successive governments have led to the demographics of our major towns and cites being for ever changed by huge numbers of foreign settlers” … “Legal or illegal, many of these Third World and Eastern European newcomers are criminals of the worst kind, and many more are hopelessly ill equipped to live in a complex Western democracy, unable even to speak English in some cases. A parasitic few are bent on the destruction of Western civilisation” … “Redundant churches are sprouting onion domes and minarets. We are becoming strangers in our own land” … “the fastest-growing religion is Islam. Chillingly, it continues to grow like a canker, both through immigration and through … unrestrained and irresponsible breeding” … “In the Netherlands, the warnings of popular gay politician Pim Fortuyn were tragically snuffed out by a left-wing assassin before he could sufficiently alert people to the damage the influx of Muslims is doing to his own native land”. And these are just a sample.

I believe Brett Lock of Outrage is a member of GALHA. Perhaps he’d care to comment on these articles on his blog?