Religious hatred bill is unveiled

bnp-islam-posterControversial plans to make incitement to religious hatred illegal are being unveiled by the government. The government says the legislation is a response to the concerns of faith groups, particularly Muslims.

The Muslim Council of Britain has welcomed the move, arguing that the courts have already extended such protection to Sikh and Jewish people. Sher Khan, a council spokesman, said to protect some groups but not others contravened the European Convention on Human Rights.

BBC News, 9 June 2005


The BNP states that the new law “is intended to stop the British National Party and other individuals pointing out that Islamic fundamentalism poses a serious threat to the well being of Britain. It has been drafted at the behest of Muslim organisations and New Labour’s increasing dependence upon the Islamic vote to stay in power has led to the creation of this piece of legislation. The law is a further erosion of free speech and one which even gay actor and comedian Stephen Fry called ‘a sop to Muslims’ on Radio 4 yesterday afternoon.”

The fascists promise: “If the Bill does become law the BNP will not stop its public awareness campaign [sic] against militant Islam and we will find ways around the legislation to continue to point out that the Islamic wolf is already in the secular/Christian/non-Muslim lamb’s pen.”

BNP news article, 9 June 2005

Over at Jihad Watch, under the heading “Freedom of speech in grave peril”, Robert Spencer warns that the adoption of such legislation “would be a cornerstone of the Islamization of Britain”.

Dhimmi Watch, 9 June 2005

Rights report attacks British anti-terror laws

A top European human rights watchdog said on Wednesday Britain’s anti-terrorism laws breached European standards and could force London to opt out of parts of the European Convention on Human Rights. Despite improvements, Britain still tended to see human rights as an obstacle to the criminal justice system, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights Alvaro Gil-Robles said in a report.

He welcomed a decision by Britain’s top court which forced Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government to drop a measure allowing detention of foreign terrorist suspects without charge. But problems remained with the law that replaced it. The 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act allows Britain’s Home Secretary (interior minister) to issue “control orders” against terrorism suspects, which restrict their freedom of movement, where they live and with whom they may communicate.

“The Act acknowledges some … of these restrictions may be incompatible with Article 5 (of the European Convention on Human Rights) on the right to liberty, in which case the possibility of derogating from the UK’s obligations under this article is foreseen,” the report said.

Continue reading

Is Turkey going Islamist?

pipes3“Is Turkey going Islamist?” Daniel Pipes want to know. “Is it on the road to implementing Islamic law, known as the Shari’a?”

New York Sun, 7 June 2005

And what basis is there for supposing that the ultra-moderate AKP might be heading down that road? Well, they tried to reduce (not abolish but reduce) the penalties for teaching the Qur’an without state authorisation!

Mind you, the National Secular Society fully agrees with Pipes on this. Their report is headlined “Turkish secularism to be compromised by new penal code” . See NSS Newsline, 3 June 2005

Even though parliament voted overwhelmingly for a change in the law, Turkey’s president Ahmet Necdet intervened to veto it, on the grounds that it was incompatible with secularist principles. Phew! A welcome victory for civilised, democratic values. See Islam Online, 3 June 2005

Mad Mel rejects dialogue with terrorists (Ariel Sharon excepted, of course)

Melanie Phillips is appalled that Western governments should consider talking to democratically elected Hamas representatives: “Hamas is a jihadi terror organisation, period. The decision by Britain and the US to treat with it is spineless and shameful and wholly counter-productive for the defence of the civilised world.”

Melanie Phillips’s Diary, 7 June 2005

Whereas, of course, holding talks with elected representatives of Likud who are responsible for acts of state terrorism against the Palestinian people is entirely acceptable.

See also “US signals policy shift on Hamas: diplomats”, Islam Online, 6 June 2005

AWL: No ‘pandering to the Islamists’

John O’Mahony (Sean Matgamna) of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty takes issue with Ridley Scott’s film Kingdom of Heaven:

“The Islamics [sic], played by Arab Muslim actors, have tremendous dignity, in contrast to some of the film’s most prominent Christians. The Islamics are merciful and humane, the Christian villains blindly and bigotedly brutal, war-provoking, and evil.”

This is “the reverse of the general situation in our world”, O’Mahony asserts. “In our world, it is not the non-Muslims and anti-Muslims who now shout with fanatical faith in their religion like the Crusaders in one of Ridley Scott’s scenes who shout ‘God Wills It!’. It is a large part of modern Islam.”

He concludes: “It is a shame for any reason to pander to the Islamists as this film does, concocting a fable not of enlightenment but of a Guardian-style quisling spirit towards assertive political Islam, one of the worst enemies of enlightenment and tolerance in the world we live in.”

Solidarity, 2 June 2005

Elsewhere in the same issue, under the headline “Muslim school stopped”, the AWL reports approvingly that “campaigners in Nottingham have stopped a local school becoming the fourth Muslim state primary in the country”.

An anonymous comment on the AWL’s website reads: “I am in favour of secular education. But I fear for the AWL when you run a story as this with no mention of racism. When you say local people were worried about lack of resources ummm don’t people say the same about asylum seekers and immigrants etc. These questions are never as straight forward as is portrayed in this article. By the way why choose a muslim school to be refused?” See here

Race attack on Muslim headstones

Twenty-five Muslim headstones have been desecrated in an attack being treated by police as racially-motivated.

Gwent Police are investigating the incident at St Woolos Church, Newport. Police said the headstones in the Muslim area of the graveyard were pushed over on Friday morning, causing “considerable structural damage”.

Officers have stepped up patrols in the area and are contacting relatives. They are also speaking to community leaders to address any possible wider issues.

BBC News, 7 June 2005

Burchill on Muslim women and hijab

“So certain moderate Muslims are now suggesting that devout women can take off their shrouds and walk free in God’s sunshine. How very magnanimous of them. It turns out that rigging yourself up like a parrot’s cage with the covering on is less to do with flaunting your devilish female charms and thus inflaming bestial male passion, as we were told, than allowing Muslim women to go ‘unmolested’. So now, if wearing the hijab means women will be molested by us nasty infidels, they can go without.”

Julie Burchill in the Times, 6 August 2005

Liberal joins neocons in anti-Amnesty campaign

irenekhan2The speech by Amnesty general secretary Irene Khan describing Guantánamo as the “gulag of our times” (see here) reduced the US right to apoplexy. From Donald Rumsfeld down, they united to deny there was any parallel between incarcerating millions of Soviet citizens and locking up a mere 600 Muslims. See here, here, here, here, here and so ad infinitum.

Now here’s a test for you. Which journalist on a liberal Sunday newspaper could be relied upon to echo the anti-Amnesty propaganda of the US neocons?

Continue reading