BBC Asian Network – young Asians poll

There’s some interesting stuff buried in this ICM poll of British Asians aged 18-34, particularly on the vexed issue of “Britishness”, which has been used to accuse minority communities in general, and Muslims in particular, of a failure to integrate.

The question “Thinking about your nationality, to what extent do you feel British?” produced the following figures for those answering “completely” or “a lot”: British Asians – 59%; Whites – 73%. For those answering “a little” or “not at all”, the percentages were: British Asians – 38%; Whites – 26%.

This didn’t stop the BBC heading its press release “Over a third of British Asians don’t feel British” – which of course ignored the fact that over a quarter of white people evidently feel much the same way. Indeed, 38% of white respondents from Scotland said that they felt only “a little” or “not at all” British – exactly the same figure as that for British Asians.

Broken down on the basis of religious affiliation, the figures for young British Asians who feel “completely” or “a lot” British were: Sikh – 77%; Muslim – 64%; Hindu – 46%; Christian – 46%. The figures for British Asians who said they feel only “a little” or “not at all” British were: Christian – 52%; Hindu – 51%; Muslim – 35%; Sikh – 20%.

So it can be seen that, among young British Asians, Muslims in fact have a significantly more developed sense of British identity than either Christians or Hindus.

This did not prevent BBC News from running an article, headed “Many Asians ‘do not feel British’“, which featured a picture (subsequently removed) of two Muslim women wearing the niqab, reinforcing the perception that British Muslims are particularly lacking in a sense of “Britishness”.

See also Dave Hill’s post at Comment is Free, 31 July 2007

Posted in UK

It’s time to ban the veil says Daniel Pipes

Pipes5“… burqas and niqabs should be banned in all public spaces because they present a security risk. Anyone might lurk under those shrouds – female or male, Muslim or non-Muslim, decent citizen or criminal – with who knows what evil purposes….

“Expressing the universal fear aroused by these garments, a recent Pakistani horror film, Zibahkhana (meaning ‘slaughterhouse’ in Urdu) includes a sadistic cannibalistic killer figure dubbed ‘Burqa Man’…. The time has come everywhere to ban from public places these hideous, unhealthy, socially divisive, terrorist-enabling and criminal-friendly garments.”

Daniel Pipes in the Jerusalem Post, 1 August 2007

Ignorant nonsense

“On June 30 I flew out of Glasgow airport approximately nine hours before the suicide bombing attempt…. Like most people, I was pleased to be able to watch a story of potential atrocity pass into one of black humour and farce, allowing us to depict the Islamist threat as no match for a Glaswegian baggage-handler, and to joke about the perpetrators as the first people to drive to Paisley in expectation of a rendezvous with 72 virgins.

“However, what has fairly ripped my knitting in the weeks since has been the concerted efforts to give religion an alibi for the whole undertaking, depicting it as merely misused by extremists and clinging to the idea that faith itself is a virtue, all the while ignoring the very simple equation that no belief in an afterlife equals no suicide bombers.”

Christopher Brookmyre in the Guardian, 1 August 2007

Which rather overlooks the use of suicide bombings by emphatically non-religious organisations like the LTTE and PKK, not to mention the detailed research of Robert Pape, who has stated unequivocally: “the facts are that since 1980, of suicide terrorist attacks from around the world over half have been secular. What over 95% of suicide attacks around the world [are about] is not religion, but a specific strategic purpose – to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland or prize greatly”.

But when did mere facts ever have any effect on the belief-system of dogmatic rationalists like Christopher Brookmyre?

Racist vandals target Barking mosque

Ignorant vandals have daubed racist graffiti on the wall of Barking’s mosque in a shock insult to the Muslim community. The highly offensive slur was painted in one foot-high, silver letters, and it stretched over two metres of the wall.

Police were informed about the graffiti, outside the Al Madina Mosque, in Victoria Road, Barking, over the weekend. They contacted the council who sent out an emergency team to clean it off early on Sunday morning to remove the obscenities.

The people responsible aimed to insult the Muslims who worship at the mosque by using an offensive ethnic term, and what is widely-considered one of the crudest words in the English vocabulary.

Barking & Dagenham Post, 1 August 2007

Posted in UK

Islamophobes are not racists, claims anti-Muslim bigot

Dennis Prager“Whoever coined the term ‘Islamophobia’ was quite shrewd. Notice the intellectual sleight of hand here. The term is not ‘Muslim-phobia’ or ‘anti-Muslimist’, it is Islam-ophobia – fear of Islam – yet fear of Islam is in no way the same as hatred of all Muslims. One can rightly or wrongly fear Islam, or more usually, aspects of Islam, and have absolutely no bias against all Muslims, let alone be a racist.

“The equation of Islamophobia with racism is particularly dishonest. Muslims come in every racial group, and Islam has nothing to do with race. Nevertheless, mainstream Western media, Islamist groups calling themselves Muslim civil liberties groups and various Western organizations repeatedly declare that Islamophobia is racism.

“… if one says that Islam does not appear compatible with democracy or that the Islamic treatment of women is inferior to the West’s, he or she is labeled a racist Islamophobe … the term ‘Islamophobia’ has one purpose – to suppress any criticism, legitimate or not, of Islam. And given the cowardice of the Western media, and the collusion of the left in banning any such criticism (while piling it on Christianity and Christians), it is working.”

Dennis Prager at Real Clear Politics, 31 July 2007

It was Prager, you may recall, who attacked US Congressman Keith Ellison’s decision to take his oath of office on the Qur’an. Prager claimed that “the act undermines American civilization” and went on to compare the Qur’an to Mein Kampf. (See herehere and here.)

BBC Newsnight and File on 4 misled public in their allegations about Hizb ut-Tahrir

HizbIn a ruling published earlier this month, the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU), found that Newsnight and File on 4 had misled the public by broadcasting allegations in November 2006 concerning Hizb ut-Tahrir that were not based on evidence.

The ECU noted that both programmes alleged that Hizb ut-Tahrir, or a splinter group of its members, was responsible for planning a fire-bomb attack on a Croydon synagogue, based on information passed on by the shadowy organisation Vigil. The ECU ruled that this “was not a strong enough basis on which to mount such a serious allegation”.

In addition, Richard Watson, a reporter for Newsnight, misled listeners when he assured the Home Office Minister, Tony McNulty, that File on 4 had clear evidence that Hizb ut-Tahrir “seeks to propagandise on behalf of terrorists and glorify terrorism”. No such evidence existed and to this date the Home Office has not received any material from Newsnight, File on 4 or Richard Watson concerning Hizb ut-Tahrir. The ECU ruled that the programme did not cite sufficient evidence to justify these allegations.

Commenting on the ECU ruling, Dr Imran Waheed, media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir, said, “In what has already been a mensis horribilis for the BBC, the ruling of the ECU dents the credibility of the reports on Newsnight and File on 4 which were dominated by smear and innuendo. The allegations presented by Newsnight and File on 4 were serious, but completely lacking in credibility. The BBC has a responsibility to its viewers and listeners to ensure balance and impartiality when relying on shadowy sources that are not open to public scrutiny. The BBC should not be a propaganda outlet for such organisations and their claims should be scrutinised. The BBC is a public broadcaster that must take its responsibilities to rigorously examine issues in an impartial manner seriously.”

“It is unfortunate that media outlets are able to rely on shadowy organisations and anonymous uncorroborated sources. Too often they operate on the margins of journalism by straying into the arena of smears and propaganda. It is also important to remember the context of last November’s fictitious and slanderous BBC allegations. The timing of the report by File on 4 and Newsnight was closely associated with the desire of the Home Office to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir as Blair visited Musharraf and offered £480m for the ‘war on terror’.”

Hizb ut-Tahrir press release, 1 August 2007

Continue reading

‘Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?’ demands Hitchens

Hitchens“Islamic belief, however simply or modestly it may be stated, is an extreme position to begin with. No human being can possibly claim to know that there is a God at all, or that there are, or were, any other gods to be repudiated…. it is even further beyond the cognitive capacity of any person to claim without embarrassment that the lord of creation spoke his ultimate words to an unlettered merchant in seventh-century Arabia. Those who utter such fantastic braggings, however many times a day they do so, can by definition have no idea what they are talking about….

“Why, then, should we be commanded to ‘respect’ those who insist that they alone know something that is both unknowable and unfalsifiable? Something, furthermore, that can turn in an instant into a license for murder and rape?”

Christopher Hitchens in Slate, 30 July 2007

Hitchens would of course claim that he is hostile to all religions, not just Islam. Somehow, though, I can’t see him putting his name to a piece subtitled “Why are we so scared of offending Jews?”

Trampling on democratic rights

“Four 20-year-old Bradford University students and a 19-year-old school student were jailed after a trial at the Old Bailey for being found with material said to be ‘glorifying Islamic terrorism’ on their computers. Aitzaz Zafar, Usman Malik and Awaab Iqbaal were jailed for three years each, Akbar Butt was jailed for 27 months and the school student, Mohammed Irfan Raja was given two years’ youth detention.

“Such is the atmosphere created by politicians and the media after the attempted terror bombings in London and Glasgow earlier this month that there was very little opposition in the media to what are police state measures – the jailing of these youths merely for downloading material readily available on the Internet….

“There is clearly some disquiet in establishment circles at the way democratic rights are being trampled on in such cases. David Livingstone, an associate fellow in international security at Chatham House, home of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, appeared as a witness for the defence at the trial. He told the Today programme that there was no evidence that the five had planned to instigate a terrorist attack. ”

Chris Talbot at the World Socialist Web Site, 31 July 2007

It’s also worth comparing the treatment of these youth with that received by far-right extremist Robert Cottage who didn’t just download files from the internet but was actually caught in possession of the materials required to manufacture explosives.

Call for unity after Muslim talks

Scotland’s First Minister, Alex Salmond, tonight met with leaders of the Muslim community in Scotland. He said: “Events last month show the importance of not being divided as a society. Our response is about how you ensure Scotland is held together as a community and as a society. One of the clear objectives of terrorists is to divide communities from each other – to divide them from within.”

Osama Saeed, Scottish spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain, believed Scotland could be “a beacon to the world” in Muslim and non-Muslim relations. He said: “I’m sure this meeting would have been taking place anyway, but obviously it has taken on a new light given the events at Glasgow Airport last month. Good community relations do not happen by accident and need to be striven for. We’ll be presenting the work that we’re doing, the executive have their ideas and initiatives, and I’m sure there are many areas where we will work together.”

BBC News, 31 July 2007