Lecture from Ruth Kelly

Ruth KellyThe government will fund Muslim groups according to how active they are in fighting extremism, the communities secretary said today, warning that paying “lip service” to the struggle was not good enough.

Ruth Kelly urged members of Britain’s Muslim communities to do more in what she herself said would be a “challenging” message to some listeners.

She also attacked the Muslim Council of Britain – without actually naming it – by criticising organisations which had boycotted Holocaust Memorial Day.

Praising the contribution of many groups to good relations with other communities, she added:

“It’s not good enough to sit on the sidelines or pay lip service to fighting extremism. I want a fundamental rebalancing of our relations with Muslim organisations. In future our strategy on funding and engagement must shift significantly to organisations taking a pro-active leadership role in tackling extremism and defending our shared values.”

Guardian, 11 October 2006


This rather reinforces suspicions that Kelly wants to sideline the MCB and deal with the Sufi Muslim Council, whose launch she attended in July. The SMC is irrelevant and unrepresentative but has the advantage for Kelly that it places the blame for the development of extremism on the community itself rather than on the government’s foreign policy.

Postscript:  Yup, that what’s going on. See the Times, 12 October 2006

See also Osama Saeed’s comments at Rolled Up Trousers, 12 October 2006

Islamophobia is part of the ‘war on terror’

SW War and Racism“For many Muslim women in Britain and Europe, the decision to wear a veil is not about ‘internalising oppression’. It is a statement of identity adopted in the face of rising Islamophobia and government demands to step through yet one more hoop to prove you are a ‘good Muslim’.

“Muslim women have been to the fore in the anti-war movement – something that has truly brought people together in common cause and given confidence to Muslim women to speak out.

“It ill behoves middle class Westerners, whether Jack Straw or supposed feminists, to dictate what women should wear. What’s at issue is not women’s rights, but an Islamophobic agenda which is the battle cry of the US led global ‘war on terror’.”

Editorial in Socialist Worker, 14 October 2006

See also “Stop scapegoating Muslims – it’s war and racism that fuel division“, “Jack Straw’s veil comments are ammunition for racists” and “A right wing attack on multiculturalism“, plus reports on the Blackburn demonstration against Straw and the so-called “race riot” in Windsor.

Media blasted for blind eye to white terrorism

Lee JasperLeading race campaigner Lee Jasper attacked the British media for “double standards” after the case of two white far-right activists arrested over a massive suspected bomb-making operation was ignored. Jasper, secretary of the National Assembly Against Racism, contrasted the virtually non-existent coverage given to the alleged terrorism haul with the media firestorm around Muslim terrorism.

Jasper said the lack of attention give to this story contrasted with the way any hint of Muslim terrorism sends the media into over-drive. He said: “The level of Islamophobic press coverage stands in stark contrast to the complete disregard shown for the possibly the biggest act of terrorism ever planned. One can only imagine what the coverage would have been like if the suspects had been Muslim. This amounts to racist double-standards where the media seeks to vilify Muslims while ignoring those who are allegedly engaged in acts of racial terrorism.”

BLINK news report, 11 October 2006

Rammell backs university’s Muslim veil ban

Bill Rammell, the higher education minister, today weighed into the debate over Muslim women wearing the veil by offering his support to universities that banned the full-face veil.

He repeated the views he expressed on EducationGuardian.co.uk last month after a year of visits to university campuses to talk to Muslim students. Muslim students were entitled to ask for tolerance and consideration but there were limits to what they could and should ask for, argued Mr Rammell.

He said that Imperial College was wrong to attempt to ban women students from wearing the hijab, which covers their heads. The university’s proposed code was amended after protests. But Imperial was right to insist on banning the niqab which covers the face, argued Mr Rammell.

Today he told the Evening Standard newspaper: “I’m not dictating hard and fast rules, as dress codes are a matter for university authorities. But Imperial College recently banned the face veil and I think that this is arguably the best decision. Many teachers would feel very uncomfortable about their ability to teach students who were covering their faces.”

Mr Rammell added: “And I doubt many students would feel it was acceptable to be taught by someone who had chosen to veil their face.”

The National Union of Students (NUS) condemned Mr Rammell’s comments as “unproductive”.

Ruqaayah Collector, the NUS’s black students officer, said Imperial was considered a bad example of how to tackle the issue among other universities. “As a Muslim woman who wears the hijab, I’m worried the debate will go the same way as in France and other countries in Europe. It starts off with this and could move onto other forms of clothing.

“We need the Muslim community on board if we are going to fight extremism. Muslims should feel comfortable going to their MP, however they want to dress. It’s important to respect personal choices. It is a woman’s right to choose how they dress and not be told by men,” said Ms Collector.

Guardian, 11 October 2006

The jackboots of our time

George Galloway“Sunday saw people gathering to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the great battle of Cable Street. On that day progressive people of all kinds rallied to protect the significant minority of immigrants in London’s east end against the strutting jackboots of a domestic fascism, one of whose very arguments was against the very ‘separateness’ of the Jews who lived there. Their very garb, unusual diets, habits of living in close proximity to each other was a standing affront to the beef-eating Englishness of the Moselyites. ‘Leave the Jews alone’ was the response of the best of the British left. Let them eat dress and live as they want. It is a call that should be echoed about today’s whipping boys, the Muslims.”

George Galloway at the Guardian’s Comment is Free, 9 October 2006

Thinly veiled Islamophobia

“… does wearing a veil make multi-culturalism more difficult? Does it stoke racial tensions? Is it anti-social? Is it right to ask Muslim women to remove their veils?

“I would answer no. It is true that for a society, multi-cultural or otherwise, to function properly its citizens must observe certain basic, shared values. For example, that the law of the country is paramount, and must be observed by everybody. If this value was not common throughout British society, we would have people of every religious or cultural sect acting according to their own specific laws, society would degenerate into chaos and would, effectively, cease to exist.

“So it is right, then, to say that even in a multi-cultural society (indeed; especially in a multi-cultural society), we must expect all citizens to observe certain common values (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.). However, ‘not wearing a veil’ is not a common value, nor should it be. Mr. Straw makes a mistake by conflating ‘difference’ and ‘separation’. The whole point of a multi-cultural society is that we allow people to express their differences, in fashion, in religion and in culture, within certain limitations (based on public safety)….

“Wearing a veil is, then, a ‘visible statement’ of ‘difference’, but this is not a negative thing. The freedom to express difference is what liberal, progressive democracies are all about. If it is true that ‘people who don’t understand [Muslim] culture’ can find women in veils ‘frightening and intimidating’, as a minister for Communities and Local Government (strangely, the Sunday Mirror described him as ‘Race Minister’) Phil Woolas put it, then the solution is to help people to understand Muslim culture, not to urge Muslims to ‘Westernise’ in order to to fit in better. Multi-culturalism is about embracing cultural differences, not seeking to homogenise society to make everyone look and act the same.

“… the truth is that there is no ‘issue’ with veils; the issue is one of intolerance among some white Britons to people of different cultures. This has been illustrated perfectly over the last few days, with yobs around the country committing hate crimes against Muslims. For example, yesterday a man in Liverpool attacked a Muslim woman, pulling the veil from her face. Earlier this week a 16-year old Asian youth was stabbed in Preston in a racially motivated attack, after a flare-up involving up to 200 people. Local yobs had been chucking bricks and concrete blocks at cars parked outside a mosque.

This is the real issue, the real obstacle to the success of multi-culturalism; Islamophobia due to fear, ignorance and association with terrorism….”

The Heathlander, 9 October 2006

Also features an effective reply to Joan Smith’s Independent on Sunday article.

Right-wing think tank dismisses Islamophobia

In his report, We’re (Nearly) All Victims Now, published by the Civitas think tank, David Green said: “The political-recognised victim status described by this list of isms and phobias has begun to do lasting harm to our liberal culture. Groups who have been politically recognised as victims are starting to use their power to silence people who have had the cheek to criticise them.”

Dr Green added: “Modern victim groups create entrenched social divisions by defining opponents as oppressors who not only must be defeated by the state, but silenced by the state.” He cited the term Islamophobia as a word intended to demonise opponents.

“The pseudo-psychiatric term Islamophobia is a statement that any criticism of Muslims is evidence of clinical pathology,” Dr Green said. “Yet the label is often attached to valid criticisms of particular Muslims whose behaviour has laid them open to legitimate censure.”

Evening Standard, 10 October 2006

Stop the kid glove treatment of Muslims, Jon Gaunt demands

Jon_Gaunt“New Labour has turned tolerant Britain into a powder keg of racial and religious mistrust through their misguided and ill-thought-out policy of multiculturalism.

“Multiculturalism is meant to celebrate difference but I don’t see much to celebrate in today’s Britain. What I actually see is clowns like Sir Ian Blair pussyfooting around the sensibilities of a minority while the rest of us have been silenced for fear of being called racist.

“Since the 7/7 bombings, this Government has bent over backwards to win support from the Muslim community. Thousands have been spent on Muslim roadshows, laws against forced marriage have been dropped and prominent so-called community leaders have been knighted and promoted.

“And what has been the result of all this eggshell-treading? An increased level of victimhood, demonstrations and outrage at the slightest criticism of the Muslim religion and culture. Well, enough is enough.

“Forget lifting veils, Labour should remove the kid gloves and treat Muslims the same as every other British citizen. And it’s not just me saying this. Even the Church of England, in a leaked report, is saying the Government has shown preference to Muslims and has contributed to the divisions in modern Britain.”

Jon Gaunt in The Sun, 10 October 2006

Fascists should have right to incite hatred against Muslims – Liberty

Shami Chakrabati, director of the civil liberties organisation Liberty, explains:

“When you have someone such as Nick Griffin, the BNP chairman, saying ‘Islam is a vicious wicked faith’, if you take the emotion out, it’s essentially someone having a pop at a religion which they have a right to do…. Liberty is unequivocal in its opposition to the legislation on incitement to religious hatred. That means by definition defending all sorts of people, including possibly Nick Griffin. We are against an over-broad speech offence. We may be protecting Griffin, but we are also protecting the vulnerable minority communities.”

Times, 10 October 2006

Make sense of that if you can. Liberty supports Griffin’s right to incite hatred against Muslims … but by doing so they are “protecting vulnerable minority communities”.

Let’s draw a veil over Mr Straw

Rajnaara Akhtar“With one article in a local newspaper, Jack Straw has built up the walls of ignorance and division ever higher. A Muslim community that has been on the defensive for years is now finding itself facing a barrage of criticism about the way it chooses to express its faith; jeopardising its basic right of religious freedom. I oppose Mr Straw asking Muslim women who talk to him to take off their veils, not because I believe the veil is compulsory in Islam but rather because his politically motivated opinions have created a climate of intolerance against the veil and those who wear it.”

Rajnaara Akhtar, chair of Protect-Hijab, in the Times, 10 October 2006