The Muslim Council of Britain and Holocaust Memorial Day

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“… the anti-semitic cabal running the MCB has announced that as the Holocaust Memorial Trust has not given in to their blackmailing, it will continue its boycott”.

Western Resistance, 5 January 2006

Ah yes, this would be the same “anti-semitic cabal” who, explaining why the MCB would not be supporting Holocaust Memorial Day last year, wrote:

“The Nazi Holocaust was a truly evil and abhorrent crime and we stand together with our fellow British Jews in their sense of pain and anguish. None of us must ever forget how the Holocaust began. We must remember it began with a hatred that dehumanised an entire people, that fostered state brutality, made second class citizens of honest, innocent people because of their religion and ethnic identity. Those who were vilified and seen as a threat could be subjected to group punishment, dispossession and impoverishment while the rest of the world stood idly by, washing its hands of despair and suffering….”

MCB statement, 24 January 2005

For an example of the views of those opposing MCB participation in Holocaust Memorial Day in its present form, see the comments by Osama Saeed of MAB. Rolled Up Trousers, 19 December 2005

Migration Watch chief ‘on brink of racism’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Migration WatchImmigration campaigners accused Migration Watch chairman Andrew Green of “verging on the point of racism” yesterday after he called for harsh restrictions on arranged marriages.

The rightwinger said that the minimum age for admission to Britain for marriage should be raised from 18 to 21, with action taken to restrict the number of children born to foreign mothers. Regarding potential spouses who were born in a “particular country” or whose parents were born there, the minimum age for both parties should be raised to 24 if the other suitor came from that country, he claimed.

“We’ve seen the problems that can come from failure to integrate and we’ve got to look at this problem frankly and openly”, declared Mr Green, before trying to link immigration and terrorism. Asked if he was referring to the July 7 terror attacks on London, he replied: “What else has got to happen before we look seriously at the real problems of integration?”

Immigration Advisory Service director of operations Michael Pickett pointed out that Mr Green’s views appear to be incredibly bigoted. “When he refers to a ‘particular country’, he is referring to the Indian subcontinent, not to countries such as Russia and the Ukraine”, Mr Pickett noted.

“To make a connection between the July 7 terrorist attacks on London and arranged marriages is ludicrous”, a claim for which there is “not a single scrap of evidence”, he said. “The reason the bombers were able to go unnoticed is that they were fully integrated. It is a crap argument, once again verging on fantasy.”

Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants chief executive Habib Rahman said that it sounded as if Migration Watch was arguing that restrictions should be put on the right of British nationals to marry the person of their choice.

“Migration Watch’s claims do not seem to be underpinned by any systematic evidence”, he added. “For example, migration to Britain takes place from all over the world, so we cannot see any evidence of any special connection between arranged marriages and the rate of births to foreign mothers or the ability to integrate successfully with British society.”

“In the end, migrants’ integration should be measured by the values they hold, not their customs”, insisted Mr Rahman. “Participation in our society and attachment to principles of law-abiding and democratic behaviour should be the measures, not a marriage custom.”

Morning Star, 5 January 2005

For Osama Saeed’s comments, see Rolled Up Trousers, 5 January 2006

Migration Watch’s “findings” are enthusiastically endorsed by the fascists: “According to immigration think tank, MigrationWatch ‘chain migration’, mainly through bringing partners from overseas, produces even higher proportions of such births for communities of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin, thus intensifying the formation of ghettos and setting back integration for a generation.”

BNP news report, 5 January 2006

The forgotten prisoners

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Forgotten PrisonersPeace campaigners accused the Blair government of complicity in the US “barbarities” at Guantánamo Bay yesterday and demanded the release or trial of British detainees held there.

Families and supporters of British residents held in Guantánamo Bay for the past three years without charge or trial demanded that they be either released or repatriated to face trial in Britain. The Save Omar Deghayes Campaign delivered giant postcards, depicting Home Secretary Charles Clarke, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Prime Minister Tony Blair as the Hear No Evil, See No Evil and Speak No Evil monkeys, to their respective offices to highlight their demand.

Today is the deadline for a High Court response to demands for a judicial review of the British government’s refusal to represent these men on the grounds that the refugees are not British citizens.

Morning Star, 5 January 2006

Battle waged in Boston over new mosque

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Boston MosqueWorshippers at the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB) still pack into their cramped mosque in Cambridge, Mass. The crowd spills out into the parking lot for the Friday prayer service. Their hopes of celebrating this past Ramadan in a brand-new mosque and cultural center were dashed.

The stated aim of the quarter-century-old society was to build a center for worship, education, and community outreach. Instead, the $24 million project in Boston’s Roxbury neighborhood is snarled in accusation, acrimony, and lawsuits. It’s a microcosm of the suspicions about Islam that have played out across America since 9/11.

After the city of Boston conveyed a parcel of land to the ISB, articles appeared in the Boston Herald in 2003 linking society leaders to Islamic extremists. The ISB denied the story, responding in detail to what it saw as inflammatory distortions. “When you place a picture of Osama bin Laden next to a picture of our mosque, that is completely misrepresentative of who we are,” says Salma Kazmi, assistant project director.

Four years after 9/11, mosques in many communities continue to encounter wariness and resistance ranging from suspicions raised at zoning hearings to vandalism and worse. On Dec. 20, two pipe bombs damaged an Islamic center in an upscale neighborhood of Cincinnati. The FBI said the powerful explosion could have been deadly had people been present.

“It’s all part of the unfortunate temper of the times,” says John Esposito, a professor at Georgetown University in Washington. “There is such a thing as Islamophobia.”

Christian Science Monitor, 5 January 2006

Another plug for Anthony Browne from the fascists

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Anthony Browne,Prat of the YearIn fact the Nazis are so taken with Browne’s anti-PC diatribe The Retreat of Reason that they’re selling it through their online bookshop.

BNP news report, 5 January 2006

Mind you, the BNP’s press officer Phil Edwards is rather less enthusiastic, though he does have a personal axe to grind here:

“When I read Anthony Browne’s earlier book ‘Do we need Mass Immigration?’ (Published by Civitas in 2002) I was struck by how so much of it seemed to be cribbed from my writings, broadcasts and newspaper and radio interviews from around 1997 onwards.”

BNP website, 5 January 2006

‘Gay slur intolerable’ say Metro letter writers, but Islamophobia is fine

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Letters in the Metro (London) 5 January 2006:

The head of the Muslim Council of Britain, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, says homosexuality is “immoral” and risks “damaging society”. Unfortunately, this shows all too well that following Islam is incompatible with living in a tolerant and free society. Britain has to decide which of these two paths is the most important, or the divisions that we are increasingly experiencing will surely continue to get worse.

Tim Jones, London W2

Although I am no great gay rights activist, despite being of that persuasion myself, I couldn’t ignore the moronic and hypocritical ramblings of Sir Iqbal Sacranie. His bigoted and prejudiced comments were a bit rich coming from a religion that has advocated violence and terror on one hand, while bleating about acceptance and tolerance on the other.

Steven King, Manchester

Posted in UK

Double standards on Israel and Palestine

Posted on by Bob Pitt

IDF“Everyone in a democracy has the right to argue for their views and engage in public debate. But there is no equality when it comes to how the British government treats those who want to give physical support to Israel and those who want to do the same for the Palestinians. Such double standards feed resentment in Britain’s Muslim community at the government’s failure to recognise its legitimate grievances, as highlighted in yesterday’s report by the thinktank Demos.

“In recent months the media have reported on the recruitment of British Jews to fight in the Israeli army, now in its 40th year of occupation of Palestinian territory in defiance of international law and UN resolutions. Some are intending to emigrate; others to return to Britain after serving in the Israeli army. But we have not had a word of concern from the British government.

“In the Muslim community, however, the question is widely raised as to how British citizens can travel to another country and fight in its army of illegal occupation without any repercussions. Would that be the case if, say, a young Muslim or Briton of Palestinian origin travelled to the occupied Palestinian territories – let alone occupied Iraq – to protect his or her homeland or co-religionists? Of course not: such volunteers could expect to be arrested under this government’s anti-terrorism legislation as soon as they returned.”

Ismail Patel in the Guardian, 5 November 2006

No doubt Melanie Phillips will rally to the defence of British citizens who go to Israel to join the IDF and oppress the Palestinians. But then, I was forgetting, Phillips has stated emphatically that “British Jews do not serve in the Israeli army“.

Can ‘we’ tolerate homophobia for much longer?

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Iqbal SacranieBenjamin Cohen responds to Iqbal Sacranie’s views on homosexuality and civil partnerships:

“It used to be the case that libertarians and liberals could argue with some justification that tolerance is a necessary part of a liberal society. As a liberal, I could say to Sir Iqbal: ‘I disagree with you but I tolerate the right for you to be intolerant.’ However, I’m not sure that we can continue be tolerant of those who show so little respect for our liberal way of life….

“Perhaps he needs to consider what the inclusion of ‘Britain’ in the name of his organisation means. In my view, this means engaging with the realities of modern British life, engaging with our tolerance of views and practises alien to our own and our desire for liberty and equality to be spread across our nation. As an alternative, there are many other countries where one could reside in order to escape these peculiar liberties of modern British life.”

Pink News, 4 January 2006

You can’t help but be struck by the casual racism underpinning this comment piece. We, the British, show “tolerance of views and practises alien to our own”, which presumably includes Islam. So Muslims are somehow different from “us”, the British, and if they don’t like “our” liberal way of life they have the option of leaving “our” country and pursuing their “alien” practices elsewhere.

You can imagine the outcry if similar comments were made in relation to Orthodox Jews in Britain, on the basis of Jonathan Sacks’ views on homosexuality – which aren’t, in fact, greatly different from Iqbal Sacranie’s. Sacks is on record as warning against “a real danger that the abolition of Section 28 will lead to the promotion of a homosexual lifestyle as morally equivalent to marriage” (see here) and, like Sacranie, he opposes civil partnerships as contrary to his religious principles (see here).

It’s also worth noting the comments section to the Pink News article. “Sam” observes: “There are plenty of countries where it is ok to discriminate against gays but not this one. Why doesn’t he go and live in one of them like Iran?” And “Don” responds: “I agree. If Iqbal doesn’t like it here, he could go to any number of Islamic countries where he would no doubt be warmly welcomed.” This is followed by the note that an “offensive comment” has been removed by Pink News staff. But the above remarks are apparently not deemed offensive by the moderators. Would they be equally happy with comments suggesting that, since the Chief Rabbi is opposed to Britain’s liberal legislation on gay rights, he too should leave the country?

Update:  Someone has posted excerpts from our piece in the Pink News comments box, and the article has now been rewritten to take account of our criticisms.