Dutch anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders has been granted the right to challenge the charges against him of inciting hatred.
The ruling was made by a new panel of judges appointed after the initial trial collapsed in October when Mr Wilders complained of bias against him. Mr Wilders’ lawyer will now be given a chance to set out the objections he made at the start of the initial trial. One of the judges told the court on Monday that if the objections were successful, “the case will be closed”.
Three 19-year-old men have been charged with arson following a fire at a newly-renovated mosque in West Sussex. The fire at the mosque in Wivelsfield Road, Haywards Heath, was started in the early hours of Sunday. It opened in November after being renovated at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Only last Wednesday an editorial in the Daily Star was claiming that there was “visibly growing support” for the English Defence League, which was “attracting people across Britain to its ranks”.
EDL leader Stephen Lennon (“Tommy Robinson”) was quoted as saying that EDL members “have no problems with race” and that their only objection is to “barbaric” Islam.
Commenting on the EDL’s supposed threat to field candidates in parliamentary and council elections, the Star observed that the organisation “could soon become a political force”, in which case “Tommy and his followers will have to be taken very seriously”.
What a difference four days can make.
The Star has now done a 180-degree turn on the EDL. An editorial in today’s issue attacks the EDL’s claim to be “non-racist, non-violent and the voice of reason against the spread of Islamic fundamentalism in this country”. It dismisses the EDL as an organisation whose “membership is tiny” and refers to the criminal records of some of its leading figures.
The editorial concludes that “blaming all our problems on innocent God-fearing Muslims is not the answer” and pledges that “we’ll never stop making that clear to the rag-tag bunch of thugs called the EDL”.
Could it be that Star‘s owner Richard Desmond was seriously embarrassed by the adverse publicity he received over his paper’s backing for the EDL and has ordered a change of line?
The transformation of the Star‘s editorial line on the EDL extends to its reporting.
The front page of last Wednesday’s issue notoriously featured a headline declaring “English Defence League to form political party”. The accompanying article included a sympathetic interview with Stephen Lennon, who was given a platform to claim that the EDL would soon have more Facebook followers than the Tories or Lib Dems, outline his organisation’s plan to ban the Qur’an and reveal his ambition to appear on the BBC’s Question Time.
The previous day the Star had given a boost to the EDL’s planned protest in Birmingham next month (which has since been postponed). An article headlined “English Defence League: We’ll stand up and fight for Britain’s brave heros” began:
“The English Defence League (EDL) is planning a huge march after two Muslim councillors snubbed a British war hero given the George Cross. Councillors Salma Yaqoob and Mohammed Ishtiaq caused fury by sitting down as more than 100 other politicians gave L/Cpl Matthew Croucher a standing ovation at a civic event.”
However, it was obvious even from the Star‘s own report that Lennon had no immediate plans to set up a political party, while the EDL’s publicity for its Birmingham protest did not include any reference to Salma Yaqoob and Mohammed Ishtiaq’s so-called “snub” of L/Cpl Croucher. It appeared that it was the Star itself that was putting pressure on the EDL to stand for elections and to target the two Respect councillors. The paper was not merely championing the EDL – it was proposing their political tactics to them.
What a contrast the coverage of the EDL in today’s Star presents.
One article reports that “Lennon admits that the group, made up of football hooligans and other hoodlums, has no hope of becoming a political party”. No mention is made of the fact that it was the Staritself, rather than Lennon, who was pushing the line that the EDL was about to enter electoral politics and posed a serious threat to the established parties.
On the matter of Matthew Croucher, the Star now reports: “A hero Marine has slammed far-right extremists who claim they will be marching in his name at an anti-Muslim demonstration. The English Defence League say they will parade on behalf of George Cross winner Matt Croucher in Birmingham next month. They claim to be outraged after Muslim councillors failed to join in a standing ovation for the Royal Marines Reserve…. He said: ‘They won’t be marching in my name and I won’t be joining them’.”
The Star even accuses Lennon of attempting to “hijack the issue by announcing a March 19 demo on behalf of Matt”. Again, no mention is made of the fact that it was the Star itself rather than the EDL who was pushing the idea that the proposed demo should concentrate on that particular issue.
As for the EDL leader’s claim that his organisation is not racist, theStar is now prepared to accept the well-known fact that “Lennon has experience of far-right politics dating back several years. He joined the British National Party in 2004 and attended at least one BNP meeting in Luton in 2007.” (For a photo of Lennon at the 2007 BNP meeting, which was addressed by the veteran fascist Richard Edmonds, see here.)
Today’s paper also features an article headlined “Paedo rap for EDL leader”, which reports the now rather old news that the EDL’s Richard Price has been convicted on child porn charges and that he was initially backed by Lennon, who claimed Price had been framed. The Star quotes an unnamed EDL member as having quit the EDL on the grounds that it “has a paedo in its leadership ranks”.
Of course, it is good that the Star‘s “Hurrah for the Blackshirts” moment appears to have passed and that the EDL will not have a daily paper acting as its cheerleader, but there are grounds for scepticism about the paper’s change of line.
For one thing, this isn’t the first time that the Star has promoted the EDL and then backed off. As I pointed out in an earlier post, in September 2009 the paper published an article under the headline “Case for the defence“, which gave credence to the EDL’s claim that they “oppose Nazis and racists”, and the next day published a follow-up piece which uncritically repeated the EDL’s assertion that they had been “swamped with messages of support from all races” as a result of the Star‘s original report. The Star then retreated from this position in the face of criticism, only to return to its promotion of the EDL last week.
Secondly, there is no sign that Star is going to change its obsessive and invariably inaccurate scaremongering against the same “innocent God-fearing Muslims” who it now claims to be defending from the EDL. Yesterday’s attack on Zakir Naik is repeated in today’s paper, which also continues the Star‘s familiar practice of publicising the rantings of Anjem Choudary with the evident aim of misleading its readers into believing that this irrelevant idiot with his few dozen followers represents a significant force within British Islam.
Even if the Star refrains from giving the EDL its official seal of approval and takes to describing them as “far-right extremists”, the fact remains that it is the misrepresentation of British Muslims by the Star and the rest of the right-wing popular press that provides the conditions in which far-right racist organisations like the EDL can thrive and grow.
How the Daily Star changed its line on the EDL
Daily Star editorial, 9 February 2011
Critics say the English Defence League is a racist, extremist organisation that’s filled with hate. The group’s leader Tommy Robinson strongly denies this. He says members have no problems with race. But he admits he is against “barbaric” Islam and the way it affects Britain.
Whatever side of the fence you fall, one thing’s for sure. There is a visibly growing support for the EDL. It is attracting people across Britain to its ranks who feel the same way.
This should be a warning to the major political parties. Key voters are so fed up with them that they are looking elsewhere. And there are real underlying issues here with Brits who feel abandoned by their leaders.
The EDL are now planning to field election candidates. If the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems don’t heed this and address key issues they could soon become a political force. Then, whether you like them or not, Tommy and his followers will have to be taken very seriously.
Daily Star editorial, 13 February 2011
The English Defence League reckon they are on the march. They claim to be non-racist, non-violent and the voice of reason against the spread of Islamic fundamentalism in this country.
It’s time for a few facts.
Their membership is tiny. Police said last week’s demo, supposed to be the biggest event in the group’s history, attracted just 1,500 supporters.
The voice of reason, they say. Really? We’ve already revealed how one member was a people smuggler. They’ve defended another who is a convicted sex offender and drug user.
These are tough times and no one supports Britain’s working class more than us. And no one has been harder on Islamic extremists than this newspaper.
Don’t worry – we’ll continue to hold Britain’s main political parties to account to ensure they get us all a better deal. And we’ll keep a close and critical eye on their immigration policies too.
But blaming all our problems on innocent God-fearing Muslims is not the answer.
And we’ll never stop making that clear to the rag-tag bunch of thugs called the EDL too.
The Church of England has told its schools to ensure they are serving non-halal food after concerns that a number are only providing meat slaughtered according to Islamic law.
The official guidance was issued after Church members complained that the use of halal meat was effectively “spreading sharia law” across Britain. The Church’s financial arm has also come under pressure to withdraw its investments – worth millions of pounds – in supermarkets that do not clearly label halal food.
The moves follow disclosures by The Mail on Sunday last year that halal products were widespread in schools, hospitals, pubs and sporting venues but members of the public were not informed.
More than 10,000 Christians, many of whom have reservations about eating meat from animals that are bled to death while an Islamic prayer is recited, have signed a petition calling for proper labelling.
Animal rights campaigners have also expressed anger because animals are often not stunned before their throats are cut with a sharp knife.
Alison Ruoff, a long-standing member of the Church’s “parliament”, the General Synod, said:
“The Church is only just waking up to this. We have been pathetic and mealy-mouthed but we should be really concerned about this. There is a lot of fear about upsetting Muslims but as a Christian you have to stand up for Christian values. Because we are unwittingly eating halal meat, we are spreading the practice of sharia law.”
Mrs Ruoff has challenged the Church Commissioners, who manage the Church’s £4 billion assets, to sell its shares in supermarkets that did not clearly label halal food.
The Rev Patrick Sookhdeo, an Anglican cleric who runs the international Barnabas Fund charity for Christians facing persecution, said some extremist Muslims viewed the growing use of halal food as part of their efforts to “impose” sharia law on the West.
Mail on Sunday, 13 February 2011
The Mail‘s campaign last year featured headlines such as “How 70% of New Zealand lamb imports to Britain are halal… but this is NOT put on the label”. Readers were invited to believe that halal slaughter inflicts unnecessary suffering on animals, although in reality all halal lamb from New Zealand has been stunned before slaughter. The objection to halal meat by Christian right-wingers has nothing to do with alleged animal cruelty. It boils down to the fact that “an Islamic prayer is recited” while the animal is killed.
A hate preacher banned from entering Britain has been broadcasting messages into people’s homes via satellite TV.
Zakir Naik, 45, claims “every Muslim should be a terrorist” and was prevented from visiting the UK by Home Secretary Theresa May, 54, last year. Eight months on and the Islamic loudmouth is a key figure in poisonous satellite channel Peace TV, which is being shown in the UK.
Yesterday broadcasting watchdog Ofcom revealed it was investigating the channel after a complaint from a viewer about its extremist messages. Programmes on Peace TV have praised Mujahideen fighters in Iraq, labelled Jews an “enemy of Islam” and claimed 9/11 was an “inside job”.
Tory MP Patrick Mercer said: “The Home Secretary dealt with Naik extremely effectively. I think she will be furious to discover he still has a licence to spread his poison on satellite television. Ofcom should revoke it immediately.”
Naik was banned from entering the country after it was judged his presence was “not conducive to the public good”. During the British court case, Home Office officials also suggested his sermons acted as inspiration for the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks.
During his appeal, lawyers for the firebrand revealed he was chairman of Universal Broadcasting Corporation Ltd, a company registered in Britain. UBCL has held the broadcasting licence for Peace TV since 2007.
Naik was also named as chairman of the Islamic Research Foundation International, which appears to have given £1.5million to the channel in 2009.
Hannah Stuart, of the Centre of Social Cohesion, said: “Zakir Naik has been excluded from the UK. To allow him to continue to broadcast here makes a mockery of that decision.”
An Ofcom spokesman said: “We are in the middle of an investigation about Peace TV. Ofcom will not tolerate extremism on British television and transgressors will be dealt with.” But Peace TV was defiant, with a spokesman for the channel saying: “We have received no complaints in the last two years.”
See also Evening Standard, 11 February 2011
The “every Muslim should be a terrorist” quote is taken from Naik’s response to a 2003 Times of India report about a group of police officers, including an Inspector Angre, “who between them, have gunned down more than 300 alleged criminals in the past five years. The very mention of their names evokes terror in the underworld”. Dr Naik stated: “The moment the underworld hear the name of Inspector Angre, they are terrified, so Inspector Angre of the Mumbai Police Force is a terrorist for the underworld of Mumbai.”
He continued: “As far as terrorist is concerned, I tell the Muslims that every Muslim should be a terrorist…. What is the meaning of the word terrorist? Terrorist by definition means a person who terrorises. When a robber sees a policeman he’s terrified. So for a robber, a policeman is a terrorist. So in this context every Muslim should be a terrorist to the robber…. Every Muslim should be a terrorist to each and every anti-social element. I’m aware that terrorist more commonly is used for a person who terrorises an innocent person. In this context, no Muslim should even terrorise a single innocent human being.”
It is quite clear that the “every Muslim should be a terrorist quote” is taken out of context in order to attribute to Naik a position that is the opposite of the one he actually holds.
As for Naik having “labelled Jews an ‘enemy of Islam'”, that would appear to refer to a speech in which he quoted from the Qur’anic verse stating that “strongest in enmity towards the Muslims are the Jews and the pagans” and continued: “[The Qur’an] does not say that the Muslims should fight with the Jews … the Jews, by nature as a whole, will be against Muslims … there are many Jews who are good to Muslims, but as a whole … the Qur’an tells us, as whole, they will be our staunchest enemy.”
Quite aside from the fact that this is a crudely literalist intepretation of verse 5.82 of the Qur’an (as Qaradawi points out, “this verse talks about an historical position” – it refers to a specific conflict between Muslims and Jews in seventh-century Arabia) Naik’s position is clearly objectionable. While he emphasises that the Qur’an “does not say that Muslims should fight with the Jews” and points out that “there are many Jews who are good to Muslims”, he does promote a stereotypical view of Jewish attitudes towards Muslims.
But Naik is hardly alone in this. Earlier this week Roy Greenslade got into trouble with the Jewish Chronicle over a piece on his Guardian blog. Criticising the Daily Star‘s proprietor Richard Desmond over the paper’s support for the EDL, Greenslade wrote: “As a Jew, he may well have negative views of Muslims.” However, nobody is actually arguing that Greenslade should be banned from blogging for the Guardian.
It might be added that Naik’s views on Jews’ attitudes towards Muslims are significantly less offensive that Melanie Phillips’s views on Muslims’ attitudes towards Jews. Phillips is of course a well-known media commentator in the UK, regularly appearing for example on Radio 4’s Moral Maze. Yet we don’t hear anyone demanding that the BBC should have its broadcasting licence withdrawn.
Finally, the spectacle of a spokesperson for the Centre for Social Cohesion supporting a ban on Naik and Peace TV sets a new standard in chutzpah. The CSC’s director is Douglas Murray, who is an admirer of the EDL, an organisation dedicated to whipping up hostility towards Muslims, and has himself openly called for the persecution of Muslim communities living in Europe. If people are to be banned from travelling to other countries on the grounds that they could incite hatred, countries outside the UK might like to consider imposing a ban on Douglas Murray.
Though CPAC ruffled some feathers by bringing pro-gay GOProud into the tent, such social inclusiveness didn’t extend very far. Taking center stage on immigration were the Republicans’ biggest flamethrowers, who issued dire warnings about the evils that immigrants could inflict upon the US. “I’m worried, because most of them are lawbreakers – in fact, most of them are criminals,” Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) told conference-goers on Thursday. But former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo upped the ante even further. Speaking to Mother Jones on Friday after his CPAC speech, he warned that Muslim immigrants would never be able to assimilate and posed a perilous threat by bringing Sharia law to America:
Then you got the issue of Muslim immigration. In every other case I’ve described, you can assimilate. If you come here as an atheist or a Christian or a Jew or a Hindu – there’s no inherent … conflict between that person and what it means to be an American, because the Constitution is the kind of document that wraps up all up.
But what do you do with people coming for the purpose of advancing sharia law, which is not compatible in any way with the constitution of the United States? How do you deal with that? That’s another very scary thing because demographically the numbers are on their side.
Tancredo’s warnings echoed recent efforts by right-wingers to ban sharia law in states like Oklahoma, and he drove home the link between immigrants, deadly crime, and terrorism in his CPAC speech as well – going so far as to equate open borders with treason. “Plenty of people coming across that border want to do very bad things to us – we know it’s been an entry point for terrorists. Why would that not be a cause for impeachment? I think it’s treasonous to not secure your border,” he told the crowd, to wild applause. Tancredo also denounced multiculturalism and ethnic enclaves as “the dagger pointed at the heart of Western civilization.”
Mother Jones, 12 February 2011
You’d think that US Islamophobes would all be enthusiastically supporting CPAC, but you’d be wrong. Frank Gaffney has alreadymade the bizarre claim that CPAC has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood and now he has been joined by David Horowitz and Robert Spencer.
More than 100 people came out Thursday night in Albemarle to raise concern about an incident involving the holy book of Islam. Some parents say a teacher passed the Quran around a Stanly County middle school classroom.
James Hinds, of Albemarle, said he was furious a few months ago when his daughter told him the Islamic holy book ‘the Quran’ was shown by her teacher in class at North Stanly Middle School. “A picture can show them what they needed to know. They didn’t actually have to physically put the book in my child’s face,” Hinds said.
District officials said Thursday the Quran was used as an artifact not as an instructional tool and that the discussion of religious differences in the world was well within the proper social studies curriculum.
Hinds said he wasn’t satisfied after addressing the Quran issue with the teacher and principal. So in late January, the father of two officially filed a grievance with the Stanly County School Board. Hinds called an informational meeting Thursday night in Albemarle to raise awareness and potentially get more parents to file similar grievances but not everyone was on board.
Trevor Schmidt and a group also came to the meeting peacefully holding signs and arguing the Quran in the classroom debate is being overblown. “Generalization of just an entire religion, saying you don’t want it taught in your school, in a social studies class, is kind of, you know, not right with our American values of freedom that we try to uphold,” Schmidt said.
The Stanly County School Board is expected to respond to Hinds’ grievance about the Quran in school by the end of this month. Stanly County School District leaders said they are sensitive to religious issues and said if parents feel any instruction violates their religious values that students may opt out of some lessons if they choose.
The Exeter division of the racist English Defence League was humiliated in Exeter today. Just 15 racists turned up to a “Ban the Burqa protest” in the Devon city.
In contrast, up to 300 people took part in a celebration of diversity on the streets of Exeter to show the EDL’s politics of hate and division are not welcome there. People came in and out of the event, which had local speakers and children’s activities.
The antiracist event brought together people from all different beliefs and backgrounds – Christian ministers, people from the mosque and the synagogue. Lord Mayor Marcel Choules sent a message of support. Members of Exeter Labour Party, the Green Party and the Liberal Democrats attended.
The celebration was supported by the Devon branch of the National Union of Teachers and the Exeter Anti Cuts Alliance. There was a “Feminists against the Burqa Ban” banner along with many others.
Children’s activities were organised by the Woodcraft Folk – a poster where children drew flags of the world was very popular, along with making friendship bracelets and a “We Love Exeter” poster.
Speakers from UAF, the Woodcraft Folk and the Exeter Anti Cuts Alliance addressed the crowd. A student from Egypt spoke about the victory of the Egyptian people over the country’s dictator and about how Muslim and Christian protesters had stood side by side in Cairo’s Tahrir Square.
The well organised, peaceful and uplifting celebration of diversity was very different to the racists’ protest. At the start of the diversity event, 10 of them turned up unannounced, seeking a confrontation. They seemed to be taken aback by the number of people who had turned out to oppose them.
The EDL were led away by police and then stood for an hour in the High Street where they were barracked by members of the general public before retreating to a pub.
Mike Gurney from Exeter UAF said:
Today was a great day for Exeter, for antiracism and for all those who oppose prejudice. The EDL were humiliated – they claimed on their Facebook page that over 100 would attend their event – they only managed 15. It was great to see Christians, Jews and Muslims standing together side by side to oppose the EDL.
The EDL’s claims that Muslims are going to impose Sharia Law on Britiain is laughable – Muslims make up only 2.7% of the population. Today the people of Exeter showed that the EDL’s politics of hate are not welcome here and will be challenged whenever it arises.
UAF news report, 12 February 2011
See Cliver Chilvers’ photos at Demotix.
More photos here.
Update: See also the Express & Echo, 14 February 2011
When members of the Islamic Center in Springfield arrived for prayers Jan. 8, they were confronted with hate-filled graffiti scrawled across the walls of the building.
“You bash us in Pakistan. We bash you here,” the red spray paint said. One message, “Allah F…bar” implied an understanding of an Arabic saying, Allahu akbar – God is great. Other messages were sexual, including a drawing of a penis near the women’s entrance and a reference to Allah being gay. Two days later, another act of vandalism broke off an exterior water spigot.
The police were called both times. A Springfield Police Department incident report dated Jan. 8 describes the “nature of the call” as “graffiti.” “I called the police first,” said Robert Pollpeter, a member of the mosque. The police told him the investigation would go no further.
Pollpeter also called the FBI, which determined that the incident was not a hate crime. “At this point we have not initiated a hate crimes investigation,” said Bridget Patton, spokeswoman for the FBI office in Kansas City. A hate crime, she said, falls under the Civil Rights Act and would require a threat or prohibit a person from being able to exercise his or her freedoms.
“We view these events as hate crimes and we believe that because of the damage done these are felony crimes,” said mosque member Abdul Wahid in a written statement. “It is expected that it will cost at least $3,000 to fully restore our property to its former condition.”
Rabbi Rita Sherwin with Temple Israel agrees that the incident, like the vandalism of a Jewish cemetery in 2002, “feels like it was a hate crime.”
Republican lawmakers in Georgia have Sharia on their minds.
The “American Laws for Georgia Courts Act” was recently introduced in both chambers of Georgia’s General Assembly. The bill would amend Georgia law so that “no court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”
While Georgia’s bill is aimed at banning Sharia, it doesn’t explicitly mention it – a strategy employed in similar bills introduced other states.
State Rep. Mike Jacobs (R-Atlanta), who is vice chairman of the Georgia House Judiciary Committee, introduced the bill in the state House, and told the Fulton County Daily Report the bill would ban Sharia, while admitting that he does not know of any cases in Georgia where Islamic law has been an issue.
See also “At least 13 states have introduced bills guarding against non-existent threat of Sharia law”, Think Progress, 8 February 2011