Woolas loses court case, judges order election re-run

Phil Woolas leaflet

Two High Court judges have ordered a re-run of this year’s General Election campaign in the Greater Manchester constituency of ex-immigration minster Phil Woolas.

Mr Woolas won the Oldham East and Saddleworth seat by 103 votes over Liberal Democrat rival Elwyn Watkins. But he has been found guilty of knowingly making false statements about Mr Watkins in campaign literature. Mr Watkins said this could have swayed the result.

A specially-convened election court – the first of its kind for 99 years – was set up in Saddleworth in September to hear the charges against Mr Woolas. It heard that Mr Woolas stirred up racial tensions in his campaign leaflets by suggesting Mr Watkins had pandered to Muslim militants, and had refused to condemn death threats he said he had received from such groups.

Declaring the May poll result void, Mr Justice Nigel Teare and Mr Justice Griffith Williams said Mr Woolas was guilty of illegal practices under election law. They said he knew both claims to be untrue, and had sought personal advantage by making them.

BBC News, 5 November 2010

See also Daily Telegraph, 5 November 2010

Update:  See MPACUK, press release, 5 November 2010

Further update:  And see Inayat Bunglawala, “Phil Woolas: a lesson in irresponsible behaviour”, Comment is Free, 5 November 2010

Court upholds ban on Zakir Naik

A court has upheld Theresa May’s decision to bar controversial Muslim public speaker from the country. The Home Secretary excluded Dr Zakir Naik from the UK on 16 June this year and today the court said it upheld that decision.

Theresa May welcomed the judgement: “I am pleased the court has upheld my decision to exclude Dr Naik. An individual will be excluded if their presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good. We make no apologies for refusing people access to the UK if we believe they might seek to undermine our society.”

She continued: “Coming to the UK is a privilege not a right and we are not willing to allow those who might not be conducive to the public good to enter the UK. Exclusion powers are very serious and no decision is taken lightly.”

The Home Office will be seeking its legal costs from the other side.

Home Office press release, 5 November 2010

Read the text of the judgment here.

North London Central Mosque statement on settlement with Policy Exchange

Policy Exchange admits NLCM clear of any wrong-doing

Following NLCM win right to appeal, Policy Exchange’s offer of out of court settlement accepted

On 27 October 2007, the Policy Exchange published a report entitled ‘The Hijacking of British Islam’ in which they named the North London Central Mosque Trust as one of a number of mosques in the UK which they alleged were purveyors of extremist and hate literature.

As is well known, the Trustees and management of the NLCM have worked hard since the take-over in 2005 to cleanse the Mosque from the violence, extremism and intolerance that it was linked with previously during the time it was controlled by people such as Abu Hamza. The ethos of the Mosque is to be embracing of all individuals regardless of their race, religion or gender, to work for social cohesion and to encourage Muslims to play a leading role in British society. The Management take-over was a pivotal event in the community which involved local Muslim community and organizations alongside the Government, the local Authorities, the Police and Members of Parliament. The allegations contained in the Report were therefore not only offensive and defamatory but undermined the huge and important efforts by all who were involved in the take-over.

The Mosque trustees and management have always emphatically denied the claims contained in the Report. Moreover, the Report appeared to be based on highly suspicious methods of research and the evidence on which the Mosque was named was entirely dubious as exposed by the Newsnight excellent investigative report by Richard Watson. The failure of Policy Exchange to sue Newsnight over Watson’s report, despite explicitly threatening to do so in front of millions of viewers, is telling how shaky the grounds Policy Exchange stands on regarding their report, the report they took off their website completely after settling with another mosque similarly accused in the report.

In 2007, a claim by NLCM was issued against the Policy Exchange, and the author of the Report, Denis MacEoin, for defamation. At the first stage in the High Court, the claim was struck out, not on the basis of its merit, which we maintain was strong, but on the technical capacity of unincorporated charities not being able to be claimants in defamation cases in their own right, a loop in the law we believe legislators should look at. In April of this year, the Court of Appeal, after hearing legal argument from the Mosque regarding charities and defamation law, gave us permission to appeal against the decision striking out our claim. The case would potentially have had far-reaching implications for unincorporated charities all across the UK. The appeal was listed for October 2010. We were confident of our chances of success; however, being trustees of a charity, we had to act in the best interests of the Mosque and decided that rather than continuing the risks of litigation, we would accept a request by Policy Exchange to settle out of court after we won the right to appeal.   In the circumstances, the Policy Exchange has now published on their website the following statement:

In our Report ‘The Hijacking of British Islam’, published in October 2007, we stated that the North London Central Mosque was one of the mosques where extremist literature was found.  Policy Exchange has never sought to suggest that the literature cited in the Report was sold or distributed at the Mosque with the knowledge or consent of the Mosque’s trustees or staff.

We are happy to set the record straight.

The Mosque is now cleared of any false accusations of being a purveyor of extremist literature.

We trust that no allegations of this nature will be repeated.

The Board of Trustees
03/11/2010

Oldham: standards board rejects Woolas complaint about mosque planning decision

Town hall bosses have been cleared of misconduct following a row over a new mosque.

Council leader Howard Sykes was among seven Lib Dem councillors accused of “fast-tracking” the planning application for a mosque on Waterloo Street, Glodwick. But an investigation has now ruled they did not bring the council or their office into disrepute.

Councillors Jackie Stanton, Mark Alcock, Roger Hindle, Lynne Thompson, Mohammed Masud and former councillor Mohammed Mohib Uddin have also been cleared.

Labour MPs Phil Woolas and Michael Meacher sparked the investigation after accusing the Lib Dems of rushing the plans through ahead of May’s elections in order to win votes.

The mosque was due before the council’s planning committee in March but did not make the agenda as further negotiations were taking place with the developers. But following an election rally where mosque members raised the matter, it was decided that it should be dealt with urgently.

Standards Board officers found no evidence of improper conduct and said there were valid grounds for bringing the application forward such as concerns that funding would be lost if it was delayed.

Coun Sykes said: “Whilst I welcome the conclusions of the Standards Board I cannot let this opportunity pass without expressing my complete and utter outrage at what was a blatant political stunt by the Labour Party by referring my colleagues and me to the Standards Board.”

Manchester Evening News, 4 November 2010

Cherie Blair defends Muslim women’s right to dress as they choose

Cherie Blair today launched a strident defence of Muslim women saying it was wrong to see those who cover their hair or their body as a threat. Speaking just two weeks after her sister Lauren Booth converted to Islam, the former Prime Minister’s wife stressed that it was essential to respect people’s right to dress how they choose.

“We use the appearance of women as a metaphor of our fear of a supposed Islamic threat,” she told Spain’s El Pais newspaper. “There are thousands of Muslims in Europe who participate in our way of life and intend continuing to do so and if they want to dress in a certain way because of their beliefs, we shouldn’t feel threatened.”

Mrs Blair’s comments were made in an interview ahead of the European Muslim Women of Influence Conference in Madrid.

She stressed it was important to fight against stereotypes that “above all affect Muslim women”. “We tend to believe they’re oppressed, insecure and incapable of thinking for themselves and that is not true,” she said. “One of the things I try to do is help to explain that Islam is an open religion in which women have influence, whether they hide their hair or not. I was educated by nuns who were completely covered up to their necks.”

Daily Mail, 4 November 2010

Update:  See also the Daily Express which quotes – yes, you guessed – Tory MP Philip Hollobone as saying: “Most people in Britain will disagree with Cherie Blair. We simply cannot have a situation where more and more women are covering their faces in public because effectively they are excluding themselves from normal everyday human interaction with everyone else.”

German Muslim leader calls for stand against Islamophobia

Aiman MazyekA prominent German Muslim leader expressed serious concern over the growing anti-Islam hysteria in his country, fuelled by right-wing populist politicians and the media.

Meeting with the Berlin-based foreign press Wednesday evening, the chairman of the Central Council of Muslims, Aiman Mazyek said, “I am concerned about the situation which we are facing.” He pointed out the animosity towards Muslims was “the fastest growing form of racism” in Germany. Mazyek said Islam bashing had become “socially acceptable,” even in German intellectual circles.

He added it was “frightening” to note that most Germans would support restricting the religious freedom of Muslims, according to a recent survey released by the Friedrich-Ebert Foundation, affiliated to the opposition Social Democratic Party (SPD).

Mazyek warned that this hysterical anti-Islam debate would “ultimately damage Germany.” He criticized the nation’s media for not seriously questions some of the baseless assertions made about Islam. The official emphasized that it was “the duty of German society as a whole to confront this form of racism.”

The activist lamented the fact that German Muslims were facing “daily discrimination and hostility.” He referred to examples of an ongoing wave of anti-Muslim violence, including the recent brutal murder of an Iraqi Muslim by two neo-Nazis in the eastern city of Leipzig and the series of “almost monthly attacks against mosques” throughout the country. Mazyek said he had also received death threats and hate mail from right-wing populists.

He urged the government to address the challenge of Islamophobia before its gets out of control.

IRNA, 4 November 2010

Lawsuit filed in Oklahoma against Sharia law ban

An Oklahoma Muslim filed a federal lawsuit on Thursday to block a state constitutional amendment overwhelmingly approved by voters that would prohibit state courts from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases.

The measure, which got 70 percent of the vote in Tuesday’s election, was one of several on Oklahoma’s ballot that critics said pandered to conservatives and would move the state further to the right.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City, seeks a temporary retraining order and injunction to block the election results from being certified by the state Election Board on Nov. 9. Among other things, the lawsuit alleges the ballot measure transforms Oklahoma’s Constitution into “an enduring condemnation” of Islam by singling it out for special restrictions by barring Islamic law, also known as Sharia law.

“We have a handful of politicians who have pushed an amendment onto our state ballot and then conducted a well-planned and well-funded campaign of misinformation and fear,” said Muneer Awad, who filed the suit and is executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. “We have certain unalienable rights, and those rights cannot be taken away from me by a political campaign.”

Associated Press, 4 November 2010

Paris: woman receives suspended sentence for veil attack

A Paris court handed a French retiree a one-month suspended sentence Thursday for attacking a Middle Eastern woman who was wearing a face-covering Muslim veil.

The court also ordered Jeanne Ruby, a retired English teacher, to pay €800 in damages to the victim, a citizen of the United Arab Emirates who was on holiday in Paris when the February incident took place.

Ruby had been charged with “aggravated violence” for scratching, biting and slapping the woman and snatching her veil off. The prosecutor in the case had asked Ruby be given a two-month suspended sentence.

In a recent interview with Le Parisien newspaper, Ruby compared the niqab to a “muzzle” and said she didn’t mean to harm the woman, but just wanted to pull the veil off.

Ruby – who has lived in Saudi Arabia, where many women wear such veils – told investigators that she was shocked to see such a garment in Paris, according to documents read during the court proceedings.

The incident took place in a Paris home decor store in February, as France’s conservative government was in the early stages of hammering out a plan to ban the wearing of face-covering burqa-style Muslim veils in public.

Associated Press, 4 November 2010