Majority of Tennesseans don’t oppose Murfreesboro mosque

A new poll finds a majority of Tennesseans are not opposed to a mosque in Murfreesboro and would not oppose one near their homes, but a majority does oppose a planned mosque in New York City near Ground Zero.

The telephone poll of 614 randomly selected Tennesseans aged 18 and over found that 42 percent neither support nor oppose the planned construction of an Islamic community center near Murfreesboro and 24 percent either “support” or “strongly support” the center’s construction.

Results were similar when people were presented with the prospect of a hypothetical mosque near their homes, with 66 percent saying they would either support or not oppose the proposition.

However, 63 percent of those polled said they were opposed to the proposed mosque near Ground Zero in New York City. Another 20 percent said they neither support nor oppose the mosque’s construction. Only 15 percent said they support its construction.

Two-thirds of those polled said they “agree” or “strongly agree” that Muslims should have the same religious rights as other Americans. The poll also found that 44 percent of Tennesseans do not believe American Muslims heighten the risk of terrorism, while 28 percent believe they do.

Associated Press, 14 October 2010

See also The Tennessean, 15 October 2010

French woman faces fine for tearing niqab from tourist’s face

Prosecutors have called for a 63-year-old French woman to be given a two-month suspended prison sentence and a fine of €750 (£659) after she admitted tearing a full Islamic veil from the face of a tourist from the United Arab Emirates.

The woman, a retired English teacher identified only as Marlène Ruby, said she was “irritated” by the sight of two women shopping in Paris in their niqabs. She said that, not realising the pair were foreigners, she initially pulled one of their veils while chastising them in French for covering their faces. Minutes later, upon noticing that the woman concerned had replaced her veil, she became further enraged.

“I tore her niqab off and I shouted. I wanted to create a bit of a scandal,” she told Le Parisien. Her anger, she said, sprang from witnessing the treatment of women in the Middle East, where she used to teach. “I think it is unacceptable for the niqab to be worn in the country of human rights. It’s a muzzle,” she said.

Although she admits removing the veil, Ruby denies allegations that she hit and bit the tourist, who claims to have been so distressed by the incident that she had not returned to France since. The victim’s lawyer said her client was on the receiving end of “an attack on religious freedom”.

In a Paris court, the prosecutor, Anne de Fontette, said the behaviour was not something that could be permitted in France. “Living together requires, quite simply, an acceptance of the other, of the way in which [the other] is dressed,” De Fontette said.

She said that although at the time of the attack, in February, the full Islamic veil was legal attire in France, the accused’s actions would be reprehensible even now – a month after the ban on wearing face-covering veils in public became law.

A verdict is expected on 4 November.

Guardian, 15 October 2010

Wilders insists that Dutch government must crack down on ‘non-western’ immigration

The new cabinet will have a problem if it does not reduce the number of non-western immigrants to the Netherlands, PVV leader Geert Wilders told tv current affairs show Nieuwsuur on Thursday evening. “If it does not manage to bring about a very substantial reduction in the number of non-western immigrants, the PVV has a problem and the cabinet has a problem,” Wilders said.

Earlier, PVV European MP Barry Madlener told Nos tv the aim of anti-immigration measures outlined in the new government agreement is to combat the “islamisation” of the Netherlands. Madlener was Geert Wilders’ right hand during the recent negotiations. Measures to reduce family reunions are aimed at reducing the number of Muslims coming to the country, Madlener said. “That is our intention,” he told the tv programme.

Dutch News, 15 October 2010

Bacon strips spelling out ‘PIG’ left outside South Carolina Islamic Centre

Slices of bacon were laid down on a brink walkway to the Florence Islamic Center in Florence, S.C. on Sunday in a manner that spelled out “PIG CHOPS.” The incident – evidently aimed the center because of the Islamic dietary restrictions against pork – is just the latest in a string of anti-Muslim episodes around the country.

In fact this isn’t the first time even this particular mosque has been hit – earlier this year vandals broke windows in the facility, according to local news station ABC 15.

A conflicting Associated Press report said the bacon slices were arranged to spell out “PIG CHUMP.” The bacon slices were placed on the sidewalk between 7 a.m. and 2 p.m. on Sunday, Florence Police Major Carlos Raines told the AP. “There’s absolutely nothing that identifies it as a mosque,” Raines told the AP. “It’s an insult, and I’m sure that’s what it was intended for.”

TPM, 13 October 2010

See also Christian Science Monitor, 15 October 2010

Posted in USA

Protest against Geller and Spencer speaking at Philadelphia’s Temple University

Temple University protestor

“Off of our campus, out of our state! We say no to racist hate!” was the chant that rang out October 7 from some 50 antiracist protesters. They could be heard inside Howard Gittis Student Center as two professional Islamophobes, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, prepared to speak.

North Philadelphia’s Temple University prides itself on being diverse. As University President Ann Weaver Hart said in a 2008 Associated Press interview, “You’ll see the world walking about on the Temple campus.”

With this is mind, why was blogger and “birther” Pamela Geller – who believes that the 9/11 hijackers were practicing “pure Islam, original Islam” – and her equally anti-Muslim confidant, right-wing author Robert Spencer, given an audience at such an institution?

Geller and Spencer’s group Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) has been instrumental in drumming up the controversy over the Park51 Islamic community center in Manhattan, which they labeled the “Ground Zero Mosque.” The two led a protest near the site of the future community center on September 11. Park51 was to be the topic of the event at Temple.

The group that brought this duo to Temple is a student organization called Temple University (TU) Purpose. This organization requests funding from the university and has close ties with the David Horowitz Freedom Center, whose namesake is a prominent New-Leftist-turned-right-winger.

TU Purpose claims to be on a mission to “create a dialogue where discussion needs to be had” and to “eradicate obstacles – like political correctness … which deprive us of information that is both essential and critical to our analytical and social development.”

Despite its humanistic claptrap about promoting “dialogue” and supposedly defending “free speech,” TU Purpose has proven to be little more than a right-wing front group – primarily interested in providing a stage for racist hate speech. For instance, last year, TU Purpose hosted an event with Dutch right-winger Geert Wilders, an individual so Islamophobic that he has literally called for the banning of the Koran.

Many were outraged by TU Purpose’s plans to bring Islamophobic speakers to campus for the second year in a row. However, Temple’s chapter of the Muslim Student Association chose not to encourage a demonstration, fearing that protesting the speakers would give Geller and Spencer too much publicity, thus doing more harm than good. Despite this, many activists chose to turn out in opposition to the racist speakers.

Members of the International Socialist Organization, Delaware Valley Veterans Against the War, Socialist Action and various student activists held a demonstration of about 50 people as Geller and Spencer spoke.

Protester and Muslim student Sahar Abdullah noted that she has been the victim of anti-Muslim ostracism several times since the September 11 terrorist attacks. Speaking “as a person of the Islamic faith,” she said in an interview, hate speech is “not what the Koran tells us to stand for.”

Noting the contradiction between Temple’s celebrated diversity and the views of Geller and Spencer, freshman Julia Murphy remarked, “Temple claims to be one of the most diverse campuses,” and “it’s wrong to host these speakers.”

Since the beginning of this year, we have witnessed the bombing of a Florida mosque, arson at a Tennessee mosque construction site and the stabbing of a Muslim taxi driver in New York. In this climate of anti-Muslim hate crimes and Islamophobia, hate speech is ignored at our peril.

It is imperative that those who stand with our Muslim brothers and sisters against racism turn out in full opposition to hate speech whenever possible, and show that such vitriol is not welcome in our communities.

Socialist Worker, 15 October 2010

‘Surfing rabbi’ will join EDL demonstration

An American rabbi will join an extreme right-wing anti-Islamic-fundamentalist group in a protest outside the Israeli Embassy in London next week. Rabbi Nachum Shifren, from California, said he was supporting the English Defence League because he opposed multiculturalism, and promised to act with “full force” against shariah law. But his plans have been roundly criticised by Jewish community organisations.

Continue reading

Prosecutor calls for Wilders acquittal on anti-Muslim hate charges

Wilders_in_courtDutch Freedom Party Leader Geert Wilders should be acquitted of charges that he incited hatred and defamed Muslims in newspaper editorials and his 2008 film “Fitna,” a prosecutor said.

Wilders, 47, is on trial for calling the Koran “fascist” and comparing it to Adolf Hitler’s book Mein Kampf in a 2007 Dutch newspaper editorial. A year later, he released his movie “Fitna,” in which he calls on Muslims to rip out “hate- preaching” verses from the book.

“A politician in public debate should have the room to make proposals” even if they may discriminate, Prosecutor Paul Velleman told the Amsterdam District Court today. While some of Wilders statements contain “a certain degree of crudity,” this doesn’t lead to “unnecessary excessiveness.”

Continue reading

Ontario appeal court rules that Muslim women may be forced to remove veil in criminal trials

The right of a Muslim woman to wear a niqab while testifying in a criminal trial may be determined by judges on a “case-by-case assessment”, Ontario’s highest court has ruled. The court also set up a framework for lower courts to apply in balancing a defendant’s rights with a veiled woman’s religious freedoms.

A lower court had ordered a woman to remove her veil, prompting the appeal. The case involved a 32-year-old Muslim woman who alleged that her cousin and uncle had repeatedly sexually abused her when she was a child. A lower court judge ordered the woman to remove her veil during a preliminary inquiry, sparking controversy in the Canadian Muslim community. The Superior Court then quashed that decision following an appeal.

The Ontario Court of Appeal said on Wednesday that Muslim witnesses should have the chance to explain their religious convictions and demonstrate why removing the niqab would offend those beliefs. But they must remove the traditional head covering to testify if the court decides that the veil jeopardises a fair trial.

“If, in the specific circumstances, the accused’s fair trial right can be honoured only by requiring the witness to remove the niqab, the niqab must be removed if the witness is to testify,” the court said.

BBC News, 14 October 2010