German politician calls for ban on immigration for Turks and Arabs

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Horst SeehoferOutraged Turkish groups and German politicians on Monday demanded an apology from Horst Seehofer after the conservative Bavarian state premier suggested over the weekend Germany put a stop to immigration for Turks and Arabs.

Seehofer, who belongs to the CSU, the Bavarian sister party of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats, told news magazine Focus that “immigrants from other cultures, such as those from Turkey and Arab countries have more difficulties” integrating into German culture. Therefore he had drawn the “conclusion that we need no additional immigration from other cultural areas”.

On Monday chairman of the Turkish Community in Germany (TGD), Kenan Kolat, demanded an apology. “The latest comments by Seehofer are defamatory and unacceptable”, he told daily Berliner Zeitung, speaking of an attempt to stigmatise certain ethnic groups and trump former Bundesbank board member Thilo Sarrazin’s inflammatory assertions about Muslim immigrants. Meanwhile politicians from across the spectrum expressed their dismay over Seehofer’s suggestion.

The Local, 11 October 2010

Christian minister launches High Court case to keep Zakir Naik out of UK

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A Christian minister is bringing a legal test case to try to prevent a radical Islamic preacher coming to Britain.

The Reverend Mahboob Masih will lodge papers in the High Court this week alleging that Dr Zakir Naik, an Indian-based television preacher, is “extremely dangerous to community cohesion, religious tolerance and race relations”. He will claim that the courts should give greater respect to Christian values and declares in High Court papers that Britain’s judges have adopted an “over sensitivity to Islamic sensibilities due to the threat of violence”.

Dr Naik had been due to lecture at a series of major venues including Wembley Arena and the Birmingham NEC in the summer but was banned from entering the UK by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, just two days before his arrival. Dr Naik is now taking the Home Secretary to court for a judicial review of that decision.

The Rev Masih’s highly unusual intervention is intended to bolster the Government’s case to keep Dr Naik out of the UK. The Church of Scotland minister will argue he has the right to make his legal protest because he previously lost his job as presenter of a community radio station after a disccusion about Dr Naik’s preachings.

Sunday Telegraph, 10 October 2010

Update:  Christian Concern For Our Nation reports that Masih’s case is being brought by the Christian Legal Centre whose director, Andrea Minichiello Williams, has been advising Masih.

Leicester antiracist demo says: ‘EDL not welcome here’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

People from across Leicester’s diverse community staged a peaceful demonstration against the violent racists of the English Defence League today.

The EDL have tried to stir up hatred and division by demonstrating in the multiracial, multi-faith city, particularly targeting Muslims. Their “protest” ended in violence and attacks on the police, journalists and local black and Asian people.

In contrast, over 800 people came to the antiracist protest called by UAF in the city centre today – they included black, white and Asian people, with Muslims joined by Sikhs, Hindus, Christians and people of no religion in an impressive display of unity.

UAF report, 10 October 2010

Douglas Murray stands by Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference speech, accuses Tory leadership of ‘befriending and appeasing Islamists’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Over at the Spectator Douglas Murray complains that he’s been ostracised by the Tory leadership over his notorious speech at the Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference in 2006 (“It is late in the day, but Europe still has time to turn around the demographic time-bomb which will soon see a number of our largest cities fall to Muslim majorities. It has to. All immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop…. Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board”).

Continue reading →

Ten charged after violent EDL demonstration in Leicester

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Ten English Defence League protesters have been charged with offences after violence broke out at a city centre demonstration. A total of 17 people were arrested, five from Leicestershire, after the protest in Leicester City Centre.

Four members of the Sky News team were forced to lock themselves inside a satelite truck as demonstrators banged their fists on the windscreen during the disorder. “It was very, very frightening,” said reporter Robin Powell, who was in the truck.

A smoke bomb and missiles were thrown from the EDL protesters into police and crowds of press. There were also clashes between EDL supporters and members of the local black and Asian community away from the city centre.

Continue reading →

Former BNP councillor calls Islam ‘vile, archaic and barbaric’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Muslims have criticised a Colwyn Bay councillor who has branded Islam as “barbaric, archaic and vile”.

Former BNP member John Oddy quit the controversial party shortly after becoming a Bay of Colwyn town councillor for Rhos-on-Sea in May 2008, claiming the BNP was racist. He was uncontested in the ballot.

While Cllr Oddy says he is not racist, he admits he is anti-Islam, and on his internet blog slated the faith, insisting that his personal views don’t conflict with his obligations as an elected member of the town council.

Muslims have criticised the Rhos-on-Sea councillor as “unknowledgeable” and questioned whether a man holding such views should be representing the community.

North Wales Weekly New, 7 October 2010

When Oddy resigned from the BNP in May 2008, Lancaster Unity pointed out that there was a “question mark” over his claim that he had never been a racist. Another former BNP councillor had claimed that “Oddy verbally attacked him for having the temerity to help an Asian family as part of his own duties as a town councillor, stating that the party wasn’t happy with him because he’d been ‘helping fucking Pakis’ and that ‘they’re Muslim scum anyway’.”

Muslim school denies forcing girls to wear the veil

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Jamea Al KautharLancaster school Jamea Al Kauthar is denying national newspaper claims that it forces pupils to wear the veil.

The £2,500-a-year all-girls Muslim boarding school was one of just three institutions to be named in a Sunday Telegraph report on compulsory veil policies in schools in the UK.

The article claimed Jamea Al Kauthar had introduced rules which forced girls to wear the burka or a full headscarf and veil known as the niqab when they were walking to or from school. It said the school’s uniform policy had been heavily criticised by mainstream Muslims who believed enforcement of the veil was a “dangerous precedent” and that children attending such schools were being “brainwashed”.

Jamea Al Kauthar declined to comment directly to the Lancaster Guardian but posted a statement on its website refuting the claims. The school said: “In response to the articles appearing in several newspapers regarding the enforcement of the veil upon our students, we would like to clarify that Jamea Al-Kauthar does not force any student to wear the veil. However, we do encourage students to dress modestly.”

Lancaster Guardian, 8 October 2010

Clearly we misreported this issue. Rather than identifying a mere three schools in the UK that require pupils to wear the niqab, theSunday Telegraph found at most two.

So what happened to the ‘sacred ground’ argument?

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“A new survey from the Democratic-affiliated firm Public Policy Polling finds that more Republicans support constructing a strip club than a mosque near Ground Zero. Just four percent of Republican respondents said they support building a mosque two blocks from the site, whereas 21 percent said they would be fine with a strip club. ”

Huffington Post, 9 October 2010

The PPP poll can be consulted here.

Leicester magistrates ordered victim of domestic violence to remove veil before they would hear her evidence

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A Muslim woman was asked to take off her veil in court to give evidence against her former partner in an assault case.

Georgina Richards agreed to remove it after Leicester magistrates warned they might not be able to accept her evidence if she did not. The 36-year-old was a witness at the trial of her former partner Ismail Mangera, later found guilty of punching her in the face and scrawling abuse on her front door.

During the hearing, chairman of the bench Lawrence Faulkner told Miss Richards: “We need to see a person’s facial expressions to assess the evidence they are giving. If you refuse to remove your veil we may not be able to accept your evidence.”

Miss Richards, who is pregnant, told the court her religion states she should not remove her veil in front of men in public. She agreed to remove it when she was allowed to give evidence from behind a screen in the courtroom. Only the male chairman of the bench and two female magistrates could see her.

However, speaking after the case, Miss Richards said it had still made her feel uncomfortable. She said:

“I was a bit unhappy that he told me to take my veil off. They put screens up next to me but I didn’t really want to do it. But I thought the case would be dropped if I didn’t take it off. It just made me feel uncomfortable. They wanted to see the expression on my face but I don’t think it really matters, I think I could have done it with my veil on.”

Miss Richards told the court that Mangera (30) had punched her in the mouth and knocked a tooth out.

Leicester Mercury, 8 October 2010

Update:  The Daily Express also covers the story, complete with a quote from Tory MP Philip Hollobone, the go-to guy for the right-wing press when they run a piece on Muslims:

“It seems to me entirely inappropriate for anyone to appear in court with their face covered, be they judge, witness or suspect. Everyone should be able to see everyone else’s face. There is no justification for her being allowed to give evidence from behind a screen, either. Would they have let a man in a motorcycle helmet give evidence in court? I doubt it.”