Islamophobia is a lucrative business – for Steven Emerson

American+JihadIn a post-Sept. 11 America, inciting Islamophobia and attempting to marginalize Muslims is a lucrative business. Extremists like Steven Emerson seek to polarize our nation and world to continue profiting from the industry of fear.

Emerson uses methods of distortion, exaggeration and outright falsehood to demonize Muslims and urge fellow Americans to fear Islam. In a post-Sept. 11 America, inciting Islamophobia and attempting to marginalize Muslims is a lucrative business. Extremists like Steven Emerson seek to polarize our nation and world to continue profiting from the industry of fear.

He borrows terminology and tactics once employed by Nazi Germany to justify anti-Semitic hate to help create similar hatred of American Muslims in America.

In his talk, titled “The Islamic Threat,” Emerson is quoted by The Desert Sun as saying that “Islam’s ‘leadership and organizational superstructure’ threaten Western values” and that (radical) Muslims “want to conquer the United States. They want to conquer Europe.”

Try replacing the word “Islam” or “Muslims” with the word “Jews,” “Latinos,” “Catholics” or “blacks” in his quotes and note how repulsive and hateful those comments sound. So, why have we become desensitized to anti-Muslim bigotry?

Hussam Ayloush at CAIR, 19 March 2009

What was real reason for banning Tariq Ramadan from U.S.?

Tariq Ramadan 5A group of academic and civil rights organisations has written to the Obama administration asking it to end U.S. visa refusals to foreign scholars apparently because of their political leanings.

Probably the best known of these cases is that of Tariq Ramadan, the Swiss-born Islamic scholar who was just about to take up a chair at the University of Notre Dame in 2004 when a visa already issued to him was suddenly revoked. Ramadan is a leading Muslim intellectual in Europe with a strong following among young Muslims who like his message that they can be good European and good Muslims at the same time.

The American Civil Liberties Union will plead his case for lifting the ban before the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York on March 24. Given the way President Barack Obama has rolled back several policies of the preceding Bush administration, there could now be a chance that Washington will simply lift the ban and let Ramadan take up the many invitations to speak that he would probably get from U.S. universities and think tanks. That would be a victory for academic freedom, but it still leaves one question unanswered.

This official explanation has never sounded convincing and it always seemed Ramadan was being punished for his political views, which are left-wing, pro-Palestinian and critical of the Bush administration. I suspect there was something else going on behind the scenes, either a political decision made by administration officials or a direct intervention by someone or some body outside the administration who was opposed to letting him speak freely in the U.S. Ramadan himself has blamed Daniel Pipes, a controversial U.S. commentator on Islam who welcomed the ban. Other suggestions are French government officials or intellectuals who dislike the way he promotes a kind of Muslim pride and ensures religion remains a public issue.

If the Obama administration does lift the ban, let’s hope it goes all the way and publishes any Bush administration paperwork explaining it, so we can see a more convincing explanation for keeping him out of the United States.

Tom Henegan at FaithWorld, 19 March 2009

BNP organiser arrested over harassment claim

The British National Party’s regional organiser in the North-East has been arrested on suspicion of racially aggravated harassment.

Ken Booth, who lives in Fenham, Newcastle, was arrested yesterday by Northumbria Police and bailed pending further inquiries. Mr Booth’s arrest is understood to have followed a complaint made to police by a Muslim councillor in the city.

The 54-year-old, who is standing in the European elections in the spring and has previously stood for Newcastle City Council, in Fenham, took over the role of regional organiser for the party from Kevin Scott in 2006. He is expected to answer bail at a police station in the city in the middle of next month.

Mr Booth would not directly comment on his arrest when contacted by The Echo, but a spokesman for the party said it was an example of “politically correct Britain”. He said: “The public can see what is happening and I am sure that in this particular instance we, as a party, have got nothing to fear. People in the North-East are sick and tired of this politically correct nonsense.”

Mr Booth, who describes himself on the BNP website as the single parent of three boys and an elected parent governor, has stood for the party several times in local elections. In January, he finished in third place in a by-election for the Fenham ward.

Last year, Mr Booth hit out at efforts to “destabilise” the BNP after his and the details of hundreds of other party members were leaked onto the internet.

A Northumbria Police spokeswoman said: “We can confirm a 54-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of racially aggravated harassment and has been bailed pending further inquiries.”

Acting Chief Inspector Sav Patsalos, of Northumbria police, added: “When any such incidents are brought to our attention they are treated very seriously and we take appropriate action.”

A spokesman for Newcastle City Council said: “It is a police matter and we are not prepared to comment.”

Northern Echo, 18 March 2009

Babar Ahmad wins £60,000 damages from Met

Babar Ahmad's fatherThe Metropolitan police today agreed to pay £60,000 damages to a British Muslim after a high court admission that officers had subjected him to “serious, gratuitous and prolonged” attack.

The court was told that Babar Ahmad, who is accused of raising funds for terrorism, had been punched, kicked and throttled during his arrest by officers from the force’s territorial support group in December 2003.

The Met had repeatedly denied the claims, saying officers had used reasonable force during the arrest. However, lawyers for the force’s commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, today admitted at the high court that Ahmad had been the victim of gratuitous and sustained violence at his home in Tooting, south-west London.

“The commissioner has today admitted that his officers subjected Babar Ahmad to grave abuse tantamount to torture during his arrest,” Ahmad’s solicitor, Fiona Murphy, said outside the court.

Outside the court, Ahmad’s brother-in-law, Fahad Ahmad, read out a statement on his behalf in which he said he was pleased the police had finally admitted what had happened.

“This abuse took place not in Guantánamo Bay or a secret torture chamber but in Tooting, south London,” the statement said. “The path to justice is long and difficult but, as long as you remain steadfast upon it, you will get there in the end.”

Ahmad has been in detention since he was rearrested in 2004 after a request from the US government over claims he helped raise money to fund terrorist campaigns. The court heard that no evidence had been produced against Ahmad, and he had never been charged with any offence.

He is now fighting extradition to the US in the European courts.

Guardian, 18 March 2009

See also BBC News, 18 March 2009

Click here for statements by Babar Ahmad, his family and his solicitor.

Update:  See “Met chief orders inquiry on beaten terror suspect” in the Independent, 19 March 2009

Metropolitan police pays Babar Ahmad £60,000 damages over ‘serious attack’

Babar-AhmadThe Metropolitan police today agreed to pay £60,000 damages to a British Muslim after a high court admission that officers had subjected him to “serious, gratuitous and prolonged” attack.

The court was told that Babar Ahmad, who is accused of raising funds for terrorism, had been punched, kicked and throttled during his arrest by officers from the force’s territorial support group in December 2003.

The Met had repeatedly denied the claims, saying officers had used reasonable force during the arrest. However, lawyers for the force’s commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, today admitted at the high court that Ahmad had been the victim of gratuitous and sustained violence at his home in Tooting, south-west London.

“The commissioner has today admitted that his officers subjected Babar Ahmad to grave abuse tantamount to torture during his arrest,” Ahmad’s solicitor, Fiona Murphy, said outside the court.

Guardian, 18 March 2009

See also, Victoria Brittain, “Stunning victory for Babar Ahmad”, Guardian, 18 March 2009

Students protest France anti-hijab law

French+hijab+protestMuslim students have held demonstrations in Paris on the fifth anniversary of the banning of the Muslim headscarf in French schools.

The protesters, mostly Muslim girls with hijab, described the “French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools” as racial discrimination saying people should be free to choose their dress code.

The law, which is an amendment to the French Code of Education separating state and religious activities, bans students from wearing religious symbols in schools. France’s national legislature passed the controversial bill and President Jacques Chirac signed it into law on March 15, 2004 and it came into effect on September 2, 2004, at the beginning of the new school year.

Many say the bill contradicts court decisions that had allowed students to wear religious signs, as long as they did not amount to “proselytizing”. Although the law does not mention any particular symbol, it is widely believed that it targets Muslims’ headscarves.

Press TV, 18 March 2009

How the Government pays Muslims to vote Labour

Take a tour of any of inner London borough and see how many women are sporting hijabs, jilbabs or niqabs, loan words that have entered the English language since 1997. In many cases these are not women who were brought up in “that culture”, but British people who, in their teens and twenties, have chosen to adopt dress that would be considered reactionary in most of the Islamic world, let alone London.

We saw a gaggle (although that collective noun seems slightly inappropriate) of niqab-clad women last week in Luton, screaming abuse at British soldiers who had been fighting for the rights of Iraqis and Afghans to be able to protest freely.

In the same week that those “bunch of nutters”, as Baroness Warsi rightly called them, caused a scene in Luton, the Policy Exchange claimed that £90 million spent on fighting Islamic extremism had had the same effect of opening a window in a burning room. Money had gone to groups influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Jamaat e-Islami in Pakistan, a scheme which Policy Exchange compared to giving money to the BNP to fight fascism.

This is not entirely fair on the BNP – they only want to return this country to either the 1950s or 1930s, depending on how sinister one believes them to be. Most Islamists would feel more at home in Viking-ruled East Anglia, where the “blood eagle” method of crucifixtion and disembowelment was the punishment for wrongdoers.

“Exotically clad Abu Hamza-style ranters are unlikely to be favoured,” the report said, “but plausible and well-mannered radicals, often representing themselves as moderate, are welcomed with open arms, however hardline their underlying philosophy.” Among the examples of radical bodies are the Muslim Council of Britain, the United Kingdom Islamic Mission, and the Islamic Society of Britain.

In Luton the taxpayer has funded seven Muslim centres under a Home Office project called “Preventing Violent Extremism”. The council has handed out £200,000, and another £400,000 has been set aside to capture the “hearts and minds” of young Muslims. Hearts and minds, or votes? Because that is what “fighting extremism” really is – paying Muslims to vote Labour.

Labour’s policy of buying Muslim votes has not benefited Muslims at all, but has given taxpayers’ money and power to some very dangerous people, who have turned the mental gulf between Muslims and the rest of the society into a chasm.

Ed West’s Blog, 17 March 2009

Trevor Kavanagh on Binyam Mohamed, Shiraz Maher and Ed Husain

PD*1006852“… lying is the default position for Islamists. Which is why we should question Guantanamo inmate Binyam Mohamed’s claim he was tortured by America and hung out to dry by the British.On balance, I prefer the word of our security services.

“The Ethiopian asylum seeker is another ex-druggie convert, deluded by fantasies of Islamic purity in hellholes such as Chechnya and Afghanistan. Yet we are giving him sanctuary, at huge cost and potential risk.

“He is not British. He should be sent home, along with ALL foreign terror advocates who trade off the freedoms they are so determined to destroy.”

Trevor Kavanagh in the Sun, 16 March 2009

Needless to say, while mounting this vile attack on Binyam Mohamed, Kavanagh declares his admiration for Shiraz Maher and Ed Husain.

Mail smears Inayat Bunglawala

A Muslim who advised the Government following the July 7 London bombings has been arrested after an alleged stabbing. Inayat Bunglawala, 39, was held on suspicion of attacking another man at his £300,000 home.

Mr Bunglawala, who also briefed former Security Minister Tony McNulty on the threat posed by Islamic radicals in the UK, was arrested two weeks before Christmas last year. The identity of the alleged victim is unknown and it is not clear what circumstances led to the alleged attack in the early hours of December 13 last year.

Conservative MP Patrick Mercer, who worked as a security adviser to Mr Brown, said of the alleged incident: “This calls into question the Government’s vetting of its Islamic advisers.”

Mail on Sunday, 15 March 2009


As is the way with this type of smear article, buried right at the end of it we find a quote from Inayat’s lawyers that he “vigorously denies having committed any criminal act whatsoever in relation to this incident”. So who could possibly accuse the Mail of unbalanced reporting?

On the face of it, this sounds like a possible altercation with a burglar. In which case, you’d have thought Inayat would have the full support of the Mail. After all, this is a paper that treated Tony Martin as some sort of hero after he murdered a fleeing would-be burglar by shooting him in the back. But then, Martin was a white BNP supporter, so that was different.

Update:  See MPACUK who report:

“Today, the CPS said they would not take any action against Inayat. There was simply no case at all…. What actually happened for those who do not know, is an intruder tried to break into the house of Inayat in the middle of the night. Inayat’s 3 year old child was sleeping as was his pregnant wife, woken by the noise of a man who at first tried to kick in the front door and then failing that, smashed the downstairs window. Inayat confronted the intruder and in the scuffle the intruder was stabbed.”