Monthly Archives: July 2009

Islamic school ban sparks protest in Sydney

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Hundreds of people have protested against a government’s decision to scrap plans to build an Islamic school in Australia’s biggest city, Sydney. Parents and prospective students have said the decision was unfair and racist.

Plans to build an Islamic school for 1,200 students in the Sydney suburb of Bass Hill survived objections from residents, the local council and legal challenges only to be scrapped at the last minute by the New South Wales government. Construction was due to begin but the state has intervened to buy back the land it sold several years ago.

Busloads of angry parents and their children have demonstrated outside the education department, calling on the authorities to allow the project to go ahead. A spokesman for the protestors, Rafik Hussein, says the government has made a big mistake. “We do not accept that decision. It is un-Australian,” Mr Hussein said

Some campaigners have said the debate has been laced with racial and religious intolerance. Supporters of the plan to build the Islamic school believe that residents’ concerns about noise and traffic congestion have become a euphemism for prejudice.

BBC News, 27 July 2009

See also ABC News, 24 July 2009

JC editor plugs Bruce Bawer

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Stephen_PollardStephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle, gives a boost to Bruce Bawer’s latest exercise in anti-Muslim bigotry:

“There is no more important issue facing the West than Islamism, Islamofascism or – to use yet another label – radical Islam. And there is no more necessary precondition to countering that threat than understanding it: where it springs from, how it is expressed and the ways in which it is spreading. But before we do any of that, we have to agree that the threat exists.

“For the United States, the danger so far has taken the form of terror, as 9/11 so clearly demonstrated. In Europe, terror is real too, but a more insidious problem has now taken hold: many liberals and others on the European left are making common cause with radical Islam and then brazenly and bizarrely denying both the existence of that alliance and in fact the existence of any Islamist threat whatever. Bruce Bawer’s ‘Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom’ is focused on this phenomenon.”

New York Times, 24 July 2009

It’s no surprise that the JC, never exactly known for its efforts to build bridges between the Jewish and Muslim communities, has taken a lurch in a particularly Islamophobic direction since Pollard took over as editor.

Sunny Hundal on the smearing of Mehdi Hasan

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Mehdi_HasanSunny Hundal offers some further observations on the disgraceful witch-hunt of New Statesman journalist Mehdi Hasan by Harry’s Place:

“Using a 45 second clip from a 45 minute speech to imply that the guy is an Islamist and all sorts (just read the comments) is precisely the kind of politics and smearing that Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch has done for years.

“… this sort of tactic is designed to promote the racist notion that all Muslims, even the mainstream ones working at national titles, are closet Islamists. The word ‘taqqiya’, used to imply that a person is hiding their true beliefs, constantly pops up in the comments of that expose. It’s the ‘Islamists under your bed’ narrative that unfortunately Harry’s Place has descended into over the last few years….

“HP and their friend Martin Bright are essentially saying that the New Statesman should not employ such a person, which is a deeply undemocratic and censorious position to take. It’s also a character assassination to try and ruin someone’s career….

“If the New Statesman editor gives in to this hatchet job then it feeds into a debasement of our political culture, where witch-hunts like the kind constantly seen on neo-con hubs like FrontpageMagazine.com become the way our politics is conducted.”

Pickled Politics, 27 July 2009

Harry’s Place and the smearing of Mehdi Hasan

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Harry’s Place continues its witch-hunt of Mehdi Hasan, senior editor (politics) at the New Statesman, in what is clearly a campaign aimed at getting him dismissed from his job. In the comments section fellow NS journalist James Macintyre has posted a defence of his colleague which we reproduce here:

Harry’s Place – I have just seen this unspeakable smear campaign – “part 1” – against my colleague Mehdi Hasan at the New Statesman. You have just lowered yourself to the rankest form of fact-free, context-free, bent hatchet-job “blogging”. I am one of many outsiders who is repulsed. You pose as a quasi-intellectual blog-site, and yet you operate with no rules of journalism. Let me, therefore, offer you some facts.I have known Mehdi Hasan for seven years. In that time I have been honoured to know an actively moderate Muslim; easily the most moderate Muslim I have met and among the most religious people I know, and that catagory includes senior members of the Anglican communion to which I belong.

Mehdi Hasan does indeed have a double life: and it is the exact opposite to what your libelous bile presents. At the same time as being dismissed on neo-con sites like this as an “extremist” or fan of bin Laden, he in fact lectures his own community of London Shias of the need to integrate and be fully British. He does this on a weekly or monthly basis.

Only a few months ago Tony McNulty MP – not known for his pro-extremist stances – praised Mehdi Hasan at a public meeting in the House of Commons. He said he was previously unaware that this kind of speaking – in which Muslims were told by a Muslim to inegrate and be British – took place within the community.

This clip which you have seedily honed in on merely shows him sticking up for religion in the way that your heroes Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins denounce it and passionately defend atheism. As a Christian believer myself, I agree with Mehdi Hasan in his comments you seek to sensationalize – tell me then Harry’s Place, does that make me one of your targets, or are your dangerous smears purely based on race?

You have disgraced yourself, and it would be amusing were it not a calculated attempt to damage a man’s reputation. I have never known a more open-minded person who speaks publicly on religion. Many a time have I heard Mehdi Hasan angrily denounce anti-semitism, racism, prejudice of any kind.

If you seriously intend to run this series, by a doubtless fake “Channel 4 insider” – what have you got to hide, C4 Insider? Surely this is a great story if you are on safe ground? – then you had better be prepared for the consequences. Legalities aside, you threaten to shame your web site once and for all.

I feel like I am posting on the BNP site, and it is on that level that you will place yourselves with this pathetic smear, based purely on the fact that Mehdi got the better of your contributors last week. If you are going to go after him, go after me too – as I agree with almost everything he says about the world’s religions.

Mehdi Hasan is a friend, a colleague, and someone who deserves the utmost praise for his amazing role as an educator and moderator of those in his own faith.

It’s time for you to decide: are you going to be a serious blogsite, or are you going to place yourselves in the same catagory as bnp.org.uk?

Think about it.

Judge clears way for lawsuit by 6 imams arrested at Minneapolis airport

Posted on by Bob Pitt

In a strongly worded ruling, a federal judge on Friday cleared the way for a lawsuit by six Muslim men who claim they were falsely arrested on a US Airways jet in Minneapolis three years ago to move forward.

“The right not to be arrested in the absence of probable cause is clearly established and, based on the allegations … no reasonable officer could have believed that the arrest of the Plaintiffs was proper,” U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery ruled Friday.

The case of “the flying imams” has sparked ongoing debate about the power of law enforcement to override personal rights in the name of security.

The imams were arrested in November 2006 as they were returning home from the North American Conference of Imams. A passenger had passed a note to a flight attendant noting what he considered suspicious activity.

FBI Special Agent Michael Cannizzaro and airport police officers had argued that the arrest and removal of the imams was valid because there were reasons to be suspicious of a crime. They argued that a law passed by Congress to protect people who report suspicious activity from being sued also extends to them.

But Montgomery’s opinion and order stated that they were bound by longstanding rules requiring probable cause before arresting someone.

Being of Middle Eastern descent, praying aloud before their flight and asking for seat belt extenders did not constitute reasonable suspicion to arrest the Muslim spiritual leaders, Montgomery ruled. The officers are not immune to being held accountable for their actions, she said. She did dismiss a false arrest claim against Cannizzaro.

Continue reading →

Georgia courts to allow religious head coverings

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Lisa_ValentineGeorgia courtrooms will allow religious headgear after last year’s arrest of a Muslim woman who refused to remove her headscarf in a west Georgia courthouse.

The Judicial Council of Georgia voted unanimously this week to allow religious and medical headgear into Georgia courtrooms. It also allows a person to request a private inspection if a security officer wants to conduct a search.

“If this had been a nun, no one would have required her to remove her habit,” said Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Carol Hunstein, who heads the Judicial Council. “I think this is a good rule, and I think it’s clear.”

The policy shift stems from the December 2008 arrest of Lisa Valentine, who was ordered to serve 10 days in jail for contempt of court after she refused to remove her hijab at a courtroom in Douglasville, a town of about 20,000 people west of Atlanta.

Associated Press, 24 July 2009

See also CAIR press release, 24 July 2009

Muslim woman ‘told to take off veil’ by bus driver in Australia

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Khadijah Ouararhni-Grech was wearing a pink, floral niqab, which covers her hair and lower face, when she tried to board a bus in Greystanes, an outer suburb of the Astralian city.

“As I was stepping onto the bus the driver said ‘You can’t get on the bus wearing your mask’,” she told the Sydney Daily Telegraph newspaper. When she explained it was religious dress, the woman said the driver responded: “Sorry, it’s the law.”

“I told him it wasn’t the law and he said ‘You have to show me your face,'” she said. “I said to him, ‘There’s no difference between me and that lady sitting there who chooses to not wear what I’m wearing’.”

The bus company, Hillsbus, said the driver was being questioned over the claims.

Daily Telegraph, 24 July 2009

Martin Bright threatens legal action against ENGAGE

Posted on by Bob Pitt

martin_brightWriting on his Spectator blog, Martin Bright has threatened to sue ENGAGE over a piece they posted about his response to the MCB’s successful libel case against the BBC. (ENGAGE have understandably backed off in the face of Bright’s threats, and the piece now reads “Martin ‘The Great Koran Con Trick’ Bright criticises MCB libel win“.)

Bright objects to ENGAGE’s description of him as an “Islamophobe”. He writes:

“Under the disreputable headline ‘Veteran Islamophobe Martin Bright criticises MCB libel win’ an anonymous writer makes a seriesof unsubstantiated claims. I have already taken legal advice about this, although I wouldn’t have needed to do so to realise it is seriously defamatory. I object in the strongest terms to the way the insult ‘Islamophobe’ is thrown around so casually. It is essentially a charge of racism: the cheapest of shots and utterly without foundation….

“Should I take action against the Engage libel? As an anti-libel law campaigner it would provide an interesting moral conundrum. But it’s a serious defamation and my chances of success would be high.”

Oh yeah? Well, I can remember Bright telling a FOSIS conference at City Hall back in August 2005 that he had no problem being described as an Islamophobe – because, he said, there is a lot in Islam to be afraid of. He got himself booed, as you might expect. Around a hundred people were at the conference, so there is no lack of witnesses who can attest to this.

Here at Islamophobia Watch we have referred to Bright’s 2005 statement on numerous occasions, and on that basis we have described him as a “self-confessed Islamophobe“.

So if Bright would like to sue me – bring it on, I say. We might well consider a counter-claim against Bright himself over the piece in which he compared us to the notorious antisemite and Holocaust denier Michele Renouf.

Update:  For further comment on Bright’s double standards on defamation, see Sunny Hundal’s post “Is Martin Bright libelling Mehdi Hasan?” over at Pickled Politics.

The niqab, fact v fiction

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Fatima Barkatulla clears up misconceptions about the niqab.

Times, 22 July 2009

Not all of the paper’s readers are convinced. Some online comments:

“How can anyone but an absolute ignoramus justify wearing a mask bearing in mind the current dangers of terrorism from Muslims.”

“The niqab is a male-made obligation destined to show other men that ‘this female belongs to me’. Nothing else.”

“The reality is that in Britain, and Europe more generally, covering up women in this way is not accepted, it goes against both our traditions and standards…. In this country we pride ourselves on tolerence and fairness, and the problem is that there seems to be a clash between accomodating a religious practice and women’s rights.”

“The writer of this article should wake up – you can be subjugated and believe that you are exercising choice – this is the result of brainwashing.”

“You may wonder if Mrs Bartakulla is a brainwashed naive or an islamist propagandist. I think I know the answer.”

“You don’t want to comply with our culture in any way, whilst we are forced by the blind and stupid to pander to yours. You use it to control your women and push your intransigent religion on non-muslims.”

“If someone wants to wear the burqa, they have the right. I on the other hand also have to right to have nothing to do with them.”

“This is a western country with western culture and tradition and it’s about time people who choose to live her from other cultures showed some respect. The British people are far too tolerant and we get taken advantage of.”

“British and Western women must cherish their freedoms and not let foreign hostile beliefs do away with the freedoms that the Christian religion has given them.”

“As an atheist and an Englishman … I am saddened by the influence on my own culture of what I perceive as a socially backward faith…. Covering oneself is not ‘normal’ in my books and reveals an unhealthy mind. However many excuses are presented, it smacks of subjugation. To see the promotion and normalisation of such behaviour in The Times is both surreal and absurd…. tolerant though I consider myself to be, those who want a return to the Dark Ages can count me out.”

“… it is the basest form of ignorance which inflicts those rules on women and that is THE VERY REASON they should be OUTLAWED!!!”

“As a white man, how could [I] even become friends with a Muslim woman, who by wearing a burqa, straight away sends out a message of I do not want anything to do with you.”