McNulty defends Kelly over MCB

Tony McNultySpeaking at a Labour Party conference fringe meeting, Home Office security minister Tony McNulty has stated that it was “a mistake to treat the Muslim Council of Britain as if it was the only voice of British Muslims and to ‘elevate it to an exclusivity that wasn’t warranted’,” according to a BBC news report.

He claimed that the MCB’s response to the failed terror attacks in London and Glasgow this summer had been “profoundly different” to 7/7 and praised former communities secretary Ruth Kelly for “recalibrating” the relationship between the government and the MCB.

Of course, the “recalibration” carried out by Kelly involved shunting a genuinely representative organisation like the MCB aside in favour of the ridiculous neocon-inspired Sufi Muslim Council that represents nobody at all – but had the advantage from Kelly’s standpoint that, unlike the MCB, it didn’t criticise UK foreign policy.

As for the MCB’s supposed “profoundly different” reaction to the London and Glasgow terrorist attacks compared with their response to 7/7, this is a myth that appears to be accepted wisdom in government circles – home secretary Jacqui Smith made the same claim in a recent interview with the New Statesman – but lacks any basis in fact.

Continue reading

Left-Right anti-Muslim alliance in the Netherlands

Council of ex-MuslimsCritic of Islam, Ehsan Jami, and Freedom Party leader, Geert Wilders, compared the Prophet Mohammed to Adolf Hitler in a co-written article published in the Dutch daily Volkskrant Thursday.

In their article, Wilders and Jami say strong criticism of Islam is absolutely necessary. “If we do not act now against the far-reaching Islamisation of the Netherlands, then the 1930s will be revived. The only difference is that back then the danger came from Adolf Hitler, while today it comes from Mohammed.”

Continue reading

MP accused of using gay issues to win Muslim votes

Galloway at Lebanon demoOver at Pink News we’re treated to another of Benjamin Cohen’s favourite “Muslim homophobia” scare stories, this one courtesy of Peter Tatchell, who attacks George Galloway for having included on his website a reference to the voting record of Labour MP Jim Fitzpatrick on gay equality.

“George appears to be appeasing homophobic sections of the Muslim community by attacking Jim Fitzpatrick over his support for gay rights,” Tatchell is quoted as saying. “He’s using homophobia to gain political advantage and he is betraying his own past appeal for gay equality…. His apparent volte face is a cynical attempt to win the votes of homophobic factions within the constituency. I’m saddened that he’s using gay rights as a stick to beat his political opponent.”

This statement is quoted from the 14 September issue of the Evening Standard, which to be fair also included the following in its report: “Galloway’s office denies he has changed his position on gay rights and says he doesn’t necessarily disagree with Fitzpatrick’s policies anyway. ‘I don’t think he is doing that’, says a spokesman. ‘He hasn’t changed his mind at all. George has always been in favour of gay rights. He has been entirely consistent and if the website gives a different impression we’ll have to have a look at it’.” Needless to say, this is omitted from the Pink News report.

Continue reading

‘Neither Washington nor mosque’

Thus the title to a blog post by Labour Party member and longtime leftist Dave Osler marking the anniversary of 9/11. What he means is that the Left should back neither US imperialism nor Al-Qaida terrorism. The word “mosque” is used as a synonym for the latter, thereby identifying all practising Muslims with the atrocities carried out by a minuscule minority – a theme more usually associated with the racist Right.

Outlining his proposals for combating the threat of further terrorist attacks, Osler writes that “Islamist networks can and must be infiltrated and smashed” – which would mean infiltrating and smashing Hizb ut-Tahrir, presumably. Since when did socialists support the right of the state to infiltrate and smash legal and non-violent political organisations? In fact, on the generally accepted definition of “Islamism” as a politicised version of the faith, organisations like the British Muslim Initiative would also fall victim to Osler’s “anti-terrorism” strategy.

Osler even charges the left with “regarding al Qa’eda as somehow allies of convenience in an imagined common anti-imperialist struggle”. As a contributor to the comments section of his blog points out, this echoes the right-wing idiocy peddled by the likes of Martin Amis who claims that “given the choice between George Bush and Osama bin Laden, the liberal relativist, it seems, is obliged to plump for the Saudi”.

What significant tendency on the left adopts the position of treating the 9/11 terrorists as anti-imperialist allies? None, so far as I know. Where can we find left-wing publications putting forward that argument? Nowhere.

See Dave’s Part, 11 September 2007

Does Galloway’s Respect Party want Islamic State in UK?

The question is posed in a letter to the East London Advertiser by a Labour Party member, one Stuart Madewell, who is evidently stupid and bigoted enough to believe that the way to win back Bethnal Green & Bow for Labour is to promote BNP-style racist fantasies about the threat of an Islamic state being established in a country where Muslims make up 3% of the population. In fact Madewell’s letter has been posted approvingly on the fascist discussion list Stormfront.

Liberal imperialism and political Islam: Ben White takes on Martin Bright

Apologetically imperial: Liberals, political Islam, and a war of terror

By Ben White

Long before Nick Cohen ruminated on “What’s Left?” and Martin Amis imagined the sexual frustration of millions of Muslim men, even as the ink dried on opinion pages in the “liberal” New York Times, Guardian and Independent urging on the slaughter in Iraq, those on the left still committed to resisting imperialism were already ably despatching the accusations of “appeasing Islamofascism”. It is not my intention to repeat those thorough demolitions here.

However, an interview earlier this month in the Guardian with the New Statesman‘s political editor Martin Bright afforded excellent insight into how leading “liberal” writers have justified (to us and themselves) their support for the reactionary policies of the “war on terror”.1 Bright is a more recent addition to the imperial left club, having risen to prominence through his long-running investigation into what he called the British Foreign Office’s “love affair with radical Islam”, an interest that has fed a documentary, numerous articles, and a think tank policy paper.

The interviewer gives Bright space to vent, principally towards those on the “liberal left” who have the temerity to accuse him of Islamophobia: “There is a tendency on the British left to believe that the ‘wretched of the earth’ have some sort of moral superiority to us in the West. That same tendency also associates anyone who opposes American or British so-called imperialism with the wretched of the earth.”

Twice, Bright refers to “the wretched of the earth”, an expression made famous by seminal anti-colonial writer Frantz Fanon in his book of the same name. Bright is not alone; Christopher Hitchens elaborated on this point in a book review in City Journal, claiming that “[many liberals] cannot shake their subliminal identification of the Muslim religion with the wretched of the earth.”2 Fanon is an unlikely ally, and to borrow from his theories deeply ironic (unintentionally). Fanon’s fiery prose, like other classic anti-colonial texts by Aimé Césaire, Sartre and Albert Memmi, still rings true today as a denunciation of the liberals’ approval of colonial violence and horrified moralising towards any resistance.3

More than forty years before the Time magazine specials on “Sunni jihadists” and a “Shia crescent”, Fanon sarcastically wrote that: “Colonialism will attempt to rally the African peoples by uncovering the existence of ‘spiritual’ rivalries … references are made to Arab imperialism, and the cultural imperialism of Islam is denounced.”

It is not, as Bright supposes, that anti-imperial leftists attribute intrinsic moral superiority to “the wretched of the earth”, but rather that they defend the right of the colonised to resist colonialism; the occupied, occupation; the wretched, those who seek to maintain in perpetuity their wretchedness.

Continue reading

Channel 4 rejects ‘Islamophobia’ claims

Undercover Mosque

The Channel 4 deputy head of news and current affairs, Kevin Sutcliffe, today dismissed accusations of Islamophobia in the broadcaster’s programming, stating that it would remain “fearless” in its coverage.

Mr Sutcliffe, one of five panelists involved at a sometimes heated session at the MediaGuardian Edinburgh international television festival about the portrayal of Islam in the media, said critics would be “hard pressed to point to Islamophobia” in Channel 4’s programming.

“We have a rounded view and approach to this issue … we are quite fearless about what we want to say and when we want to say it,” he added. In response to the Crown Prosecution Service criticism that the controversial Dispatches documentary Undercover Mosque had “distorted” the views of those filmed, Mr Sutcliffe said it was a “phoney argument”.

Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, agreed that following events such as 9/11 and the bombings in Madrid and London it was “inevitable” there would be an “increased scrutiny of Muslim organisations and mosques”.

However, he said that he was “entitled to ask if it is fair”. He then stated that Muslims and Islam “does not have a level playing field in the media in this country”. Mr Bunglawala expressed concern over “authored documentaries” in which “journalists have an axe to grind”. He cited a Panorama documentary by John Ware as an example.

Maryam Namazie, spokesperson of the Council of ex-Muslims of Britain, strongly disagreed, arguing that the UK media was too soft in its coverage of Islam. “Media doesn’t cover the realities of Islam at all, it is very soft,” she said. She added that the political Islamist movement in Britain and Europe had engineered a “victim status”, whereby criticism of Islam was being equated to racism against Muslims. “Criticising a belief is not racism, it is not the case that that Muslims are being vilified,” Ms Namazie said.

Guardian, 24 August 2007


If there’s one thing that illustrates the problem with the attitudes to Islam to be found in liberal media circles, it’s the fact that a sectarian lunatic like Namazie who represents nothing and nobody is given a platform at an event like this, as if she had something serious to contribute to the debate.

See also Inayat Bunglawala’s post at Comment is Free, 24 August 2007 

MCB wants to hang gay men in Trafalgar Square (it says here)

GHQ coverThe new Gay Humanist Quarterly is just out. It includes a characteristically hysterical rant by Maryam Namazie of the Worker Communist Party of Iran, delivered at the International Day Against Homophobia in London in May. Namazie told her audience:

“We mustn’t accept any excuses or apologies for the Islamic regime in Iran and its like – whether in Saudi Arabia or right here in the UK. They all belong to the same movement and want the same thing.”

Continue reading

‘Sordid world of Muslim grooming exposed’ – by BNP and Anne Cryer

“The sordid world of Muslim Asian grooming of white under-age girls has been ‘exposed’ in the mainstream press; three years after the BNP first brought this scandal to the public attention. Today’s Sunday Times carries a report on the jailing of Zulfqar Hussain, 46, and Qaiser Naveed, 32, from east Lancashire, after exploiting two girls aged under 16 by plying them with alcohol and drugs before having sex with them….

“Fear of offending the Muslim communities appears to take precedence over helping our young daughters but every single craven police officer, every council official who fails to act in the interests of justice is as guilty as the Muslim predator who defiles a white schoolgirl.

“Labour MP Anne Cryer robustly said that there is a cultural difference: ‘I think there is a problem with the view Asian men generally have about white women. Their view about white women is generally fairly low’.”

BNP news article, 12 August 2007

Martin Bright repeats call for left-right alliance against ‘radical Islam’

James Silver interviews Martin Bright, political editor of the New Statesman and obsessive enemy of the Muslim Council of Britain. It contains the welcome news that Bright’s contact in the FCO, from whom he acquired the internal documents used in his witch-hunt of “Islamists”, has been identified and arrested. Bright also explains why he chose the right-wing think-tank Policy Exchange to publish his pamphlet When Progressives Treat with Reactionaries: “I believe a coalition of left and right need to be built around this issue.”

Guardian, 6 August 2007