Doctors who breach patient confidentiality must be dealt with, but Patricia Hewitt was wrong to single out Muslim GPs in this area, Rajnaara Akhtar argues.
Category Archives: Left Wing
And you thought there couldn’t be anyone worse than Ruth Kelly? Think again
John Reid has won a cabinet battle to become Britain’s “security supremo” under a plan for the Home Office to co-ordinate the fight against terrorism. A plan to split the Home Office into two separate security and justice departments is expected to be given the go-ahead by the Cabinet today.
Under the biggest changes to the Home Office in its 225-year history, the Home Secretary will take charge of counter-terrorism. Crucially, he will be responsible for all security threats to the UK, and the “contest” strategy against al-Qa’ida, now under the Cabinet Office.
The Home Office will also take charge of “winning the hearts and minds” of Muslims in Britain, currently shared with the Foreign Office and the Department of Communities and Local Government.
Belfast Telegraph, 29 March 2007
See also Financial Times, 29 March 2007
Woolas calls for crackdown on ‘Islamic anti-semitism’ on campuses
Race hate laws should be used to crack down on extremist groups whose activities are prompting a rise in anti-Semitism at Britain’s universities, vice-chancellors are to be warned by ministers today.
Ministers are particularly concerned about the infiltration of campuses by Islamic extremist groups who have stirred up hatred against Israel. Vice-chancellors will be warned they must not ignore anti-Jewish activity on campuses and must prevent prejudiced lecturers, guest speakers and extremist political organisations stirring up hatred of Israel.
Phil Woolas, the communities minister, who will announce the Government’s measures, said the findings of the all-party parliamentary report on anti-Semitism were “very worrying”, adding: “Our response will be far tougher than anticipated. We are very worried about Islamic anti-Semitism on campuses. In this country we tend to see it as something of the past. It is not.”
The report by the all-party anti-Semitism group said that Jewish students felt “isolated and unsupported,” and that pro-Palestine debates were being used as a “vehicle for anti-Jewish language”.
Of course, cracking down on genuine racism is admirable, but defining anti-semitism according to criteria determined by the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism (pdf of their report here), who characterise MPACUK as an “extremist” group based on evidence provided by the likes of Lorna Fitzsimons and the Community Security Trust, is something else entirely.
And, if Woolas is really interested in combating racism, how about a crackdown on the appalling Islamophobia promoted by a section of the Jewish community? The sort of bigotry demonstrated by Melanie Phillips, for example, in mainstream publications like the Daily Mail and Jewish Chronicle has no parallel within the Muslim community outside of the tiniest and most sectarian Islamist groups.
For critical responses to the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry on this site, see here and here.
Hewitt criticised for casting doubt on Muslim GPs’ ethics
The health secretary, Patricia Hewitt, has been criticised for suggesting that some Muslim GPs fail to respect the confidentiality of Muslim women who visit them.
Ms Hewitt said women feared talking about issues such as domestic violence and sexual health problems in case their details were shared among “close-knit” communities. A report in GPs’ magazine Pulse said Ms Hewitt had first raised the issue in a lecture to the Fabian Society in London.
In an interview with Pulse, she expanded on her comments, saying: “I have had Muslim women give me chapter and verse on very distressing breaches of confidentiality by Muslim GPs. Some women patients feel they cannot trust their own GP, who knows the patient’s extended families. If they go and talk to him about a very difficult situation concerning domestic violence or sexual health problems, they fear that he will share that with other members of the community. They are very close-knit communities.”
Jo Haynes, editor of Pulse, said: “These are serious accusations – failing to respect a patient’s confidentiality is a severe breach of a doctor’s code of conduct. It is generally something that happens very rarely. You would hope Patricia Hewitt has some firm evidence to back up her decision to single out Muslim doctors in this way. It’s worth bearing in mind that Muslims are hardly alone in living in close-knit communities, and doctors are generally very good at separating their personal and professional lives.”
Ban the veil, says ultra-left sectarian
Maryam Namazie of the Worker Communist Party of Iran – who was the National Secular Society’s “secularist of the year” in 2005 – once again explains why, in the interests of “progress”, the right of Muslim women to dress as they choose must be suppressed:
“There are innumerable women and girls in Asia, the Middle East and North Africa to right here in the heart of Europe who know from personal experience what it means to be female under Islam – hidden from view, bound, gagged, mutilated, murdered, without rights, and threatened and intimidated day in and day out for transgressing Islamic mores. The veil, more than anything else, symbolises this bleak reality….
“I know our opponents often argue that there are many more pressing matters with regards to women’s status. Why all the fuss they ask? To me, it is like asking what all the fuss was about racial apartheid – or segregation of the races – in apartheid South Africa.
“… some of these apologists will concede that compulsory veiling must be opposed … but if it is a choice freely made than one must defend the ‘right’ to veil. I wholeheartedly disagree…. There may be women who ‘freely choose’ to genitally mutilate their daughters or immolate themselves on their husband’s funeral pyre but that does not mean that we must then defend the right of women to do so or defend the practice of Suttee or FGM….
“The veil is not a piece of cloth or clothing, though it is often compared to miniskirts or other ‘lewd’ forms of clothing the rest of us unveiled women seem to wear. Just as the straight jacket or body bag are not pieces of clothing. Just as the chastity belt was not a piece of clothing. Just as the Star of David pinned on Jews during the holocaust was not just a bit of cloth….
“And this is why the chador, burqa and neqab must be banned – to defend women’s rights…. Because it is unacceptable for women to be segregated in the 21st century; and for women to walk around in a mobile prison or body bag because religion deems that they be kept invisible…. The hijab or any conspicuous religious symbol must be banned from the state and education and relegated to the private sphere. This helps to ensure that government offices and officials from judges, to clerks, to doctors and nurses are not promoting their religious beliefs and are instead doing their jobs….
“Throughout history, progress and change have come about not by appeasing, apologizing or excusing reaction, but by standing up to it firmly and unequivocally. This is what has to be against Islam, political Islam and the veil. We have to state loud and clear that sexual apartheid has no place in the 21st century; enough is enough.”
Tatchell and Pim Fortuyn
Over at Aaronovitch Watch, Bruschetta Boy makes some astute points in response to Peter Tatchell’s Democratiya article:
“… he is surely aware that being nasty to minority groups, who in general have a hell of a time, is something that you have to do very carefully indeed if you’re not going to cross the line into ordinary garden-variety racism. I can’t find any reference on the internet to Peter’s views about Pim Fortuyn and would be grateful for any pointers since I’m sure that he’s said something about him. It’s not exactly as if we’re in any danger of the List Peter Tatchell becoming a big force in British anti-immigrant politics, but Fortuyn does represent the far end of where it’s possible to take this line of reasoning, and those people on the Left who don’t feel comfortable in having a go at immigrants for this reason aren’t scared of nothing. A quick glance at the notorious ‘Harry’s Place’ comments boxes shows how careful you have to be about the kind of mates you tend to pick up if you make a career out of saying that we are in danger of being overwhelmed by aliens whose values are inimical to our own.”
Tatchell on the cultural relativism of the Left (part 398)
“Large sections of liberal and left opinion have gone soft on their commitment to universal human rights. They rightly condemn the excesses of UK and US government policy, but rarely speak out against oppressors who are non-white or adherents of minority faiths. There are no mass protests against female genital mutilation, forced marriages, the stoning of women and gender apartheid in the Middle East. A perverse interpretation of multiculturalism has resulted in race and religion ruling the roost in a tainted hierarchy of oppression. In the name of ‘unity’ against Islamophobia and racism, much of the left tolerates misogyny and homophobia in minority communities….
“Some liberals and left-wingers mute their condemnation of intolerance when it emanates from non-white people; whereas they would strenuously denounce similar prejudice if it was being vented by whites against blacks or by Christians against Muslims…. Fundamentalist Muslim clerics are permitted to endorse the so-called ‘honour’ killing of unchaste women; whereas any woman who dared advocate violent retribution against Islamist misogynists would soon find herself in court…. Respect for diversity has sometimes degenerated into the toleration of abuses; as when the anti-fascist left embraced the Muslim leader Iqbal Sacranie after he denounced gays as immoral, harmful and diseased….
“The anti-racist struggle has been weakened by the excesses of the ‘diversity agenda’…. part of the Asian community has split off to identify primarily as Muslim, distancing themselves from other Asians – Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and atheists. This fragmentation has been endorsed by some on the left, who have colluded with communalism and the division of the Asian community on religious lines…. Multiculturalism can thus foster a ‘Balkanisation’ of the humanitarian agenda, fracturing communities according to their different cultural identities, values and traditions.”
Peter Tatchell in the Independent, 22 March 2007
Of course, some of us might argue that the anti-racist struggle has been rather more seriously damaged by white ex-leftists like Tatchell who spend a disproportionate amount of their time campaigning against people with black or brown skin.
Has the veil been banned?
Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain argues, that while “there does appear to be a shift in the advice the government is giving to our schools and while a signal is being sent that those schools which, following a consultation with parents and governors, decide to forbid the niqab will be supported, the Sun is wrong to suggest that there will be a blanket ban.”
Inayat continues: “The fact is, however, there are fewer than a dozen schoolgirls who actually wear the niqab out of half a million state school pupils. Still, it will no doubt have helped Mr Johnson – a contender for the post of deputy leader of the Labour party – to look as if he was being just as tough on this issue as his rival, Jack Straw.”
Sun backs Johnson over niqab
Veils will be banned in schools to help pupils learn and to keep them safe, Education Secretary Alan Johnson has ruled.
His decision will affect thousands of Muslim girls who wear clothing like the full niqab. He will publish details of his guidance to headteachers in the Commons today. The wearing of full-length robes may also be affected.
A source said: “Veils mean teachers can’t see the face. It’s a problem for security and it’s also a problem for learning because the teacher can’t see whether or not a child is understanding what’s being taught. A full face veil means you can’t see who the person is.”
Ministers will say it is also dangerous under health and safety regulations. A Bunsen burner could easily set light to a face veil in a science lab, Mr Johnson will point out.
School heads will be told to consult parents before going ahead with the ban. They will tell parents they CAN uphold religious traditions provided they do not put security and learning in jeopardy. The rules will also apply to faith schools.
But Mr Johnson is convinced there will be no serious opposition to the move.
In an editorial comment the paper welcomes a ban, asserting that the niqab is “divisive” and “provocative”.
The Guardian reports that this news was “leaked in advance to the Sun by Mr Johnson” – which gives you some indication of the audience he hopes his policy will appeal to, and how he wants to spin it. He’s certainly won the admiration of one BNP blogger, who hails Johnson’s proposals as “Some good news for once!”
See also the BBC poll on whether the veil should be banned in schools.
Ruth Kelly on tackling terrorism
Secretary of state for communities Ruth Kelly has an article in the Observer justifying the government’s decision to shift resources away from the genuinely representative Muslim Council of Britain to organisations that will be less vocal in criticising the role British foreign policy in inciting terrorism.
Significantly, the Sufi Muslim Council – which Kelly was enthusiastically promoting only last year – doesn’t rate a mention, and now appears to have been rejected in favour of the British Muslim Forum (or the “Muslim British Forum”, as Kelly prefers to call it) as the government’s favoured partner in the Muslim community.
This procedure bears more than a passing resemblance to the practice of colonial governors within the British Empire, who would appoint their favoured individuals to represent the “natives”.