Andrew Murray replies to Nick Cohen

“Cohen’s central charge against the left, by which he in effect means the anti-war movement, is that we compromised our principles by demonstrating alongside people who are not liberals or socialists. This is buttressed by the creation of a spurious ‘Islamofascism’, which no one has yet defined satisfactorily, and no conceivable definition of which fits the many Muslims I have campaigned alongside. Its promiscuous use by the pro-war party in Britain amounts to little more than an attempt at political intimidation directed against an already racially oppressed minority…. In his demonology, all the baddies are of the the same faith. Any of you out there who were proud to march with hundreds of thousands of British Muslims in 2003 – you were fooled. In the world of Nick Cohen, they really want to stone you to death for adultery.”

Andrew Murray, chair of the Stop the War Coalition, responds to Nick Cohen’s new book What’s Left?

Comment is Free, 1 February 2007

MCB = BNP, says Nick Cohen

“The BBC and Channel 4 News regularly present the leaders of the Muslim Council of Britain, Muslim Association of Britain and Muslim Public Affairs Committee as the unelected spokesmen for the Muslim community without any mention of their politics, but would never dream of presenting Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, as a spokesman for the white community.”

Nick Cohen in the Evening Standard.

Continue reading

Kamm backs Cohen on ‘Left-Islamist alliance’, dismisses Islamophobia

Oliver Kamm“The alliance of Islamists and Leninists that makes up the Respect coalition is not a dalliance born of opportunism. It reflects an extraordinary process in which part of the left has ended up arguing for what by any objective standards are reactionary positions: promotion of religious obscurantism in place of secularism; segregation of the sexes at public events; abridgement of free speech in deference to the sensibilities of those who claim themselves victims of the phantasm of ‘Islamophobia’….”

Oliver Kamm enthusiastically endorses Nick Cohen’s thesis.

Comment is Free, 30 January 2007

Younger Muslims ‘more political’

Young Muslims are much more likely than their parents to be attracted to political forms of Islam, a think tank survey has suggested. Support for Sharia law, Islamic schools and wearing the veil is much stronger among younger Muslims, a poll for the centre-right Policy Exchange found. The report’s lead author, Munira Mirza, blamed government policy for a growing split between Muslims and non-Muslims.

BBC News, 29 January 2007


Yes, following on from Martin Bright and When Progressives Treat with Reactionaries, it’s another “liberal” opponent of Islamism and multiculturalism making common cause with right-wing Islamophobes via Policy Exchange. Interestingly, Munira Mirza is part of the tendency around Spiked Online and the Institute of Ideas, which was formerly the Revolutionary Communist Party. Mind you, the libertarian individualism promoted by the ex-RCP these days fits in quite well with Tory values.

For further analysis see Rolled Up Trousers, 29 January 2007 and BBC News, 29 January 2007

The report has been applauded by the fascists as “yet more proof of the growing danger to the UK from Muslim separatism”. See BNP news article, 29 January 2007

The Policy Exchange report Living Apart Together: British Muslims and the paradox of multiculturalism can be downloaded here.

Cameron: Radical Islam is mirror-image of neo-Nazis

Cameron - Radical IslamDavid Cameron today attacked radical Muslims as “the mirror image” of the neo-Nazi British National Party. He used a keynote speech on race and integration to signal plans for tough measures against extremists on both sides.

Attacking the BNP for preaching “pure hate”, he went on: “And those who seek a Sharia state, or special treatment and a separate law for British Muslims are, in many ways, the mirror image of the BNP.”

Speaking this afternoon at the New Testament Church of God in Handsworth, Birmingham, Mr Cameron was set to say that many barriers to integration were the fault of politicians. Multiculturalism, he was due to say, was “manipulated” to separate communities rather than help them live together.

Evening Standard, 29 January 2007

See also BBC News, 29 January 2007

For the text of Cameron’s speech, see here.

For Osama Saeed’s comments see Rolled Up Trousers, 29 January 2007

The appalling Martin Bright declares his support for Cameron (“His comments on radical Islam being the mirror image of the BNP are spot on”) at the New Statesman, 29 January 2007

For the fascists’ response see BNP news article, 29 January 2007

Pickled Politics on Clash conference

Qaradawi and MayorSunny Hundal offer his take on last Saturday’s Clash of Civilisations conference in London. It’s a reasonable and quite balanced account (certainly in comparison with right-wing pieces like this). But Sunny spoils it with an ignorant attack on Yusuf al-Qaradawi, writing: “Qaradawi certainly isn’t likely to lead a call for Muslim women to be given more rights in the Middle East.”

Pickled Politics, 23 January 2007

Which shows how much Sunny knows. As one writer has pointed out: “Barbara Stowasser, author of the book Women in the Qur’an and a leading academic expert on Islam, argues that Qaradawi’s [Al Jazeera] broadcasts have been crucial in overturning the conservative Islamic view that women should be restricted to domestic duties and play no part in politics and public life generally. She applauds his ‘vision of a new, more gender-equal Islamic society’ and stresses ‘his role as both exponent and catalyst of a new groundswell of Muslim public opinion in favour of women’s Islamic political rights’.”

Labour Left Briefing, November 2004

I looked up the source for this and it would appear to be Barbara Stowasser’s article “Old Shaykhs, Young Women, and the Internet: The Rewriting of Women’s Political Rights in Islam”, published in the journal The Muslim World in 2001. Perhaps Sunny could check it out.

Hitch confronts ‘the Islamist menace’

HitchensIn the Winter 2007 issue of City Journal Christopher Hitchens reviews Mark Steyn’s book America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, not uncritically. He does take issue with Steyn’s sneers at Martin Amis, pointing out that liberals like Amis share much of Steyn’s hostility towards Islam and Islamism.

Hitchens writes: “Mark Steyn’s book is essentially a challenge to the bien-pensants among us: an insistence that we recognize an extraordinary threat and thus the possible need for extraordinary responses. He need not pose as if he were the only one with the courage to think in this way.” To prove his point Hitchens quotes Amis’s vile anti-Muslim diatribe from last September – which proposes subjecting the Muslim community as a whole to travel bans, racial profiling, strip searches and deportation – while at the same time describing his chum as “profoundly humanistic and open-minded”.

(To be fair, Hitchens does baulk at a statement from Sam Harris, who has written: “The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.” Hitch characterises this as an “irresponsible remark”. You could say.)

The basic problem with a lot of liberals, Hitchens says, is that “they cannot shake their subliminal identification of the Muslim religion with the wretched of the earth: the black- and brown-skinned denizens of what we once called the ‘Third World’.” Furthermore, this inexplicable sympathy with the oppressed has given rise to “the stupid neologism ‘Islamophobia’, which aims to promote criticism of Islam to the gallery of special offenses associated with racism”.

Like Steyn, Hitchens warns against “the Islamist project of a ‘soft’ conquest of host countries”. He tells us that “Europe’s multicultural authorities, many of its welfare agencies, and many of its churches treat the most militant Muslims as the minority’s ‘real’ spokesmen … encouraging the sensation that many in the non-Muslim Establishment have a kind of death wish”. With evident approval, Hitch cites Steyn’s complaint that “most of the Christian churches have collapsed into compromise: choosing to speak of Muslims as another ‘faith community’ … and reserving their real condemnation for American policies in the war against terrorism”.

Overall, despite minor criticisms, Hitchens endorses “Steyn’s salient point that demography and cultural masochism, especially in combination, are handing a bloodless victory to the forces of Islamization”.

Head scarf ban for Antwerp city counter clerks raises protests

A head scarf ban for municipal counter clerks in the northern port city of Antwerp has raised protest from Muslims and women activists, officials said Tuesday.

The city council decided late Monday that civil servants dealing directly with the public should not wear visible religious symbols like a Muslim head scarf or a Christian cross. Some 150 mostly Muslim women protested the decision late Monday and the organizers said they were considering further action.

Antwerp has been a stronghold of the far-right Flemish Interest party, but it was defeated in local elections last October by the socialists, who had run a campaign stressing the multicultural makeup of Belgium’s second-largest city.

Opponents of the ban were disappointed that the coalition of socialists, liberals and Christian democrats who run the city council had outlawed head scarves for frontdesk staff. “It was a surprise, especially after a campaign like that,” said Sophie De Graeve of the women’s rights group VOK.

Associated Press, 16 January 2007

How Australia confronts ‘militant Islam’

Gerard Henderson recommends the hostile attitude to “radical Islam” adopted by John Howard’s right-wing government in Australia:

“… the approach advocated for Britain by Martin Bright in his important Policy Exchange pamphlet When Progressives Treat With Reactionaries is consistent with what has occurred Down Under over the past five years. Put briefly, the Australian system takes Islamist ideology seriously. It does not deal with radical Islamists. It confronts extremists’ views, rather than seeking to co-opt ‘pragmatic’ radicals who happen not to be in favour of the use of violence in the here and now for purely tactical reasons.”

Times, 15 January 2007

Freedom of expression for the BNP … but not Hizb ut-Tahrir

Simone Clarke protestSunny Hundal is back from his hols and immediately launches into an attack on last week’s UAF demonstration: “A mis-guided group of people held a protest on Friday against the ballerina Simone Clarke and her continued employment by the English National Ballet.”

Sunny assures us that “there is no evidence that Simone Clarke was ‘using her position as a platform for the far-right party’.” Well, apart from a double-page spread in the Mail on Sunday headlined “The BNP Ballerina”, of course, in which Clarke states:

“Sometimes it feels as though the BNP are the only ones willing to take a stand. I have been labelled a racist and a fascist because I have a view on immigration – and I mean mass immigration … Britain isn’t really very big. And it’s an island. I really cannot see the logic of allowing so many people in…. I don’t regret anything. I will stay a member…. I’ve never been clearer in my head that I’m moving in the right direction and at the right time.”

Sunny takes an uncompromising stand in defence of freedom of expression: “I’m opposed to people getting persecuted for being members of organisations that are universally disliked but not illegal”.

So, a clear commitment to opposing people being sacked from their jobs on the basis of their political affiliation, then? No, apparently not: “I did earlier support the Guardian firing HuT’s Dilpazier Aslam because he was clearly trying to influence others with his views without declaring his membership and because they were incompatible with the Guardian‘s own liberal leanings”!

Pickled Politics, 14 January 2007

See also Karen Chouhan’s open letter to David Lammy: BLINK website, 15 January 2007