More raving from Nick Cohen

Anyone who fails to denounce Tariq Ramadan is an apologist for Islamist totalitarianism. Well, so Nick Cohen claims in Standpoint magazine. Along with his hero Paul Berman, whose writings provide the inspiration for his paranoid ravings against Islamism, Cohen shows how certain self-styled defenders of Enlightenment rationalism have in fact taken leave of reason.

Germany: FDP politician calls for ban on veil

The liberal parliamentarian Serkan Toeren has demanded a ban on the burqa in Germany. Toeren, who represents the Free Democratic Party (FDP) in the Bundestag, says it was time to have an open debate on the issue. Toeren, whose constituency is in Lower Saxony, said the full body covering worn by some Muslim women, obscuring the face, posed a threat to public security, and undermined the individuals.

“Wearing a full-body veil like the burqa is a breach of human dignity.” Toeren told the German daily Leipziger Volkszeitung. Women who choose to wear the burqa voluntarily cannot be accepted either, because individuals cannot control human dignity.”

According to Toeren, the burqa robs women of their dignity and freedom: “It is supposed to make women more or less invisible, and not present. The burqa is a mobile women’s prison.”

The FDP spokesman for integration, who is of Turkish origin, does not accept religious reasons as justification for wearing the full-body veil. “The burqa is not a religious, but rather a political symbol against our state order and a means of suppressing women,” said Toeren.

Deutsche Welle, 20 August 2010

Islamism, Ramadan and Qaradawi: why Paul Berman is wrong

Marc_LynchIn The Flight of the Intellectuals, Paul Berman argues that it is not violent Islamists who pose the greatest danger to liberal societies in the West but rather their so-called moderate cousins, such as Tariq Ramadan.

Such a reading of contemporary Islamism, however, misses the many nuances of the movement and the real battles between reformers and Salafists.

The ever-excellent Marc Lynch takes on Berman over Islamism, Tariq Ramadan and Qaradawi.

Foreign Affairs, July-August 2010

Martin Bright is not an Islamophobe

Martin Bright 3Well, so Bright claims on his Spectator blog. He objects to Ken Livingstone having described him in a recent interview as “a bit of an Islamophobe” (which some of us might argue was a bit of an understatement). Bright writes:

“The charge of Islamophobe is a serious one, that could have serious consequences for my future work. I will be writing to Ken Livingstone to ask him to withdraw this defamatory and groundless statement. I hope he does the decent thing and apologises.”

As we have repeatedly pointed out, when speaking at a FOSIS conference at City Hall in August 2005 Bright stated that he saw nothing wrong with Islamophobia because there is “a lot in Islam to be fearful of”. He got roundly booed and in the following discussion was sharply criticised for his comments.

It is true that, in reply to the discussion, Bright backed off and conceded that he shouldn’t have made that remark. But the fact is that he did make it. And there were a hundred or so participants at the conference who can confirm that.

Bear in mind that this is the same Martin Bright who made a witch-hunting documentary, broadcast early in 2008 during the run-up to the London mayoral election, in which he accused Ken Livingstone, among other things, of being an alcoholic.

Bright reserves the right to mount such disgraceful attacks on his political opponents but comes over all pompous and self-righteous when his opponents criticise him in return. As we’ve noted in the past, this is a common feature of Islamophobes – they can dish it out but they can’t take it.

So here at Islamophobia Watch we have every confidence that Ken will do the decent thing and tell Bright to get stuffed.

Who’s Afraid of Tariq Ramadan?

“Ramadan, it is true, is neither a Hirsi Ali nor a Salman Rushdie, who are both self-declared apostates. They have left the community and call to those trapped within. In contrast, Ramadan is an internal critic, to use Michael Walzer’s term. Internal critics push their community to change, but they do so from within it, out of love. To follow Berman is to say that Muslims in their mainstream intellectual and religious traditions do not deserve internal critics. They deserve only apostates. As communism in another era had its Arthur Koestlers and Leszek Kolakowskis, so Islamic orthodoxy must have its Rushdies and Hirsi Alis.”

Andrew March responds to Paul Berman’s book The Flight of the Intellectuals.

American Prospect, 3 May 2010

Glenn Greenwald on religion and censorship

South ParkGlenn Greenwald replies to an op-ed piece by Ross Douthat in the New York Times which claims that “the ‘South Park’ case is particularly illuminating … it’s a reminder that Islam is just about the only place where we draw any lines at all … Our culture has few taboos that can’t be violated, and our establishment has largely given up on setting standards in the first place. Except where Islam is concerned.”.

Greenwald presents an effective demolition of the idea that “threat-induced censorship is a uniquely Islamic practice”.

Being anti-Islam is not racist claims Ian McEwan (as do the EDL, of course)

Ian McEwan has insisted that criticising Islam is not racist and blamed left-leaning thinkers for “closing down the debate”. The Booker Prize winner said those who claimed judging Muslims was “de facto” racism were playing a “poisonous argument”. McEwan, 61, the best-selling author of novels including Amsterdam, Atonement and Saturday, thought many in the left wrongly took this position because they had an anti-Americanism shared with Islamists. In an interview with today’s Telegraph Magazine, McEwan said:

“Chunks of left-of-centre opinion have tried to close down the debate by saying that if you were to criticise Islam as a thought system you are a de facto racist. That is a poisonous argument. They do it on the basis that they see an ally in their particular forms of anti-Americanism. So these radical Muslims are the shock-troops for the armchair Left who don’t want to examine too closely the rest of the package – the homophobia, the misogyny and so on.”

Daily Telegraph, 13 March 2010

Andrew Gilligan – not a harmless democrat

What is going on at the Guardian? Following on from the paper’s full-page splash on the “hijab gates” myth, it now gives space to Andrew Gilligan at Comment is Free to continue his witch-hunt of the Islamic Forum Europe.

And speaking of the “hijab gates”, over on his Telegraph blog Gilligan reports that Tower Hamlets Council has temporarily suspended plans for the Brick Lane arches, described by Gilligan as “a £1.85 million exercise in ‘religious triumphalism'”, pending further consultation. Gilligan interprets this as a sign that “cracks have started to appear” among the “Islamic fundamentalists” who have supposedly seized control of the council.

Tower Hamlets Council leader replies to ‘hijab gates’ nonsense

Lutfur Rahman, leader of Tower Hamlets Council, replies to the Guardian‘s full-page scaremongering article, “Brick Lane plan for hijab gates angers residents“, in which bigoted residents were given a platform to claim, entirely inaccurately, that the proposed new arches in Brick Lane are “undoubtedly faith-specific to Islam” and “both Islamic and representing a specifically conservative form of Islam”.

He writes: “We would never go into this kind of programme with the blinkered intention of favouring one section of the community – which, judging by some of the Islamophobic reaction on your website, is clearly the impression left in the minds of many people reading your original article.”

Guardian, 26 February 2010

Brick Lane plan for ‘hijab gates’ angers residents

Brick Lane archesThe Guardian of all papers endorses the myth of the “hijab gates” in Brick Lane. Even the Daily Express had the honesty to at least quote the architect, David Gallagher, who was responsible for designing the arches, as saying:

“We were briefed to design something that celebrates the demographic changes of the area. The arches were not designed to look like hijabs. Huguenot and Jewish women wore headscarves. The arches are just modern curves and they will have symbols on them reflecting the different immigrant communities. Having the Star of David on them is one option we have considered, but no decision has been made yet.”

Update:  See also “Tracey Emin leads protest at ‘hijab gates’ for Brick Lane”, Evening Standard, 16 February 2010

Further update:  The relevant section of the Design and Access Statement can be consulted here.

Another update:  See Lutfur Rahman, “These are not ‘hijab gates’ – they represent the whole community”, Guardian, 26 February 2010