Little Bulldogs

Lib Dems and Racial Profiling

2009-10-01T20:44:00.002+01:00

A local paper in Watford reports that a Christian man received a card from the local Lib Dems celebrating the end of Ramadan. Javid Suleman believes that the only reason he received one is because his name sounds Muslim. He says:

Somehow they categorised me as a Muslim and the question is how and why. I personally think that's ethically wrong. You have to abide by certain processes and categorising people by their ethnicity, colour or religion is the wrong thing to do. I asked my neighbours if they got it and of course, they didn't. They're not of Asian decent so they definitely didn't get this.

A Lib Dem spokesman said:

The data we use is based on the electoral roll and MOSAIC data, which is a 'best guess'. This is the type of data used by direct marketing firms. We then go through every name manually and remove the ones that we know not to be Muslim. Inevitably there are some that do go out to non-Muslims but when they contact us we then correct our data.

Are they determining which ones are not Muslim based solely on what their surname sounds like? If so, isn't this just a form of racial profiling?

Fisking Robert Spencer

2009-10-01T10:12:00.004+01:00

I wrote on Monday how MPACUK was trying to turn the peaceful praying of a few thousand Muslims at Capitol Hill into a political event. Now it's the turn of the other side. Robert Spencer has written a piece about the event trying desperately to spin it into something it wasn't. Spencer's point is to claim that the event was a "missed opportunity" at which the organisers should have spent their time denouncing terrorism. He tries very hard to make us believe that they didn't because they don't disagree with terrorism and that, in fact, they want to impose Sharia Law on the United States. Here is a fisking of the main points from the article:

Organizer Hassen Abdellah had explained before the event that it was designed "to show we are not terrorists, but that most of us Muslims here love America and abide by its laws."

Here Spencer tries to give the impression that the event was organised primarily as a protest against Islamic terrorism. If that were the case then not denouncing terrorism is a bit odd. But it simply isn't true. Here is what Newsweek reported, more accurately:

The gathering is not supposed to be political, Abdellah said in an interview. No placards or signs allowed. No major famous imams or popular celebrities scheduled so far. No real agenda other than to pray together. "We want this to be purely about Islam," he said. "We want to change the perception of Islam to show we are not terrorists, but that most of us Muslims here love America and abide by its laws."

So far from being an event to oppose terrorism it was, from the start, supposed to be a non-political event. The aim was never to be "Muslims against terrorism" but rather to be "Muslims as people". The organisers wanted people to see that Muslims are not all about terrorism all the time and this is what they did. 3,000 Muslim people prayed peacefully on Capitol Hill and nothing more. But to some, it seems, Muslims are all about terrorism and therefore everything they do must either be supporting terrorism or opposing it. There can never be anything neutral and this is where Spencer falls over the line into anti-Islam racism/hatred.

If the Islam on Capitol Hill event was really supposed to show that Muslims were not terrorists, wouldn't it have been a good opportunity to denounce those jihad plots and the Islamic doctrines of warfare and supremacism that inspired them in the first place?

No, Robert. Clearly Spencer is starting with the assumption that all Muslims are terrorists unless they declare otherwise. From that point of view in order to show that Muslims are not terrorists they must say so. But for the rest of us who start with the assumption that Muslims are not terrorists they need do nothing to show us that they are not.

But Hassen Abdellah, asked on the morning of the prayer meeting to denounce these plots, demurred, saying that the event was not meant for denunciations.

No link to a source but here is what he told Fox News in an interview:

Muslims, individually and collectively, repudiate these acts, but I don't think tomorrow is the place for us to repudiate specific acts. Tomorrow is about our faith; it's not about politics. Because if we involve politics in the Jummah prayer, then what we'll do is only bring on other controversies. We're trying to bring people together.

Hardly refusing to address the question simply not wanting to bring politics into the event which is what they said from the start.

Yet Brooklyn imam Abdul Malik, who preached the sermon at the gathering, found ample time to denounce the immorality of American popular culture and indulge in several oblique denunciations of Christianity. He emphatically recommended Islam as the cure for America's ills - and this was a political prescription, not solely a religious one.

Again no source for this other than Spencer's claim. But here is what he did tell the crowd:

But I will say something it took me my whole adult life to come to: America is not perfect, but I want to tell the truth: It is one of the best places in the world to live.

Hardly sounds like a raving Islamist!

I spoke to several Muslims at the event; all said they'd like to see Islamic law, Sharia, come to the United States - a sentiment rife with political implications that remain a matter of indifference on the part of officials sworn to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.

Once more just the word of Robert Spencer to go on and I'm sure it is easy to find people in a crowd of 3,000 who would like to see at least elements of Sharia adopted in the US. Did any of these people suggest that Sharia should be imposed? If I went into a crowd of Christians I bet I could find several who would say that abortion should be banned and homosexuals locked up. In fact, some Christian protesters at the event were shouting:

Abortion is Murder!! Homosexuality is Sin!! Islam is a Lie!!

So even if true it indicates very little. Ask any religious Jews whether they want to see the Messiah arrive and Jewish Law return and they will say "yes". Isn't it easy to say that Jews want to see Jewish law come to the United States?

Islam on Capitol Hill was supposed to show that Muslims are not terrorists. Yet not a word was said at the event about the Muslims arrested for terrorist activity that same week, or any assurances given that the assembled Muslims were working to root out this problem from the Islamic community.

Again, Spencer starts with the assumption that all Muslims are terrorists or supporters unless they say otherwise. In reality, Muslims are not terrorists and therefore need not say or do anything to prove that. The event was never supposed to be political, it was designed to show Muslims as people and for some that is impossible. Muslims are all about terrorism for Spencer - they either denounce it or they support it.

What's more, the Islamic terrorists' stated goal is the imposition of Sharia, with its denial of free speech and legal equality, and that seemed to be just fine with most of those [my italics] who prayed Jummah prayer on Capitol Hill on Friday.

Where did this come from? Even if we accept Spencer's account that the "several Muslims" he spoke to were foaming-at-the-mouth Islamists he hardly spoke to most of the people there.

In conclusion, Spencer bemoans the lack of any specific denunciation because for him Muslims are all about terrorism. They must denounce it every time they gather or else they support it.

It was hardly a comforting message to give to free Americans.

On the contrary - it is very comforting to free Americans to know that Muslims are people; it just doesn't fit with Spencer's world view.

Some News

2009-10-01T08:44:00.002+01:00

The Sun is reporting that 5 convicted terrorists have been sent back to prison for breaching their parole conditions within the last few months. We mentioned one of these this time last week. They also report that convicted terrorists will be made to sign a "Terrorists' Offenders Register" and could face prison for five years if they fail to inform authorities when they move house or leave the country. This, like the sex offenders' register, is, I think, wrong. We must surely consider anyone who has served their sentence to now be innocent of all crimes they committed before. (full story here, The Sun)

Expect this to be blown out of proportion by those with an agenda. A house in Swansea has been used for Muslim prayers for 20 years although it only had planning permission to be used for teaching not prayer. They are now expected to get permission to use it for prayer too despite a petition against it. 132 people opposed the plan claiming it would cause traffic and disturbance. Those with an agenda may well claim this as a sign of the powers-that-be bending over backwards to accommodate Islamic extremists (though without providing proof that these people are extremists) while the rest of us should perhaps politely point out that this is not the only such case of planning permission being given to people who have used a property for many years without it and that the claims of increased traffic seem ludicrous when there will not be any actual change in the use of the building. (full store here, the BBC)

Ed Balls apparently wants to ban teachers from being members of the BNP. Though the BNP are racist and vile they are a legal political party in the UK. If the Government bans teachers who are BNP members that is a gross breach of civil liberties and, while we face tough times, we must never surrender those. If it is legal to be a member of the BNP then one must be able to be a member without the State punishing one for it. (full story here, The Independent)

One Step Behind

2009-09-30T15:10:00.003+01:00

As I mentioned I'm reading a series of articles by Adrian Morgan about the rise of the EDL and co. In it he offers a transcript of an interview with John Denham (taken from the BBC Today programme from September 12th). According to the transcript, Denham said:

What we're seeing at the moment is small, but I think we do need to take it seriously enough to say that there are obviously people who would be provocative, hope that there's not just a reaction but there's an over-reaction and then people blame the people who over-react and the situation gets out of control.

While he may be talking about the protests of the EDL and others, his statement makes far more sense when read about Al Muhajiroun's protest in Luton back in March. That was the latest in a series of a protests designed to provoke an over-reaction and this time it worked.

The Government clearly understands the game being played here, but they're one step behind meaning that though they know that the danger lies with blaming those who over-react and not those who are doing the provoking, that is precisely what they have done. Had they acted earlier and stronger against Al Muhajiroun we would not be seeing the rise of the EDL now.

Proving My Point on Prevent

2009-09-30T14:33:00.002+01:00

Earlier in the week I argued that the Prevent strategy should be scrapped. The main reason was that the State should not be in the businesses of funding one idea over another or trying to encourage its citizens to adopt one set of beliefs over any other. However, I also made the more practical point that Prevent can never do what it hopes to do.

Prevent hopes to give funding to groups that oppose Islamism in the hope that these groups will discourage the growth of Islamic extremism in the UK. It seems to me that this can never work because any organisation receiving money from the British State will be ignored and shunned by anyone who harbours ill-feeling towards the British State.

Engage (the Islamist group) has a piece today that underlines this point. Talking about the Quilliam Foundation (an Islamic group set up to fight against Islamic extremism) they say:

As ENGAGE readers will be well aware, Ed Husain and Maajid Nawaz of the Quilliam Foundation have been funded by the Home Office and the Foreign Office to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds to help promote the idea that violent extremism is the result of 'Islamist ideology' and of course has nothing whatsoever to do with our own violent warmongering policies abroad. The Quilliam Foundation are openly regarded with utter contempt and derision by UK Muslims...

Is there any point funding a group to tackle extremism in the Muslim communities when the very act of funding them undermines their ability to do the tackling?

Honour Attack in Burnely?

2009-09-30T10:58:00.002+01:00

According to The Asian News:

Mohammed Islam, 48, struck Shadiya Islam repeatedly, threatened to pour acid in her face and told her he would kill her after the police arrived.

According to the prosecution this was the result of his daughter's declaration that she intended to move in with her boyfriend. If that is true (and since the defence was so weak it probably is) then this was the first step on the route to a possible "honour killing".

As a side note, this is quite worrying:

Jawad Babar, defending, said [Mohammed] Islam was quite liberal and had not imposed any major sanctions on his children. They had gone to school, he allowed them to work and they were free to chose their partners.

Allowing your kids to go to school and choose who to marry is not exactly the preserve of liberals. Makes one wonder what he would consider normal.

Some Thoughts

2009-09-30T09:02:00.004+01:00

For those interested in the EDL and co I've just come across a series of articles written by Adrian Morgan on an American site called Family Security Matters. Not read them yet but worth noting for future reading.

On another note two websites have gone down. Islamist site Engage has apparently exceeded its Bandwidth while the BNP site is simply not loading. Apparently this is not the first time the BNP site has gone down, see here about it in May this year.

MCB - Scrap Prevent and Change Foreign Policy

2009-09-29T18:12:00.003+01:00

A favourite line of Islamists is that all Islamist terrorism is the result of foreign policy and that to end terrorism we must change our foreign policy to fit in with their demands. In short they advocate that we surrender to the demands of the bombers (or at least some of the demands).

The MCB has put on its website its response to the inquiry about Prevent. They essentially call for it to be scrapped and say that it could never work anyway because foreign policy must change. The key bits are paragraphs 7 and 8:

7. Significant amounts of public funds have been invested in the Prevent programme. The monitoring and intelligence gathering agenda of Prevent are matters that best reside within the National Security Strategy. It was an error to have contaminated the way a department like Communities and Local Government is publicly perceived by placing national security concerns in its orbit. Community development and cohesion policies ought to apply to all communities fairly and equitably, based on need.

8. While the focus should be on a criminal and policing strategic response, the MCB appreciates the need to explore the underlying causes. However, there seems to have been an expectation that community bodies, by showing ‘leadership’, can wave a magic wand and ask young people to remain oblivious to international political developments at the root of the frustration – not least the injustice in Palestine that has lasted well-nigh sixty years.

If there's one thing we mustn't do to stop terrorism it is to give in to the demands of the terrorists. And groups that shout from the sidelines that we should surrender should be compared to the bloke who watches his mate punch you in the face then suggests that you should pay up to stop it happening again.

Islamists Push "Jewish Control"

2009-09-29T12:20:00.005+01:00

As we reported a few days ago the Jewish Board of Deputies (a communal organisation) wrote a submission to the Commons' Communities and Local Government Committee for their inquiry into the 'Prevent' strategy. (see here, and here for my thoughts on Prevent). In the submission they suggested that it was probably best not to give money to Islamist organisations as part of a plan to stop the spread of Islamism. Among the groups mentioned was the Muslim Council of Britain and this has annoyed other Islamists. Their response - push the angle that Jews are too powerful.

At Engage (the Islamist organisation run by MCB spokesman Inayat Bunglawala) the story ran under the headline:

UK Jewish body sets conditions for government engaging with MCB

Is it reading too much to consider the title to be deliberately misleading with the aim of giving the impression that the "Jewish body" is somehow forcing a change rather than simply advising one?

And then we have MPACUK with their headline:

Islamophobia within the Jewish community questioned as JBoD attacks MCB

It doesn't say who's doing the questioning so we can assume that it is MPACUK itself. Moreover, note that the headline talks of the "Jewish community" then the article starts of talking about the "Jewish Zionist community" before accusing the Jewish community as a whole of having a problem with Islamophobia.

In the last paragraph of the article they also push the "Jewish control" line:

It is the height of arrogance for a Jewish group to tell our community what political views we can and cannot hold, it is also a sign of its immense political power that it can dictate to the Government who they should talk to, but most telling it shows that rampant Islamophobia within the community has reached its most powerful groups and governs its policies towards our community.

In the minds of Islamists, it seems, being Jewish and mentioning your concern about the funding of Islamists by an anti-Islamist programme and this amounts to dictating to the Government in a demonstration of your control.

MPACUK Attempts to Hijack Peaceful Prayer

2009-09-28T23:46:00.004+01:00

3,000 Muslims gathered on Friday in America to pray at Capitol Hill. The organisers say this on their website:

The objective of this gathering is to invite the Muslim Communities and friends of Islam to express and illustrate the wonderful diversity of Islam. We intend to manifest Islam's majestic spiritual principals as revealed by Allah to our beloved prophet Muhammad (PEACE BE UPON HIM) of Arabia. Likewise; we intend to inspire a new generation of Muslim to work for the greater good of all people. We shall serve all people, regardless of race, religion or national origin.

Moreover, Fox News reports:

The rally is intended to be all about prayer, and no political speeches or signs will be allowed, said the event's organizer, Hassen Abdellah, president of the Dar-ul-Islam mosque in Elizabeth, N.J.

Another organiser said:

This is not a protest, it is a day of prayer, of devotion, hoping that we can work ... for the betterment of the world community.

And finally the crowd were informed at the beginning of the event:

We’re here to pray, and not to protest.

Yet, despite all this, MPACUK is trying to hijack the simple and peaceful act of praying for their own ends. They say:

This prayer is a political act

...

We must use politics in all spheres of life to communicate the truth to the world - through mass political acts such as this, to voting, to lobbying the media in order to give a balanced representation of Islam and Muslims.

Not content with stirring up trouble themselves they now seek to spin the acts of other Muslims to their own ends. They might like to read what one of the organisers told the crowd, though:

America is not perfect. But I will say something it took me my whole adult life to come to: America is not perfect, but I want to tell the truth: It is one of the best places in the world to live.

Vicar of Bolton Slams EDL

2009-09-27T16:23:00.003+01:00

The Vicar of Bolton, Rev Matt Thompson, spoke out against the EDL ahead of their proposed "protest" in Manchester. The EDL claim to be fighting only against Islamic extremism with the best of intentions, hoping to uphold all that is great about Britain.

The Reverend said:

What worries me about the English Defence League is when we see pictures of young, white males giving Nazi salutes. This is the kind of hateful ideology their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents fought to defeat.

Quite so. Below is the kind of thing he is talking about (taken from here):

Lest anything think that the snap was not from an EDL march, see the man in black in the background and compare his t-shirt with those available from the EDL shop here.

Islamists and BNP agree - it's the Zionists!

2009-09-27T10:20:00.003+01:00

The emergence and rise of the EDL seems to have caused some confusion and concern. Islamists are confused as to how to react. Up to now it was simple - everything the Islamists didn't like was a Zionist plot. The terrorist attacks carried out by Islamists were Zionist plots. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were Zionist plots. Bad press was Zionists etc etc.

As we all know, when Islamists talk of Zionists they generally mean Jews. And Zionist plots must have someone Jewish involved to be valid. Not normally hard to find since there are plenty of Jewish people working in important posts in the Western World. But the EDL doesn't have Jews involved with it and hence the confusion. No Jews means no Zionist plot so how can Islamists react without sacrificing their simple world view?

Fortunately for them the EDL are also aware that Islamists hate Jews so, as part of their provocation, they march with Israeli flags. And that, you see, is all that Islamists need to draw the link. Hence articles on MPACUK's website entitled "Exposed! The EDL and Its Zionist Connection" and "Far-Right and Zionist Thugs Unite Against Palestinians". The evidence for the connection is the flag:

their [the EDL's] motives were soon revealed by their racist chanting and by the unfurling of an Israeli flag by the EDL skinheads.

and

Together they chanted “We hate Muslims” while waving Israeli flags

Some Islamist groups are more subtle. Take the IHRC as an example. It is not a coincidence, I think, that the images they use to illustrate their articles about the EDL are the ones in which Israeli flags appear prominently. See here and here.

So much for the Islamists, what about the BNP? Well, they're concerned. The EDL are gaining much publicity with their own brand of racism and anti-Muslim feeling. The BNP is worried for two reasons. Firstly they might well lose support as the EDL gains ground because the two have similar aims. Secondly, though, the BNP is terrified that the EDL will make them look bad. They have tried hard over the last decade or more to look respectable and become electable and have sadly, succeeded to some extent. If people link the EDL to the BNP, even just by having common membership, then this could ruin their plans.

So finally the BNP find common ground with the Islamists - they blame it on the Zionists. In an audio message on the website of Simon Darby (the BNP's Deputy Chairman) Griffin explains how he thought the EDL was a conspiracy by the British State (again any excuse to ensure that the EDL being racist doesn't make people realise that the BNP is also racist) but now realises that it is a Zionist false-flag operation. (see here for the audio from about 6.55 and here for some of the transcript).

Once again we find that the common denominator among these three groups of extremists is anti-Semitism. Scary times for Britain's Jews if they find themselves caught in the crossfire.

Casuals United Come Clean

2009-09-27T09:58:00.002+01:00

The group calling itself Casuals United is claiming that it was one of the main reasons for the establishment of the EDL and now acts as a feeder to that group. They say:

If these 30 - 40 [members of Casuals United] had not embarked on the initial anti Choudrey protests, then the EDL and other Defence Leagues would not be where they are now.

...

Casuals United now exists simply as a recruiter for the English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish Defence Leagues. We do not organise demos, we simply use online and otherwise communication networks of lads to drum up support.

This is part of an article starting with the question "What are we all about?" The EDL have gone to great lengths to portray themselves as being simply anti-Islamist. They have no problem with Muslims, apparently, and hate Nazis too. They have nothing to do with the BNP and they're certainly not racists.

But go to their site and you will quickly believe otherwise. The background is a tiled picture of the UK with the words "**** off, we're full". Nothing anti-Islamist about that. That's anti-immigration pure and simple, along the lines of the BNP. But more damning is the article in which they try to explain what they're about. At the end of it they have a video of Shahid Malik giving a speech. In it he explains how there are growing numbers of Muslim MPs and he jokes that one day all MPs will be Muslim (because of the exponential growth in their number) and suggests that one day we might have an MP who happens to be Muslim too.

The reaction?

Do Muslim MP's like Malik really think we are that thick? Our advice is this, NEVER EVER vote for any Muslim MP or Councillor as its clear their main interest "inshalla" is the advancement of Islam and not the interests of this country.

Extrapolating from a joke from one Muslim MP to every Muslim in the country? Sounds like simple racism to me. So much for being only anti-Islamist.

Anti-Semitism at MPACUK?

2009-09-26T22:38:00.003+01:00

The Board of Deputies of British Jews has apparently written a submission to the Commons’ Communities and Local Government Committee arguing that Prevent money should not be given to groups including the Muslim Council of Britain that espouse Islamism. MPACUK isn't happy about this. They say as follows:

This just highlights a common suspicion in this country concerning many Jewish bodies over their unheeded support for Israel's oppression. We call on all Jewish organisations to abandon the racist Zionist political ideology and look towards creating a long lasting peace in Palestine.

If I understand this right, MPACUK is giving an ultimatum to all Jews in the UK - reject Israel completely or be considered a whole-hearted supporter of Zionism and any and all crimes (real and fictional) that MPACUK and other Islamist groups consider Israel to be guilty of. Since in the mind of the Islamist a supporter of Israeli "oppression" seems to be a perfectly valid target for attack this seems to me very much to be MPACUK declaring all Jews to be "enemies" unless they meet the Islamist standard of Israel-rejection (eg Neturei Karta).

The Prevent Strategy

2009-09-26T22:03:00.003+01:00

The Government's "Prevent" programme for trying to stop the spread of Islamism in the UK has come in for some attention recently. The Tax Payer's Allowance released a report on the 8th September detailing the various organisations that had received money under this scheme (read the report from here).

The report revealed that much of the money went to groups who did not oppose extremism (but who were not extreme themselves) while some went to extremist groups. Matthew Sinclair argued that the strategy should be scrapped essentially because the scheme is impossible to implement properly. Ed Husain argued that it should be continued but fixed.

I think Prevent should be scrapped for two important reasons. The first is that not only can it not be implemented properly but that it cannot work. The money must go to one of three groups. The recipient may be inactive in the area of extremism (neither opposed to it nor encouraging it) in which case the money is wasted. The recipient may be a proponent of extremism in which case the money is counter-productive. But even if the recipient works to oppose extremism the receiving of money from the State will undermine its efforts completely. No one with animosity towards the British State (the kind of people Prevent is supposed to encourage to turn away from extremism) is going to listen to groups funded by the British State. Perhaps this is why Rochdale Council refused to disclose who they gave money to claiming that it would be commercially detrimental to a third party.

But the main reason why Prevent should be scrapped is that it is wrong. The State should not be in the businesses of funding some ideas and not others. The State should not put its weight behind some ideology and should not preach to us what we should or shouldn't believe. If we want to be a liberal country we must allow the free flow of ideas, not gang up to fund some against others.

Scrap Prevent and let people believe what they want. Use the money to make sure that the Islamist cannot blow me up, don't use it in an attempt to force people to believe what the State wants them to believe.

Thoughts on Barnbrook Suspension

2009-09-24T20:56:00.003+01:00

BNP member Richard Barnbrook has been suspended by Barking and Dagenham Council for bringing his office into disrepute. He has also been censured by the GLA. See here for the full story and here for the report concluding that he had breached the Code of Conduct.

Here are two thoughts. The first is that this was clearly politically motivated. Apparently Barnbrook lied saying that three people had been murdered in Barking and Dagenham when actually one had been killed in a different borough and the other two were on life support and later recovered.

Now, I have no time for the BNP - they're racist. But we all know that politicians lie. And in the year of the great MPs expenses scandal, Barnbrook's lie pales into insignificance. To abuse the Code of Conduct in this way brings far more disrepute onto the GLA and Council than Barnbrook's statement ever did.

Another interesting point is how this will relate to the suspension of Ken Livingstone. Will those who protested against Ken's suspension also protest against this one and vice versa? True the situations are not the same but it is interesting nonetheless.

I should point out that I was not entirely against Ken's suspension largely because he could and should simply have apologised for what he did yet stubbornly refused to. But there too, since the action was politically motivated it was wrong and I should have said so at the time.

Some News

2009-09-24T15:03:00.002+01:00

The Home Secretary revokes a control order as the entire system looks set to fall apart. The problem is the refusal to charge and try the suspects because the Government doesn't want to reveal the evidence. In a liberal democracy it should be the case that we either try someone in court or else we leave them be. Yes this may well put us at risk but we mustn't sacrifice what makes us great in the face of threats from those who don't like that which makes us great. (full story here, The Guardian)

The EDL claims to have received support from all kinds of people (Muslims included) as they attempt to shake off the image of being racists of the far-right. People posting on their website doesn't mean much nor do gestures such as burning a swastika. Provoking others and telling British citizens to "integrate or go back to where you belong" (not a direct quote from anyone but the essence of their message from a video posted on their site) tells us all we need to know. (full story here, The Daily Star)

Abu Makr Mansha has been sent back to prison. He was originally conviced in December 2005 under the Terrorism Act 2000 and the belief is that he was planning to murder a British soldier. He was released on probation a few months ago but was recently arrested for another offence and, although released on bail, the probation service decided to send him back to prison as they were concerned he might reoffend. (full story here, The Mirror)

A Harrow councillor gets it spot on. Susan Hall said, (referring to the recent protests and fighting between the EDL et al and UAF and Muslim extremists) "From the left and from the right, they are all as bad as each other and we in the middle are left cleaning up the mess...If it [the EDL protest] was peaceful protest, we would support it all the time, but with these groups there is no intention for peaceful protest. Similarly, the groups who turn out to defend the mosque have no intention of being peaceful". (full story here, The Harrow Times)

Muslim Businesses United

2009-09-24T10:37:00.003+01:00

I came across an article in the Telegraph and Argus reporting that a group called "Muslim Businesses United" was hosting a dinner on 2nd October to raise money for Gaza. Nothing remarkable about that but I thought I'd have a quick look at their website. It was worth a little digging as a picture of extremism quickly emerges. Their home page announces that they are sending delegates on the Viva Palestina convoy. This group raised money for Hamas.

Another page is entitled "Stop Wars" and encourages people to take strike action and boycott various companies. A list is provided neatly splitting companies into two groups - those with links to Israel who should be shunned and those without. Although I'm not entirely convinced by their methods since Starbucks is to be boycotted because:

"Although Starbucks has gone to great length stating it does not support Israel. It is still on boycott lists as there is no evidence that it is not supporting Israel."

On their "Stop Wars" page they explain why they should not give money to charity:

Our charities are being blocked because banks are closing down the charity accounts or the Charity Commission are freezing accounts. This happened in 2008 and 2009 with Interpal and Viva Palestina respectively.

Interpal being another charity that has links to Hamas.

There is also considerable craziness from one of the organisation's founders. Saeeda Naz is one of the workers for the organisation. Her name and number appear on the posters for this latest event and the MBU website containts a scan of an article about how she raised £600 for Viva Palestina (ie for Hamas). She also has her own website and on it she has a page of press releases. On that page she kindly informs us that 9/11, 7/7, the Bali bombing, the Mumbai attacks and the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team were all the work of the Americans and Israelis.

Far from being a normal Muslim organisation raising money for those suffering the effects of war and occupation, this is an organisation run by extremists with a history of raising money for Hamas and apparently intent on doing so again. I don't need to point out that Hamas is a terrorist organisation and deemed so by UK law making it illegal to raise money for them.

Fake Osman Warning?

2009-09-24T10:25:00.003+01:00

One of the founders of the English Defence League is one Paul Ray. He runs a blog called Lionheart and in July he wrote a post entitled "An act of war! An official threat against my life". In it he claimed that he had received an Osman Warning. He posted a photo of the warning on his site. Recently this was picked up and spread around the web including the Jawa Report.

However, it seems to me that his Osman Warning is a possible fake. The photo of the letter he supposedly received conspicuously lacks any letter head from any organisation. It lacks anything that could not have been written by Ray himself on any computer. But what really makes me wonder is the fact that Ray has signed it but yet still seems to have it. Generally, when a document needs to be signed it is so that someone else has a record of the person having received it. They would therefore need to keep the signed copy. Indeed, this policy document [pdf] from the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary makes this plain with regard to Osman Warnings:

(Insert name) will be informed that he is not under arrest and is there voluntarily. The contents of the attached letter will be read to (Insert name), you will then hand him/her this letter and ask him/her to sign it as proof he/she has been made aware of the threat. Once signed you will retain the document.

So, did Paul Ray fake his warning in order to cause trouble? And have other sites been conned?

Blogging Against Extremism

2009-09-24T10:06:00.002+01:00

It's been sometime since I last posted but I feel the need to start again. Originally I started blogging to provide a record of the various Islamist activities in the UK. I don't know if what I did made any difference but I felt I was doing something. In the time since last year I have not found another site or blog dedicated to this job.

But things have changed recently. For some time now we've had the far-left supporting Islamist groups and extremist Islamic groups are unfortunately quite plentiful. However, we now have the spectre of extremist far-right groups. With the rise of the EDL and the Stop the Islamification of Europe group etc there is bound to be an increase in extremism. The EDL and co will provide fuel for the Islamists and vice versa. The danger is that these two extremes will grow at the cost of the middle ground.

So I'm back blogging against extremism on both sides. There will be a slight change in the style as, to save time, many posts may consist of a link to an article and some small comment. Others will hopefully be longer "investigations" of sorts. Either way, I hope that this blog will be useful to people who want to know what the extremists in our country are up to, be they Islamist or far-right racists.

More of Have Their Say?

2008-04-07T10:23:00.005+01:00

Last week, we reported on the BBC's use of the Have Your Say to select quotes for stories and the possibility that this system was being abused by the BBC to give their own views. In that instance a quote was provided that was supportive of the BBC when it was way down on the list of popular sentiments.

Today I checked the Have Your Say page. The question asked is "Should sport and politics mix?" in relation to the Olympic Torch and the occupation of Tibet. There are two quotes selected. One reads "Those who disrupted the torch relay should be fined, jailed and where necessary, deported" which appears on page 11 when ordered according to recommendations, but at least it has 12 of those. The other comment reads "I have nothing but contempt for "personalities" who've chosen to endorse this mockery of the Olympic spirit" from one "Adrian, UK". Only trouble is, this doesn't even appear to be a published comment.

Perhaps the BBC could publish their rules for these sorts of things to avoid confusion. This comment may well be one of the 1149 in the moderation queue, but if it has been published one must assume that it has been moderated. And why have the "Readers Recommended" option if the BBC continually ignores those comments?

The entire system is open to abuse. Since effectively the BBC can get any quote it wants from the thousands provided it is left to someone to choose one quote. And with apparently no oversight on the selection process it is all too easy to choose a nice quote that fits the mindset of the person writing the article and instantly it becomes an opinion piece not a news article. So if the BBC is going to continue to use this quoting system there needs to be an awful lot more transparency.

Ken Twists

2008-04-07T09:36:00.004+01:00

Ken was on a walkabout in Islington on Saturday with "peace and anti-war campaigners", according to a Press Release. It's a slightly fascinating statement for a number of reasons, not least it's aim. I'm going to try a little deconstruction.

Firstly, then, is the opening line:

Ken Livingstone will join Tony Benn and other peace and anti-war campaigners today on a walkabout in Angel Islington.

That's an interesting expression - "peace and anti-war campaigners". Perhaps Team Livingstone can explain what the difference is between these two breeds? The simple implication is that quite a number of those campaigners aren't interested at all in peace.

The next paragraph reads:

To reinforce the need to keep the forward-looking approach that London has seen over the last eight years, Londoners for Peace activists will be highlighting the clear differences between Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson's record on war and nuclear weapons.

Ever heard of this group "Londoners for Peace"? A Google search reveals that the only sites mentioning the group are those reporting on this event. The same result comes from Yahoo and MSN. So does this group really exist or was it conveniently set up for the Mayor's outing?

Next we have:

Veteran peace campaigner Bruce Kent said:
"Ken Livingstone has worked tirelessly for community harmony and international peace. He is my first choice for Mayor."

This would be Bruce Kent formerly of CND. One wonders why Ken might be his first choice? Could it have anything to do with Ken's allowing the CND to use City Hall for free? And how about "community harmony"? Won't take long for most of you to think of at least one community in London that Ken seems to have worked tirelessly to antagonise - to the extent that he was suspended for a while because he couldn't bring himself to apologise for the offence he had caused. And international peace? Well, if you include cosying up to certain unpleasant people like Castro and Chavez.

Ken Livingstone said:
"London rejected the war in Iraq from the start and subsequent events have shown that they were right.

From the start? That would be why according to GLA commissioned poll more Londoners supported the war than opposed it? [see here pdf]

But it's the end of the statement that is the most twisted:

The war has killed hundreds of thousands of people, created a firmer basis for terrorist organisations in Iraq and made our city more of a target for terrorist attacks.
I am proud as Mayor to support the anti-war movement and to join the millions of people who demonstrated against the war in Iraq. The majority of Londoners, and every major candidate at previous elections opposed the invasion of Iraq - as do myself, Brian Paddick for the Lib Dems, and Sian Berry for the Greens. Boris Johnson enthusiastically backed the invasion of Iraq.

If Boris "enthusiastically" backed it, what did the Labour party do? Of course, Ken wasn't an MP at the time so he didn't have to vote in favour of the war but isn't it just plainly dishonest to try and portray himself as some bastion against the war when he's very happy to be the candidate of the party that took us to war?

The statement finishes:

It would be grotesque if Londoners, who oppose the Iraq war by an overwhelming majority, were to have a Mayor who supported it.

And so what about a Mayor from the Party that instigated it? The duplicity is incredibly thick here. Ken himself might be opposed to the war but he's running for the Party that started it and is still the biggest supporter of it. And he claims it would be grotesque to have Johnson as Mayor - surely it would be worse to have Labour in charge from that argument?

Johnson Gets it Wrong

2008-04-03T12:04:00.003+01:00

Boris Johnson has announced a new policy to ban alcohol from the Tube. He said:

London has a higher rate of alcohol-related crimes than any other region in England and I have been told time and again that people are scared of taking the Underground late at night because of aggressive behaviour by drunken yobs.
Too many people find themselves forced to sit opposite someone swigging from a can of lager and engaging in behaviour that is intimidating or worse. I want everyone’s journeys to be safer and more pleasant.

Iain Dale comments:

As a liberal Conservative I instinctively recoil from banning things. However, is it liberal to allow tube users to be abused by drunken louts? No, definitely not. I think this policy will be welcomed by many as long as it is policed properly.

I think this is the problem. How will this be policed? The press release states:

Under the London Regional Transport Railways By-laws, TfL staff are allowed to use ‘reasonable force’ to remove persons who breach any of the by-laws. TfL staff can prevent people from going through ticket barriers if they are in breach such as carrying any open alcoholic drinks. In the same way that anyone smoking can be prevented from travelling on the Tube.

This is all fine, but it only helps if a) there are TfL staff at the station and b) they see the person carrying an open alcohol drink. And what about unopened drinks that are opened on the Tube? Johnson could try banning all alcohol on the Tube but then runs the risk of stopping people taking bottles of wine to a friend or to work or wherever. And of course we have the problem of people already drunk before they get on the Tube.

The only realistic way to police this policy is to have staff, preferably from the British Transport Police, on the trains. But if they're there anyway there is no need for the ban on alcohol.

Overall, the aim is good but the policy itself won't work. No doubt it will be something of a vote winner but in terms of practicalities and effectiveness Johnson has got this one wrong.

Olypmics Benefits

2008-04-03T09:55:00.003+01:00

A survey carried out by the BBC revealed that 73% of people in the UK thought that they would receive no noticeable benefit from the Olympics in 2012. Tessa Jowell hit back saying:

We're not idiots here. We have actually given more thought and careful planning than any other city has ever done before, in making sure that people all round the country have a part in the Games and benefit from the Games.

Last year it was announced that the budget for the games had gone up to £9.4 billion. Of that £6bn is coming from central government, £2.2bn from the National Lottery and £1.2bn from the GLA. According to a report published by Oxford Economic Forecasting (read full report here [pdf]) London pays for approximately 20% of the UK's taxes. So, if we leave aside the National Lottery contributions for which breakdown of ticket sales is going to be tricky we are left with a total £7.2bn. Of this £1.2bn is being paid directly by Londoners through the GLA and a further £1.2bn is being paid by Londoners through central government. That leaves £4.8bn paid for by those living outside London, or 2/3rd of the cost.

So, if you're not idiots, Ms Jowell, how do you plan to ensure that 2/3rds of the benefits for the Olympics will be received by those outside London? Come to that, how do you plan to ensure that all Londoners share in the £2.4bn they are expected to pay for this?

Boris Battles BNP Best

2008-04-03T09:31:00.003+01:00

Yesterday the BNP told their supporters to give their second vote in the London Mayoral elections to Boris Johnson, as he was the "lesser of two evils". In what can hardly be called a ringing endorsement they said:

Our suggestion … is that you hold your nose and cast it in favour of the Conservative candidate, Boris Johnson. This is not because we think that Johnson would be any good as mayor — he is as politically correct as any of the other candidates and has no real ties to our London — but because he wouldn't be actively bad in the way that [Ken] Livingstone [the Labour candidate] is.

Of course, the three main candidates had to react and rather unsurprisingly two tried to make political gain out of it. Ken said:

Two parties have now called for a second preference vote in London's Mayoral election. I am proud that the Green Party's Sian Berry has called for a second preference vote for me. That the BNP have called for a second preference vote to the Tory against me is no surprise. I hate and despise everything the BNP stand for as against every value of London as a great multi-ethnic tolerant and diverse city.

The message apparently being "I hate and despise the BNP but Boris doesn't." Brian Paddick also follows the same line:

Clearly the BNP have recognised Boris's talent for causing offence and creating division.

Whenever an extreme group endorses a candidate that candidate's opponents try and construe that into being indicative of the policies of the candidate. They try and make the candidate guilty by association. Never is it harder to do that then when the endorsers give such reluctant support as the BNP did to Johnson. Doesn't stop those who are desperate though.

As for Boris, he simply stated:

I utterly and unreservedly condemn the BNP and have no desire whatsoever to receive a single second-preference vote from a BNP supporter. I hope as many Londoners as possible turn out on May 1 to prevent the election of a BNP candidate.

No attempt to spin this support in his favour. Good on Boris. A pity the other mayoral candidates couldn't be so clear in their opposition to the BNP. It's one thing to oppose the BNP, but when that opposition is linked to an opposition to another candidate, as Ken and Brian did, the opposition is weakened and the principles blurred. At least one candidate has clear moral scruples.

The Speaker, Labour and the BNP.

2008-04-02T21:40:00.004+01:00

During today's PMQs one member asked Harriet Harman about a BNP candidate who had commented that rape is not a heinous crime and compared it to "force-feeding a woman chocolate cake". Conservative MP Charles Walker condemned the comment maintaining that the candidate was not fit for public office. Ms Harman replied agreeing with the condemnation and adding:

The best way to avoid a BNP member being elected to the London Assembly is to make sure that as many people as possible vote for all the other parties.

While I fully support the condemnation and hope people do not vote for the BNP I was left slightly bemused by the exchange. Before Tony Blair left office David Cameron asked him who he would recommend to be his successor as Labour leader, and hence Prime Minister. The Speaker refused to allow Cameron to ask the question. So why was this question allowed? Surely a question directly pertaining to the next Prime Minister is far more appropriate in the House of Commons than one relating to a local election?

If MPs cannot ask questions about political parties during PMQs why was this allowed, and if they may, why was Cameron's not? If anyone has an explanation please let me know.

Ben Elton and BBC Bias

2008-04-02T19:01:00.003+01:00

Another day, another celebrity attacking the BBC for bias. Ben Elton told a Christian magazine that the BBC was scared of Islam jokes. He said:

There’s no doubt about it, the BBC will let vicar gags pass but they would not let imam gags pass. They might pretend that it’s, you know, something to do with their moral sensibilities, but it isn’t. It’s because they’re scared. I know these people.

He added:

I wanted to use the phrase ‘Muhammad came to the mountain’ and everybody said, ‘Oh, don’t! Just don’t! Don’t go there!’ It was nothing to do with Islam, I was merely referring to the old proverb, ‘If the mountain won’t come to Muhammad, Muhammad must go to the mountain.’ And people said, ‘Let’s just not!’

It’s incredible. I’m quite certain that the average Muslim does not want everybody going around thinking, ‘We can’t mention you. We’ve just got to pretend you don’t exist because we’re scared that somebody who claims to represent you will threaten to kill us.’

The BBC didn't agree. A spokeswoman said:

No subject is off limits for BBC comedy. The treatment should not cause harm or offence as defined by the BBC's Editorial Guidelines or breach other BBC Guidelines. There is no evidence that the BBC is afraid to tackle difficult subjects.

No evidence? Dear me. Not that long ago the BBC held an "impartiality summit" and during a discussion concerning Room 101 - a comedy show - most of the BBC staff present including senior staff said that they would allow the Bible and the Archbishop of Canterbury to be thrown into Room 101 but not a Koran.

What evidence do the BBC need then, one wonders?

It's 'Cos I is Muslim

2008-04-02T18:43:00.003+01:00

A councillor from East London was stopped today at Heathrow and asked questions about his visit to Cairo. Cllr Oliur Rahman had been there for the now annual and infamous Cairo anti-War conference. He was asked the purpose of his visit and decided that this was unfair. He reports the incident:

A man standing behind the desk when I went to immigration control asked to see my passport and said he was a police officer. He asked me why I'd been in Cairo, how long I'd been there, what contacts I'd made and where I lived. I asked him what was the purpose of these questions and he said he was from Special Branch and had the right to ask under the Terrorism Act. So I asked if he was calling me a terrorist. He said 'no' and went away and left me for half-an-hour.

One can't help but wonder if he didn't get himself into trouble by apparently refusing to answer the questions. But Mr Rahman knows what was really going on:

They didn't stop anyone else from that flight and I'm sure it was because of the colour of my skin and because I'm a Muslim. It really makes you realize what happens to people.

Now it's quite clear that Mr Rahman was convinced of this the moment he was stopped, hence his offended question "are you calling me a terrorist?" But this is patently untrue. Mr Rahman says that no one else was stopped, does he expect us to believe that on this flight from Cairo he was the only Muslim on board? How else could he be so sure that it was because he was Muslim that he was stopped.

Mr Rahman is second on the Respect Party ticket for the London Assembly elections. Do we suppose that his candidacy might be withdrawn for launching baseless and self-evidently untrue accusations at the police? I wouldn't hold my breath.

More Mosque Trouble

2008-04-02T18:22:00.003+01:00

Councillor Alan Craig is running for Mayor of London for the Christian People's Alliance. One of his main policies is to ensure that the "mega-mosque" planned for East London does not get built. There are genuine concerns with regards to this mosque. It is being built with Saudi money by Tablighi Jamaat, a group described by French Intelligence as "an antechamber of fundamentalism". They have also declared that this mosque, which will be bigger than St Paul's, is designed specifically to encourage visitors to the Olympics to convert to Islam through Dawah.

Well, the UKIP candidate, Gerard Batten, has taken on this policy and gone one stage further, a stage too far. Writing to The Times today he says:

But I go further than Alan Craig in that as London mayor I would oppose planning permission for any new mosques in London until there are places of non-Muslim worship allowed in Mecca and Medina.

Moderate Muslims should support such a policy so that a message can be sent loud and clear to the extremists. Muslims must apply the same degree of tolerance to other religions in their heartland that they expect to be applied to them in non-Islamic countries.

Of course this is a ridiculous notion and if Mr Batten thinks any Muslims would support such a policy he is deluded. It seems that he is under the impression that all Muslims are one homogeneous group and they all take collective decisions. How else can he explain trying to hold London Muslims accountable for the actions of the Saudi Royal Family. Isn't this as bad as the BNP?

Difficult to see who is worse out of Mr Batten and Ms Ruoff. Which do you vote for?

Mosques and agreeing with the MCB

2008-04-02T18:08:00.003+01:00

A member of the Synod of the Church of England said that no more mosques should be built in Britain. Alison Ruoff declared:

You build a mosque and then what happens?

You have Muslim people moving into that area, all the shops will then become Islamic, all the housing will then become Islamic and as the Bishop of Rochester has so wisely pointed out, that will be a no-go area for anyone else. They will bring in Islamic law. We cannot allow that to happen. We are still a Christian country – we need to hold on to that.

One wonders what Ms Ruoff is thinking. Does she believe that Mosques are incubators for Muslims? That somehow by virtue of there being a new mosque there are suddenly more Muslims in Britain than there were before? It's probably a safe bet that mosques are built in areas or close to areas where Muslims already live. And if some Muslims move into an area to be closer to their place of worship it's probably also a safe bet that they're not living in both places at the same time.

On this one I have to agree with Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain:

These are unfortunately very bigoted and, frankly, xenophobic remarks. There must be freedom for all communities and not just for some. I think heads of the Church will be disgusted with the comments.

Quite right, Inayat, for a change.

Pre-charge Detention, Outrage and Decadence

2008-04-01T10:00:00.004+01:00

The big topic of the day, obviously, is the Government's bid to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days. Sean O’Neill in The Times asks why we would need this. He points out:

There is no widely perceived need for more authoritarian legislation. So far there has been no case where the police would have liked more than the current 28-day limit and only 11 suspects have been held for more than 14 days.

So why do police chiefs want up to 90 days? He explains:

It is during a wave of multiple, complex terror plots or attacks that, security sources say, the power to hold suspects for up to 42 days will be necessary.
They argue that the time to legislate for emergency detention powers is now – when it can be properly considered – rather than in the frenzied atmosphere of a national emergency.

The assumption behind this plan is clear, then. One day the police will have a suspect in custody, will be forced to release him after 28 days and he will go on to kill people. And then there will be such an outrage against the police and government that they will rush through an extension. The essential accusation is that we, the British public, would be so distraught at the loss of life that we will accept, nay demand, that our leaders compromise on our high standards to ensure our protection.

And he's probably right. Just this week we found out that a terrorist had been released a whole 17 days early from prison and there was such an outcry that the government very quickly changed its policy. It would seem that faced with the choice of danger of some deaths or compromise on moral high standards we will compromise every time.

What is more, in the comfort of our safe armchairs, when is all is fine and calm, we will oppose these moves. We will cite freedom and people will talk about doing the terrorists' work for them. But as soon as the bomb goes off and people die we will be shouting for action against those very freedoms.

There is surely only one word for this, decadence. The Islamists accuse the West of this and we are guilty as charged. When all is peaceful we extol the virtues of civil liberties and freedom. We laud ourselves for our high moral standards and unshakeable values. But in reality we're scared, terrified. As soon as something goes wrong, someone dies, we will turn our backs on those freedoms in a heartbeat.

In WWII Britain's ability to take the punishment of the Blitz, of the V1s and 2s allowed us to stand firm for what we believed in. And we rightly look back at that with pride. People died and we accepted that as the price of freedom. A heavy price, but one we were willing to pay. Today we're not willing to pay that price. The result is evident.

We will compromise, demand compromise, on our standards to avoid the deaths of some citizens. We demand that Afghanistan and Iraq are left to fend for themselves against the Islamists lest some of our brave soldiers die in defence of democracy and freedom. We are at a point where safety and calm are more important to us than morality and liberty. We are truly decadent. We should be ashamed.

MCB Praises Fitna

2008-04-01T09:55:00.002+01:00

The Muslim Council of Britain gave limited praise to the film Fitna. Acknowledging that it conflated all Muslims with terrorists and Islam with violence they said:

Nevertheless, the film raises important questions about the relationship between Islam and Islamism and lays down the gauntlet for all moderate Muslims to challenge those who would abuse our peaceful religion as a means to promote violence and extremism.

They added:

We plan to include parts of the film in an educational video aimed at teaching children about the dangers of Islamic extremism and we thank Mr Wilders for putting the particular issue of Koranic exegesis in the limelight.

The MCB also plans to send a delegation to Yad Vashem in Israel and is organising a celebration for Israel's 60th.

Fighting Our Supporters

2008-04-01T09:40:00.005+01:00

Hassan Butt is a former terrorist. He admits this freely. He admits to having recruited British Muslims for jihad and raising money for terrorism. He admits all this because he has turned his back on Islamism and now fights against it. As part of that fight he is writing a book about terrorism and Islamism.

Last Sunday, Nick Cohen in the Observer spoke about the police's attempt to force the manuscript and sources to be handed over for investigation. He concluded:

If Butt and Malik are prosecuted, how the jihadis will laugh at the stupidity of a country that can't tell its allies from its enemies. 'Look,' they will say to their recruits, 'look at what happens to Muslims who go over to their side. Are they thanked? Are they honoured? No, they're prosecuted. All Muslims are the same to the British and there's no point in trying to please them.'

Well, the police won the right to force the book to be handed over. Newsnight reports:

Hassan Butt's co-author, an independent journalist, has been ordered to deliver draft manuscripts and notes for the book to the Greater Manchester Police.

The question must be asked, how stupid are we? What do we want? Do we want prisons full of Islamic terrorists or do we want a Britain free of Islamic terrorists? I think most people would prefer the latter. And this man is working, partly through this book, to help bring that situation about. We should be helping him, not impeding him. The police have already stated that he poses no danger, he has already done some work with the government to help stop Islamism being spread in Britain. So why would we interfere with that work?

Just a few days ago the Defence Secretary Des Browne suggested that we should try to reach out to members of the Taliban who might be persuaded to stop fighting. If we're prepared to reach out to them, why will we not do the same to the British Islamists. It seems that this government's approach to terrorism is muddled at best, but it looks more like incompetence and ineptitude.

Someone Explain the Voting System to the Greens

2008-03-31T21:10:00.004+01:00

Sian Berry was on the Daily Politics show today. She was asked about her having told her supporters to put Ken down as their second choice. The following is an approximate transcript (~27:50 through):

JS: At the moment aren't you in danger of splitting the left vote, the anti-Boris vote?

SB: In the first round any vote that isn't for Boris is completely safe, basically, and your second round vote counts in the final round when the run-off will be. It's always been the final round that has decided every Mayoral election so in the first round essentially you've got a free vote.

As everyone is probably aware the second round vote only counts if no candidate secures more than 50% of the first choice votes. So the claim that anyone has a free vote in the first round is simply not true.

Now, we might credit Ms Berry by supposing that she knows this but is assuming that no candidate will ever win more than 50% of the vote. This is a risky assumption given that a YouGov poll just put Boris on 47% of the vote. In answer to Jenny's question then, the answer must surely be yes. But we shouldn't complain because if it gives Boris a bigger chance of getting in all the better.

Veil Row MkII?

2008-03-31T18:46:00.003+01:00

An employment tribunal is underway that might spark a row similar to the Veil row resulting from Jack Straw's comments in 2006. Bushra Noah has taken Sarah Desrosiers to the tribunal after she was denied employment at a hair salon. Ms Noah insists on wearing a headscarf that covers all her hair and Ms Desrosiers felt that this was unsuitable for a trendy hair salon. She said:

The essence of my line of work is the display of hair. To me, it's absolutely basic that people should be able to see the stylist's hair. It has nothing to do with religion. It is just unfortunate that for her covering her hair symbolises her religion.
I now feel like I have been branded a racist. My accountant is Muslim. I have never discriminated against Muslims. My name is being dragged through the mud and I feel victimised.

Ms Noah claims that this amounts to "blatant discrimination".

As with the case of Aishah Azmi who was sacked because her full face veil prevented her from performing her job, it seems that this is no different. But just as that case caused much public comment it is entirely possible that this one will too. And extremists will no doubt point to this and try and claim that Britain is at war with Islam.

Last time around many people tried to distinguish between a face veil and a headscarf. But this case would undermine that argument and points to the very natural point that anyone can wear whatever they want, but choosing to wear certain clothes carries with it consequences. Just as if I refused to remove my trousers I could not get a job as a nude model, so too refusing to remove a headscarf seems a legitimate reason for not being employed as a hair stylist. As the old adage goes - never trust a skinny chef.

BBC News - Have Their Say?

2008-03-31T17:10:00.003+01:00

Kevin Spacey has attacked the BBC for talent shows such as How Do You Solve A Problem Like Maria? He said that they were "essentially a 13-week promotion for a musical". He makes a good point. The end result is not a BBC performance but a commercial enterprise that has been hyped throughout the show.

But the BBC report of this story has a number of problems. For a start, why is it hidden in the "Entertainment" section with, at the time of writing, no link or mention on the UK or Front Page of the News Site. If the BBC is abusing its position of trust this is more than an "entertainment" issue.

My main issue, though, is with the apparent abuse of the "Have Your Say" system. The BBC a while ago started a forum on its site allowing users to leave their thoughts. Recently the BBC has included a thought from Have Your Say in some of their news articles. This system seems to be abused.

On this article the BBC has a Have Your Say forum running and has a quote from one user, a certain Rob from Leicester. His comment is:

It can be seen as a promotion for a musical, but it can also be seen as decent family entertainment

Now, head over to the actual forum. Rather conveniently the BBC allows you to sort the responses by "readers recommended" to gain some idea of which thoughts people most agree with. Going down the first page not a single response is in support of the BBC. Rob's response is buried on page 39. There are 15 responses to a page which makes Rob's response less popular than 570 responses.

So the question must be asked - is this Rob's opinion or the BBC's. It certainly isn't the popular opinion of the readers. They are all entirely in agreement with Mr Spacey and entirely opposed to the BBC's position. Yet the one single response quoted by the BBC is in support of their position, even though it is more than 570 places down the recommended list.

Is this Your say, or Their say?

Which is worse, Sky or BBC?

2008-03-31T15:21:00.004+01:00

It's a difficult choice in this instance. Sky News managed to get an interview with Hamas leader Khalid Mashaal in Syria. During the discussion Mashaal said that kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was still alive. He also said that the Holocaust was exaggerated by Zionists and, incredibly, that Hamas doesn't deliberately kill anyone.

The BBC also reports that:

Mr Meshaal also urged Israel to agree that civilians should not be part of the current conflict, which has recently seen Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip in response to rocket attacks on Israel by Palestinian militants.

This is some spin on what happened. Here is the Sky News transcript:

TM: It's 2008, can you make an offer that you would only have action against military personnel.
KM: We renew our offer to Israel to let the civilian people from the two sides be free from our conflict. Israel should respond to this offer.
This is an offer which we would like to renew. The problem is on the Israel side.

So which is worse? That Tim Marshall of Sky News considers it an "offer" to not murder civilians deliberately in terrorist attacks or that the BBC spins this "offer" into an urging that Israel stop killing civilians during their targeting of terrorists? It's a close one. But perhaps Sky has an excuse - they were in enemy territory and perhaps they didn't want to end up like Andrew Johnson. What's the BBC's excuse?

Poll Trouble

2008-03-31T13:55:00.002+01:00

Ken Livingstone's campaign has thrown something of a political fit over YouGov polls suggesting that Boris Johnson is way ahead. They have released a press statement calling into question the methodology of these polls and declaring that:

Ken Livingstone's campaign therefore states clearly that it does not accept this poll as accurate and, in light of its continuing errors, it does not regard YouGov polling on London as accurate.

One is inclined to tell them to chill. Only one poll really counts, the one on May 1st. But if the Livingstone campaign is so threatened by a YouGov poll that they feel the need to attack its results and methods, well, what does that tell you about confidence levels at Labour HQ?

Crime Claims

2008-03-31T13:11:00.003+01:00

On Friday Ken Livingstone unveiled his crime manifesto. At the time we reported on his claim regarding engaging with religious leaders who are unequivocal in their opposition to terrorism. This time, though, it is the crime statistics that are the problem.

Many of the claims from Livingstone's campaign hide important facts.

Ken cites murder as an example of improvement in policing. He claims a 28% reduction in murders. This may well be, but murders account for less than 0.1% of violent crimes against the person in the capital. Focusing on murder hides the fact that since he was first elected ABH is up a whopping 80%, Harassment is up 90% and in total violence against the person is up 12%.

Ken cites rape as being down 25%. But here too rape accounts for less than 25% of sexual offences, and the other kinds are up. Overall during his term in office sexual offences have fallen by less than 1%.

Ken claims that in 11 boroughs there has been a 50% reduction in gun crime and a 26% reduction in knife crime. But what he doesn't tell you is that overall crime involving an offensive weapon is up by nearly 10% since he became Mayor.

In his manifesto he says:

Much of the crime that still takes place in London, including that involving gangs, is linked to the trade in illegal drugs. I will ensure tackling this is another top priority for the Met.

What he doesn't say is that since he started drug trafficking has increased by just under 20% with possession sky-rocketing by nearly 200%. Overall drug related crime is up 165%. And what's more, it has increased by over 25% every year for the last three years. If Ken recognises that drugs fuel crime why has so little been done to tackle it?

When one reads through his manifesto two crimes come up again and again - murder and rape. Why? Because in these areas the crime rate has fallen. But murder and rape combined accounts for just one quarter of one percent of all London crime.

In many of the areas that really matter crime is increasing. Violent crime is up 12%, sexual offences are basically unchanged, drug crime has soared by more than 150%.

We should not be fooled by Ken's carefully selected stats. Despite investing heavily in extra police officers large areas of important crime remains out of control.

Please note that all data in this report come from the Metropolitan Police Service's crime statistics, available here: http://www.met.police.uk/crimestatistics/ and that all years refer to the end of the financial year so that 2003, for example, refers to the financial year ending in 2003.

Muslims "Victimised" by Terrorism

2008-03-28T17:27:00.003Z

In a statement from the Muslim Association of Britain regarding Fitna, the organisation's president makes a ludicrous claim. Aside from calling for the film to be removed from the UK based website, and asking the police to investigate the film and taking this opportunity to condemn the cartoons, he also claimed that Muslims were victimised - by Islamist terrorism. He said:

European Muslims have been victimised twice – firstly by being targeted, along with the general public, in the recent attacks on London in July 2005 and on Madrid in March 2004

While it may be true that some Muslims were killed in those terrorist attacks and that the Islamist terrorists have no compunction about killing fellow Muslims, it is something of a stretch to claim that Muslims were victimised by those attacks.

But perhaps the MAB is taking a leaf out of its sister organisation, Hamas's, book. Just as they claim to be victims of Israeli aggression while they fire missiles into Israeli towns and cities, MAB are claiming to be the real victims of Islamist terrorism launched against the West. Once again we ask why the media quote these people as "moderate voices".

Terrorist Released Early and the BBC

2008-03-28T15:11:00.004Z

The Government confirmed today that they released a convicted terrorist early because of prison overcrowding. Yassin Nassari was convicted of possessing documents likely to be useful to a terrorist. These included blueprints for Qassam rockets as used by Hamas against Israeli civilians. Included with these plans were details on how to construct the rockets, explosives and propellants.

The BBC report is again shocking. For a start the headline reads:

Terrorism convict released early

By normal standards a person convicted of terrorism offences is a terrorist. But apparently the BBC cannot bring itself to use that word even when a court has convicted the individual.

The report also says:

A man convicted of a terrorism offence has been released 17 days early

Given that Mr Nassari was arrested in May 2006 and sentenced to three and a half years in prison that makes his release more than a year and a half early. The point is clarified 9 paragraphs later:

Nassari would have been eligible for release 18 days later, having served enough of his sentence to be considered for parole.

In other words this "man convicted of a terrorism offence" was released 17 days earlier than his early release.

It's difficult to tell what is worse, that the Government is forced to release prisoners earlier than their already early release because they have allowed the situation to become so bad, or that the BBC finds it impossible to call someone a terrorist even when they've been convicted by the courts.

UPDATE: A new story on the BBC site does call him a "terrorist" in the headline. But the old story has not been changed.

Ken's Admission to Letting Londoners Down

2008-03-28T13:17:00.004Z

Ken Livingstone released his crime manifesto today. Discussing terrorism he says the following:

I will continue my policy of engaging with and seeking support from all community and religious leaders who make clear their unequivocal opposition to terrorist attacks. To do otherwise would be to let Londoners down and increase the risks the city faces.

Indeed it would be. And yet that is precisely what Ken has done. This is the man who invited Yusuf al-Qaradawi to City Hall. Does al-Qaradawi "make clear" his "unequivocal opposition to terrorist attacks"? Of course not. He supports terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. And Ken knows this and knew this before he invited him. And he knew it when he said he would invite him back and he knew it when he wrote that he should not be banned from entering this country.

So, if it "would be to let Londoners down" to not engage with "religious leaders who make clear their unequivocal opposition to terrorist attacks" how much more of a let down would it be to engage with leaders who are equally unequivocal in their support of terrorist attacks?

Reality Denial at MPACUK

2008-03-28T09:03:00.004Z

We all know that MPACUK is deluded about Islamic terrorism, apparently convinced that it has nothing to do with Islam or ideology but rather is entirely caused by our foreign policy decisions. To that end it must have been disturbing to hear the likes of Hassan Butt, a former Islamist, declare:

By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

How can MPACUK continue to peddle the line that Islamism is the result of foreign policy when Islamists themselves say that it isn't? The answer is simple - believe it's all a conspiracy. To that end they are asking the question:

Hassan Butt-Al Qaeeda Or Mi5? - You Decide!

This is not the first time that people have tried to claim that British Islamists are evil stooges of the State desperately trying to provoke hatred against peace-loving Muslims who only want to oppose the terrible foreign policy of Britain. Back in 2006 after Abu Izzadeen, another British Islamist, heckled the then Home Secretary, one George Galloway wrote:

Either our police and security services are so fantastically incompetent that Bin Laden himself might have slipped in to beard you at your podium. Or someone somewhere wanted to engineer precisely this confrontation to show you in a certain light and to portray the Muslims of Britain in the most aggressive violent and extreme way possible, as a justification for the utterly counter-productive policies you are following.

The formula is simple, declare that ideology has nothing to do with Islamism and that it is all foreign policy. When evidence is presented that this isn't true declare that that evidence was part of a Government conspiracy. And the media still quote these people as the "moderate voice".

BBC Whitewashes Fitna

2008-03-28T00:02:00.003Z

Dutch MP Geert Wilders posted his film Fitna on the Internet last night. Let me say that the film is anti-Islamic in as much as it makes no attempt to distinguish between Islam and Islamism. It is also not very dissimilar to probably thousands of videos available on YouTube and other similar sites. But for all that it fails to distinguish between Islamism and Islam and between most Muslims and extremists it does contain some serious messages. Not new ones but real ones.

The BBC's report on the film (which is only about 15 minutes long) is a whitewash. The report says:

The opening scenes show a copy of the Koran, followed by footage of the attacks on the US on 11 September 2001.

What it doesn't mention is that the copy of the Koran is shown along with selected quotes. The film is drawing attention to specific, disconcerting verses in the Koran, not the Koran in general. Not that there aren't similar verses in other scriptures, but the BBC report implies that it is simple a copy of the Koran and doesn't tell the reader that the focus was on specific and real verses.

The report continues:

And pictures appearing to show Muslim demonstrators holding up placards saying "God bless Hitler" and "Freedom go to hell" also feature.

What was that? "Appearing to show Muslim demonstrators"? They were Muslim demonstrators. What game is the BBC playing here? Is it peddling the line spread by some extremists that any Muslim who carries out terrorist attacks or the like isn't a Muslim? Surely it is not playing dumb, pretending that the people shown might be Christians or Jews?

And lastly:

The film shows a young girl in a headscarf making derogatory comments about Jewish people.

"A young girl in a headscarf". Muslim is what they mean to say. You might argue that the entire film is about Muslims so it is obvious, but then why mention the headscarf? And given the comment above about "appearing to show Muslim demonstrators" it isn't so obvious that the BBC is not trying to glide over the M-word. Truly this report is a whitewash of the contents of the film.

UPDATE: Even The Independent manages to include the details the BBC has tried to hide. It's report says:

It interspersed images of the 9/11 attacks and other bombings with quotes from the Koran.

...

The film shows ... Muslim women with banners reading, "Be prepared for the real Holocaust" and "God Bless Hitler".

If The Independent can do it, why can't the BBC?

Muslim Leader's Duplicity and the Daily Mail

2008-03-27T15:10:00.006Z

Panorama airs tonight on BBC1 with a program about Asian men grooming white girls for prostitution. Mohammed Shafiq, Director of the Ramadhan Foundation, appears on the documentary. He is quoted in the Daily Mail as saying:

I think the police are overcautious on dealing with this issue openly because they fear being branded racist and I think that is wrong. These are criminals they should be treated as criminals. They are not Asian criminals, they are not Muslim criminals, they are not white criminals. They are criminals and they should be treated as criminals.

He explains his motivation:

I am the only Muslim leader in the UK that speaks up against this sort of thing and I do it because these teenage girls are somebody's sisters and they are somebody's daughters. I have got two daughters and I wouldn't want that to happen to my daughters. "If there is a drug dealer grooming a white teenager into prostitution then I don't want the police service or local authority not to be open about it.

It all sounds very reasonable. Some of you may even be thrilled to see a Muslim leader speak out against what appears to be too much PC nonsense hampering the police efforts. In fact, some comments on the Daily Mail site say just that:

I for one welcome Mohammed Shafiqs views on policing the Asian sector. Thank God he has the common sense to speak out for justice in this country, unlike others.
The law is the law and should not come under the umbrella of political correctness. Police are here to uphold the law and if young girls are being prostituted then it must be stopped. I don't care what race the perpetrators are they must be stopped.

- Jules Ackers, Eastbourne, UK

There is only one problem - Mr Shafiq is not being straight. On his organisation's website is another explanation of his actions:

Whilst there is no evidence that the Police or local authorities are deliberately not speaking out about this evil practice due to the fear of being labeled racist, their silence is contributing to a vacuum where only the BNP benefit.

I would urge the Police, local authorities, religious and community groups to be open about the practice and encourage all to work together to eradicate it, only working together can we defeat it and ensure that the BNP are not seeking political advantage.

So his accusation is not only baseless but more worrying is his motivation. Far from being driven by some humanitarian desire to help these girls his real concern is that the BNP might make "political advantage" from it.

In fact, the police refute his baseless accusations. Det Supt Graham Herrmann of Lancashire Police told a local paper:

It doesn't matter what part of society these people are from we will investigate stringently. It is not about race. Mr Shafiq has talked about a vacuum where the BNP will prosper but there is no vacuum. We are working hard to target and identify those people who are at risk and work to protect those young people in the future.

Here we have a community leader discussing criminal activity within his own community. He recognises the problem but instead of challenging his community's leaders and supporting the police he flings an unfounded accusation at them all the while concerned only that the BNP should not gain any advantage from it. Shame on Mr Shafiq. And shame on the Daily Mail for falling for it.

UPDATE: It appears that Mr Shafiq has a blog on which he has posted the article from the Daily Mail (without a link) and with no mention of his comments on the Ramadhan Foundation website.

UCU Reconsidering Boycott

2008-03-27T12:23:00.004Z

The National Executive Committee of the University and College Union has agreed to reconsider a boycott of Israel. This union tried this last year and was hit with an international, prolonged opposition. In the end it had to stop all talk of a boycott after it emerged that it might well be completely illegal to do so.

Of course, the question becomes why is it OK to consider boycotting the Olympic games in China but not Israeli academics. Well, there are a number of reasons but here is one that I haven't heard often.

The point of a boycott is to apply pressure for the person or organisation or country being boycotted to take some action. This is entirely predicated, then, on the assumption that the target of the boycott is in a position to take that action. In the case of the call to boycott Israel this is an end to the occupation of Palestinian territories.

Now, it must be asked is this an action that Israel can perform unilaterally? Of course not. It cannot simply remove its troops and settlers and hand control back to Jordan and Egypt - they don't want that land. The only way to end the occupation is through a negotiated settlement resulting in the creation of a Palestinian state. By its very nature Israel cannot unilaterally make a negotiated settlement.

The obvious conclusion then is that a boycott serves no purpose. Israel is pressured to do something it cannot unilaterally do. The aims of the boycott might be toned down to be more reasonable. Perhaps a demand that Israel negotiate? But they already are doing that. Perhaps the boycott should be on both parties to force them to come to some settlement? But that could never happen and would not help.

So all that is left is a one sided boycott aimed at forcing Israel to take steps that it simply cannot take. When examined we see that the boycott is not a push towards peace or a hope for the future. It is punishment for the occupation that Israel now cannot end by itself.

MPs Revolt on Terror Bill

2008-03-27T10:43:00.004Z

The Independent are reporting that 10 more Labour MPs plan to revolt over plans to detain terrorist suspects without charge for 42 days. Many readers may think that extending the deadline is necessary, but it isn't. The 42 day figure is made up and is just a larger number than 28 and less than 90.

What is really required is that there be no maximum. The police should be able to hold a suspect for as long as they can prove to a judge that they need to. As it stand the police need to appeal to a judge to extent the limit up to a maximum of 28 days. So why do we need that maximum time limit? If the judge agrees that the police should continue to hold the suspect then they should be allowed to hold the suspect. Providing an arbitrary limit serves no purpose.

Bailing Islamists

2008-03-27T10:12:00.003Z

Last year we reported that members of Al Muhajiroun who had been arrested for inciting hatred at the Danish cartoon protests had been released on bail. At the time we pointed out that an Al Muhajiroun leader, Anjem Choudary, had similarly been treated too leniently over that protest.

The Sun reports today that after having been arrested for his role in that protest he was released on bail, and while on bail he advised fellow Islamists how they could avoid being arrested for their parts in the incitement.

This once again underlines the dangers of Islamist leaders who do not carry out attacks themselves but radicalise others to do so. And allowing them out on bail on the premise that they pose no harm fails to take into account this radicalisation.

MPACUK vs Muslims

2008-03-26T09:06:00.004Z

MPACUK claim on their site that

MPACUK are aiming to bring the community together, disunity among Muslims has been our biggest downfall in recent years.

This video, proudly posted by themselves on their site, suggests otherwise:

MAB - Cemetery Opposition is Racism

2008-03-26T08:51:00.004Z

Residents in a village near Glasgow are opposing a plan put forward by Glasgow City Council to build a new Muslim cemetery next to the village. According the Osama Saeed of the Muslim Association of Britain the opposition is because of prejudice against Muslims. Apparently all 300 people attending a meeting about the issue and the 700 signatories of a petition are solely motivated by Islamophobia. Saeed said told The Guardian:

Planning tends to reflect the overall prejudice against the Muslim community that goes on around the country. Whenever a new mosque or cemetery like the one in Glasgow is proposed, you'll always get a range of objectors who'll use environmental or green-belt concerns to mask a deeper hostility towards perceived outsiders.

Of course, that doesn't explain why residents in Leicestershire opposed a new crematorium there, or why Castlereagh councillors were likewise opposed to similar plans from Belfast city council. Perhaps, Osama, this is just people not wanting a new cemetery in there village?

Anti-Semitism over at MPACUK

2008-03-25T16:49:00.005Z

On MPACUK's website is a page of FAQs. The first is, naturally, "Are you anti-Semitic? Do you deny the holocaust?" And the answer is "In a word, NO." And yet, the evidence is to the contrary. On their site today is an article entitled, "4 things Israel will get away with if you don't attend our event - Saturday 29th March".

MPACUK's obsession with Israel is well known and so it will come as little surprise to readers that they make claims such as "More than 130 Palestinians MURDERED in the last few weeks", confusing self defence with murder. But it is the anti-Semitism that is of concern in that article.

The first thing Israel "will get away with" is "The BLOCKADE of supplies into Gaza will continue". MPACUK make the following claim:

The sea and land borders of Gaza are controlled by Israel. Gaza: a concentration camp in all but name.

All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism recommended that the Government adopt the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia working definition of anti-Semitism. In that definition it states

Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis

I guess MPACUK didn't read that report (odd when you consider that there is a whole section devoted to them). Accompanying the article is a poster for an MPACUK event in Manchester. Yet more extremism on that with the question "Why is Israel allowed to commit Genocide [sic] in Palestine [sic]?". There is also the statement "The Israel Lobby - We expose the powerful force shaping both the media coverage and the actions of your MP" yet again repeating the offence that caused the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) to state "MPACUK has also articulated Jewish conspiracy theories through the language of Zionism".

And finally on that poster is the boast "MPACUK made British History in 2005 by removing a pro-Israel MP!" For those who don't know about this, this was when MPACUK campaigned to have Lorna Fitzsimons unelected during which they sponsored leaflets calling attention to her Jewish origins (even though she actually has none). This was another incident that the APPG wasn't happy with stating, "it is concerning to see the ‘accusation’ of being Jewish being used in such a way in the context of an election campaign."

All in all, another example of extremism, radicalism and anti-Semitism from MPACUK.

We're Back - What to Expect

2008-03-25T16:36:00.005Z

After a very lengthy absence we're back!

And this time we have a slightly different focus. By now most people are aware of the ludicrous "Covenant of Security" that was operating for many years in this country. This seems to have ended now, finally, but in its place the Government has enacted a new "covenant". This time instead of allowing actual terrorists to operate with impunity in return for not committing acts of terror in Britain, the Government is funding and supporting Islamist and other radical Islamic groups in the hope that they will stop Islamic extremism. There is a perfect article on this point in The Times today entitled "No way to combat terrorism" and everyone should read it

It's as if the Government responded to a violent insurgency from the neo-Nazi terrorists of Combat 18 by turning to Nick Griffin of the BNP, on the ground that he enjoys nationalist “cred” with alienated skinheads. After all, Mr Griffin is non-violent and believes that whites should participate in the political process. Perhaps he might stop bombs from going off. But what price would he exact for it - and what kind of society would we then be living in?

And the MSM is following the Government's lead by trotting off to these radical and extreme groups whenever they need a quote. The result is that the entire debate is skewed with radical and extremist Islamist groups being portrayed as the normal Muslim groups. It makes it impossible to have a reasoned debate on issues regarding Muslims and Islamism.

So this is one of the new focuses of the site, to reveal and expose the extremism and radicalism of some of these groups. But sites like this serve other purposes too and one of the most effective is as a watchdog on the MSM. So expect some of that too. And also expect other interesting tidbits along the way.

But know in advance, I am a strong believer in Civil Liberties and am a strong opponent of the BNP. If some of my posts seem confused or contradictory it might be a reflection of the inherent problems of tackling extremism while upholding the rights of people to express their opinions. Still, I hope to make a good fist of it.

Long Open Thread

2007-05-18T17:59:00.000+01:00

Not going to be posting again for the next week or so. In the meantime here's another open thread.

Court Order Reimposed

2007-05-18T09:02:00.000+01:00

The Court of Appeal has overturned an earlier ruling that a court order was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case revolves around an unidentified man who is considered by the Security Services as a recruiter for a terrorist organisation. There isn't enough evidence to prosecute the man but he poses a threat to our national security. As such a control order was put in place to prevent the man from organising terrorist attacks.

In February the High Court ruled that the restriction breached his human rights and overturned the order. They also argued that there was enough evidence to mount a successful trial based on evidence from a Belgian court.

The Court of Appeal, though, overturned that ruling and reimposed the control order, arguing that the restrictions did not contravene his human rights.

A small step in the right direction, or an anomaly?

"Beard Got Me Stopped"

2007-05-18T09:01:00.000+01:00

A local paper is reporting that an airline worker was stopped by anti-terror police on his return from Pakistan. They questioned the man for 45 minutes and checked his luggage. One of the questions was why he had taken such a long flight for just a few days.

The man worked at the airport and had a security pass but this didn't prevent his questioning. He also had a friend who works for Special Branch at the airport who didn't stop the questioning. This is as it should be, if the flags are raised then questioning shouldn't be stopped because the man has a 10 year old security pass, or because a friend can vouch for him. The security services have a job to do and they should do it properly.

However, what might turn this into a national story is the man's claim that:

Part of my job relates to aircraft and passenger security and I know for a fact they stopped me just because I have a beard. To be treated in this way because I have a beard is absolutely staggering.

How does he know this as a fact? Has he seen any orders demanding that people with beards be stopped at airports? Wait for the inevitable claims of Islamophobia, that this innocent man was harassed only because he was a Muslim. Don't be surprised to hear the phrase "racial profiling" and then claims that the security services are unfairly targeting Muslims. And all based on an unfounded claim that "my beard got me stopped".

Busy Day at Old Bailey

2007-05-18T09:00:00.000+01:00

A total of 19 men are appearing today, at the Old Bailey on different terrorist charges. 13 of them are regarding the plot to destroy aeroplanes flying from Britain to the US. 28 charges are expected in that case.

The other six are in relation to fund raising for terrorist activity abroad. These six are the Al Muhajiroun men arrested a few weeks ago.

Terrorist Has Sentence Cut

2007-05-17T09:22:00.000+01:00

Dhiren Barot has had his sentence cut from 40 years to 30. The court of appeal said that the longer term was for, "the terrorist who has been convicted, after trial, of a serious attempt to commit mass murder by a viable method."

The defence had argued that the plot to murder hundreds or thousands was far from completion at the time of arrest. And, it would appear, that the judges agreed.

The Lord Chief Justice also said:

A terrorist who is in the grip of idealistic extremism to the extent that, over a prolonged period, he has been plotting to commit murder of innocent citizens is likely to pose a serious risk for an indefinite period if he is not confined.

Why then did he cut this man's sentence? Do we have to wait for him to actually kill thousands of innocent civilians before we can keep him locked away? With judges like this how are we to fight an effective war against Islamism?

"The Islamist" Review

2007-05-17T09:21:00.000+01:00

A review of the new book "The Islamist" appears in The Telegraph. In short, the book explains that Islamism is not driven by foreign policy, nor ignorance or poverty. It is driven by an ideology that demands the total domination of a radical, fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.

The book also explains that being a religious Muslim can stop Muslims being indoctrinated into the Islamist cult of death (my words). The author claims that his religious devotion during his time as an Islamist was just a show and that he was actually not keeping his faith at all.

The book thus reiterates what has been said here many times before: the war is between Islamism and the West and is not against Islam.

Terror Judge Joke

2007-05-17T09:20:00.000+01:00

The trial is currently underway of three men for terrorism offences. One key aspect of the case is Islamist material designed to incite hatred and encourage murder and terrorism, that was posted on the Internet.

The judge, however, stopped questioning yesterday because he doesn't understand what a website was or Internet forum is. He told the prosecution that their expert should, "keep it simple, we've got to start from basics."

Isn't it ludicrous that any judge can get away with this? And in a serious case it's even more serious.

Our Foreign Policy?

2007-05-16T10:23:00.000+01:00

The German Interior Minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble, has said that Islamist terror is the biggest threat "to the security and stability of Germany." For those that have forgotten, Germany have not taken part in the war on Iraq, nor Afghanistan. Yet, they are on the receiving end of Islamist terrorism. Can people still argue that this is caused by our foreign policy?

Former MI6 Head Calls on Muslims

2007-05-16T10:22:00.000+01:00

Former MI6 head, Sir Richard Dearlove, told a conference that Muslims are best placed to root out extremism in Britain. He said:

At the moment it is very easy for al-Qaida to recruit its foot soldiers. The most effective way for Muslim communities to police the al-Qaida influence in the UK is to do it themselves. Community policing in the UK has failed in this specific area.

Would this failure have to do with the government and media giving all their attention to groups run by extremists and Islamists. A group who's head threatens Britain with 2 million home-grown terrorists is not a group that will tackle terrorism. A group that boycotts Holocaust Memorial Day is not a group that will oppose extremism. A group who's leaders call for non-cooperation with police and who support Hamas and Hezbollah is not a group that want to stop Islamism.

By giving these groups all the attention, the moderate majority are effectively silenced and ignored. Instead the debate about Islamism is skewed because we take the opinion of Islamists as mainstream. The government must lead on this by completely ignoring such groups. If we stop shining the spotlight on the extremist groups we might start to find the moderate groups out there.

Three Suspects Released Without Charge

2007-05-16T10:21:00.000+01:00

The wife of Mohammed Siddique Khan, her brother and a third relative were released without charge yesterday. They had been arrested in connection with the 7/7 attacks. A fourth man, Khalid Khaliq is still being questioned.

The lawyer for Ms Patel told the BBC News:

Those in her community are incredibly angry at the way the police have approached this. In my view, if their intention in this case was to destroy what relations they had with the Muslim community, then they have done that.

A police spokesman pointed out that:

In all operations some people may be released early without charge while others may remain in custody for further investigation. This is not unusual and is to be expected in large and complex criminal investigations.

The Muslim leadership in Britain is directly responsible for creating a situation in which any police action involving Muslims apparently creates anger. Instead of supporting the police wholeheartedly in their difficult job of rooting out the extremists amongst the Muslim communities, the likes of MCB, MAB etc have denounced them. They have made unfounded claims of police bias against Muslims and told their communities to stop cooperating. They have tried to make the police into the enemy.

And the reason? Because the Muslim groups who are given media attention are run by Islamists and extremists. They are not representative of Muslim opinion. Channel 4's survey last year showed that only 4% of Muslims said that MCB represents them, and only 1% said it about the MAB. Yet, these groups of radicals are the ones the media goes to.

Is there really anger in the Muslim communities? To what extent? We won't really know as long as the media let the extremists tell us what is going on. The media need to stop talking to the loudest voices and assume that they are representative; they aren't. Let's start having truly representative people on the media. How about an MP or two?

Abu Hamza Extradition

2007-05-16T10:20:00.000+01:00

Abu Hamza begins his fight against extradition to the US today. In February he was sentenced to 7 years in prison and, if extradited, will be tried in the US, returned to Britain to finish his sentence here before going back to America to serve whatever sentence he has there.

One thing to remember, the British government only arrested and tried Hamza after America sought his extradition. If they hadn't done so, he would still be inciting hatred freely outside Finsbury Park Mosque with police protection.

Positive News From Venice

2007-05-14T10:12:00.000+01:00

Two stories have emerged from a meeting in Venice of the six largest EU members. The first is that security officials have backed a plan to profile mosques across Europe to try and prevent Islamist clerics from radicalising young Muslims. The increasing threat from home-grown Islamists has shown that more needs to be done. Just one example would be the Finsbury Park Mosque where Abu Hamza was allowed to preach hatred for years before anything was done.

The second piece of good news is that John Reid has called for a changing in the Human Rights Laws to reflect the nature of the war with Islamists. He said:

We need to work to modernise the law - still protecting human rights and still providing equity and justice - but reflecting the reality of the conflicts and struggles we now face.

...
The right to security, to the protection of life and liberty, is and should be the basic right on which all others are based. Now, more than ever, it should be the fundamental starting point of all our principles and practices across Europe.

With John Reid stepping down next month, let's hope his successor will act on his words and reform the Human Rights Laws so that our rights to safety and security are treated with at least as much importance as the "right" of criminals and terrorists.

Naturally, Human Rights groups are not happy. Shami Chakrabarti, from Liberty, is quoted by the BBC News as saying:

In this struggle, we have to work with allies around the world to make sure they up their game on human rights because terrorism is being bred in countries which have the worst human rights records.

Obviously, Ms Chakrabarti doesn't watch the news and has failed to spot that many Islamists are being bred right here in Britain. Unless, of course, Liberty think Britain have the worst human rights records.

And here's something for all the BBC bias watchers. Note how early the BBC chooses to quote Ms Chakrabarti's comments. Even before quoting what John Reid had said (which is what the article is actually about) three paragraphs are devoted to Liberty's response. Why place the response before the actual statement? Surely it isn't to ensure that people read Liberty's point of view before that of John Reid? Surely it isn't to ensure that Chakrabarti is above the fold?

Rajib Khan Revealed

2007-05-14T10:11:00.000+01:00

A few weeks ago six men were arrested for financing terrorism abroad. At the time we revealed that each one was a member of Al Muhajiroun, except one man, Rajib Khan. New research would imply that Rajib Khan was a spokesman for Al Muhajiroun who used the name Abu Omar. Below is a photograph taken from two different Islamist websites both run by Ahlus Sunna Wal Jama'ah (the new name for Al Muhajiroun). The one on the right is identified as Rajib Khan, and the one on the left was identified as Abu Omar.

The picture also appears on the website of Trinity College Dublin's Philosophical Society. It was taken at a debate in 2005. Other Islamists at the debate, judging from the photos, include Anjem Choudary, Abdul Rehman Saleem and Umran Javed, all well known members of Al Muhajiroun.

In 2003 a spokesman for Al Muhajiroun using the name Abu Omar described the 19 9/11 terrorists as "magnificent" and said that any Muslims who argued were "apostates".

40% Want Veil Banned in Shopping Centres

2007-05-14T10:10:00.000+01:00

An online poll conducted by G4S Security Services found that most people were afraid of anti-Social behaviour when they visited shopping centres. When asked what they thought should be done about it 41% voted that there should be a ban on clothing that obscured the face.

And, lest you think that this is the opinion held by neo-Nazis or whatever the Islamists will say, the poll also found that 50% wanted to ban the consumption of alcohol in shopping centres. Hoodies were opposed by 31% and offensive t-shirts by a measly 13%.

In an open country like Britain, covering the face is bound to unnerve others. Even ignoring the security problems of not being able to identify who is behind the veil, British culture is one of openness. The veil signifies closeness. And while we can understand why some Muslim women would want to wear it, they should understand how uncomfortable it makes everyone else. Should the majority be made to feel uncomfortable to accommodate the minority?

Return of the Open Thread

2007-05-11T18:45:00.000+01:00

There will be no blogging over the weekend, so here is a thread to leave news items you want to bring attention to, or make any other (preferably interesting) point.

Cameron Ideas

2007-05-11T18:04:00.000+01:00

The leader of the opposition (and possibly future PM) has spent a few days living with a regular Muslim family to find out what it's like. He makes some conclusions which are cause for concern.

He says that, "Every time the BBC or a politician talks about “Islamist terrorists” they are doing immense harm." But goes on to say that, "Of course it’s impossible every single time to say “terrorists who are following a perverted strain of the true religion of Islam” but if we’re going to use shorthand we have got to do better."

There is a contradiction here. On the one hand he seems to appreciate that the terrorism stems from an ideology and that that ideology is based on an extreme interpretation of Islam. Yet, at the same time, he wants us all to use a different word that would hide that link between the violence and Islam. If we hide the link then we prevent ourselves from understanding the cause and therefore we cannot deal with it.

Any new word will still mean the same thing and therefore is there any point inventing a new word? We should be making clear exactly what "Islamism" means. It is because so many people excuse terrorism as a reaction to foreign policy that the term "Islamism" is not understood. If we were honest in saying that the cause of terrorism is an ideology called "Islamism" and we discussed Islamism openly then there would be no misunderstanding of what the term means. It is precisely because we won't tell it like it is that the term is worrying for Muslims.

One other statement that is cause for concern is the following sentence: "My final thought yesterday was that integration is a two way street." Cameron then went on to explain that Britain has many social problems that are putting people off integrating. Hopefully, he simply means that the social issues need to be addressed because they present problems for Western culture. But, the phrase implies that he might mean that we need to address these issues because some of those who have chosen to immigrate here demand it. The latter would be a boon for the Islamists who would see yet more evidence of the weakness of Western culture and how quickly it will back down if you shout and demand loud enough.

What this country (and the West) needs is strong leadership. We need a Prime Minister who will stand up to Islamist pressure and make it clear that the West will fight for its values and will not be dictated to. David Cameron's statements indicate that he might not be that man.

Londonistan Calling

2007-05-11T17:58:00.000+01:00

An interesting piece by Christopher Hitchens in next month's Vanity Fair entitled "Londonistan Calling". Worth reading if you have time (it's quite long).

Two main points that he makes. Firstly that Islamist terrorism is not about Iraq or foreign policy but about an ideology. Secondly, that the government has not done anywhere near enough to tackle this problem. One of the points he makes is that the government regularly tries to "engage" with the Muslims in Britain but always seems to pick out people who have Islamist ideals.

The reason is fairly obvious; they shout the loudest. But the government (and media) need to stop holding these Islamists (from the MCB and MAB and others) up as examples of Muslim opinion. These guys are not representative; they are the problem.

IHRC Working For Terrorist Goals

2007-05-11T08:38:00.000+01:00

The IHRC has released a press statement regarding the kidnapping of Alan Johnston. Johnston was kidnapped on 12th March but this statement from the IHRC was only produced on 9th May, almost two months later. And what is the purpose of the statement; to express concern about the demands from the kidnappers. The statement says:

The Islamic Human Rights Commission is very concerned about claims on al-Jazeera news that BBC journalist Alan Johnston’s kidnappers are demanding the release of Muslim detainees in Britain in exchange for his release.

IHRC calls for the release of British journalist Alan Johnston and condemns any attempt to link his plight to that of Muslim detainees in Britain.

The point of this statement was to try and remove the link between the kidnapping and the "plight" of Muslims detained in Britain. Why? Well, because the IHRC spends a lot of its time working towards having Muslims released from British prisons, including Abu Qatada who's name was mentioned by the kidnappers.

The IHRC wouldn't like to be seen to be campaigning for the same goals as terrorists. But, that is what they are doing. And this statement will not be able to remove that fact.

Blair and Iraq

2007-05-11T08:37:00.000+01:00

Much discussion has been given to Blair's legacy. Particular focus is put on the Iraq war with the majority of the media and leftist commentators telling us that Iraq will ruin Blair's premiership. However, the truth is far from that.

In our war with Islamism there are two eventual outcomes; either we win or lose. If we lose then Iraq will not matter. If we win, though, Iraq together with Afghanistan will be seen as the first stirrings of the West. For decades we in the West have backed down to Islamist pressure and in many cases still do. This has been seen as weakness and emboldens the Islamists. Iraq bucked that trend.

Ask yourself the following simple question; since Saddam didn't have WMDs why did he play around with the inspectors? He knew this would give the impression that he was hiding something. Giving full cooperation with the inspectors would have undermined the cause of going to war and he'd probably still be there.

The answer is that he assumed that the West wouldn't act against him because he assumed that the West is weak. And, looking at the millions of people marching through the streets in support of a murderous tyrant, who can blame him for thinking that. So, our invasion of Iraq showed that the West isn't quite so weak.

In this context Iraq will be remembered as the West's first major step to fully confronting Islamism. It is a milestone on our road to being able to stand up for ourselves and being prepared to do what it takes to ensure the safety of our citizens, culture and civilizations. Iraq will indeed be Blair's legacy and it will leave him standing as one of the best PMs we've had alongside Churchill.

Terror Suspect's Bigamy

2007-05-11T08:36:00.000+01:00

The Sun is reporting that Khalid Khaliq, who was arrested this week in connection with the 7/7 attacks, was a bigamist. Deborah Cummings claims that she married Khalid and had three children with him before discovering that he was already married. And, as if that wasn't bad enough, he brought his other wife to live with them in the same house.

Does this ring a bell? Back in September we revealed that Abu Izzadeen was seeking another wife or three. The story was later picked up and confirmed by the Daily Mail. Is bigamy popular amongst Islamists?

Charity Commission Must Do More

2007-05-11T08:35:00.000+01:00

A Home Office and Treasury report calls on the Charity Commission to work more closely with the police and security services to prevent organisations abusing charity status to raise money for terrorism. Home Office Minister, Tony McNulty, said, "Disrupting the flow of funds is a key part of the global effort to combat terrorism".

One case in point is the Iqra bookshop in Leeds. It was raided in 2005 because it produced and sold Islamist propaganda encouraging terrorism. It was frequented by Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shezad Tanweer. Just this week Khalid Khaliq a worker there was arrested in connection with the 7/7 attacks. Still, Iqra remains a registered charity despite these revelations. (see here and here)

The Greatest Nation on Earth

2007-05-10T12:28:00.000+01:00

Tony Blair has just announced his intention to stand down as Labour leader and Prime Minister on the 27th June. In his speech he described Britain as the greatest nation on earth.

As there won't be any posts today this will be an open thread to discuss Britain and Blair.

The Muslim Association of Britain

2007-05-09T16:29:00.000+01:00

The Muslim Association of Britain is an Islamist organisation; a British branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The group is influential in the Stop the War Coalition and organised the "pro-Hijab" campaign to prevent the banning of the Islamic veil. They have wide support amongst liberal groups who ignore the MAB's connections.

These two articles deal with the MAB's Muslim Brotherhood connections and make it clear that this is an organisation that is far from mainstream Muslim ideas.

Two key players to keep an eye on are Dr Azzam Tamimi, and Osama Saeed. Tamimi has expressed his desire to become a suicide bomber as well as supporting Hamas (the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood) and Hezbollah.

Saeed is often quoted as a spokesman on Muslim matters in Scotland. Saeed is normally discreet although he did tell Muslims to not cooperate with the police.

More Arrests Over 7/7

2007-05-09T16:08:00.000+01:00

The police have arrested four more people in connection with the suicide bombings 2 years ago. Those arrested are:

Hasina Patel - wife of Mohammed Siddique Khan
Arshad Patel - brother of Hasina
Imran Motala - related to Hasina and Arshad
Khalid Khaliq - worked in an extremist Islamic bookshop frequented by MSK, and lives on the same road as Shehzad Tanweer. He was a close friend of both MSK and Tanweer.

Islamists' Demands for Johnston

2007-05-09T15:53:00.000+01:00

The Islamists who kidnapped the BBC's Alan Johnston have released a tape with their demands. The tape didn't show Johnston only his ID card leaving the question of whether he is still alive.

This tape reveals, yet again, that the cause of terrorism is Islamism. The demands were for Muslim prisoners to be released. Not in Israel, the country that we're told is the target for Palestinian terrorism, but British prisoners. Part of the statement was:

We say to all of them [Western countries] - free our prisoners or we will do the same to you. We won't make an exception for anyone. If you need money to release our prisoners we will give you all you need up to the last dirham we have.

So, it isn't about money either. And, if further proof were needed that the cause of this is Islamism, the tape included readings from the Koran. Can we now start to realise that changing our foreign policy will not stop Islamist violence against us?

Bakri Recruiting

2007-05-09T15:50:00.000+01:00

In the aftermath of the fertiliser bomb plot trial it was revealed that Al Muhajiroun, run by Omar Bakri, was at the centre of virtually all British Islamic terrorism. The Sun is reporting that he is still recruiting people to spread his hatred over the Internet.

Neil Doyle has found numerous videos that have been uploaded to the Internet preaching hatred of non-Muslims. He estimates that 20 people are in Britain preaching this hate and trying to radicalise more Muslims.

UPDATE (09/05/07 15:49): Omar Bakri has tried to refute the claims made against him. He told London based newspaper Asharq Alawsat that he was "too pre-occupied with my work in the library learning about and researching Daawa in Lebanon to know what is going on in Britain." he also claimed that "I am not in touch with them and I do not know anything about them."

Bakri is, naturally, lying. Every night he gives lectures via the Paltalk chat room. These lectures are advertised on Al Muhajiroun websites. Of course he knows exactly what is going on here and still has a big hand in orchestrating events.

Stop Quoting Islamists

2007-05-09T08:03:00.000+01:00

An article appeared today in The Scotsman revealing that nearly half of police forces in Scotland do not keep proper records of religious hate crime. Most of the article is absolutely fine, except this:

Osama Saeed, Scottish spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain, said: "There is a climate of fear of Islam and general tension about the international situation. Until you know the scale of the problem, you can't tackle it."

He said there was a "communication gap" between the Muslim community and police, and expressed concern that some officers were treating crimes linked to religion as racially motivated.

Mr Saeed would know all about the "communication gap" because he has helped create it. In November he told a public meeting that the police must "lay off" Muslims, and that Muslims "need to be stronger in our defiance" of the police and that they must "resist" what he perceived as police erosion of civil liberties.

Why is the Scotsman quoting this man as if he was a mainstream Muslim working for a mainstream organisation? He has called for non-cooperation with the police. His organisation's leader, Azzam Tamimi, has supported Hamas and Hezbollah vowing to become a suicide bomber himself if he had the opportunity.

It's about time we opposed the media's love-affair with radical Muslims. They shouldn't be given the opportunity to spread their message, and definitely shouldn't be quoted as if they represented the mainstream Muslim opinion. If the MSM cannot find Muslim spokesmen and organisations that do not support terrorism and oppose the police, then don't quote anyone.

UPDATE (17:05): For those coming from Islamophobia-watch please read this post in which Osama's response is exposed as merely semantics. He argued that the word "non-cooperation" never crossed his lips but ignores the fact that he did tell Muslims to "resist" and be "stronger in their defiance."

MPACUK - It's Foreign Policy, Hamas - It's Islam

2007-05-08T07:59:00.000+01:00

MPACUK have reiterated their claim that all Islamic terrorism stems from our foreign policy. In fact, they claim that only the blind cannot see it. And, once again, this is simply not true; MPACUK and most of the Muslim leadership are conflating two issues.

The Iraq war has certainly served to politicise British Muslims. They are far more aware of events around the world and want to do something about it. However, politicised Muslims do not carry out terror attacks and aim to kill non-Muslims, radicalised Muslims do.

The terrorists themselves produce videos stating that they die for Allah, that they will enter heaven, that their religion compels them to act. The only people who cannot see that at the root of Islamic terrorism is a version of Islam are the people who do not want to see it.

This insistence that Islamic terror is because of foreign policy makes it impossible for Muslims to oppose it. By convincing themselves that terrorism is a result of foreign policy opposing it becomes opposing opposition to foreign policy, and they can't do that.

Now, while MPACUK and the British Muslim leadership and the liberals shout that it's foreign policy, Hamas have stated clearly today that it's an ideology based on religion. Ahmed Youssef, an aide to Ismail Haniyeh, has said this clearly in discussion over Alan Johnston's kidnapping. The Scotsman reports:

"It's on the way to being resolved. It's being addressed religiously and ideologically," he said, but would not say whether he expected Mr Johnston to be released in days or weeks.

Mr Youssef said negotiators were trying to convince the kidnappers that the extremist Islamic ideology they used to justify holding westerners is incorrect.

Here we have an Islamic extremist himself telling us that this terrorism is the result of an ideology based on Islam. Any questions?

Mission Statement

2007-05-07T10:08:00.000+01:00

A post last Friday mentioned some of the aims of this blog and it became apparent that these aims had never been clearly stated and explained. This post shall do just that.

There are three main aims:

1) To encourage Muslims to publicly oppose violent extremism.

There are two reasons for this aim. First, and foremost, it is because Muslims alone can solve the problem. The root cause of Islamic terrorism is an ideology that interprets Islam as requiring Muslims to kill non-Muslims in an attempt to create an Islamic Caliphate. While many Muslims have become politicised by the Iraq war, those in Britain who become suicide bombers or who aid and abet them, have done so because of the ideology that they have been introduced to. Therefore, since the cause is an interpretation of Islam, the only people who can stop that are Muslims themselves.

Secondly, even if publicly opposing extremism, through demonstrations and ostracising the radical preachers, doesn't have any effect on extremism (which is highly unlikely) it will have a major effect on the British population. The radicalisation of some Muslims in Britain is having a radicalising effect on some British people. The result is that all minority groups are suffering and will suffer. By openly opposing extremism the Muslim community will allay the fears of the British public and will ease the pressure they are under as well as improving the relations of all parts of British society.

2) To fight against racism against Muslims

As has been mentioned, the radicalisation of some Muslims has been mirrored by some Brits. The result of that radicalisation has been the spreading of lies and scare-stories about Muslims and the effect is now seen with increased opposition to all forms of multiculturalism and religious activity. As a blog that deals with Islamic extremism it is likely that people who may already be or heading towards that form of radicalisation will be reading this. Therefore, hopefully, we are in a position to help fight that form of racism too.

NB: The use of the term racism is in its more general sense to include discrimination against identifiable groups of people. It is used as a short-hand for religious discrimination which is just as serious.

3) To highlight and discuss other interesting topics that come to hand.

Up to 4,000 Terror Suspects

2007-05-07T10:07:00.000+01:00

Lord Stevens, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, suggested that the real figure for the number of terrorists in the UK could be as high as 4,000. MI5 said last week put the figure at 2,000.

Lord Stevens went on to say that the security services were "still too underfunded and undermanned to cope with the task they face in the decades to come. And that's how long this will last."

Two points to note. This will last for decades because this isn't about foreign policy. If Islamic terrorism were caused only by our foreign policy then they would stop the moment our policy changed to be in accord with them. And, equally, would not stop any sooner. However, once we note that their cause is an ideological one, then we will be in this fight until that ideology is defeated, and that will take decades.

Secondly, it is very important to realise that 4,000 amounts to just 0.25% of the Muslims population in Britain. While many Muslims have become politicised over the last decade or more, only a tiny fraction represent a threat to Britain and our values. We must always keep things in perspective.

Political Correctness Stifling Debate

2007-05-07T10:06:00.000+01:00

Professor Ted Cantle, a government advisor, has said that political correctness is preventing a proper debate over so-called "white flight". The statement comes because BBC is due to air a Panorama documentary tonight about the issue in Blackburn. (read full story here)

The producer of the Panorama programme said:

We found a great nervousness - people didn't feel able to speak openly about their unease about the way things were changing and about the gulf between the two communities. We were very struck by that. They struggled to find a way to say they didn't want to be taken over. They had no way of expressing it. They were afraid of saying the wrong thing and coming across as racist.

A Home Office spokesman said that the laws only banned speech in which the speaker deliberately intended to cause hatred.

The problem here isn't the laws themselves; it is the perception of them. The climate of political correctness has become so ingrained that people no longer feel able to express their opinions. This situation must be tackled. We need our MPs to be brave enough to speak frankly and openly. Not only will that openness allow others to be open but when people see their politicians being honest and open it may even improve the level of trust between MPs and the public.

However, this requires true effort. When Jack Straw dared to speak openly about the veil he was vilified and many of his colleagues refused to back his right to say what he said. In the end, though, he forced it through and there was some proper debate on the topic. And, what's more, the subject is no longer taboo.

We need more MPs with that courage to talk about other issues.

Lord Falconer Backs Veil Ban

2007-05-07T10:05:00.000+01:00

Lord Falconer addressed the annual conference of the National Association of Head Teachers in Bournemouth yesterday. During his speech he told head teachers that they shouldn't worry about being prosecuted under the Human Rights Act if they make a reasonable decision to ban the veil.

He referred to the recent ruling that defended Denbigh High School after it banned a student from wearing a jilbab. He said:

The case showed how uniform can be a difficult issue and one where head teachers and the schools' governing bodies have to think extremely carefully. But more than that it showed that common sense and human rights are entirely in line with each other.

BBC Omission

2007-05-07T10:04:00.000+01:00

In Gaza, Islamic extremists attacked a UN-run school which was hosting a sports festival that they considered to be un-Islamic. Extremists had earlier held a protest outside the school before returning with guns and bombs. One bomb was thrown into the school and a security guard was killed. (see here for more)

Is this newsworthy? Not if you ask the BBC. Not a hint of this on their website.

Why not? Would it be too cynical to suggest that it is because this is a case of Islamic extremism in Gaza that cannot be blamed on Israel?

Blair on Radical Islam

2007-05-04T13:04:00.000+01:00

In an interview with a German paper, Tony Blair, reiterated the point we try and make here often; it's them not us. He said:

We must show the Muslim world that we let our values apply to everyone. That's why Guantanamo (Bay) is an issue for people.

But we are also on the defensive because we are not energetic in contradicting the opinion of radical Muslims who want to convince us that terrorism somehow has something to do with our behaviour.

The first point touches onto the issue of changing our basic values of justice in order to tackle extremists. The second point is one that is still not appreciated in Britain. It's a point that this blog is partly designed to make, namely that Islamic terrorism is based on an interpretation of Islam.

For too long the MCB, MPACUK and practically every other Muslim body in this country, aided and abetted by the Lib Dems (and others) and, to some extent, by the MSM, have tried to tell us that Islamism is a result of our foreign policy. And worse still, they have tried to convince us to surrender our foreign policy to the terrorists by acting as they dictate.

For as long as this view continues another key aim of this blog will not be fulfilled. One aim for this blog is to try and convince the Muslim community in Britain that it is their responsibility to stand up to their co-religionists. Ultimately, it is only mainstream Muslims who can kill off the Islamist ideology that puts us all at risk.

However, while they continue to be in denial of the cause of Islamist terror they will not act. While they continue to convince themselves and others that it isn't about Islam but rather about our foreign policy they will not stand up to the likes of Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri. And until they do, they will continue to live under suspicion and we will all continue to live in danger.

British Blogging Power (Part 3)

2007-05-04T12:19:00.000+01:00

In the final instalment of our assessment of political blogging, we will attempt to answer the last remaining question which is why blogs are able to influence the MSM. In part 1 we examined the ability of blogs to directly influence people. The conclusion was that (relative to population) British blogs had a greater ability to directly influence than American ones.

In part 2, though, we showed that the blogs wielded their power by influencing the MSM. In America the MSM is quote open in quoting from blogs whereas in the UK they are not. It is likely that even in Britain blogs do indeed influence the MSM but since no recognition is actually given to them it becomes hard to measure successes. This analysis raised the question of why MSM journalists read blogs and become influenced by them. This is what this part will deal with.

There are three reasons that could explain this. The first is that some blogs are essentially single-issue. This means that the blog becomes a store-house for more specialised information on a particular issue and also means that the author/s may be more knowledgeable in that field. For a journalist who cannot know everything in detail these resources provide an easy way to access information and do some background research into an issue.

Another key reason is the structure of the blogosphere. There are a plethora of small blogs and a small number of large blogs. When a small blog uncovers an important piece of information it will normally be passed up the chain to the bigger blogs. This movement happens very quickly and so this information, uncovered by one individual somewhere, can quickly be told to many thousands. And, since it reaches prominence quite quickly, the MSM can pick up on it and report it while it is still relevant. In this way the blogosphere acts as an investigative organisation that can uncover information and bring it to the attention of the MSM. It is in this capacity that the blogs are hailed for their ability to scrutinise everything, because it only takes one person to spot a mistake and there are thousands looking.

The last reason also stems from the structure of the blogosphere. In the blogosphere, some stories can be kept on the front page. The MSM might lose interest in a story very quickly because they feel it to be unimportant. However, if the story remains strong on the blogosphere then this is an indication that the public consider it important. Thus the MSM can use blogs to gauge public interest.

Based on this, blogs are only useful if they can fulfil one of these three criteria. They must either be specialised, investigative or large.

There is one exception; the blog written by an already well known commentator. This type of blog has influence because the person who writes it has influence. If the author were to pick up the phone he could directly influence the MSM that way, but instead complements that form of influence with a blog. In the case of MPs the blog is designed purely to be a PR exercise and acts as a steady release of press statements.

New Veil Anger

2007-05-04T09:56:00.000+01:00

A bus company in Scotland has produced new guidelines about veiled passengers. The guidelines state that if a passenger is attempting to use a travel card they must identify themselves either by lifting their veil (to match their face to the photo-card) or by producing a driving licence or passport. The aim is to prevent people from using another person's card.

The BBC quotes from two Muslim spokespersons who both claim that this rule is unnecessary for two reasons; 1) hardly anyone wears the veil and 2) people aren't going to put on a veil just to avoid paying for their bus fare. Both these points argue that the rule is a waste of time. But being a waste of time is a problem for the company, if it wants to waste time, let it.

One of the spokesmen, Sohaib Saeed, events co-ordinator at Edinburgh Central Mosque, was at least honest enough (after giving his fake reasons for opposing the rule) to let us know his real objection. "This rule is intrusive and it's singling people out."

Wrong and wrong. Seeing someone's face is not considered intrusive in this country, and the women do not even have to show their face, they only need to identify themselves. That can hardly be considered intrusive. As to singling people out; they have singled themselves out.

Once again we see this attitude that people should be free to make a decision and expect there to be no repercussions. If a woman chooses to wear a veil she must accept that that comes with consequences. She should be free to make that decision, but then don't expect (or insist) that others alter their behaviour to accommodate your decision. Like everyone in this world, they must live their life with the consequences of their decision.

However, the drivers are unhappy, and with good reason. As one told the Scotsman:

It seems unnecessary and puts drivers in an awkward and potentially dangerous position. We risk being branded racist.

Their complaint is valid and just exposes the sorry state of our society.

A Model For Muslims

2007-05-03T09:35:00.000+01:00

On Monday night, Inayat Bunglawala appeared on Newsnight. He was asked by Jeremy Paxman why the Muslim community didn't do anything to stop Abu Hamza and the like. He answered that there was nothing they could do.

Well, Inayat, that simply isn't true, is it. Just for you Inayat, here's how a religious community responds to members of their community who spread ideas that are abhorrent.

Back in January Iran hosted a conference for Holocaust deniers. Some Jews from a group called Neturei Karta attended. Their presence, obviously, enraged the Jewish community around the world. Here was a group of people claiming to act in accordance with the Jewish faith but, in fact, acting against the interests of all Jews. One of their leaders lives in Manchester. What did the Jewish community do to oppose his views?

He was completely ostracised. Local Jewish shops refused to serve him. He was banned from synagogues. He was told that he would not be buried by the local Jewish community (a big thing apparently). The local rabbis signed a statement declaring him not to be a proper rabbi. There were repeated demonstrations outside his home.

That is a how a religious community acts when one of its members perverts its religion and becomes its enemy. So, if the Muslim leadership really wants us to believe that they detest that actions and statements of the likes of Abu Hamza, let them respond in a similar way. Until then, we will all be left wondering whether or not they really oppose their views.

MCB Deceit

2007-05-03T09:09:00.000+01:00

The MCB has jumped on the bandwagon of those asking for a public inquiry into 7/7. The Muslim Council of Britain claims that:

The MCB’s support for a statutory judicial inquiry is a demonstration of its unequivocal support for effective measures to counter terrorism.

This is what is commonly referred to as a lie. Earlier in the press release, Dr Bari is quoted as saying:

It is of crucial importance that we find out in an objective manner the reasons that led those young people to perpetrate their atrocity. We cannot begin to address this phenomenon unless we know its causes.

Those calling for a 7/7 inquiry want to know that MI5 and the security services were doing their job properly. The MCB want an inquiry, not about the effectiveness of our security, but about an entirely different topic. They want an inquiry into the causes of Islamic terrorism.

Of course, the MCB have their own politicised idea of the cause of Islamist terror; our foreign policy. Last September, the MCB rejected John Reid's calls for Muslims to be watch out for signs that their children are being radicalised by declaring that the government was, "continuing to ignore the damage that some of our foreign policies, particularly in the Middle East, have done to our national security".

The MCB is well aware that any study into the causes of terrorism will inevitably state (as is the case) that invading Iraq and Afghanistan has contributed to extremism. It was always known that it would and no one has disputed that it has. The MCB will shout to the rooftops that we must change our foreign policy to prevent terrorism. Or, to be put it more simply, we must accept the demands of the terrorists.

However, the MCB are also aware that Islamist terrorism is not caused by our foreign policy. Islamist terror may be exacerbated by it, but it is caused by an extreme interpretation of Islam. Michael Gove, MP for Surrey Heath, wrote an article in The Times yesterday pointing out, again, that it is not our foreign policy that is the root cause of Islamic terrorism. That article is worth reading.

The terrorists themselves acknowledge that foreign policy is not the cause. Their statements show this time and again. Sure, they link their attacks to Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya etc etc. But underlying all of that is their statements about Islam and a Caliphate.

Here is an interesting quote with regards to the kidnappers of the BBC's Alan Johnston in Gaza:

Money is not the issue. The issue is an incorrect understanding of Islam, how to deal with foreigners in general, an incorrect understanding of Islam among some.

Who said that? Ahmed Youssef, an aide to the Palestinian Prime Minister. He ought to know. The MCB wonders why it is being ignored by the government, but it is quite clear. It is because the MCB refuses to acknowledge that Islamic terrorism stems from Islam and rather continues to tell the government to surrender to terrorists.

Looking At MPs Blogs

2007-05-03T08:59:00.000+01:00

Continuing our look into the world of political blogging, it is appropriate to link to a post by Stephen Tall. His article focuses mainly on blogs written by MPs or candidates and the effect they have. He makes the same point that we made in part 2; blogs work by influencing the media.

However, he makes the mistake that we exposed in part 1 by using hit rates to measure the power of blogs. He concludes, inevitably, that the American ones are the "über-bloggers" as he puts it. As we showed in part 1 the American giants are (relative to population) not so powerful in their ability to directly influence the masses. In his defence, though, Stephen does point out that the MSM are still the "big boys".

Overall, an interesting article, even if it doesn't address the key issue (which we will deal with soon) of why blogs have any influence with the MSM? Stay tuned for that.

British Blogging Power (Part 2)

2007-05-02T07:41:00.000+01:00

In part 1 we introduced a sensible measure for calculating the power of blogs, namely CI (measured in minutes/day) "capacity to influence". At the end of the analysis I made a bit of a howler by dividing the CI's of the American blogs by 3 instead of 5. In actual fact, the British blogs have CI ratings that are relatively higher than their American counterparts.

One blog, EUReferendum, has a CI rating of 6489CI. Adjusting this for the American population and using the average time per visit of Daily Kos would give that site over 970,000 hits per day!

So, if British blogs actually outperform the American ones on the basis of their capacity to influence, why do American blogs have, in reality, more influence? The answer lies in understanding the actual influence the blogosphere has.

Using the CI rating we see that even the top blogs would have a CI rating of no more than around 7,000CI. Compare this to the CI rating of a national newspaper in Britain and it becomes apparent that blogs are powerless. Take the Daily Telegraph, for example. They sold 2,219,000 papers between April and September 2006. This works out at 12,060 a day. Assuming that each person who buys a paper reads it for 10 minutes this gives a CI rating of 120,600CI. Astronomically huge compared to any blog. Clearly, the power of blogs does not come from being widely read.

The power of blogs comes from influencing the right people; the MSM journalists. There have been many stories on the blogosphere some which make an impact in the real world and some which don't. Let's take two examples from last Summer's Israel-Hezbollah war (thanks to Natalie Solent for reminding me of this). During that war it emerged that Adnan Hajj was faking photos for Reuters, he was subsequently sacked and his pictures removed. At about the same time "Green Helmet Guy" was all over the blogosphere apparently manipulating the media, especially at Qana. The latter case had no apparent real life consequences.

What was the difference between the two? The MSM. A Google news archive search for "adnan hajj" returns 681 hits. "green helmet guy" returns 14. Taking another example of a successful blogosphere story; Rathergate. That term returns 733 hits on the archive. While not an exhaustive study, it would seem to indicate that the blogosphere stories have an impact only when picked up by the MSM. And this is the key difference between America and Britain.

In America, the MSM journalists often seem to quote the blogs and many bloggers make regular appearances on current affairs programmes. Again using a Google news archive search we find that "Daily Kos" returns 2,800 hits while "EUReferendum" returns only 156. (I am very much open to hearing new evidence if you have any).

The final question, for part three, is why do MSM journalists use the blogosphere? Stay tuned.

Not Good Enough

2007-05-01T15:06:00.000+01:00

Five of the Al Muhajiroun members arrested last week were remanded in custody last night. However, two of the men, Omar Zaheer and Shah (Shal) Jalal Hussain, were released on bail.

This is very disappointing. Al Muahjiroun are behind virtually all of the home-grown terrorists in this country. Our judges should be clamping down hard on them. Releasing these men on bail sends the wrong message.

Last year, after the Danish cartoon protest, Anjem Choudary was charged with holding the rally without getting proper permission. He was fined just £500. At the time MP Andrew Dismore said:

He should have been given the maximum sentence possible. £500 is a ridiculously small sum given this man's appalling track record. But the real issue is why the Crown Prosecution Service and the police have chosen to prosecute him on such a minor charge.

Once again we find ourselves asking why our own judges (and therefore the CPS) seem unable or unwilling to come down hard on these people. It's just not good enough.

A number of people who were found guilty of soliciting murder and/or inciting racial hatred at the Al Muhajiroun Danish cartoon protest are due to be sentenced soon. Let's hope that the sentences actually reflect how serious the threat from Al Muhajiroun really is.

Muslim Position on Al Muhajiroun

2007-05-01T09:13:00.000+01:00

With the revelation that Al Muhajiroun are behind virtually every home-grown terrorist in Britain, it is appropriate to look at what the Muslim groups have done to stop them.

The MCB has not released a statement about yesterday's events. However, Inayat Bunglawala appeared on Newsnight last night claiming that there was nothing Muslims could do about the likes of Abu Hamza. He claimed that the Muslim community had informed the police about him but that they themselves could do nothing.

This is, of course, rubbish. Why weren't the proper clerics brought in to counter his vile? When he was preaching in the street where were the Muslim leaders to oppose him? Why wasn't he excommunicated by the Muslim community for perverting Islam?

But there's more. In 2003 Bunglawala claimed, "In the long run, it is surely that lack of balance in some of our policies which represents a greater challenge to relations between Islam and the West than the sorry antics of al-Muhajiroun." And in Feb 2006 the MCB dismissed Al Muhajiroun as "mischievous elements".

Do the MCB now accept that they were wrong? Do they accept that they could and should have done more to stop this group from radicalising Muslims?

Let's move on to another favourite of the media; the Islamic Human Rights Commission. Again, not much by way of condemnation of this group. The only thing that this group had to say about them was to oppose calls for their prosecution after the Danish cartoons protest.

Finally, we have the very vocal MPACUK. In a piece today they blame our foreign policy for radicalising young Muslims (something which we know not to be true because most of these Muslims were involved with Al Muhajiroun pre-9/11). They also blame the Mosque leaders for not doing anything. At least we can agree on the latter.

However, MPACUK haven't exactly done much themselves. After the Danish protest they said, "it's wrong that we Muslims have not dealt with them once and for all." Did MPACUK then go on to deal with them? No. In October they suggested that Al Muhajiroun were government agents! Then in February the head of MPACUK told Sky News that Izzadeen "isn't really an extremist" (watch here with thanks to Kasper).

So, we know that the Muslim community isn't chock full of random people waiting to become terrorists. We know that there is a group of identified people who are radicalising Muslims. We know that up to know the Muslim leaders have pretty much ignored them or worse. Will we now see a change in attitude to Britain's Al Qaeda?

"Covenant of Security" Still Operating?

2007-05-01T08:37:00.000+01:00

We reported yesterday that playing a seemingly central role in the radicalisation of British "home grown" terrorists was Al Muhajiroun. Last night Newsnight confirmed this and went further. They revealed that Al Muhajiroun had set up training camps in Pakistan where these terrorists were sent. (Watch the Newsnight report here, or here, and read the more detailed report here).

The implications of this are huge. We now know that the home grown terrorists are not just random, angry, young Muslims. They are people who have been selected and groomed, radicalised and trained by a known organisation; Al Muhajiroun. As we wrote yesterday, "If they are completely shut down we may be one large step closer towards making Britain safe from the home-grown radicals."

Some serious questions, though, are raised by this. The so-called "covenant of security" between the security services and Al Muhajiroun has been exposed. When did it end? As far as Al Muhajiroun are concerned it clearly ended some years ago, but have our security services stopped too?

In August 2005 the leader of Al Muhajiroun, Omar Bakri, fled Britain for Lebanon. By this time the security services must have known all the connections between himself and all the home-grown terrorists. Yet, they let him leave. He was subsequently banned from Britain. He is now free to continue preaching his hate over the Internet, an activity he carries out every night. Furthermore, many of his followers are still free to radicalise British Muslims.

The enemy has been clearly identified for almost 2 years, and yet little has been done to round them up and stop their radicalising of young Muslims. Are the security services still operating under this "covenant of security"?

We, as a country, are close to paying a serious blow to the threat of home-grown terrorism. The targets are known we just need to act. Let's hope that those in the position of authority will shut Al Muhajiroun down for good.

It's All Muhajiroun

2007-04-30T14:25:00.000+01:00

Now that the trial of Omar Khyam and Co is over, the links between Khyam and 7/7 are allowed to be revealed. As far as the MSM is concerned the main point here is that the leader of the 7/7 bombers, Mohammed Siddique Khan, came up on MI5's radar and they didn't track him.

Really, this is a red herring because at the time there was no indication that Khan was planning anything and who knows how many people came up on the radar during the surveillance of Khyam. However, there is a big connection here: Al Muhajiroun.

Omar Khyam, the ringleader of the fertiliser bomb plot, was first radicalised by Al Muhajiroun. Some of the other members of his group were also radicalised by Al Muhajiroun. The main evidence against these men came from an Islamist in prison in the US called Muhammad Junaid Babar. He too was radicalised by Al Muhajiroun over the Internet and subsequently had training with the fertiliser plotters in Pakistan.

Khyam's links to Mohammed Siddique Khan, the 7/7 leader, are now documented. In 2003 they first men in a training camp in Pakistan. BBC reporter, Richard Watson, in a report from 2005 said that it was Al Muhajiroun that had facilitated Khan's trip there. This is hinted at in a report today on the BBC that says that some unidentified "Luton-based extremist" sent Khan to Pakistan.

The picture here is quite clear - the home-grown terrorists springing up across this country are not acting alone. Al Muhajiroun is radicalising them and sending them on their way to Al Qaeda and terrorism. And even now Al Muhajiroun continue to radicalise young Muslims in Britain. If they are completely shut down we may be one large step towards making Britain safe from the home-grown radicals.

5 Guilty of Bomb Plot

2007-04-30T12:20:00.000+01:00

5 men have been found guilty of plotting to bomb Britain. The five men are Omar Khyam, the leader Jawad Akbar, Salahuddin Amin, Waheed Mahmood and Anthony Garcia. The trial has been ongoing for over a year.

The plot centred on 600kg of fertiliser that had been bought to make bombs from. Possible targets included a shopping centre, nightclub and Parliament. Two men were acquitted.

Daily Express - Hysterical Nonsense?

2007-04-30T11:34:00.000+01:00

Splashed across the front page of today's Daily Express is a story about Sharia courts in Britain. The express headline reads: "NOW MUSLIMS GET THEIR OWN LAWS IN BRITAIN". Quite obviously, the headline is intended to cause concern. Even the use of the word "Now" is, presumably, designed to imply that this is another step in a process. The question is, though, is there any merit to this story?

The article itself doesn't carry very much new information. It simply tells us that there are Sharia courts operating in the major cities of the UK. We already knew that. Back in November the BBC investigated the Sharia courts of Britain and found them to be little different to the Jewish courts that have operated in this country for decades. They are religious courts of arbitration. Their decisions are legally binding under the Arbitration Act 1996 (not sure what happened before then).

Clearly, so long as these courts are dealing merely with civil cases, and the two parties agree to be bound by the court's decision, there is nothing to discuss. However, should the courts be dealing with criminal cases then this is a different matter. The Express report makes no mention of any criminal cases being judged by these Sharia courts. Certainly, no new laws have been invented for Muslims as the headline implies.

This article appears to nothing other than a cheap attempt to gain readers with an apparently shocking "exclusive". However, there is nothing new in the article. As proof of the purpose and stupidity of this article one need look no further than the following paragraph:

The Daily Express can reveal that one of the controversial courts has been set up in the home town of the 7/7 London bombings ringleader.

Is this a revelation? No; it's a pathetic attempt to link a perfectly valid court of arbitration to a terrorist act. There are real problems within the Muslim community, but inventing new ones to sell papers is to do a disservice to the entire country. Shame on them.

Power Struggle in Al Muhajiroun?

2007-04-30T09:53:00.000+01:00

Since it emerged that all six men arrested last week were members of Al Muhajiroun, there has been renewed interest in the group. The protest on Friday raises a question - is there a struggle for control of Al Muhajiroun?

At the time we noted that there was apparent confusion as to who organised the protest. The IHT quoted Anjem Choudary as calling on people to rally on behalf of Abu Izzadeen, while the BBC claimed that it was relatives and friends of Rajib Khan who were organising it.

Another article, quotes two men. One is Abu Farooq. He said he was a relative of one of the men but refused to say which one. He is, in fact, a relative of Khan. (This source places him outside his relative's house in Luton after the arrest and Khan was the only one from Luton). The other man quoted is Sayful Islam. He is the head of Al Muhajiroun in Luton and is quoted as the organiser of the event. He claims to be "very close" to Khan. And in this Evening Standard story from 2004 he is apparently quite close to Abdul Haq too.

There is a real possibility that Sayful Islam is trying to place himself as the new leader of Al Muhajiroun. Choudary was Omar Bakri's right hand man - but Bakri is stuck in Lebanon. And with Izzadeen now in prison too there may be room for Islam to make a bid for leadership. So, is there any proof? Well, possibly.

Towards the end of last year there were two notable protest events; the heckling of John Reid and the protest outside Westminster Cathedral. The Westminster Cathedral protest took place a week earlier. Now, at that protest there were two types of placard/poster. The first was a piece of paper with a black line at the bottom containing the words (in white) "The Muslims". These were exactly the same posters used in the heckling of John Reid (see here).

However, there were some other posters at the Westminster Cathedral protest. If you look at the pictures here you'll see that, while most posters are the ones described above, there are others which do not have the black line and are stuck onto a cardboard backing.

Apparently there were two suppliers to that protest. Choudary was connected to the black line posters as he was the second man heckling John Reid holding the same posters (again see here). Now that some photos are available of the Paddington Protest (here) you can see that the placards used for that protest are pieces of paper stuck on cardboard backings with not a black line in sight.

What does all this add up to? Possibly, it means that back in September Choudary was in charge, hence most of the posters were his style, and now he isn't. This could be bad news because when extremists vie for power they tend to score points by who can cause the most mayhem.

And, to be honest, it doesn't matter much who is in charge as they all have one aim - to turn Britain and the world into one giant Islamic Caliphate. They all incite violence and they all need to be shut down.

Al Muhajiroun 6 charged

2007-04-30T08:59:00.000+01:00

The six members of Al Muhajiroun arrested last week have all been charged under the Terrorism Act 2000 for raising terrorism funds. Furthermore, Izzadeen, Keeler, Haq and Khan have been charged for incitement, while Haq has also been charged with possession of articles suspected to be connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of a terrorist act. Note that the man identified as Ibrahim Abdullah Hassan is also known as Abdul Haq.

Interestingly, two more members of Al Muhajiroun were found guilty of incitement for their part in the Danish cartoons protest and are due to be sentenced any day now. They are Abdul Rahman Saleem (aka Aby Yahya) a former spokesman of Al Muhajiroun; and Umran Javed, Al Muhajiroun's leader in Birmingham. Omar Zaheer (one of the six just charged) was also charged for incitement as part of the Danish protest but charges were later dropped.

Hopefully these developments indicate that the police are now (finally) in a position to put an end to Al Muhajiroun's recruitment and incitement.