Anti-Semitism at MPACUK?

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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?

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

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

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.