Robert Spencer

|

Pamela Geller

|

Bat Ye'or

|

Brigitte Gabriel

|

Daniel Pipes

|

Debbie Schlussel

|

Walid Shoebat

|

Joe Kaufman

|

Wafa Sultan

|

Geert Wilders

|

The Nuclear Card

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

Archive | Anti-Loons

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Geert Wilders ‘Unwelcome’ in Eifel Town

Posted on 17 March 2010 by Emperor

Geert Wilders

Geert Wilders

His star is growing in the circles of hate but rational people still regard him as a creep.

Dutch Populist Wilders ‘unwelcome’ in Eifel Town

The Dutch anti-Islam populist Geert Wilders has been told he is “not welcome” in the western German town of Monschau after he spent the weekend in the Eifel region.

The parliamentarian and leader of the far-right Party for Freedom, along with several armed bodyguards, stayed from Saturday afternoon until Sunday morning in the town, according to police in the city of Aachen.

Wilders, who promotes a strongly anti-immigration and anti-Muslim platform, has called for the Koran to be banned in the Netherlands, among other incendiary positions. His party recently performed strongly in council elections.

Monschau Mayor Margareta Ritter said she was concerned that Wilders’ presence had tainted her town with the suspicion that it was sympathetic to his views. As a result, Monschau had unfairly been connected with extremism in the European press.

“Of course I care very much if such persons feel comfortable here,” she said. “Anyone who pollutes the integration debate in the Netherlands with poisonous right-wing populism as Wilders has, is not welcome in Monschau. I wanted to distinguish Monschau from that.”

But she was not in favour of a legal bar against Wilders’ coming to the area and if he wanted to return, he could, she said. The populist politician was briefly barred from entering Britain in 2009 for his unsavoury views.

Wilders presence in Monschau only became public knowledge because he suffered a dizzy spell there.

Whether Wilders was merely holidaying in Monschau or had been meeting with like-minded people, Ritter was unable to say.

Police were in contact with Wilders’ bodyguards drove past his hotel several times to check there was no trouble, according to a police statement. The outspoken opponent of Islam has received death threats from Muslim militants and therefore has his own, round-the-clock bodyguards.

DPA/The Local (news@thelocal.de)

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Federal Body: Daniel Pipes et al. are “Extremist Sources”

Posted on 14 March 2010 by Danios

Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein

EEOC Finds Bias in NYC Firing Arab School Principal, Almontaser

by Richard Silverstein

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that the New York City Department of Education (DOE) discriminated against Debbie Almontaser, founding principal of the Khalil Gibran Academy, the City’s first Arab-language public school, when they removed her from her position. Readers of this blog may recall a ferocious campaign waged by Jewish neocons and Islamophobes like Daniel Pipes, David Yerushalmi, the N.Y. Post, and Stop the Madrasa against the school and Almontaser personally.

Matters came to a head when Almontaser was smeared over a T-shirt displaying the word “Intifada.” Her opponents made her out to be a supporter of Islamism and armed resistance because she explained the Arabic meaning of the word to a reporter, while not denouncing it sufficiently. When Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein dropped her like a hot potato, her days were numbered. After her forced resignation, she sued and lost. Then she filed a claim with EEOC for discrimination. The N.Y. Times reports on the finding:

A federal commission has determined that New York City’s Department of Education discriminated against the founding principal of an Arabic-language public school by forcing her to resign in 2007 following a storm of controversy driven by opponents of the school.

Acting on a complaint filed last year by the principal, Debbie Almontaser, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that the department “succumbed to the very bias that creation of the school was intended to dispel and a small segment of the public succeeded in imposing its prejudices on D.O.E. as an employer,” according to a letter issued by the commission on Tuesday.

The commission said that the department had discriminated against Ms. Almontaser, a Muslim of Yemeni descent, “on account of her race, religion and national origin.”

This is a great deal for civil rights in New York and in America. It is a day that Arab-Americans can be proud. It is a day when all Americans should be proud. Debbie Almontaser turned to the federal government for redress and it did what it could to make her whole.

This is a day when Muslim-haters like Norman Podhoretz and his friends I mentioned above should hide their heads in shame (though they will shake their fists in defiance instead). Their bullying has been shown for what it is: un-American, unfair, unjust. We are better than the haters in Stop the Madrasa. The democratic system worked.

My chief regret is that the political leadership of New York and the Jewish communal leadership were cowards and turned tail at the first sign of trouble. Instead of standing up to the ranters, Bloomberg folded at the earliest opportunity. The New York Jewish federation, after allowing Rabbi Michael Paley to represent it in the fight on behalf of the Academy, forced him to shut up. I was never able to determine who specifically made this decision–whether it was an executive decision by CEO Jon Ruskay or a lay decision influenced by a wealthy neocon board member like James Tisch. Whoever made the decision betrayed the courage necessary for true leadership. Instead of speaking out and doing the right thing, they let Daniel Pipes present the Jewish community’s position by default.

The EEOC called on New York City to do the right thing:

The commission asked the Department of Education to reach a “just resolution” with Ms. Almontaser and to consider her demands, which include reinstatement to her old job, back pay, damages of $300,000 and legal fees. Should the two sides fail to reach an agreement, the dispute will end up in court, her lawyer said.

Instead of hearing the message, the City’s attorney said his client would fight Ms. Almontaser every step of the way. They still haven’t gotten the message. I only hope that cooler heads will prevail. The former principal was wronged and deserves her job back and the chance to lead this school. That’s what’s fair. That’s what’s American.

I do take issue with one statement in this report:

Despite Ms. Almontaser’s longstanding reputation as a moderate Muslim, her critics succeeded in recasting her as a “9/11 denier” and a “jihadist.”

This is very sloppy writing and editing. Her critics did NOT succeed in recasting her as any of those things. But the mud flung by the Islamophobes resonated in certain quarters (like the pages of the Post) and her employer hung her out to dry. There was never ANY truth to any of the claims against Almontaser. They were all lies. So in that sense her critics could not have succeeded in any objective sense in labeling her. But they waged a vitriolic racist campaign which the DOE and city refused to counteract. Rather than fight, they folded.

In its criticism of the City’s actions, the Commission found that Almontaser had said nor done anything related to the T-shirt incident that warranted her removal:

It was The Post’s article, the commission wrote in its letter this week, that prompted the Department of Education to force Ms. Almontaser to resign. (City officials have said that she resigned voluntarily.)

“Significantly, it was not her actual remarks, but their elaboration by the reporter — creating waves of explicit anti-Muslim bias from several extremist sources — that caused D.O.E. to act,” the commission’s letter said.

I’m delighted that the EEOC pointedly noted the nasty role playing by Pipes and STM and labelled them “extremist.”

Comments (7)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Rachel bin Maddow Arrested for Being Member of Al-Qaeda

Posted on 07 March 2010 by Danios

rachel-maddow

Rachel Maddow’s monologue is barely exaggeration.  It is almost exactly how the far right wing in our country operates. Enjoy:

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

These neo-cons don’t actually believe in American values.  They don’t value our system.  They don’t support the adversarial system that forms the basis of our jurisprudential system.  These hatemongers don’t realize that in the American legal system, even Satan himself would get a lawyer and a fair trial.  That’s the greatness of our country.  Do these neo-cons not believe in the ideals of our great nation?

Instead, they want to adopt the ways of dictatorships…simply greasing people suspected of terrorism, or locking them up in gulags without fair trials.  These far right wing loons think that our system is not strong enough to withstand these terrorists, so we have to give up all our values.  (The terrorists want to destroy our values, and the only way we can prevent that is by destroying our values!) These neo-cons are quite simply un-American.

As a side-note: I can’t help but think that the only reason why Liz Cheney’s smear against the nine lawyers will be challenged (at least by some people in the media) is because those men are not Muslims.  When it comes to Muslims, such smears–six degrees of separation, guilt by association, etc.–are almost never questioned.   It’s open season against Muslims.  In fact, a smeared Muslim will have to spend the rest of his life defending himself and his name.

Lastly, I think it’s sad that “bin” has become associated with terrorist.  “Bin” simply means “son of” and is used by an entire ethnic group as the way they name and identify themselves.  It should be as offensive as saying “ching chang chong” or similar things.  But alas, you can nowadays say almost anything about and against Muslims.

Comments (33)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Do You Love LoonWatch? If So, Do Your Part

Posted on 06 March 2010 by admin

i_want_you_poster

LoonWatch has become a very popular website, exposing the dirty underworld of Muslim-bashing.  But we cannot reach our full potential without your help.  So if you really love this website, please do your part.  Here are some things we need our loyal readers to help out with:

1)  Monitor the comments on our website, and if you see an Islamophobe saying something outlandish, respond.  Please do not expect the writer of the article to have the time to respond to each and every comment.  We’re really busy individuals, and responding to comments takes time away from writing future articles.  So we’d really like our loyal readers to pick up the slack, and to respond in full force to these nutters.  But answer them intelligently.  For example, we had a reader by the name of “Zam” who used to do a fantastic job of thoroughly refuting their points.  (Where’d that guy go anyways!?)  Take the initiative, and go the extra mile to help out, so that we absolutely dominate in the comments section of this site.

2)  If you like an article, say it.  If you frequently visit our site but don’t post, please take out some extra time to start commenting on our articles.  This builds our LW community.

3)  Advertise our website.  Drop our links everywhere.  Link to us on your FaceBook wall, and post our links up on various discussion forums.

4)  Send us helpful tips when you hear or read about a story that you might think be relevant to our website.

Everyone always thinks “someone else will do it.”  We need people to think “I will do it.”

Comments (13)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Euless Apartments Refuse apartments to Muslims

Posted on 04 March 2010 by Emperor

A Texas apartment complex was telling its employees to deny Muslims or Muslim looking people entry into or residency in the complex. Two brave employees, Daniesha Davis and Michelle Williams came forward and reported the discrimination.

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

Euless Apartments accused of refusing apartments to Muslims

EULESS — A North Texas apartment complex is facing accusations that it segregates Muslims in buildings away from other tenants — or refuses to rent to them at all.

The complaint comes from former leasing agents at the StoneBridge at Bear Creek complex in Euless. They say Muslims were routinely denied apartments even when there were vacancies.

“If somebody called over the phone inquiring about an apartment, we were told that if they have an accent or a different name that we are supposed to tell them that we didn’t have anything available,” said Daneisha Davis, who worked there for a year-and-a-half.

Michelle Williams was Davis’ co-worker. She says Stonebridge’s manager told her, on a regular basis, to turn away potential walk-in renters if they looked Asian or Middle Eastern.

“Make it undesirable for them to want to come back,” is what Williams says she was told. “Even though we were only 80 percent full, or 75 percent full. We had plenty of apartments we could’ve rented out.”

“She referred to them as ‘curry people.’ And they used curry to cook with, that they smelled bad and they were dirty,” said Davis.

For the duration of the time the women worked at Stonebridge, they say they were told there was one condition under which they could rent to Muslims: If they were all kept in the same two buildings of the 21-building complex.

“She definitely made it clear to both of us that she didn’t want other residents complaining about having to live next to ‘curry people,’”  Davis said.

“Wow. Wow. That’s unfortunate,” said AbdulNasir Jangda, an Imam at the Islamic Association for the Mid-Cities. “When we start grouping people together, we’re creating a very divisive element. How are we supposed to understand and relate and appreciate one another if we can’t stand to live next together?”

In January, Davis filed a Federal Fair Housing complaint against Stonebridge, alleging discrimination. The complaint made, via e-mail, was sent on a Saturday.

The next Tuesday, Davis was reassigned to other properties inside the company.

She has since quit and is looking for work.

Though she hasn’t sued, Davis does have a lawyer. “It’s obviously suspicious in the case of the timing,” said attorney Ty Gomez.

Stonebridge denied a News 8 request for an on-camera interview. But on the phone, the company said Davis’ re-assignment had been in the works. It says an internal investigation found no evidence of discrimination or steering minorities into specific buildings.

And Stonebridge says it has residents of all ethnicities throughout the property.

The federal government has transferred Davis’ complaint to the Texas Work Force Commission — Civil Rights Division. She hopes the agency will be able to right what she sees as a fundamental wrong.

“People come here for a chance at a better life and to be treated fairly, and they’re not being treated fairly,” she said. ” And I don’t even think they know it.”

“I am paying a pretty high price, but it’s worth it.”

E-mail dschechter@wfaa.com

Comments (21)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Abercrombie Hates your Hijab

Posted on 02 March 2010 by Mooneye

Tracy Clark-Flory

Tracy Clark-Flory

A good article from Tracy Clark-Flory on Abercrombie and Fitch’s terrible track record in regards to race and diversity, culminating in the recent debacle over one of its employees who wears the hijab.

A Muslim employee says she was fired for refusing to take off her headscarf

By Tracy Clark-Flory

Hijabs are sooo not hot this season — or, like, ever — if you ask Abercrombie and Fitch. A 19-year-old Muslim employee at one of the company’s Hollister stores in Northern California learned that the hard way: losing her job. But now the Council on American-Islamic Relations has filed an official complaint on her behalf against the company.

Khan says she was promised her headscarf wouldn’t be a problem during her interview for a part-time position in the stock room (which it’s rumored is where they keep all the less-than-desirables) but trouble arose when a district manager visited the store this month. “The lady told me that my hijab was not in compliance with the ‘look policy’ and that they don’t wear any scarves or hats while working,” she told KTVU. “I told her it was for religious reasons and again she stated it was against their ‘look’ policy.” Khan refused to go uncovered and she was fired on Monday.

This comes as no surprise, given that just a few months ago, a Muslim teenager sued the clothier for allegedly refusing to hire her because of her headscarf. It would be an understatement to say that the company isn’t really into displays of modesty, no matter if it has a religious basis. Have you seen the half-naked beefcakes they put in the front of A&F’s retail stores during the holiday season, or the innumerable naked romps models have taken through the pages of its look book? And, more important, Abercrombie has a storied past of discriminating against those who don’t fit its narrowly-defined vision of all-American beauty.

Last year, a British employee sued A&F after her prosthetic arm was deemed inappropriate for the sales floor. In 2004, the clothier handed over $40 million to settle a federal lawsuit alleging that the company discriminated against minority employees. There are plenty of other cases of employment discrimination, not to mention offensive merchandise — remember those racist t-shirts? In A&F’s alternate universe, the men have washboard abs and crunchy highlighted hair, the women have freckled noses, tiny waists and perpetual beach-hair, and everyone has lily white skin (or at least they did before becoming regulars at the tanning salon). I wonder just how many lawsuits and complaints it will take to crush this false reality.

Comments (16)

Tags: , , , , , ,

Seumas Milne: Islamophobia is a threat to us all

Posted on 25 February 2010 by Emperor

Seamus Milne

Seumas Milne

A great piece by Seumas Milne on the rising tide of Islamophobia in Britain and why it has to be confronted.

This Tide of anti-Muslim Hatred is a threat to us all

If young British Muslims had any doubts that they are singled out for special treatment in the land of their birth, the punishments being meted out to those who took part in last year’s London demonstrations against Israel’s war on Gaza will have dispelled them. The protests near the Israeli ­embassy at the height of the onslaught were angry: bottles and stones were thrown, a ­Starbucks was trashed and the police employed unusually violent tactics, even by the standards of other recent confrontations, such as the G20 protests.

But a year later, it turns out that it’s the sentences that are truly exceptional. Of 119 people arrested, 78 have been charged, all but two of them young ­Muslims (most between the ages of 16 and 19), according to Manchester University’s Joanna Gilmore, even though such figures in no way reflect the mix of those who took part. In the past few weeks, 15 have been convicted, mostly of violent disorder, and jailed for between eight months and two-and-a-half years – ­having switched to guilty pleas to avoid heavier terms. Another nine are up to be sentenced tomorrow.

The severity of the charges and sentencing goes far beyond the official response to any other recent anti-war demonstration, or even the violent stop the City protests a decade ago. So do the arrests, many of them carried out months after the event in dawn raids by dozens of police officers, who smashed down doors and handcuffed family members as if they were suspected terrorists. Naturally, none of the more than 30 complaints about police ­violence were upheld, even where video ­evidence was available.

Nothing quite like this has happened, in fact, since 2001, when young Asian Muslims rioted against extreme rightwing racist groups in Bradford and other northern English towns and were subjected to heavily disproportionate prison terms. In the Gaza protest cases, the judge has explicitly relied on the Bradford precedent and repeatedly stated that the sentences he is handing down are intended as a deterrent.

For many in the Muslim community, the point will be clear: not only that these are political sentences, but that different rules apply to Muslims, who take part in democratic protest at their peril. It’s a dangerous message, especially given the threat from a tiny minority that is drawn towards indiscriminate violence in response to Britain’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and rejects any truck with mainstream politics.

But it’s one that is constantly ­reinforced by politicians and parts of the media, who have increasingly blurred the distinction between violent and non- violent groups, demonised Islamism as an alien threat and branded as extremist any Muslim leader who dares to campaign against western foreign policy in the Muslim world. That’s reflected in the government’s targeting of “nonviolent extremism” and lavish funding of anti-Islamist groups, as well as in Tory plans to ban the nonviolent Hizb ut-Tahrir and crack down ever harder on “extremist written material and speech”.

In the media, it takes the form of relentless attempts to expose ­Muslims involved in wider politics as secret fanatics and sympathisers with ­terrorism. Next week, Channel 4 ­Dispatches plans to broadcast the latest in a series of undercover documentaries aimed at revealing the ugly underside of British Muslim political life. In this case, the target is the predominantly British-Bangladeshi Islamic Forum of Europe. From material sent out in advance, the aim appears to be to show the IFE is an “entryist” group in legitimate east ­London politics – and unashamedly Islamist to boot.

As recent research co-authored by the former head of the Metropolitan police special branch’s Muslim contact unit, Bob Lambert, has shown, such ubiquitous portrayals of Muslim ­activists as “terrorists, sympathisers and subversives” (all the while underpinned by a drumbeat campaign against the nonexistent Afghan “burka”) are one factor in the alarming growth of ­British Islamophobia and the rising tide of anti-Muslim violence and hate crimes that stem from it.

Last month’s British Social Attitudes survey found that most people now regard Britain as “deeply divided along religious lines”, with hostility to Muslims and Islam far outstripping such attitudes to any other religious group. On the ground that has translated into murders, assaults and attacks on mosques and Muslim institutions – with shamefully little response in politics or the media. Last year, five mosques in Britain were firebombed, from Bishop’s Stortford to Cradley Heath, though barely reported in the national press, let alone visited by a government minister to show solidarity.

And now there is a street movement, the English Defence League, directly adopting the officially sanctioned targets of “Islamists” and “extremists” – as well as the “Taliban” and the threat of a “takeover of Islam” – to intimidate and threaten Muslim communities across the country, following the success of the British National party in ­baiting Muslims above all other ethnic and religious communities.

Of course, anti-Muslim bigotry, the last socially acceptable racism, is often explained away by the London bombings of 2005 and the continuing threat of terror attacks, even though by far the greatest number of what the authorities call “terrorist incidents” in the UK take place in Northern Ireland, while Europol figures show that more than 99% of terrorist attacks in Europe over the past three years were carried out by non-Muslims. And in the last nine months, two of the most serious bomb plot convictions were of far right racists, Neil Lewington and Terence Gavan, who were planning to kill Muslims.

Meanwhile, in the runup to the ­general election, expect some ugly dog whistles from Westminster politicians keen to capitalise on Islamophobic sentiment. With few winnable Muslim votes, the Tories seem especially up for it. Earlier this month, Conservative frontbencher Michael Gove came out against the building of a mosque in his Surrey constituency, while Welsh Tory MP David Davies blamed a rape case on the “medieval and barbaric” attitudes of some migrant communities.

As long as British governments back wars and occupations in the Middle East and Muslim world, there will continue to be a risk of violence in Britain. But attempts to drive British Muslims out of normal political activity, and the refusal to confront anti-Muslim hatred, can only ratchet up the danger and threaten us all.

Comments (13)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

UK: Jack Straw Rejects the Veil Ban

Posted on 10 February 2010 by Emperor

Jack Straw

Jack Straw

Jack Straw you might remember asked a Muslim woman to remove her veil. (via Islamophobia-Watch)

Jack Straw Rejects the Veil Ban

Banning women from wearing the burka on the streets of Britain would be a waste of police time, Justice Secretary Jack Straw said today.

He told MPs he did not think police should be instructed to remove the garments from women who wore them for “religious or cultural reasons”. Mr Straw, who has in the past raised concerns about Muslim women wearing the veil, said he would “strongly recommend against a change in the law”.

At Commons question time he said: “All of us may have views about the wearing of the burka, but I do not believe that this is a matter which should be the subject of the criminal law in which we were expecting the police to remove these items of apparel from women who choose for religious or cultural reasons to wear them. That should have no part of the system of law in the United Kingdom.”

Asian Image, 9 February 2010

Comments (5)

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

One Story You Won’t see on JihadWatch: Muslim Samaritan Mohammad Asadujjaman

Posted on 13 January 2010 by Mooneye

Mohammad Asadujjaman

Mohammad Asadujjaman

Do you think this story is one that Robert Spencer would mention on his site? This seems to be the Greater Jihad, fighting the temptations of the self to do something right.

NEW YORK – A New York City cabbie said he returned a lost purse containing more than $21,000 in cash and expensive jewelry because his mother always advised him to be honest.

“I’m broke, but I’m honest,” 28-year-old Mohammad “Mukal” Asadujjaman said Tuesday.

Felicia Lettieri, of Pompeii, Italy, and six relatives had taken two cabs from midtown Manhattan to Penn Station on Christmas Eve. The 72-year-old Lettieri left her purse behind, with more than $21,000 of the group’s traveling money, jewelry worth thousands more, and some of their passports.

Police advised the tourists they had little chance of recovering the lost goods.

Felicia Lettieri returned to Pompeii and could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday. Her sister, Francesca Lettieri, 79, of Patchogue, told Newsday the honest cabbie had saved her family’s vacation, and said “We really love what he did.”

The cabbie, a native of Bangladesh, saw the rolls of euros when he opened the bag to look for an address, but didn’t even count the money. “My mother is my inspiration,” the soft-spoken cabbie said. “She always said to be honest and work hard.”

The cabbie called a friend with a car and drove some 50 miles to a Patchogue address in the purse. No one was home, so Asadujjaman left his cell phone number and a note. His phone rang a short time later and he drove back to return the bag.

“They were so, so, so happy,” Asadujjaman beamed.

The immigrant is a full-time student at a city college near his apartment in Jamaica, Queens. He began driving a cab a few days a week about three months ago, after his hours were cut back at a former factory job.

Asked if he was tempted to keep the cash, Asadujjaman acknowledged the money would have allowed him more time to study, “but my heart said this is not good.” He also turned down a reward, saying he could not accept it as an observant Muslim.

“I’m needy, but I’m not greedy,” said Asadujjaman. “It’s better to be honest.”

Comments (10)

Tags: , , , , , ,

Peter Mullen: Church of England Priest Persists with anti-Muslim Bigotry

Posted on 08 January 2010 by Emperor

Peter Mullen

Peter Mullen

Rev. Mullen continues the anti-Muslim Islamophobia. (via Islamophobia-Watch)

C of E Priest, Peter Mullen continues to spout anti-Muslim bigotry

Revd. Peter Mullen (pictured), Rector of St Michael’s, Cornhill, and St Sepulchre-without-Newgate church in the City of London, offers a further sampling of his bigoted views on Muslims in a recent column in the Northern Echo.

Mullen, commenting on the attempted Detroit airplane bombing, writes:

‘…we are not fighting the murderous Islamic fundamentalists where they are at their strongest – and that is in Britain. We have not followed up the promises we made after the July 2005 London tube bombings.

‘For instance, the authorities still tolerate the informal operation of sharia law in Muslim areas. We support the Muslim Council of Great Britain which gives aid and comfort to Islamic extremism. The Government has refused to outlaw the Hizb ut-Tahrir organisation which preaches jihad. We have not prosecuted the fanatics in mosques and madrassas who advocate terrorism.

‘Our junk universities have allowed freedom of speech to the promoters of terrorism and provided sanctuary for Islamist students who shout the hate-filled slogans of al Qaida.’

Does the good Reverend not realize that voluntary Shari’ah councils in the UK are not an ‘informal operation’ but are mandated by the Arbitration Act, as are orthodox Jewish Beth Din courts?

And on what grounds does Mullen defend his assertion that ‘We support the Muslim Council of Great Britain which gives aid and comfort to Islamic extremism’?

He doesn’t substantiate the claim with any evidence, largely because nothing from the MCB would lead one to believe that it ‘gives aid and comfort to Islamic extremism’.

And had Mullen read the TaxPayers Alliances’ extensive study on the distribution of Prevent funds, or read Hansard for ministerial statements on allocation of various funds to Muslim organisations, he’d have known that the MCB is not financially supported by any body other than itself.

Mullen continues:

‘Effectually, our intelligence services are fighting this war with one hand tied behind their back. What is the use of their identifying extremist agitators and terrorists in the making if legislators do not allow them to take vigorous action against these enemies?’

What ‘vigorous action’ is Mullen proposing that legislators stand in the way of? Banning HT even though the Justice Secretary has acknowledged that there are no legal grounds for doing so? Torture, detention without trial, or the imposition of control orders? Or rendition perhaps?

‘All this official talk of young Muslims being “radicalised” – as if taking up terrorism were something passive – is particularly irritating.

‘As if these incipient mass-murderers were victims. They are not victims, but perpetrators of evil acts committed according to the dictates of their own perverted ideology.

‘They should be weeded out by all rational means; imprisonment or deportation. The so called educational institutions operating as schools for terrorism should be closed down’, he says.

It’s not the first time Mullen has courted controversy. ENGAGE had cause to write to the Bishop of London for comments Mullen made last year about Muslims on Hajj, to which we, sadly, got no reply. He wrote:

“They usually manage to stampede and slaughter quite a few hundred of their coreligionists. Just imagine for a moment what a field day the BBC and the leftwing press in England would have if anything even remotely as bad as that happened in Vatican Square at Christmas or Easter.”

In a different blog on Muslim prayer, Mullen wrote:

“[Muslims] certainly lend themselves to ridicule: sticking their arses in the air five times a day. How about a few little choruses, ‘Randy Muslims when they die/Find 70 virgins in the sky’?”

Last year he was forced to apologise for making derogatory, offensive comments about gays on one of his blogs yet, somehow, he managed to keep his column at the Northern Echo.

You can write to the editor of the Northern Echo, Peter Barron, (email: peter.barron[at]nne.co.uk) and ask why, despite these persistent displays of despicable bigotry and anti-Muslim sentiment, the Revd. Mullen continues to be offered a column in the paper to spout his venom?

Judith Townend on Journalism.co.uk remarks, ‘if you now search priest + sodomy, on Google most the results return articles about Peter Mullen. Ironic, that.’

Perhaps searches for ‘priest + bigot’ will return the same results.

Comments (8)

Tags: , , , , ,

Janet Keeping: The Irrationality of Islamophobia

Posted on 07 January 2010 by Mooneye

Janet Keeping

Janet Keeping

Well worth the read!

The Irrationality of Islamophobia

by Janet Keeping

CALGARY, AB, Jan. 3, 2010/ — Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Muslim from Nigeria and a passenger on a commercial airliner destined for Detroit, is charged with attempting to blow the plane up. The Christmas-day near-catastrophe was the perfect scenario to feed further fear of Muslims. It should not.

Certain strains of Islam, like some varieties of Christianity and other belief systems, preach seriously dangerous ideas. With careful thought we can sort the real threats to our peaceful, democratic way of life from what is harmless, that, is, “different”. Without such careful thought, we will get more irrational mistrust of everything Muslim – more Islamophobia, pure prejudice. Lazy thinking leads to the bad; careful reflection is necessary for the good.

Consider the Swiss ban on minarets, the towers adorning some mosques. There are four mosques in Switzerland with minarets. Nevertheless, organizers of the anti-minaret initiative are said to believe that “minarets represent the growth of an alien ideology and legal system that have no place in the Swiss democracy.” “Forced marriages [for example] – we don’t have that in Switzerland, and we don’t want to introduce it . . . Therefore, there’s no room for minarets in Switzerland.”

Faulty logic, bad thinking

The “logic” appears to be this: because minarets are an architectural detail associated with a religion, some forms of which are incompatible with modern European democracy, it is OK to prohibit the construction of minarets. This would be silly if it weren’t so frightening.

Don’t get me wrong. I am as much against forced marriage and other forms of oppression – so much of it directed towards women – as anyone (in fact, as an unabashed feminist, probably much more so). But the reasoning behind the anti-minaret vote is rubbish.

Consider some of the sorrier episodes in Christianity. Probably most infamous are the Crusades, a series of bloody military campaigns waged largely against Muslims to restore control over Middle Eastern lands viewed as holy by Christians. Things did not improve much over time – remember the Inquisition?

It is widely accepted that the Catholic Church was sympathetic to the Holocaust of Europe’s Jews and other minorities by the Nazis. Then there was the Dutch Reformed Church fervent support of Apartheid in South Africa. Strict division of races and the supposed superiority of whites lay at the heart of that religion’s teachings.

There is simply no doubt that enormous evil has been done in the name of Christianity or with the tacit support of some of its most prominent leaders. So should the Christian cross be banned? Of course not.

We face a choice: let ourselves be tricked into thinking that the symbol (minaret, cross or the like) is the problem, or think it through. We can let ourselves be used by the demagogues and endorse suppression of symbols. But this will do no good and at the same time lots of harm by alienating those for whom the symbol is precious.

A happier alternative

Or we can recognize that dealing constructively with diversity-engendered conflict requires effort and application of our best thinking.

With the influx of people from cultures very different from those found in the liberal democracies (for example, in Canada, the United States, western Europe, New Zealand and Australia), there will be tensions – as there always have been. Some of the practices brought by contemporary immigrants are unquestionably backward, for example, favouring male children over female, exclusion of women from public life, or forced marriage. But it wasn’t so long ago that mainstream Canadian society emerged from that dark misogynistic place itself, and it would be regressive in the extreme for us to slip back from the human rights gains made by women and others, such as gays.

But avoidance of Islamophobia is also a human rights imperative and, in order to achieve it, we need keep two things in mind. First, some versions of Islam are not anti-women or otherwise dangerous to human rights. So aversion to Islam per se is nonsense. Second, while we ought to struggle against the importation of backwards views, there is nothing bad or good about a minaret. It’s just an architectural detail – beautiful to some, not so much to others, but not inherently evil or in any way dangerous.

We must make a distinction — there are things to get properly excited about (for example, the oppression of women and attempts to blow up planes) and there are differences which present no threat at all (like minarets). It is repressive and undemocratic to ban the latter. It is right and good to oppose the former.

Comments (14)

Advertise Here
Advertise Here