Casuals United say they are only opposed to Islamist extremism but that is not the case. The group is little more than a fascist front, opposed to all Muslims in Britain as this clip of their protest last month demonstrates:

Notable chants in the video come at:

• 6:26 – I just want Muslim scum to go (a person off camera says this to whoever is filming)
• 6:48 – We want Muslims out
• 7:42 – Who are you? Who are you? (The implication being that Muslims are not British)
• 9:08 – Muslims out

All Muslims are conflated with extremists, destroying the supposed ‘anti-extremist’ spin the organisers tried to put on things. Sadly it was not a one-off. According to the website of the English Defence League protests have been held in:

• 24th May 2009: Luton
• 27th June 2009: Whitechapel, London
• 4th July 2009: Wood Green, London
• 4th July 2009: Birmingham City Centre, the Bull ring (footage provided above)

There are already plans for another protest on August 30 in Birmingham. All this has stoked some real and obvious cases of anti-Muslim bigotry resulting in a surge of attacks. Some very obvious cases are:

• The firebombing of the Islamic Relief charity shop in Glasgow.
• The arson attack on the Greenwich Islamic Centre which left the 62 year old caretaker with burn injuries. According to Engage this place was firebombed twice in one week but I could not find another source for that.
• An arson attack on the Luton Islamic Centre.
• Bomb threats against the Glasgow Central mosque with accompanying threats to behead a Muslim if all Mosques in Scotland were not closed down immediately by a man who described himself as a ‘proud racist’.

It is indisputable that since the BNP won seats in the European parliament and the munafiqs from al-Muhajiroun protested against returning British servicemen from Iraq there has been a sharp and unprecedented spike in attacks against British Muslims. This problem is not just limited to Britain however. There was also the disgraceful murder of Marwa Sherbini recently in Germany.

All extremists threaten the values of our liberal society. We must unite against them all.

Two things need to be said about Standing’s report. The first is that it does cite examples of the BNP’s anti-Muslim bigotry and these are mentioned throughout the report. The second is that the report itself never set out to provide a conclusive study on the BNP’s ideology – it was instead an investigation of their ‘online fascist network’ exploring the views of BNP members, sympathisers and supporters on places like YouTube and the blogosphere.

Therefore, I don’t want people construing this as criticism of that report. It achieved what it set out to do – investigating the online fascist network.

Ever since however, Standing has engaged with the ensuing debate by arguing that anti-Muslim bigotry is merely a ‘tactic’ of the BNP and not an integral part of their ideological outlook. I don’t think we should be jockeying for position on this issue – who does the BNP hate the most – but I was uncomfortable with Standing’s argument. Even if he’s right and the BNP is just adopting an anti-Muslim stance to win votes that is an alarming indication of the way some people are starting to view Muslims in this country.

I thought about penning a response to Standing, but then saw this wonderful rebuttal by Yahya Birt which is absolutely on the money. I could not have put it better myself.

1. It is incoherent with regard to what racism actually is by way of a false division between biology and culture/civilisation. Classic colour racism based on nineteenth-century pseudo-science always had a cultural or civilisational element to it. Now disproved by genetics to be absolute nonsense (there is no such thing as “race” scientifically speaking), the ground has shifted to most contemporary racism having a cultural basis, but older psysiological distinctions have not been erased, just justified in cultural terms. So rather than there is a hierarchy of distinct and inferior races with different civilisations (as well as primitives and barbarians) we have a distinct and inferior civilisations that map on to so-called “races”.

The idea of cultural racism recognises that persons and ideas or symbols, or “races”/”peoples”/”nations” and cultures/civilisations, are not easily separable. Islamophobia and anti-semitism are both contemporary forms of cultural racism. If someone sticks a pig’s head on the gates of a mosque or defaces and vandalises a Jewish cemetery, both are recognised as forms of cultural racism and attacks on the symbols of these communities. Neither is easily categorizable as purely racial, but these are the sorts of behaviours that we need to stand against and need not get into an intellectual muddle about.

2. There is the insensitive and condescending presumption that those who are the targets of the BNP’s abuse shouldn’t take it seriously. Nick doesn’t really mean it when he says Islam is a cancer that should be removed from Europe: it’s just a tactic. This fails the test of Ockham’s razor: the simplest explanation is most likely to be the truest one. The onus on those to prove that he doesn’t mean what he says, and I’ve yet to see evidence that that is the case. That isolated quote from 2000 at some far-righ convention with David Duke is hardly the “smoking gun” it is made out to be.

3. It seems obvious to me that politically this is a disabling argument. A group (Muslims) who are being attacked by the far right are effectively been sidelined and their legitimate concerns marginalised by this line of argument. It serves no good political purpose and could actually be quite insidious. Equally this is not a zero-sum game. To say that the BNP has targetted Muslims is not to say that they still don’t want to affirm their anti-semitism and classic colour racism.

As has been said before, we are struggling here was complicated and interlocking debates about national identity, multiculturalism, fundamentalism, terrorism and so on. These won’t be sorted out by a simple-minded return to classic 1970s anti-racism.

This week we’re featuring the lovely Abdurahman Jafar who is friends with Bungles and involved with the Muslim Safety Forum. Incidentally can anyone help Jafar in his search for someone to keep him company “on this beautiful journey called life”. It’s such a beautiful thing, isn’t it?

As ever, captions in the comments section below.

UPDATE:

It seems that brother Abdurahman Jafar has pulled down his matrimonial page. I can only assume that one of our many female readers simply couldn’t resist and made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. But, just in case he pulled it for some other reason – as I suspcted he might – I took a picture for posterity (click to enlarge).

Abdurahman Jafar, on a beautiful journey called life...

Majed Iqbal, Hizb ut Tahrir entryist

He’s a busy boy in his hometown of Rochdale these days – what with trying to create a Caliphate and all that, it’s remarkable he has time for anything else. But he does. By night Majed moonlights as a journalist, trying to pass off his wildly racist views as dispassionate and objective reporting.

Now then, he doesn’t exactly write for a major broadsheet (or, dare I say, a weekly political magazine) but instead peddles his nonsense in the ‘Asian Leader’ newspaper in Rochdale. Does it really matter then? I think it does.

Rochdale has a large Muslim population and is one of the areas where the government is concerned about the spread of radical Islamism. Majed is effectively being allowed to spread his message there under the guise of an impartial journalism.

For example, the Spittoon first revealed how Hizb ut Tahrir is waging a campaign (known as the SRE Islamic Campaign) against the teaching of sex and relationship education in schools. Majed is an active member of that campaign in Rochdale. Naturally, he also wrote about it for the Asian Leader under the headline: “Muslim community says NO to sex education for five year olds”. He writes:

Yusuf Patel and Farhad Khodabaksh, both Muslim activists from London, initiated a campaign against the government proposals after coming across information on plans to begin teaching Sex and relationship education to five year old primary school children in October last year.

Majed Iqbal, on the right, running the SRE campaign in Rochdale

Majed is even kind enough to give us a link to their website and tell us about upcoming ‘SRE Islamic’ events. What he omits to tell his reads is that both Patel and Khodabaksh are members of Hizb ut Tahrir – and, so is he. Instead he happily paints a picture of a monolithic Muslim community all marching along in unison to the beat of HuT’s Islamist agenda.

In another article he propagates the usual HuT rubbish about democracy being doomed to failure, presenting democracy and dictatorship as being ‘two sides of the same coin’. He writes:

Both Democracy and Dictatorship have wreaked havoc for Pakistan.

Those parties that [have] questioned Dictatorship and contested it under Musharraf’s rule, are they now willing to challenge democracy and ask for its removal after witnessing its fruits?

But what’s the alternative Majed? Won’t you please tell us?

His tawdry website is littered with countless more examples of standard HuT agitprop. In another article Majed attacks Imam Irfan Chisti, a local Sufi cleric who works on PVE initiatives with the government. After Chisti told Hazel Blears of his concerns about the rise of extremism in Rochdale, Majed lambasted him in the pages of ‘Asian Image’ writing:

Imam Irfan Chisti’s report plays perfectly into the hands of the government agenda of validating the need for Citizenship courses which are an attempt to create a new version of Islam where a Muslim is silent on international affairs, pacifist with freedom of speech and divorces Islam to personal affairs only like diet and worships.

At the end of the piece Majed described himself as:

a writer and commentator based in Rochdale.

Again, no mention of his HuT membership.

The issue is clear. Can you imagine the uproar if members of the BNP were given space to propagate their views in local community newspapers? And, even if they were given the occasional comment piece, we would expect the author’s membership of a racist outfit to be clearly flagged up for the benefit of readers. None of that has happened with Majed who is simply allowed to tout himself as an independent commentator on events.

Don’t think it’s that bad? Well, just consider that when Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan a few years ago who did Sky News go to for comment? Yup, there was Majed speaking away from Rochdale telling everyone how much the people of Pakistan ‘yearned for a return to Islam’! He obviously missed the recent election results from Pakistan’s most conservative region, the NWFP, where all the Islamist parties were utterly obliterated at the polls in favour of their secular counterparts.

The whole issue reminds me of the Dilpazier Aslam fiasco when the Guardian employed him. Ok, that was a bigger paper with national reach – but if Press TV and the Islam Channel have taught us anything, it is that we should not underestimate the power of community media targeting minority audiences.

I wrote to the ‘Asian Leader’ asking three simple questions about this matter:

1. Was the newspaper aware of Majed’s membership of Hizb ut Tahrir?

2. If so, why did it not alert readers of his column to this?

3. If the paper did not know, what steps will be taken to rectify this in the future?

Those are natural questions and you’d imagine the paper would be rushing to clarify the situation. Alas, so far nothing but radio silence.

Baffled by this lack of contact I decided to do some research into the ‘Asian Leader’ and discovered that it had recently been sued by former Rochdale MP, Lorna Fitzsimons. The Manchester Evening News explains:

Ms Fitzsimons sued for libel over a front-page article in the Asian Leader in November. Her photograph appeared alongside the Star of David and the headline: “Is she a star liar?”

Aah, maybe that explains it then.

From The Times.

“Veteran Islamophobe Martin Bright criticises MCB libel win”.

Martin was rightly upset with that slur observing:

“I object in the strongest terms to the way the insult  “Islamophobe” is thrown around so casually. It is essentially a charge of racism: the cheapest of shots and utterly without foundation”.

He was much too kind. The charge was not just without foundation – it was an outright lie. At the Observer, Martin mentored the headscarf wearing Fareen Alam. And, while he was Political Editor at the New Statesman regularly gave a voice to newly emerging Muslim voices including: Ed Husain, Shiraz Maher, and ‘Umm Mustafa’ (a pseudonym).

The Engage article nonetheless made a number of lazy accusations, one of which said:

“Bright himself is no stranger to making allegations against the MCB that play cavalier with the truth.”

This assertion was entirely unsubstantiated.

It had to be, because there is no evidence to support it. What really annoyed the bungling Bungles was that Martin exposed the Muslim Council of Britain in a series of sensational scoups based on leaked documents from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. His revelations lead to a shift in government policy resulting, in part, with the MCB losing favour with ministers. So, how could Engage claim that Bright was playing ‘cavalier with the truth’?

Well, they couldn’t. Instead, the accusation was quietly watered down, now saying:

“Bright himself is no stranger to making controversial allegations about the Qur’an, Muslims and the MCB”.

They also thought it would be wise to drop the rediculous charge of ‘Islamophobia’, changing the title of their article to:

“Martin ‘The Great Koran Con Trick’ Bright criticises MCB libel win”.

This is a glaring admission of guilt by Engage. Notably, however, they haven’t bothered to apologise to Martin. He should really insist on one, particularly as the bungling Bungles loves to sue and always insists on receiving an apology.

He should really be much more careful in future.

The picture is of Massoud Shadjareh, head stooge of the Khomeinist, Islamic Human Rights Commission. This week his outfit issued a sick and grovelling (not to mention belated) press release on events in Iran.

As ever, captions in the comments box below.

The tireless campaigners from ‘Hope Not Hate‘ also submitted a petition with 88021 signtures to the European parliament opposing the BNP’s presence there.

But, what really caught my eye was this list of ten questions being circulated by the campaign group ‘Nothing British about the BNP‘. It’s being run Tim Montogmerie and James Bethel.

1. You claim to be patriotic yet you consort with racist and neo-Nazi organisations in Europe and the United States.  When will you condemn rhetoric that is hostile to British values?

In the past Griffin has courted the likes of General Gaddafi, whose regime sponsored the IRA, expressed an admiration of Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran’s former Supreme Leader, and spoken about his appreciation for Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Griffin claims that his antics were youthful errors. And yet, he continues to associate himself with individuals and organisations that are unfriendly towards Britain.

In 2007, on a tour of the United States, organised by American neo-Nazi groups, Griffin spoke at a reception for the Young Americans for Freedom, a hate group whose leader has said that the threat of Islam is spreading faster than AIDS and homosexuality. That evening Griffin had dinner with Stormfront, a Hitler worshiping internet forum.

In a recent audio interview with BNP’s deputy chairman, Simon Darby, Griffin expresses an admiration for the European female leader, Krisztina Morvai, of Jobbik, a Hungarian neo-Nazi party whose military wing wearing SS style uniforms. Morvai recently wrote some sexually obscene and anti-Semitic remarks about Jews. Griffin called her a “brilliant woman”.

2. You claim to champion the interests of British workers but won’t your protectionist trade policies, restrictions on the flow of capital and opposition to globalisation cause trade wars that will destroy jobs?

The BNP’s website under the section “Policies” and the subsection “Economy”, it “calls for the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets and the reduction of foreign imports. We will ensure that our manufactured goods are, wherever possible,  produced in British factories, employing British workers.”

Section 1 (2C), “Political Objectives”, of the “British National Party’s Constitution (2005)”, states that they are “opposed to international monopoly capitalism and to laissez-faire free trade and free movement of plant and capital.” Subsection D states that it is “implacably opposed to … liberal-capitalist globalism”.

3. You are a political party that aspires to govern the people of Great Britain, so when will the BNP allow a non-white person to join as a member?

Section 2, “Membership”, defines “indigenous people” as “Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norse folk communities” of Europe, and any other ethnic group that derives from these communities. For example the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Folk Community, the Celtic-Norse Folk Community, the Anglo-Saxon-Norse Folk Community and the Anglo-Saxon-Indigenous European Folk Community, etc. No persons from outside of these ethnic groups are allowed to join the BNP and, according to the BNP’s Constitution, they should not be regarded as “ethnically” British.

4. Won’t your policy of seizing land and natural assets for communal ownership, and the redistribution of the ownership of British businesses replace the free market and rule of law with socialism and bring our economy to its knees?

In its economic policy – “Economy – British workers first!” – which is published on the internet (July 13^th 2009), the BNP states, “[The] British industry, commerce, land and other economic and natural assets belong in the final analysis to the British nation and people. To that end we will restore our economy and land to British ownership.”

Special measures are promised against the supermarkets. “We will take active steps to break up the socially, economically and politically damaging monopolies now being established by the supermarket giants.”

The BNP also advocates a redistribution of the ownership of British companies. “We will seek to give British workers a stake in the success and prosperity of the enterprises whose profits their labour creates by encouraging worker shareholder and co-operative schemes.”

5. When will you promise that your “Bill of Rights” will guarantee all British subjects equal protection under the law, and not just “indigenous” (ie white) people?

Section 1 (2A) of the BNP’s Constitution states it is a party of “British Nationalism”. It is committed to protecting the interests of the “indigenous people of the entire British Isles”. Subsection 2B says that it “stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples.”

Section 1 (2F) states how the BNP would “introduce a Bill of Rights, establishing as absolute the right of all British people to effective freedom of speech, assembly and worship.”

6. You want a blanket ban on non-white immigration that would seriously harm Britain’s economic interests. What is wrong with a balanced non-racialist migration system that maximises national wealth?

In the BNP’s current policy statement under the section on “Immigration”, the party states, “To ensure that [white people in Britain do not become an ethnic minority], and that the British people retain their homeland and identity, we call for an immediate halt to all further immigration”.

7. How would you protect Britain from the terrorists that want to destroy our country or protect innocents overseas who were the victims of genocide when you advocate neutrality in international affairs?

Section 1 (2E) of the BNP’s Constitution states that Britain should become a country of “armed neutrality in international and military affairs.”

On February 22nd 2009, BNP Defence Spokesman, Peter Mullins, said that the BNP’s policy on combating global Islamist terrorism would be to pullout of Afghanistan and put British troops should be put onto the streets to “crack down on Islamist extremists in Britain”.

In further detail the BNP’s website, under the section “Policies” and the subsection “Defence”, sets out what this policy would mean. Britain would “withdraw from NATO … close all foreign military bases on British soil, and refuse to risk British lives in meddling ‘peace-keeping’ missions in parts of the world where no British interests are at stake”.

Under the subsection “Foreign Affairs” the BNP would be undeterred by the oppression of citizens in foreign countries such as Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe. Instead, the BNP would base its foreign relations on “the protection and of our own national interests”. In making foreign policy decisions, the BNP say that they will not be subservient to America, “the ‘international community’, or any other country.”

8. You claim that the BNP has become a modern, legitimate mainstream party but will you send a clear signal to racists by expelling members and condemning supporters who articulate anti-Semitic, racist, violent, Holocaust-denying views?

In the past Griffin has expressed his admiration for Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf and has called the Holocaust a “hoax” [1]. In recent public appearances he has sought to distance himself from such comments though he continues to share platforms with racists such as Jobbick and the Young Americans for Freedom.

However, the rhetoric of BNP members and associated activists gives a strong indication of the philosophy and hidden agenda of the organisation. A report by the Centre for Social Cohesion (The BNP And The Online Facist Network by Edmund Standing) showed:

“… a significant number of BNP members and online grass-roots activists displayed significant ideological affinity with key tenets of the neo-nazi ideology, including: support for violence; anti-Semitism and an admiration of the Third Reich; extreme racist views; and Holocaust denial.”

If the BNP leadership are not prepared to condemn such rhetoric and punish members/activists, it is difficult not to conclude that the party runs a policy of saying one thing in public but having a covert policy in private.

9. You advocate a massive increase in housing provisions so can you tell us exactly how much will this cost the taxpayer?

Under the section “Workfare no welfare” the BNP announce how they would bring “all privatised social housing stock back under” state control.

10. You claim that you want a cleaner and greener society, yet your transport policy is to cut fuel tax and allow motorists to drive faster on Britain’s roads, thereby burning more carbon emissions and making our roads more dangerous?

Under the heading “Environment”, the BNP calls for, “a cleaner, greener future!” Our ideal for Britain, the BNP claim, “is that of a clean, beautiful country, free of pollution in all its forms.” “The polluter pays to clean up the mess” must become a fact of life, not an electioneering slogan.” – BNP environment policy.

Yet under the section “Transport” the BNP state that they are on the side of motorists, who “must not be made the scapegoats for government failure. Fuel tax should be cut, motorway speed limits raised, and hidden speed cameras should be banned.”

******************************

This week we’re featuring “Dr Evil” from Hizb ut Tahrir. The picture below is of its media spokesman, Dr Imran Waheed, a man whose massive ego is eclipsed only by the expansiveness of his waistline. Pity him, its been a bad week for his jihad-loving outfit.

As ever, captions in the comments box below.

If there’s measures to set up some kind of force or to help, say the Italians, set up a force which actually blocks the Mediterranean then we’d support that.

But the only measure, sooner or later, which is going to stop immigration and stop large numbers of sub-Saharan Africans dying on the way to get over here is to get very tough with those coming over.

Frankly, they need to sink several of those boats.

What a pillock.

The Telegraph is reporting that Lisa Greenwood, an administrator in the Department of Children, Schools and Families, has lost her job for writing an anonymous message on an internet site at the height of the expenses scandal.

After learning that Hazel Blears had allegedly ‘flipped’ her second home to avoid capital gains taxes, Lisa Greenwood wrote:

“How dare you wave a cheque about on national TV, saying that you are sorry.

You are only sorry that you have been caught. You are a disgrace (including all the other honourable members). Why haven’t you been sacked?”

The message was written anonymously on the “They Work for You” website, but was still traced back to her work computer. She was promptly suspended and then sacked.

The Department of Children, Schools and Families said that it sacked her because:

The civil service has a clear code of conduct for its employees, which states that civil servants should be politically impartial and not act in a way that could damage the reputation of their department.

Now, why is this so outrageous you might ask?

Well, just last week we heard that the jihad loving civil servant, Azad Ali, who peddles the worst kind of sectarian and reactionary politics has been reinstated to his post at the Treasury. I wonder how any of these utterances were deemed to be ‘politically impartial’:

Hamas is a true resistance movement that is standing up for the rights of the Palestinians, whereas Fatah and specifically Abu Mazen have capitulated to the colonial mindset.

Or when he called Muslims seeking a ceasefire with Israel during the Gaza War in January:

…nothing but self-serving vultures, feeding on the dead flesh of the Palestinians.

Or this:

So what is the aim of this mass murder? Well it’s ideological. How you may ask? The stated aim of the Zionist terrorist state is to destroy Hamas and what it stands for, i.e. Freedom. You may notice that Fatah are not being targeted nor are they bleeding for the Muslims in Gaza, but hopefully they will once they return to their humanity.

We have seen this before in 2006 when the same Zionist terrorist state attacked Muslims in Lebanon, with the usual amount of fuel being supplied by America and the UK, so let us not be surprised by it – though we should be completely outraged.

There’s many more examples I could give you, but you get the point.

So, on the one hand we have Lisa Greenwood getting sacked for anonymously expressing her outrage over the MP expenses scandal. On the other we have Azad Ali openly glorifying jihad.

Both are Civil Servants governed by the same code of conduct, but only one gets sacked – and it’s not the one lambasting the British state or promoting violence against Israel.

What a disgrace.

UPDATE:

The good people at “They work for you” have written to us (see comments section below) making the point that the Telegraph has now removed all reference to their website in the original story. I’m happy to update the story here too; It seems like the Telegraph reporter named the wrong website.

For the record, they work for you is an excellent website. I use it all the time – although I’ve never left comments on it!

I am leading a national campaign against the plans to make SRE statutory. But I recognise that it does not start and end there.

*(see the facebook group “Rochdale Muslims against sex and relationship education for 5 year old’s“)

In this campaign, Patel lists his aims as being:

OUR VALUES

As Muslims we believe in the primacy of marriage, the prohibition of sexual relations outside marriage, the unacceptability of homosexuality which is often portrayed as a lifestyle choice. We also subscribe to the concept of Hayaa (modesty) which guides the interaction between men and women.

• We do not believe six year old children should be taught within a classroom setting to focus on intimate parts of their bodies, as the FPA comic ‘Let’s Grow With Nisha and Joe’ promotes.

• We cannot accept that our five year old children should be exposed to the Channel Four video ‘Living and Growing’ which encourages our children to explore their bodies through masturbation.

• We cannot accept that homosexuality is normalised in the minds of young children and that a normal family unit can involve two dads and two mums, as the storybook ‘And Tango Makes Three’ suggests.

• We cannot agree with the pragmatic acceptance of early sexual behaviour through the provision of contraception to children. Rather this behaviour needs to be challenged.It is unacceptable that a child of 13 becomes a dad or that there is a rise in promiscuous behaviour amongst the young with a knock on effect of a rise in the rate of teenage abortion.

• The sexualisation of children has become acceptable, promoted through television programmes, magazines and advertising. This lack of values needs to be challenged rather than accepted.

Of course, lots of parents (Muslim or otherwise) would agree with some of those points. Every parent adopts a slightly different approach to discussing sexual health and relationships with their children.

But, I have three major problems with this particular campaign.

The first is HT’s attempt to continue maligning and persecuting homosexuals, something Yusuf disingenuously (and repeatedly) describes as “a lifestyle choice” that is in danger of being “normalised”.

The second problem I have is with HT using this issue to further ingratiate itself to unsuspecting Muslims who might have their own objections to SRE classes. HT will use it to promote and market its ideas to these people and is seeking to make separatist demands for Muslim children on an issue that is not really Muslim-centric. As I’ve already said, many parents who are not Muslim would not want their children being taught about sexual health and relationships at a young age, or indeed by a school. Many think that, as parents, they’re best placed to do it themselves. So why is HT turning this into a sectarian issue?

Finally, and perhaps most worrying, is that HT is attempting to wage this campaign under the radar and not in its own name. I suspect this is because they know that any right-minded school and its parents would run a mile if they knew HT was lobbying it for concessions. This is particularly important when you consider that one of their strategies for thwarting the teaching of SRE is to encourage supporters to:

Become a governor at a local school

To achieve this they need to dupe and deceive people. So, let’s clarify any ambiguity that exists so people can be sure about this campaign.

Majed Iqbal, right, demanding no sex

Yusuf admits that he’s a member of Hizb ut Tahrir but insists the campaign is not being run by the group. Yet, everyone who seems to be driving this initiative forward on a national level is also a HT member. Just take a look at Majed’s blog (who is another member of the group) and you see the full extent of HT’s influence. He describes himself as one of the anti-SRE ‘organisers’, gave this interview to Islam Online about it and even produced this handy leaflet (pdf).

A few months ago Majed also arranged an event in Rochdale where another member of HT, Nasar Hanif, spoke about the campaign.

Nasar Hanif, a science teacher by profession and a member of the SRE Islamic team leading the campaign nationally presented the keynote speech highlighting what exactly the government was proposing.

In his PowerPoint presentation he detailed the ‘ill-devised’ thinking behind the plans and presented a range of points of activism for the audience on their role in how this can be counter-acted.

“Become governors of Primary Schools where you can have more of say in the education of your child and be a in a position to question such proposals and challenge them” he encouraged the audience with one of his proposals.

Nasar Hanif, indoctrinating kids at a school near you

Notice how Nasar is described as “a member of the SRE Islamic team leading the campaign nationally” and how he reiterates Yusuf’s suggestion that people should become school governors in order to influence them.

The PowerPoint presentation that Nasar used is available on the “Islamic SRE” website and is produced by Patel. For convenience, I’ve uploaded it here (pdf). Page 6 recommends that parents should “try and influence the SRE policy of your children’s school” before “opting out”, while page 9 helpfully suggests they should try and become governors themselves.

Another document (pdf) produced by Patel reveals just why this approach is emphasised so much. On page 27 it tells readers:

“Governors have a huge amount of leeway to mould the strategic direction of a school. Whether you are a parent, community, staff or LA governor, you can get involved to improve the educational experience of all children”.

But just in case you thought we might have been picking on the wrong man, click here to see Nasar addressing a HT rally in Bradford (see picture three). And, here’s Nasar writing back in 2003 when some Premiership footballers were questioned about an alleged rape:

…why should people be surprised at their lack of morality? Surely these players are just normal young men taken off the streets of Britain and they will therefore do what many other young men in Britain do. They are simply adhering to the same values of freedom and selfishness that have caused these types of action to become so common in the wider society. [My emphasis]

So, it seems that everyone we can find connected to the “SRE Islamic Campaign” is a member of HT with all the usual cult-based freakishness we’ve come to expect from that group.

Yusuf Patel and his mates clearly have major issues with sex, only fuelling Martin Amis’ famously Freudian theory of Islamist extremism – in essence, its less about religion and more about relief.

Ain’t he pretty?

in a Western media effort to promote irresponsible reporting in Iran.

The whole thing started after Maziar gave Channel 4 News footage of Basiji members opening fire on a crowd of protestors. The Basiji responded by arresting Maziar who has been detaind since June 21. Then, as if right on cue, we have this from Iran’s state sponsored broadcaster Press TV:

…Bahari explained the nature of some of his activities in Iran over the past years and the role that Western media had played in the events, which unfolded in the country.

[...]

“Western media are an inseparable part of the capitalist machine of Western liberal democracies. A Western journalist who comes to Iran… is mainly concerned with the interests of the West, which are defined in relation to each issue at every period of time,” he said.

The Newsweek reporter said international press set the scenes for velvet revolutions in various countries, adding that the gentle overthrow of a government could not be achieved without their critical role.

Bahari specifically highlighted the role of the BBC, CNN, Euronews, The New York Times and Newsweek.

“On the brink of every velvet revolution Western media try to portray the ruling administration as the traditional, bigoted, inefficient and undemocratic side while introducing the Western-inclined trend as a modern, efficient, democratic, and reformist movement that has support among the people,” he said.

Bahar said that in such cases, several months prior to the vote foreign news outlets begin efforts to persuade the public that the election will be rigged and that a coup is just around the corner.

He added that these media outlets give full coverage to illegal protests with the belief that broadcasting such events will help enlarge their scale.

How can anyone continue doubting the bias of Press TV which spews this rubbish at the behest of its clerical-fascist backers? What’s worse is that they now broadcast to UK residents on Sky from their offices in West London.

Of course, we all knew long before the rigged elections that Press TV was little more than an organ for the Iranian regime but its slavish regurgitation of Tehran’s nonsense in recent weeks has reached new heights.

Stand up, Nick Ferrari. Until recently he presented a show on Press TV but resigned earlier this week in protest at its coverage of events in Iran. Press TV needs big-name presenters to give it an aura of respectability, making what Nick Ferrari did hugely courageous. This will damage Press TV – but only if other big names follow too. Rumour has it that Andrew Gilligan will shortly be resigning. But I wonder if those other defenders of ‘truth, justice and the oppressed’ like Yvonne Ridley and George Galloway will also resign? I’m not holding my breath.

Similarly, Iain Dale has announced he won’t be going back on Press TV as a pundit, and neither will the staff from his ‘Total Politics’ publication. For what is worth, I’ve been a guest on Press TV in the past too – and I won’t be returning either.

Newsnight covered this last night and invited the head of Press TV to defend himself. He was up against Martin Bright, the former political editor of the New Statesman:

Like a pathetic, loyalist apparatchik, Mathew Richardson just sits there coldly spouting the party line. Here’s an example of what Richardson calls his station’s “impartial” reporting of events. After the courageous Dr Arash Hejazi revealed what happened when Basiji members shot Neda Sultan, Press TV came out with this gem:

Esmaeil Ahmadi-Moqadam, commander of the Iranian Police, said Wednesday that the unfortunate incident –which has been hyped and dramatized by Western media outlets [my emphasis]–, was in fact a ‘premeditated act of murder’.

The Iranian police chief said Arash Hejazi, a doctor who claims [my emphasis] he tried to save Neda’s life in her final moments, has fanned the flames of the western media hype.

Ahmadi-Moqadam said the Iranian Intelligence Ministry is making every effort to discover the whereabouts of Hejazi. “He has fled the country and is working against the Iranian government abroad.”

Media outlets in the West have blamed Neda’s death on Iranian security forces, but new revelations have found that she was murdered by a small caliber pistol–a weapon that is not used by Iranian security forces.

We could spend weeks dissecting that report above. We could dedicate a whole new blog to it, but I think it speaks for itself and you get my drift.

The fact that Press TV is not under investigation by Ofcom baffles me. How can such a blatant propaganda organ, funded by a regime that is deeply hostile to the United Kingdom, be allowed to broadcast here?

But while it does remain on the airwaves we can all follow in Nick Ferrari’s footsteps and boycott Propaganda TV.

A source tells us Jackson was dead when paramedics arrived. A cardiologist at UCLA tells TMZ Jackson died of cardiac arrest.

We’ve just learned Michael Jackson has died. He was 50.
Michael suffered a cardiac arrest earlier this afternoon at his Holmby Hills home and paramedics were unable to revive him. We’re told when paramedics arrived Jackson had no pulse and they never got a pulse back.

Once at the hospital, the staff tried to resuscitate him but he was completely unresponsive.

Of course, off-stage Jacko was embroiled in endless controversy and it’s clear he was a man haunted by some dark demons.

But he was also the undisputed king of pop. I remember not even being a teenager when he launched the ‘Dangerous Tour’ in 1991. My uncle bought tickets and took me and some cousins to see the show. It was spectacular. When my friends at school found out, they were so jealous.

I almost forgot today too. But, better late than never.

Ps, this week’s winner has already been predetermined: me.

A member of Muhajiroun trying to enforce segregation earlier today

Well, the debate between Douglas Murray and Anjem “Andy” Choudary was scheduled to take place tonight in Conway Hall, Holborn.

The whole thing was a set up. A press release from the Centre for Social Cohesion explains:

Al-Muhajiroun hijacked the debate, ‘Sharia law vs British law’, which was organised by a student society. Members of the radical organisation responsible for the Luton protests took over the debate: the SIA – licensed security guards were al-Muhajiroun and members of the group attempted to intimidate and segregate the audience…The security guards were members of al-Muhajiroun. The student society had neglected to mention that the event would be segregated. The society’s “independent chair” was involved in the assault. It soon became clear that the student society was, if not a front group for al-Muhajiroun, then at least Islamist-sympathisers hijacked by the extremist group.

Oh dear. One member of the public refused to be segregated and was assaulted by al-Muhajiroun’s goons. Here’s his take on events (names have been removed):

I turned up with [names of others]

We walked in [men and women together]

They [Muhajiroun] said

“women upstairs”.

I said

“No we’re going to sit together”.

They said we could not.

The guy who runs the hall was summoned

He said:

You cannot have a gender segregated meeting. You will either let women in or this is cancelled

and I will call the police.

They said

“It is our meeting”

I walked in [to the 'male area'] with [a female]

They grabbed me and dragged me out

I offered no resistance

but I said repeatedly:

You must not touch me

I will report this to the police

The police arrived

I reported it

We went to look for the men who had assaulted me

But they had done a runner.