Has anti-semitism become normative in the editorial policy at the Guardian? Here’s a story that suggests that it is certainly getting there.

Yesterday the Graun reported that Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Education, had awarded a £2M grant to the Community Security Trust (CST), a charity which provides security for Jewish schools. For the Guardian this was a “scoop” because Gove had sat on the CST board since 2007.

Unfortunately the Guardian failed to explain that CST is not the recipient of any of the donations it receives. It simply distributes funds to various security companies which provide services to Jewish schools, none of which Gove sits on the boards of. Even Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, tweeted this:

“I’ve had many disagreements with Michael Gove, but on this one he’s right: CST do a great job on security for Jewish schools.”

The decision by the Guardian to publish a false accusation could be put down to shoddy reporting or an over-zealous impulse to “stick it to the Tories”. But that fails to explain its egregious decision to deny CST a right to reply; instead the newspaper buttresses its report with the opinion of Professor David Miller! Yes, you read that right; none other than David Miller “of the Spinwatch pressure group, which campaigns for greater transparency in politics”. Miller is quoted in the report:

“It is blindingly obvious that he should have stood aside, as this is a potential conflict of interest. This is another example of transparency rules in the UK being ineffectual and in serious need of overhaul.”

Readers of the Spittoon are already aware of Miller’s work and his commitment to “greater transparency”. The sources of David Miller’s organisational funding and the fact that certain anti-semitic references have “mistakenly” crept into the information disseminated by a SpinWatch contributor have already been discussed here.

Harry’s Place has condemned the Guardian’s uncritical embrace of Miller in straightforward terms:

David Miller also runs a series of websites, one of which reproduced the thesis of a notorious neo-Nazi, Kevin MacDonald. MacDonald believes that Jews are genetically predisposed to scheme and conspire against non-Jews. The article was eventually removed, after this was pointed out to them. But, as far as we can tell, nobody was “sacked” from Miller’s project for promoting neo-Nazi antisemitism.

David Miller’s various web sites have not been averse to smearing moderate British Muslims who are opposed to organised Political Islamic lobby groups in the UK. Moreover, Miller’s campaigns to “expose” lobby groups curiously fail to expose any Islamist lobby groups. A search for information on the activities of the Islamic Forum Europe or the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, to take two examples, draws a complete blank. The selective absence of data on particular lobby groups on a web site that purports to catalogue lobby group activity in the interests of “transparency” is revealing. It would suggest that SpinWatch is not without an agenda.

Toby Young frames it like this:

So, let’s be clear about what the Guardian is doing here. It’s running a hit piece about the Secretary of State for Education that falsely accuses him of acting improperly, the source for which is a purveyor of anti-semitic propaganda.

What’s striking about this is that it inadvertently highlights the two biggest weaknesses of Guardian journalists: their knee-jerk opposition to public service reform and their willingness to regurgitate anti-semitic propaganda. Given that the Secretary of State is a conspicuous philo-simite, I daresay he will continue to be targeted. Let’s hope next time the Guardian does’t rely on the likes of David Miller.

So what opinion should we hold of a newspaper that becomes the mouthpiece for a character like David Miller?

The Cordoba Foundation regretfully announces that the forthcoming event on the 8th of November ‘Launch of Two Ground Breaking Pieces of Research’ has been cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances. We apologise for any incovenience caused.

Lucy Lips explains what these “unforseen circumstances” could be

The “unforseen circumstances” are that, earlier this month, Bob Lambert was unmasked as a police spy, who had spent 5 years infiltrating a non-violent Green anarchist group, during the course of which, he had a relationship with a completely politically uninvolved woman, who he wooed by pretending to be an animal rights activist on the run.

It is a huge shame that this event has been cancelled. It would have been very entertaining indeed to have attended it.

Obviously the cancellation was due to ‘health and safety’ issues. But the health and safety of whom?

Yesterday, I asked a question:

If a person denies clear evidence of racism, defends a racist, and attacks a leading anti-racist institution, is it fair to conclude that they are in fact a racist?

It is a genuine question. The answer in some cases will, undoubtedly, be yes. However, others may find themselves in the position of supporting a racist and denying their racism, and attacking anti-racist organisations: because they believe that a little racism is necessary, in furtherance of a greater political cause. Those people are not racists themselves. They are merely tolerating and facilitating racism, making it more difficult to challenge, giving it an alibi.

Yet others may honestly fail to recognise racism, or may not believe the evidence of racism. It is quite easy to tell who those innocent endorsers of racism are. They’re the ones who, once they realise their error, are the keenest to correct it, publicly.

Raed Salah is a racist. He is a hardline antisemite, who has admitted funding the genocidal racist terrorist group, Hamas. He is to be expelled from the United Kingdom because, in the words of the Tribunal.

We are satisfied that the appellant has engaged in the unacceptable behaviour of fostering hatred which might lead to intercommunity violence in the UK.

“We are satisfied that the appellant’s words and actions tend to be inflammatory, divisive, insulting and likely to foment tension and radicalism.

Let us recap, briefly, the reasons that we can be sure that Raed Salah is a racist and extremist.

• He has claimed that Jews baked “the blood of children” into their “holy bread” – the ancient and vicious blood libel.
• He has claimed that 4,000 Jews skipped work at the World Trade Centre on 9/11 and suggested that Israel carried out the 9/11 attacks.
• His political party published a paean to “the Martyr, Sheikh Osama Bin Laden“, whose killers had “sold their consciences to Satan”.
• He has cited so-called Franklin Prophecy: a Nazi forgery in which Benjamin Franklin supposedly warns America about Jews
• He attended the launch of the Mavi Marmara and incited violence on board. At the launch ceremony and on board Mavi Marmara passengers chanted a notorious extremist slogan, commemorating a massacre of Arabian Jews: “Khaybar! Khaybar! Oh Jews! The army of Mohammed will return!”.
• The Mavi Marmara escapade was organised by the Turkish charity IHH, one of the biggest and most keen material and political supporters of Hamas in the world. Salah is closely linked to IHH.
• He chuckled at the memory of taunting a Jewish teacher with a Swastika in a friendly chat with fellow extremist Azzam “Kaboom” Tamimi on Al-Hiwar TV, a TV channel based in London that serves the Muslim Brotherhood .
• He wrote an antisemitic poem which used various theological references to Jews, including: “The Creator meant for you to be monkeys and losers … you are the bacteria of all times”, which clearly refer to Jews generally.
• He has admitted funding Hamas, for which he served two years in prison. Hamas leaders have hailed him and rallied to his cause. Recently the terrorist group named a football pitch after him.
• He has been named as a trustee of the Union of Good, a Hamas funding organisation, and has worked closely with Interpal, the British charity that serves Hamas.
• His hosts in the UK have included some of the country’s worst extremists, such as Daud Abdullah and Ismail Patel, and a fellow speaker on his ill-fated tour was to be Ahmad Nofal of the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood. Nofal too has been banned from the UK.
• He claims that homosexuality is a “great crime” which signals “the start of the collapse of every society”.

Now, if you are a racist, or a strategic facilitator of racism, I wouldn’t expect you to have any problem with any of this at all. Indeed, you probably support Raed Salah because this is what he believes.

However, if you found yourself backing Raed Salah because you’d been fooled into believing that none of the above was true: now is the time to tell us so. It is a horrifying thing to be tricked into becoming an aider and abetter of racism, and you must feel very angry with those who put you in this position.

The Labour MPs

Raed Salah attracted a good number of supporters who are Labour Members of Parliament. Let’s consider them, one by one.

Jeremy Corbyn MP

Corbyn was one of the scheduled speakers alongside Salah at an event in Parliament.  He knew of the evidence showing that Raed Salah was a racist, but dismissed it on the ground that Salah denied that he was:

We checked him out and he denied completely that he was an anti-Semite so we thought it was appropriate to bring him over.

The Parliamentary event went ahead without Salah, who had been arrested.  According to blogger Richard Millett, who attended the event, Corbyn told the audience he would help to challenge the exclusion of Salah.

Now that Jeremy Corbyn MP knows that Salah’s denial of racism was a lie, he should admit his error in backing him.

Yasmin Qureshi MP

Yasmin Qureshi was also one of the scheduled speakers at the Parliamentary meeting featuring Salah.  On her website, she has claimed that she “would not wish to share a platform if these allegations were true”.

I was recently informed of allegations made against one of the speakers invited by PSC to speak at the meeting. I do not personally know Raed Saleh but I have been closely observing the situation unfold.  I condemn any form of racism, fascism, anti-Semitism or Islamaphobia. I have made it clear that I would not wish to share a platform if these allegations were true.

However, Qureshi goes on to suggest she does not believe the allegations by republishing a statement from Middle East Monitor and the PSC which includes this line:

The Sheikh has appealed against the deportation in court. His team had already begun legal proceedings against Daily Telegraph and Jewish Chronicle journalists for printing false allegations about him last week.

There will be no libel case. Salah’s racism has been uncovered and verified, and his exclusion endorsed by a court.

Now that Yasmin Qureshi MP knows that Salah’s denial of racism was a lie, she should admit her error in backing him.

Richard Burden MP

Richard Burden is a regular promoter of Islamist extremists.  He was another scheduled speaker at the Parliamentary meeting featuring Salah.  He has issued a statement that is similar to Yasmin Qureshi’s.  He claims he would not share a platform with an antisemite.  He then proceeds to deny the evidence and complains about “innuendo”.

Two weeks ago allegations of anti-Semitism were made against Raed Salah, who I was told was one of the other people PSC had invited to speak at this meeting. To my knowledge I have never met Mr Salah. I have no truck for anti-Semitism and I made it clear that I would not be willing to share a platform with such a person if these allegations were true.

The organisers of the meeting put these allegations to Raed Salah. He denied the statements that had been attributed to him and asked lawyers to begin legal action against those spreading the allegations. I am not aware of any evidence being produced to back up the allegations.

…

The Home Secretary must urgently clarify this situation. It is important that everyone should be aware of what is fact and what is conjecture. Guilt should be on the basis of evidence and conviction, not by innuendo, allegation or association.

Richard Burden MP then turned up to the meeting which Raed Salah was to have addressed. This is what he said:

Let me put absolutely on the record what Jeremy [Corbyn] said.  Neither I nor anyone else on this panel has any truck with antisemitism, any truck with racism, whatsoever.  But I will say this: if I am going to see anybody convicted of those sorts of allegations, I want to see them convicted on the basis of evidence.  I don’t want to see them condemned and guilt assumed on the basis of innuendo, allegation, or association.  [audience applauds loudly]

Now the evidence has been examined in full. He can read it, through the links above. It has been tested by a court. Raed Salah’s exclusion has been confirmed.

Now that Richard Burden MP knows that Salah’s denial of racism was a lie, he should admit his error in backing him.

Martin “Tentacles” Linton

Martin Linton is no longer an MP. However, he runs Labour Friends of Palestine.

He too is a supporter of Raed Salah, and appeared on the Islamic Republic of Iran’s station, Press TV, to argue that Salah should have been admitted to Britain so that he could “speak his mind”.

We know that Salah’s “mind” contains unequivocal and extreme racist filth. That’s that Martin Linton supports.

There is no point in asking him to admit his error in backing Raed Salah. He’s proud of it.

Labour Friends of Palestine

All of the MPs listed above are supporters of Labour Friends of Palestine.

Rather than censure an outfit whose members are apologists for and defenders of this racist, extremist and supporter of terrorism, the Labour Party leader, Ed Miliband, thought it appropriate to honour them at the Labour party conference:

I want to pay tribute to Simon Danczuk, to Andy Slaughter, and to Richard Burden, first of all, as well as Martin Linton, who is here, for the work they do.

Make no mistake. The “work they do” is public defending racists, and attacking those who oppose racism and extremism.

Ed Miliband’s support of those within the Labour Party who have devoted themselves to the defence of racists is no different from the Tory Party, in the days that the racist Monday Club was considered an acceptable part of Tory politics.

The days of tolerating racism are long gone, for the Tories. Not so, sadly, for Labour.

I think that Labour Party members, and voters, have a right to expect a zero-tolerance approach to racism in the Labour Party. It is pretty outrageous that Labour MPs should have appeared in support of, and then in defence of, a man like Raed Salah: whose racism is a matter of record, and is simply undeniable.

Why not write to, or call these MPs. Ask them where they stand now, and if they are prepared to retract their support for Raed Salah, in public.

• Jeremy Corbyn: corbynj@parliament.uk,            020 7219 3545
• Yasmin Qureshi: yasmin.qureshi.mp@parliament.uk,            020 7219 7019
• Richard Burden: richard.burden.mp@parliament.uk,            020 7219 2318

Please be polite.

Raed Salah has lost his ill conceived attempt to prevent his deportation from the United Kingdom. Despite being the subject of a banning order, you will remember that the hate preacher was accidentally admitted to the United Kingdom.

He has had his fun. It is now time for him to sling his hook.

This is what the court found:

We are satisfied that the appellant has engaged in the unacceptable behaviour of fostering hatred which might lead to intercommunity violence in the UK.

“We are satisfied that the appellant’s words and actions tend to be inflammatory, divisive, insulting and likely to foment tension and radicalism.

I urge you to read the response of The CST to the judgement.

Given that Salah was bound to fail in his challenge, one might ask: why did he bother. As the trial unfolded, the strategy of the Salah team became clear. Their case was, in essence, a pretty disgraceful attempt to portray Raed Salah as a victim of a Jewish conspiracy.

Specifically, the Raed Salah defence campaign spread the defamatory lie that the Community Security Trust, a respected anti-racist organisation, had fed the Home Office “doctored quotes” about Raed Salah. About that allegation, the CST notes:

CST completely rejects this wholly untrue claim, which is not mentioned in today’s ruling. It appears to be something given to journalists writing about the case rather than a meaningful claim relied on in court by Salah.

Indeed,  The CST provided original source material, on which the partial newspaper reports about Salah’s conduct were based.  Far from doctoring the quotes, The CST provided full context for Salah’s behaviour, in a manner which was potentially helpful to his case.

In advancing this “Jewish conspiracy” defence, Raed Salah’s team relied on two supposedly “expert witnesses”. The first is Professor David Miller. The second is Bob Lambert

David Miller runs a website called “Spinwatch”. Spinwatch has a shameful track record of attacking Muslim liberals and opponents of terrorist movements. Notoriously, David Miller’s site presented the views of the prominent neo-Nazi academic Kevin MacDonald, to explain the political behaviour of Jews.

The second is Bob Lambert, who has recently been exposed as a police spy, who deceived not only the members of Green anarchist group he had infiltrated, but also lied to his girlfriend, to whom he pretended to be an environmental activist on the run. Quite apart from Lambert’s personal and political dishonesty: his faux-academic European Muslim Research Centre (“EMRC”)  at Exeter University is funded by two Muslim Brotherhood front organisations: Islam Expo and the Cordoba Foundation.

The directors of IslamExpo include fugitive Hamas commander and Istanbul declaration signatory Mohammed Sawalha. The Cordoba Foundation is run by the Muslim Brotherhood activist, Anas Altikriti, who has called the murder of coalition troops in Iraq “legitimate“. The EMRC Board includes Bashir Nafi, who a decade ago was a senior operative of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist group, indicted in the United States.

As the CST was not a party to this litigation, it did not have the opportunity to rebut the spin of the Salah team:

Salah’s defence called two witnesses, Professor David Miller of the Spinwatch campaign group and former police officer Bob Lambert, both of whom contested CST’s expertise in this area. The judgement notes their claim that CST “failed to distinguish between anti-Semitism and criticism of the actions of the Israeli State and therefore gives an unbalanced perspective”, but that both Miller and Lambert accepted it was not “improper for the Secretary of State to seek the views of the CST in this matter”. Needless to say, CST totally rejects the claims of Miller and Lambert that we fail to distinguish between antisemitism and criticism of Israel. OurAntisemitic Incident Reportsand Antisemitic Discourse Reports (both available here) lay out this distinction in great detail. However, we were not afforded an opportunity to defend CST’s position during the hearing and no witnesses were called by the Home Secretary’s lawyers to counter their claims. Consequently, CST’s rejection of Miller and Lambert’s ‘expertise’ was not heard in court and is not in the ruling.

Quite apart from the pathetic attempt to attack The CST, Salah’s substantive case was all over the place. He hopped from one lie to another. I’d imagine that his legal team was tearing their hair out by the end of the case:

When these allegations were first aired, Salah denied having written the poem; denied making the blood libel comment; denied facing any charges in Israel; and denied any links to Hamas. Only after CST provided evidence to the contrary, did Salah admit to having written the poem and making the blood libel comment, and argued instead that CST’s interpretation of those texts was wrong. He also admitted his conviction for funding organisations linked to Hamas, but claimed this was for “charitable and humanitarian purposes.”

I’d like just to focus on one aspect of Raed Salah’s inconsistent and shifting defence, in this post. You’ll remember that one of the many pieces of evidence uncovered to illustrate the nature of Raed Salah’s racism was a poem that he had written, in which he says:

“You are the germs of all times. The Creator had deemed you to be monkeys and losers.”

One newspaper report had inserted the word “[The Jews]” in square brackets into its translation of the poem. Initially, Raed Salah accepted that this poem was antisemitic and denied authorship of it:

The British press had circulated accusations of an anti-Semitic “poem” they attributed to Salah. But under instruction from Salah, Husain emphasized he absolutely denies writing the poem and “finds it offensive” because of its anti-Semitic content.

Unfortunately, evidence then emerged that established that the poem was indeed published, under Raed Salah’s name. The defence then shifted to a different lie: that the poem was about “all oppression” and not really Jews at all.

Lying is a strategy employed without the slightest shame, not simply by Raed Salah, but by his supporters. Have a read of MEMO’s press release, desperately trying to spin their hero’s utter failure, by misrepresenting the content of the judgement. I’ve read the judgement, and the attempt to present the court’s recital of legal arguments as findings in Salah’s favour is both pathetic and dishonest.

Popout

Now, here’s a question for you.

If a person denies clear evidence of racism, defends a racist, and attacks a leading anti-racist institution, is it fair to conclude that they are in fact a racist?

I ask, because Raed Salah attracted a large number of supporters and admirers, who rushed to his defence, during the course of his self-imposed stay in the United Kingdom.

One by one, we plan to examine the role of each of these institutions and individuals in the Raed Salah saga.

My hate for Israel and for the Jews was fuelled by images of death and destruction, set to the backdrop of Arabic melodies about Jihad and speeches of Hizbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah or Osama Bin Laden.

There was also constant, casual antisemitism around me. My father would boast of how Adolf Hitler was a hero, his only failing being that he didn’t kill enough Jews. Even the most moderate clerics I came across refused to condemn terrorism against Israel as unjustified.

What changed? In Waterstones one day I found myself in the Israel and Palestine section. To this day I don’t know why I actually pulled it off the shelf, but I picked up a copy of Alan Dershowitz’s The Case for Israel.

In my world view the Jews and the Americans controlled the media, so after a brief look at the back, I scoffed thinking “vile Zionist propaganda”.

But I decided to buy it, eagerly awaiting the chance to deconstruct it so I could show why Israel had no case and claim my findings as a personal victory for the Palestinian cause.
As I read Dershowitz’s systematic deconstruction of the lies I had been told, I felt a real crisis of conscience. I couldn’t disprove his arguments or find facts to respond to them with. I didn’t know what to believe. I’d blindly followed for so long, yet here I was questioning whether I had been wrong?

I decided to visit Israel to find the truth. I was confronted by synagogues, mosques and churches, by Jews and Arabs living together, by minorities playing huge parts in all areas of Israeli life, from the military to the judiciary. It was shocking and eye-opening. This wasn’t the evil Zionist Israel that I had been told about.
After much soul searching, I knew what I had once believed was wrong. I had to stand with Israel, with this tiny nation, free, democratic, making huge strides in medicine, research and development, yet the victim of the same lies and hatred that nearly consumed me.

As an outsider, I ask why so many in the Jewish community are closing their eyes to the constant stream of anti-Israel hated spewed out from all facets of British society.

And while pro-Palestinian organisations burn Israeli flags, urge boycotts of Israel and protest against appearances by Israeli politicians or artists, UJS’s response is shameful. It is not the time for UJS or any other group to engage in hollow flag-waving to show their “progressiveness”. Let Israel’s democratic history speak for itself.

Instead of meekly trying to avoid coming across as too pro-Israeli or too Zionist, it is time to make the facts known, to defend Israel against delegitimisation. It is time to stem the tide of Israel bashing before it becomes even more mainstream and consumes even more people like me.

Here Tarek Fatah is interviewed by Brian Lilley on Sun TV, a Canadian tv channel, on the Al-Quds rally held in Queens Park in Toronto which was little more than a racist hatefest, where President Obama was referred to as “this Black man in the White House” and there was talk of raising an Islamic Army to wipe out Israel.

The same phenomenon is happening in the UK. Politicians such as Ken Livingstone will kowtow to Islamic Jew hatred propagated by “representive” Islamist political groups because it will win them a handful of votes from their South Asian constituents.

I find it amusing how you throw “Anti-Semite” at her much like some Muslims throw “Islamophobe” at anyone who dares criticise Islam, simply because she criticised Israel’s tactics during the invasion of Gaza. It seems you have the attitude of anyone criticising Israel’s political and military policies is an anti-semite. Just as some Muslims have the attitude that anyone criticising Islam hates Muslims.

But worse than this your saying that moderates have “no truck” with extremists. I was Muslim most of my life, (I am 52) and my family and friends are Muslim and to imply that I never had – nor Muslims in general have – any problem with people who massacre innocent civilians or behead innocent people is deeply offensive to me. Do you also think the Synagogues and Jews Baruch Goldstein prayed with had “No truck” with him massacring 29 worshippers at a Mosque in Hebron? I suspect not. I guess guilt by association only applies to Muslims – right?

Unlike you, Maryam and CEMB don’t lump all Muslims (or any religious believers) in one boat, nor do we see Islam as a single homogenous entity. We were Muslims and we know about Islam and Muslims very well and have a much better understanding of the issues we face than you. Although we don’t believe in Islam, we have no problem with Muslims who wish to follow their own interpretations of Islam so long as they are peaceful and do not try to impose their beliefs on others. Just as we have no problem with those of other faiths who follow it peacefully.

We are only against the Islamists and harsh, literalist and violent interpretations of Islam and those who seek to impose it on others.

Contrary to what you may think there is no such thing as “True Islam”. There are many different traditions and interpretations and many personal versions of Islam that differ from Muslim to Muslim.

Of course every Muslim will tell you there is a “True Islam” and it just so happens to be the version they follow. But it is obvious they would say that since they are compelled to preserve the integrity of a religion they believe is revealed by God. But those of us who do not believe that Islam was the carefully planned work of an Omniscient and Omnipotent Creator, but the rather less carefully planned work of the human mind, are under no obligation to defend it’s integrity and consistency against all reason, when it is obvious that Muslims have very differing interpretations.

Even when one looks solely at the basic sources – the Qur’an and Hadith – it is clear that what Muhammad himself did and said varied at different points of his lifetime and according to the circumstances and each group is selective in how they interpret them. Nor is Abrogation – that you love to bring as evidence of the harsh verses superseding the peaceful one – as simple and straightforward as you make it out to be.

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of abrogation will know it creates more anomalies than it solves, and today huge numbers of Muslims reject the idea completely – as I did when I was a Muslim.

Regardless of how you or I wish to define Islam – it is not up to us but those who call themselves Muslims. I would no more impose my view that Christianity clearly considers homosexuality a sin, on a Christian who does not regard it as a sin – than I would impose my view that the Qur’an clearly allows a man to hit his wife on a Muslim who interprets; “Hit” as; “Leave her alone” – regardless of how absurd I may think those views to be.

We stand against Political Islam and the Islamists who hold harsh and violent views and who have a political agenda to impose Islam and Islamic Laws on others.

I agree that until the Islamists are defeated, it is extremely difficult for ordinary Muslims to live their lives according to their own ‘personal Islam’, and this is one reason we fight this battle, for all humanity – including Muslims themselves – who are the greatest victims of the Islamists.

I find it perverse that people like you want to convince everyone – including Muslims – that moderate forms of Islam are wrong and that the true version is the terrorists’ version and that Muslims that appear moderate are just practising “Taqiyyah”.

Of course I realise it is because you need to justify your agenda towards Muslims in general. To convince the public that ordinary Muslims are in league with the terrorists, they cannot be trusted and harsh and restrictive measures must be imposed on them all.

Even though you say you are against violence against Muslims it is clear from the sorts of people you attract and quote you, that your words have given great encouragement to those who do want to justify violence and aggression against ordinary Muslims.

You need to look closely at yourself and the the consequences of some of the things you say and the sorts of people supporting you – if you truly care about humanity.

Hassan.

The news has been received with joy by Salah’s supporters from the Muslim religious-right of Britain. It means Salah is free to do more of this kind of thing in this country:

Inayat Bunglawala, for example, was so perturbed by the detention of this particular hate-preacher that he dropped all erstwhile pretence of being a “liberal Muslim” and exposed his true associations:

From today, I am adding a number of links to websites that the Zionists would rather wish you and I would not look at including Hizbullah’s al-Manar, al-Jazeera, Press TV. I will add to it in the coming days and weeks, insha’ Allah. Do encourage others to do the same to counteract the influence of a largely craven British media.

Which can be paraphrased as:
“I’m so angry my Jew-hating preacher of choice has been detained I am going ahead with exposing my lifelong support for Hezbollah and Khomeinist extremist politics which I have never forsaken!”

He then went on to profess to be puzzled by newspaper reports on Salah calling him an “anti-semitic hate preacher”:

The Daily Mail portrayed Raed Salah as antisemitic and a danger to Britain, though its article was notably lacking in any evidence to support these assertions. Other vile newspapers including the Daily Express and the Evening Standard also chimed in.

Bunglawala who likes to see himself as having his pulse on British Muslim opinion and wants to be a public voice of anti-Islamophobia seems unable to keep his own virulent anti-semitism under wraps for any length of time.

None of this should come as a surprise to anyone but nonetheless it is amusing to partake in the spectator sport of “Watch the Islamist numpty make a tit of himself”.

When you watch Baroness Jenny Tonge for the Liberal Democrats, Jeremy Corbyn for Labour or the Muslim Council of Britain, Cage Prisoners or – and I am ashamed to say this – the “liberal” press where I make my living, you see them deploy two tactics. The first is a determined refusal to admit the nature of radical Islam. They never discuss the misogyny, homophobia and antisemitism, let alone stir themselves to confront it.

Second, they pretend that anyone who does describe and condemn it is a part of the supernaturally powerful “Israel Lobby” – or the “International Jewish Conspiracy,” as previous generations called it.
And they get away with it. Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg do not withdraw the whip. Polite society does shun them. I have never forgotten the deference with which the production team of Any Questions treated Baronnes Tonge. They had invited me on to the programme with her, perhaps because they thought it a bit of laugh to sit someone called ‘Cohen’ next to someone who had updated the medieval blood libel and suggested that an inquiry was needed to ascertain whether Jews were stealing the vital organs of Christian earthquake victims. Certainly, they did not see anything bizarre or shameful in the spectacle of self-declared liberal leftists endorsing and indulging reactionaries.

I wonder how long this toleration of hypocrisy will last. It seems a permanent feature of leftish British life that has been with us for so long no one can imagine a new Britain where the alliance between the white left and the Islamist religious right is challenged and exposed.

Yet Britain can change with incredible speed. We have seen the festering scandals of MPs expenses and Rupert Murdoch’s excessive power explode like lightning from a clear sky. Issues that small groups shouted about for years went mainstream almost overnight. The same will happen with the liberal-left’s support for the Islamism. It won’t be the issue of Israel that provokes a change – the actions of the Likud government deserve no sympathy – but the issue of Iran, where antisemitic hatred is a part of the theocracy’s official ideology.

“More precision needed. There should be a stamp for that. MPN should be like LOL or TMI.”

i agree. what narks me somewhat (and no doubt there are all sorts of reasons why i am wrong about this) is that this is *precisely* what bothers me about statements about a) religious people and b) the tendentious-as-feck word “judeo-christian”.

“But there again – that’s a matter of fact, not something that can just be declared from the armchair as if it were self-evident. Are Muslims as “diverse” as any other group of people living in the UK? Are all groups living in the UK exactly as diverse as each other, neither more nor less? I don’t see why that would be the case. It’s certainly not impossible that there is something about Islam and/or the history of people who emigrate from majority-Muslim countries that makes Muslims as a group tend to be different from other people as groups, including being less “diverse.” That’s something to find out, not just to announce as a necessary truth. Or a sacred cow…”

i would argue that this is exactly what annoys me about statements about religious people in which jews and judaism are included. jews in the uk are *extremely* diverse – this is an ongoing issue which pops up every time someone decides to say something about how we have a monolithic view, or “the community thinks”. in fact, the community, generally speaking, disagrees on nearly everything. on the other hand, it seems to me that the idea that muslims are somehow less diverse is equally mistaken. on the other hand, i am often attacked for suggesting that there is a “significant minority” (i usually quote 13%, based on a survey done some years back for channel 4) that are problematic particularly if you look at what they think about jews. the *real numbers* that can be attached to this, in this case 260,000 based on 2m muslims (again, if that’s correct) is still a very large number compared to the number of jews in this country. in other words, it is nonetheless possible that a) muslims are not monolithic in their views AND b) there is a significant minority of muslims whose views are problematic – and that one can therefore conclude that this minority is big enough to cause a sizeable problem. please note here that i am not intending to essentialise, demonise or whatever. this is just a numbers game. if 13% of these guys are arseheads, 13% of 2m people adds up to a LOT more arseheads than the corresponding number of jews, especially given that there is no evidence whatsoever that a “significant number of jews” hold views that are problematic for a) the UK b) liberal democracy or c) muslims. on the other hand, there *are*, i would say, a “significant number of jews” whose views on the middle east are problematic for a “significant number of so-called ‘progressives’ and muslims and people in the house of lords or the foreign office”. this, for me, is the source of the false equivalences.

the below the line comments are also quite revealing of the issues that are raised.

In 2007, Sizer accepted an invitation to give a series of lectures in Iran. Sizer was invited by Ayatollah Khomeini’s daughter – Zahra Mostafavi. Ayatollah Khomeini ruled Iran with an iron fist.

Under Khomeini’s rule, many Christians were arrested and even killed, for “heresy” and “insulting Khomeini”. Khomeini died in 1989, but his cruel ‘Khomeinist’ politics live on. Sizer has aligned his theology to co-operate with Khomeinist politics. McRoy has presented Khomeinist suicide bombers as virtuous.

Mostafavi thinks her father was a righteous man. She wants to spread his politics across the Middle East, and encourages children to become suicide bombers for Khomeinists in Lebanon, at a theological conference in Iran.

I have written a document to explain the phenomenon, of Christians like Sizer and McRoy working together with Khomeinists to promote an evil, radical agenda.

You can download the document here:

The Evangelical Intifada

Liberal author Sohrab Ahrami comments:

“Iranians of the Christian faith, like other ethno-sectarian minorities – and, indeed, the vast majority of citizens – are daily targeted by the ruthless clerical regime that misrules Iran.  It is beyond obscene then, to see a Christian leader like Rev. Sizer kowtow to Iranian theocrats. And it is heartening to hear strong, liberal-democratic and Christian voices of conscience hold men like Sizer to account for their moral abdications.”

It is highly hypocritical of Sizer and McRoy to chastise Christian Zionism as being obsessed with war and Armageddon in the Middle East, and then ally themselves with Islamist Mahdists who theologise and threaten the destruction of Israel whilst trying to bring about the apocalypse. They have strained a gnat and swallowed a camel.

Yet Stephen Sizer’s bishop – the Rt. Reverend Christopher Hill – considers Sizer to be engaging in legitimate political activity, helping Muslim and Christian people in the Middle East.

By aligning with Khomeinists, however, Sizer may well land many Iranian Muslims and Christians in further peril, strengthening the hands of their Khomeinist persecutors. Across the world, Muslims and Christians should oppose Rev Sizer’s dangerous theological and political game. Please forward this document and make others aware, of this scandalous activity.

The Church of England has correctly ruled that its vicars should have nothing to do with the BNP. The church will ban clergy who are found to be BNP members.

Now the Church of England must reject Khomeinist fascists just like it has rejected BNP fascists.

Please pass this document on to any concerned Muslims and Christians you know, and let’s send out a clear message to the Bishop of Guildford about extremist theology. We will not tolerate it, and neither should he.

Robert Lambert yesterday mistakenly criticized the government for its position on excluding and subsequently arresting the hate preacher Raed Salah, as reported on Newsnight , not for his political views, but for violating his notice of exclusion under UK immigration law. Lambert refers to Saleh as “Sheikh” and  presents him as merely a persecuted Palestinian activist.

  In his piece, Lambert tries to say that the controversy is about Israel and nothing to do anti-semitism, extremism, support for Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, or in fact any connections with officially-designated extreme or terrorist groups.

Lambert is either ignorant of the facts, incompetent or simply not concerned with them at all.

  He states that “anger and frustration with Israeli oppression is hardly the same as unwarranted hatred of a minority or majority community of any kind.”  

But Salah has said:

“We have never allowed ourselves to knead [the dough for] the bread that breaks the fast in the holy month of Ramadan with children’s blood,” he said. “Whoever wants a more thorough explanation, let him ask what used to happen to some children in Europe, whose blood was mixed in with the dough of the [Jewish] holy bread.”

Clearly for Lambert this was nothing to do with hatred of Jews!

Salah also wrote:

“Jews knew about the attack on the twin towers, left the building and did not inform anyone. 9/11…A suitable way was found to warn the 4,000 Jews who work every day at the Twin Towers to be absent from their work on September 11, 2001, and this is really what happened! Were 4,000 Jewish clerks absent [from their jobs] by chance, or was there another reason? At the same time, no such warning reached the 2,000 Muslims who worked every day in the Twin Towers, and therefore there were hundreds of Muslim victims.”

There is no mention at all by Lambert of support for extremists such as al-Qaeda, in fact he claims that Salah is like “Nelson Mandela”.  Well, here is the website of the movement which Salah heads, describing Bin Laden as the “the sheikh, the martyr, bin Laden” and the US forces who killed him as the forces of “Satan”!…”We in the Islamic Movement condemn the assassination operation against the sheikh, the martyr Osama Bin Laden, if [reports are] true, at the hands of the American security arms. The assassination, if true, proves collusion of mercenaries who have sold their consciences to cursed Satan.”

Lambert goes on to say: “It is difficult to find anything in Sheikh Salah’s so-called hate speech that would not have occasioned an entirely opposite response from the British Home Secretary had the words been uttered by a non-Muslim visiting Britain.” 

Again, let’s examine the evidence and see if Lambert is correct.

• Michael Savage (real name Michael Weiner) was banned from entering the country for his views on Islam, immigration, rape and autism.

• Fred Waldren Phelps, the Christian Baptist, (when last I checked he was not a Muslim), was prevented form entering the country for his anti-gay views. (He celebrated the deaths of US soldiers and picketed funerals of AIDS victims).

• For a list of some other racists and extremists that have been excluded for spreading obnoxious views, have a look at this list in the Guardian.

The Salah decision is self-evidently nothing to do with Israel, but is about extremism, support and praise for the al-Qaeda terrorist leader, anti-semitism of the most vile kind, and a rabble-rousing hate preacher. It is incidental that this hate preacher happens to a Muslim. 

Lambert insinuates that this is not about terrorism but Saleh was arrested, sentenced and served time though subsequently released after plea bargaining for funding Hamas.  Hamas is a terrorist organization which targets and attacks civilians and is listed so by the EU.  


One would have assumed that a former police officer, specializing in counter-terrorism, would be aware of this.

However, if Lambert is unaware why doesn’t he ask a few questions of his funders?  Among them is an organisation named and shamed by David Cameron as a Muslim Brotherhood front – the Cordoba Foundation. 

Is it be a coincidence that Lambert also praises another sheikh – the Muslim Brotherhood- groomed “cleric”, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, a man who is reported to believe that terrorism is a religious duty, including killing American civilians working in Iraq“.

These beliefs are not just immoral and illegal, but also in direct contravention of the UK Government’s policy and stopping terrorism: you would think that an expert, former police officer would know this, wouldn’t you? 

Entering our country is not a right for all people: it is a privilege, and one which should not be extended for people who support terrorism. A view which I would have thought did not require justifying – and hence the exclusion of Salah is nothing to do with free speech.

I would hasten to add that I am sure that our courts will uphold justice.  Lambert threatens the coalition government with UK justice, but neglects to mention that another person whose entry to Britain he supported, Zakir Naik, also tried to challenge his exclusion but the decision to exclude him was upheld by a UK High Court. Oh and guess what – Naik is another one of Lambert’s “Cause Celebs”.  I have confidence in our judicial system, and believe that it will reject the claims of Lambert’s current “Celeb”, Salah, as well.

  A question remains: will our civil service still take what Lambert says with any seriousness, when the facts are diametrically opposed to his “analysis”?

Here’s a report from the JC:

As the controversy deepened, Rabbi Jeremy Gordon told New London Synagogue in his weekly address: “I’ve watched the speech and I’m in pain as these people, who inspire terrorist atrocities, are held up as heroes.”

Rabbi Gordon said he remained a supporter of London Citizens. “Someone has to care about bringing diverse communities together and I have met no-one who does that better than London Citizens.”

At the New North London Synagogue, Rabbi Jonathan Wittenberg also wrote to members. He said: “The JC named me today for my participation in events held by London Citizens, criticising the organisation because of the role within it of a Muslim leader who, the paper shows, expressed support for Hamas during the Gaza war. I abhor such views and expect London Citizens to take this matter most seriously.”

However, he argued that dialogue should continue. “We have to take risks to engage with each other. The Jewish community will be far weaker if we all shelter within a comfort zone labelled ‘They all hate us out there’.”

Rabbi Wittenberg also has a thoughtful piece which touches upon these issues. I urge you to read it in full.

I want to take one section from that piece to explain to Rabbi Wittenberg how standing up for extremists undermines liberals. The Rabbi says:

But I’m risking committing the very error I’m warning against. My point is that we shouldn’t make “the world hates us” our motto. It is a negative basis for Jewish identity and accords our detractors a victory they don’t deserve. It represents not courage but submission to our fears. Most importantly, it is untrue of the creative reality of Anglo-Jewry.

Jewish life in Britain today is more vital than ever. Think of Limmud, Jewish Book Week, the Jewish Film Festival, Gefiltefest, independent minyanim, the rich interface of inter-faith encounter, and the flourishing social action scene largely due to the inspiration of the Pears Foundation. The story we tell should embrace this creative Jewish energy. We’d let ourselves down if we allowed the hunt for antisemites to dominate it.

I agree with that. I also agree that an organisation like Citizens UK really ought to be a very valuable movement indeed.

But here’s the error. The concerns in relation to London Citizens, the East London Mosque, and the Islamic Forum Europe aren’t primarily about Jews and antisemitism. They’re not even about Israel.

The real story of the East London Mosque and the Islamic Forum Europe, is that of a small group of individuals, connected to the far Right Islamist party, Jamaat-e-Islami, who settled in the United Kingdom in the aftermath of the genocide of Bangladeshis during their War of Liberation. That story is still playing out in Bangladesh, where the party has been wiped out in the polls, its leaders finally about to face justice for their terrible war crimes.

British Bangladeshis know that this is the dynamic which underpins this controversy. The close links of the East London Mosque and Islamic Forum Europe to Jamaat-e-Islami and even the genocidaires of the 1970s are well understood by them. Many Muslim liberals are fighting a desperate battle against their pernicious influence. They know what will happen to their communities, if the far Right takes over. They also know that London Citizens has deep links with the Jamaat-e-Islami network, and has all but ignored Muslims from non-Islamist backgrounds.

Here’s Delwar Hussain:

It is striking that a party with the Jamaat’s record can attract young people in Britain, when for the most part, they have little interest in the politics of their parents’ or grandparents’ country. In south Asia, the party has drawn support from those both promoted and dislocated by modernisation – middle-class people (teachers, lawyers, and engineers among them) repelled by western ideas and attracted to the ideological rigour of fundamentalism.

Indeed, societies in transition often generate fundamentalism. In London, the absence of a Bangladeshi middle-class has meant that support for the Jamaat was negligible, but it has discovered another constituency: the British-educated Bengali working class, those at the bottom of Britain’s social pyramid, heirs to endemic poverty and exclusion. The path of social advancement may be closed to them elsewhere, but the doorway to rightwing, fundamentalist theology is broad and always open.

British Rabbis do not understand this. Why should they? Very little coverage is given to Bangladeshi history and politics in the mainstream British press. These battles do not have the resonance of the Israel-Palestine dispute. It is therefore very natural for liberal British Rabbis to believe that they are “reaching out across the divide”, and keeping lines of communication open. That is, in many ways, a very impressive thing to want to do.

However, it is also a dangerously counterproductive strategy which risks isolating Muslim liberals and promoting the Islamist far Right at their expense. As a parallel, imagine that a political movement like Kach or Kahane Chai – or the sort of people who chant “Death to Arabs” in Jerusalem – were to establish a series of front organisations within the British Jewish community, gained control of the St John’s Wood Synagogue, and started to make links with other local community bodies. Imagine that, after a decade of organisation, they had outflanked mainstream quietist and introspective Orthodox Jewish organisations and had managed to attack their liberal Jewish critics as antisemites. That is, in effect, what the Islamic Forum Europe and the East London Mosque has achieved.

Of course, nothing like this would happen. That is because there is a level of ignorance and prejudice surrounding the politics of Muslim communities: in which the more extreme and radical an activist is, the more “authentic” he is thought to be. Jews, by contrast, are assumed to be liberal in outlook, and police extremism rigorously. Look at the angry opposition  the so called Jewish Division of the EDL has met from major Jewish institutions.

It is important that Rabbis who are invited to participate in events with the East London Mosque do so with open eyes. That doesn’t mean not participating in events with Jamaat-e-Islami connected organisations. However, when you do so, ask the hard questions, do your research, delve beyond the excuses and explanations that you’ll be given for the repeated promotion and hosting of hate preachers. Use those platforms as a way of taking the argument to them. Consult Muslim liberals and help them defend their own communities from sectarianism and extremism. Make allies. Don’t betray them.

The Rabbis who have become involved with the East London Mosque are doing so out of the best of motives. However, tragically, they will be used as a trump card, to silence Muslim liberals who point out the disturbing links of senior East London Mosque and Islamic Forum Europe activists to homophobic and racist political movements, with a shameful links to genocide in Bangladesh, some 40 years ago. They will be used, in effect, as a kosher hechsher for their extremism. This is not an idle concern: this is precisely what the East London Mosque has done, on other occasions.

Ironically, the very liberal Muslims with whom liberal Jews have the greatest common ground are the ones who are the most seriously undermined by this relationship.

In short: it is not all about antisemitism. It is all about the duty of solidarity that liberals owe to each other.

In 2009, Andrew Collingwood, a University of York staff member and laughably also a ‘harassment advisor’, published photos of a protest with which he was involved, including one of a placard (below) that was deemed deeply offensive by Jewish groups, anti-racism organisations and media outlets. By publishing this photo alongside other protests of the rally, it was the opinion of many people that Collingwood was publishing a de facto endorsement of the placard’s disgusting message.

The placard implies that anti-Semitism is a made up concept, which Jewish politicians – also note the witch’s hat, part of another ancient libel – invoke to justify their actions in the Arab-Israeli conflict; in other words, the victim mentality a duplicitous shield to hide their black magic.

The University has recently forced the student newspaper that originally reported Collingwood’s actions to take the article offline. Rather luckily, there happens to be a copy of that article right here.

In response, Collingwood, a well-known member of the infamous York branch of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, stated: “The image was clearly found by an individual searching for a reason to label me an anti-Semite. I regard this as the latest move in a campaign to harass me at work because of my connection to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.”

So according to Collingwood, anti-Semitism is political chicanery. This rather sounds like the very message of the placard for which he claims to apologise, does it not? The University, abandoning its duty of care, decided to join in with this message, announced that, “The University does not take a position on political issues.”

Quidnunc believes that most people would argue that racial hatred is not really a political issue, but rather a matter of moral turpitude – a point that several Jewish organisations noted at the time.

Two years later, earlier this week, a student at the University received an email from Lois Gregory, the senior ‘equality and diversity’ advisor at the University.  A blog post on a website (with which the student was involved) had stated that Collingwood was holding the placard rather than taking photos of his protest. This inadvertent inaccuracy was immediately revised, although it does little to vindicate Collingwood. Rather disgustingly however, Gregory also wrote: “I would ask you to consider the following; in what way do you feel that the misrepresentation of someone else’s actions helps your own cause?” This implication that the writer of the post had deliberately lied to suit his or her agenda is rather shocking.

The same University that chose to label anti-Semitism as a ‘political’ issue has now taken it upon themselves to act on behalf of Collingwood. Not only that, Gregory, like Collingwood, is a person who is supposed to fight prejudice. Instead, with no explanation given, Gregory is acting on behalf of Collingwood’s bigotry. What possible role could she be playing? There was no reply to the student’s email questioning Gregory’s motives.

Collingwood and the York PSC has managed to get away with quite a bit more than a simple placard.  Collingwood has written on several occasions (some examples here, here, here and here) to aljazeerah.info (nothing to do with the Qatar-based satellite station), a website labelled as anti-Semitic, and which has frequently made statements in support of various terrorist organisations.

The York Palestinian Solidarity Campaign has often appeared to have no qualms about expressing anti-Jewish sentiments. The Chairman of the branch, Terry Gallogly, encouraged members of his mailing list to distort a poll about the English Defence League in order to paint British Jews as racists.

Gallogly, also a member of the national executive of the Palestine Solidarity Committee, was part responsible for the visit of the infamous Aharon Cohen of the extremist sect Neturei Karta in 2007. The previous year, Cohen had stated that the Holocaust victims “deserved it”.

Furthermore, the previous chair, Stephen Leah, helped produce a report calling for the banning of goods from the World’s only Jewish state. His same report promoted the writings of the Christian Far Right author Stephen Sizer, who has many known links to Holocaust-deniers.

When anti-Semitism does rear its ugly head, many fail to see it. The anti-semitism is not the overt and purposive hatred it once was, but now it is rather the organisation of politics against the Jews. The consequence of such efforts have been so successful and pervasive that the denial of the very existence of such bigotry is a problem that is ubiquitous in public institutions – most particularly in our universities. While anti-Semitism is fast becoming the epidemic bigotry in the UK, it is a terrifying state of affairs that the ‘harassment’ and ‘diversity and equality’ officers allow such hatred to flourish.

There do exist some critics of Israel who are genuinely pro-peace, but Collingwood and his PSC branch are certainly not such persons.

I leave you with a video that demonstrates the kind of person of the PSC can attract. This video was taken at a National PSC Christmas meeting.

Iran’s English-language station Press TV was censured by Ofcom this week for airing an interview with a jailed Iranian journalist which was obtained by force during his imprisonment. This is not the first time that Ofcom have ruled against Press TV, and the Iranian channel seems to be getting a bit annoyed at all the attention.

In response, Press TV have published an article on their website, written by a friend of former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, which accuses Ofcom of being part of the plot outlined in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. (This is not a joke).

You can read more about the author of the piece, Mark Dankof, on the JHate blog. He concludes his piece by lauding Press TV:

And as for the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and its Protocol Number 7, its statement that, “the press, which with a few exceptions that may be disregarded, is already entirely in our hands,” is only partially true.

Yes, Press TV of Iran is one of the “few exceptions” to The Lobby’s control of global print and electronically transmitted news and analysis.

On its website, Press TV describes its vision as “Heeding the often neglected voices and perspectives of a great portion of the world”. They push this idea a great deal in promoting their channel; but whenever they do so, remember that this article is the kind of thing they have in mind.

(hat tip: Modernityblog)

Lars Von Trier is known for being unpredictable, quixotic, puckish and deliberately provocative. But even he over-leaped his high standards of eccentricity as he spoke before the Cannes premiere of Melancholia, his latest film, announcing “I’m a Nazi” and that he “understands Hitler”.

Watch him for yourself:

Like plain old racism, European anti-semitism never really went away. It just became cool, “unpredictable, quixotic, puckish and deliberately provocative”. Surely now his admission qualifies Von Trier for a guest-editorial slot on the New Statesman and a post or two with like-minded friends on Liberal Conspiracy. And no doubt, he will now be held in great esteem by David Miller and his coterie of academics who run SpinWatch.

Take note Ashgar Bukhari.

with this in mind, i thought it was worth setting out a few of the principles that i think are fairly basic to pursuing both the more aggressive and the more peace-loving sides without compromising the integrity of either. i believe we can both aspire to a more peaceful future at the same time as defending ourselves against those who threaten our society; i think these might be the things that we hold in common and the things which we believe are not held in common by those we oppose:

1. the belief that muslims have the potential to integrate into british (and other western) society as productively as jews have.
2. the belief that eventually mainstream islam will decisively reject the path of taking practical steps to take over the world and relegate this safely to the realm of the eschatological – at present the islamist movement still actually thinks it can win over this debate.
3. the belief that peaceful coexistence is possible even in the middleeast, given goodwill and a real desire to find a workable solution.
4. the acceptance that, islamism aside, there are a lot of people out there who have an unreasonable prejudice against any and all muslims, not just the fundamentalist sort – and that if we can only get the mainstream communities committed to a pluralistic, polycultural modern world rather than a salafist 7th century cloud-cuckoo-land, a commitment to standing shoulder-to-shoulder with muslims in fighting those islamophobes for their rights to be a part of that future.
5. the acceptance that 1, 3 and 4 also have ethnic dimensions and that we have nothing against arabs, persians, turks, pakistanis, bangladeshis etc qua arabs, persians, turks, pakistanis and bangladeshis etc.

if these can be accepted, without significant reservation, then we can begin to accept and deal with the following challenges that we believe to be real:

• a. that there are some muslims, whether individuals, groups, sects, parties or tendencies, that have the downfall of our society in mind and consequently hold what we consider to be unacceptable points of view – let’s say 13%, for argument’s sake; not even a particularly sizeable minority in relative terms, but in absolute terms, given the number of muslims there actually are, enough to cause problems for both their own communities and wider society.
• b. that some of these groups are busily trying to co-opt and own all the islamic community structures that presently exist, as well as present their narrative as that of “all” muslims.
• c. that these people have, over the years, received large amounts of funding and inspiration (with strings attached) from saudi and other insalubrious middle eastern places, as well as from credulous, starry-eyed orientalists in the guardianista / multiculti camp – without strings attached.
• d. that these people are busily engaged in not only political entryism a la tower hamlets, but in hoodwinking well-meaning liberals into acting as figleaves for their disingenuous political and religious programme and thereby bolstering their own credibility.
• e. that if you take a look into the history of many of these socalled respectable “community leaders”, you don’t have to look very hard before you start finding the bloody trail of the bangladeshi genocide as well as the knuckle-prints of the global islamist movements like the ikhwaan and hizb ut-tahrir, let alone all the dodgy things that get said in arabic, farsi, urdu and so on compared to what gets said in english for the benefit of the western media.

if one can accept all of these things, perhaps dialogue can get beyond the ceremonial and cynical to the meaningful and productive. i myself have to do some serious thinking about where i stand on “platform-sharing” issues in particular. on one hand, i try and follow mandela’s excellent principle of “talking to anyone that will talk to me”, but on the other, my deep distrust of certain people and groups, not to mention 16 years of experience, have led me to conclude that there are some people that it is not worth engaging with, like, say, the al-muhajigoonies of this world, who deserve nothing but merciless lampooning in the most liberal of terms (of late the ahmadis have been added to this list – so i saw with displeasure this morning an advert for them on the side of a bus). similarly, i have to consider the rabin principle – that it is one’s enemies that one makes peace with, not one’s friends and that platforms for dialogue will sooner or later have to address the points that i raise above – but you have to suspend certain questions until trust has been established; you can’t jump straight into a conversation about israel, for instance.

i would be most interested in whether people think i have the basis of the argument down correctly. alternatively, you can all call me an islamophobic racist or something.

It has also exposed The Spittoon, a McCarthyite operation run by members of Centre for Social Cohesion in collaboration, for a while at least, with members of the government funded Quilliam Foundation.[25] This expose was not well-received by the interests behind The Spittoon. The website first tried to intimidate the Powerbase researcher who had made the discovery with threatening emails, followed by a smear campaign, which was coordinated with an allied attack blog, Harry’s Place.[26] Shortly afterwards a similar smear campaign was also directed against the founder of Powerbase. Several neoconservative operators have also tried to use legal threats to shut Powerbase down. In June 2010, Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens of the Centre for Social Cohesion, a frequent contributor to The Spittoon, successfully pressured Powerbase’s British domain name registrar to temporarily shut down the website.

A quick run through the baseless lies and accusations made in this text are in order.

1) The Spittoon is a blog which accepts the writing of a group of friends and associates. The Spittoon has never been “run” by “members of Centre for Social Cohesion” nor by members of the “government funded Quilliam Foundation”.

2) No threatening emails have ever been sent to any Powerbase researcher by anyone associated with The Spittoon. If David Miller thinks there are, he is free to publish them and prove their existence.

3) The Spittoon has published a number of pieces on David Miller and the attack sites run by he and his team of “researchers”. It is not known what exactly David Miller’s motivations are for initiating these attacks via his sites: SpinWatch, SpinProfiles and the now defunct NeoCon-Europe; they also includes the blog PulseMedia, run by Miller’s protégé, Idrees Ahmed. They have consistently attacked and smeared specific Muslims (such as Ed Husain, Shiraz Maher and others) seemingly because they are opposed to anti-semitism or are opposed to Hamas and other theocratic genocidal Islamist movements in general. Perhaps Miller considers these attributes to be unacceptable, otherwise why would he employ lies and smears in his character assassinations of them on his numerous websites?

It is worth clarifying what David Miller’s definition of The Spittoon’s “smear campaign” entails. As far as we can tell, it has consisted of a number of articles by Shiraz Maher which reported the fact that someone on his team had cited the prominent neo-Nazi academic Kevin MacDonald, to explain the political behaviour of Jews.

They are worth reading again here and here.

Of course, in the gripes he lists against The Spittoon, Miller is careful to exclude this uncomfortable fact because he obviously knows only too well that this is exactly the sort of inadvertent disclosure that would do his academic reputation no credit. Perhaps Professor Miller’s gripe with The Spittoon has nothing to do with the baseless lies that he has fabricated but more to do with real facts that he has chosen to leave out.

No I’m not making this up. Jonathon Kay, who comments for the Canadian National Post has the lowdown:

The 2012 London Olympics are more than a year away, but Iran already is threatening to boycott them. According to Bahram Afsharzadeh, secretary general of Iran’s National Olympic Committee, the 2012 Olympic logo secretly spells out the word “Zion”, which makes it “racist”. The Iranians also claim that use of the logo “is a disgracing action and against the Olympics’ valuable mottos”.

But Kay asks could this be part of a bigger conspiracy?

We have investigated the logo and determined that what the stylized design actually spells is “Zork” — a chillingly obvious reference to the famous trilogy of 1980s-era, dungeon-themed text-based computer games comprising Zork I: The Great Underground Empire, Zork II: The Wizard of Frobozz, and, of course, Zork III: The Dungeon Master. This suggests that Olympian visitors to London will be cast into a subterranean dystopia populated by trolls, thieves, cyclops, and, of course, man-eating grues. For an Iranian government so terrified of Israeli Jews that it will not even permit its athletes to compete against them, the Grue-ish menace must seem even more terrifying.

A funny take on another cringeworthy moment of enlightenment from the authorities in Tehran. How embarrassing for the Iranian people and their heritage that they should allow themselves to be controlled by idiots who believe in this kind of thing: