Listen With MAMA

Radio 4's Sunday had a very odd feature this morning. It concerned a perennial Sunday topic: 'Islamophobia'.

The section began with Emily Buchanan saying:

An organisation which monitors anti-Muslim hatred says it's seeing more cases where Muslim children and their teachers are being prevented from praying on school premises.

That organisation is Tell MAMA (Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks). It says that half a dozen incidents have been reported to them in the last 6 months.

Emily then interviewed Mohammed from London, whose story has appeared in the papers. 

[Muslim boy ‘ordered to stop praying and told “this is not a religious school” ran Metro's headline.] 

Mohammed claims his 11-year-old son was physically stopped from playing in the playground by a teacher. 

Today's interview revealed the fact that the offending teacher is also Muslim. 

Obvious thoughts for any listener: So a Muslim teacher tells a Muslim pupil to stop praying in the school playground because that Muslim teacher says it's not a religious school, how does that make it an example of anti-Muslim hatred? And what, therefore, was the point of this interview?

Then the programme interviewed someone from Tell MAMA, who - like the programme itself - carried on regardless. 

She kept saying that though schools aren't mandated to have prayer spaces it's 'best practice' for all schools to have them. She repeated that at least three times. She clearly wanted prayer spaces in all schools.

I'm not sure this redounded greatly to Tell MAMA's credit.

For or agin?

To be honest, when I first listened to Azeem Rafiq’s testimony concerning the race-themed banter he was subjected to during his time with Yorkshire County Cricket  I confess I viewed it all with a certain amount of cynicism, which some might put down to my inherent Islaomphobia  - although it could also be seen as healthy scepticism. The fact is, I just wanted someone to ask him, “and by the way, how do you feel about Jews?” So when the incriminating ‘Jew-themed’ text messages came to light my immediate thought was ‘surprise surprise’. 

People have picked all this up and kind of run with it. Rafiq has been dismissed as a racist and a hypocrite and now a potential ‘pedo’ and the suggestion has been bandied about that he has orchestrated this whole thing for the pay-off, in order to settle gambling debts.

Here’s what I think - (in a Jeremy Clarkson voice) 

I’m thinking that it’s not Azeem Rafiq we should be worrying about at all. Nor is it cricket. Or any other sport (what was that about those golf clubs that wouldn’t admit Jews till about a week ago?)

No, the problem is with the antisemitism that is inherent in Islam and which runs through the Muslim community. Also, the antisemitism that is rampant in the political left, and let’s face it, in the BBC. Yes, it can be subtle and yes, it can be disguised. Bias by omission in particular. The disgraceful one-sided reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The antisemitic rhetoric that pours out from the Palestinian Authority - never mind Hamas - is nowhere to be seen on the BBC. Is it? 

I listened to an interview with Rafiq on a Jewish News podcast thingy, and although the interview omitted half the questions I felt needed to be asked, I was persuaded that his contrition was genuine. And I’m glad his apology was accepted by Jewish organisations because on the whole, it ameliorates some of the more toxic -shall we call them “everyday” divisions  - between Jews and Muslims,  and it kind of deflects potential aggressive/defensive responses from the “Muslim community”. Bats them away if you like.

So as far as I can see, Tim Davie has a lot of work to do. Let’s see how the BBC approaches the government’s long-overdue proposal to proscribe Hamas. Will the BBC campaign for it or agin it?  

More than absolutely necessary

I love this animated Christmas greeting from The Times. I particularly enjoyed Corbyn struggling with his bow and upside-down guitar.

*******

Just tell me. Am I an Islamophobe? Not that I think it’s a valid term, for reasons I’ve stated many times before. However, when I read articles on websites like Gatestone Institute, I feel my reservations about Islam are well-founded and not. a. phobia. 

This piece is just one example of thousands. Denmark: Why Integration Fails. By Judith Bergman

Here’s a taster:

“In a recent survey conducted by the Danish Ministry of Foreigners and Integration (Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet), 48% of descendants of non-Western immigrants in Denmark said that they think it should be forbidden to criticize religion, according to Kristeligt Dagblad. Forty-two percent of immigrants who had lived in Denmark for three years agreed with the statement, while only 20% of ethnic Danes agreed with it.

Some people might just dismiss Judith Bergman too as an Islamophobe, for this and many other statements she (and others) have made, but this circular argument is the road to nowhere.

Melanie Phillips has got herself into trouble - the kind that emanates from people who hate Melanie Phillips more than absolutely necessary (a riff on the old joke about the definition of antisemitism.) 

Hatred of Melanie Phillips is a kind of running theme, but it came to a head (again) after her article about antisemitism appeared in the Jewish Chronicle. For once we have an article that doesn’t obfuscate and contort the facts just to avoid linking Islam with hatred of Jews. The vitriol this has piece brought upon her - and also upon Stephen Pollard for publishing it - is made even more devastating and hurtful because most of it comes from the British Jewish leadership.

My immediate reaction is to ask why the Board of Deputies and many prominent Jewish figures in the public eye (including showbiz) will stand up to fight against antisemitic bullying in the Labour Party but are too terrified to criticise ‘another religion.’ Is it a fear of being accused of ‘hypocrisy-of-the-racist-kind’? They seem afraid to delve too deeply into the quagmire of koranic-based antisemitism, too quick to equate antisemitism with Islamophobia and too easily discombobulated by semantic misinterpretations of terms like “Semite” and similarly distracting irrelevancies.

Another disturbing factor in this toxic soup is the undeniable tendency amongst groups and individuals that identify as ‘Jewish’ to call for open borders. This seems to me, yet again, as if failing to offer unlimited and unconditional sanctuary to refugees, no matter who they may be or why they need refuge would look hypocritical coming from the descendants of parents or grandparents who benefited from the (restricted) sanctuary that Britain once offered them. “And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that trespass against us.” 

The inescapable conclusion one has to draw from this is that a kind of tacit blasphemy law already exists. So am I an Islamophobe? And if so, what odds does it make? 

*******

I have been reading all manner of articles here there and everywhere about the persecution of Christians - often perpetuated or orchestrated by majority Muslim countries. The BBC reports it occasionally, in this case after the report by the Bishop of Truro, but on the whole, our national broadcaster remains pretty uninterested in this phenomenon unless, of course,  the persecution (falsely) implicates Israel somewhere in the mix. We hear a lot from the BBC about the treatment of Muslims in China, India and Myanmar, but not so much about the fate of Christians in Indonesia, Russia, Cameroon, Kenya, Burkina Faso, Egypt, China, Sudan, Pakistan, Turkey, Nigeria, Iran, the Gaza Strip or Iraq. 

Come to think of it I haven’t noticed as many of the traditional yuletide Palestine-victimhood stunts this year. Wot, no Banksy? No Lucy Winkett? No Danny Boyle? 

What’s going on? 

*******

Did you see the TV coverage of the Parliamentary debate yesterday? I was transfixed by those obnoxious cackles heckling Suella Breverman’s speech. I know the new Speaker is a nice fellow and a breath of fresh air, but surely letting that appallingly coarse cacophony go by without comment or reprimand was non-interventionism gawn mad. The Express suggests the culprit was Joanna Cherry; the SNP won’t confirm or deny. (Bear with me if this video migrates from Suella into another topic.)

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

In stark contrast to Craig’s progressive bite-size format, I’m lumping all these observations together. You may see this as an example of ‘sublime to ridiculous’ but at least it’s diverse.

**********

What did you think of the way ITBB’s “Fifty Festive” became TCW’s “Fifty Shades”? I thought Craig’s holly-sprig laden format had the edge. Many thanks and congrats to Monkey Brains for the material. 

We have to face the fact that ITBB is a niche blog in comparison to TCW, which often features in the ‘Seen Elsewhere’ section of Guido Fawkes's blog. I bet that generates quite a bit of traffic.  However, (Oh no! There’s going to be a ‘however’) one of the drawbacks of attracting traffic/comments in considerable volume is that it puts your blog at greater risk of being discredited by your btl commentariat, arguably, through no fault of your own. 

I have caught a whiff of some nasty, antisemitic innuendo below the line on supposedly right-wing blogs and in various MSM comments fields. The Spectator and The Times are not immune to this. A couple of dubious names regularly comment on TCW. Until someone takes issue with these buggers they must feel that they’re amongst friends. At least we don’t get much of that here in our obscure hidey-hole.

One of our (former) commenters took offence when we questioned his use of a potentially provocative moniker, which he seemed to have reserved especially for us. While I appreciate any faith in our defiant refusal to kowtow to Politically Correct censorship, we don’t really need to be ‘discredited by association’ any more than absolutely necessary, especially as that particular commenter happily modifies his moniker to accommodate the sensibilities of TCW.

*****

Funny that this squeamish inability to admit that antisemitism is rife in Muslim communities is so prominent amongst the many-not-the-few. Does this have any bearing on the widespread condemnation of Tommy Robinson? After all, he hasn’t shied away from exploring the root causes of Islamic-based antisemitism and anti-Christian ‘ism’. 

Let’s face it, no-one’s going to be saying “Tommy Robinson was right all along” in the immediate future. But then, we’ve heard the Prime Minister speaking out against BDS. So one never knows. Interesting times.

The PM:
"When it comes to standing by our friends, one innovation that this Queens Speech introduces is that it stops public bodies from taking it upon themselves to boycott goods from other countries.... that with nauseating frequencies that turn out to be #Israel" pic.twitter.com/iqMHiFLrkP

— SussexFriendsofIsrael (@SussexFriends) December 19, 2019

My enemy's enemy. Updated

An intra-familial spat between two cheeks of the same (pro-Zionist) arse is going on right now. (Isn’t there always?)

You can read about it below the line on Harry’s Place, and naturally, it’s also in the Twittersphere.

Roughly, it boils down to slightly differing takes on the riveting topic of antisemitism - Islamophobia.

(Don’t go away!)

How much equivalence is there between the two? Melanie Phillips has written an article titled:

“Don’t fall for bogus claims of ‘Islamophobia” in the Jewish Chronicle. 'The taunt of Islamophobia is used to silence any criticism of the Islamic world, including Islamic extremism.’

“The Palestinians constantly spew out medieval and Nazi-themed hatred of Jews, presenting them as the source of all evil in the world. They claim that the Jews were behind 9/11, that they are current-day Nazis and that they control US foreign policy and the world’s finances and media.

However, she adds, later:


Shockingly, some Jewish leaders have gone along with [this travesty,] even equating “Islamophobia” with antisemitism. 

This displays a quite stunning ignorance and naivety. Of course, true prejudice against Muslims should be condemned, just like prejudice against Hindus, Sikhs or anyone else.

The row surrounding this subject references a piece by David Toube (once-upon-a-time of Harry’s Place / now of Quilliam) which also appears in the Jewish Chronicle. It’s headed: ”Melanie Phillips is wrong to dismiss the concept of Islamophobia”

“It is impossible, practically speaking, to disentangle conspiracism directed at Jews, and that which has Muslims as its target. Call it Islamophobia, call it anti-Muslim bigotry: we should all be concerned at the rise of deadly conspiracy theories. 

Yes, antisemitism is rife within the Arab world and within Muslim communities. No sensible person doubts that. Yes, the term “Islamophobia” is used by Islamists in order to dodge criticism of their theocratic and totalitarian politics, and by others in order to advance the case for a quasi-blasphemy law. For this reason, some argue for a better term than “Islamophobia”: me included.  

But such marginal arguments over terminology must not distract from the concern over a genuine, and deeply worrying phenomenon. If we pretend that, because the term Islamophobia is sometimes misused by rotters, it doesn’t exist at all - as Melanie Phillips appears to have done -  we are indistinguishable from the likes of the Labour Against the Witch-hunt mob, who devote themselves to denying clear cases of antisemitism, and defending obvious antisemites. 

It seems you can criticise Islam, yes, you can mention that antisemitism is rife in the Arab World and within Muslim communities, AND you are allowed to say that the term Islamophobia can be a polite wedge in the door for your dreaded blasphemy law. But you mustn’t pretend that Islamophobia doesn’t exist.

In my humble opinion, Melanie Phillips hasn’t said any such thing - (that Islamophobia doesn’t exist) which almost renders the somewhat peevish accusation aimed at Stephen Pollard, which is that he shouldn’t have published her article, irrelevant. The spat seems like an overblown fuss about nothing.

Nevertheless, the Board of Deputies has weighed in, as well as another voice from Quilliam, Maajid Nawaz. I haven’t studied this piece, but I hear it’s more of a  nuanced affair than an overtly negative critique of Melanie Phillips or the JC.

Another article (again by someone associated with Quilliam) might, in time, put these unnecessary intra-familial spats into perspective. This is in the Christmas edition of the Spectator (£) and it is by Ed Husain.

Islam’s reformation: an Arab-Israeli alliance is taking shape in the Middle East
New maps of the Muslim mind are being drawn and old hatreds are on the run.

Briefly, it seems that the malevolence of Iran’s Mullahs has galvanised its enemies. It may be a case of ‘my enemy’s enemy’, but never mind. If the Arab world drags itself into the of the real world and brings about enlightenment and reform to radical antisemitic Islam, Islamophobia and the left-wing/Islamic antisemitism axis may not figure so consequentially, frighteningly and crucially in the lives of future generations. Our children, grandchildren and so on. (Bar human extinction) 

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Baroness Warsi has been speaking to Nick Robinson on the 

Today Programme 2:39 

Nick Robinson introduces an item about the Conservative Party’s long-awaited review into Islamophobia. Now Boris has widened the remit to include ‘all forms of bigotry and prejudice INCLUDING Islamophobia. 

Oh, dear! This sounds ominous. Are they equating it with Corbyn’s tedious and sneaky ‘All forms of racism” addendum? The BBC reports:

“The party said Prof Swaran Singh would look at how it handles complaints and tries to clamp down on discrimination.

Baroness Warsi criticises Professor Singh’s remit and questions his suitability for the role. Oh, dear! Is Prof Singh going to be another Shami? 

“It’s been a long time coming” opines the Baroness, and it must have appropriate scope to cover ‘everything that has happened’. The person who chairs the enquiry must have the confidence of the Muslim community with which Professor Singh’s views are not compatible, she opines. She is unhappy with his background and his views. 

The Runnymede Trust complains that “he’s someone who believes racism itself is a contested term” 

“The man himself doesn’t believe that racism exists.”

Baroness Warsi says she has no problem with the widened scope of the inquiry; her issue is that Professor Singh won’t look at what is actually going on or how it’s been dealt with.

Nick Robinson 

There is a controversy around whether there’s a clear meaning to the word Islamophobia - some say hatred of Muslim people “for who they are and their beliefs”, others are worried that the term can be abused by Islamic extremists to say ‘you may not criticise our practices even if it’s the wearing of the burka or the use of Sharia law to repress women, and they are nervous that it can be ‘over-interpreted’ Do you think that that criticism, that concern has no foundation?

Baroness Warsi counters with the (effectively) equivalent argument in relation to antisemitism and criticism of “the State of Israel”.  

“The term (Islamophobia) has been around for decades - “the Runnymede Trust coined the phrase 20 years ago, and it’s been an accepted part of the ‘racial justice’ phrase” [..] it clearly shows that it does not stop the criticism of Islam; it is in no way directed at theology and practice - it’s about ‘the radicalisation of a community’ irrespective of whether they believe in a religion or not”.

I hate to pour cold water on the veracity or the sincerity of that argument, but I’m pretty sure the recommended working definition of Islamophobia included “perceived Muslimness” and the dictionary definition has: “dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force”. So it kind of undermines the Baroness’s assurance that it is “in no way directed at theology and practice.

If you have been, thanks for listening.

Update:
Brendan O'Neill. The Shaming of Swaran Singh

"Sayeeda Warsi has reached a new low. This former Conservative cabinet minister and self-styled spokesperson for Britain’s Muslim community has instigated a pile-on against Swaran Singh, the professor who has been chosen by the Conservatives to head their inquiry into their internal handling of complaints about discrimination, including Islamophobia. Professor Singh’s crime? He once wrote a nuanced, moving essay for spiked about his own family history in Kashmir which goes against Ms Warsi’s view of the Kashmir conflict. How dare he."

Good old letterboxes

Today Programme  5/12/2019   (2:20:02)

I think Martha Kearney has taken a leaf out of Andrew Marr’s little red book of interupterviewing.

Although the interruption quotient didn’t sound quite so excessive when I 'listened again', I noticed the Today Programme didn’t use the Islamophobia-related excerpt on Twitter. It’s impossible to convey the full ‘interrupterviewing’ tone in a transcript, but here's my best attempt. 

I’ve tried to keep to the appropriate punctuation  (onomatopoeic rather than grammatical) to indicate where the end of a sentence runs straight into the next one so as to prevent an inconveniently ‘premature’ answer, as in the emboldened section below.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

M K

I want you to address what’s going on, ah in your party, in particular the issue of Islamophobia do you acknowledge that this is an a-a-an-important issue for your party the Guardian last week talked about twenty-five sitting and former Conservative councillors being exposed for posting Islamophobic and racist material on Facebook and social media.

SJ

I-I- it’s a very important issue of course I acknowledge that and whenever we have found any kind of prejudice, whether it’s anti-Muslim hatred or any other type of prejudice, I’m proud that we’ve always taken action immediately as soon as that is presented to the party centrally

MK

That’s not the view of Sayeeda Warsi, the former Conservative cabinet minister who thinks that the party has been slow to act on this.

SJ

Look, I’ve got time for Sayeeda Warsi I’ve always listened to what her and others have got to say but she wouldn’t be knowledgeable of all the actions that we have taken, it’s right that when someone is accused that we look at the evidence but we have a zero-tolerance policy against any type of prejudice or hatred it is something - it is something I came into politics to fight, it’s one of the things…

MK

But have you been fighting hard enough within the Conservatives because Sayeeda Warsi talked to The World at One last week and she said she understands your position, she said it would be the career-ending moment for you to criticise the party for Islamophobia, but she hopes that one day you will be braver and bolder.

SJ (chuckles)

Well I have to say, with respect, saying that’s nonsense. This is - why come in to politics if you’re not going to make positive change and this is one of the things that has motivated me more than anything and it’s not just about me it’s something that the Prime Minister would never ever tolerate, and remember, this is the Prime Minister that has appointed the most diverse cabinet that this country, has ever seen and that’s because he…

MK (interrupts)
Would - would you have written an article, as Boris Johnson has, about…

SJ

…loves and celebrates the…

MK (interrupts)
……….would you have written…

SJ ..the whole diversity of this country.

MK 

Would you have written an article as Boris Johnson did about Muslim women wearing the veil looking like letterboxes?

SJ 

I don’t write articles so, but Boris Johnso….

MK

Would you use that language?

SJ

Well he was a journalist and he’s written lots of articles, as he said himself, you know, people can pick one word out or another but what matters is the kind of prime Minister he is going…

MK

So you won’t criticise that..

SJ

and when it comes to our nation and the great diversity of it, it’s hard to find anyone who celebrates it more than Boris Johnson does.

MK

Sajid Javod … sorry, (laugher) Chancellor of the Exchequer, thank you for talking to us.

SJ

Take care.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The BBC (as an institution) clearly equates Islamophobia with antisemitism. The  BBC’s default position is to regard them as two cheeks of the same arse. This might have something to do with rigidly presenting the appearance of ‘impartiality’ that the BBC is so proud of. I think this is foolish and ignorant, but it is what it is, and sadly, one is obliged to accept the situation.  

It seems to me that the BBC sees its role as one of redressing a (non-existent) imbalance. The Chief Rabbi has intervened in the long-running battle for meaningful recognition of the fact that the Labour Party is mired in anti-Jewish racism, therefore the BBC must counterbalance this with “Sayeeda Warsi.”

Remember the famous response to Dan Quayle likening himself to Jack Kennedy? In a similar vein one might say “Sayeeda, you’re no Chief Rabbi”.  Of course, it wasn’t Warsi herself doing the comparison - not on this occasion and not in so many words, but the BBC appears to be doing so on her behalf and making a similarly unfortunate analogy.

The BBC seems to regard Warsi’s demands as the ‘other side of the coin’ in a currency where her non-stop grievance-mongering is given equal billing to the once-in-a-blue-moon intervention by a religious leader whose role is traditionally a-political. 

I just watched Matthew D’Ancona on Politics Live saying he can’t vote for Boris Johnson because “he said veiled Muslim women look like letterboxes and bank robbers.” Deep thinking there, Mr A. Especially when you come on TV looking like you’ve been dragged through a hedge backwards. 

I’d love to know whether there is an acceptable description of the fully-veiled Muslim woman whose sole window of navigation is through a narrow slit of a peephole. What’s wrong with letterboxes, anyway? They’re a delight! Letterboxes still facilitate a human way of keeping in touch with others - that is until they’re as outmoded as fountain pens and paper. 

What will we use as a comparison when letterboxes are obsolete? Then we’ll only be left with bank robbers. No doubt they will still be with us.

What about Islamophobia?

The following excerpts from articles by Charles Moore (Spectator) and Brendan O’Neill (Spiked) are probably regarded as ‘controversial’. Whether or not that is so, the fact that they felt they needed to write them indicates that ‘stating the obvious’ has become virtually taboo ever since the media and political classes tacitly colluded to pander to political correctness and bow to the undeclared blasphemy law. 

Charles Moore

“There may well be people in the Conservative party who have an irrational hatred of Muslims, but the term ‘Islamophobia’ should be absolutely resisted. Unlike anti-Semitism, this is a concocted concept. A strand of Muslim thought sees all criticism of the prophet Mohammed and his faith as blasphemy and labours worldwide to ban it. Such Muslims are driven mad by the way Jews can cry ‘racism’ when they are attacked, whereas they cannot. 

But in fact this is fair, because Jewishness is usually inherited and is not necessarily related to what you believe. Islam is. All belief systems must accept the danger of hatred, ridicule and contempt as the price for coexisting in a free society.”

Brendan O'Neill

The left, including the left that currently runs the Labour Party, is myopically devoted to distracting attention from the Islamist threat. ‘What about the far right?’, they’ll say. Such cynical and spineless whataboutery wilfully overlooks that the far right has not killed anywhere near 500 people in Europe over the past five years — Islamists, on the other hand, have. ‘Don’t look back in anger’, we are told after Islamist attacks. In short, lay a flower, be sad for a day, and then move on — whatever you do, don’t talk about it.

"Let me talk about prejudice of all kinds..."

Despite implying that he wasn't a fan of the 'gotcha!' style of interviewing last week, here was one of Andrew's 'Islamophobia' questions today:

Let me talk about prejudice of all kinds. There was a prominent Conservative who said, "To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia, fear of Islam, seems a natural reaction and it is exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture, to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques, it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness to unbelievers." That was Boris Johnson. Do you stand by that? 

That quote, if you're wondering, was from the Spectator in 2005, a week after Islam-inspired terrorists killed 52 people and injured 784 people in London on 7/7.

Mr Impartiality Updated

Are you not ashamed?  Andrew Neil. Villain or Hero? Yes, we all praise Andrew Neil when he slaughters deserving targets. Robust, tenacious and well-briefed probing is a joy to behold, and Andrew Neil is widely considered to be the master - but is he merely the king, the one-eyed man in a country of the blind?

I’d like to point out that sometimes his whole approach is inexplicable and indefensible. For example, when he attacked Barry Gardiner yesterday, many of Gardiner’s fans thought their man had come away from the encounter as the winner.

On that occasion, Andrew Neil provoked Gardiner into revealing the inner ‘Wonderful Wizard of Oz’ that lurks beneath that softly spoken ‘patiently explaining things to children’ exterior that many of us find deeply patronising and grating.

In other words, Gardner was forced into no-holds-barred attack-mode in a desperate attempt to make headway. What I’m saying is - Andrew Neil came across as a bully. Hey, one might say, he is indeed a bully but he’s our bully.

But wait! 

A bully is a bully, and sometimes bullying is the only way to counter bullying from the opposition. But if you bully for the sake of it, or for the lack of a substantial case for the prosecution, which it now seems to be what Andrew Neil is doing, it’s  - what’s the term?   Let’s say ‘unbecoming’.

“How many complaints of Islamophobia by Tory Party members have you had? How many members have been expelled?”@afneil

Conservative Robert Buckland says “record shows we have been taking swift and immediate action” but has no figures#andrewneilshow https://t.co/pN5DcsckS6 pic.twitter.com/HnmQsm5Kte

— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) November 27, 2019

If Andrew Neil really equates Islamophobia with antisemitism then he’s a fool, but if he’s merely going the extra mile to demonstrate his scrupulous impartiality, he’s chosen the wrong weapon. Islamophobia is not racism.

Let’s be frank. You can’t explain away antisemitism by claiming it’s ‘simply because Israel’. These people don’t hate Jews because ‘Israel’. The very opposite. They hate Israel because ‘Jews’. 

so-called Islamophobes fear Islam, the religion / ideology. Within the religion of Islam, there’s a core of anti-Jewish racism, which is the root of anti-Zionism. That is the reason for the Arabs’ stubborn, self-harming, rejectionist position.

On the other side, Antisemites know next to nowt about Judaism the religion. It’s the perceived characteristics of Jews (as a people) they vilify. Greedy Jews. The fabrication The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Etc., etc.

Remember the way Andrew Neil disparaged Tommy Robinson? Little or no argument was employed. There’s no need to engage with any argument your victim might put forward when public opinion is behind you; you can rely on pure bullying while the public cheers you on.

Cornering Robert Buckland and forcing him onto the back foot was like slowly pulling the legs off a spider.  Presenting your victim with a false equivalence as a starting point was, in this case, tantamount to defending a blasphemy law. This tactic, based on Baroness Warsi’s ludicrous demands, has crept into public discourse by stealth and is spurred on with the assistance of Andrew Neil’s egotistical drive to become Mr Impartiality.

“I’d defend the devil to show what a clever fellow I am”  might be his motto. A shame.

Update: "Our bully"

The Shadow Justice Minister @RichardBurgon should have been expelled from @UKLabour when this video emerged. Instead he continues as a prominent pro-Corbyn spokesperson.
Claims that anti-Jewish racism is being dealt with are #LabourLies.#NeverCorbyn #GE19pic.twitter.com/T0iE1USXNI

— Euan Philipps (@EuanPhilipps) November 29, 2019

"Media: stop gaslighting Jews"

Any passing BBC people should read the following by Maajid Nawaz (which I've arranged from his Twitter feed into a short 'pamphlet') explaining why the lazy or disingenuous attempts at drawing equivalence between Labour antisemitism and Conservative 'Islamophobia' are wrong, deeply misguided and downright dangerous:

Chapter One

I’m getting rather tired of the equivocation around this Labour antisemitism issue, so here’s a thread for confused pundits & voters. Some smart people out there have been hoodwinked by dishonest political hacks, or are simply too tribal to accept the difference in the following (written on twitter so apologies for the choppy style). 

People of any political persuasion must acknowledge:

1) Every party will have some policies you don’t like.

2) Every party will also have rogue members, or leaders, who said nasty things too.

3) Usually, if a party has policies you disagree with, you simply don’t vote for them.

4) For Britain’s Jews & their allies, the issue with Labour Party is none of the above. I repeat: it is *none of the above*. So Corbynists, pls stop obfuscating, strawmanning & deflecting.

5) The issue is Labour Party stands accused of being *institutionally antisemitic* (racist).

6) This is *very* different to finding individual policies you hate, or representatives who utter bigotry.

7) For a body to be institutionally racist (ironically, a phrase coined by a 90s Labour gov. inquiry) *not every member* is necessarily a racist, nor necessarily is the leader.

8) For a body to be deemed *institutionally racist*, intention & individual behaviour isn’t a primary issue. Rather outcomes are considered. If the totality of this body’s procedures, institutions & structure lead to *racist outcomes*, then sincerity & individual intent is no defence.

9) This is why 90s Lab government’s McPherson inquiry (rightly) deemed police ‘institutionally racist’ after unpunished racist murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence. They were not calling all police officers racist. Nor did it mean that other UK orgs didn’t suffer racism too.

10) So, back to the Labour Party: British jews and their allies are accusing this Labour Party under Corbyn of being ‘institutionally antisemitic’. This means precisely that the party’s mechanisms, procedures and institutions lead to racist outcomes against its Jewish members.

11) This does *not* mean every Labour member is racist. It also does not necessarily imply that even Corbyn is (he might be). Rather, it points to the failure of Corbyn’s ship, with him as captain, to steer away from antisemitism. Sincere individual intent is not a condition here.

12) What British Jews are (correctly) alleging is that the Labour Party discriminates against them, as a party machine. That the outcomes in that party no longer protect them against racism. This is an *institutional* failure.

13) So, back to my opening line about political tribalism: any instinctive defence, “Whataboutery” response, or even allegations of hypocrisy, like “why aren’t you doing more to address racism in your own party?” entirely miss the nature & seriousness of what is (accurately) alleged:

14) British Jews and their allies are *not* in a state of alarm because Labour has individual racists in it (which is bad enough as it is). No. The Tories, Lib Dem’s, Brexit party & others all have bad apples. I repeat: the issue isn’t the existence of bad apples.

15) The issue very precisely & seriously is under Corbyn, Labour seems not only to have ignored the problem, or denied it, but in many cases doubled down on it & worse even blamed the victims for reporting it. In other words: the Labour Party machine has been co-opted by racism.

16) If one understands the nature & seriousness of the allegation, then one would never reply by saying, by way of example: “but what about Johnson and niqabi Muslim letterboxes?” Bad thing to say, but not evidence that the Tory party *machine* discriminates against Muslim members.

17) Also, it’s very important to recognise that criticising ultra-Conservative Muslim dress is a political right, because the ‘choice’ to adopt fundamentalist dress is a valid societal choice that must equally be subjected to scrutiny - like any religious conservatism must be.

18) No. Racism is not the same as criticising my religious choices, or lack thereof. You can (politely) criticise my religion, because it’s an idea. All ideas must be scrutinised. But one cannot insult another’s race, without being rightly deemed a racist.

19) Jews are both a people and a religion. European antisemitic tropes against Jews concern their supposed habits as a ‘people’, not their religion. So, it's racism to suggest that all Jews are secret greedy capitalists, or have large ugly hooked noses, for example.

20) No serious Jewish voice or organisation has ever said it’s racist to criticise Israel. None. I repeat, none. This is a complete Strawman. I criticise Netanyahu’s policies regularly and know many Jews and Israelis who do so too. The issue is about:

a) traditional European antisemitism flooding back into Labour (eg: East London ‘greedy capitalist’ mural that Corbyn defended),

b) holding Israel’s Jews to higher standard than the world,

c) an obsessive focus on Israel for errors that are far worse elsewhere,

d) supporting or otherwise praising genocidal, jew-murdering terrorist groups.

21) Some examples for all of the above can be (non-exhaustively) found here: https://twitter.com/thegolem_/status/1191348844375740416…

22) So, people like Tory Baroness Warsi, who seems to have made a career of late out of deflecting over this antisemitism issue in Labour, to attacking her own party instead over “Islamophobia” (sic) totally miss the point:

23) Johnson, or any rogue Tory MP or member, can and do say racist or proto-racist things, but does the party with a Muslim-origin Chancellor really discriminate against Muslims institutionally? Does it then double down & deny its racism (I repeat: blasphemy is not racism).

24) This Muslim believes not. And I have *never* voted Tory in my life, and will not do so this time either. There are problems in the Conservative party, yes. I disagree with them, yes. But they are yet to meet the test of being *institutionally* anti-Muslim.

25) Truth is, there is only one major political party right now that has had senior former cabinet members resign over this (correctly) alleged *institutional* racism. There is only one party that is being investigated by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission over said racism. That party is the Labour Party.

26) AND THIS IS WHERE I GET UPSET: if Boris Johnson, Jo Swinson, or anyone other party leader, let alone individual MP, had SHARED A PANEL in Parliament with members of the now banned violent NEO-NAZI UK-based TERRORIST group National Action, you would all be going ballistic now.

27) Yet Corbyn not only shared platforms with jew-killing Hizbollah & Hamas TERRORISTS, he not only called them friends, but took £20K from their sponsor: holocaust denying theocratic dictatorship of Iran. Now..imagine you’re Jewish, and then imagine Corbyn in No.10 as PM. Precisely.

After all the above has been digested & recognised as a unique problem only with Labour right now, then add that Corbyn is a Brexiter too & may bargain away the UK with SNP (allowing Scotland another vote) just to become PM, you’ll get why we say #NoToAppeasement & #NeverCorbyn.

After the holocaust we vowed in Europe #NeverAgain - then Bosnia happened. Europe is not immune to repeat-offending. We must never be too arrogant to think we are. Brexit or Remain, we do have choices other than Labour. We must not betray our Jewish cousins over a tribal vote.

After all this, if we still choose Labour, at least let’s stop pretending we are “progressives”, or that we care about racism & minorities or that we “listen to victims when they tell us we’re hurting them”. It’s all BS. Just admit that you really don’t give a damn about Jews.

Ends.

Chapter Two

BBC Politics: "Unfortunately Islamophobia is a serious problem, it’s endemic, it’s institutional within the Conservative Party”. Muslim Council of Britain’s Miqdaad Versi says “no action has been taken” and the party has a “structural problem”. 

Your MCB is dominated by Jamat-e-Islami Islamists (Muslim Brotherhood equivalents in South-Asia) so it’s no surprise you’d say this. Oh & only 2% of us British Muslims actually think you represent us politically. So stop pretending you do.

The day Boris Johnson calls neo-Nazi black & Muslim killing terrorists his friends (he hasn’t) & accepts funds into his personal account from a neo-Nazi endorsing state, is the day you get to equivocate like this.

Media: stop gaslighting Jews.

Chapter Three

My dear media pundits: 

On Labour antisemitism, I understand that you’re generalists, who have to be abreast of everything, and therefore can’t be on top of everything, but I’ve been engaged in these issues of political extremism *all my adult life*, literally from opposing sides. 

So at least (please) do me the favour of reading a thread I write *before* repeating the cliche back to me that “all racism is bad, and the Tories are racist too” (as if I - a Muslim survivor of violent racist attacks, and the War on Terror era - hadn’t thought of that angle).

I’m not saying you have to agree with everything I say, I’d be worried if you did, but on this (clearly my forte) please (for my sanity) read my view in any given thread first & then disagree (preferably without repeating an objection that I’ve already addressed in the thread).

Or better yet *ask* me instead of *telling* me about a topic I’ve spent the last 25 years and 2 additional Islamic languages learning.

Honestly, before responding please pause to consider if it’s slightly patronising, in any way at all for you to respond with tried & tested cliches about Tory ‘Islamophobia’ (sic) when the issues are disgustingly incomparable.

Aside from that annoying misnomer ‘Islamophobia’ (which really reinforces a ‘death for blasphemy’ taboo in my parents’ country Pakistan & here in UK) the comparison of Tory anti-Muslim bigotry would only be appropriate if Boris Johnson had called the Neo-Nazi Christchurch killer his “friend” and had taken money, personally, from a state that funded that killer (as Corbyn did with Hamas while taking up to £20K from Iran).

So, until the day Boris Johnson flirts with actual Muslim-killing terrorists it’s disgusting to draw such analogies, because they are deeply insensitive to our Jewish friends.

What’s also disgustingly insensitive is to compare any policy of the Israeli state with a terror group. Again, the appropriate comparison with Hamas & Hezbollah is to the Christchurch anti-Muslim neo-Nazi killer, not Netanyahu (despite my fierce disagreements with his policies). Netanyahu is a state leader, not a genocidal anti-Muslim terrorist. Only political amateurs and/or morally bereft obfuscators equivocate & confuse statecraft (agree or disagree with it) with genocidal terrorism that eg: targets babies.

So pls, do try to assume I’m not as stupid as you may think I am (no matter how hard that may be) and consider that I may have already thought of what you’re about to say regarding the very real presence of Tory ‘Islamophobia’ (sic).

I dunno, just maybe, during the 4 years I spent studying & debating these issues as a political prisoner in Egypt when surely I had time to rethink many of the political assumptions you now may hold & advocate (that I used to fiercely advocate too), maybe that time allowed me to arrive at a slightly unique perspective? Maybe?

Thank you and forgive me, this isn’t meant to sound like a whinge. It’s just so morally wrong to equate Corbyn’s moral & institutional support for terrorism with ‘mere’ Tory bigotry or crudeness.

And before anyone says it, no, I don’t vote Tory. I’m voting @LibDems. Thank you. 

I’m really sorry for this, but you won’t believe the amount of ‘splaining I have to put up with.

Wales again

Talking of Wales, I see our old friend Sahar Al-Faifi……

Government rejects definition of Islamophobia created by cross-party group of MPs

“We have to differentiate between the freedom of speech and the freedom of hate and bigotry” Sahar Al-Faifi from Muslim Council of Wales#politicslive https://t.co/YozpreqZ5m pic.twitter.com/m8ZXEbCRRt

— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) May 16, 2019

……..has been suspended “over anti-Semitism claims”  How sad. Never mind.

The BBC is scrupulously impartial and puts in some essential ‘whataboutery’ (re Islamophobia) for balance.

On Thursday, Plaid Cymru posted a picture on Twitter of Ms Al-Faifi, who wears a face-veil or niqab, to promote the party election broadcast later that evening. 

Plaid Cymru sent a tweet saying the post received "abusive Islamophobic responses" that are "unacceptable and will not be tolerated." 

The party's tweet continued: "We stand with Sahar and all Muslim people in Wales and beyond.

Al Faifa, a member of MEND is a well-known antisemite, which I only mention just in case the BBC hasn’t quite realised it yet.

Let's talk about Islamophobia

I watched the bulk of Politics Live. Danny the Fink, Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle (aristocratic name, Labour ‘look’) Belinda de Lucy, (glamorous Brexit Party MEP)  and Pippa Crerar (seemed too sensible to be ‘ex-Guardian’ and Political Editor of the Daily Mirror) were with Jo Coburn today. 

In Fashion News: JoCo's hair always looks its best on Monday mornings. That must be the day she has it done.

I missed the very beginning, but the interesting part of the conversation about the 'generalection', and the bit where things got heated, occurred between Finkelstein and Belinda de Lucy - where the former said the likelihood that the Brexit Party would gain any seats at all was next to nil, therefore he wondered why Nigel would risk splitting the vote? The latter countered with “Boris only has to pick up the phone.” Then the argument segued into something that amounted to “well, they may as well stand against every Conservative seat because, in fact, their policies are entirely different”.  The customary party political points were bickered over, and the concept of selling off our NHS to Donald Trump was examined but the verdict was inconclusive.

You’ll not be surprised to hear that the subject ”antisemitism in the Labour Party” was the one that engaged my attention most fully. It came up two-thirds of the way through a 45-minute programme. 

Lloyd R-M, bless him, started off in full mode McDonnell. So sad, he was. (He sounded genuine before he veered off in the direction of denial)  Predictably, the issue of antisemitism was duly played down on Twitter. 

Fink gave a sympathetic account of the Jewish community’s fears and feelings, but it didn’t take long before Islamophobia came up. I think the culprit was Jo Coburn, but Danny Finkelstein picked up the ball and ran with it.

Tory peer Danny Finkelstein on manifesto policy to “grasp” with Islamophobia

“I think the party has got the chance to be a pioneer, because there a lot of Islamophobia in this country, possibly even more than there is anti-Semitism”#politicslive https://t.co/dLHtKBMf1p pic.twitter.com/6OVarxGucc

— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) November 4, 2019

In my opinion, Esther Duflo, the economist who has just won the Nobel prize for the accessible-sounding book on economics she co-authored, “Good Economics for Hard Times” came in far too late in the show. She had already been on the radio this morning, and we were treated to a longer and larger slice of her wisdom then. As a bit of an ignoramus on theoretical economics, I could have done with a bit more of that and less of the other. It somehow seemed fresher and more interesting.

Imagine that. A book on economics more interesting than Brexit.

Er...starring Faisal Islam

Faisal Islam

Talking of Twitter exchanges, here's another between two people I 'follow' - one the BBC's editor of live political programmes, the other a not unfriendly critic of the BBC - rounded off by a comment from someone I most certainly don't 'follow' (my loss?):

Rob Burley: Coming up at 1215 on BBC2 it's Faisal Islam with Politics Live and guests Trevor Phillips, Sherelle Jacobs, Zing Tsjeng, Liam Halligan, Ann Pettifor and Matthew Syed.
BBC Waste: Can't you find anyone better than Faisal Islam? You have great talent in the ranks. Wouldn't be in my top 25 choices.
Rob Burley: I think he's an excellent presenter. Unnecessary unpleasantness.
Raymond Bennett #RevokeA50 and #MakeItStop: He is. Good choice, credit where it's due.

Now, in fairness to Mr Waste, he's long been a critic of Faisal Islam. He thinks the former Sky man isn't very good and that he has an especially strong anti-Brexit bias - a bias that he, BBC Waste, feels repeatedly gushed out of Faisal's reports on Sky like tell-tale blood strains in fifty Edgar Allan Poe short stories. 

(I've seen too many images of Boris's decapitated head today. It's informing my choice of contrived similes). 

And in fairness to Rob, I thoroughly enjoyed his programme today - a good spread of interesting guests with diverse opinions often strongly disagreeing but in such a way as to generate light as well as heat. And fun too. 

But, while trying not to be unnecessarily unpleasant myself, I must say that Faisal erred on the side of er-ing far too much - meaning that he said 'er' a heck of a lot, especially when stumbling through reading the autocue, as he did throughout. 

He really doesn't seem to have got the hang of reading the autocue. (Not an autocutie, our Faisal - at least not yet). At one point he moved beyond nervous/confused hesitancy and came perillously close to collapsing into 'dead air'. 

I worried for him. 

Still, we've all got to start somewhere. He obviously needs to practise more. Hopefully he'll soon get beyond making viewers feel tense on his behalf soon and flourish (if he isn't biased, that is, of course).  

Trevor and Sherelle

But, talking about tension...

The central discussion on 'Islamophobia' in the Conservative Party got somewhat heated, especially between Trevor Phillips and Faisal Islam.

The BBC had been gifted some 'Islamophobic' Twitter stuff embarrassing to possible Conservative members by someone who is very interested in such stuff - i.e. an activist (wonder who? an Islamist? a Corbynite?) - and was making headline news of it. 

Faisal was - as is the BBC's way - quick to shoehorn in Boris's letterbox quip about niqab-wearing Muslim women in that article in favour of NOT banning the niqab/burka. 

Trevor demanded to know what was 'Islamophobic' about the comparison and asked whether Faisal's question reflected the BBC's point of view. 

Faisal tried the old, tried-and-trusted 'Ve are arsking ze questeeonns' line...

(...actually, I meant 'tired-and-trusted' there...)

...which never really cuts the ice, does it?

Hmm. I'm not too familiar with Faisal Islam (unlike his critic BBC Waste), but I'll be nice and wish him good luck in getting to grips with reading the autocue and handling criticism better. 

And, Faisal, please don't be too biased!

Curiously, it's still (nearly four hours later) not available to view again on the famous BBC Sounds. Is something up? Are there technical problems? Has some interest group complained? (The Muslim Council of Britain perchance?)

"Londonistan"

Here's an interesting thread from Dr Paul Stott from the Henry Jackson Society in response to a tweet from the Muslim Council of Britain's Miqdaad Versi:

• Miqdaad Versi: Seems like not a single Conservative MP (/gvt/potential PM candidates) has spoken out after the Trump quote-tweeting Katie Hopkins using the Islamophobic term "Londonistan" & attacking Sadiq Khan. Many say I should expect this. Yet I am so hurt & disappointed.
• Dr Paul Stott: The tweet below from the Muslim Council of Britain's Witchsmeller Pursuivant adds the term 'Londonistan' to the never ending list of things which are 'Islamophobic'. This thread unpacks what is happening here.
• The term 'Londonistan' originates in the 1990s. Foreign intelligence agencies were staggered that the UK were allowing so many Islamists and jihadists to settle here, and we were seemingly disinterested when the dangers were pointed out.
• The countries angered at the UK included liberal democracies such as France and Belgium, Arab dictatorships in Algeria and Egypt, and countries somewhere in between - notably Russia. France in particular used the word, amazed at the Franco-Algerian jihadists organising here.
• Many Islamists also delighted in Londonistan - Gilles Kepel found Abu Hamza, at the peak of his powers in Finsbury Park mosque, using the term with glee. It took until after 9/11 before the Franco-Algerians were taken seriously, and a few yrs after that before Abu Hamza was.
• In many ways the global jihad starts, not in Islamabad or Kabul, but in London, as Bin Laden's supporters from the Saudi religious awakening faxed out his declarations of jihad from the capital. The rest is history.
• And what was the Muslim Council of Britain doing? In my PhD, I went through their press releases in the pre-9/11 era. They were doing what they do now - complaining about language used to describe terrorism, declaring racism & lobbying newspapers and gov't to use different words.
• The MCB were superbly placed to have opposed Londonistan themselves, but instead declared it ridiculous to believe jihad could be declared by fax. One global war on terror later, Miqdaad and co have succeeded only in turning up their own volume.
• Newspaper editors should be wary of Katie Hopkins, a loose canon. But they should be even more wary of the Muslim Council of Britain, who seek less to fight extremism, but to censor how we may discuss it.
• Oh, and whatever else Donald Trump gets wrong, whilst others tip-toe around the issue, to have someone say clearly and openly Sadiq Khan is an awful Mayor, does us all a favour.