The exposure of faked evidence for a thinktank report is a warning of the dangers of Britain's anti-Muslim media campaign
Seumas Milne
Thursday December 20, 2007
The Guardian
Last Saturday, Ahmed Hassan, a 17-year-old Muslim student, was stabbed to death in an unprovoked attack by a gang of white youths at Dewsbury railway station in west Yorkshire. Two have now been charged with his murder, and police say they are investigating whether there was a racial or religious motivation. In the Muslim communities in Dewsbury and neighbouring Batley, where Hassan lived, there's little doubt about it. In the run-up to today's Eid festival, Hassan's family issued a statement saying they hoped their loss would help "unite the community and all faiths".
But divisions run deep in the area. The far-right British National party, which has increasingly turned its racist venom against Muslims in recent years, won over 5,000 votes in Dewsbury in the last general election, its highest tally in the country. Its leader, Nick Griffin, has argued that his party must capitalise on the "growing wave of public hostility to Islam currently being whipped up by the mass media". It's not hard to see why he sees an opportunity. Since the July 2005 bombings in London, there has been a stream of sensationalised and poisonous stories about Britain's Muslims.
This media onslaught - often based on research by apparently reliable thinktanks - has clearly fed anti-Muslim prejudice. Combined with hyped terror-plot reports, the point has now been reached where Britons are found in polls to be more suspicious of Muslims than are Americans or citizens of any other major European state. For many Muslims, that heightens a sense of intimidation and alienation. For a minority, it translates into Islamophobic violence on the streets: Asian people are now twice as likely to be stabbed to death as a decade ago, and four out of five convictions for religiously aggravated offences last year involved attacks on Muslims.
But now the seamy underbelly of this dangerous campaign is coming to light. At the end of October, the influential Conservative-linked thinktank Policy Exchange published a report entitled The Hijacking of British Islam, which claimed that 26 out of nearly 100 mosques surveyed had been found to be selling "extremist material, some of it antisemitic, misogynistic, separatist and homophobic". The story was given top billing by newspapers and broadcasters. "One in four British mosques is in the grip of extremism", the Sun screamed, while the Times splashed it across its front page under the headline: "Lessons in hate found at leading mosques".
But last week, BBC's Newsnight programme - previously not shy of running inflammatory items itself on the Muslim community - revealed that a forensic examination of five receipts provided by Policy Exchange for the material had found them to be either faked, written by the same person, and/or were not issued by the mosques in question. A sixth receipt was also regarded as unreliable.
It might be supposed that receipts from the other 20 mosques were nevertheless found to be authentic and that Policy Exchange's basic case held. Not so. Newsnight didn't have the resources to check them. But it has since emerged that in one of these cases, Edinburgh central mosque, the mosque authorities insist books said by Policy Exchange to have been found there were in fact dumped in its grounds after the report was published. In another, the Times has this week had to publish an apology to East London mosque chairman Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, after reporting Policy Exchange's claim that the mosque was selling extremist literature.
Yesterday I contacted yet another mosque, Rochdale Central, claimed by Policy Exchange to have provided a receipt for extremist literature. No, said the imam, Hafiz Ikram, "we haven't got a bookshop and we don't sell books. Once or twice a year, people set up stalls in the carpark outside the mosque after Friday prayers, but they have nothing to do with us." That makes all nine receipts so far investigated either fabricated or inaccurate.
Policy Exchange insists it is standing by its research. But, given the evidence of falsification, it clearly cannot be regarded as reliable, nor can there be any confidence that the mosques supposedly surveyed were a representative sample. The thinktank has form in this area: earlier this year, the methodology and reliability of another heavily publicised report on Muslim separatism came under heavyweight academic attack. But it was still used by David Cameron to rubbish multiculturalism.
Charles Moore, Policy Exchange's chairman and former Daily Telegraph editor, claims Newsnight "told a small story" about dodgy receipts to "kill a much bigger story" - that "extremist literature was available in the mosques". But the extent of that availability is crucial: one of Policy Exchange's researchers told Newsnight they had had to go back three times to get hold of books. Of course, there are plenty of ultra-conservative and reactionary religious Islamic texts in circulation (though little of what Policy Exchange identified had anything to do with jihad) and those are most effectively challenged by other Muslims. You can also see ugly material in other religious institutions, such as the aggressively homophobic pamphlets I recently found on display in a south-west London church.
But the exaggeration of such phenomena and constant regurgitation of Muslim-baiting "research" by hard-right thinktanks like Policy Exchange and the Centre for Social Cohesion misleads the public and inflames ethnic tensions. It is also transparently driven by a neoconservative agenda that seeks to convince people that jihadist terror attacks in Britain are fuelled not by outrage at western violence and support for tyranny in the Muslim world, but by hatred of western culture and freedoms.
The roll call of those involved in Policy Exchange makes the point. Its policy director, Dean Godson, who blustered at Newsnight's presenter Jeremy Paxman last week, worked for the Reagan administration, was a signatory to the neocon Project for the New American Century, and was special assistant to the jailed former Telegraph owner Conrad Black. The report's author is Denis MacEoin, a pro-Israel campaigner who says he has "very negative feelings" about Islam. The thinktank's founders were Nicholas Boles, now Tory candidate for Grantham, and Michael Gove, author of that British neocon rallying cry Celsius 7/7 and now the Tory education spokesman. If Cameron cares anything for community relations, he should rein in these toxic attack dogs.
s.milne@guardian.co.uk
Comments
tomper2
December 20, 2007 1:48 AM
"and four out of five convictions for religiously aggravated offences last year involved attacks on Muslims."
The latest figures I could find were for 2005-2006 (the period directly following the mass murder on London transport). In that period the total number of convictions for religiously aggravated offences was 51, of which 70 per cent were prosecuted in the magistrates' courts with religiously aggravated public order offences accounting for almost half the charges.
Of course being the victim of religiously motivated abuse is awful for the individuals and should not be taken lightly but we shouldn't loose sight of the fact that 80% of a small number is an even smaller number.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
halgeel84
December 20, 2007 3:51 AM
There is no safe place for Muslims today, not in Muslim lands and not in the west.
EID mubarik to all.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Unencom
December 20, 2007 6:06 AM
"Asian people are now twice as likely to be stabbed to death as a decade ago"
Without information on how likely the general population is to be stabbed to death that statistic is meaningless. Even with a comparison to the general population it is fairly meaningless as it probably just demonstrates that knife crime is an overwhelmingly urban form of assault.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
usini
December 20, 2007 6:53 AM
Thank you Mr. Milne. Demonisation of the alien "other". I don't mind if someone such as Mr. Maceoin says that they are pro-Israel. That is there business. What I don't understand is why that should involve attempting to denigrate the Muslim community in Great Britain.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
ParAvion
December 20, 2007 6:55 AM
This is a very good piece Seumas, and reminds us what Thinktanks were created to do - plant biased ideas in the media and factory farm political geeks ready for Parliament. If you have a spare hour or two in the office, and work's slack, try looking up how many MPs graduated from a Thinktank, or were paid for speeches, pamphlets or 'consultancy' by one. It's highly depressing. Compass, the Smith Institute, Policy Exchange and the rest - they're little more than creches for an increasing professional political class. It's not good for the health of our democracy.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
BriscoRant
December 20, 2007 7:16 AM
The report is presuambly "The hijacking of British Islam
How extremist literature is subverting mosques in the UK"
by Denis MacEoin?
Waht Policy Exchange's website says about the report. (http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/libimages/307.pdf)
"An authoritative new report by Policy Exchange, the UK's leading centre-right thinktank, entitled The Hijacking of British Islam: How extremist literature is subverting Britain's mosques, reveals the worrying extent of extremist penetration of mosques and other key institutions of the British Muslim community. The report is the most
comprehensive academic survey of its kind ever produced in the UK and is based on a year-long investigation by several teams of specialist researchers into the availability of extremist literature and covers more than a hundred mosques and Islamic centres throughout the UK." (http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/Publications.aspx?id=430)
The report says on its front page
"Policy Exchange is committed to an evidence-based approach to policy development. We work in partnership with academics and other experts and commission major studies involving thorough empirical research of alternative policy outcomes."
+ + + + + +
This presents itself as scholarly research to high standard, with input from a qualified researcher and the higher education sector.
Certain principles apply when one says one is conducting scholarly research: These include: academic integrity; honesty; rigor; thoroughness; sticking with the evidence; correction of errors; if necessary retraction of publications. Universities teach them to their students; they are in University statutes or policies. If a researcher is suspected of academic dishonesty - forged documents, or fabricated results - the University is obliged to investigate.
It is fair to use these principles, to assess Policy Exchange's report. Policy Exchange is not a University or govt research institute, but it claims its research is as good. In fact, the preamble to the document, says it is an 'academic survey', conducted by 'several teams of specialist researchers'. The front of the report says that Policy Exchange "works in partnership with academics.." The sole author, MacEoin, has a PhD and a string of academic appointments, plus a publication track record in islamic studies. So, it is fair to expect this research, to live up to those standards .
Let's see.....
Policy Exchange's report was based on questionable documents. According to Milne, Some were forged. Others were said to have been issued by certain organisations, but could not possibly have come from those.
Thus Policy Exchange and MacEoin both have questions to answer about diligence; thoroughness; forgery; possibly fabrication of data. We are not talking minutae of academic argument - these are basic issues of professional conduct.
The next question is about the Institute, Policy Exchange. Does it have in place, policies and procedures to deal with such dishonesty? If not - it is fair to disregard ANY research from Policy exchange, as unreliable.
+ + + + +
Finally, what about MacEoin, the sole author on the Report?
The report gives a brief biography: "Denis MacEoin is the Royal Literary Fund Fellow at the University of Newcastle-upon- Tyne. He holds MAs from Trinity College, Dublin and Edinburgh in English, Persian, Arabic, and Islamic Studies, and a PhD in Persian (Islamic) Studies from Cambridge. From 1979-80 he taught English and Islamic Civilisation at the Mohammed V University in Fez, Morocco and was later lecturer in Arabic and Islamic Studies at Newcastle University. In 1980 he became an Honorary Fellow in the Centre for Middle East and Islamic Studies at Durham University. He has also written several books ...... "
The University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, should be somewhat interested, in the integrity of research carried out by their Research Fellows...... there might need to be an internal inquiry to get what happened to MacEoin, out in the open.
I emphasise, the nature of MacEoin's research is irrelevant. The matter is controversial, the findings unpleasant, but it is entirely proper that Uni academics conduct research in such areas. However, the value of the whole system, depends on us being able to trust the integrity of the research. Policy Exchange seems to have worked to undermine our trust.
At a guess, MacEoin probably isn't at fault. I think it likely he has been used - exploited - by others, who carried out dodgy work, and perhaps persuaded him to trust what they tell him. This perhaps is the real nastiness, this abuse of trust.
Finally, though I work at a university (in S Australia) - for clarity, I should say the above, are my own musings as a private citizen. We had similar issues over rightwing thinktank researchers here, though on other issues
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
winchmorehillbilly
December 20, 2007 8:04 AM
'It is also transparently driven by a neoconservative agenda that seeks to convince people that jihadist terror attacks in Britain are fuelled not by outrage at western violence and support for tyranny in the Muslim world, but by hatred of western culture and freedoms.'
Ah! Thank goodness we have Seumas to keep reminding us of these self evident truths. Actually, the jihadis love our freedoms and our culture, especially Seumas' freedom to tell us how wronged they are; it's just that westerners are so violent, that's what really upsets these jihadis. Look how many Iraqis we forced the jihadis to kill in market places. Think of how unkind we've been to the Taliban. Of all the nasty things we've said about genocidal Arab Islamists in the Sudan. Not a word of support for islamist murders in Thailand, the Phillipines, Kurdestan, the Lebanon, Egypt, Somalia or Kenya, No wonder they set off bombs in London - and Madrid too where the Spanish have been just as horrible to them.
If the BNP gains from the way these issues are discussed it won't be because of David Cameron, or because of British policy in Iraq; it will be precisely because self righteous morons tell ordinary people that what they see in front of their noses is a) not there, and also at the same time, b) their own fault. The quotation above serves as a classic of its kind - repetitive, hectoring, lazy intellectually, dishonest emotionally and factually all over the place. It patronises non-jihadi Muslims and deliberately provokes anti-jihadi non-Muslims because it is essentially narcissistic. It may have therapeutic value for its producer and for the perpetually indignant readers it seeks, but it astonishes me that the Guardian thinks it worth printing. It must be to sell papers beacuse I'm sure there will be lots of you out there to cheer him on. Again and again and again.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
salvation
December 20, 2007 8:29 AM
[Deleted by moderator, along with remarks in response]
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Truthplease
December 20, 2007 9:19 AM
Seumas makes some valid points, but as always his student stalinism gets in the way of proper analysis.
Jews are four times more likely to be attacked than Muslims according to the police.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/17/nislam117.xml
Which is to minimise neither.
Both groups are subject to nasty right wing racist attacks.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Inayat
December 20, 2007 9:25 AM
Another very well argued piece, Seumas. Policy Exchange clearly have a nasty anti-Muslim agenda and have identified that this seems to play well with many of our newspapers especially the Murdoch press whose proprietor has given neo-cons free rein to spout their warmongering rubbish in his papers.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
mary1946
December 20, 2007 9:31 AM
Yes, once again it is the Jews (nom de plume: "pro-Israel neo-cons") who are behind every devious plan to tear down any other group in every country...
Those Jews must be so busy...
What, with running the American goverment...
Orchestrating Wall Street...
Managing the world's media...
Controlling Hollywood...
And all that after some very productive centuries where they invented captitalism, communism, and, oh yes, the Black Death (so industrious, even back in the 1300's...)
Heres the funny part: there are only 13.2 million Jews in the world (compared with 1.6 Billion Muslims and 2 Billion Christians)
Really, a very busy people...
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Solid
December 20, 2007 9:33 AM
Six issues here:
1. Milne is right to raise the subject of the murder. There are no excuses or mitigating circumstances. If there was a religious element, let's all joining him in condemning the act and the motivation and never blame Islamic extremism for stoking hatred. The right response to violence is not violence. This may not be a Christian nation any more (and I'm lapsed), but it would be nice to think that non-Muslims would reply to provocation by turning the other cheek (or at least rendering unto Caesar the keeping of the peace).
2. If only Milne himself would heed the principle underlying #1. After 9/11, his infamous response was pretty much to say that the Americans had it coming and better shape up if they don't want more of the same.
3. Leaving aside the Policy Exchange report, is there dangerous Islamic extremism in the UK? Do Islamic communities have serious problems with regressive ideas and behaviour? What kind of person would deny the fact? Perhaps an ideologue with an axe to grind.
4. Concerning the report, Abdurahman Jafar of the Muslim Council of Britain suggested on CIF this week that the situation may even be *worse* than Policy Exchange claimed. he wrote:
--I visited the nearest Sufi mosque bookshops deemed by the report not to contain radical material. Not only did I find two of the alleged "offending" books being sold there but plenty of other books not on the list but expressing identical sentiments to those found by Policy Exchange to be "offending": homosexuality being a perversion and sin, corporal punishment for sex outside marriage, etc, and in the words of one "Sufi scholar", Muslims should "not let personal preferences interfere with their choice of friends and enemies" and are "unyielding towards the disbelievers and compassionate towards one another".--
5. Given all this and the general thrust of Milne's writings over the years, it's clearer than ever that he is unprincipled and lacks moral courage. Unlike Peter Tatchell, he has one set of principles that he applies to people he likes and another set that he applies to people he dislikes. His writings are those one would expect from a bully and a propagandist, not a mature man trying to make a better and more humane world. He should ask Peter Tatchell how to be a nicer person.
6. What is wrong with The Guardian these days? I used to look to the paper as the voice of morality, decency,and restraint. These days it's all about the sexiest places to eat caviar and which radically violent religious ideologues it would be chic to bring along for the feast. It's in effect becoming the fashion newspaper for Hamas hedonists.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Igorsfriend
December 20, 2007 9:41 AM
I'm sure there is something else connected to Dewsbury that might have had an impact on social division in the area...hmmm...what could it be...perhaps that the leader of the 7/7 bombers was from Dewsbury? I wonder why Seamus doesn't mention that? Missing out salient facts because they don't help your argument is also a form of fabrication.
As for the receipts, no one has proven conclusively that any of the receipts were faked. Newsnight produced evidence that there are valid questions to be asked - and as yet unanswered - about five of them. From that, we get "all nine receipts so far investigated either fabricated or inaccurate" from Seamus Milne. I don't think a single phone call to a mosque that is accused of selling extremist books counts as an investigation. Even murderers tend to plead not guilty at first time of asking. Anyone would think Milne has some kind of agenda.
I am surprised that this article got past the Guardian lawyers, given that Policy Exchange have threatened to sue Newsnight. This article seems much more defamatory to me.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
socialistMike
December 20, 2007 9:45 AM
Murdoch's shiterags are also responsible.
They simply make stories up and print 'em! They made up a story about young Muslim men attacking an army house in Windsor. Apparently grafitti was sprayed and windows bricked. The Sun managed to get a quote from 'anti-PC' Tory MP Phillip Davies of Shipley. He said 'these Muslims should just fuck off' (he refrained from saying where and is unlikely to elucidate).
Unfortunatley none of this was true and though the Sun printed a retraction deep in the paper several months after the damage had (not) been done, Mr Davies refuses to apologise for his intemperate language or to criticise the Sun for lying to him. David Cameron's office refused to take any action against Mr Davies and claimed that his mulish refusal to apologise or criticise had 'dealt' with the issue.
There have been many other stories that are designed to increase hatred of ordinary Muslims. This should be illegal - aren't we supposed to have learned from the Holocaust about the demonisation of minorities by the far right and the powerful?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Staberinde
December 20, 2007 10:03 AM
Wow. I never realised what a tolerant, liberal, progressive faith Islam was. I cannot imagine why any Muslim would want to blow himself up in a crowded place. We should surely ignore thinktanks and open our eyes to the truly inspirational attitude Islam fosters toward women, homosexuals, those of other faiths, atheists and Islam's own apostates. The way forward is obvious: it is everyone else who should take pains to avoid questioning Islam and offending anyone who believes in this supernatural claptrap. Sharia law is clearly superior and not barbarous.
Honestly, how out of touch can the Guardian get? The spectacle of the Left defending the world's most illiberal set of beliefs on the planet would be amusing if it weren't so dangerous.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
gucchipiggy
December 20, 2007 10:07 AM
Once again, cracking article Seamus. Unfortunately, it could be too little too late.
It is shocking to see how entrenched paranoia and distrust toward Muslims has become in Britain. Perhaps I'm guilty of naivety or romanticism, but I don't remember there being ANY anti-Muslim feelings in Britain (outside of the usual thuggish recesses) prior to 9/11.
What we've seen in the interim is the hijacking of Islam as a panacea for governments appetite for power. Want to push through detention legislation? Blame the Muslims. ID cards? Muslims. Silly 'conversations' about 'Britishness'? Muslims.
Just as National Socialism needed the Communists and the Jews as antagonists to justify their incremental power grab, New Labour and the increasing pervasiveness of the state require a threat to excuse their behaviour. Murdoch's press, phoney think tanks, the consensus of the middle ground; all are fabricating and consciously distorting reality to fit a paradigm primed by fear. Muslims are not a threat, they are people. Mosques have no-more a damaging agenda to profess than every other misguided Abrahamic religion, and certainly don't represent a power base that British society- let alone the ideological kingdom of doom that is Whitehall- needs to worry about. Please, let us get on with living our lives and caring for one another, instead of constructing scarecrows to keep us in our place.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Teacup
December 20, 2007 10:13 AM
Dear Mary1946 (yes, folks, I know this is a waste of time, but I can't help it),
1. Thank you for posting something other than your standard "why Israel belongs to the Jews" text.
2. I searched this page for the word "Jew". The only mention was by a previous poster who wrote sympathetically about the higher possibility of attacks on Jewish people. So what precisely is your post addressing.
Mr. Milne,
Good article and excellent further exposition by BriscoRant.
Ms. Henry/Moderators,
I can't access the hanging chad thread (mea computer's culpa), but please allow me vote for reinstating Khartoumi. How many voices do we have coming out of Sudan?
Everybody,
Happy Hannukah, Eid, Christmas, whatever!
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
MiskatonicUniversity
December 20, 2007 10:24 AM
The PE is a busted flush after it's attempted cover-up.
But as Seamus admits, the problem is real. The Dispatches programme on hate-preaching in Britain had preachers in mainstream mosques giving sermons on jihad, hatred of non-Muslims, hatred of homosexuals and preaching of jihadi ideas.
The MCB and the Saudi dictatorship leant on the government to try and kill-off the criticism, Ofcom and the police investigated and found that the programme was well made and the material genuine.
(Promoting Islamists like the MCB or those wild-eyed conspiracy loons in Respect: George Galloway faction as being representative of "Muslims", or accepting that there is such a thing as Muslim bloc that needs special, privileged representation has given the media as much damaging material as the jihadis have.)
The PE's incompetence is shown by their managing to miss an open goal like this. The jihadis are falling over themselves to show their hatred:
Bradford, West Yorkshire: "Anti-terrorist police are investigating the sale of a children's DVD that appears to glorify suicide bombing."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3071040.ece
Seamus should also look into what the bombers themselves say. Siddique Khan's suicide video only has a third of its length devoted to Iraq and Afghanistan, the rest is a rant about the deviancy of British Muslims. Another British Muslim bombing team were convicted of planning to blow up "dancing slags" as "no-one could say they were innocent".
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
FooledNoMore
December 20, 2007 10:24 AM
Thanks SM
The hate campaign waged against the Muslims is a national digrace.
These "Think Tanks" dream up "threats" and then the Right-wing MSM, including the BBC, blast them all over the public like "hate bombs" going off in out faces.
Any jurnolist worth his salt should work on exposing these "Think Tanks"
It's a shame C. Moore didn't spend a bit more effort investigating his buddy C. Black, isn't it? He was sitting on top of the scoop of the year.
.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Solid
December 20, 2007 10:24 AM
Igorsfriend: I suspect I agree with your general thoughts about social tension, but I really hope that none of us ever attempt to suggest there are mitigating circumstances or sympathetic dynamics in the Dewsbury murder (assuming religion played a part). The most inspiring columns after the mass murder of 7/7 were from condemnations from Muslims who refused to blame Iraq. I really think we need to do the same. We need to separate issues.
Is radical Islam a serious problem? No doubt. Let's fight it peacefully.
Should we blame it for inciting murderous reprisal. No. What we should blame is that some of our own people are assholes. Let's fight them too.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
AltoStratus
December 20, 2007 10:30 AM
@TruthPlease, it's not just extreme right wingers responsible for the fact that Jews are four times more likely to be attacked in the UK than Muslims:
"Mike Whine, the security spokesman for the Board of Deputies of British Jews, who works closely with the police to monitor anti-Semitic attacks on synagogues and Jewish graves, said that extremist Islamic groups are behind many anti-Semitic incidents. "There is reliable evidence from the police to prove that an increasing number of incidents are committed by sympathisers of the Palestinians and Islamists.
"The promotion of anti-Semitism by the Arab media and by Islamist organisations worldwide is having a significant effect on the attitudes of Muslim communities around the world towards the Jews."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/15/njew15.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/02/15/ixportal.html
And you're right about Milne's tiresome student Stalinism, but it's more pernicious than that. His constant diatribes against Jews (pro-Israeli neocons, anyone?), fulsomely supported by card-carrying anti-semitic Islamists like Bunglawala above, fuel the atmosphere of demonisation and hate that leads to the harassment and street violence that Jews now face every day.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
ChristianFreak
December 20, 2007 10:31 AM
An excellent article, and a welcome balance to those knuckle-dragging morons who vote BNP and read the Daily Express.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Smithwinstonsmith
December 20, 2007 10:38 AM
Lordy!
It's the Dave Spart appreciation society.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
FreeBethnalGreen
December 20, 2007 10:39 AM
Unfortunately racial attacks on all groups has increased within the last 10 years, including Asian on white (re: Kriss Donald, Ross Parker, Ashley Hedger, Christopher Yates..) The British Crime Survey revealed in 2004 that 92,000 white people were attacked and racism was the main cause of the offence. The number of violent attacks against whites reached 77,000, while the number of white people who reported being wounded was five times the number of Asians. Only last week three muslim men, that were part of a 30 strong gang, were convicted of shattering a white lad's skull with a machette. The attack was discribed as "racially motivated". But for some reason this and many other attacks always seems to dissapear down the left's and liberal media's memory hole.
What's the cause of these racist attacks on whites? I dunno, but I know that the Guardian and it's blatant anti-English agenda can't be helping.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
schizoMOSER
December 20, 2007 10:42 AM
because most of the people who are exposing "the religion of peace" are Jewish or those who despise anti-Semitism they must be listened to. Only they can prevent another Holocaust which the so called "British left" is choosing to ignore. So what if Dean Godson, Denis MacEoin, Michael Gove and others are doing their best to let people know the truth. What they don't need is do-gooders like you who wouldn't know what fascism is even if in Britain it has a brown face.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
MaidMarian
December 20, 2007 10:42 AM
It is an interesting article Mr Milne, three points:
Firstly, why are journalists so unwilling to criticise other journalists? Even in an article like this you are clearly pulling punches. Yes, journalists parrot think-tank reports - where is the criticism? Those who write on these threads don't seem to have too much of a problem picking holes in them. To be honest, that part of the article tells this audience nothing it doesn't already know. You need to take your concerns to the Sun/Mail/Telegraph.
Secondly, I suspect that the article rather falls into its own trap of seeing the situation as more black and white than it really is. Mr Milne, I and many, many others have been rubbing along with the Muslim population very happily for quite some time now. We have been to school/university with Muslims, worked with Muslims (how many journalists are Muslim?), played sports with Muslims and so on and so forth. People are quite capable of taking people as they find them and looking past the religious element. We don't need journalists or think tanks to paint us a picture, we are all quite familiar now.
Thirdly, and connected, why not go to the logical end-point. What is needed is less religion all round. Religion is a severe force for division in society, it really is that simple. See Teacup/Mary1946 for a good illustration. The lower the profile of religion of all shades, the better.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
PidlenBach
December 20, 2007 10:45 AM
Salvation, you should be ashamed of yourself. if you're English, I'm glad I live in Wales.
@ Teacup, best wishes, I always like your posts. I vote for khartoumi too.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
afcone
December 20, 2007 10:57 AM
If the report was found to be fabricated then the mosques involved should sue for libel and have their day in court. Such a case would fatally damage Policy Exchange as a think tank and rightly so, if found guilty.
The problem I have, Seamus, is that you see any criticism of hardline Islam as a racist conspiracy. Extremist literature certainly *is* being circulated within a sizeable minority of the Muslim community, and there is plenty of evidence for this from multiple sources. Yet you condemn any reporting of this (see your comment on Newsnight being 'inflammatory' above).
Sadly we cannot trust you and your fellow travellers on the hard-left to do anything about it, other than screech demonisation at any accusation. You put up with views on women, homosexuals, apostasy etc that when similarly expressed by the US religious right you howl at. This dubious alliance of Trots and Qutbists is morally bankrupt.
So you criticism of Policy Exchange would be massively more effective if we knew that you'd actually criticise extremism when it does occur, instead of applying a despicable level of cultural relativism.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Heresiarch
December 20, 2007 11:00 AM
@ Halgeel84
"There is no safe place for Muslims today, not in Muslim lands and not in the west."
I'm sorry to hear that, Halgeel. Has anyone threatened you in Canada? Do you really feel unsafe there? How does this danger to you manifest itself?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Bitethehand
December 20, 2007 11:01 AM
Mr Milne needs to analyse whether the 5000 voters in Dewsbury were following the party, or whether the party is following the masses. It is of course a crucial difference in how you tackle what you perceive to be a problem.
Mr Milne complains about Britons being found in polls to be more suspicious of Muslims. But is that surprising in a liberal democracy when, as the frequent posts on CiF from those far more versed than me in the religion, point to its antisemitic, misogynistic, separatist and homophobic character, frequently with chapter and verse from the muslim holy books? So where Mr Milne is the extremism?
And didn't I read most of this article last week sometime?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
easterman
December 20, 2007 11:01 AM
Fair play to Ahmed's poor family .
More blood on Blair's hands . The JIC told him what to expect . But you can't colonise your equals can you . Demonise then destroy ; Hitler set the standard .
First they came for the Muslims ....
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
salvation
December 20, 2007 11:04 AM
Don't know why the jewish problem has cropped up other than the requirement for Muslims to erradicate them. I would remind people that under clauses 10 and 11 of Magna Carta that Jews are to be protected.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
PaleAleMale
December 20, 2007 11:08 AM
Speaking as a white middle class male I think that most of us here in the UK love the idea of having someone to hate.
Muslims fulfil that role perfectly - they dress differently, they have 'funny' customs and they are as a community they are a bit on the stroppy side. In short a great bunch of people to act as the nation's fall guy.
The Policy Exchange has played on this parochialism and produced such a piece of garbage research that if any of my post-doc students had done it they would we out of university on their ear.
As for the accusation that most of the research doesn't seem fabricated I have 2 things to say to that,-
1. When one part of a research paper is shown to be false it calls into question the whole of the research.
2. The books they highlighted may be offensive to liberal attitudes but they are in free circulation and are not inciting hatred or murder and similar things could be found in Judaism, Hinduism and many other religions (including Christianity).
We shouldn't kid ourselves and think that Muslims haven't noticed that they are being dumped on here. I have just had a look at this excellent website called UmmahPulse.com which seems to be run by a group of normal British Muslims who don't want to take over the world or put us all to the sword for strap bombs on themselves. They have a great deal to say about the whole Policy Exchange debarcle. I would encourage everyone to have a look to hear what Muslims think about what is happening.
http://ummahpulse.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=280&Itemid=71
http://ummahpulse.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=255&Itemid=85
Cheers
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
easyandy
December 20, 2007 11:13 AM
Didn't you write this article last week too? Talk about self-plagiarising.
The underlying logic of Milne and his fellow travellers is this:
1. People who are opposed to the Islamisation of large parts of England are only that way inclined because they have been influenced by the media and thinktanks. Nothing to do with what they see around them mind you, purely by the media and thinktanks. Presumably these people spend large amounts of their time reading the dry, intellectual treatises of thinktanks and won't think of leaving the house without reading the opinion page of the Telegraph.
2. People who support Islamisation of large parts of England do so based entirely on empirical truth and are not subject to any kind of influence by the media or thinktanks. Because of course there's no such thing as a bias the other way among the left, no no. These people clearly steer clear of the media, forming their own opinions of the inherent goodness of migrant folk from their council flats in east London or Bradford. Surely.
3. So what is the difference? Why is one group influenced and another not? Because they are stupid and we are intelligent. They are ignorant and we are enlightened.
Arrogant, self-reflexive bigotry.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
doppleganger
December 20, 2007 11:15 AM
December 19, 2007
Fight night in Leeds
Searchlight reports from inside the highly charged Yorkshire meeting
The long trailed Fight night in Leeds City Centre yesterday turned into a pantomime as rival factions within the BNP slugged it out over a mince pie and a Christmas sherry. Leading the proceedings was local football hooligan Tony MacDonald, better known to Searchlight supporters as Tony Mac. Smashing a glass on a table he charged at Mark Collett promising to "cut your throat", forcing the much maligned and recently demoted graphic designer to flee out the fire escape.
The rest of the evening was no less exciting as speaker after speaker spewed poison into the festive air. The highlight of the evening for me personally was the confirmation of the existence of a photo of Nick Griffin doing a Nazi salute. More of this later.
The contest was held at the Dog and Gun in Leeds City Centre, a regular meeting place for the BNP. We were greeted on our arrival by Ian Dawson handing out questions for the audience to ask party leader Nick Griffin and Collett. Though the meeting had been organised by the Griffin faction it was clear that his opponents had taken up his challenge to attend. The majority of the 120 present had already decided that Collett had to go even before the meeting had begun.
There was some commotion over the arrival of the heavy mob, led by Tony Mac and ably supported by his old thuggish sidekicks Army Dave and friends. Many were not even BNP members but Griffin decided to not push the issue. Rules, it appears, could always be broken.
Griffin strode in confidently with Mark Collett, Dave Hannam, John Walker, Arthur Kemp, Simon Darby and a whole gaggle of BNP security guards. Ian Dawson was slightly less self-assured as rumours spread that he was for the chop that evening. We slipped in at the back, sitting just in front of Tony Mac and friends who stood berating Collett for most of the meeting. Well, at least the part for which they were there anyway.
The format of the meeting was agreed, with Griffin speaking first, followed then by Ian Dawson, Mark Collett and Chris Beverley. The impartial [sic] Simon Darby was chairing the meeting.
If Griffin had hoped to win over some doubters he certainly did his best to fail from the outset. His deliberately rude outbursts at Dawson and Beverley, coupled with his desire to have Dawson removed altogether, only infuriated the crowd. Tony Mac, meanwhile, appeared oblivious to the proceedings, fixated as was with making threats towards Collett. Little Nazi Boy (as comedian Russell Brand likes to call him) was obviously scared to death and appeared to spend most of the meeting eyeing out exits if he needed to make a quick getaway.
And so the contest began. Griffin opened by listing the various charges against the rebels, who he referred to as "vermin". To howls of protest he continued, claiming that the party had been correct in taking Sadie Graham's computer and more evidence of wrongdoing was going to be released shortly. He accused Kenny Smith of "stealing" £4,000 from the party and questioned Chris Beverley's honesty by saying that when Beverley ran Excalibur he claimed a stock worth £60,000 but when this was handed over this proved to be only £6,000.
He even had a word or two to say about Dawson. Claiming that he knew that there was at least one Searchlight mole in the room (the room suddenly got very hot at this point!), he told the audience that he also suspected that either Steve Blake or Ian Dawson of working for Searchlight because of certain emails that had come into our possession. Dawson jumped to protest his innocence, "I'm not a Searchlight mole" he shouted to Griffin's obvious amusement. While this set off another set of anti-Collett shouts, some around me did question the speed he denied this claim. Hmmm, interesting...
Anyway, with the crowd howling, and Tony Mac still threatening all sorts to the increasingly white-faced Collett, it was Ian Dawson's turn to respond. And so he did, attacking the party leadership and defending the actions of the rebels. I have to admit that it was hard to hear actually what Dawson was saying above the screams from behind me.
According to the script it was then meant to be the turn of Mark Collett to speak but in what was obviously a clearly planned intervention, Griffin rose to reply. Pushing aside the protests from the audience, Simon Darby explained that serious allegations had been made against the party leader so it was only right that he should be allowed to respond. This sent the crowd into a frenzy, not least from the barbarian behind me.
With Collett due to speak Tony Mac had decided that he had had enough. Shouting "I'm going to kill you", "I'm going to cut your throat", he charged forward, smashing a glass on the side of the table as he headed straight for Collett...
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Most active posts
1. Why I love Tesco
tiny technorati logo292
2. Damsels in distress?
tiny technorati logo233
3. Struggle for equality
tiny technorati logo204
4. What's lurking under your tree?
tiny technorati logo152
5. Two sides to every history
tiny technorati logo151
Best of the web
1. Political Betting: Not a believer Will Nick Clegg’s revelation that he does not believe in God be a vote winner or loser?...
2. Slate: Too funny to be president? There is a limit to how many jokes Mike Huckabee can tell before voters think he's not serious....
3. Sticks and Carrots: Crisis? What crisis? Gordon Brown said much that was written over the last weeks would be forgotten quickly. A dangerous attitude to express publicly....
4. Obsidian Wings: All present and correct? The Army has a bizarre devotion to the idea that only those with completely normal genitalia and reproductive systems can defend us in time of war....
5. Accidental Russophile: Cut out Putin figure Now you can have Time's man of the year watching over your desk....
Advertiser links
Webfeeds
webfeed
Comment is free
About webfeeds
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006.
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
Registered office: Number 1 Scott Place, Manchester M3 3GG.
Privacy Policy · Terms and Conditions
