Pesky Migrants knocking on our shores

Once again the lead story on all news channels is the migrants. Today it is the turn of the Calais and all of the TV crews are there. Due to the strike of the ferry workers, desperate humans fleeing from conflicts like in Syria or poverty, tried to board trucks and cars to escape the inhumane conditions. Our TV crews were there to film their desperation. Our politicians talked tough and the PM promised more resources not to help or feed but to prevent them from entering. These included sniffer dogs, scanners and personnel. Everyone is claiming that it is not their responsibility to help and it should be UNHCR or the first country these people had entered. In the meantime these people must live like animals in shanty town in the jungle, where there are no facilities or basics such as food or water.

These desperate people are often dismissed as economic migrants as though search for better life for themselves and their families is a bad thing. However, not all are economic migrants and have escaped with their lives from conflicts, wars and natural disasters. Yes, some of them have also been victims of the traffickers, to whom they may have paid money. But that only makes them victims of greedy and often cruel and brutal criminals. These criminals do not hesitate to torture and even kill for their own protection.   

With the prominence given to the coverage you would think there are tens of thousands of migrants waiting to invade our island country. The fact is that there are only 3000 people who are living in the shanty town in the Calais. Compare that to the tens of thousands arriving in Italy from Libya, via the Mediterranean sea. So far this year approximately 60,000 people have been rescued from the sea. The rescue only started after incidents of drowning including drowning of 800 in one incident. So where are these 60,000 people? They are obviously in Europe but not in the UK. Clearly, other European countries are doing their fair share of helping these people except the UK.

It is often said that we are an island nation and we can’t help everyone. The reality is that we are not the only island nation as every country considers itself to be an island within their borders. No country has flexible borders which expand or contract according to rise or reduction in the population. Even Australia, a country of whole continent, claims to be an Island.

 A recent report by the United Nations said that there are nearly 60 million displaced people in the world. When this figure is mentioned politicians and pundits often say that Britain can’t take 60 million people. They miss the point that majority of these people are internally displaced in their countries, due to war and natural disasters. Others are mainly living in the neighbouring countries. Like Syrians in Turkey and Afghans in Pakistan, the two countries with highest number of refugees in the world.

The reality is that the vast majority of refugees stay in or around their country. Same applies to the economic migrants that they tend to stay in the neighbourhood. Only a small number venture far afield and they mostly do that on the invitation of the host countries. There is a myth that there are vast numbers of illegal migrants. Often it is assumed to be migrants from non white countries, in reality there are probably Austarlians, Newzelanders, Americans and Canadians but raids are mainly carried out on non white businesses and areas. Fact is that there is no concrete evidence of the kind of numbers banded about by the media and the politicians.

Unfortunately, immigration discussion has taken over the previously common topic of weather. Furthermore, colour, ethnicity, race and more recently religion has become a factor in the migration debate and policies in Australia, EU and North America. Those presenting the endless programmes and debates on the immigration do not bother to look behind the headlines. There are no explanations given beyond the recent past. As I stated earlier that even the economic migrants prefer to stay in the neighbourhood. No one is willing to say what’s gone wrong, why are these migrants risking life and treasure to travel to strange lands.

We need to look back and consider what has changed. What happened to the economies of the regions from which these people are fleeing from? What happened to the jobs previously available to migrants?

If we look back, in 1992 Iraq employed more than a million foreign workers. Libya at the time of western intervention employed as many as 2.5 million foreign workers, a vast majority from Africa but also from South Asia. Libya also provided economic support to African nations in the African Union. Syria, while not employing as many foreign workers, nonetheless had thousands of domestic workers. Syria had also hosted Palestinian refugees and Iraqi refugees during the Iraq occupation. The sanctions in Iran, which also hosts a sizeable community of Afghan refugees, meant Iranians seeking work elsewhere while they could have been providing jobs for the foreign workers.

Clearly the wars and conflicts in the Middle East and Africa and natural disasters such as famine, droughts have had a devastating effect on the local economies. Millions of Jobs have disappeared from the region. No wonder desperate people are risking all for work, better life and security. The remaining economies of the Gulf region could pick and choose labour and get away with low wages and unsafe and unhealthy conditions for workers. Israel, “the only democracy in the Middle East”, refuses to accept African migrants but continues to invite well off westerners to settle in the country. The rich are also welcomed by the western economies. While rich are good for the economy and growth, you need people to fill jobs created by such investment.

The fact is that many of the people knocking on our shores are educated and professional people. Like the Syrian teacher, interviewed by Krishnan Guru Murthy of channel 4 news. He was English Literature teacher in Aleppo. Now he is living in the Jungle in Calais in France. He unsuccessfully tried to get on to a lorry yesterday and alleged that he had been beaten by the French Police. There was also a 65 year old man who got injured while being removed from the lorry; he had previously worked in the Middle East and now desperate to find a job.

The reality is that Europe needs migrants for economic growth but political considerations come in the way. It is time to have a sensible immigration policy to assess status of migrants and to recruit foreign workers needed to grow our economy. Such a policy will stop exploitation and misery of fellow human beings. It is time to stop talking about humans as statistics and to start seeing them as human beings.

The media, which criticises other countries for mistreatment of migrant workers, should start providing public information about the real factors behind immigration. It should also stop giving false myths that the immigrants are only after benefits. Helping immigrants with sensible and thought through policies, without consideration of their colour, race and religion will be mutually beneficial. It will also return Calais to what it should be, a day trippers haven for purchase of booze and fags.  Find Update Here

Feminism, Misogyny in "Context" and Deflective statements

If you, are in the public eye, want to be in public service, grandstand on serious issues, lecture people on issues of morality and claim to be above the ordinary person in the street then you must be beyond reproach. If you want to be taken seriously, you must have a strong character. Without the depth of character and conviction to what you preach you can’t expect to people to listen to your preaching. Without the right characteristics you are just a shallow person with no principles.

On Saturday 11^th April 2014 the Daily Mail published an expose' of the Liberal Democrat candidate for the London constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn and the Chairman of the Quilliam Foundation, Maajid Nawaz. The Headline read : “Caught on camera: Married Lib Dem 'feminist' who is running for Parliament is filmed with stripper in drunken night of temptation”.

The Manager of the establishment told Daily Mail that “he (Maajid Nawaz) was ‘very drunk’ and bouncers threatened to throw him out several times. He was asking her to touch him and he was touching her,’ he (Manager) said. ‘In general he was quite persistent with her, asking to take her out and for her number.’ ” 

The article raised important questions about the character and behaviour of the self proclaimed “extremism expert”, “feminist” and “religious reformist ”. His spokesperson said that Maajid Nawaz was a "feminist in the context of Islamic extremism" only. Everyone want to know what that means, and we are still waiting. You are either a feminist or you are not, this convoluted definition of his feminism doesn’t wash. While Maajid tweeted that he had a stag night last summer others were left scratching head at his blasé' attitude. 

     

Maajid's supporters were in a quandary, they didn’t know how to react to these serious allegations. No one had the courage to outright condemn his behaviour and some try to deflect the matter by pointing to the religion of the manager of the strip club. While others made degrading remarks about strippers and that they should expect groping and unwanted touching. And Maajid's friend and protégé Tommy Robinson tweeted the following.  This laddish behaviour is no different from Maajid's own behaviour who also tweeted this about his wife. 

   



The only blog which came close to condemning Maajid's behaviour was by J P Sargeant, although even he asked for clarification from Maajid thann outright condemn it. 

Others who join the Maajid's chorus of Islmaist and Misogyny decided to go with the deflection. For example Sara Khan of Inspire wrote this to attack Muslims in general than condemn Maajid's actions. Its seems that like Maajid's feminism in the extremist context, Sara's feminism and misogyny rhetoric is also in the Muslim extremist context. While it may be hard for her to condemn Maajid's behaviour, she could still have condemned the behaviour of his supporters who justified Maajid's behaviour by saying that strippers should expect harassment from punters like Maajid. 

Another friend of Maajid, Iram Ramzan, used the Left Foot Forward platform (not stranger to attacking Muslims in general) to write this , again mainly to attack those who condemned his behaviour. She reiterated that Maajid wasn't a "devout" Muslim and not a spokesperson for Muslims. The other ridiculous defence being made is that Maajid wasn’t married at the time and that his son lives with his first wife. As thought morals and character only applicable in certain circumstances and if those conditions are not met then its ok to be lecherous towards females.

The real hypocrisy is that Maajid and his followers have always said that you don’t need to be religious to be a good person. They always claimed a high moral ground over those they call "Islamists". Furthermore, Maajid Nawaz, while appearing on the media, all over Europe and the North America, claimed that he wanted to reform Islam to bring in line with the values of today. He and his supporters always blamed the criminal behaviour and bad behaviour within the minority Muslim communities on their heritage culture and religion not the society they grew up in. Today, however, they are moving the goal posts and saying it is normal and legal to visit a strip bar and allegedly harass the women who are trying to make a living. As though they don’t have the right to a dignity. Some of these women and girls are students trying to pay for decent education and hopefully a better career.

Maajid Nawaz finally issued a statement titled, A planned and sustained attack campaign against reform-minded Muslims. While he offers a kind of apology to his wife, while stating that she was aware of his actions, and his son, he spends the rest of the statement claiming victimhood and attacking others. He claims that he is a victim of a sustained attacks to dehumanise him but the proceeds to defame others by calling them regressive and that they aspire to stone people. This in reality is the real dehumanisation campaign, Maajid and his fellow phobes are involved in on daily basis. He perpetuate myths created by people like Ayaan H Ali and Sam Harris that Muslim and Islam are not compatible with the western values. He gives credence to Ayaan H Alis's assertion that only way to solve the Muslim problem is by the use of  force. She is not satisfied with the deaths of 4 Million Muslims and claims there are 400 million dangerous Muslims who need to be targeted. His friend Sam Harris dehumanises Palestinians by agreeing with Israeli assertions that they use their children as human shields. 

The common theme in the statements of Maajid Nawaz, Sara Khan and Iram Ramzan is, the attacks on one the whistle blowers and the attacks on one individual, Dilly Hussain. The other common rhetoric is to attack Muslim men in general and to ignore the women who also commented and condemned his behaviour. So it seems that they want to present this myth that the Muslim societies are mainly patriarchal societies. This ignoring of the role of the strong Muslim women in the society is in itself sexist and Misogynistic and need to be challenged.   

 

Whether Maajid Nawaz likes to drink or to visit "gentleman's clubs is not the issue, the issue is the character and attitude of selective morality. The issue is, whether such person has the credibility to lecture people on the important issues of liberalism, extremeism and religeon.       

     

Freedom of Speech and the Rhetoric of Blasphemy

Since the Charlie Hebdo Murders, freedom of speech has become the mantra of the phobic community. To add Muslim angle to the mantra and to stay on course for inciting hatred against Muslims, Blasphemy has been added into the mix. Maajid Nawaz even presented a motion for free speech and right to blaspheme, at the Liberal Democrat spring conference. Being a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the Liberal Democrats, he should have known that UK abolished the blasphemy law in 2008. Furthermore, the freedom of expression is enshrined in the law. Not surprisingly, Maajid’s motion and its adoption by the Liberal Democrat conference received praise from people like Nick Cohen .    

Anyone who has some knowledge of their faith or faiths in general knows that, no faith or faith scriptures mention blasphemy. Furthermore, all faiths support freedom of thought and speech because that's how faiths spread. So where does this term and idea comes from, if not from religion or faith. As far as I know the blasphemy was first constructed and introduced by the Christian or cannon law. In the UK it was adopted into the common law in the 17^th century and was only abolished in 2008. It was mainly introduced in common law to maintain the supremacy of the Church of England over other factions of Christianity.

A different form of blasphemy law was introduced in the colonies by Britain. The purpose of this law was more administrative than religious. As colonial rule expanded, it brought previously independent Hindu, Christian and Muslim areas under colonial administration. Furthermore, Britain needed to give protection to the missionary work by her clergy and newly converted subjects. So the aim of this legislation was to maintain order and to prevent communal violence. To date it remains on the statute books of these former colonies.

The reason such laws remained on the statuette books is that the newly independent countries were based on newly created borders which didn’t exist before the colonial rule. Furthermore, these new borders contained diverse communities, thus the need for this administrative tool to protect minorities not the majority religions. The prime example of this is the states of India and Pakistan. The laws in both countries protects, although not successfully, all religions not just the majority religions.

UK has abolished the blasphemy law, which mainly protected Christianity but it enacted new legislation with a view to protect minorities. The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, is similar to the version introduced in the former colonies and is an administration tool. The act also preserves the right to freedom of speech/ freedom of expression but outlaws hate speech. Similar laws can be found on statute books of most European countries. Even France, the bastion of secularism, maintains laws for freedom of religion and against hate speech. It is another thing that such laws are rarely enforced and are flouted by the Far Right and “New” Atheists or anti-theists, secularists, humanists, etc.

As well as introducing the motion at the Lib Dem conference, Maajid Nawaz has also written an essay on the topic of Blasphemy. He starts his essay with the claim that the religious Prophets had blasphemed against the prevailing social constructs of that time. In other words when prophet Muhammad (pbuh) told people that burying daughters alive was wrong or Jesus spoke against money changers for profiteering from misery or Moses preached against pharaohs brutal rule, they all committed blasphemy. By that logic, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and today Palestinians, etc are blasphemers against the oppressive apartheid systems.

Maajid Nawaz’s convoluted arguments of cultural relativism, neo- oriental liberalism, can be summarised in few simple words. Western liberal society is monolithic and has no room for other cultures, identities, values or rights to equality. This attitude clearly ignores the fact that Majority of Muslim and other minorities in this country are born and bred here and regards themselves as British. When they go on holiday to Europe, North America, East or West they introduce themselves as British. Its people like him and other phobes and racists who want to give them the labels of their heritage. Hypocritically, Maajid Nawaz and co get on their high horse, when talking about other countries and protection of rights of minorities and cultures. Lecturing them to protect their religion, rights and cultures while doing the opposite here.

His position seems to be that minorities fighting for equality and maintaining their identity is a bad thing. On the other hand he claims, without providing any evidence, that there are minorities within the Muslim Minority who are experiencing victimisation. The fact is that himself and the so called ex-Muslims have aligned themselves with the powerful fascists, racists, New Atheists etc. They are deliberately provoking and attacking the Muslims and minorities. He includes himself in those minorities and hypocritically plays the victim card while criticising UK minorities for playing victim card. As usual he maintains that the majority of Muslims are extremists and are trying to impose Sharia and blasphemy on the liberal society. He is not interested in the socioeconomic situation and the attitude of some in the host community towards the minority communities, which has ghettoised some communities. Instead he claims that far right is profiting from the feeling of victimisation of the majority community. His attitude towards the orient and globalisation of the world ignores the fact that orient didn’t just provide the spices, silk, tea wealth; it also influenced and shaped the so called western values.

He talks about reformation but forgets that so called reformation came from within the Christian community not from outside. It is not the job of the so called ex-Muslims, Atheists or Quilliam to tell Muslims what to do. Muslims, for centuries both under Muslim rule and non Muslim rule co existed with various sects, cultures and religions. There were and still are inter religion, race, and sect marriages all around the world. There are no elected religious political parties anywhere in Muslim majority countries. Only countries where religiously influenced parties or persons are in power are India, Israel and the USA. People like Ayaan H Ali are not bothered by the election of fundamentalist religious party being in power in India. They are not bothered by the persecution of the low cast Hindus or religious minorities. They ignore the role of religion in Judicial and political systems in Israel or US.

As usual Maajid Nawaz is providing cover to his friends, who are involved in the racism, islamophobia and bigotry. The people, who have made a career out of their fascist activity by creating divisions and hate preaching. These people include Tommy Robinson, Sam Harris, Douglas Murray and Ayaan H Ali. Maajid and his friends use the rhetoric of freedom of speech to voice their bigoted views about the Muslim minorities in the west. They play the divisive games by praising some minorities while criticising the others. For example, Tommy Robinson would tweet praise about Sikh and Jewish minorities, while continuing his vile rhetoric against the Muslim minority. Recently Tommy Robinson tweeted guidance about recognising Sikhs by their turbans and to respect them. What this means is that everyone else of brown skin such as Sri Lankans, Arabs, South Americans, Indians, etc whether Christian, Hindu, Non Muslim, are a fair game. However, differentiating the Sikh women from Muslim women isn’t that simple so they remain open to the misogynistic attacks by his followers.  
  
The other thing Maajid and others say is that they have the right to offend. The question is what is the motive behind the offensive activity i.e. cartoons. Is it freedom of speech/ expression or there is sinister politics behind such cartoons. When Chris Moos and his partner appeared on a BBC programme and displayed their t-shirts bearing cartoons, what message were they relaying? Prior to their appearance on BBC Chris Moos and his partner had worn the same t-shirts at a university, during fresher’s week.  They had a stall purporting to promote atheism but their t-shirts had nothing to do with promotion of atheism. You don’t promote something by offending people, you antagonise them. If they wanted to promote the message of humanism and atheism then why didn’t they wear the t-shirts Richard Dawkins sells in his shops? Clearly their intentions were not about promotion of their ideology but to create divisions among students. Dawkins was so impressed by Chris Moos and his partner’s actions that he awarded him the humanist of the year award, but ignored his brown partner.

The fact is that such actions have nothing to do with freedom of expression. Neither are they satirical, as claimed by Richard Dawkins. They are deliberate attempts to stigmatise and dehumanise Muslim and minority communities. They are a copy of the Israeli rhetoric to dehumanise Palestinians by spreading lies i.e. Palestinians use their children as human shield. As it happens all of these groups and individuals are open supporters of Israel and her policies of suppressing the Palestinians. Sam Harris and Ayaan H Ali have openly agreed with IDF propaganda that Palestinians use human shields. Whether it is Tommy Robinson, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Ayaan H Ali, Nick Cohen, Douglas Murray or Maajid Nawaz, they are all working with a clear political agenda. They give legitimacy to the war on terror which to date has claimed more than 2 million lives. Their role is to distract the populations of the West from what is happening around the world and keep them in a state of paranoia and fear.
     
A cursory look at the twitter activity of these people will tell you that neither of the above activity do anything to further their cause or belief. Instead you will find a common thread in their tweets. You won’t find Quilliam and Maajid addressing the Muslim youth with counter extremist message or Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris preaching atheism. You will not find Nick Cohen criticising Israel or Douglas Murray writing anything other than demonising of the Muslims and other minority communities and accusing them of anti-Semitism and homophobia. You won’t find Ayaan H Ali making civilised conversation about her rhetoric of reformation but inciting violence and supporting suppression of Muslims and minorities. You don’t even need to look at Tommy Robinson tweets to know his vile views, yet he has received admiration from all of the aforementioned.

Don’t be bamboozled by the rhetoric and sound bites by polished performers, always look beyond the glossy exterior and you may find the ugly truth of bigotry, Xenophobia, racism,Islamophobia, etc

Pushing Back Boundaries but, ....

In the Wrong Direction

Not a day goes by when a section of the British society is not in the news headlines. Even if there was a serious tragedy in the world affecting 100s, it would not trump the action / perceived actions of an individual from this community. Such coverage is deliberately normalising the issues which were made taboo by decades of struggle. This continuous highlighting of issues affecting the community is pushing back the boundaries but in the wrong direction. This is happening because every action and inaction of the community, is being looked through the tainted glass of prejudice. This prejudice is affecting more than the community in question.

Recently Channel Four broadcasted a documentary, presented by Trevor Phillips, a former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The documentary titled “Things We Won’t Say About Race That Are True”, seems to be based on the old stereotypes. However, he failured to acknowledge, that the old stereotypes had in the past, given rise to hatred, violence and atrocities rarely seen in the human history. Therefore, it is important to fight old and the new stereotypes to prevent this happening again. While the documentry has been criticised by activists like Lee Jasper , it was welcomed by the right wing media such as the Daily Mail, which published this, incorporating his article. It is not surprising that only people they found to agree with him were couple of Tory MPs. The Mail, which is not a fan of the Equality or Human Rights, couldn’t help to have a dig on Trevor Phillips himself, stating that he received salary of £112,000 for 3.5 days work.

                                                           Cartoon by Operation Black Vote

Trevor Phillips’s only achievement was to merge the various branches of the Equality into one. I personally don’t think that this achieved the goals previously set by the various independent commissions. As the head of the EHRC, Trevor Phillips had started from the complacent belief that the equality, especially in the field of race had been achieved. His actions to merge various branches of equality commission were more to do with empire building than reality on the Ground. Since then we have seen case after case revealing institutionalised racism and discrimination not only in the field of race but also of gender, disability and the under privileged. The Rotherham case is as much, if not more, of institutionalised discrimination against the under privileged white community who’s complaints were ignored, of groomers being from a certain section of community. This is supported by the Oxford council’s admission, that their failures to investigate such cases properly had nothing to do with any political correctness.

Unfortunately, Trevor Phillips has allowed himself to fall into the trap of increasingly blurred lines made possible by the continuous headlines and reckless media coverage using inflammatory language. The mainstream media and the Politicians have muddled the equality issue with stereo types. It is now normal to hear Xenophobic language when discussing immigration, racism when discussing Islamophobia, macho attitudes when discussing sexism, derogatory remarks when discussing disability, label of anti-semitism when discussing Israel/ Palestine conflict and rhetoric of freedom of speech, while inciting hatred against Muslims.

The social media has also played a role in this normalisation of pushing boundaries in the wrong direction. People think that they can get away with typing their inner most dark thoughts in the anonymity of the Internet. We have seen threats of rape and violence against women, blatant lies and stereotypes to spread religious, racial and other forms of hatred. Unfortunately, the bigots take comfort in the knowledge that they have the support of respectable figures on the internet and in mainstream media. The trends on the twittersfield become headlines for the 24 hour media, hungry for more and more headline fillers. So tweets about halal/ kosher food become national headlines.

The recent example is the Clarkson fracas with an Irish producer, which turned out to be a serious unprovoked physical and verbal racial attack. For few days it looked that, like many times before, Clarkson would survive the latest mess of his own making. BBC did everything possible to keep Clarkson on their books but as more and more witnesses came forward, they had no choice but to ignore the tank carrying one million signature petition. The petition is the perfect indictment of the prevailing attitude in sections of the society. Despite the tragedy in the French Alps, BBC gave prominence to its decision to not to renew contract with Clarkson. BBC journalists gave his sacking disproportionate air time. They made arguments about his value, for bringing 50 million pounds, and made light of the physical assault, describing it as 30 second incident. It is this kind of attitude that minimises the gravity of similar actions against minorities.

The common thread, in majority of Clarkson's misdemeanours, is the race including the latest incident that included remarks about the victim being Irish. Although, he has been equally vile towards, women, disabled, etc. he receives admiration for not being PC, as though this is something to admire. Astonishingly, he received support from high profile people including our Prime Minister. It is this kind of support which normalises, racism, sexism, Islamophobia and victimisation of other disadvantaged groups, sick and the poor working classes. Such racism also affects the unity of the United Kingdom, as throw away remarks are made about the Scots, Welsh and the Irish for political gains.

I am not an expert on any of the issues listed above but as a member of ethnic minority group with migrant and Muslim heritage, I have views on these topics. We are witnessing the erosion of minority rights earned after long and hard struggles. I say earned as it took decades of fight with the overt, covert and institutionalised racism and discrimination. The equality Acts of 1977 did not work because of the reluctance of the establishment to implement them. This resulted in demonstrations, which were classified as riots despite it being reaction to provocation of discrimination and attacks by organisations like National Front and combat 18. Only after these “riots” and the Lord Scarman’s report, things started to improve. So from the passing of the Act in 1977, it took another decade to see changes especially in the public sector and the public services.  

Fast forward to the second decade of the 21st century and we find that all those prejudices, we thought had been left behind, have resurfaced. Only this time the problem has returned in a respectable form, in our politics, media and in the literati. It has spread like a virus from mainstream politics to the gutters of racist EDL and Britain First. An example of muddle alliances is Tommy Robinson, who still supports EDL, Pagida, Britain First and UKIP but is friends with the Islamophobic new Left, LibDem PPC Maajid Nawaz, and the disgraced Tory PPC Afzal Amin. He openly tweets Islamophobic and racist material on the internet but somehow keeps friendship with this diverse group of people. Maybe he is the new symbol of diversity.

The racist and fascist organisations always had the backing of powerful and influential people. It’s not different today as powerful members of the media, politics and literati, supporting the racist and Islamophobic individuals and groups. They are helping to undermine the progress in the equality field, by spreading fear through the xenophobic rhetoric of immigration and Islam. They cleverly use, all encompassing Islamophobic narrative, that includes all the traits of the Far right. It includes immigration, racism and misogyny . No wonder that people like Richard Dawkins, his followers and the organisations under his patronage claim that no such thing as Islamophobia. The same view expressed by others like Sam Harris and lately by Maajid Nawaz who even issued a Fatwa stating that there is no such thing as Islamophobia. If anyone thinks that the Islamophobia doesn’t affect others, they should read this SAALT report by the US Asian community highlighting the diversity of communities affected by Islamophobic attacks.    

Trevor Phillips, in his article attacked the idea of multiculturalism, and said that in multicultural Britain Muslim children may have a narrow view of the world. At the same time he blames France’s non multiculturalist system for the murder of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. He can’t have both ways. Like many others he doesn’t want to acknowledge that children of migrants have a greater knowledge of the world than their white counterparts. There is a high chance that they are bilingual, they have visited developing countries of their  parents/ grandparents heritage. They probably have the first hand knowledge of struggles of people around the world. They are more likely to have a wider world view through the international media.

Trevor Phillips also talked about the young girls who had gone to the war torn Syria. Again his views seem to have been based on stereotypes rather than facts. It is clear that these girls had normal family life and were happy at school and were A grade students. The question to ask is about their experiences outside of school and home. What I have learnt from two groups of girls interviewed by the BBC News and BBC Newsnight. The first group interviewed was hijab wearing and they said that they had experienced racist, Islamophobic and Misogynistic attacks, because they way they dressed. The second group was interviewed by Evan Davis for Newsnight. They weren’t hijabis and they also said that they also feel that the society doesn’t accept them because of their colour and race. When they said they understood why girls would leave their comfortable life for a warzone, Evan Davis said that their comments could be interpreted as apology for terrorism. Not surprised that the BBC did not release these videos, while other videos like the interview with Ayaan H Ali were released immediately after the broadcast.

There are some people who have spoken out against the Islamophbia but not enough. In a recent appearance on the BBC Question Time, broadcasted on 18^th March, Will Self said that his students overwhelmingly think, that the Muslims are the most oppressed minority in the UK today. In the same week Matthew Parris wrote an article, in the Spectator, titled "Anti Muslim Prejudice is Real and Scary" . Unfortunately his lone voice is drowned by Douglas Murray’s weekly articles in the Spectator, who also wrote this and his other prejudicial gems include this vile article and this . 

It has become respectable to have Islamophobic prejudice and thanks to the false scandals such as Trojan Horse and the Cathy Neman tweets, it has spread from the mainstream media to the school playgrounds. Our universities are being monitored by the new humanists and the Henry Jackson Society supported group Student Rights. Their activity is not dissimilar to that of Hitler’s Nazi Youth. If we want to have a fair and equal society then we must confront this last respectable prejudice. Our failures to do so will have wider implications for all.  

False Equations

In the recent days a well known Islamophobe joined the Social Media’s mass medium of Twitter. This has been welcomed by the so called man of science and reason, Richard Dawkins, who no longer promotes either the science or involves himself in a reasoned debate. Instead his mission in life seems to be to acquire funding from suspect funders and then to distribute those funds to groups and individuals actively promoting Islamophobia. Why wouldn’t Richard Dawkins welcome Ayaan H Ali to Twitter, the medium he has exploited to make inflammatory and hateful sometimes racial statements. The 140 characters limit is also an excuse to not to make a reasoned argument. He also supports anonymous troll accounts which are overtly and crudely racist and Islamophobic but he calls them satirical.

The other person who welcomed Ayaan is Maajid Nawaz, a PPC for the Liberal Democrats and the Chair of Quilliam foundation. He responded to the tweet by Sam Harris, encouraging people to follow her and Maajid quickly obliged. Maajid also endorsed Ayaan H Ali’s article in the Wall Street Journal and the forthcoming book. Some people believe that Ayaan H Ali already had an account under the name of Secular African. This account had Islamophobic, hate and racist agenda. It openly promoted hate of Muslims and especially of Arabs and supported Israel, especially during the attack on Gaza, when it relayed IDF propaganda. No wonder she has voiced her desire to convert to Judaism. This account also incited Hindus against Muslims, during the Indian election, and supported Narender Modi with a desire to get him to follow back.

Ayaan H Ali has been criticised for her comments that incite violence against Muslims and support suppression of their rights in Europe and North America. This criticism hasn’t just come from Muslims, but Atheiests and Academics alike. In light of the above mentioned, her desires to convert to Judaism is understandable. This, however, conflates with her stated position of being an atheist. We, however, shouldn’t be surprised as other New Atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, have also shown soft spot for Judaism, Christianity and Israel.  While Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris may have a chance of being accepted in the Jewish state, Ayaan H Ali, however has no chance of being accepted. She should look at the racist attitudes of Israelis towards African Jews and immigrants and the recent comments by Bibi Netanyahu in the Israeli elections.

In her article in the Wall Street Journal Ayaan H Ali promotes her book and gives the impression that she is arguing about the reformation in Islam. She claims that the Christianity and Judaism had already gone through this process of reformation and that it has only brought good to the humanity. About the Christian and Jewish reformation in Europe she says:

“because their faiths went through a long, meaningful process of Reformation and Enlightenment, the vast majority of Jews and Christians have come to dismiss religious scripture that urges intolerance or violence”

She also says that

Their religious beliefs exist in an uneasy tension with modernity—the complex of economic, cultural and political innovations that not only reshaped the Western world but also dramatically transformed the developing world as the West exported it. The rational, secular and individualistic values of modernity are fundamentally corrosive of traditional societies, especially hierarchies based on gender, age and inherited status.

The reformation is something Maajid Nawaz has also been talking about. He also wants a debate in the Muslim communities and argues for a British Islam. However, most of his debates have been with the New Atheist community and he ends up agreeing with them. He promotes Quilliam’s Osama Hasan as a scholar who even issued a Fatwa on the issue of British Muslims going to help or fight in the Syria conflict. If anything, this tactic has backfired as the number going there have increased not decreased. It seems that most of these travelers were neither religious nor previously known for extreme or violent behavior. This undermines his claims of Islamism and ideology being behind this trend.

Anyway coming back to the issue at hand, has the reformation really stopped the violence and is it the driver behind the modernity. The history suggests that there is little evidence in support of such claims. While it did bring some periods of stability and peace, in the long run it caused more death and destruction then any time before. It replaced religious fervor with nationalistic jingoism and superiority politics. The debate about reformation was really about the power of the established church and personal and nationalistic views of the ruling classes. There were some sincere reformists like the German reformist, Martin Luther of the protestant movement, his views were rejected by the English king who wanted his own reform and head the Church.     

As far as the violence and religious intolerance is concerned, the reformation did not stop the Spanish inquisition, which lasted for nearly 440 years. It seems that non violence and religious intolerance only applied to the various factions of Christianity not the Muslims or Jews, who were forced to convert to Christianity.  Those who didn’t convert were killed or expelled. That is just one example of religious violence and religious intolerance that has continued after the reformation.  

This intolerance and violence continued during the colonialism era, which subjugated people of other religion, race and colour. This was fully supported by the Church and sometimes even the scientific community. The reformation did not stop the slavery of Africans and all the brutality which came with the trade or stopped transportation of Indians to other continents. It did not stop the brutal treatment and genocides of the indigenous people of Americas or the Australia.

The reformation and enlightenment did not prevent the world WWI or WWII or the genocide of the Jews in Europe. The Jews in Europe had experienced massacres and expulsion throughout the reformation and enlightened period. The only safe place they ever had was in the Muslim communities in and outside of Europe. The wars against communism were also tinged with the religious zealot as wars against the unbelievers who had closed churches. The same rhetoric was applied to support Afghans against Russia and which formed the basis for establishing the Mujaheddin army which later turned into Taliban and Al-Qaida.

History tells us that in the newly independent countries, after breaking the shackles of colonialism, from Algeria to Yemen, enlightened, secular and socialism leaning leaders emerged. However, one by one those leaders were got rid of. These leaders were undermined by the west by overtures to the military and by supporting religious parties, saying to them socialism conflicted with Islam and religion. Leaders such as Nasser, Bhutto, Sukarno to name few. Lets look at Pakistan, which gets special mention in Ayaan H Ali's article and probably the book. In 1960's and seventies Zulifqar Ali Bhutto established a political party which overtly said in its manifesto that Islam is our religion and Socialism is our politics. The party won by landslide in open and fair elections. During the elections and the party rule, US and other western countries supported the religious parties. Their was a queue of western ambassadors, lead by US,  to visit his the humble residence of Jamat Islami scholar and leader Mowdudi. Bhutto was replaced with a Military ruler, who did introduce some Islamic law.  
  

Lets not forget the war, which in the absence of proof of sated reason, can only be described as a war motivated by religious beliefs of Tony Blair and George Bush. The other recent examples are the Apartheid in South Africa and the current occupation and siege of Palestine by Israel and her apartheid and racist systems. Even the Prime Minister of Israel made openly racist comments to scare his fellow Jews and to get votes. Netanyahu and his administration is known for making anti Muslim and anti Arab statements to justify their wars on Gaza. These attitudes of intolerance, racism and religious hatred are inherited from their homeland of enlightened Europe and the North America. I sometimes wonder if today’s Jewish community is being used by the Zionists, be that Jews/ cultural Jews, atheists or Christians to cause havoc in the Muslim countries.

In Europe these Zionists of all kind are building alliances with the neo-cons and neo-Nazis against the minorities and the Muslim communities of Europe and the North America as well as against Russia. This has created the atmosphere of fear and uncertainty in the migrant and Muslim communities. However, I remain fearful that if the history is to repeat itself the Jewish community will be as much of a target as the other minorities and Muslims. This fear is based on the perceptions, as pointed out by Trevor Phillips, of Jews being rich and powerful. Such myths had previously resulted in massacres and genocide in Europe.  The most intolerant of Muslims are the New Atheists also known as the new Humanists and secularists. They suppose to be the enlightened and reasoned ones but most of their rhetoric is neither reasoned nor enlightened. 

Ayaan H Ali’s article gives an idea about her forthcoming book. She claims that she is not against all Muslims and hope that Muslims will reform the religion themselves. She, like the President of the United States, wants to keep all options on the table to confront Islam/ Muslims. This includes the option of force, in other words option of violence which is not very tolerant, reformed or enlightened. Other new Atheists, like Sam Harris, also hold the same views.

The reality of the reformation is that all Christian sects agreed on the divinity, Christ and Bible being untouchable. In other words the foundations of the Christianity remained out of bounds of the reformists. The same applies to the claimed Judaism reformation. However, Ayaan want to attack the core foundations of Islam by attacking the Prophet (pbuh). Without whom there would be no Islam and Muslims today. Anyone who is attacking the core foundations of a religion is not sincere about discussion dialogue or considered reform but purveyor of doom and violence.

The other crazy thing she has come up with is the ‘Madina Muslims’ and ‘Mecca Muslims’. She claims that the Mecca Muslims are more peaceful than the Madina Muslims. The reasons she gives for this is that the Madina Muslims were involved in wars while the Mecca Muslims were peaceful. This shows her total ignorance of the beginnings of the Islam and the life of the prophet (pbuh). She seems to have swallowed the scripts provided to her by the Islamophobe Industry. The facts are as below:

The Prophet (pbuh) emigrated to Madina, due to the violence and threats to him by the idol worshippers of Mecca. He was invited by the Muslims of Madina and other Muslims who had migrated on his advice. When the idol worshipers plotted to assassinate him, he also migrated to Madina. When the leaders of the idol worshippers learnt of the failure of assassination attempt they felt humiliated. They then attacked Madina in their attempt to assassinate the Prophet (pbuh). They attacked Madina on several occasions but every time they failed. This does not fit her description of peaceful and non aggressive people.  

Clearly Ayaan H Ali’s narrative does not fit the facts. By her logic the people and tribes of Mecca, who tried to assassinate the Prophet (pbuh) and attacked Madina on several occasions were docile and pacifists. The fact is that before they embraced Islam, the Meccan Tribes were aggressive warriors. They became peaceful and devout because of Islam not despite of Islam. The people of Madina were always peaceful and provided sanctuary to the migrants including the Prophet (pbuh). Today there is no difference between Muslims of Mecca and the Muslims of Madina. Like 1.6 billion Muslims of the world of all colours, races and nationality, they all try to practice their faith peacefully.

Ayaan H Ali, in her piece for WSJ, states that the Christians and Jewish communities of Madina were told that they could retain their faith if they paid a special tax. She alleges that all others were told either to convert or die. This is a pure fiction. The tax applied to all non Muslim communities. The fact is that the initial attacks by Meccans on Madina did not affect the others as Muslim numbers were low and could easily be targeted. However, as Muslim numbers grew, due to the conversions, the attacks started to affect all communities. However, as only Muslims were defending against these attacks and Meccans had started to approach other groups to spy and collaborate, there was need both for funds and to counter these tricks. Therefore, non Muslims were asked to pay a tax as contribution to the cost of defending and as a declaration of loyalty.     

Ayaan H Ali's, like many other, is trying to rewrite the history of Islam and create another label to divide Muslims. She says that she was raised as a Meccan Muslim. Her hostility towards Islam and Muslims and her rhetoric of inciting wars and violence belittles her own argument and factitious and facile theory.     

  

                                                    

Don't Talk About It, Its Not the Right Time

The appalling murders in France have rightly started the debate about the freedom of speech. However, at the same time people are being told that it is not the time to talk about the issues which are absolute relevant to the unity of the communities and are vital to stop such incidents happening again. This happens everytime such incidents happen and it is never discussed and addressed. Instead narratives are developed to create divisions, stereo types and prejudices, which can only lead to discrimination and feelings of not belonging. These feelings are then exploited and cause some people to act in a manner which is not conducive to a cohesive society.

The solidarity march in Paris today was to promote unity and inclusiveness for all. The impressive and historic attendance was a spectacle to hold with people of all faiths, colours and nationalities attending in large numbers. There were lot of moments to remember, like a Muslim Mayor of a Town who had come with his Jewish Businessman friend. Both were wearing placards, the Mayor’s placard said I am a Muslim and I love Jews and the Jewish friend was wearing placard saying I am a Jew and I love Muslims. The Jewish businessman spoke better English and said that the Muslim mayor had started a programme for teenage children from different races faiths and backgrounds to meet and learn about each other. Then there there was a Muslim man who gave white roses of peace to passer bys Jews and others. There was a Jewish woman who had moved from Israel to France, 20 years ago, and she was there with her Muslim friend but both also expressed their fears for the future. People were there with their children and elderly relatives with messages of peace and desire to live in peace and harmony. There were lot of young people whose parents / grandparents had moved to the country. Its this unity of young generation of descents of migrants and young white French that gives hope for a more tolerant future. 

The march was also attended by some leaders and high officials of the world. Some leaders tried to make political capital out of it and others were grateful to be invited. British Prime Minister was talking about security and measures to limit our freedoms further. Despite being told to stay away Netanyahu turned up, he used the well rehersed rhetoric of fighting Muslim extremists (Palestinians) and rise of anti-Semitism. He offered safe sanctuary to Jews in Israel, not surprising as more than 30% of Israelis want to leave the country for better careers and futures. One of the considred views of humanity and unity of all races, colours and beliefs and non belief came from an Italian Prince. Unfortunately he doesn’t have any power to bring about changes he was talking about. One Sky commentator and his guest agreed that this kind of unity procession was a better way to create cohesion, integration and unity than the proposed legislations limiting our freedoms.

Despite the positives of the march, one must ask questions whether the crowd represented all of the French communities. Was it just a gathering of the great and the good and middle classes and what efforts were made to include the marginalised and deprived communities where these murderers had come from. The neighbours of the culprits had nothing to say about these men except good things like they held doors, they helped people to carry shopping, they helped the disabled, they were quite and polite, etc. Even the person at the print warehouse, where they were finally killed spoke about their humanity. We now know that the brothers who carried out the Charlie Ebdo massacre were orphans, one of them was homeless the other had committed string of petty offences. They were born and bred in France and didn’t have any particular roots abroad. Yet they felt the need to travel abroad and make contacts with people with extreme views.

One person interviewed on the BBC said that there was abject poverty in the ghettos of Paris. Children were literally starving and young girls were prostituting themselves to survive. Another person who owned a restaurant said there was wide spread discrimination against the  descendants of the migrants from North African and Arab countries. He said while he had employees from various racial backgrounds such as Mali, Ethiopia, etc, there were no go areas for these young people and majority of restaurants will not employ young people from minorities like Arabs and Africans. One Muslim said that there are restrictions on the liberties of people with regard to expression of religion, clothing and even food. There is also the problem of increasing attacks on Muslims and their places of worship both before and after the murders at the Charlie Ebdo. There is no legal protection against Islamophobia anywhere in Europe.

Slowly it is becoming clear that the Charlie Ebdo wasn’t just a satirist magazine, it allegedly also promoted xenophobia, racial and religious hatred. It has also emerged that the Magazine had sacked one of its employees for anti-Semitic activity, but not for racial hatred or Islamophobic. It is clear that Charlie Ebdo wasn’t a popular magazine in any sense with only 60,000 copy print. The magazine mainly catered for the high society, which influence the opinions and policies of the government. It would be interesting to see if the proposed government funded million copies will contain similar material as alleged above.

While the France was preparing for the solidarity march, a debate was being held at the BBC studios for the programme the Big Question, with main topic of incident in Paris. The host of the programme is well known for his prejudice and collaboration with the Islamophobic community. This was reflected with the choice of guests disproportionally in favour of his views.  It was like having a match where the referee was in cahoots with one team. He failed to give enough time for reply to Raza Nadim of MPAC. It is becoming a norm for the BBC to give platform to people like Douglas Murray of the Henry Jackson Society and the Gatestone Institute and Quilliam’s front man Maajid Nawaz, to spread the narrative of division, fear and hate while gradually dropping the voices of reason. Douglas Murray said that it wasn’t the time to discuss the alleged inflammatory material and editorial of the Magazine. He made the laughable claims that Muslims were trying to enforce Sharia on the mainstream community and that the Islam was to blame for the actions of the perpetrators. Maajid Nawaz’s rhetoric is well known and is not  worth repeating. Nabila Ramdani a French Algerian Journalist puts it better in her Guardian artcle why French Muslims shouldnt be blamed. For that matter we need to get away from blaming whole of the Muslim communities for the crimes of the few and start confronting those who are creating mischief of this kind for own goals.    

To say it is not the time to discuss these issues is to ignore the real causes of disconnect, frustration and helplessness, which are leading to people acting out of character and committing acts of violence. The solidarity message need to be filtered through to the above mentioned deprived communities which exist in all of our societies. In reality they exist in all countries accross the world developed, developing, Western, Eastern, Muslim and Non Muslim. The lazy rhetoric to ask Muslims to do more, blaming the religion and rhetoric of back door sharia and the harsh language by politicians has been tried, tested and has failed. These people who carried out atrocities were born and bred in France. They were the product of French society. Therefore, to blame any other society, culture or religion is farcical and we are all to blame for our failings not just the one community.

Its time pay attention to the above mentioned deprived and discriminated communities. They include people of all races religion and colour. We need to provide comfort, assurance and support to these communities before someone else does and exploit them for their own agenda. Don’t just blame the religion and ask communities to do more as it reinforces the idea of separation not cohesion. We all have a responsibility to our young; don’t treat them as foreigners as their roots are here, treat them as citizens. Dont let people with extreme dark agendas of creating divisions and hatered talk and listen to the voices of reason in all communities.

Freedom of Speech and Hypocritical Alliance

I had started to write this before the brutal, unnecessary and unjustified Murder of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo staff and 2 Police Officers. My thoughts are with the bereaved families and the French people of all persuasions. From the information available so far it seems that the attack by these criminals was motivated by revenge for the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh).

From what I know about the life of the Prophet (pbuh), the perpetrators actions contravene the way he lived his life. He did not seek revenge or harm against those who had caused him pain and discomfort. I know that some of the Islamophobe Industry will disagree and will try to produce disputed texts, etc. However, that doesn’t change the fact that they are wrong.    

Speculations are a plenty on the mainstream media and of course the playground of the dark forces the Social media, to jump on the bandwagon and try to capitalise on the tragedy. The morality of these people and the hypocrisy of these people who demand that the Muslims community as a whole should condemn the actions of criminals, did not utter a word of sympathy towards the bereaved families. These are the people who would object to the abhorrent images published by the terrorist groups and then publish them on their websites and tweet them. These are the people who would claim a moral high ground but then defend the atrocities committed by governments. These are the people who create the fear of others and then claim that no such thing as Islamophobia

 That brings me to the topic I had originally started to write. On Friday 2nd January the Independent newspaper ran a front page article, about online Islamophobia and increasing Muslim hate incidents. After considering the matter over the weekend and it’s impact on the him, his organisation and his allies, on Monday 5^th January Maajid Nawaz  Tweeted. Bearing in mind that Monday was the day when anti Muslim demonstrations were bring held in Germany , organised by a Neo Nazi group called, Pegida. While the demonstrations did not achieve any significant numbers in most of Germany and a large number of Germans came out in opposition, they did achieve attendance of around 18,000 in Dresden, an area with little or no immigrant/ Muslim population. The Germen Chancellor Angela Merkel condemned Pagida as haters. Wish our leaders had shown such leadership.

The 'timely' tweet by Maajid Nawaz was retweeted by the usual suspects. They included  the Atheists fraternity, Secular Fraternity, Ex Muslim Fraternity and various Islamophobes including the star pupil of Quilliam's academy of Counter Extremism, Tommy Robinson. Although there are different Titles of these Fraternities, often it is the same people who appear under different banners. Tommy Robinson openly supported the Pegida organised demonstrations and encouraged his supporters to attend. From Tommy's tweets is clear that not only that his supporters and EDL members attend the demonstration but as he boasted 'the lads made contact with the leadership'. So we can safely assume that the Dresden demonstration was not just attended by locals but also their affiliates from across Europe. Maybe that is the reason for the high attendance numbers. Of course our media like the BBC is incapable of doing the simple deductions.  

After the signal from Maajid his comrades sprung into action, including the self declared master of 'sarcasm' Richard Dawkins, who tweeted . His subsequent tweets were about religion not being a race and so on. He, however, failed to elaborate what he was trying to say. Was he trying to say that being Islamophobic or Anti-Semitic wasn’t racist or that it was ok to be anti-Semitic or islamophobic as it wasn’t racist. Only he knows what he meant but whatever it was, it was in defence of people like Tommy Robinson and anonymous twitter trolls like Jihadi Joe and Spellchecker. In the recent days the twitter accounts of both of these trolls had been suspended by the Twitter. Mr Dawkins took up their case and despite clear evidence of their bigotry he claimed that they were brilliant satirists like him. While he was successful in getting their accounts (not sure if he deserves the credit) he was criticised by most of the Atheist community for his support of the bigoted anonymous trolls.

This point by Maajid and others that the criticism of Muslims/ Islam is not racist, xenophobic or Islamophobic, has no logic except that that is their point of view. The fact is that long before Maajids’s conversion, this has been the stated position of Mr Dawkins and others like Bill Maher, Sam Harris and their followers. So it is not an original thought of the Chair Maajid, it is the next stage in his evolution.  The Lawyers Secular Society also responded to Maajid Nawaz’s tweet and published this  tweet  and published an article on their website. If we apply the logic of these lawyers then the term anti-Semitism could also be said to mean nothing, as Semite mean a collection of races of Middle Eastern region. Therefore, to use it as a term for the hatred of Jews is as illogical as their claim about Islamophobia.
   
The fact is that the Islamophobia is now an internationally recognised term to define anti Muslim hate, propaganda and to spread fear of Islam and Muslims. The failure to acknowledge this suggests that these people do not accept any form of rights of Muslims of protection from harassment, intimidation and violence. It is this attitude along with suggestion that Islam is an alien religion not compatible with the secular democratic values of the west is not only bigoted but dangerous. Then we are living in strange times when with the aid of CGI anyone could become a star, when a karaoke singer could become pop star with the help of technology and no original material, any man could become journalist with autocue and plagiarised material and anyone become politician by learning to dodge questions and quick answers without thought.

I was very much heartened by the Journalists, commentators and members of the public, interviewed by the BBC. Despite attempts by the BBC presenters provocative and divisive questions the interviewees were calm and calculated and refused to blame the religion or the majority of Muslim community for the dreadful action of murderers responsible for Paris massacre. Instead they were worried about the exploitation of the event by the Far Right organisations and were opposed to the Islamophobic and xenophobic tendencies of these organisations. BBC's own cultural correspondent Tzvetan Todorove, who happened to be French was interviewed for the BBC Newsnight. He said that he was worried that the murders will strengthen Xenophobic and Islamophobic attitudes in some quarters. He also eloquently pointed out that there was no such thing as absolute freedom in a secular democracy and citizens have responsibilities to the society. Today on the Question time Liberal Democrat voiced the same sentiment and said that in our democracy people have freedoms within the law not absolute freedom as some have been suggesting.

Therefore, the notion of absolute freedom to cause offence and hurt is a basic right of secular society is contradictory to the principals of the secularism. Then the new Secularism and Atheism has mutated into something un recognisable from founding principle. The new values are extremist tinged with hate, bigotry, xenophobia and of course Islamophbia. Their hypocrisy becomes clear when they say they want to maintain a Judeo-Christian culture. Not surprising as it is the same crowd acting under different banners. The true secularism  protects all religions and does not allow people to discriminate people or denigrate their rights, on the basis of their beliefs, culture and race. Furthermore, the promotion of the idea that Islam is an alien religion is also a false propaganda. The Islam as a religion belongs to these lands and shore like as any other religion / belief and so do the Muslims. Any belief other than that is bigoted, racist xenophobic and yes Islamophobic.

On the day of the French Murders the Islamophobic fraternity was very busy on the social media, Hundreds of tweets a minute were being fired. They were not only spreading hate they were demanding that the media should defy normal procedures and publish show offending cartoons. Not surprisingly these included known suspects like Tommy Robinson, LSS, Ex Muslims forum, Secularists, Atheists and of course BBC's own Nicky Campbell. BBC and other news channels interviewed hundreds of experts commentators from all around the world and of course they included Quilliam’s, Maajid Nawaz and Douglas Murray of The Henry Jackson Society and Gatestone Institute. These three organisations and above mentioned are most active in the Islamophobic activities and spreading hate and fear of Islam Muslims and fear of persecution in the Muslim communities and then clam there no such things as Islam phobia. BBC allowed Nigel Farage to get away with remarks that there was a fifth column in the midst of us. It was only Jon Snow of Channel Four who confronted him and Geertt Wilders about their xenophobic and neo Nazi stand. 

Due to my addiction to the News, Current affairs and politics, I had the misfortune to watch the Daily Politics Show today, hosted by Andrew Neil and Joe Coburn. The guests included two “opposing and respectful specialists” Maajid Nawaz and Douglas Murray. As expected there was no considered discussion but regurgitation of old rhetoric of Islam being responsible all atrocities in the West and Maajid Nawaz begging for funds. Furthermore these supporters of freedom speech were upset that Media had been using Muhammad Shafiq to comment on the Paris events.

This hypocrisy of advocating free speech while seeking to ban others from speaking has stifled the debate within the society the Muslim community and has given Islamophobes a free hand to spread fear and hate. By supporting and demanding bans in the Educational establishments, media, and public life, these people have created a vacuum of positive role models and have suppressed the free thought. Yes some people will have a point of view or an interpretation of the holy scriptures which is perverted but by banning them and driving them underground you deny the Muslim Community to challenge and debate such notions. The state sponsored censorship of thoughts and views is creating an atmosphere of fear and helplessness in the Muslim Community and this pressurised bottling of emotion is and will result in the undesired outcomes which we all want to prevent.

As it happens I also watched the late programme this week on the BBC where I had to suffer the ridiculous analysis of the Paris event by Andrew Neil. I was, however, looking forward to some sense of balance from the announced guest, David Aaronovitch. However, I was disappointed, because while advocating freedom of speech, David Aaronovitch promoted the idea, that those who don’t agree with his interpretation of freedom of speech, they can move to different countries. The hypocrisy is that even if some people move to different part of the world, they will still be subject to his long standing support for the interventionist policies. In other words you are not allowed to live a peaceful life whether they are in the west or in any other part of the world.

Then he suggested that Muslim should hold large demonstrations like they do when Israel commits atrocities in Palestine as though atrocities committed by state are equal to the murders committed by criminals. I didn’t see him organising or attending such demonstrations against Israel, which by the way were multi racial, multi faith and non faith individuals. Neither it seems he had the ability to organise demonstration of any kind. The heart of matter is that all those who are vocal in criticism of Islam and Muslims happen to be extremist supporters of Israel. These are the people who labelled demonstrations against atrocities in Gaza as anti-Semitic. These are the people who instead of promoting unity as a nation are promoting divisions.

Andrew Neil and David Aaronovitch wanted British media to publish certain cartoons from Charlie Hebdo to “spread the fear”. It would definitely cause the offence and spread the fear in the Muslim communities. While it is acceptable for people to cause offence, it is clear that people has a right to take offence otherwise what is the point. If people are not allowed to air that they are offended without fear, intimidation and bullying then where will that bottled pressure go? Muslims do not need to apologise for their beliefs and certainly do not need to abandon their country on the say so of some Journalists like Andrew Neil, David, Nicky Campbell or Politicians like Nigel Farage.     

Following are some of the tweets to give you a flavour and you decide which are racist, bigoted, xenophobic or Islamophobic or all in one.
http://mobile.twitter.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/552803726772420608?p=v
http://mobile.twitter.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/552783220962787328?p=v
http://mobile.twitter.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/552574856001507328?p=v