When he was putting together his week of lectures on the war against terror at UCL in 2007, the would-be bomber Abdulmutallab invited Begg, Qureshi, Ridley and that dangerous idiot George Galloway to speak. He did so because he knew that the cumulative effect of their commissions and omissions would be to radicalise his audience. Not in defence of human rights. Not in favour of Western agendas such as Amnesty’s, but against democracy, women’s rights and peace. You have to be a something of a fool not to see it.
To the embarrassment of its most principled supporters and against all internal entreaties, Amnesty International has persisted in whoring itself out to Cage Prisoners, a front for Taliban enthusiasts and al Qaida devotees that fraudulently presents itself a human rights group.
After two years of trying to reason with her bosses, Gita Sahgal, the head of AI’s gender unit, decided she’d finally had enough. This weekend, she blew the whistle. She gave the Times of London her January 30 appeal to her bosses, which states only the obvious: AI’s service to Cage Prisoners is both prone and supine, it “fundamentally damages Amnesty International’s integrity and, more importantly, constitutes a threat to human rights.” AI’s conduct has been driven by a cowardly fear of being labeled Islamophobic. More of the obvious: “To be appearing on platforms with Britain’s most famous supporter of the Taliban, whom we treat as a human rights defender, is a gross error of judgment.” Read more »
The New Statesman has been a shadow of its former self recently. Even its blog ‘the Staggers’ has rarely managed to attract more than a couple of desultory comments under each article.
Until now that is. A recent online article has smashed previous records and attracted over two hundred comments, an unbelievable number for the ailing publication.
I set out a selection of the comments the article on Seventh Century Imam Hussein has attracted below:
Jacqueline Cainer: Thanks for this article, it has helped me to understand somewhat my son Jonathon’s new found faith.
Rachel S: Excellent article – please keep them coming. No one else on earth has been able to evoke such strong emotions in people and that too thirteen centuries later. Thank you God for this miracle.
Sarah: Great article – hope to see more articles like this that inform the reader truthfully about Islam, whatever their background or faith. The message of peace and tolerance of Imam Hussain from the tragedy of Kerbala has impacted upon the West’s modern day heros as well as the world’s Muslims
Kerry Hamilton: If one tenth of this event were to take place in the West, films upon films would have been made about it. Iraq, however, seems like “background noise” to most of us living in in the West. As a non-Muslim I feel like taking the journey there, hopefully when security improves. Thank you for the article NewStatesman.
Mark Bellfield – Auckland, New Zealand: This is the first time I read about the Shia pilgrimage to Karbala. It is a very informative and insightful account spoken by an Iraqi.
David: Ecellent, eloquent, clear and a well written peice. Captures the nectar of Hussein that is truly universal and beyond race, gender, religion and culture.
Gosh, hasn’t our knowledge of Islamic sects improved since the days when the New Statesman was a socialist magazine? Too bad the grammar’s not as good though.
No seriously it’s true that’s just what you are according to some new research that found the left favours Apple iPhones while the right favours the Blackberry (that hissing you heard just then was me dropping my Blackberry 8500 into my tea).
The research from new technology coalitionCALinnovates.org was done in the US around the hotly contested race for the governorship of California. What it found was that iPhone users prefer probable Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown while Blackberry users prefer the Republican Meg Whitman (the former CEO of Ebay).
iPhone users support Democratic candidate Jerry Brown over Republican candidate Meg Whitman 57% to 31% while Blackberry users support Whitman over Brown 47% to 38%.
I am betting that if the research was done in the UK we would see a similar left/right technology split. The research throws a fascinating light on the politics of technology. Apple with its cool design and sleek look has always had a particular liberal creative appeal as part of its brand giving it an almost rebel brand status that eschewed the dull corporatism of rivals.
It’s interesting to see that as Apple products have become almost ubiquitous, and much more widely owned than when it was simply a computer firm, its original market appeal does not seem to have been diluted.
I’d always suspected that as ownership became more widespread via the iPod and iPhone so would the character that makes up its customers and while there has been some change that we can lay at the doorstop of ubiquity apparently that is not as much as I’d once thought.
Apple owners it appears (whether they closely identify with the brand or claim not to) are still broadly residents of the liberal left.
I’m guessing if you own both a Blackberry and some kind of Apple Mac you’re probably a Liberal Democrat and Nick Clegg awaits your call.
Remember when fugitive Hamas commander Mohammed Sawalha tried to sue Harry’s Place? We saw him off in short order.
Then his expensive but hapless lawyer got into a spot of bother too.
And now one of that silly solicitor’s other infamous clients is in trouble with the law, despite being in a position to know better.
Commander Ali Dizaei, a leading anti-racism activist and former president of the National Black Police Association, was convicted by a jury of misconduct in a public office and perverting the course of justice after less than three hours deliberation.
Dizaei, 47, went on trial a month ago at Southwark Crown Court accused of abusing his position to arrest a young web designer with whom he had argued over payment for building his personal website. After arresting Waad al-Baghdadi, 23, Dizaei had then fabricated a series of allegations against him and inflicted an injury on himself to back up a claim that the young man had “stabbed” him with the mouthpiece of shisha pipe. Peter Wright, QC, for the prosecution, said that the allegations against Dizaei amounted to “the wholesale abuse of power by a senior police officer for entirely personal and oblique motives”.
In yesterday’s Sunday Times, CagePrisoners (CP) was criticised for promoting al-Qaeda preacher Anwar al-Awlaki on their site. The group’s head, Moazzam Begg, responded by saying that ‘I don’t consider anybody a terrorist until they have been charged and convicted of terrorism.’ The only problem with this is that his organisation’s website is replete with profiles and sympathetic interviews with convicted terrorists. Rightly, Begg follows the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ line, but when they are convicted, CP seem to give the terrorists a lot of sympathy.
CP’s website, for example, reproduces and publishes letters and poems written by people who have been convicted on terrorism charges in the UK. What is the justification for this? Begg has never addressed this issue, and it is about time that he did. I have already covered the materials on the CP site inprevious blogs.
One organisation, which CP has some links with, addresses this issue much more clearly. Prisoners of Faith (PoF) is a group similar to CagePrisoners, except they are much more frank about what they think of Islamist terrorists behind bars:
Prisoners of Faith has been set up to inform the ummah about our current Muslim prisoners. The reason for implementing a penal system is to punish criminals so that they re-enter life rehabilitated or duly punished. How can it be a crime to only believe in ‘La ilaha illallah’ [there is no god but Allah] and to only want His rule to govern?
The incarceration of Muslims may seem like a relatively new phenomenon, since 2000 approximately 1000 Muslims have been arrested, many jailed without charge, and this is a fraction compared to other parts of the world where the atrocities are worse, yet how many of us actually remember them? How many of us take out time to find out what is happening to our brothers and sisters? Whether they are detained without charge, with charge or even convicted? Do we just believe what we see on the TV? Or should we make excuses for our brothers and sisters and give them the benefit of the doubt?
… So the role of Prisoners of Faith is to inform you about the prisoners and to help them to be remembered in your du’aas [prayers] constantly inshaAllah
The part I have put in bold is the most relevant here as indeed all Islamist terrorist are fighting primarily because they wish to establish the rule of God throughout the world, and for PoF striving toward this simply cannot be a crime. It’s also nice to see them doing their part to lionise terrorists by asking for Muslims to pray for them on a purely sectarian basis.
CP have reproduced PoF articles on their site and also include on their Facebook page this video produced by PoF:
The hooligan shouting at the police in the beginning of the video is Abu Hamza’s right hand man, Abu Abdullah (aka Atilla Ahmet). He is now serving a seven year sentence for soliciting to murder. Here he is praising ‘the honourable Sheikh’ Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and 9/11:
The PoF video then goes on to show pictures of numerous convicted and suspected terrorists, including Anwar al-Awlaki (3.47 mins) and it makes no effort to present these men and their actions as wrong or un-Islamic, instead telling viewers: ‘Do not forsake them! Remember your Brothers and Sisters in your du’as (prayers) this Ramadan’.
It is strange that an organisation like CP, which condemns convicted terrorists and the killing of civilians, would publish the poetry of a convicted terrorist on their site, and would have a video on their Facebook page telling people to pray for a man who praised 9/11, an event that claimed thousands of civilian lives. Talk about mixed messages!
I am fuming. Yet again, these morons who run our universities are turning a blind eye to the Islamic Republic apologists that seek to indoctrinate British students. This Thursday (11th Feb/22 Bahman), University College London’s AhlulBayt Islamic Society is playing host to some of the vilest promoters of the Islamic Regime in Iran.
“1979 – The revolution that shook the world” will in their own words “explore the Islamic Revolutions in the Modern times, and why the 1979 Islamic Revolution led by Grand Ayatullah Khomeini was successful“. And who should be presenting such an event? Why, none other than Ahmadinejad supporter and PressTV employee Yvonne Ridley and Tehran University professor and government lackey Mohammad Marandi who last week publicly defended the executions of Mohammad Reza Ali-Zamani and Arash Rahmanipour.
The National Union of Students and most university student unions are pretty vocal about their self proclaimed dislike of fascists. Most British universities have a “no platform” policy regarding the far right neo Nazi British National Party. However, these same morons can’t recognise when a group of Islamic Republic fascists want to peddle propaganda! Would a talk given by the architects of the South African Apartheid regime be so palatable to these ignorant students? Why are our universities so misguided and why have the ignorant come to rule over us students?!
A cursory glance through the “attending” guest list immediately confirms my suspicions. There are more Pakistanis and Bengalis attending than Iranians, which frankly isn’t surprising given that levels of support for the Islamic Republic are relatively higher amongst the former two populations than amongst Iranians. These same Bengalis and Pakistanis who are seeing their countries torn apart by Islamofascism can’t recognise it when it comes to the UK and attends their university! Aside from them, the minority of Iranians that are attending are the usual crew….hardcore Islamists who have photos of Khomeini as their profile pictures and “خط امام” (Line of the Imam) as their political view.
To further conflate matters, surprise surprise, this event is being held on February 11th (22 Bahman) the 31st anniversary of the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Huge protests are scheduled all over Iran as the Iranian people continue to fight for their freedom and liberty, such that yet again the Islamic Regime has cut internet access in Iran, and what a coincidence that on the night of these protests here in the UK (where the regime can’t cut internet access, but can mislead the masses), a talk will be given on the “success” of the Revolution! Does anyone still have doubts that UCL AhlulBayt Islamic Society is just another front for the Islamic Republic?
Comments are most welcome
Harry’s Place adds:
You have have to watch the promotional video for this event:
They say:
“If the Islamic Revolution had not occurred, liberalism and Marxism would have crushed all human dignity in their power-seeking and money-grubbing claws”
I bet that if an attempt was made to oppose this event, the Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Action would be the first to attack the protestors.
It’s clear that the political class think that the dust is settling from the MP’s expenses scandal. That’s why they – the people who falsely claimed our money – are so keen to start telling us – the people whose money it was – what they are going to do to stop it ever happening again.
Except it’s not quite over yet.
In a Harry’s Place exclusive, last night I had an interesting chat with the mole that broke the Derek Conway story (who is still protecting their identity). They said that only half the story to date has been exposed.
We know that The Daily Telegraph, in a fantastic scoop on a par with Woodward and Bernstein’s work on Watergate, managed to illegally source the entire House of Commons’ database on MP’s expenses, compiled after Freedom of Information requests by Heather Brooke.
Except, as the mole has pointed out, the Telegraph had no information whatsoever on payments MPs made to their “staff”. These payments have still not been made public.
The mole alleges that Senior Liberal Democrat MPs made payments to third-parties (who were employed as staff), who then illegally recycled the money by making large donations to constituency Liberal Democrat associations. The MP’s researchers were then paid as little as possible to allow such dodgy donations.
The mole also alleges that Derek Conway’s dodgy employment of his son and wife was the tip of the iceberg and in fact commonplace.
Firstly, there was no enforced upper limit for how much an MP could pay their staff. Derek Conway paid his wife £36,000 per annum. The mole only saw printed documents for MPs with surnames beginning A – D.
Moreover, the mole alleges that this practice was widespread and many sons, daughters and ex-partners of MPs were on the payroll – but doing no work whatsoever for the MP’s constituents.
Whilst duck houses and moats may stick in the public imagination at the end of this rotten parliament – the truth of the extent of the venality of our elected MPs may never be known.
A London-based Foreign Office whistleblower who leaked secret documents about the fight against terrorism has withdrawn his case against his former bosses at an employment tribunal.
Derek Pasquill, 51, declined to comment after the brief hearing in central London. His lawyer, Jude Bunting, said: “Following discussions with the other side, we have withdrawn the case. The other side are not seeking costs.”
Mr Pasquill passed confidential papers to the Observer newspaper and New Statesman magazine to raise concerns over what he saw as dangerous Government policy.
An Old Bailey judge dropped six charges against him that he breached the Official Secrets Act by making disclosures which were damaging to international relations. He was acquitted on January 9, 2008 after the court heard minutes of a Foreign Office discussion undermined the allegation that the leaks were damaging.
But the FCO continued disciplinary proceedings against him and he was eventually sacked on August 21, 2008 after a suspension from work totalling 31 months.
Mr Pasquill lodged a claim against the FCO, which was due to be heard on Monday until he withdrew it at the last minute, alleging he believed he was made a scapegoat, that he was dismissed for making leaks that were in the public interest, and that he was punished unlawfully by his employees. He was seeking compensation for loss of earnings and injury to feelings at the tribunal, which was scheduled to last five days. No details were released about the reasons for Mr Pasquill deciding not to go ahead with the case.
Your Article: ‘Amnesty International is ‘damaged’ by Taliban link’
I was shocked and extremely disappointed to see your article in today’s Sunday Times make no reference at all to the questions you so ardently sought to have answered (as mentioned below) and, that I explained to you in some detail in our telephone conversation yesterday.
Your headline makes a serious accusation: that it proves to expose a tangible link between Amnesty and the Taliban. Can I ask exactly who in the Taliban you are referring to that is either linked to Amnesty or me?
It seems very odd that your article, which is entirely about Amnesty’s relationships with me, carries very little in the way of responses from me which you so clearly went out of your way to seek. Why is that?
When asked about the nature of my relationship with Amnesty you make no mention of my response: that I work very closely with them and that it stretches back to the time that Amnesty worked with my father when I was in Guantanamo.
I told you clearly that if you wanted to know my (and Cageprisoners’) views about Awlaki to refer to the article that is on our website: http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=30886 in which you could have quoted, had you wished, the following:
“Cageprisoners never has and never will support the ideology of killing innocent civilians, whether by suicide bombers or B52s, whether that’s authorised by Awlaki or by Obama. Neither will we be forced into determining a person’s guilt outside a recognised court of law.” This article also deals with any concerns about the recent Christmas day plot – something you asked us about.
When asked specifically about the Taliban I told you my view: that I have advocated for engagement and dialogue with the Taliban well before our own government took the official position of doing the same – only last week – although, I did not say, like the government, we should be giving them lots of money in order to do so.
I also clearly told you, though you deliberately chose to ignore, that I had actually witnessed what I believe were human rights abuses under the Taliban and have detailed them in my book, from which you conveniently and selectively quote. I added that the US administration had perpetrated severe human rights abuses against me for years but that didn’t mean I opposed dialogue with them. I even told you that Cageprisoners and I have initiated pioneering steps in that regard by organising tours all around the UK with former US guards from Guantanamo and men who were once imprisoned there. Cagreprisoners is the only organisation to have done so. (One of these soldiers, upon in response to your article sent this message to me: They are attacking you and your causes…don’t forget you have real support by some of us ex-Soldiers who have seen the light… I expect he too will be accused by your likes of being brainwashed by me). Instead, you simply say, without qualification, ‘He defended his support for the Taliban….’
Had you – and Ms Sahgal no doubt – done your homework properly you’d have discovered also that I was involved in the building of, setting up and running of a school for girls in Kabul during the time of the Taliban, but of course, that wouldn’t have sat well with the agenda and nature of your heavily biased and poorly researched article.
In relation to MS. Sahgal, I told you – and you were fully aware – that I appeared on a BBC Radio 4 show, Hecklers, alongside her, Tariq Ramadan, Lord Nazir Ahmed, Tahmina Saleem (ISB) and Daud Abdullah (MCB). I told you that her analysis of the situation on this programme was so poor and skewed that she referred to all of us as ‘partners of the government in the war against terror’ until I reminded I was sitting on the panel.
I told you too that I have never since spoken to Ms. Sahgal and that if she had any concerns about my work she has never put them to me and that I found it most odd that she found it more appropriate to discuss this in the media first. Again, had you done your research properly you’d have made some reference to our first meeting on Radio 4 where I iterated that the way to solve conflicts can be found in the Northern Ireland model (engaging with ‘terrorists). I have engaged in several such initiatives, some of them hosted by Amnesty, asking people to look at this episode as a place to find solutions. Bizarrely, Ms. Sahgal, through her argument, seemed to reject this view. Whilst it gives me no personal pleasure to hear of the suspension of Ms. Sahgal for holding her view the newspapers were not the right place to air them without first putting them to Cageprisoners or me.
You had also interviewed my colleague, Asim Qureshi, but again failed to mention anything thing he said to you in relation to the work of Cageprisoners and our relationship with Amnesty International.
To conclude, I believe your article, is written in a style clearly designed, intentionally or by negligence, to damage our relationship with human rights organisations and discredit the work we do in advocating for the rights of those who have suffered terrible human rights abuses. As such, I have referred your article to your editor and the Press Complaints Commission as a formal and major complaint and, to my lawyers to pursue legal action.
Moazzam Begg
Director
Cageprisoners Ltd
27 Gloucester Road
London
United Kingdom
WC1N 3XX
*** Asim Qureshi of Cageprisoners on jihad:
We embrace the mercy. We embrace every single thing that is set upon us and we deal with it because we have no fear. So when we see the example of our brothers and sisters fighting in Chechnya, Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir, Afghanistan then we know where the example lies. When we see Hezbollah defeating the armies of Israel, we know what the solution is and where the victory lies. We know that it is incumbent upon all of us to support the jihad of our brothers and sisters in these countries when they are facing the oppression of the west.
Gita Sahgal is a member of a nutty group called Women Against Fundamentalisms. In a 2006 radio programme she defended the view that by consulting the Muslim Council of Britain the government was encouraging fundamentalism. In the same radio programme she also accused Tariq Ramadan of being a fundamentalist. Had she actually read any of his books, Professor Ramadan politely inquired. It was quite clear that she hadn’t. In fact she was completely unfamiliar with his writings. However, she did know that he was a fundamentalist.
It appears that Sahgal has now been suspended by Amnesty. Their mistake was in ever employing a crank like that in the first place.
I have heard some nonsense in recent years but this quite possibly tops it all. I have had the absolute pleasure of working with Moazzam Begg on numerous occasions, through the Stop the War Coalition, twice inviting him to speak at The University of Essex whilst I was the SU President. I have had long discussions with Moazzam and there were issues we had disagreements on. But to label the man as a supporter of the Taliban is inaccurate and offensive.
…
So I congratulate Amnesty for their tireless campaigning for the closure of Guantanamo Bay and for their defence of the victims of the war on terror. And Moazzam Begg should not be hounded and accused of extremism by those who should really know better. A couple of newspaper articles are nothing compared to three years in illegal detention, but Moazzam does not deserve that treatment. For somebody who has been through what he has and is still standing today, fighting injustice and campaigning for what is right, the man should win a medal.
Sadly, the only thing that hangs around his neck is the memory of Guantanamo and the relentless racism that just won’t go away.
Chardonnay Chap
I’m on Amnesty’s side here. I can’t help but see Bright’s argument as being, “if I think you’re guilty, who cares if you get a fair trial? and if you support terrorism AND you’ve been accused of terrorism and taken to Guantanamo Bay, who cares if legal niceties were observed or not? I, for one, don’t want to know you.”
Commenter Flying Rodent
Aye, right. I imagine that if I told the Times that my employers were in league with the Taliban, and they printed it, my boss would probably give me a raise.
Commenter splinteredsunrise
She’s also associated with Women Against Fundamentalism, one of those very strident groups (like the Worker-Communist Party of Iran) much beloved by that element of Decency that sets great store by “secularism”. Hence occasional references to support for “secular Muslims”, which usually seems to mean Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
And she hates Tariq Ramadan, which can only enhance her standing with HP Sauce.
Commenter Andrew Adams
Bubby,
In the comments at HP über-Decent NeilD posted that absurd clause from the Euston Manifesto, which says it all.
he violation of basic human rights standards at Abu Ghraib, at Guantanamo, and by the practice of “rendition”, must be roundly condemned for what it is: a departure from universal principles, for the establishment of which the democratic countries themselves, and in particular the United States of America, bear the greater part of the historical credit. But we reject the double standards by which too many on the Left today treat as the worst violations of human rights those perpetrated by the democracies, while being either silent or more muted about infractions that outstrip these by far. This tendency has reached the point that officials speaking for Amnesty International, an organization which commands enormous, worldwide respect because of its invaluable work over several decades, can now make grotesque public comparison of Guantanamo with the Gulag, can assert that the legislative measures taken by the US and other liberal democracies in the War on Terror constitute a greater attack on human rights principles and values than anything we have seen in the last 50 years, and be defended for doing so by certain left and liberal voices.
Basically they want to undermine AI because it hinders the War On Terror by insisting that the US and other Western powers actually abide by the same principles that they claim to be upholding. And of course you also get at HP those who hate AI because it criticises Israel.
There’s a growing backlash against the British National Party’s attempts to hijack the military and the honour of Britain’s Armed Forces in the run up to the 2010 General Election.
Saturday’s The Sun reported our story about the BNP’s attempts to exploit the image of Fusilier Tom James, who has suffered terrible injuries in Afghanistan.
Despite the campaign claiming it is not political, it has been set up by Simon Bennett, the BNP’s web master, and is supported by the BNP’s reactionary Defence spokesman,Peter Mullins.
The News of the Worldcarried a snippet on the failure of the BNP’s ”Bring them Home” campaign saying it has ”gone down badly with troops – where soldiers of diverse ethnic background serve alongside each other like brothers.” It goes on to say:
“… they just want people back home to support them. They are also angry after the racist BNP criticised Grenada-born VC hero Johnson Beharry, who saved the lives of 30 comrades.”
The People alsofeatured a story about Jessica Deans, the fiancé of Liam Elms, a former marine killed on New Years Eve in 2008.
Jessica, a 22-year-old nurse, said: “I find it an outrage that an image of Liam’s coffin on the day of his funeral is being used as propaganda for the BNP’s personal gain.”
And Liam’s father Michael, 51, said: “We haven’t give our permission for them to use any coverage of Liam’s funeral on this video. It’s out of order that the picture has been put in the public domain and for the BNP to use it for political gain is not on. It feels like an easy way for the BNP to get people involved in their party and to make money.”
Griffin and Darby claim they have the support of Britain’s Armed Forces and believe that by cloaking themselves in the honour of our brave soldiers and veterans it will help to de-toxify their brand. However, ever since our Stolen Valour campaign the British electorate have publicly stated they don’t appreciate their Armed Forces being crudely politicised.
