Andrew Gilligan’s smears at East London Mosque fall apart


by Sunny
2nd July, 2011 at 2:44 pm    

Last week Andrew Gilligan at the Telegraph blogs claimed: ‘East London Mosque breaks its promise on homophobic speakers after just eight days’.

East London Mosque has now released a statement hitting back, which shows how disingenuous Gilligan actually is. Here is part of their statement

* * * * * * * *
The story Mr Gilligan presented was that of an extremist sect coming to our mosque, with our blessing, to campaign against homosexuality and promote homophobia in ‘clear breach’ of undertakings he claims we have made.

If Mr Gilligan bothers to read the local newspaper today, he can see a rather more mundane (and accurate) version of events, with no attempt to hijack the story.

The facts are these:
• A set of local Muslim parents have been concerned about aspects of sex education in their children’s primary schools.
• Specifically, they have objected to animated scenes of (heterosexual) intercourse being shown to their children as part of science education lessons. They want to exercise their right to excuse their children from those particular lessons and feel their concerns have not been listened to.
• A meeting was called by a Christian organisation, the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child, alongside a local Islamic group, SREIslamic, to debate these concerns. Our director will be chairing the discussion.

Mr Gilligan did not present these facts. Instead, he attempted to turn a small local story into a national story, by editing the facts to whip up the gay community’s fears over apparent rampant homophobia in Tower Hamlets. (As has been pointed out elsewhere, the number of homophobic incidents has actually risen higher in areas such as Islington and Westminster than in Tower Hamlets.)

Mr Gilligan also failed to point out that a Christian organisation was jointly organising the event. He then failed to even clarify that the actual parental campaign at the centre of the story was not even talking about homosexuality at all. In order to try and make this a ‘homophobia’ issue, Mr Gilligan trawled back to a defunct blog, two years old, in order to link a quote from one of the SREIslamic leaders about the “unacceptability of homosexuality” – a quote that is in fact (however much some may disagree with it) an Islamic/theological position on homosexuality, not an out and out call to attack gays.

* * * * * * * *

Not so clear-cut as Andrew Gilligan explained then.

Update: I’ve also been informed the head of the local LGBT group in the area (*who is also Jewish) attended the parental meeting to observe events.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Muslim,Organisations






44 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. sunny hundal

    Blogged: : Andrew Gilligan's smears at East London Mosque fall apart http://bit.ly/ly0lJQ


  2. John Kenzy

    Blogged: : Andrew Gilligan's smears at East London Mosque fall apart http://bit.ly/ly0lJQ


  3. Safiya Gili

    Blogged: : Andrew Gilligan's smears at East London Mosque fall apart http://bit.ly/ly0lJQ


  4. Natacha Kennedy

    Blogged: : Andrew Gilligan's smears at East London Mosque fall apart http://bit.ly/ly0lJQ


  5. Mark Townsend

    Andrew Gilligan's smears at East London Mosque fall apart http://t.co/3auacmT (via @sunny_hundal)


  6. Dànaidh Ratnaike

    RT @sunny_hundal: Andrew Gilligan's smears at East London Mosque fall apart http://t.co/flsFDSI


  7. harunkhan

    Blogged: : Andrew Gilligan's smears at East London Mosque fall apart http://bit.ly/ly0lJQ




  1. Ron Graves — on 2nd July, 2011 at 3:10 pm  

    What on earth have Muslim parents’ concerns about sex ed got to do with the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child? At all?

  2. Mam Tor — on 2nd July, 2011 at 3:46 pm  

    This is weak Sunny, if you linked to Gilligan’s original article, he linked in that to the SRE Islamic notification of the event, which demonstrated SPUC’s participation.

    The only inaccurate part of Gilligan’s story seemed to be that the Hizb ut Tahrir who set up SREI were no longer Hizb ut Tahrir members.

    Both SPUC and SREI are unpleasant organisations.

    PS The comments about homosexuality now seem to have been removed from the SREI blog+website, if they were not concerned about them I feel sure they would have been comfortable leaving them up there.

    SREI’s campaign in nearly three years old but if you call an ‘emergency meeting’ it adds a nuance of immediacy, although it’s complete bullshit.

  3. ThomasFowler — on 2nd July, 2011 at 4:31 pm  

    ‘Local parents meet to discuss their unhappiness with schools showing an animated video of heterosexual intercourse to their 8 years olds.’

    ‘The parents have been trying to get the schools to listen to their concern, with no success.’

    ‘The meeting was jointly hosted by a conservative Christian group and a conservative Islamic educational organisation. The leader of the Islamic group had once belonged to a radical party, before leaving, and had once issued a theological statement on the unacceptability of homosexuality [which is widely accepted by most Muslims].’

    ‘The meeting was observed by a leading Jewish member of a local gay group. There was no mention of homosexuality or issues surrounding homoseuxality at the meeting.’

    The story changes significantly in emphasis once the facts are put in their actual order.

    Debating the fact that someone used to belong to a group, and once issued a viewpoint on sexuality which is accepted as theologically accurate by a majority of Muslims is not the same as saying that the East London Mosque is hosting gay-hate preachers and breaking its promises on homophobia. You have to twist the order of events in order to do that.

  4. Sunny — on 2nd July, 2011 at 5:25 pm  

    he linked in that to the SRE Islamic notification of the event, which demonstrated SPUC’s participation.

    But he omitted to mention that didn’t he on his own blog?

  5. damon — on 2nd July, 2011 at 5:32 pm  

    This is the guy who was to be speaking at the mosque I believe.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F92673hOm5U

    Which ever way you spin it, this seems to be a deeply reactionary religious movemnent.
    I suppose you could say that christians are just as bad and leave it like that.

  6. ThomasFowler — on 2nd July, 2011 at 6:34 pm  

    We keep going on about the ‘evils’ of these two groups (the Christian and the Islamic). But the meeting itself was about local parents wishing to do something about their kids’ education. Homosexuality was not on the agenda, was not mentioned, and the meeting was openly observed by a leading member of the local gay organisation.

    It’s pretty clear Gilligan’s story was ‘spun’ to be about “homophobic Islamic extremists” being hosted at the mosque: the local newspaper story shows it on a much more mundane level and did not need to try and ‘sex’ it up.

    It’s quite a far cry to try and deny local parents’ from doing something about their kids’ education, and then heaping on top of that a clear insinuation that their campaign was in some way linked to extremism and homophobia. And it’s pertinent that the Islamic guy had left Hizb ut-Tahrir: both Shiraz Maher plus Ed Husain (now moved), and Majad Nawaaz of the Quilliam counter-extremism group are all ex-members of Hizb ut-Tahrir. Should we keep insinuating they are still secretly extremists? Because they too once held views that homosexual behaviour was unacceptable, that a Caliphate should be established in Islamic countries and that – irony of ironies – the East London Mosque was too liberal and its members and imams should be declared apostates.

    You or I may not like the groups involved, we may consider their views on gays wrong, but it’s hard to deny that the reporter spun and edited the facts to get the story back-to-front from what it was on the ground.

  7. damon — on 2nd July, 2011 at 8:05 pm  

    ThomasFowler. I agree that Gilligan may be going too far in his scrutiny of things in Tower Hamplets.
    But UAF and Hope Against Hate are equally ‘on the case’ of everything that hints of fascism.
    We wouldn’t lightly accept ex-fascists claims that they had reformed themselves and now were just concerned with conservative ”rights” campaigns.
    There are former members of the National Front who have tried to reinvent themselves, but find it difficult to shake off that stigma.
    The ELM reminds me of the Orange Order in Northern Ireland. Perfectly legal, but deeply reactionary.

  8. ThomasFowler — on 2nd July, 2011 at 8:22 pm  

    @damon:

    Definitely “conservative”, without a doubt. Reactionary, depends on whose definition. But changing, too.

    If we take the NI analogy, there is resistance to change certainly (and violence from certain groups) but also a lot of movement in the past dozen or more years. If we decided to deal with no-one who had ever been involved with Loyalism or Republicanism, we’d have pretty much no-one to deal with.

    As with NI, too, there are complex power-plays within and between the divides. In those circles, tribalism and myth play an important role: but that also hinders proper analysis. My view is that Gilligan is not an impartial forensic investigator: he’s out for a good story. And manipulating the facts, however subtly, is still changing the story.

    Your analogy about the far right is interesting, but only goes so far: there are a myriad of shifting currents with the Muslim community, far more complex (in my opinion) than what we see in white nationalism, etc. Maybe to try for an analogy here: is UKIP ‘far right’? It depends on where you are looking at the problem.

    I think a wider problem is probably that religious-observant Muslims do tend to have far more socially conservative views than the majority population here/in Europe; that there is a history of Islamic involvement in actual government, which is not well-understood (beyond ‘Iran = bad’); but I suspect also most Muslims, including in east London, have no idea/are not bothered by all these other goings on.

    I do think our media should play very, very carefully with the facts however. The last thing we need is a firestorm erupting, based on journalists trying to whip up tensions and “create” a story…

  9. Lamia — on 3rd July, 2011 at 12:45 am  

    1.East London Mosque claimed it would never again host a speaker who had made homophobic comments:

    2. The man who was to be speaking at the mosque is Yusuf Patel, who has said, ““We believe homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle.”

    3. That is a homophobic comment. If I or others said, “I believe Islam is not an acceptable religion to follow”, you would call that an Islamophobic comment.

    Therefore whether or not the meeting was designed to just be for parents, whether Muslim, Christian or both, concerned with sex education in school is neither here nor there. ELM hosted someone who was on record as having made homophobic comments. Gilligan was quite right in calling them on this, and you have offered nothing better than some excuse that this somehow doesn’t matter.

    Under other circumstances, this meeting might not be such a big deal, it is quite true. But ELM has an appalling record of hosting hate preachers who denounce homosexuals, to the point of advocating their death. It has also made the commitment referred to, and broken that commitment.

    But as usual you are putting your support for Islamists ahead of any support for the minorities such as LGBT people and Jews whom they often vilify. Some liberal you are, Sunny.

  10. Lamia — on 3rd July, 2011 at 12:51 am  

    @ Thomas,

    “And it’s pertinent that the Islamic guy had left Hizb ut-Tahrir: both Shiraz Maher plus Ed Husain (now moved), and Majad Nawaaz of the Quilliam counter-extremism group are all ex-members of Hizb ut-Tahrir. Should we keep insinuating they are still secretly extremists?”

    You are being disingenuoous. Shiraz Maher and Majad Nawaaz have clearly distanced themselves form the ideology of Hizb ut Tahrir and set themselves in opposition to it form a secular liberal position. Please show us the evidence that this man has rejected the core bigotry of Hizb ut Tahrir. If you can do that, then your point will have some ‘pertinence’.

  11. Sarah AB — on 3rd July, 2011 at 8:11 am  

    Lamia – I accept the logic of your points 1 – 3 – yet I think homophobia at a level also found in many chuches needs to be treated differently from the particularly extreme and hateful preaching which has been such a problem in the past. Agree with you about HuT – Gilligan now suggests that the preacher concerned left HuT because it wasn’t hardline enough!

    Although I agree that one might quibble with one or two points Gilligan has made, I’m not sure why Sunny Hundal seems to be putting such a different emphasis on the story now by comparison with this report from a couple of years ago.

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5199

  12. damon — on 3rd July, 2011 at 2:12 pm  

    ThomasFowler, you say ”our media should play very, very carefully with the facts” – which of course I agree with. But we cannot ignore the form either.
    And muslim religious leadership holds much more influence on the wider muslim communities, than mainstream christianity could ever hope to.
    When backward preachers come on tour, large numbers turn out at places like ELM and Leicester to hear them.

    Sheikh Abdul Rahman al-Sudais can normally be seen leading prayers at the Grand Mosque in Mecca, but this week he’s been charming the crowds of Banbury, Blackburn and Birmingham, where he attended a conference organised by the Ahlul Hadeeth Society called Unity of God: A Message Of Peace And Security. This evening, he will speak at the East London Mosque.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/aug/04/sheikh-sudais-saudi-islam

    These kinds of things are happening up and down the counrty every month, and have far more influence proportionally than anything the EDL or Geert Wilders could hope for (in Britain).

    The Global Peace and Unity event gave Nakir Naik a warm welcome in 2009, the year before he was banned from the UK.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i27-yYL54Ak

    So you have to keep all this in consideration when you look at individual instances like this ”emergency meeting” I would say. Is it just a part of a wider backward movement? They probably also objected to the sex education being done in the form of animated images of humans, as drawn images are forbidden too.

  13. Lamia — on 3rd July, 2011 at 2:23 pm  

    @ Sarah,

    “I think homophobia at a level also found in many chuches needs to be treated differently from the particularly extreme and hateful preaching which has been such a problem in the past.”

    In principle I agree with that. If churches/mosques want to preach that they disagree with, indeed, disapprove of homosexuality, then that should be okay. The problem is that so many preachers welcomed to ELM have gone far further, so that when a speaker at ELM has said they don’t find homosexuality ‘acceptable’, then that will be connected, quite reasonably, with the possibility that they mean more than just ‘I don’t agree with it’.

    Perhaps there needs to be some renegotiation of boundaries here. I am still unimpressed by people to be jumping into defending the ELM as if it is some kind of victim of targeting in all this. ELM has had far too easy a ride over the years, not least from those now presenting it as an outright victim. and it is false and disingenuous to portray this as some kind of Gilligan vendetta against ELM. This has been well-documented for years from a number of sources.

    “I’m not sure why Sunny Hundal seems to be putting such a different emphasis on the story now by comparison with this report from a couple of years ago.”

    Sunny appears to have made ELM some kind of benchmark cause to defend in the name of opposing Islamophobia. Others have done so. For me that is strategically and morally misplaced. It’s like making the EDL the benchmark of reasonable concerns about Islamism. If you choose such territory to fight on, it is unavoidable that you are going to end up wriggling and whitewashing on behalf of bigots against those they have demonised.

    And people like Thomas can call me bitter and counter-productive all they like, but their approach of whitewashing, counter-accusation and studied ignorance re homophobia over recent years has done us no favours at all. I am not inclined to treat as a priority supposed ‘Islamophobia’ against an institution that has so often endorsed people who simply want me dead. Why should I?

    Does anyone here expect Muslims to put consideration of the ‘sincere beliefs’ of other people ahead of concerns with their own safety and equality? Of course they don’t, and of course they shouldn’t.

    It is embarassing and frustrating to the liberal-left that LGBT people won’t quietly go to the back of the bus. Well, actually many LGBT have more important fundamental priorities than satisfying the complacency of liberal-leftists who are scared of being called racist.

    So people can call that ‘Islamophobic’ to their hearts’ content, and I’ll treat that with the contempt it deserves.

  14. Lamia — on 4th July, 2011 at 1:23 am  

    “Find for me one priest, deacon, bishop or pastor calling for Gay people to be executed…You can’t because they don’t exist.”

    IIRC, the odious Rev Stephen Green has expressed agreement with Ugandans advocating the death penalty for gay people. But I don’t think you will find any bishops or senior clerics doing so. Certainly not in Britain, and certainly SH and co would not be defending a church whose guest preachers did so as some kind of victims of smears. You wouldn’t even find Torygraph writers defending as moderate such an institution.

    And yet ELM gets a pass, so yes, the difference does appear to be primarily the colour of the bigots’ skin.

    This is what makes it hard to take seriously or feel appreciative when places like PP and Liberal Conspiracy profess outrage about homophobia from, e.g. the Catholic church. It doesn’t seem to be about standing up against homophobia, it appears to be about standing up against one religious institution – and defending another which is at least as bad, and frequently worse, on the supposedly central issue.

  15. damon — on 4th July, 2011 at 2:54 am  

    I suppose it should be mentioned that Andrew Gilligan spoke further about this on sunday.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100095022/east-london-mosque-just-cant-stop-digging/

    Not much debate about this on here. Maybe there’s too many white people commenting on PP now and a lot of the old regulars don’t bother.

  16. Sarah AB — on 4th July, 2011 at 7:02 am  

    @Lamia – I’m inclined to agree with you – but would still rather err on the side of caution when criticising the ELM – if only to distinguish completely valid criticism from the exaggeration and downright lies of EDL types (I don’t want to class Gilligan with those, please note!) with reference to the Cambridge Mosque etc. Apart from anything else it drives sites like this into an overcompensatory mode.

  17. ThomasFowler — on 4th July, 2011 at 9:36 am  

    My view specifically on this one story is this:

    1. Gilligan did edit the facts in order to present his “homophobia” narrative. For example, he omitted to present that the parents’ campaign already existed separate to any third party organisation; he omitted that a leading LGBT observer was present at the meeting; and he clearly lied when he was confronted with his own record of lying (by claiming someone else wrote a story for which his paper had to directly apologise, twice). This coming from someone who tried to squirm when confronted about working for the Iranian Press TV; who faked parts of his own CV; and engages in sockpuppeting (making and creating your own fake comments). A leading commentator views him not as a proper journalist, but as a spin doctor: someone who edits his facts to present a clearly-defined “story” he has already decided (i.e. facts subordinate to story, not story subordinate to facts). We don’t need Andrew Gilligan, we need someone without the clear track record of sexing up stories.

    2. If we are going to debate Muslim’s (and Islam’s) views on homosexuality – specifically where and how does a theological view cross over into promotion of hatred and violence – then let us do that openly, and honestly, rather than try and jump a local cause/story. If it was my kids, I probably wouldn’t care less about local LGBT week. If we do so, we need to understand that there are *multiple* Muslim narratives and understandings, not a monolithic block which simply wants to take over the world in some sort of 1984 parody, and put all unbelievers to the sword. Call it tactics if you will. And yes, hold them to account for hypocrisy: look at Pakistan, or feudal practises in Saudi Arabia, re. widely-practised homosexual behaviour. But do not conflate that into an all out attack vs Muslims.

    3. How do you (we) know the mosque in question is not seeking to meet and talk with LGBT groups, in order to create dialogue? If you were a mosque which represented a highly-conservative community, would you go straight to Andrew Gilligan and Harry’s Place (and those such as Lamia) to tell them about it straight away? If you were a policeman (and I’ve worked with many), would you want ranting folks on both sides turning this into a war on the ground; or prefer some means of achieving dialogue and peace?

    4. Those of you who have such strong views about this institution (and I do question why Gilligan alone is so obsessed by it, and by the local Mayor imo something to do with his obsession about Ken Livingstone): why not write and ask for a dialogue yourself? Why not request to visit?

  18. jamal — on 4th July, 2011 at 10:38 am  

    gillian is on mission to slur elm by any means necessary its obvious. His blatant twisting of the truth and blatant lies have led to him looking like a muppet and deservedly so!

  19. Lamia — on 4th July, 2011 at 12:34 pm  

    I see Thomas Fowler is continuing his whitewashing exercise on behalf of ELM:

    “I do question why Gilligan alone is so obsessed by it,”

    As I pointed out,

    “it is false and disingenuous to portray this as some kind of Gilligan vendetta against ELM. This has been well-documented for years from a number of sources.”

    If you want to educate yourself on this matter, go and search the Harry’s Place archive where you will find plenty of factual data on the extremists who have preached at ELM in recent years. Alternatively you can keep wallowing in your ignorance.

    As for why Gilligan alone of the boradsheets, The Guardian and independent are too gutless to cover it. They didn’t even report the Gay Free zone posters story, an ‘oversight’ they would never have committed it had been ‘Muslim Free Zone’ or ‘Black Free Zone’ posters appearing.

    “If we are going to debate Muslim’s (and Islam’s) views on homosexuality…”

    You are treating ELM as if it equates with ‘Islam’ and ‘Muslims’. That fallacious reasoning maybe explains why you are so defensive of an institution with a dreadful record in hosting bigots. This is not against Muslims in general, any more than criticism of Opus Dei is a criticism of all Muslims or criticism of Westboro Baptist Church as criticism of all Baptists. You are using straw man tactics here.

    “would you want ranting folks on both sides turning this into a war on the ground”

    All the violence, all the sermons advocating imprisonment or death, all the posters designed to intimidate, have been against LGBT people by (some) Muslims, none the other way round. There is no equivalence of aggression and intimidation, and your insinuation that there is is beneath contempt.

  20. ThomasFowler — on 4th July, 2011 at 12:53 pm  

    The ELM, for all its faults, is no Westboro Baptist Church. I urge you to go and visit it yourself, @Lamia. I’ve taken gay friends into TH and it’s not the war zone being described.

    I totally agree with you about holding an institution to account. But not obsessively, as though it was the be all and end all of all things Islamic. I’d rather they didn’t have highly-conservative speakers with ultra-orthodox views on homosexuality. But not have them pursued by people with proven track records of lying and distorting themselves (and quoting HP is hardly a neutral source), with clear agendas (Mad Mel who makes things up; Gilligan who has repeatedly been exposed; Daily Mail with silly references to ‘Talibanisation of Tower Hamlets’). We’ve already held them to account over their previous speakers – we’ve done our job so to speak.

    Gilligan is not a friend of the LGBT community. He is a sad, zealot on a power trip and with a dubious track record of distortion who even other journalists find odd. What he has not told you, is that the roots of all this antipathy come from politics: his opposition to Ken Livingstone, who is close to TH Mayor Lutfur Rahman, whom Gilligan was unable to stop being elected mayor in the East End. Rahman takes some votes from the Islamic block, and used to belong to the secular Bengali block who are pissed off at him and therefore accuse him of Islamism – because it’s a convenient way in which to bash him.

  21. bobby — on 4th July, 2011 at 2:19 pm  

    Wow – what a surprise – ‘progressive’ support for anti-gay hatemongers.

  22. Zoe — on 4th July, 2011 at 2:23 pm  

    Sunny Hundal himself comes from a background (Sikh) where gayism is not particularly…let’s just say…a warrior trait.

  23. Mam Tor — on 4th July, 2011 at 2:26 pm  

    @ThomasFowler

    You seem to be saying that ‘theological view’(s) or ‘ultra-orthodox views’ have a different meaning from views that are not based on a religious POV.

    Is there a sense in which bigotry is more acceptable if it is traditional?

  24. Arfan — on 4th July, 2011 at 2:56 pm  

    “Is there a sense in which bigotry is more acceptable if it is traditional?”

    You may well ask the same of anti-Semitism, bigotry towards people of other faiths, stoning, flogging, and amputations – all in the name of religious diktats.
    How much of this would a nice little progressive fellow of Sunny’s ilk be happy to live with? One may well ask.

  25. JB — on 4th July, 2011 at 3:15 pm  

    Lamia,

    First of all saying “We believe homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle.” is not homophobic! Do you know in what context it was said? Did he precede this statement by saying “Homophobia is not acceptable, we should treat everyone on a human level with respect and dignity and everyone should be given those rights, including homosexuals. But in Islam, we believe homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle.”

    I don’t know whether he said something like that or not – but that’s the line Orthodox Christians and Jews take as well. What I’m saying is that you can’t take a statement out of context without knowing the full facts.

    Yes, in Islam homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle. That’s a fact. Just like sex outside marriage isn’t in Islam. Just like drinking alcohol isn’t in Islam. Are the latter comments objectionable as well???? Does that mean we discriminate those people? Of course not. This is a lifestyle choice Muslims make. Just like you have your lifestyle choice. Just like it’s a lifestyle choice for people who choose to have sex outside marriage, or drink alcohol.

    As for your comment “I believe Islam is not an acceptable religion to follow”…many people say that!!!!!! To name a few Geert Wilders, Richard Dawkins, Martin Amiss!!! Aside from Geert Wilders (who clearly is agitating violence towards Muslims) the others are free to hold that view and they do! Clearly YOU don’t believe Islam is an acceptable religion by the fact that you don’t follow it! Does that make you Islamophobic? What nonsense!

    Just to point out. Saying, “Go and attack Muslims or Gays” is wrong. Saying Islam is not a correct way of life, or homosexuality is not correct way of life is not wrong. It’s just a matter of opinion.

    Yes, other religions do say that homosexuality is not allowed – the Catholic Church and Orthodox Jews are quite vociferous. What about parliaments?? The Northern Ireland DUP party doesn’t agree with it, and it’s the main party in NI, which has the blessing of the British government! David Cameron – Gilligan and the Telegraph’s Tory friends – were even considering aligning with the DUP after the hung parliament.

    Gilligan LIE 1: Gilligan claims the Telegraph apologised for “a 50-word,” “news-in-brief” piece that he did not write. Gilligan had the article on his blog, under his name, and now it’s taken down. Proof:

    http://religiouschildabuse.blogspot.com/2011/02/uk-muslim-extremist-leader-jailed-for.html

    Telegraph’s apology clearly relates to the now defunct Gilligan blog (they say the article is called “Extremist leader jailed for child abuse” which was the one on his blog):

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8550515/East-London-Mosque.html

    A lie Islamophiobia-Watch picked on:

    http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2011/6/1/torygraph-apologises-to-east-london-mosque.html

    Gilligan Lie 2: He suggests that the preacher concerned left HuT because it wasn’t hardline enough on sexuality. By now it’s clear Gilligan is making opinions on the hoof! Anyone who know anything about HuT, know they have clear opinions on sexuality and voice them regularly. They have to, if they want to follow a caliphate movement! The ignorance/duplicity of Gilligan is mind-boggling.

    Gilligan has lied in these articles throughout. Firstly, he’s spun it to be something it isn’t. He is basically saying the ELM is holding some sort of hate forum against gays, when clearly it wasn’t.

    But do you want to know who holds a hate forum? Andrew Gilligan. Look at the comments on his blogs below from his disciples. And what does Gilligan and Telegraph do about it? Nothing!

  26. john — on 4th July, 2011 at 7:51 pm  

    well said mam to r

  27. joe90 — on 4th July, 2011 at 10:41 pm  

    post #20

    i see you can’t but help yourself making a mountain out of a molehill. Where do you get off putting the westboro baptist church in same context as east london mosque, you must be taking too many happy pills.

    The story has lost it’s credibility and andrew giillian made to look like a mug or did your bias blind you to those facts?

  28. Suzy — on 4th July, 2011 at 11:30 pm  

    Sunny Hundal himself comes from a background (Sikh) where gayism is not particularly…let’s just say…a warrior trait

    Unless you are the kind of bigot that believes individuals are defined entirely by their nominal background and incapable of forumlating their own ethics and ideas and views, then you are an idiot who doesn’t understand this principle. Which one are you? My guess is, a bit of both.

  29. BenSix — on 5th July, 2011 at 1:07 am  

    HuT are also a deeply homophobic and anti-semitic organisation and their members have been convicted in other countries for distributing racist literature. In the UK they have tried a lot in recent years to scrub out their racism, albeit unsuccessfully…

    Sources tell me that SRE Islamic, spearheaded by Yusuf Patel (brother of Jalal Patel) have held over 30-40 events, many around the Rochdale area. This is classic HuT tactic – jumping on a polarising and emotive issue to build their own base and support.

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5199

    I don’t care if people change their minds – I’ve done it many times – but they could at least say why they’ve done it.

  30. Cluebot — on 5th July, 2011 at 5:09 am  

    Where do you get off putting the westboro baptist church in same context as east london mosque

    Two peas in a pod, old bean, but we don’t expect you to get your ears around that.

  31. Jon F — on 5th July, 2011 at 9:45 am  

    Update: I’ve also been informed the head of the local LGBT group in the area (*who is also Jewish) attended the parental meeting to observe events.

    Would that be the leader of Rainbow Hamlets who – when the viciously homophobic ‘Gay Free Zone’ campaign was going on – spread the unhelpful myth that the EDL were behind it.

    If that is the case, he appears to be more concerned with fighting imagined cases of Islamophobia than with fighting actual cases of Islamism-inspired homophobia.

    Whatever happened to Sunny v.2009 who actually opposed the disingenuous machinations of SRE Islamic and the like?

  32. Bob — on 5th July, 2011 at 11:21 am  

    #25 Further to Gilligan’s bizarre refusal to admit that the Telegraph apologised for the false accusations against the East London Mosque that he posted on his own blog, see here:

    http://bit.ly/li5ZDc

  33. Lamia — on 5th July, 2011 at 12:12 pm  

    “Where do you get off putting the westboro baptist church in same context as east london mosque, you must be taking too many happy pills.”

    No, you are quite right. Vicious and sick as Fred Phelps and co are, none of them, so far as I am aware, have actually advocated killing homosexuals – unlike a number of guests at good old ‘moderate’ ELM.

    Try again, Joe 90.

  34. AbuF — on 5th July, 2011 at 3:19 pm  

    Careful, Lamia, or Joe90 (or one of his mates) will start issuing death threats against you and yours…

  35. jamal — on 5th July, 2011 at 5:20 pm  

    bob

    gillian needs to be careful he is backtracking so fast, he may end up going through a timetunnel and ending up in 1985 like marty mcfly lol.

  36. AbuF — on 5th July, 2011 at 5:39 pm  

    jamal – ever considered trying for your GCSE in English?

  37. anon — on 8th July, 2011 at 5:37 pm  

    “Whatever happened to Sunny v.2009 who actually opposed the disingenuous machinations of SRE Islamic and the like?”

    In 2009 he didn’t want to be Mehdi Hasan.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.