Impact of the Hazel Blears / MCB saga


by Sunny
27th March, 2009 at 9:38 am    

I was going to come to the point Geoffrey Alderman made on CIF yesterday: that the Blears / MCB saga can set a dangerous precedent. Let’s be clear about the situation here first.

The government hasn’t given any money to the Muslim Council of Britain for several years, focusing instead on the Sufi Muslim Council and British Muslim Forum more recently to develop them. (To what extent, I’m unclear). So Hazel Blears’ attempts to strong-arm the MCB into dropping Daud Abdullah is down to the fact she doesn’t like their position on a certain issue.

Let’s take that further. The new Israeli government includes one foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, who is certifiably racist and a fascist. So a British-Jewish group hosting him or the government that appointed this minister would look like its endorsing a fascist, right? Presumably then, we can call upon this government to distance itself and stop engaging or supporting that group too? This is what Mr Alderman is worried about:

For instance, is Defra to say to animal welfare groups that it will not deal with any whose elected leaders have expressed any support for animal rights activists? Campaigning is presently under way for the presidency and other offices of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Are we to take it that Blears will not engage with anyone who has expressed support for Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, which the UK government regards as illegal?

Indeed, what about Jewish groups that express support for illegal settlements? And what of groups that host Israeli ministers in the UK? In the interests of balance – I think we should call for Hazel Blears to withdraw support from them too.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Current affairs,Islamists,Muslim,Organisations,Terrorism






37 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. pickles

    New blog post: Impact of the Hazel Blears / MCB saga http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/3937




  1. ceedee — on 27th March, 2009 at 11:20 am  

    You know Craig Murray believes the Sufi Muslim Council is a CIA ‘front’?

  2. marvin — on 27th March, 2009 at 11:37 am  

    what of groups that host Israeli ministers in the UK

    Eh?

  3. Andrew — on 27th March, 2009 at 11:38 am  

    In August 2006 he said the SMC was a Neocon front organisation:

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2006/08/the_neoconserva.html

  4. Refresh — on 27th March, 2009 at 11:56 am  

    ‘You know Craig Murray believes the Sufi Muslim Council is a CIA ‘front’?’

    Would it really be that surprising? Who knows who is doing who’s bidding.

    My motto is make your own decisions based on as much information as you can personally gather, and try not to jump to conclusions.

  5. marvin — on 27th March, 2009 at 11:57 am  

    Being racist or ‘fascist’ is not illegal.

    Supporting terrorist attacks on UK military IS however.

    Crucial difference. One holds unpleasant and discriminatory views, the other incites islamist terrorists to slaughter people serving our country in the military.

  6. Refresh — on 27th March, 2009 at 12:04 pm  

    Marvin, you should put that to Mr Alderman. I would be interested to see which will go through more contortions. You or him.

  7. Ravi Naik — on 27th March, 2009 at 12:16 pm  

    the Blears / MCB saga can set a dangerous precedent. Let’s be clear about the situation here first.

    Not sure why is this a big deal, and why it is so serious. The government can cut ties with any organisation, as much as they can show preference (and money) to specific organisations. You long ago concluded that the MCB is an opportunist organisation.

  8. munir — on 27th March, 2009 at 12:28 pm  

    “I was going to come to the point Geoffrey Alderman made on CIF yesterday: that the Blears / MCB saga can set a dangerous precedent. Let’s be clear about the situation here first.”

    It is fascinating to contemplate that while even a Jewish extremist like Geoffrey Alderman opposes waht Blears did, while Sid “saviour of the Muslims” supports it. Thats how extreme and far off the scales he is!!!

  9. Sid — on 27th March, 2009 at 12:32 pm  

    huh? How did you come to that fabrication other than by, er, fabrication?

    I think Blear’s heavy-handed handling is indefensible. But Daud Abdullah’s support of a terrorist organisation and exhortations to attack British naval forces on “Muslim waters” is even more so.

    And you should read Geoffrey Alderman’s article. He’s not defending the Hamas. So any notion you might have held that this might turn into a nice cute, simplistic binary discussion is
    out.

    Oh, and I’m not your saviour. Go find your own.

  10. munir — on 27th March, 2009 at 12:39 pm  

    marvin

    “Being racist or ‘fascist’ is not illegal.

    Supporting terrorist attacks on UK military IS however. ”

    Great so you will of course join a campaign to have Benjamin Netanyahu, who celebrated the slaughter of British troops in the King David terrorist attack in Palestine in the 40s arrested should he come to the UK or at the very least barred from entering.

  11. David Jones — on 27th March, 2009 at 12:45 pm  

    Lieberman, however unpleasant, has not anything illegal and isn’t exhorting others to attack our navy.

    You keep making these false analogies, Sunny. First, between Wilders and Mousawi and now between Abdullah and Liberman.

    I can only suppose you really don’t see the difference between unpleasant opinions, and expressing them, and directly exhorting people to declare war, or directly funding terrorists.

    It isn’t stupidity, is it, so I can only suppose you’re doing this deliberately.

  12. fug — on 27th March, 2009 at 1:00 pm  

    Aldermans use of ‘judea and sammarra’ reveals the extent to which he is beyond the actual pale, even by ‘liberal’ uccupier standards. Judea and sammarra is the name the even more staunch and evil zionists give for palestinian land.

    what Blear’s cheerleaders, and its clear who you are despite very ‘english’ linguistic disguise are doing is taking out their long nurtured and rather irrational hate for the mcb, and the idea that muslims organise.

  13. Ravi Naik — on 27th March, 2009 at 2:00 pm  

    I think Blear’s heavy-handed handling is indefensible.

    What rule did he break that is so indefensible, considering what you wrote afterwards? “Daud Abdullah’s support of a terrorist organisation and exhortations to attack British naval forces on “Muslim waters” is even more so.”

  14. Imran Khan — on 27th March, 2009 at 2:03 pm  

    For the record he did not advocate attacks on the British Navy, the document is ambigious and this is not explicity stated that is implied. He clarified this so anyone saying different is slandering Daud Abdullah to discredit him.

    Also don’t forget if you want to go down this road that Israel attacked and destroyed a US Warship and has never been criticised for that which Hazel Blears doesn’t mention. So the precedent is set that its ok for one but not the other.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/26/hazelblears-islam

    “For the purposes of clarity, my position remains as follows:

    1. I did not call for or support attacks on British troops anywhere in the world. As a British citizen, I have the right to criticise and campaign against government political decisions that embroil young British soldiers in illegal occupations and interventions. One of the reasons I joined the demonstrations against the war in Iraq was to prevent the sacrifice of young soldiers in an illegal war. For this reason I was the first to go to Baghdad in 2004 to seek the release of the British hostage, Ken Bigley, despite threats to my life in Iraq and here in the UK after I returned. This move was welcomed by the government at the time, but it seems some have a short memory.”

    Sid – “I think Blear’s heavy-handed handling is indefensible.”

    Hazel Blears lied about Daud Abdullah advocating attacks on Jews worldwide so for this alone her position is worse than his. She is a liar and continues to do so to make her point. She is now the one who should resign.

  15. Imran Khan — on 27th March, 2009 at 2:04 pm  

    “Lieberman, however unpleasant, has not anything illegal and isn’t exhorting others to attack our navy.”

    Not true he is breaking international law by living in occupied territory. So he has done somethign illegal and which Britian doesn’t support. It is bollocks to say otherwise.

  16. Sid — on 27th March, 2009 at 3:08 pm  

    What rule did he break that is so indefensible, considering what you wrote afterwards? “Daud Abdullah’s support of a terrorist organisation and exhortations to attack British naval forces on “Muslim waters” is even more so.”

    Because it is not the position of the government to dictate to non-government agencies who its officeholders should be or what they should be thinking.

    Daud Abdullah’s offence is separate to that but equally indefensible.

  17. Sunny — on 27th March, 2009 at 3:22 pm  

    You know Craig Murray believes the Sufi Muslim Council is a CIA ‘front’?

    I think that was part of a smear campaign and don’t really believe it myself. For a start, the SMC never said anything at all, let alone in support of neocons.

    marvin: Supporting terrorist attacks on UK military IS however.

    Perhaps you could take him to court and explain where exactly he specifically calls for terrorist attacks on our country.

    Or perhaps, this is a product of your fantasy that Muslims just hate the UK and therefore that’s the only thing they’d be thinking anyway.

  18. marvin — on 27th March, 2009 at 3:55 pm  

    Or perhaps your living in fantasy where people who support Hamas terror are just ordinary Muslims, being picked on by the oppressive majority. You equate terror supporters with your garden variety bigot. Being hateful is one thing, supporting TERRORIST outfits and acts is quite another. When will you understand this crucial difference Sunny?

    David Jones #11 spot on

  19. marvin — on 27th March, 2009 at 4:00 pm  

    Daud Abdullah signed his name to the ‘Istanbul declaration’, as documented by Sid. That’s an Islamist verging on jihadi doctrine, talking about declaring war. Try reading it sometime.

  20. marvin — on 27th March, 2009 at 4:08 pm  

    The obligation of the Islamic Nation to regard the sending of foreign warships into Muslim waters, claiming to control the borders and prevent the smuggling of arms to Gaza, as a declaration of war, a new occupation, sinful aggression, and a clear violation of the sovereignty of the Nation. This must be rejected and fought by all means and ways.

    Perhaps you agree with this statement Sunny, this statement to attack our military, is that why you and the Islamists that frequent PP are defending him?

    And it’s not ‘because he’s a Muslim’ – anyone who urges attacks on UK military should be labelled as terrorist supporters. That includes scumbags like Galloway.

  21. Refresh — on 27th March, 2009 at 4:23 pm  

    Marvin, why don’t these warships go in to protect the humanitarian aid that people are trying to get into Gaza?

    Or protect the gas field’s off the coast of Gaza from the Israeli navy?

    You know, a bit like the Berlin airlift and become the heroes the world is looking for?

  22. Sunny — on 27th March, 2009 at 5:37 pm  

    Being hateful is one thing, supporting TERRORIST outfits and acts is quite another. When will you understand this crucial difference Sunny?

    Not sure what your point is marvin – would you not classify German neo-nazis as ‘fascists’ – and then want orgs here that associate with them to explain themselves?

    Lieberman is a fascist. I’d want the govt to disassociate themselves with any org that spends time courting fascists, no? Or suddenly are you advocating we turn a blind eye to appeasing fascists? Is this that famous moral relativism you constantly argue against?

  23. fug — on 27th March, 2009 at 8:38 pm  

    Imran Khan,
    but Blears is too stupid to make up a lie. it was fed to her, in much the same way as it was fed to the very person who brought it up in this forum

  24. Refresh — on 27th March, 2009 at 11:34 pm  

    Blears has jumped on a bandwagon and has calculated that there is a political reward to be had, and I am inclined to agree with Imran that she is positioning herself into a leadership role. Thatcher MK II.

  25. dave bones — on 28th March, 2009 at 1:25 am  

    The Sufi council a CIA front? That guy explaining radicalism with pie charts and bell curves? I think he is the David Brent front.

  26. douglas clark — on 28th March, 2009 at 2:05 am  

    Marvin @ 20,

    I agree with Refresh @ 21. Which I’d always thought our governments position was supposed to be. If you can prove to me that the British Navy was going to blockade Gaza, in order to weaken it, then I’d be just as angry as you. ‘Cause it’d just be another Iraq moment in the exciting world of killing civillians to prove a point…

    It would mean that we never, ever, learned from our mistakes.

  27. Sunny — on 28th March, 2009 at 2:35 am  

    lol dave!

  28. fug — on 28th March, 2009 at 4:19 am  

    its not inconceivable, shoudnt ignore the possibility. one of many concious and unconcious fronts. muslims are well aware of the scheming and think tankery that goes on against them. each season brings new delightful offerings.

  29. Andrew — on 28th March, 2009 at 6:34 am  

    “For a start, the SMC never said anything at all, let alone in support of neocons.”

    I never saw them do anything either. Paul Goodman MP in a recent Parliamentary question discovered that the SMC was given 82,500 Pounds for the financial year 2007-2008. I wonder what they did with it?

  30. Niels C — on 28th March, 2009 at 8:49 am  

    What Daud Abdullah didn’t explain, it what he really means with ‘Islamic Nation’ , ‘Islamic Waters’.
    What’s behind this rhetoric, and what does it intertextual connnect to.
    That’s the problem.

  31. Anon — on 28th March, 2009 at 9:57 am  

    Sunny: “the SMC never said anything at all, let alone in support of neocons.”

    In fact, the single issue that appeared of the Sufi Muslim Council’s journal Spirit prominently featured an article by Zeyno Baran of the Hudson Institute. They also cite Baran approvingly on their website.

  32. Refresh — on 28th March, 2009 at 11:38 am  

    Niels C,

    ‘That’s the problem.’

    No its not. You are the problem. Especially if everything you read and percieve is without a historical reference. Even an history which is only 6 months old.

    To become part of the solution, go join one of those rickety old boats trying to get aid to the people in Gaza. And encourage the government to put its warships to good use and keep the Israeli navy where it can do least harm.

  33. Bo — on 28th March, 2009 at 5:00 pm  

    Doh. Israel is a state. The MCB is not.

  34. jiminiy — on 28th March, 2009 at 5:45 pm  

    Munir-
    “Great so you will of course join a campaign to have Benjamin Netanyahu, who celebrated the slaughter of British troops in the King David terrorist attack in Palestine in the 40s arrested should he come to the UK or at the very least barred from entering.”

    Yeh… thing is Netanyahu was born after the King David Hotel attack.

    And so the misinformation intifada rolls on…

  35. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells — on 29th March, 2009 at 4:27 pm  

    Munir is referring to the pro terror celebrations that took place in 2006

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article690085.ece

    And so the awful attempts at hasbara misinformation rolls on.

  36. Tabatha — on 1st May, 2009 at 10:47 am  

    Firstly to IMRAN KHAN: presumably you are referring to the well known case of the USS Liberty which was a tragic case of ‘friendly fire’? Yes, the Israelis did open fire on an American ship – because it failed to identify itself.

    You’ve heard of Friendly Fire, surely…? Here’s an example of Americans making the same mistake and causing numerous fatalities:

    July 1943, nervous American naval and ground troops Gela, Sicily, fired on aircraft carrying paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne Division and caused 319 casualties (88 dead, 162 wounded, and 69 missing) plus 80 aircraft destroyed or badly damaged.

    There have been several cases of friendly fire recently in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

    And re the USS Liberty: With the recent declassification of these documents in the United States and Israel, however, researchers have gained access to a wealth of primary sources – Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and U.S. military records, Israeli diplomatic correspondence, and memoranda from both the State Department and the White House. With the aid of these materials, the attack on the Liberty can now be reconstructed virtually minute-by-minute and with remarkable detail. The picture that emerges is not one of crime at all, nor even of criminal negligence, but of a string of failed communications, human errors, unfortunate coincidences and equipment failures on both the American and Israeli sides – the kind of tragic, senseless mistake that is all too common in the thick of war.

    Tragic event, yes.

    Deliberate attack by Israel? No.

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.