| | Edmund Standing reveals his true colours in the second and final part of his eGovMonitor piece on Combatting the BNP.
|
Standing concluded his first article with this:
‘It's not just a case of media scare stories, however. Another important factor that is undoubtedly greatly assisting the BNP in its promotion of anti-Muslim sentiment is the problem of largely self-appointed Muslim 'community leaders' and organisations and their very vocal and, to the majority of Britons, unreasonable lists of demands of how British society should change to accommodate what is presented as Islam and the 'rights' of Muslims.’
So it’s really no surprise, particularly given that his response to criticisms of his report for the Centre for Social Cohesion have been made on the anti-Muslim witch-hunting blog Harry’s Place, that he begins his final article with this:
‘I think of one organisation in particular that claims to speak for British Muslims and has for a number of years now been issuing 'advice' to the Government on how to tackle Islamic extremism. It condemns Islamist terrorism but at the same time produces documents demanding vast changes to the way society is run, whether than be in education, employment, or the public sphere in general, while routinely denouncing anyone who dares to question its agenda as 'Islamophobic' and 'racist'.
‘I think of a group that deliberately fosters a sense of Muslim self-pity and a victim mentality (just as the BNP deliberately fosters white self-pity) at the same time as showing its own very flawed commitment to social cohesion through, for example, boycotting Holocaust Memorial Day.’
Standing had earlier argued that the BNP’s anti-Muslim rhetoric was merely a convenient and timely smokescreen for its actual, ideological racism, concerned with racial purity and not religion. It is odd then that in his article on ‘what steps the mainstream political parties and opinion makers must take to combat BNP and challenge them head on the issues that give them support from parts of our community’, he should concentrate on religion and not race.
But more than this is where Standing points the finger of blame. Though he doesn’t mention the organization by name, he is clearly referring to the Muslim Council of Britain. Reiterating his ‘Muslims invite Islamophobia upon themselves’ argument, he lists the crimes in which the MCB is complicit in the BNP’s demonisation of British Muslims.
It seems the MCB ‘condemns Islamist terrorism but at the same time produces documents demanding vast changes to the way society is run, whether than be in education, employment, or the public sphere in general’.
A strange conflation of issues – is Standing suggesting that Muslims should condemn terrorism but be barred from producing documents with their thoughts on education, employment or the public sphere?
And examples of these documents that allegedly ‘demand vast changes to the way society is run'? Well, Standing cites none but from the MCB’s website we would contend that he is referring to the MCB guidance on Muslim pupils in state schools, a document which collated instances of school accommodation of religions and suggestions for best practice. The MCB report's foreword states that ‘This information and guidance for schools draws from and builds on guidance documents already in existence. In the development and writing stage, headteachers of state schools, local authorities, Muslim organisations as well as various specialists have been consulted for their views and comments.’
The report makes no ‘demands’ at all, merely good practice suggestions, and was welcomed by the National Association of Head Teachers which said in a statement:
‘[the document] rightly acknowledges the considerable work done together by schools and communities over many years and identifies established good practice. It also developmentally points to further help and support that could be given to Muslim pupils. NAHT welcomes the document in encouraging and facilitating that debate.’
The Daily Express's take at the time on this story is pictured below:  It is ironic that Standing should complain of ‘media scare stories’ in part one and then go on to repeat just such a scare story in part two.
Other documents Standing is presumably referring to is the MCB’s delivery of a DTI project on Faith in Employment which was undertaken to facilitate the introduction in workplaces of the EU directive establishing equality in the area of religion. Would a similar initiative undertaken by gay rights activists, or anti ageists, to facilitate the introduction of the same EU directive, which also established equality in the field of age and sexual orientation, invite the charge of gays and anti-ageists ‘produc[ing] documents demanding vast changes to the way society is run’?
And one can only surmise from the ‘public sphere’ remark that Standing is referring to defences made by Muslims of the right of women to choose their mode of attire.
The MCB has already commented on the absurdity of assessing its contribution to social cohesion on the single barometer of attendance at Holocaust Memorial Day.
Standing’s disregard for the finer details in all of these matters reflects something of the BNP’s uninformed commentary, disregard for facts and general manipulation of events in service of its anti-Muslim racism.
It is shameful that these instances of Muslim activism to enable full British Muslim participation in society are derided by Standing as encouraging ‘Muslim self pity’ and a ‘victim mentality’. The documents, if they reveal anything, are the strides taken to facilitate Muslim integration with full respect for diversity.
Celebrating diversity to Standing, however, is itself a contributor to the BNP’s popularity because ‘white culture’ is casually dismissed while ethnic cultures are ‘uncritically promoted’.
He says, ‘There seems to be a consensus view among many who are known as 'Guardianistas' that patriotic sentiment and concerns about immigration and social change are intrinsically founded upon racist sentiment. People who express national pride are at best sniffed at with an arrogant and superior contempt and at worst are automatically assumed to be mindless, unenlightened bigots.
‘The supreme irony of this attitude is that in a clear example of condescending racism, these same white liberals are happy to support communalism among Britain's ethnic minorities and to glory in uncritically promoting and embracing separatist and supremacist attitudes from minority communities that they would denounce in white Britons.
‘This is a very real problem, one of a large number that need addressing if the BNP are to be sent packing, as they rightly should be. The deligitimisation of patriotism, the claims that reasonable concerns about immigration and its effects are 'racist', and the uncritical celebration of any culture and group bar that of the white British majority are all helping to feed into the rise of the BNP.’
On the issue of patriotism it is worthwhile raising the Gallup Coexist index on interfaith relations. The poll, conducted earlier this year, found that 77% of Muslims identify with the UK, compared to 50% in the rest of the population, and that 82% of Muslims say they are loyal to the UK. Contrast this to way certain papers covered Muslims' patriotism and you see a further instance of Muslims being vilified by certain quarters of the press. This isn’t about manufacturing a grievance or play acting a victim, as Standing suggests. This steady demonisation of Muslims, and the BNP’s use of it, is all too real.
Standing, in claiming that Muslims bring the BNP’s racism upon themselves by ‘demanding vast changes to the way society is run’, repeats the lies uttered by the BNP itself. In portraying the work of the MCB as responsible for the BNP’s bigotry is laughable. But then, Standing’s report was published by the Centre for Social Cohesion, and he posts regularly on Harry’s Place, and so, his confused suggestions for combating the BNP by blocking Muslim activism and expressions of British Muslim citizenship now make perfect sense. See also: Islamophobia Watch
|
