Po­lice­faile­dusover­i­mam­racism

The au­thor­i­ties’ re­luc­tance to pur­sue Is­lamic rad­i­cals has been a boon to the BNP

The Jewish Chronicle - - COMMENT&ANALYSIS - GE­OF­FREY AL­DER­MAN

THE APOLO­GIES given in the High Court last week by the West Mid­lands po­lice and the Crown Pros­e­cu­tion Ser­vice to the mak­ers of an ex­tra­or­di­nary doc­u­men­tary have thrown a wel­come light upon that species of ma­lign po­lit­i­cal cor­rect­ness that is eat­ing away at Bri­tish tol­er­ance and re­spect for mi­nori­ties.

On Jan­uary 15, 2007, Chan­nel 4 aired a doc­u­men­tary en­ti­tled Un­der­cover Mosque. The film-mak­ers dis­tilled, into one hour, con­tent from more than 25 hours of footage filmed se­cretly and at great risk at a num­ber of mosques in the West Mid­lands. Th­ese record­ings made very pub­lic what some of the imams at th­ese mosques had been preach­ing to their con­gre­gants:

“Whoever changes his re­li­gion from al-Is­lam to any­thing else — kill him in the Is­lamic state.”

“Al­lah has cre­ated the wo­man, even if she gets a PhD, de­fi­cient. Her in­tel­lect is in­com­plete, de­fi­cient. She may be suf­fer­ing from hor­mones that will make her emo­tional.”

“If I were to call ho­mo­sex­u­als per­verted, dirty, filthy dogs who should be mur­dered, that is my free­dom of speech.”

“You have to bomb the In­dian busi­nesses, and as for the Jews you kill them phys­i­cally.”

Other footage showed one imam lav­ish­ing praise upon the mur­der of a Bri­tish sol­dier in Afghanistan, while an­other en­cour­aged vi­o­lence against non-Mus­lims. Mar­riage with pre­pubescent girls was also ad­vo­cated, as was the phys­i­cal pun­ish­ment of girls who re­fused to wear the hi­jab. Mus­lims were ex­horted not to in­te­grate into Bri­tish so­ci­ety. The deputy-head­mas­ter of an Is­lamic high school in Birm­ing­ham was filmed telling an au­di­ence at the Spark­brook mosque that he dis­agreed with democ­racy and with the word democ­racy.

“They should call it... kuf­fro­c­racy [ kuf­fir means un­be­liever], that’s their plan. It’s the hid­den can­cer­ous aim of th­ese peo­ple.”

No sooner had the doc­u­men­tary been aired than there was launched against it a sus­tained cam­paign of vil­i­fi­ca­tion, aimed pri­mar­ily at its mak­ers — Hard­cash Pro­duc­tions — and at Chan­nel 4 for hav­ing had the courage to au­tho­rise its trans­mis­sion. The Mus­lim Coun­cil of Bri­tain claimed that the film-mak­ers had edited their footage so as to “mis­rep­re­sent” the con­tent of speeches. The Is­lamic Hu­man Rights Com­mis­sion con­demned the film’s “in­her­ent Is­lam­o­pho­bia”.

You might have ex­pected the po­lice and the CPS to have ig­nored th­ese re­sponses, and, in­stead, to have ob­jec­tively eval­u­ated the chill­ing ev­i­dence that Un­der­cover Mosque pre­sented. But they didn’t. Us­ing tax­pay­ers’ money, the CPS ac­tu­ally be­gan in­ves­ti­gat­ing the pro­duc­ers of the film, and it was they — the pro­duc­ers — who were ac­cused of un­der­min­ing good com­mu­nity re­la­tions, by al­leged se­lec­tive edit­ing and dis­tor­tion.

The po­lice, mean­while, re­ferred the doc­u­men­tary to the me­dia watch­dog, Of­com. But Of­com praised the man­ner in which the ev­i­dence gath­ered in the film had been edited and pre­sented. Hard­cash and Chan­nel 4 launched a li­bel ac­tion against the CPS and the West Mid­lands Po­lice. And last week the de­fen­dants had to is­sue an unre- served and grov­el­ling apol­ogy. An undis­closed six-fig­ure sum has been agreed in dam­ages. Again, the tax­payer will foot this bill.

But the last chap­ter in this sorry tale has yet to be writ­ten and, be­fore it is, there are a great many ques­tions to be an­swered. By what twisted logic — for ex­am­ple — could the po­lice and the CPS have con­cluded that it was the film-mak­ers who needed to be har­ried and pur­sued, rather than the imams and the mosque trustees who af­forded them plat­forms from which to launch bat­ter­ies of hate­ful in­vec­tive which, in any com­mon­sense view, must have amounted to in­cite­ment to vi­o­lence?

A few of the Bri­tish-based preach­ers filmed for the doc­u­men­tary have been pros­e­cuted, but not those who fa­cil­i­tated the dis­sem­i­na­tion of their views. Why?

Then there is the Saudi con­nec­tion. Many of the mosques fea­tured in the doc­u­men­tary were funded by, or from, Saudi Ara­bia, and re­flected the prim­i­tive Wa­habist form of Is­lam of­fi­cially spon­sored by that coun­try. We have al­ready seen, in the his­tory of the bribes and kick­backs said to have been paid to Saudi of­fi­cials by BAE Sys­tems (in or­der to win lu­cra­tive defence con­tracts), that po­lit­i­cal sen­si­tiv­i­ties at the high­est lev­els in Bri­tish gov­ern­ment led to the Se­ri­ous Fraud Of­fice be­ing or­dered to drop cor­rup­tion in­quiries. Did th­ese same sen­si­tiv­i­ties dis­suade the CPS from pur­su­ing the truths re­vealed by Un­der­cover Mosque?

Many of us are dis­mayed at the strong sup­port for the Bri­tish Na­tional Party re­flected in the re­cent lo­cal elec­tions. Given the of­fi­cial at­ti­tudes re­flected in the story of this doc­u­men­tary, is it any won­der that the BNP should be do­ing so well?

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.