In the wave of revanchist rage that follows almost every terrorist attack (one needs only look at some of the comments left on Harry’s Place) it is easy to forget that ordinary Muslims also suffer at the hands of Islamist extremists. Often, it is those genuinely liberal and progressive forces within the Muslim community who are the first to bear the brunt of such violence.
In the past that meant most Muslims were willing to bury their heads in the sand, hoping the problem might go away.
But the landscape of the Muslim community, both at home and abroad, is now slowly changing. Following the Mumbai massacres, there is encouraging news from India here:
“In what is perhaps their first openly defiant act against “Islamic terrorism”, Muslims in India have decided they will not allow the militants to be buried in Muslim graveyards anywhere in the country.
They said that they could not believe that the assailants, who they said had “killed innocent civilians unprovoked”, were true followers of Islam.
Ibrahim Tai, the president of the Indian Muslim Council, which looks after the social and religious affairs of the Muslim community in India, said that they had “defamed” his religion.”
This is a remarkable and symbolic gesture by Indian Muslims. It will not bring back the dead, but it will hopefully galvanise Muslims into being even more forthright against the cancerous ideology which lives within our faith.
Writing in the Telegraph over the weekend Ed Husain gives an insight into what steps his think-tank, the anti-extremist Quilliam Foundation is taking:
The Quilliam Foundation has successfully opened a public space in which it is possible to be fully Western and fully Muslim, free from the political burdens of the Arab world and the cultural baggage of the sub-continent. We have put extremists on the defensive, compelled to either jettison their ideology or face pressure to change. But we cannot win alone.
Wider society has a moral and civic duty to ensure that parts of our country do not become Balkanised. This means having the courage to explain that secularism does not mean being anti-religious, but a neutral public space. It also means having the courage to stand up for the ideas that make Britain the country that it is today. When Muslim seminaries in Dewsbury teach Locke’s A Letter Concerning Toleration, then we can rest assured that British Muslim clerics have truly understood Britain. At present, we are light years away.
Even the longest journey begins with a single step.
If you’re so inclined, you can watch Barack Obama announce his national security appointments– including Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton– at 10:40 a.m. EST.
The One Law for All campaign against Sharia law in Britain is to be launched at the House of Lords on International Human Rights Day, December 10, 2008 from 4:00 to 5:00pm.
Even in civil matters, Sharia law is discriminatory, unfair and unjust, particularly against women and children. Moreover, its voluntary nature is a sham; many women will be pressured into going to these courts and abiding by their decisions. These courts are a quick and cheap route to injustice and do nothing to promote minority rights and social cohesion. Public interest, particularly with regard to women and children, requires an end to Sharia and all other faith-based courts and tribunals.
The campaign has already received widespread support including from AC Grayling; Ayaan Hirsi Ali; Bahram Soroush; Baroness Caroline Cox; Caspar Melville; Deeyah; Fariborz Pooya; Gina Khan; Houzan Mahmoud; Homa Arjomand; Ibn Warraq; Joan Smith; Johann Hari; Keith Porteous Wood; Mina Ahadi; Naser Khader; Nick Cohen; Richard Dawkins; Shakeb Isaar; Sonja Eggerickx; Stephen Law; Tarek Fatah; Tauriq Moosa; Taslima Nasrin and others. It has also received the support of organisations such as Children First Now; Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain; Equal Rights Now – Organisation against Women’s Discrimination in Iran; European Humanist Federation; International Committee against Stoning; International Humanist and Ethical Union; Iranian Secular Society; Lawyers Secular Society; the National Secular Society; and the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan.
The campaign calls on the UK government to recognise that Sharia law is arbitrary and discriminatory and for an end to Sharia courts and all religious tribunals on the basis that they work against and not for equality and human rights.
The campaign also calls for the Arbitration Act 1996 to be amended so that all religious tribunals are banned from operating within and outside of the legal system.
In the words of the Campaign Declaration: ‘Rights, justice, inclusion, equality and respect are for people, not beliefs. In a civil society, people must have full citizenship rights and equality under the law. Clearly, Sharia law contravenes fundamental human rights. In order to safeguard the rights and freedoms of all those living in Britain, there must be one secular law for all and no Sharia.’
Roy Brown, immediate past president of the International Humanist and Ethical Union said, “IHEU is lending its full support to this campaign. It is intolerable that the very values on which UK society is based - human rights, equality and the rule of law - are being undermined by the quiet and insidious application of systems of law that have no basis in equality or justice.”
Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, which is also supporting the One Law for All campaign, said: “It is a grave error for the authorities in this country to give credence to Sharia in any form – whether legally or in terms of informal arbitration. When women are being subjected to violence in their marriages, it is not acceptable for religious authorities – which are, by definition, misogynistic – to arbitrate. A two-tier legal system, with women’s rights being always secondary to religious demands, is unnecessary, undesirable and ultimately unjust.”
One Law for All
Campaign against Sharia law in Britain
Declaration
We, the undersigned individuals and organisations, call on the UK government to bring an end to the use and institutionalisation of Sharia and all religious laws and to guarantee equal citizenship rights for all.
Sharia law is discriminatory
Sharia Councils and Muslim Arbitration Tribunals are discriminatory, particularly against women and children, and in violation of universal human rights.
Sharia law is unfair and unjust in civil matters
Proponents argue that the implementation of Sharia is justified when limited to civil matters, such as child custody, divorce and inheritance. In fact, it is civil matters that are one of the main cornerstones of the subjugation of and discrimination against women and children. Under Sharia law a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s; a woman’s marriage contract is between her male guardian and her husband. A man can have four wives and divorce his wife by simple repudiation, whereas a woman must give reasons, some of which are extremely difficult to prove. Child custody reverts to the father at a preset age, even if the father is abusive; women who remarry lose custody of their children; and sons are entitled to inherit twice the share of daughters.
The voluntary nature of Sharia courts is a sham
Proponents argue that those who choose to make use of Sharia courts and tribunals do so voluntarily and that according to the Arbitration Act parties are free to agree upon how their disputes are resolved. In reality, many of those dealt with by Sharia courts are from the most marginalised segments of society with little or no knowledge of their rights under British law. Many, particularly women, are pressured into going to these courts and abiding by their decisions. More importantly, those who fail to make use of Sharia law or seek to opt out will be made to feel guilty and can be treated as apostates and outcasts.
Even if completely voluntary, which is untrue, the discriminatory nature of the courts would be sufficient reason to bring an end to their use and implementation.
Sharia law is a quick and cheap way to injustice
Proponents argue that Sharia courts are an alternative method of dispute resolution and curb legal aid costs. When it comes to people’s rights, however, cuts in costs and speed can only bring about serious miscarriages of justice. Many of the laws that Sharia courts and religious tribunals aim to avoid have been fought for over centuries in order to improve the rights of those most in need of protection in society.
Sharia law doesn’t promote minority rights and social cohesion
Proponents argue that the right to be governed by Sharia law is necessary to defend minority rights. Having the right to religion or atheism, however, is not the same as having the ‘right’ to be governed by religious laws. This is merely a prescription for discrimination, inequality and culturally relative rights. Rather than defending rights, it discriminates and sets up different and separate systems, standards and norms for ‘different’ people. It reinforces the fragmentation of society, and leaves large numbers of people, particularly women and children, at the mercy of elders and imams. It increases marginalisation and the further segregation of immigrant communities. It ensures that immigrants and new arrivals remain forever minorities and never equal citizens.
One law for all
Whilst arbitration tribunals are part of British law, they are subject to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest. Clearly, public interest, and particularly the interests of women and children, requires an end to Sharia and all faith-based courts and tribunals.
Rights, justice, inclusion, equality and respect are for people, not beliefs. In a civil society, people must have full citizenship rights and equality under the law. Clearly, Sharia law contravenes fundamental human rights. In order to safeguard the rights and freedoms of all those living in Britain, there must be one secular law for all and no Sharia.
Petition
One Law for All
· We call on the UK government to recognise that Sharia and all religious laws are arbitrary and discriminatory against women and children in particular. Citizenship and human rights are non-negotiable.
· We demand an end to all Sharia courts and religious tribunals on the basis that they work against and not for equality and human rights.
· We demand that the Arbitration Act 1996 be amended so that all religious tribunals are banned from operating within and outside of the legal system.
This is a guest post by Eamonn McDonagh from Z Word
The other day, just after the terrorist attack in Mumbai got underway, I thought about writing a very brief post along the lines of “How long will we have to wait before the first op-ed piece that tries to pin at least some of the ultimate blame for this on Israel?”. The answer turns out to be “Only a couple of days”.
Writing - where else? - in the Comment is Free section of The Guardian William Dalrymple pins the prime blame for the Mumbai atrocities not on those who carried them out but on the US, the UK, India, and, of course, Israel. The following two paragraphs carry the main force of his argument.
This probable Pakistani origin of the Mumbai attacks, and the links to Kashmir-focused jihadi groups, means that the horrific events have to be seen in the context of the wider disaster of Western policy in the region since 9/11. The abject failure of the Bush administration to woo the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan away from the Islamists and, instead, managing to convince many of them of the hostility of the West towards all Muslim aspirations, has now led to a gathering catastrophe in Afghanistan where the once-hated Taliban are now again at the gates of Kabul.
India meanwhile continues to make matters worse by its ill-treatment of the people of Kashmir, which has handed to the jihadis an entire generation of educated, angry middle-class Muslims. One of the clean-shaven boys who attacked CST railway station - now named by the Indian media as Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Amin Kasab, from Faridkot in the Pakistani Punjab - was wearing a Versace T-shirt. The other boys in the operation wore jeans and Nikes and were described by eyewitnesses as chikna or well-off. These were not poor, madrasah-educated Pakistanis from the villages, brainwashed by mullahs, but angry and well-educated, middle-class kids furious at the gross injustice they perceive being done to Muslims by Israel, the US, the UK and India in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Kashmir respectively.
A couple of points to note…
1.
Dalrymple describes those who deliberately slaughtered dozens of people in Mumbai as boys and kids. Boys and kids are not adults. They haven’t reached the age of majority and cannot be held responsible for what they do. That responsibility must lie with others who either directly provoked them into doing what they did or, in the best case, created a set of circumstances which allowed them to do it.
2.
Dalrymple sees the killers as being motivated by what they perceived as injustices suffered by Muslims in four specific locations. He doesn’t seek to interrogate these perceptions by asking, for example, why such people were so unmoved by the fate of other Muslims who have been slaughtered in droves in Darfur in recent years or whose lives are ebbing away in the jails of the Iranian and Syrian regimes, to give just three examples, and yet were so profoundly troubled by the fate of Muslims in those four places only.
3.
He implicitly accepts that their motive for riddling commuters - among them, surely, Muslims - with bullets at one of Mumbai’s main railway stations, for going to considerable lengths to find and murder Jews, for shooting up a crowded café, for murdering members of the security forces of a secular democracy and much else besides was nothing less than a hatred of injustice.
3.
Even if we were to accept his analysis of the terrorists’ motivations at face value, Dalrymple’s overall argument is fatally weakened by its failure to seriously engage with the question of what methods may be legitimately employed to combat situations of injustice and whether and in what circumstances these might include a resort to violence. He does describe the attacks as “murderous” and “horrific” but with a marked air of resignation, as if horrific murder was the inevitable and natural response of those presented with situations of injustice.
4.
He also accuses the West in general and the Bush administration in particular, of having by their behavior convinced many Muslims that they are opposed to all Muslim aspirations everywhere. He doesn’t entertain any questions about the extent to which this belief may be true or how it squares, for example, with the United States under George W. Bush having been the chief midwife at the birth of Kosovo or to what extent it might or might not be shared by those Muslims of North East Iraq that are normally referred to as Kurds.
5.
Dalrymple paints a portrait of some Muslims who are exquisitely sensitive to certain instances of injustice committed against their coreligionists and completely indifferent to others, whose natural, though, of course, horrible and murderous reaction to these instances is to attack unarmed civilians on the streets of a great city with automatic rifle fire, who can’t really be held responsible for what they did as they were boys, not men, and because we - the West, the UK, India and Israel - didn’t do enough to placate their feelings of anger about certain situations they perceived as unjust. In effect, we made them do it.
6.
Dalrymple’s portrait of the killers, as well as the sections of Muslim opinion he sees as supporting them, is based on a profound failure to treat them as morally autonomous and equal to himself. They are boiling with rage, they can’t be expected to reason or to have any respect for the lives of bystanders. When it all gets a bit too much, well, it’s the most natural, though regrettable, thing in the world for them to set out on a Jew hunt or mow down commuters in a railway station.
Under no circumstances should we, rational Westerners, seek to apply the same critical standards to the Mumbai murderers and their supporters as we do - haltingly and insufficiently - to our own actions and those of our leaders. What we have to do is understand and empathize with their feelings and, as we can’t expect them to dilute their rage with reason or to seek methods to vindicate their claims that don’t involve hand grenades or AK 47s, we must make ourselves constantly ready to indulge their homicidal tantrums. Above all, we must never, ever treat them as our equals.
It’s a pretty pass that certain elements of liberal cultivated opinion have come to.
Press TV, a 24-hour English language news channel, is set to give British viewers a genuine alternative to the western establishment consensus when it launches on Sky on December 1. The broadcaster, whose headquarters is in Tehran but which has bureaux in all major world capitals, will go out on Sky Channel 515 adding to its global footprint via a dozen other satellites and its website. Press TV offers in-depth analysis of news and current affairs especially focusing on the Middle East.
…
Press TV has signed a number of politically diverse and high-profile presenters including MPs George Galloway and Derek Conway, broadcast personalities Nick Ferrari and James Whale, and political journalists Andrew Gilligan, Yvonne Ridley and Lauren Booth.
PressTV is the propaganda arm of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It invites neo Nazis to participate in programmes about Jews. It publishes Holocaust denial.
The cost of a free society is, in part, that we must tolerate the efforts of a hostile power to beam its propaganda into our homes.
But what should we say of those broadcasters who make their living by working for this propaganda outfit?
The arrest of Damien Green and the Police search of his offices was an affront to democracy. Dennis MacShane makes an important point:
Defining parliamentary privilege is not a matter for the Speaker, or the Clerks who advise him. Defending the rights of British citizens, who until last week complacently believed that what they told or sent to their MP would remain confidential and not be seized by the police, is a matter for all Members of Parliament.
We defend our privileges not to be self-important or to defame our foes, but as a vital democratic defence of the rights of a free people in a country that lives under rule of law, not under decisions of the police. Already in this parliament we have had the sad sight of a Scottish Nationalist MP writing a chancer’s letter to the Metropolitan Police and a huge inquiry being launched that resulted in nothing. A Parliamentarian - a peer, not an MP - was arrested and a young woman picked up in a dawn raid like something out of a film about central Europe in the 1930s. I have made serious allegations about Conservative Party funding, but I would never expect the police to do my political work for me.
The police made a mistake in not sending the Scottish Nationalist letter back with a polite note that it was politics - not policing - that would deal with his allegations.
They should also have told the Home Office to sort out their own problems with disloyal civil servants. As a result of this police lack of judgment, the authorities in the Commons were faced with an assertion that a crime was being investigated. At this point a reflex defence of Parliament should have kicked in - instead of allowing the police to march into Mr Green’s offices. Mr Green could have gone to the police and explained that what he was doing was no different from what previous oppositions did.
Instead, we have a mammoth breach in the core democratic doctrine of parliamentary privilege. On Wednesday, when the Commons returns, the Speaker must make clear that never again will the police or any other agent of the state enter into an MP’s offices and seize papers unless there is clear and overwhelming evidence of serious criminal, not political activity.
Our lack of trust in our elected politicians, feeds a state of affairs were our elected politicians seek to disassociate themselves from decisions. These are taken by unelected officials, not directly accountable to the general public. Some of those complaining about the arrest of Damien Green are suspecting political interference, suggesting it is Brown’s Watergate, and see the arrest of the MP as another example of an increasingly authoritarian Labour government. Alternatively, it could demonstrate the complete lack of political interference or influence politicians can have in the system. Labour ministers seem almost terrified of giving an opinion about the incident with Green - lest they be seen to be interfering (with an exception at last). If Brown didn’t know about the arrest he should have, and he should have told Police that their actions were unacceptable, just as they were in previous fishing expeditions.
This isn’t to say that the Police shouldn’t have operational independence, but I see no reason why the Police shouldn’t be told by our elected politicians (including ministers) when they are over-stepping the mark in an open and transparent manner. And we have got to trust our politicians more in order to allow them to do so, because our cynicism is corroding the ability they have to stand up for us as our elected representatives.
The guilty verdicts in the Holy Land Foundation trial were the reward for over a decade’s hard work by the Justice Department and the FBI. Better late than never.
So how is the UK doing when it comes to terrorists’ abuse of charities?
The Charity Commission offers a summary of its counterterrorist policies here and a long version - updated in July 2008 - here. At first glance, the summary is straightforward and reassuring. A sample:
The Commission works to three basic assumptions, and these have important implications for the way we deal with charities where suspicions of links to terrorism arise. The assumptions are:
the Commission would not register an organisation that had support of terrorism explicitly or implicitly as an object;
that use of an existing charity’s assets for support of terrorist activity is not a proper use of those assets;
that links - or alleged links - between a charity and terrorism corrode public confidence in the integrity of charity.
Even better, among its “key principles when looking at charities with potential links to terrorism”, the Commission cites the following:
* Any links between charities and terrorist activity are totally unacceptable. ‘Links’ in this case might include fundraising or provision of facilities, but also include formal or informal links to organisations ‘proscribed’ under the Terrorism Act 2000.
* The Charity Commission will deal with any allegation of links between a charity and terrorist activity as an immediate priority.
…
* Charities should take all necessary steps to ensure their activities could not be misinterpreted. The Commission expects trustees or charities to ensure their activities are open and transparent, for example when transferring assets abroad. We hold trustees accountable for ensuring that procedures are put in place to ensure that terrorist organisations cannot take advantage of a charity’s status, reputation, facilities or assets.
Furthermore, since 2007 the Treasury has allocated an extra £1 million per year to the Commission. It has also “redirected” some of its existing resources. These measures, the Commission has said, will strengthen its compliance work in the context of terrorist links to charities.
That’s the policy in theory. The practice, at least in the case of Mohammed Al Ghabra of East London, a former trustee of the Al Ikhlas Foundation, also known (to the Commission as well) as the Muslim Prisoner Support Group, is dispiriting.
In September 2007 the Commission suspended al Ghabra as a trustee of the foundation. In October 2008, the Commission announced that it had concluded “that it was in the interests of the Charity [al Ikhlas] to remove Mohammed Al Ghabra as a trustee and/or agent of the Charity”.
What took them so long? Never mind access to intelligence (the Commission claims it works with law enforcement authorities), consider US, Bank of England and press reports open to all:
The US Treasury, December 2006: “Al Ghabra has organized travel to Pakistan for individuals seeking to meet with senior al Qaida individuals and to undertake jihad training. Several of these individuals have returned to the UK to engage in covert activity on behalf of al Qaida. Additionally, Al Ghabra has provided material support and facilitated the travel of UK-based individuals to Iraq to support the insurgents fight against coalition forces.”
The Bank of England, December 2006: “The Bank of England, as agent for Her Majesty’s Treasury, issues this news release to advise that on 12 December 2006 the United Nations Sanctions Committee approved the addition of Mohammed Al Ghabra to the UN Consolidated List maintained under Resolution 1390 (2002). The individual therefore falls within the UK financial sanctions regime under the Al-Qaida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2006. (December 2006)
The Times, July 2007: “A suspected Al-Qaeda operative who is believed by MI5 to have played a key role in the events leading up to the July 21 failed bombings is at liberty and living in east London”
I think this is what native Brits (oh how I wish more of you were restless) call a “leisurely pace”. In counterterrorism, of all fields.
In fact, the Commission has said it “was informed” of Al Ghabra’s UN designation in July 2007. Apparently it did not bother to read Bank of England terrorist sanctions lists and would not have learned of this case without a third party informing it. This is very careless, to say the least.
Meanwhile, the foundation is still running, and remains dedicated to supporting convicted and suspected Islamist terrorists and supporters of terrorism, such as Omar Abdul Rahman, Aafia Siddiqui and, of course, Abu Hamza. Have a look at its web site. Furthermore, its required Commission filings - annual returns and accounts for the past two financial years - are long overdue.
How can this situation not “corrode public confidence in the integrity of charity”, which the Commission claims is such an important concern? How has it shown, in this case, that “Any links between charities and terrorist activity are totally unacceptable”?
Nor, apparently, is this the only case where the Commission’s pace is shockingly slow. As far as I can tell, it has yet to issue a ruling on Crescent Relief (see pages 12-13 of that pdf file), more than two years after freezing its funds. Furthermore, according to this article, the Crescent Relief investigation only began after the Commission bothered to read press reports. Note that Crescent Relief was founded by the father and uncle of Rashid Rauf.
Never mind, for a moment, the Commission moving at a snail’s pace. Frustrating as that is, the quality of its work and judgment is the most important issue. I think this, from the Commission’s counterterrorism guidance document, is the heart of the problem:
“The Commission applies a risk-based and proportionate approach to regulation. This means that we engage with charitiesin a way which will make most difference to them and those who benefit from them. As a modern regulator, the Commission’s approach emphasises providing support and guidance and promoting best practice as well as ensuring that charities comply with their legal obligations. We aim to encourage and support charities to improve their performance by working in partnership with them and with umbrella groups, helping to define and facilitate best practice and sharing this knowledge widely.”
If you read the Ikhlas ruling, alongside criticism you will see this “we want to help” strategy in action, on behalf of pro-terrorist campaigners. It states:
“The Commission has provided advice and guidance to the Trustees of the Charity which will allow them to take the Charity forward on a strong administrative footing.”
To further illustrate the approach and attitude at work here, consider this article, where the Commission’s chief executive, Andrew Hind, offers a display of spectacular complacency:
The Charity Commission has been reluctant to tout its role in the battle to stamp out the sources of terrorism, instead choosing to focus on the benefits that charities bring society. In an interview on Wednesday, commission chief executive Andrew Hind described the commission’s mission as “trying to encourage 1,000 flowers to bloom.”
A strong individual volunteer sector is “a fundamental element” to a functioning civil society, Hind said.
A former BBC World Service chief operating officer and finance director, Hind is reluctant to discuss the group’s role in terrorism tracking, and chooses his words carefully. He sees charity, and Britain’s strong tradition of contributing time and money to those less fortunate, as akin to the role of a free press in society, he said.
The commission is not in the habit of actively investigating organizations for links to terrorism, he said, and often relies on tips from the public to spur investigations. “This is a very small part of our overall” mission, he insists.
…
Hind said there are no regularly scheduled conversations with United States or European officials on the subject. Establishing regular communication with the United States would be unwelcome, Hind said. “I hope it doesn’t happen, because that would be indicative of larger problems,” he said.
In a war, and make no mistake, Islamists are waging war on the UK and its interests and allies abroad, no government body should help the enemy. The Charity Commission, in all of what appears to be its arrogance and incompetence, does not seem to get this, at all. Most unfortunately, assuming HMG gives a damn that is, the Commission’s operations are independent, by law.
To conclude, entirely randomly of course, and with no reference to any of the above, oh no sir, have a look at this US Treasury announcement of November 2008 and this one of 2003, consider the time that has passed without further official news since this Commission press release, and then enjoy some more Liberace.
Chavez has the admiration of Sean Penn. David R. Adler is unimpressed by an article Penn wrote after meeting Chavez:
Some have suggested that I tend to overstate the influence of actor-activists like Penn. If anything, I’ve understated it. Penn’s “journalism” is now being published on the cover of The Nation, right at the moment when audiences are swooning over his film portrayal of the late Harvey Milk. The damage he’s doing to the very idea of the left as a principled force for human rights is considerable.
One would never know from Penn’s article that Chávez has summarily ejected Human Rights Watch officials from his country; has proclaimed Belarus under Alexander Lukashenko “a model social state”; has pledged solidarity with Robert Mugabe, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Vladimir Putin. Do not even get me started about Castro, whose decades-long erasure of civil liberties is treated by Penn only in the most evasive, relativizing way. All societies are “imperfect,” he counsels. I can’t imagine a moral stand more limp and spineless.
Because Chávez and Castro are demonized by Fox News and other right-wing forces, Penn has concluded they must in fact be stand-up guys. What an infantile and dishonest view of world politics. What a catastrophe for the left, which has been down this road before.
See also Marc Cooper on Penn’s fawning over Raul Castro.
Progressive, secular anti-discrimination groups are facing growing obstacles to finding political breathing room. Southall Black Sisters have won their legal fight for funding against Ealing Council, but the arguments canvassed by the Council are likely to arise again. They claimed that specialist services like those provided by SBS (for women only and with a non-exclusive focus on BME women) were contrary to the equality duties of public authorities, and to the government’s agenda of “community cohesion”.
Ealing Council’s case was withdrawn, but the court issued guidance refuting both claims.
Far from prohibiting differentiated or specific treatment of different groups to achieve substantive equality, the equality duty imposed on public authorities by the law may require precisely that . The error of mistaking apparent neutrality for equality is easily illustrated by a familiar example: gay people aren’t enjoying equal treatment if they have “the same right as everyone else to form a partnership with a different-sex person.” Moreover, when a public body takes a differentiated approach, it is not inevitably that they will create social fracture; they may do so in order to address the inequalities and systemic discrimination which cause (or constitute) these fractures.
The Council’s arguments masked race and gender discrimination by pretending that we live in a post-racial, post-feminist society. But addressing them is made harder by a governmental approach to “community cohesion” rooted in sorting everyone into neat little boxes which are labelled according to “faith”, and taken as comprehensively spoken for by unaccountable “representatives”. “Religious leaders” co-opt anti-discrimination language on the accommodation of “differences” to justify, on grounds of “equality” and religious “freedom”, the suppression of differences, equality and freedom within these “communities”. This is abetted by the lazy racism which accepts claims that “in our culture” – for example – it’s appropriate for a woman to be shepherded to “mediate” or “arbitrate” instances of domestic violence against her, as if the very nature of the case didn’t implicate issues of power and control that invalidate such an approach.
There is no doubt that individuals face discrimination on the grounds of religious belief, and this needs to be taken seriously in our thinking about equality. But religious practice has a strongly groupish facet and a potential reach over others which (say) being of a given race, gender, or sexual orientation doesn’t. The same concepts of discrimination cannot always straightforwardly apply.
At the same time that some councils were demanding of anti-racist and feminist groups, that they take a “neutral” approach as a condition of funding, other public bodies have been providing money, influence and room to trample on human rights to non governmental organisations and pressure groups that define themselves in religious terms, apparently in the hopes of winning over a Muslim “community” believed to be homogenous. This seems a manifestly self-defeating strategy: holding out carrots for groups to coalesce precisely around narrow conceptions of religious practice, while choking off internal dynamics of dissent and disagreement within and across racial and religious groups. You’d almost think the government wanted a rigid division of society into sectarian blocks.
At a meeting in the House of Commons earlier this week, Pragna Patel of SBS described this sort of “cohesion” agenda as “a load of bollocks”. I think she has a pretty good point.
Thanks to the authors of this website for making it, um, easi-piesi to locate UK shops selling Israeli products. And when you purchase those products (helpfully listed on the website) be sure to tell the managers you appreciate their stocking those and other Israeli goods. You might also want to suggest they stock some of the Palestinian products listed on the site.
