An anti-Islamophobia campaign has been banned from Paris public transport because of its political and religious connotations.

The publicity section of buses and Metro authority RATP, Médiatransport, has banned three posters by the Collectif contre l'Islamophobie en France (CCIF).

The CCIF has made public a letter explaining RATP's conclusion that the appearance of symbols like the veil, payots (side curls worn by Orthodox Jews) and crucifixes alongside the phrase "We (too) are the nation" plus the French flag was politically charged.

One of the posters of the "We (too) are the nation" campaign is a reworking of the Tennis Court Oath painting by Jacques-Louis David (depicting a key meeting in the run-up to the French Revolution), redesigned to give a more diverse range of religious and ethnic identities to the figures involved.

CCIF spokeswoman Lila Charef said: "Just because a poster shows a religious symbol, does not make it religious. On the contrary, our message is all-inclusive. We are still asking ourselves about the real motivation of this refusal.

"This campaign targets prejudice, Islamaphobia and stigmatising dialogue which divides citizens rather than bringing them together while our country moves through a difficult period socially and economically."

The Connexion, 14 November 2012

View the Original article

Two teenagers involved in racist chanting at a group of boys at an anti-racism football match in Dagenham have been banned from attending games for three years.

Keith Meredith, of Holgate Road, Dagenham, and Lee Bates, of Seymer Road, Romford, both 18, appeared at Romford Magistrates Court on October 16.

They were among 25 to 30 youths seen and heard shouting abuse at the Tower Hamlets schoolboys during a Daggers Against Racism game with Bradford FC, held in Victoria Road, Dagenham.

The ringleaders of the disorder, which happened on March 3 this year, were ejected from the stadium by police and club security, but only identified through CCTV and arrested later to avoid disrupting the match.

Meredith was found guilty of a racially aggravated section 5 public order act offence and sentenced to a three-year football banning order, £100 fine and ordered to pay £315 in court costs.

Bates, who admitted a section 5 public order act offence, was sentenced to a three year football banning order, £135 fine and ordered to pay £115 in court costs.

On July 29 two boys, aged 16 and 17, pleaded guilty to racially aggravated public order offences. They both received a four-month referral order to a local youth offending scheme and were ordered to pay £75 each in costs. A further 11 people received varying bans direct from the football club following the chants.

Steve Thompson, managing director of Daggers, said: "We welcome the sentences given to Lee Bates and Keith Meredith.

"We aim to provide a club facility that caters for families and gives everyone the opportunity to enjoy the match without the disruption of intolerance or bigotry.

"The club will continue to do everything in its power to take appropriate action against anyone who chooses to be involved in such abuse."

Barking & Dagenham Post, 6 November 2012

See also Metropolitan Police news report, 25 October 2012

You can read an eyewitness account of the abuse to which the Tower Hamlets schoolchildren were subjected here. Racism and threats of violence were accompanied by chants of "E-E-EDL, E-E-EDL".

View the Original article

A ban on the far-right English Defence League (EDL) marching in Waltham Forest this weekend is set to be announced later today.

The Metropolitan Police is believed to have applied to the Home Office for the group to be barred from demonstrating in the borough on Saturday over concerns for public safety.

The Guardian, the council and community group We Are Waltham Forest have campaign against the EDL returning to Waltham Forest following a demonstration in September.

The group was blocked from marching to a rally near the town hall by thousands of residents and anti-fascist groups.

An event celebrating the borough's diversity in Walthamstow Town Square will still go ahead on Saturday.

Waltham Forest Guardian, 23 October 2012

Update:  See "EDL march: Police ask Theresa May to ban gathering", BBC News, 23 October 2012

Of course, the home secretary doesn't have the power to ban a static assembly, only a mobile procession. So the EDL will probably go ahead with their plans for a protest in Waltham Forest on Saturday (even though you would have thought, with a large part of their leadership having been banned from attending demonstrations in East London, they would be well advised to postpone it).

The police do, however, have powers under Section 14 of the Public Order Act to impose conditions on a static protest. If they believe that a public assembly might result in "serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community" or if the aim of the assembly is to intimidate others, then they have the power to "give directions imposing on the persons organising or taking part in the assembly such conditions as to the place at which the assembly may be (or continue to be) held, its maximum duration, or the maximum number of persons who may constitute it".

So the Met have the power under Section 14 to instruct the EDL to hold Saturday's demonstration somewhere well away from the centre of Walthamstow where their disruption and intimidation of the local community can be kept to a minimum.

View the Original article

A nine-year-old Gatineau girl who refused to remove her headscarf was forced to stand on the sidelines Sunday as her team played – and won – the final match of a soccer tournament.

The order came just days after the International Football Association Board voted to lift its ban based on the fact that "there is no medical literature concerning injuries as a result of wearing a headscarf," the organization stated on its website.

Rayane Benatti was told to take off her headscarf for safety reasons, but she refused. "It made me feel very sad," she told the Citizen in French on Monday. "I love soccer. I get to run around and do teamwork – I really like that."

Gatineau's regional soccer association maintains that it made the right decision. Until the international organization approves a design, colour and material for headscarves during matches, "scarves of all sorts" will remain banned, said Gatineau's director of tournaments Marc St-Amour.

"It's not because she was wearing a hijab – it's because she was wearing a piece of equipment that is not recognized," St-Amour said.

On July 5, the International Football Association Board "agreed to unanimously approve – temporarily during a trial period – the wearing of headscarves." The organization will define the design, colour and material at a meeting in October. "The piece of equipment needs to go through a process," St-Amour said.

On Monday afternoon in Gatineau's Jolicoeur park, Rayane was running around the soccer pitch with her two older brothers, wearing her beige headscarf and her yellow No. 7 Atomique Jaune team jersey. She paused for a moment each time she kicked the ball toward the net, her tongue sticking out of the corner of her mouth – a personal trademark of concentration.

Rayane said the headscarf, which fits neatly over her head and is tucked under the collar of her jersey, is comfortable. Her mother pulled gently at the fabric to show the scarf is secure yet stretchy. "It doesn't make sense," said Fatima-Zohra Elmarhoum. "It's a piece of fabric."

What was supposed to be a three-day tournament under the sun turned into weekend of confusion, said Elmarhoum. Due to protests, Rayane was allowed to play a game on Friday and another on Saturday morning but was refused participation in the following three games.

"As a mother, I was really sad for my daughter and frustrated about the rule. She's a child who simply wanted to play and she was not allowed," Elmarhoum said. "It's not fair."

Despite her love of soccer, Rayane said she was glad she refused to remove her scarf – an item she has been wearing daily since October 2011. "I decided to wear the headscarf out of love for Allah," Rayane said. "Some people decide not to do it because they don't have enough courage. I had the courage to do it."

Ottawa Citizen, 9 July 2012

View the Original article

A petition with more than 2000 signatures calling for a ban on the English Defence League's march next weekend, will be handed in to Bristol City Council tomorrow.

It includes names from trade unionists and faith groups across the city, asking to prevent the march taking place on the 14th of July .

Similar EDL marches in Telford and Luton have been banned. There will also be a lobby outside of the Council House, College Green at 5.30pm before the Cabinet meeting.

ITV West, 3 July 2012

View the Original article

Although Britain has not introduced a full ban on face veils, unlike France, against veil practices take place in the British society every now and then.

As a living example, a British mother was banned from a college parents’ meeting because she was a veiled Muslim.

Maroon Rafique was refused to enter Manchester College as the staff told her that her face covering in not allowed. Mrs. Rafique had to phone her husband Abdul, to replace her in the parents’ meeting with their 18-year-old son Awais, while she sat in the lobby of the campus.

Officials at Manchester College said that all students and visitors are asked to keep their faces visible for “safety and security” reasons.

Mrs. Rafique, 40, who has worn the full veil for seven years, said,

“I’m born in this country and British. Why should what I wear offend anyone? I didn’t want to make any fuss. All I wanted was to find out the information to help my son go to university. I offered to sit at the back or at the front, anywhere where I wouldn’t be seen, if they thought I was going to offend anyone. I was really upset because whenever I’ve visited the college before and there’s never been a problem; in fact the tutors have been welcoming and friendly.”

Mrs. Rafique added, “I do get abuse every now and again in the street – which I just have to deal with. However, I was very surprised when I was treated this way by the college.”

Business student Awais said: “It was really embarrassing when they told her she couldn’t come in. We’ve never, ever been told about any rule about what parents can wear.”

A spokeswoman for Manchester College tried to defend this policy,

“The Manchester College provides a safe and inclusive environment that fosters development and achievement.” We apply a single dress code to all college users, including learners and visitors. At all times we need to be able to identify all individuals easily in order to maintain safety and security and therefore we ask that faces are clearly visible whilst indoors. Our dress code is reviewed through our quality improvement group and we will take this situation into account at the next review.”

In March, a British Muslim woman was barred from serving on a jury because she refused to remove her veil. The presiding judge told her that she could not sit on an attempted murder trial because her veil concealed her facial expressions.

The issue of face-covering veils has been debated all across Europe. Britain has showed the highest tolerance and respect to human freedom among the European countries. It refuse to ban face veil with some officials even saying that this is UN-British.

Today Islam is the second largest religion in the country. The Muslim Council of Britain says Muslims in Britain are about 2.5 million but only less than one per cent of Muslim women wear face veil.

Between 2001 and 2009, Islam was the fastest growing religion Britain, with the Muslim population increasing roughly 10 times faster than for the rest of society.

View the Original article

An MP has called for a march through Bristol by the English Defence League to be banned.

The controversial protest group will congregate in Castle Park on July 14, the same day as Bristol Pride's We Are: Proud lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender event takes place on College Green.

A heavy police presence is guaranteed on the day, with up to 700 officers expected to be on duty to police the events, in an operation costing as much as £1 million.

But Bristol East Labour MP Kerry McCarthy has called for the EDL to be barred from marching that day, saying she fears for public safety. She has written to the city council and Avon and Somerset police saying she is "not satisfied" public order will be maintained after the march.

Ms McCarthy told the Post: "For me, this is not an issue about the freedom to protest but a matter of public safety. The clash of these two quite contradictory events on the same weekend will put our city under enormous pressure and could put public safety at risk. For this reason, I have written to the police and Bristol City Council to express my profound concern and to request that they reconsider their decision to allow the EDL to march on July 14."

The MP has attacked the organisation on her website, saying: "The EDL's reputation for Islamophobia, intolerance and public disorder runs contrary to what Pride and vast majority of decent Bristolians stand for. We know from their previous demonstrations in towns like Luton that EDL marches place a huge burden on the police and can lead to violence and intimidation."

A police memo seen by the Post said that the EDL leadership was keen to avoid any conflict with Pride. The EDL says on its website that it champions equality for homosexuals and a member of its lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender division will speak at its march.

Although Avon and Somerset chief constable Colin Port could apply to the Home Secretary to ban the march, the police fear that could open the door to EDL members congregating in the city unsupervised. A security operation is being put in place to keep both groups apart and police have met with leaders of the Muslim community to allay their fears.

Assistant Chief Constable Andy Bangham said: "Bristol is open for 'business as usual'. Public safety is our top priority and we're working closely with our partners in Bristol, including the city council, to ensure the EDL march is peaceful. We're seeking to minimise disruption to those who live, work and visit.

"Our challenge is to balance the right to peacefully protest with the rights of the community and citizens of Bristol. We will facilitate peaceful protest, but we will be active in tackling anyone who becomes involved in violence or disorder, whatever form it may take."

Lib Dem Bristol West MP Stephen Williams warned rival groups not to protest against the EDL.

"I have no problem with any organisation demonstrating," he said. "That's what a free and democratic society is all about. As long as it's a peaceful demonstration it should not be a problem. More to the point, others should not seek to make it a problem.

"That's where the problem lies – people who give them much more publicity by protesting against them. It's much better for Bristolians to collectively turn our backs on them. They are a reprehensible bunch, and best ignored."

Bristol Post, 27 June 2012

View the Original article

A mum was turned away from a college parents' evening – because she was wearing a veil.

Maroon Rafique was refused entry to Manchester College by senior staff who told her there was a ban on face coverings. The mum-of-two, from Whalley Range, said she was left stunned and dismayed. She had to phone husband Abdul, who attended the meeting with their 18-year-old son Awais, while she sat in the lobby of the college's Northenden campus. Bosses at the college said that all students and visitors are asked to keep their faces visible for "safety and security" reasons.

Mrs Rafique, 40, who has worn the full veil, or niqab, for seven years, said:

"I'm born in this country and British. Why should what I wear offend anyone? I didn't want to make any fuss. All I wanted was to find out the information to help my son go to university. I offered to sit at the back or at the front, anywhere where I wouldn't be seen, if they thought I was going to offend anyone. I was really upset because whenever I've visited the college before and there's never been a problem, in fact the tutors have been welcoming and friendly."

Mrs Rafique, who is married to double-glazing firm boss Abdul, 40, and has a younger son, Ibrahim, 12, added: "I do get abuse every now and again in the street – which I just have to deal with. However, I was very surprised when I was treated this way by the college."

Business student Awais, 18, who hopes to take an accountancy course at Manchester University, said: "It was really embarrassing when they told her she couldn't come in. We've never, ever been told about any rule about what parents can wear."

A spokeswoman for Manchester College said Mrs Rafique's concerns were being taken "very seriously" following the incident. She added:

"The Manchester College provides a safe and inclusive environment that fosters development and achievement. "We apply a single dress code to all college users, including learners and visitors. At all times we need to be able to identify all individuals easily in order to maintain safety and security and therefore we ask that faces are clearly visible whilst indoors. Our dress code is reviewed through our quality improvement group and we will take this situation into account at the next review."

Manchester Evening News, 24 June 2012

View the Original article

Telegraph blogger Ed West recommends a new report by former BBC journalist Dennis Sewell, A Question of Attitude: The BBC and Bias Beyond News, in which the author accuses the Beeb of abandoning impartiality in order to further its left-liberal political agenda and "cites a number of BBC programmes which have, he feels, been unjustifiably biased".

West offers us an egregious example: "Worst of all, perhaps, was Geert Wilders – Europe's Most Dangerous Man? (BBC Two – February 2011)." He quotes Sewell's attack on what he claims was the documentary's misrepresentation of Wilders' views:

Billed as a profile of the controversial Dutch politician, for much of the time it felt more like a character assassination.... More than once in the film, emphasis was placed on Wilders' supposed wish to have the Koran banned.... Wilders has many times explained and clarified his position on this – and indeed is briefly glimpsed in the film, trying to do so at a press conference. The truth of the matter is that, within the context of a discussion on banning the sale of Mein Kampf in Holland (a measure that was passed into law at the instigation of the Left), Wilders remarked that, if the Left were to be consistent, the logic of its arguments for banning Hitler's book should lead it also to seek a ban on the Koran, which contains passages that it should find just as odious as the passages in Mein Kampf that were so objectionable.

The reality is that in 2007, following an assault on Ehsan Jami of the Committee for Ex-Muslims, Wilders published an article in the Dutch daily newspaper Volkskrant headlined "Genoeg is genoeg: verbied de Koran" (Enough is enough: ban the Qur'an). You can read the original here and an English translation from Wilders' own website here. Wilders wrote:

Enough is enough. Let's put an end to all this politically correct twisting and turning.... The root of the problem is fascist Islam, the sick ideology of Allah and Mohammed as laid down in the Islamic Mein Kampf: the Koran. In this regard, the texts from the Koran speak for themselves.

In various suras Muslims are summoned to oppress, prosecute or kill Jews, Christians, renegades and non-believers, to beat and rape women and to establish a worldwide Islamic state through violence. I've lost count of the number of suras that incite Muslims to spread death and destruction.

Why don't we ban that miserable book? After all, we also decided to ban Mein Kampf! This would bring the message home to those who assaulted Jami and to other Islamists that in this country the Koran should never, absolutely never, be used as a source of inspiration or an excuse for violence....

I am fed up with Islam in the Netherlands: let's put a stop to the influx of Muslim immigrants. I am fed up with the worshipping of Allah and Mohammed in the Netherlands: let's put a stop to the building of mosques. I am fed up with the Koran in the Netherlands: let's ban that fascist book.

So, whatever weasel words the Dutch racist may have used subsequently, the fact is that Wilders did issue an explicit call for the Qur'an to be banned, as Sewell and West would have discovered if they'd checked the facts. But they obviously didn't bother. Yet they happily lecture the BBC about the need to avoid misrepresentation and political bias.

View the Original article

A church has been banned from using a market stall to hold its weekly outreach service following a complaint about "hate-motivated" leaflets published by the group.

The Norwich Reformed Church held a weekly outreach bookstall from the Norwich City Council-owned site on Hay Hill, but has been informed it is no longer allowed to use the stall after the council received a complaint about literature on it. The complaint prompted a review of the materials produced by Reverend Alan Clifford, pastor of the church, and the council contacted police as materials, particularly the leaflet entitled Why Not Islam, were considered to be hate-motivated.

The church has been prohibited from using the site, while the council-run Eaton Park Community Centre has also been contacted with a view to ceasing any further bookings made by the church.

A council spokesman said: "We received a complaint from a member of the public about material published by the Norwich Reformed Church (associated with the Farthing Trust) which uses council facilities. This was considered to be hate-motivated and, in accordance with the agreed Norfolk Multi Agency Protocol, we contacted the police.

"Although the police advised that no criminal offence had been committed, we have a duty under the Equality Act 2010 to foster good relations between people of all backgrounds and religions. By allowing premises owned by the council to be used by an organisation publishing such material, we would be failing in that duty. People across Norfolk have recently been urged to stand up to hate-motivated and intolerant behaviour through a publicity campaign and as a council we have to play our part and take action where necessary."

Rev Clifford, who has written to the Christian Institute for advice, said an "extraordinarily silly" form of "political correctness" had emerged. He said: "While the opinion of the Christian Institute is awaited, it is hoped that in due course, common sense might prevail, and that Norwich Reformed Church's rights to worship and witness will be restored."

A police spokesman confirmed a complaint had been received from a member of the public regarding leaflets that were distributed but, following discussions with the council, the force's diversity team and CPS it was "deemed that no offences were carried out".

Norwich Evening News, 14 April 2012

View the Original article

A football hooligan who performed a Nazi salute and unveiled an English Defence League flag has been banned from football matches.

Lincoln City supporter Peter Briggs, 19, was associated with several violent flare-ups at football matches between 2009 and February this year. He appeared at Lincoln Magistrates' Court on Thursday, April 5, where Lincolnshire Police applied for a civil banning order against him.

The court heard Briggs was involved in clashes at Grimsby Town, Notts County and in Lincoln High Street when on July 24, 2010, the Imps played Celtic. Five people were taken to hospital and 27 people arrested.

During a match against Stockport on January 22 last year, bottles, glasses and chairs were used in a pub when the rival clubs clashed. Lincolnshire Police solicitor Daniel Richardson told the court: "Briggs unveiled a flag with Lincoln City Youth, EDL, No Surrender, printed on it. On May 7 last year Lincoln City lost to Aldershot, relegating the Imps from the Football League. People invaded the pitch and Briggs was one of those."

The court heard that some of Briggs's close associates were arrested following disorder at a game at Alfreton, where a security fence was torn down.

Mr Richardson went on to describe various exhibits, including CCTV and pictures of Briggs with the 'Lincoln risk group' with people performing a Nazi salute.

Briggs, of Bentley Drive, Bracebridge Heath, Lincoln, who was not represented by a solicitor, did not seek to contest the evidence.

Magistrates banned him from attending any football ground or any regulated UK matches in the UK for three years. Briggs will also have to surrender his passport so he cannot go to any games being played outside the UK.

He cannot be in the Sincil Bank area during the two hours before and after any games. He cannot be within a five-mile radius of any England games. If Lincoln are playing away, Briggs cannot use trains without permission from the British Transport Police.

Once two thirds of the order is completed, Briggs can apply to the court to consider shortening it.

It is usual to ban someone from football games in criminal proceedings. But after the disorder of the European Championships in 2000, changes were made allowing police to apply for civil banning orders.

They can be applied to anyone who has caused, or been involved in violence at football matches in the UK or any other country. It is seen as a preventative measure and police in Lincoln say it is working.

Football intelligence officer Andy Pearson said after the hearing: "We haven't done our end of season statistics yet but we've been doing this operation for two years now and last season we reduced disorder by 58 per cent both at home and away."

Lincolnshire Echo, 12 April 2012

View the Original article