Jewish, Hindu and Muslim leaders from Queens gathered with lawmakers to denounce the possible hate crime committed at a Kew Gardens Hills Mosque earlier this month, and city Comptroller John Liu suggested some of the NYPD's policies could make bias crimes more common.

"An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us," said Imam Shamsi Ali, of the Jamaica Muslim Center, who gathered religious leaders from around Flushing in the wake of the Nov. 18 attack.

At about 5 a.m., 57-year-old Bashir Amad was opening the doors of the mosque for morning prayers when he was beaten, bitten and stabbed by a suspect police described as a 6-foot white man between the ages of 35 and 45 and weighing 180 pounds. According to the NYPD, the man shouted anti-Muslim statements before ambushing Bashir outside the house of worship, at 72-55 Kissena Blvd. As of press time Tuesday no arrests had been made.

Liu condemned the incident and called for justice, assuring everyone that the NYPD was following all possible leads to find the attacker. But he also contended that policies, like the NYPD's practice of monitoring Muslims or barring Sikhs from wearing religious headwear while on the job, sends the message that it is acceptable to discriminate against these groups.

"Unfortunately, when Muslims are singled out for profiling, surveillance and other discriminatory actions, hate crimes such as this are more likely," he said. Liu was referring to the NYPD's controversial practice of infiltrating and monitoring mosques and student and business groups, even though the intelligence did not produce any indictments. The Police Department and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly have defended the practice as essential to protecting the city from terror attacks.

To show solidarity after the Kissena Boulevard attack, Ali called leaders from other houses of worship who gathered to decry the possible hate crime.

"Let's not pretend we are all the same," said Dr. Uma Mysorekar, of the Hindu Temple Society of North America. "We are different, but let's respect those differences."

Mysorekar stood with Amad and other members of the mosque, along with Rabbi Michael Weisser, of Flushing's Free Synagogue, who also encouraged tolerance and understanding between the different faiths. "No act like this will drive us apart – eventually that will only draw us closer together," he said.

TimesLedger, 28 November 2012

Update:  See also "Cops offer $2G reward for mosque hate attack suspect", Queens Gazette, 28 November 2012

View the Original article

Muslim civil rights groups and community organisations have condemned a series of anti-Islamic advertisements that will be appearing in New York's subway stations next week.

The ads had initially been rejected by the city's Metropolitan Transport Authority (MTA) but were later allowed after a legal appeal ruled them to be expressions of freedom of speech. One ad reads: "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad."

The ads are set to appear in at least 10 of the city's 400 subways stations and have been designed and paid for by the controversial American Freedom Defence Initiative, which is led by outspoken anti-Islamist activist Pamela Geller. The AFDI has been termed an "active anti-Muslim group" by the civil rights watch dog organisation the Southern Poverty Law Centre.

"You are talking about people like me being called a "savage"," said Linda Sarsour, the executive director of the Arab American Association of New York. "It is all bubbling up. I know there is freedom of speech, but with freedom of speech comes responsibility. This promotes hate."

The AFDI first came to prominence during a prolonged fight about the building of an Islamic cultural centre in downtown Manhattan. Its critics dubbed the project a "Ground Zero mosque" and waged a high-profile campaign against it that many said was Islamaphobic. The SPLC termed Geller "the anti-Muslim movement's most visible and flamboyant figurehead."

Ads similar to the ones set to appear in New York have already been put on buses in San Francisco. However, the local transport authority in the city, known as Muni, donated the funds raised by the ad to the city's Human Rights Commission and also ran their own ad next to it that stated: "Muni doesn't support this message." The AFDI has also sought to run the ads in Washington DC but authorities there have delayed them for public safety concerns.

Muslim civil rights groups said the ads were coming at an especially sensitive time as world politics are already being rocked by violent protests and attacks on American embassies in the wake of the production of an anti-Islamic film made by an Egyptian Coptic Christian living in California. It also comes after several high-profile incidents in the US, including the burning of a mosque in Joplin, Missouri. "They add to the overall picture of anti-Muslim feeling that is growing up in our nation," said Ibrahim Hooper, a director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

The renewed controversy over the ads also comes on the same day as a major global report by the Pew Research Centre identified a rise of religious intolerance worldwide, including in the US. On the two measures the survey used – called "social hostility" and "government restrictions" - the US moved up the scale for the first time in both areas. When it came to official restrictions the US went from a low category to moderate, but when it came to the social hostilities index the country went from the lower end of the moderate scale to the upper end.

Guardian, 20 September 2012

See also "Controversial 'Defeat Jihad' ad to appear in NYC subways", CNN, 19 September 2012

View the Original article

The Daily Mail reports that a drunken couple of Polish origin, Beata Jopek and her partner Maciej Matysniak, racially abused two hijab-wearing Muslim women, Hana Farah and Ithil Ibrahim, on a Leeds-Sheffield train.

It was Matysniak who first approached the two women and told them: "Shut the f*** up", why are you so "f****** loud, aren't you embarrassed about how loud you are? You can't even speak English."

Jopek then told the women to "go back to your own country", screaming "no-one wants you here, you are f****** disgusting". She shouted at one of them: "Take that f****** thing off, a white person wouldn't do what you are doing." She ripped the headscarf from one of the women and when restrained by a guard said: "If I lose the baby I'm going to kill the black b****."

Jopek narrowly escaped a prison sentence at Sheffield Crown Court after both women said they would prefer that their assailants be made to recognise what they did was wrong rather than go to jail. Jopek was given a three-month sentence suspended for 12 months and 120 hours of unpaid community work. Matysniak was given a 12-month community order with 80 hours of unpaid work.

So what headline did the Mail choose for their report? "White bigots launched racist tirade against Muslims", perhaps? Of course not. Instead, we get: "Pregnant Polish migrant told British Muslim women wearing hijabs to 'go back to your own country' in drunken tirade."

Bloody Poles, coming over here and abusing our Muslims. Don't they realise this is the job of decent British newspapers like the Daily Mail?

View the Original article

'We Are Bristol' march against EDLLabour's Bristol mayor candidate Marvin Rees has been accused by a rival politician of being "naïve and weak" in his handling of the run-up to Saturday's EDL march and counter-protests.

Mr Rees was also branded as "easily led" in the statement released today on behalf of Lib Dem councillor Gary Hopkins. But the mayoral candidate has hit back – saying he is "disappointed" by the move.

Mr Hopkins' statement notes that Mr Rees and other Bristol Labour politicians appeared on Unite Against Fascism (UAF) leaflets before the counter-protests on Saturday, and that violent clashes had broken out between counter-EDL protesters and the police.

The councillor, who is in charge of community safety in his council role, said: "The Labour Party were well aware that there was likely to be street violence but still persisted in supporting direct counter-demonstration and, it is reported, speaking at the rally.

"Labour councillor Mike Wollacott faces calls to step down from his position of responsibility on the council after he tried to put pressure on the council leader to speak on behalf of UAF and then ignored police attempts to bring order by encouraging a potentially dangerous assembly in a provocative place. Does Mr Rees support Councillor Wollacott or not?

"This was totally irresponsible. Marvin Rees has shown himself to be weak, easily led and – if he didn't realise violent disturbances might follow – naïve, as well."

Mr Wollacott told ThisisBristol that the calls for his resignation after he had asked the council leader to speak at the demonstration made it a "disappointing day for democracy" .

Mr Rees reacted to Mr Hopkins by saying it was "simply not good enough to abdicate responsibility" when it came to the issue of the EDL march, and that Bristol needed "change and leadership".

He said: "Let's remember the most important thing here is standing up against the dangerous and divisive politics the EDL represent. At the same time, it goes without saying that under no circumstances would I support violent protest.

"I'm disappointed in Gary and the Liberal Democrat press office. The challenges thrown up by the EDL march are just too important to Bristol's future to be used for Party posturing, yet that is what the Liberal Democrats are doing with them. Their press release lacks insight, understanding and accuracy."

Mr Hopkins also criticised Bristol Labour MP Kerry McCarthy for letting herself be reported calling for a ban of the EDL march, which he said was “wholly irresponsible”.

“She has some explaining to do,” he said. “Was she deliberately stirring up passion and anger for political gain or was she genuinely so ignorant of the facts that she thought a ban was possible?”

Kerry McCarthy replied: "Yet again Cllr Hopkins and the Liberal Democrats have taken a cowardly and unprincipled position which has been characteristic of their time in office.

"I am, of course, opposed to all violence and that is why Cllr Wollacott and I were in frequent contact with Pride, UAF and the police to ensure these groups were talking to each other and working together.

"It is a disgrace that the Lib Dems failed to take leadership. They have focused all their energy on attacking those standing against division and violence, while failing to speak out against the disruption the EDL brought to Bristol."

Bristol Post, 19 July 2012

View the Original article

Bristol's two Labour MPs, and the party's candidate for elected mayor, have issued a joint statement condemning Saturday's march by the English Defence League (EDL) in the city.

Dawn Primarolo (Bristol South), Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) and Marvin Rees said yesterday there was "no place for the EDL in Bristol", but urged those planning to protest against the group to co-operate with police.

The EDL will march through the city, ending in Queen Square, on Saturday. A counter march, organised by a trade unions and community groups, will begin in the city centre. Up to 1,000 police officers are expected to keep the two sides apart.

The two marches come on the same day as the city Pride Festival comes to an end, with a party at College Green.

In a joint statement yesterday, the Labour group said: "We reject entirely the aims, philosophy and method of the EDL. At a time when decent people from all backgrounds are working together to improve their communities, the EDL seeks to cause division, fear and hatred.

"There is no place for the EDL in Bristol. On July 14, thousands of Bristol residents will be celebrating the Bristol we know – a proud and welcoming city that celebrates our differences and rejects totally any attempts to divide us. Bristol is much stronger than a motley collection of EDL members, bussed in from far-flung corners of the country.

"We hope that Bristolians from all backgrounds will go about their normal business on the 14th, but we do understand why those who feel especially strongly about the EDL's presence in our city will want to protest against their presence. We would ask simply that they co-operate with the police, who will be working hard to ensure that public safety is protected.

"By Saturday evening, the EDL will have left Bristol. They will find little support for their dangerous views and we hope, and expect, that they will never return."

A group called We Are Bristol – made up of trades unions, politicians, academics and community organisations – have organised the counter demonstration for 11am on Saturday in the city centre, opposite the Hippodrome.

The group has claimed they have been faced with a "hostile attitude" from police who have "focussed attention on 'extremists' who wish to show their opposition to the racism of the EDL, rather than on the violent record of the EDL against local communities and on their demonstrations".

Against the backdrop of the arrests of three men on terrorism charges – thought to have been plotting an attack on the EDL – the We Are Bristol group has insisted it is aiming to hold a peaceful rally.

"We wish in our counter-demonstration to hold a peaceful and family-friendly protest against the EDL," it said. "In this way we wish to express through our trade unions and other groups our abhorrence of the racism of the EDL, and to celebrate our city's cultural diversity and innovation. We hope that the authorities, including local police, will take notice of our peaceful intentions, and support our right to protest."

Bristol24-7, 11 July 2012

It would have been better if the three Labour leaders had issued a call to Bristolians to join the We Are Bristol counter-demonstration. This is backed by the TUC South West Regional Council. What is the objection to Bristol Labour politicians supporting it?

As for Bristol24-7, its report adds that tomorrow it will publish "our interview with the EDL, and its response to the Labour MPs' claims".

If the EDL were antisemites protesting against the supposed threat posed by the Jewish community, would Bristol24-7 be providing them with a platform to promote their vile views and lie about their real aims? You can bet it wouldn't.

View the Original article