Last week the Times published a report about a judge's decision to allow a request from an Orthodox Jewish couple that a Beth Din court should be allowed to arbitrate in their divorce proceedings. Although the story concerned Jews rather than Muslims, the paper chose to run the report under the front-page headline "High Court opens way to Sharia divorces".

The Muslim Council of Britain, who took the view that the coverage "was sensationalist and would help fuel Islamopobia", wrote a letter to the Times complaining about the report, which was published in the paper today, albeit in an edited version.

The section of the letter that the Times decided to omit read: "Once again such reporting raises uninformed hackles against our faith, and what British Muslims really want. With a recent YouGov poll highlighting prevailing negative attitudes against British Muslims, there is a responsibility to report such matters fairly."

So the MCB writes a letter to the Times complaining about Islamophobic bias, and the Times publishes it ... minus the section that contains the actual complaint about Islamophobic bias!

Here, via the MCB website, is the full version of the letter:

Dear Sir,

We find it odd that your report of a landmark divorce settlement under Jewish Beth Din Courts should be framed under the narrative of Islamic Sharia courts (High Court opens way to Sharia divorces, 1 February). Once again such reporting raises uninformed hackles against our faith, and what British Muslims really want. With a recent YouGov poll highlighting prevailing negative attitudes against British Muslims, there is a responsibility to report such matters fairly.

Of course, we do welcome any move facilitating choices for those who wish, as Muslims, for their personal relationships to be governed by a Shariah civil code. This legitimate aspiration requires full discussion in an atmosphere of understanding and tolerance. It allows for British Muslims to fulfil their religious obligations under British law. It does not require a change in British law, or a diminution in human rights. We seek parity with other faiths, not special favours.

Yours Sincerely,

Farooq Murad,
Secretary General,
Muslim Council of Britain

View the Original article

Netpol has published a critical report into the policing of the EDL and Counter demonstrations of February 4th in Leicester. The report is a collation of the evidence and observations obtained by a team of community-based legal observers who spent the day monitoring the policing of both EDL and counter-demonstrations. The legal observers deployed were local volunteers trained by Netpol with support from The Race Equality Centre (TREC) and Highfields Centre.

The report criticises police handling of the demonstration, particularly the effort and resources the police and local authorities devoted to persuading the local community, particularly young people in the local community, not to attend counter demonstrations against the EDL. It also raises questions about the use of force, particularly the use of dog units against Muslim youth, and the restrictions on movement placed on the Muslim population, effectively making Leicester a 'no-go' area.

Val Swain of Netpol stated, "The decision by Leicestershire constabulary to persuade local communities, voluntary and faith groups and particularly young people to stay away from counter demonstrations was utterly wrong. It really cannot be the role of the police to decide who is able to demonstrate and who is not. As well as being an interference with fundamental rights to protest, it led to a policing strategy that prioritised police control of the local community, especially Muslim youth. This raised tensions, heightened anger, and in my view made conflict more, rather than less likely."

Network for Police Monitoring, 13 June 2012

See also Saqib Deshmukh, "Business as usual", Institute of Race Relations, 15 June 2012

View the Original article