A coalition of 11 major American Muslim organizations today called on the Republican Party to reach out to Muslim voters by rejecting anti-Islam bias and discriminatory legislation.

At a noon news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., the coalition announced the publication of a full-page advertisement in the conservative Washington Times newspaper outlining recent examples of intolerant speech and actions by Republicans and offering recommendations to help improve GOP relations with the Muslim community.

That open letter to the GOP states in part:

"We are writing to offer an open invitation to reassess your party's current relationship with American Muslims. As with other demographics, American Muslim support for Republicans has dropped precipitously in recent years. This shift away from the GOP is not set in stone, but its future direction is dependent on choices your party makes."

Recommendations for GOP leaders outlined in the open letter include:

• The party establishment should speak out strongly against biased speech within its ranks.

• The party should make a concerted effort to engage Muslim voters.

• The party establishment should oppose efforts to pass discriminatory legislation.

• The party establishment should reject any member's effort to use official public forums to smear a minority.

• Party officials should end the persistent witch-hunt targeting legally operating Muslim institutions.

The coalition's letter concludes by stating:

"Let us all work together to maintain America's leadership in support of emerging democracies and the rule of law worldwide by promoting the humanitarian principles enshrined in our Constitution's Bill of Rights. May God Almighty bless the United States of America."

Signatories to the open letter include:

American Muslim Alliance (AMA), American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections (AMT), Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), ICNA Council for Social Justice (CSJ), The Mosque Cares (Ministry of W. Deen Mohammed), Muslim American Society Public Affairs and Civic Engagement (MAS-PACE), Muslim Ummah of North America MUNA), Pakistan American Democratic Forum (PADF), United Voices

A similar statement of American Muslim concerns will be addressed to the Democratic Party in the near future.

Last month, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, released the results of an informal exit poll indicating that more than 85 percent of American Muslim voters picked President Obama in the November 6 election.

View the Original article

Police have defended their decision not to ban two opposing groups staging marches through Rotherham town centre on Saturday – sparking fears there could be clashes.

The English Defence League and Unite Against Fascism are both set to stage rallies at the same time, with both expected to bring more than 200 supporters.

The EDL organised its march first in response to the publication of confidential police and council reports on gangs of Asian men grooming young girls for in the town for sex. The reports highlighted abuse spanning a decade and revealed a lack of police staff to deal with the issue and publicly acknowledge the seriousness of the problem.

Demonstrators plan to meet at the County Borough at 11.30am and start marching from 12.30pm, taking a route along Corporation Street and Ship Hill before gathering outside Rotherham Town Hall for a number of public speeches. The group has agreed to clear the area by 1.30pm.

United Against Fascism, is expecting 250 supporters to attend its event in All Saints' Square between 11am and 4pm. Supporters plan to march to the Town Hall after the EDL members have left the area. Their march will take them along Church Street – the Minster side of Minster Gardens – and directly up Moorgate Street.

A South Yorkshire Police spokeswoman said: "People have asked why can't we ban the march. In a democratic society, people have the right to legal and peaceful protest. Any attempt to ban a march such as that proposed this weekend would involve invoking the Public Order Act and an application, via the local authority, to the Home Secretary, demonstrating a real prospect of serious disruption and disorder that could be dealt with by no other means.

"We do not believe this to be the case here. Based on the information available and liaison with the event organisations, South Yorkshire Police and Rotherham Council have put in place a plan that deals with all contingencies. Both South Yorkshire Police and Rotherham Council are working with local businesses and communities to provide as much information as possible about the events.

"Both organisations will be deploying additional staff to the town centre on Saturday and whilst respecting people's right to protest peacefully, appropriate action will be taken to deal with any disorder."

The Star, 12 October 2012

See also "Rotherham prepares to oppose the racist English Defence League", Socialist Worker, 12 October 2012

View the Original article

More people would support a political party that pledged to stop all immigration or promised to reduce the number of Muslims than one that encouraged multiculturalism, a survey conducted in the wake of the Olympics reveals.

Despite London 2012 being heralded as a celebration of a diverse society, the research suggests much of the electorate remains open to views traditionally associated with far-right groups.

The survey, conducted by YouGov with 1,750 respondents, found that 41% of people would be more likely to vote for a party that promised to stop all immigration, compared with 28% who said they would be less likely to support a group that promoted such policies.

In addition, 37% admitted that they would be more likely to support a political party that promised to reduce the number of Muslims in Britain and the presence of Islam in society, compared with 23% who said it would make them less likely.

Matthew Goodwin of the Extremis Project, an independent group monitoring extremism and terrorism that commissioned the research, said that, although Britain lacked a successful extremist political party, much of the public was susceptible to far-right ideology.

He said: "The results clearly point towards enduring public anxieties over the performance of mainstream political and business elites, immigration and also the role of Muslims and Islam in society."

In Europe, far-right parties have gained an increasing foothold, with Marine le Pen's National Front recently polling 6.5 million votes and a poll in Greece indicating that support for the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn has grown to 10.5%, up from 7% at the last election. However, the fiercely anti-Islamic Freedom party of Geert Wilders won only 15 seats in last week's Dutch elections, compared with its previous 24 seats.

The UK poll results suggest, however, that Britain may struggle to host far-right groups capable of such popularity, revealing a striking generational divide in attitudes towards multiculturalism. It found that large majorities of 18-to -24-year-olds rejected radical rightwing policies, with 60% saying that a party campaigning to halt all immigration would make them less likely to support it or that it did not matter to them.

Less than a quarter of 18-to-24-year-olds said they would be more likely to vote for a party that promised to halt all immigration, compared with more than half of those aged above 60. Similarly, 27% of the younger age group said they would vote for a party that campaigned to reduce the number of Muslims, compared with 49% of those aged over 60.

Goodwin, a lecturer at Nottingham University, said: "While we see further evidence of an emerging generation that is more tolerant towards – and accepting of – immigration and diversity, there remains clear potential for a party that … promises to halt immigration, reduce the number of Muslims and prioritise traditional British values over other cultures."

Observer, 16 September 2012

View the Original article

The Conservative peer and party financier Lord Ashcroft has published a study titled Degrees of Separation: Ethnic minority voters and the Conservative Party. It can be consulted here, and has some interesting statistics concerning the attitudes of British Muslims towards the Tory Party.

In the last general election 37% of Muslim respondents voted Labour and only 12% Conservative. 35% said they would never under any circumstances vote for the Tories, whereas only 7% said they would never vote Labour.

One question was: "Do you identify with a political party – that is, do you think of one party as consistently representing people like you, and you feel an affinity towards that party beyond the question of how you vote. If so, which one?" 47% of Muslims said Labour and only 5% Conservative.

68% said that Labour shared their values, whereas only 26% thought the same about the Tories. 76% believed that Labour understands minorities compared with 32% for the Tories. Asked which parties believed in equal opportunity for all, 79% said Labour and 34% Conservative.

60% of Muslims agreed that "Conservative politicians look down on people from different ethnic and religious backgrounds, more than politicians from other parties do". 50% thought that "Conservative policies have shown that they are hostile to people from different ethnic and religious backgrounds".

Degrees of Separation also reports the results of focus groups that formed part of the study:

"Several Muslims – and a number of Hindus and Sikhs – said they had suffered more abuse or hostility since September 11, 2001. Generally, participants did not feel they experienced direct prejudice on a regular basis. However, when participants were asked which of the three main parties people probably vote for who have unfriendly attitudes to minority voters, the Conservative Party was nearly always the answer."

"There was some debate among participants over how much, if at all, the Conservative Party had changed in recent years, or since their parents or grandparents came to Britain. Most thought it had changed somewhat, whether through necessity or principle.... However, for a number of black and Muslim participants in particular, any apparent change in the Conservatives had been cosmetic. They cited the lack of minority Conservative MPs and party members, the view that the Conservatives do not actively engage with minority communities, and a feeling that whatever they may say, Tories as a whole do not really like people like them."

Ashcroft argues that the tendency of minority communties to vote Labour is "primarily a matter of class and occupation rather than ethnicity". It is of course a psephological truism that voting behaviour is linked to income (although if you're Ken Livingstone you're not allowed to say that). However, as Ashcroft himself points out: "Many also felt that Labour supported them not only in class terms but as members of an ethnic minority. Labour was regarded as more engaged in their communities, more positive than others about the idea of immigration, and more committed to promoting equality and opportunity for ethnic minorities."

View the Original article