The Brother Hassan’s documentary “The British Muslim Struggle” was aired on Press TV earlier this week.
The documentary explores the role of Muslims in Britain countering Islamophobia and engaging in the political process to bring about a situation in which they are properly represented in the fields of politics and media.
A must watch if you wish to understand the political game and how it impacts on Muslims in the UK.
Well done Hassan, The Akh salutes you on a job well done.
You would have thought that Gordon Brown had boiled a cat alive and eaten it with cheese and crackers, if you believed the way in which the sanctimonious media have carried the story. I have no love for Brown or the new labour project, but will this crass remark make labour lose the election?
Time for a bit of analysis, I’ve pointed out previously that Rupert Murdoch’s News International Media Conglomerate supports the CONservatives the only party they haven’t got into bed with is the Liberal Democrats.
It should come as no surprise whatsoever that the comment was captured by Rupert Murdoch’s SKY News. Brown should have his media point of contact shot, seeing you know that SKY are backing your opponent, your guard needs to be tighter then Bernard Hopkins’, so why allow yourself to be caught out by a sucker punch of your own making?
The Scum leads with:
While Murdoch’s broadsheet, The Times runs with:
A selection of the Non-Murdoch owned press show:
SKY “News” have been salivating like a rabid dog over its coverage over what I would call a non incident, but of course being in the home straight of an election campaign, electioneering comes into it’s own.
Anyone remember Murdoch’s media getting into such a furore when over a Million people died in Iraq?
No.
A little perspective wouldn’t go amiss.
The only man to have admitted his role in the killing of Malcolm X has been released from prison on parole.
Thomas Hagan, 69, was released from a New York jail 45 years after the assassination, officials confirmed.
Hagan was one of three men convicted of killing Malcolm X, The two other gunmen were previously paroled. Hagan, who was shot in the thigh while trying to flee, was arrested outside the Audubon carrying a clip from the .45 caliber pistol he used during the attack.
First-person accounts of the shooting were provided to investigators by a variety of witnesses, including a Queens man, William Parker, who was struck with a stray bullet, and Betty Shabazz, Malcolm’s wife, who testified before a Manhattan grand jury. An NYPD report details the results of an autopsy performed at the Bellevue Morgue: “Cause of death: Multiple shotgun and other caliber bullet wounds of Heart and aorta.”
Perhaps it’s time that the truth was laid bare, and the CIA admitted it’s role in the assassination of the shaheed Al-Hajj Malik Al-Shabaz.
It was only after returning from performing the Hajj in 1964, did the black nationalism of the NOI be replaced with the correct form of Islam. Malcolm X was close to agreeing a co-operative movement with the other great civil rights leader Martin Luther King.
The CIA were well aware of the impact that of the concerted platform these two heavyweights would forge in uniting the black & impoverished communities, and the threat it would pose to the “American Way”.
Martin Luther King was assassinated 4 years after Malcolm X.
Gone but never forgotten, the example of brother Malik Al-Shabaz continues to inspire people around the world on the quest for truth, justice and love for their fellow man.
Filed under Current Affairs, Islam, Islamophobia, Racism
The Manufacturing of Consent to invade Iran continues, the consensus being built should be noted for its unreliability in its content, an even more grave consequence is that these “facts” are getting major airtime where it counts, if you read my post yesterday, then you’ll know all about how the media can frame the discussion.
“Iran’s political turmoil has prompted a growing number of the country’s officials to defect or leak information to the West, creating a new flow of intelligence about its secretive nuclear program.
Some of the most significant new material has come from informants, including scientists and others with access to Iran’s military programs, who are motivated by antipathy toward the government and its suppression of the opposition movement after a disputed presidential election in June, according to current and former officials in the United States and Europe who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the intelligence gains.
In recent weeks, U.S. officials have acknowledged that an Iranian nuclear scientist defected to the West in June. Shahram Amiri, 32, vanished while on a religious pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia and has provided spy agencies with details about sensitive programs, including a long-hidden uranium-enrichment plant near the city of Qom, intelligence officials and Europe-based diplomats said.
Amiri is described by some as the most significant Iranian defector since Brig. Gen. Ali Reza Asgari, a former deputy defense minister and Revolutionary Guard Corps commander who switched sides during a 2007 trip to Turkey.”
The Israeli, Arutz Sheva added:
“An Iranian nuclear scientist has asked for asylum in Israel, Deputy Minister Ayoub Kara, of the Druze community.
My office has received a request from an Iranian scientist who is currently staying in a friendly country, by means of an Israeli Jewish woman of Iranian birth, Kara revealed in a interview panel appearance in Ramat Gan. I am making an effort to assist in this matter because I believe in helping anyone to remove the strategic and nuclear threat upon the enlightened and democratic world.”
While the Wall Street Journal ran with:
“Israel weighs merits of solo attack on Iran”, alongside a fully interactive demo of the routes Israeli attack jets can fly to attack Iran. They all would require Israeli planes to fly through U.S.-controlled airspace in Iraq or through the airspace of U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey, which could cause serious political consequences for Israel.
David Schenker of The Washington Institute, A U.S.-based (Pro Israeli) think tank, has issued a report saying that a new Middle East war may be looming on the horizon.
Pro Zionist commentators in America are pushing for an attack on Iran by rounding on President Obama:
“The President is more interested in trying to mollify Islamist fanatics who continue their war preparations.”
Whilst elsewhere they conflate Israel’s pro war stance with America’s domestic woes, adding:
“A third factor is whether Israeli planes would need to fly over Iraqi air space to reach Iran. The U.S. still has air bases around the region, and might not want to recognize Israeli planes as friendly. Thus Obama instills uncertainty into foreign policy just he prolongs the recession by instilling uncertainty into domestic policy on medical costs and taxes.”
To say that The Akh is dismayed by this propaganda would be an understatement of immense proportions.
The facilitator of every major violent event thus far in the twenty-first century have been based on lies told by democratic governments. The lies are continuing to be told, about the supposed “existential” menace posed by Iran to Israel, America and (if you believe some European leaders) to Western Europe.
The American invasion of Iraq in 2003 was motivated by the neo-conservative illusion that the Iraqi people would welcome invasion and become a force for democracy, and friends to Israel. Instead, the death of Saddam Hussein and destruction of his government, the wrecking of Iraqi urban society and the country’s infrastructure and industry, which will take years to reconstruct, ignited anarchic insurrection and sectarian conflict, delivering the country into the power and influence of a much larger and more important enemy of both the United States and Israel, Iran. Another lesson about lies, one might have thought.
U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates is reported to have sent a secret letter to President Barack Obama last January reviewing the military options available if diplomacy and the new American attempt to intensify international sanctions on Iran fail to produce the desired halt in Iran’s effort, if that is what it is, to build a nuclear deterrent.
If Iran does pursue a nuclear capability, once again it is to deter attack. Precisely the same objection exists to theories of Iranian aggression as to those lies put forward in 2002-2003 about Iraq posing a nuclear menace to the world.
Once more the threat is a polemical invention, intended to frighten American, Israeli (and European) voters, and prompt a pre-emptive attack on Iran. The reason Mr. Gates reports his uncertainties to the president is that he too recognizes that the conflict with Iran is constructed from fictions – which, as with the lies about Iraq, may turn into another war, whose consequences are sure to be worse for all concerned than the fiasco and tragedy of the Iraqi invasion and subsequent slaughter.
Filed under 4GW, Iran, Islamophobia, Israel, Manufacturing Consent, Think Tanks, War, Zionism
Back in October 2009, I pointed out how Rupert Murdoch and his News International media empire were switching their alliance from the Labour Party to the Conservatives.
David Yelland was Murdoch’s editor at The Sun The Scum between 1998 & 2003. In a recent article in the Guardian, Yelland described the threat posed to his former bosses at News International by the Lib Dem “surge” whilst taking shots at the media’s Tory bias propaganda.
Yelland went on to state:
“Make no mistake, if the Liberal Democrats actually won the election – or held the balance of power – it would be the first time in decades that Murdoch was locked out of British politics.
In so many ways, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote against Murdoch and the media elite.
I can say this with some authority because in my five years editing the Sun I did not once meet a Lib Dem leader, even though I met Tony Blair, William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith on countless occasions. (Full disclosure: I have since met Nick Clegg.)”
The “King-Maker” role of the Pro Zionist Murdoch-owned media should be apparent to everyone, it is one that has supported the Labour-Tory nexus in recent decades.
Murdoch’s continuous switch hitting from Conservative to Labour back to Conservative, reflects the corrosive power that lends itself to British journalism.
Yelland continued:
“Over the years the relationships between the media elite and the two main political parties have become closer and closer to the point where, now, one is indistinguishable from the other. Indeed, it is difficult not to think that the lunatics have stopped writing about the asylum and have actually taken it over.
We now live in an era when very serious men and women stay out of politics because our national discourse is conducted by populists with no interest in politics whatsoever. What we have in the UK is a coming together of the political elite and the media in a way that makes people outside London or outside those elites feel disenfranchised and powerless. But all that would go to pot if Clegg were able to somehow pull off his miracle.
For he is untainted by it.
Mehdi Hassan rightly points out:
The fact is these papers, and others, decided months ago that Cameron was going to win. They are now invested in his victory in the most undemocratic fashion. They have gone after the prime minister in a deeply personal way and until last week they were certain he was in their sights.
I hold no brief for Nick Clegg. But now, thanks to him – an ingenue with no media links whatsoever – things look very different, because now the powerless have a voice as well as the powerful.
Murdoch’s News International has a portfolio of titles in the UK including SKY Broadcasting and newspaper titles icluding The Scum, The Times & News of the World.
Through these he is able to influence public opinion, which Chomsky described in his book “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media” as being “The Five Filters of the Propaganda Model”.
In the run up to the Iraq invasion, Rupert Murdoch and his 175 newspaper editors worldwide all backed Bush’s policies in the Middle East, and were prominent in whipping up a frenzy to go to war.
It got even stranger when a FOI request showed that Rupert Murdoch had phoned Downing Street on several occasions to speak with Tony Blair, the very week it was decided that Britain would invade Iraq.
This came on the back of Murdoch saying, that invading Iraq would be of a benefit if:
“The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be $20 a barrel for oil. That’s bigger than any tax cut in the any country.”
I was there at all the Anti War demo’s, and I remember hearing George Galloway’s speech.
Blair’s relationship with Murdoch makes for interesting reading.
On Tony Blair’s departure from number 10 Downing Street, he promptly agreed a book deal on his autobiography, for the princely advance, rumoured to be in the region of 6-7 Million Pounds.
The deal was struck with Random House Publishing, a title owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News International.
I wouldn’t blame you for thinking this was Murdoch’s payback to Blair for services rendered. After all there is no other way this can be viewed, other than with the greatest of suspicions.
American rapper “Freeway” talks about Islam and how it impacts on his life as a recording artist in America, is living the “THUG LIFE” all it’s cracked upto be?
Find out as he speaks on The Deen Show.
Filed under Arts & Media, Hip Hop, Islam
Not sure who to vote for in the forthcoming elections?
Have the leaders debate’s left you confused?
Can’t tell the difference between the parties manifesto’s?
Well, follow the flow chart below to help you decide.
In my final response to the Hizb ut Tahrir member “Hassanmac” who has been propagating his party’s line that Muslims should not vote as it amounts to Kufr, I would like to state the following, by way of the brother Yamin Zakaria. If you are still not convinced, then read through the above document, supported by renowned sheikh’s & clerics the world over.
As the general election approaches in the UK, so does the debate on the issue of voting amongst the Muslim community, which primarily revolves around the question of – is it haram (unlawful under Islamic law) or halal (permitted) to vote? The opinion is largely divided into two opposing camps of, for and against voting. In Islamic law, different opinions (Ikhtilaf) can exist on a particular issue; this is inevitable when the textual evidences are not precise on the matter. Each faction will argue in favour of their adopted opinion as the strongest, and view other opinions as weak, rather than invalid.
Therefore, on this issue voting, do the opposing factions accept there is legitimate difference of opinion? The pro-voting camp in general tends to accept there is a legitimate difference of opinion, whereas the anti-voting factions do not, they consider the prohibition as categorical. Groups like Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HT) are particularly vocal on promoting this viewpoint in the UK and in other Western countries where there is a significant Muslim population.
This seem strange given that HT has already stated their sole objective is to establish the Caliphate in the Muslim world; therefore, it is difficult to see the connection between voting in the UK election, and their sacred ‘method’ of bringing about change in the distant Muslim countries. Why meddle in the internal politics of UK, if the country is outside your radar?
Their slogan is simple – it is haram to participate in the political system, and voting is an example of that. Even after I had left the party, I used to subscribe to this view, but now I am of the opinion that there is more than one legitimate Islamic viewpoint on this matter. Moreover, the permissibility to vote in a non-Islamic country is the stronger viewpoint, and the following points will argue this.
a) You rule by Islam, but we live by Democracy!
The central argument against voting is based on the premise that Islam forbids the believers (Muslims) to legislate, this is the sole right of creator, numerous Quranic verses and Hadiths clearly supports that position. Whereas in a democracy, the people are sovereign, they are represented by the elected MPs in the Parliament who make the laws on their behalf. Thus, they argue Muslims cannot participate in the legislative process directly as MPs or indirectly by voting for any candidate, thereby endorsing a non-Islamic system.
However, this is a simplistic viewpoint as it overlooks the fundamental difference between a Muslim society and a non-Muslim society. The textual evidences obliging the Muslims to rule by Islam is addressing the believers collectively, where they have power and authority. This has to be the case rationally, because to implement the laws, one has to have the ability to do that in the first place.
Therefore, to apply the verses, HT should lead by example and try to acquire power in the UK, or migrate to a Muslim country where it is more practical to do that. But, HT members will do neither! Moreover, HT has specifically stated many times that they are not seeking to establish an Islamic government in the UK to apply those evidences. If you are not willing to do that, then how can you demand from others to do this here? This is an inconsistent position.
The reality of the Muslims is, they are willingly living in a Western democracy – and those calling for Sharia rules in distant lands are continuing to live by democracy in the West, their words do not match their deeds.
b) Voting is haram, but what about the application of non-Islamic laws?
Following on from the above argument of the obligation to rule by the divine laws implies that the anti-Voting groups should only resort to the application of non-Islamic laws out of necessity or duress. Yet, they are now seeking to overturn a ban (see footnote 1) imposed in Germany by going to the German courts and seek judgement from non-Islamic (Kufr) laws. This is far from a life and death situation, it does not even constitute duress or hardship. The boycott imposed on the Prophet and his companions created very harsh conditions, yet, they did not seek judgment in the tribal courts of the pagan Arabs.
After lecturing the Muslims in the UK with the verses like “Judge by what Allah has revealed” they are now seeking judgement from non-Islamic courts. A vote may or may not lead to someone being elected, then it may or may not led to the person legislating, but actively seeking remedy by non-Islamic laws for a non-essential issue is a more severe violation of the principle of not judging by what Allah has revealed.
c) The hype of participation
The main reason given behind the prohibition to vote in a non-Islamic society is participating and endorsing a man made system. HT has missed something fundamental. The vote does not endorse the system, which already exists and will continue to exist regardless of the number of participants in the general election. Therefore, the political system is independent of the number of people participating in voting.
Moreover, we are all participants by default as law-abiding citizens. By abstaining from voting, one also contributes to the election result. Likewise, to say we do not vote because we do not wish to be represented by the MPs is also flawed, as every citizen is represented by their local MP. Since we are all participant by default, we can remain idle and be represented, or we play an active role and try to steer the ship in a certain direction as best as we can. HT is opposed to this, unless it is for their benefit, thus they lobbied MPs not to impose a ban on the party.
But, why restrict participation to voting? On that premise, other forms of participation that makes greater contribution to the system should also be wrong. We know, real participation and endorsement of the system is done through giving obedience, and paying the taxes, which is the fuel for the system. It would collapse if the masses refused to pay tax or gave mass disobedience; in contrast, even if the entire country did not vote, it would have negligible impact on the system in place.
HT members may not vote, but for sure every single member is an excellent law abiding and taxpaying ‘democratic’ citizen, who are actively making valuable contribution to the functioning of the political system in the UK at the highest level.
To answer this inconsistency, they say paying tax is a matter of coercion. Nobody is literally forced to pay tax, one has the choice not to work, and survive comfortably on government benefit. Similarly, they can also disobey the law and go to prison, which is the best position in line with their argument of not supporting or endorsing the system, as they will make the least contribution inside a prison. Furthermore, the system will be supporting them and their families putting greater burden on it.
That, still leaves the fundamental question of how the Muslims should engage politically living in a predominantly non-Muslim society. To support their isolationist stance, HT cites the early life of the Prophet in Mecca and the Muslims who sought temporary refuge in Abyssinia.
d) Mecca or Abyssinia
It is perplexing why HT mentions Mecca when they are at odds with the evidence. The Prophet (saw) was not living as a tax paying and law-abiding citizen in Mecca like the typical HT member, he was on a mission to establish a new order. This is in complete contrast to HT position in the UK who has gone to lengths to show how they are not a threat to the UK system, as their mission is only for the distant Muslims countries.
So, how is Mecca relevant to the issue of election or participation? They cite the example of the Prophet refusing the offer of power made by the Pagan Arabs as evidence of non-participation. However, they conveniently leave out the fact that there was a condition attached to the offer made to the Prophet. In contrast, there is no condition attached to voting or participating in the political process here.
As for Abyssinia, the Muslims were there only as temporary refugee and there is no evidence that shows they were given specific instructions about how they should conduct themselves. One has to prove such instructions were divine commandments.
There is no clear evidence, which shows how Muslims should engage with non-Muslims living under their authority. This is the reason why there is difference of opinion on this subject.
e) Who are the benefit seekers?
For the Muslims in the UK, which includes HT, the reality is, they are living a relatively comfortable life under the authority of non-Muslims. Most of us are honest enough to recognise our weakness, and admit that we are here because of economic reasons. So nobody is in a position lecture others about benefit. It is part of human nature to seek benefit.
Even if you are born here, you can migrate. Nick Griffin or the UKIP would happily pay for your ticket with some pocket money to move. If HT members are so eager to implement Sharia laws, they should have all migrated to Afghanistan when the Taliban seized power in the early years. The argument that they did not want to implement Islam fully is a poor excuse, they did what was in their ability, if you wanted to go the extra mile, and then logically you should have migrated there and offered full support to achieve that. At least you would have had some experience. The truth is nobody wanted to trade for the streets of London, Sydney, New York, Toronto, for the muddy streets of Kabul!
HT logic seems to be, you cannot vote for the MPs but you can benefit from them, as you can lobby them. You cannot vote because they will legislate laws, but you can go to the court seek judgment from those laws for your benefit even on trivial issues. Their message is do not attempt to change the system here, but remain in the West as long as you like, do everything except vote, and watch us, we will bring the Khilafah back.
f) Is their a practical alternative or just wait of the Khilafah?
Groups like HT do not offer a practical alternative for the Muslims living here as means to protect our interests and identity. In fact, their message is do not attempt to change the system, just wait for the Khilafah in the Muslim countries, in the mean time do everything, except vote.
If the BNP were engaged in an area to be elected and if one of the promises was to close down the Mosques, what would you do? The HT answer is nothing, as they did not spend any effort building them in the first place. However, if the BNP campaigned like David Cameron to ban the party – you would see them move to hold hands with Clare Short or even George Galloway.
The voting is undertaken with the intention of securing our interest and rights living under the non-Islamic system, it is not a vote for the system, which already exists. That is no more than going to the courts and seeking judgements from them. If you do not vote, you are still contributing towards the election result, and being represented. One can remain a spectator give others a free hand to decide your fate, or you try to influence the system to your favour.
It is time to move the debate of voting to the more serious issues affecting our own community, and the wider community. We should value those who have kept their heads down and worked hard for the community. They are the ones who have built numerous Mosques, community centres, help the poor and needy Muslims abroad, and built good relations with the non-Muslims to the extent that they were able to contribute towards the 2 million to march against the war. Yes, I know it did not stop the war, but none of the HT marches or demos did not achieve anything either! There is no instant solution anywhere.
This is an excellent opportunity to unify the Muslims in the UK, and give them a clear direction to use their voting power – at the least, this will mean increase politicisation of the Muslims, which will not only help our cause but also the cause of Islam.
Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)
Published on 20/4/2010
http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com
1 http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/press-centre/press-release/hizb-ut-tahrir-challenges-german-ban-at-european-court.html – “London, UK, June 25th 2008 – This week Hizb ut-Tahrir is submitting an application to the European Court in Strasbourg seeking the ultimate overturning of the ban imposed upon all activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) in Germany. Membership of the Party is not banned in Germany.”
London is the most unequal city in the developed world, with the richest tenth of the population amassing 273 times the wealth owned by the bottom tenth – which creates a “means chasm” not seen since the days of a “slave owning society”. According to Danny Dorling, a professor of human geography at Sheffield University, in his new book “In Injustice: Why Social Inequality Persists”.
Dorling paints a bleak picture of an extremely unjust Britain where differences in wealth have led to a profoundly divided society.
Dorling said Labour had managed to stop the gap in incomes from getting bigger, but this had not stopped the rich getting richer, despite all the big talk about social mobility, the wealthiest had amassed assets such as second homes and expansive stock portfolios.
He says the government’s latest figures show that in the capital the top 10% of society had on average a wealth of £933,563 compared to the meagre £3,420 of the poorest 10% – a wealth multiple of 273.
“Other comparable cities like New York, Stockholm, Sydney … have wealthy people, but not as many wealthy people as London, there is an inbuilt bias towards inequality in UK society today.
We are getting wealth inequalities in London now as far as we know that have not been seen since the days of a slave-owning elite. The lesson is that it is not enough to just stop the disparity in incomes from getting bigger – you have to make it smaller to stop wealth inequality from getting worse.”
This wealth gap has produced an alarming health gap – with the life expectancy at birth of the richest group rising by a year annually, while the poorest are seeing almost no rise at all. In 2008, a female born in London’s exclusive Kensington and Chelsea could expect to live until 88 and nine months – a year earlier she would have reached 87.9. In Glasgow, by contrast, where women were expected to live until 77.1 in 2007, the rise was only a month to 77.2 in 2008.
“You have rich people living longer and longer, while life expectancy has all but stalled for the poor”
Instead of seeking to reduce inequalities, Westminster politicians simply accept that it is unfortunate but inevitable, rather than seeing it as undoing the “warp and weft of society”.
The result is that the affluent have been allowed to lose touch with the everyday norms of society. The academic points out the cost of a flat in the City of London rose by 24% to almost £450,000 in 2009.
“Prices jumped at a time of recession. The rich really aren’t like us … they operate in a different world, this segregating effect means that the wealthiest are “socially excluding themselves by choice.
The rich are no longer even thinking of sending their children to the same schools as others, nor having holidays that in any way resembled the norm, nor having salaries that bore any resemblance to national averages, nor relying on the same health services as others … as far as we can tell, at no other time had so many people in countries like the United Kingdom not felt part of the societies there.”
The effect on politics has been the dramatic “super concentrating” of the Conservative vote in a series of wealthy constituencies in areas such as the south-east.
By 2005, one in six Tory voters would have to shift from some of the most Conservative seats to other party strongholds to spread the Tory vote equally across the country.
Dorling says:
“this geographical polarisation in underlying beliefs is where David Cameron finds his party. In the past, this feature of Conservative voters, combined with large now inequalities, has led to a decade of political instability.
The last time the Tory vote was so geographically concentrated was when we had a similarly unequal society in 1918. The result was a decade of instability, with a coalition government between the Liberals and the Conservatives. It means this election is about real choices.”
The Akh couldn’t agree more.
The vast majority of Muslims living in London, live in the most deprived inner city areas, which are blighted by a lack of investment, high crime, poor education and schooling. When these factors combine, they create a deadly vicious circle that becomes near impossible to escape from.
The New Labour project have failed miserably in one of their key promises of improving “Social Mobility”, this report shows, that if you are “born poor” you are likely to “die poor”, the Victorian era looks like it never went away.
For the first time in over a decade, the Metropolitan Police biggest gang in Britain have an exclusive all white leadership, after the last coloured ethnic minority officer was forced into retirement.
Acting deputy assistant commissioner Shabir Hussain “left” in February – 18 months after unsuccessfully suing the force for racial discrimination. It means there is no ethnic minority deputy commissioner, assistant commissioners, DACs or commanders among the 45 most senior ranks of the force in London, a city in which more than a quarter of people are non-white.
The institutionally racist MET do not seem to be concerned to change their raison d’etre, as 1999’s Macpherson report recommended.
Shabir Hussain stated he was repeatedly overlooked for promotion in favour of white candidates. He accused Commissioner Sir Ian Blair of excluding black and Asian detectives in favour of a “golden circle” of white officers, before stating:
“My face did not fit and did not fit because I am not white”
and on finding his case was unsuccessful:
“I’m disappointed but the hearing did expose the shortcomings of the promotion process. I aim to carry on with my career as normal”
Within a matter of a few months, deputy assistant commissioner Shabir Hussain took retirement, meaning he was forced to leave his job.
In 2008 Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur, was the most senior of three minority ethnic officers. Assistant Commissioner Ghaffur became aggrieved at what he felt were repeated snubs, and spectacularly fell out with the then commissioner Sir Ian Blair, and publicly called him a racist.
At the time Assistant Commissioner Ghaffur stated:
“My current case is essentially to do with my treatment at the highest levels of the Met, in particular the discrimination I have been subject to over a long period of time by the present commissioner Sir Ian Blair.
“It is to do with the continuation of that treatment into the very important job I was doing as the co-ordinator of the security and safety of the 2012 Olympics.”
“I feel harassed, degraded and humiliated because I am Asian and Muslim”
A Muslim leading the security at the London Olympics?
The impudence of such a suggestion!
Ghaffur was forced to leave the force with a payout.
Commander Ali Dizaei was also framed and dismissed from his job, there were several allegations laid against him including that Iranian born Dizaei was taking drugs, using prostitutes, fiddling his expenses, fraud, dishonesty and even MI5 suspicions that he was spying for Iran.
Yet despite being the subject of the biggest ever corruption inquiry into a single officer, he always emerged unscathed. On each occasion he was cleared of all charges, my view is that he was subjected to a racist witch hunt that eventually saw him locked up.
The Akh would like to see the make up of the gangsters at the MET reflect that of the people they are supposedly here to protect and serve. All ethnic minority officers should not be elected as “nodding dogs” but be empowered with real decision making powers and be given an equal and fair chance of promotion that is afforded to their white colleagues.
In the meantime, The Akh will reminisce to NWA’s immortal lines, was it really released in 1988? seems like yesterday.
Filed under Great Britain, Islamophobia, Police State, Racism, UK politics
hotterthanapileofcurry.wordpress.com 