The biggest lie of them all - Jihadi threatens Hope not Hate apologists

Anjem Choudhary in the days when he was chasing virgins
in the UK, rather hoping for them in heaven



We're used to seeing lies being published on Hope not Hate. Almost every post concerning UKIP if it doesn't contain an outright lie contains the truth stretched almost to breaking point. We make no secret of our support for UKIP, but even when it comes to organisations we don't support such as the EDL or BNP, we see Hope not Hate publishing rubbish which leaves credibility behind.

And then we have Hope not Hate's apologism for radical Islam. Their deliberate evasion of criticism of some of the most dangerous men to visit these shores. Mohammed al-Arefe. Yasser al-Habib. Not a word about the arrival in the UK of these two as Nick Lowles lead his crusade to keep Pam Geller and Robert Spencer out of the UK.

And then there is Anjem Choudhary, who is pretty much the only Muslim extremist Hope not Hate mention, and only then to keep up the pretence that they are against extremism rather than against UKIP. Even when it transpired that the killers of Lee Rigby in Woolwich were closely associated with Choudhary's al-Muhajiroun group their condemnations were muted and hedged with caveats.

Despite all this, today Nick Lowles had the gall to post the following:

Today's newspapers are full of the story of Choudhary's arrest. Its on the BBC, ITN, Sky and networks ranging from Al-Jazeera to Russia Today. The blogosphere is full of it. Twitter is full of it. Politicians across the UK have been quoted on it. And yet of all of these outlets, Lowles expects us to believe that somebody would waste their time by making threats against an organisation which has come to symbolise Labour's appeasement of radical Islam?

Pull the other one, its got bells on.

Gateway to Terror - a review: "Hope not Hate's very own 'dodgy dossier', culled exclusively from publicly available information"

There is much rejoicing at Hope not Hate this evening over the publication of their latest tract which focuses on Islamic extremism in the UK. Well, when they say Islamic extremism, what they really mean is a very small part of it in the form of Anjem Choudhary and his al-Muhajiroun organisation which - despite being on their list of targeted extremists - they have persisted in not mentioning.

Lowles - wants praise for 'fighting Islamic
extremism' in rehashed report

Their 60 page pamphlet - Gateway to Terror - is co-authored by Jo Mulhall and Nick Lowles, and is available for £7 including postage. Readers expecting to find out something they didn't already know look set to be sadly disappointed, as their own article advertising it simply rehashes information which has long been in the public domain, even if Hope not Hate didn't notice because they were more interested in attacking UKIP.

There are many examples of this, not least their turning of a Nelsonian blind eye to Islamic Emergency Defence, as we discussed back in late June. Hope not Hate were too busy trying to stop Pam Gellar and Robert Spencer from visiting the UK to discuss how Choudhary was deliberately and obviously circumventing government controls.

Lowles himself gets rather carried away in his attempts to sell rehashed media reports as a ground-breaking study. For example, he says:

"Fundamentally, they seek to impose a system that is intolerant of difference, does not accept anyone or anything that fails to conform and that is totally opposed to democracy and free will."

While apparently forgetting his own 'Purple Rain' campaign directed against UKIP which seeks to achieve exactly the same thing. Still, Lowles goes on to say:



Lord Pearson - berated as 'racist' for
fighting Islamic extremism

"This report will herald a more concerted campaign against extremism by HOPE not hate. Just as we will speak out against Islamophobia and racism wherever it emerges, so too we will begin to campaign against those extremists who justify their actions in the name of Islam."

We certainly hope so, but we won't hold our breath, as Hope not Hate has been saying the same thing for the past 3 years, but with precious little evidence to support it. When former UKIP Leader Lord Pearson said last week that "UK Muslim communities are home to "thousands of potential home-grown terrorists" - rather what Lowles and Mulhall claim in their pamphlet - he was attacked by Hope not Hate with the implicit criticism that he was a racist.

The truth is that once again, Hope not Hate have failed in what is supposed to be their core mission. While the current pamphlet will undoubtedly help swell the coffers of Hope not Hate Ltd, the full version of it contains nothing which was not readily found on the internet already. While the plots and links between key figures they describe are instructive, all they have really achieved is to draw together other people's work and put their own names on it. It may be that they don't realise this themselves, focussed as they are on trying to keep down UKIP's vote, so we'd hesitate to call it straight plagiarism, but as a piece of original research it is tepid at best. Lowles has clearly learnt well from Labour - this booklet seems to follow the pattern of the last Labour government's 'dodgy dossier', simply culling the most sensational stories from the internet and stitching them together to sound authoritative, while actually barely touching the minds of the authors. If you think this signals a return to fighting genuine extremism by Hope not Hate, be prepared to think again: by this time next week, they'll be back to bashing UKIP.

Is it worth buying? No, of course not: our copy was a preview version. Does it have any value? Again, no, it's just a rehash. The only thing noteworthy about it is the convolutions the authors go to in trying to say exactly what UKIP has been saying for years, without using the same words. Now that, as they say, is priceless.

Islamic Emergency Defence slips beneath Hope not Hate's radar

While Hope not Hate were running their campaign to ban Pam Geller and Robert Spencer from the UK, their old friend Anjem Choudhary - whose Al Muhajiroun group was supposed to be one of the hate groups they opposed - was launching a fresh group to circumvent government controls.

As reported in 'The Sun', Choudhary's new group - which he was pushing through his Twitter feed

Choudhary's Twitter feed, showing his support for
'Islamic Emergency Defence' (IED)

(pictured) - aims to set up 'task forces' and mete out 'instant justice'. Choudhary admits to having an 'advisory role' with the group, but does not run it.

The selection of the name Islamic Emergency Defence and its initials IED were, according to a spokesman, 'completely coincidental' to any similarity with the initials for Improvised Explosive Device.

Over on Hope not Hate's website, Director Nick Lowles wrote only a week ago that "While many people look just at the extremism on the right wing, it is important to also monitor those who deliberately stoke sectarian tensions within the Muslim communities too."

It may be that Lowles and his colleagues simply missed the story: they are after all nice, middle class kids who probably don't read the 'Sun', which is reserved for the working class in their view. Far better to read the 'Guardian'. Even so, as Al Muhajiroun is one of the groups they supposedly monitor, it is not unreasonable to expect them to have spotted it. Perhaps they could launch a front page campaign demanding that the Home Secretary ban the group, similar to the campaign they launched against Geller and Spencer?

That won't happen, of course. There are few Labour votes to be gained in opposing Islamic extremism with the same fervour they apply to opposing right-wing extremism whatever Lowles may state publicly. Of 51 news links on their websites news feed, only one deals with Islamic extremism. Of 15 front page stories on 'Nick's Blog', only one deals with Islamic extremism - regarding Mohammed al Arefe, while of 28 posts on the 'Insider' blog, none deal with Islamic extremism.

Elsewhere, on our Facebook page this morning we posted of an initiative in Bristol - an inter-faith prayer group dedicated to the memory of Lee Rigby - which was held in a mosque, and which was organised by a Muslim woman.

It seems to us that as every day goes by Hope not Hate is more about Hate and less about Hope. Where was their mention of the Bristol event as a symbol of hope? Where are the mentions of Imam Alvas Karmani's initiative against sexual grooming in Bradford? Where is their condemnation of Choudhary's latest group of extremists?

Nick Lowles, Ruth Smeeth and their colleagues at Hope not Hate should hang their heads in shame. Their hypocrisy is not advancing Hope, it is only interested in their own Hate and advancing the Labour vote for their own political and financial gain.

Breivik and Adebolajo, and Hope not Hate's hypocritical stance

In 2009, a group calling itself 'Stop Islamification of Europe' announced a protest at the then new Harrow Central Mosque in Harrow, Middlesex. The protest was subsequently announced on the EDL's Facebook pages, although it was never clear whether the EDL intended to take part themselves. As soon as the protest was announced, UAF announced a counter-protest to take place at the same time.

In all the fuss over who and how many were attending, one important voice was lost. Haroon Sheikh, the Mosque chairman - speaking of both demonstration and counter-demonstration - said, "We would request that the local authority and the police try to put a stop to it. The concern we have is with a large congregation. It's very difficult to control what people would want to do on the day. We would have 200 to 300 people coming here for prayers on a Friday. Emotions will be high if it's provoked, but we will have the police and we will have stewards here."

As it turned out, not many people on either side bothered to listen. The 20 SIOE protesters who turned up were outnumbered by up to 1,000 UAF protesters who repeatedly charged police lines and threw bottles and stones. So far, it was just another UAF gathering, but what made this one different - if only in retrospect - was the presence of Al-Muhijaroun activist Michael Adebolajo, who was captured on video telling a group of UAF protesters that what they did, they did 'for Allah'. Adebolajo was one of the two men arrested recently for the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby.

It is not so much the presence of Adebolajo which is the problem: at the time, he had done nothing illegal, and was as entitled as anyone to be there, even if the local Mosque had asked for people to not attend. No, the thing which is striking about it is the response of UAF since the murder occurred. Weyman Bennett, the UAF leader, has batted away implied criticism with a statement that Adebolajo was 'not on the platform, and was not an official speaker'. While Adebolajo was speaking, a procession of UAF and trades union flags passed within yards, so his words were hardly a surprise to Bennett and his SWP colleague Martin Smith, who passed just feet away.


UAF and Trades Union banners passed within feet of
Michael Adebolajo at the Harrow protest....

 One can just imagine the outcry from UAF if it came to light that Anders Breivik had attended a UKIP meeting in 2009 and had been allowed to hold his own impromptu rally. It stretches credibility to imagine that Nigel Farage could get away with the notion that Breivik 'not being on the platform and not being an official speaker' would be a satisfactory dismissal of concerns.



...as he was spewing his message of Hate, not Hope



There is no love lost between Hope not Hate and the UAF, although there does seem to be a thawing of relations since HnH was taken over by Nick Lowles. Under the Gables' stewardship, HnH recognised that far from being part of the solution, UAF were a part of the problem: the other side of the racist violence coin. Lowles seems to take a more relaxed view, as reports on EDL marches over the past few years demonstrate on HnH's twitter and Facebook feed: the reporters seemed to glory in the violence of running battles between the EDL and UAF, although as most of Hope not Hate's 'feet on the street' were previously BNP activists who a decade earlier would have been in there with fists and boots flying, this is perhaps not surprising.

As Andrew Gilligan discusses in his Telegraph article, the actions of the UAF do not detract from the rise in tensions, they add to it, a point then Harrow Council leader David Ashton made back in 2009: "We are saddened and dismayed that groups from outside the borough have come here and caused unrest. Harrow has an excellent record in community relations and we condemn those who came to our borough from elsewhere to either foist extreme political opinions on us or use religion as a cover for causing trouble."

All of this leaves Hope not Hate's core purpose - fighting racism and fascism - looking rather neglected. Where is the condemnation of Bennett and UAFs pitiful excuses for Adebolajo's presence at the Harrow protest? Back in 2009, nobody knew what Adebolajo would go on to do, but with the benefit of hindsight it is clear that he was an extremist with a future no less notorious than Anders Breivik, even if the number he left dead was smaller. Speaking against Breivik in an article in the Guardian last September, Lowles said, "Sadly, there are many others at large who share his warped ideology. Seventeen people in the UK....have been imprisoned in recent years for terrorist-related offences": the words I have removed and replaced with '....' were 'with far right views'. With those four words removed, it applies as much to UAF as it does to the EDL and the BNP.

But if Hope not Hate can launch an investigation into links between the far right and Anders Breivik and display its results as symptomatic of the approval of the former for the latter, why does the far left not also warrant a similar investigation? With Al Muhajiroun ostensibly a target for Hope not Hate, where is the investigation into the links between the boot boys of the UAF and Anjem Choudhary and Michael Adebojalo?

I will not win many friends in the EDL and BNP by suggesting that such sloppy thinking would not have been a part of Hope not Hate's approach under the Gables' stewardship, but it remains true. Lowles very much takes the view that 'if God is with us, who can be against us', and feels that however fascist the far left becomes, and whatever terrorist organisations it mixes with, the righteousness of his cause outweighs any concerns.

This may have been true were he not simultaneously attempting to make Hope not Hate less a tool to be used against racism, and more a tool to be used against what he perceives to be the political right.
Part of the problem for Lowles is the continued presence at the top of the UAF of such noted Labour Party activists as Ken Livingstone, Diane Abbott and Glyn Ford. Despite UAF being effectively an SWP front organisation, such high profile Labour politicians at its top table - even if they are without meaningful power - makes an attack or even an investigation into UAF politically unpalatable for Lowles. To brand the UAF as fascist would be to brand sections of the Labour Party fascist as well, and that is counter to Lowles purpose as he seeks to align Hope not Hate ever more closely with the Labour Party.

Whether such hypocritical evasions are tenable remains to be seen. Certainly the poor attendance to date at his anti-UKIP meetings have lead to the rebranding discussed yesterday: better to climb on the Woolwich bandwagon and hope nobody notices the tolerance shown by the hard left to Al Mujahiroun in the past. We can not believe that the majority of Hope not Hate support will put up with such hypocrisy for long.

Imam Alyas Karmani stands up for hope, while Hope not Hate betray their principles

Imam Alyas Karmani

Readers of this blog will be aware that Hope not Hate pays little more than lip service to the existence of Islamic hate preachers, even though Al Muhajiroun features on their list of hate groups. While every public indiscretion of UKIP members - who do not feature on their list of hate groups - is publicised in full detail, Anjem Choudhary, Al Muhajiroun's leader, has escaped any form of personal censure.

Even worse than this deliberate absence of condemnation for groups which seek to spread hate is their failure to highlight the efforts of Imam Alyas Karmani in Bradford to combat the grooming of young girls by Muslim men, something which is widely recognised as a problem. Imam Karmani - who is also a Respect Councillor - has issued a Khutba to be read in Mosques during Friday prayers on the 28th June and which is intended to drive home to worshippers that such actions are not acceptable in the eyes of Islam. His goal is that it should be read in more than 500 mosques across the UK.

For those of us who feel that Imams should play a more visible role in combatting the rise of Islamic extremism, Imam Karmani's initiative is to be welcomed, and is perhaps a sign that moderate Islam is capable of rising to the challenge. What is more puzzling is Hope not Hate's failure to even mention his initiative. What is the point of calling your organisation 'Hope not Hate' if all you are interested in is the 'Hate', and only certain types of hate at that? The key to their silence is Karmani's 'Respect' affiliation. In Bradford, Labour are seeing support haemorrhage in two directions - to UKIP on the right, and to Respect on the left, as evidenced by George Galloway's election as MP. Because of this, Karmani's initiative will fail to gain the support of Hope not Hate. Not because it is not worthwhile. Not because it is wrong. But because the Imam represents the 'Respect' Party and not Labour, and to push his initiative would be to admit that Labour - like Hope not Hate - has no answers, and indeed caused many of the problems

 By failing to promote initiatives such as Karmani's, Hope not Hate - who have access to a considerable audience - are helping to create the impression that there is no action within the Muslim community to tackle these problems. Their silence allows the EDL and the BNP to condemn Islam as something to be feared, because Hope not Hate is too mired in party political allegiances to shout from the rooftops the message of hope contained within Karmani's initiative. They would rather allow their silence to act as a recruiting sergeant for the far right than stand up and proclaim what should be their core message - Hope, not Hate.

We make no secret of our support for UKIP. And we would be lying if we said we supported much of Respect's policy platform. But this is an issue which cuts to the heart of the problems of Islamic extremism, and one which is beyond the nonsense of partisan politics. Karmani - whatever his political allegiance - is tackling a problem, and I urge UKIP supporters to share his message and to show that we are big enough to embrace good ideas whatever their political or religious source. Common sense is common sense.

So I say this to Nick Lowles and his Hope not Hate comrades. Shame on you, for betraying your core principles. Shame on your silence which allows hate to grow and lies to spread unchecked. And shame on your shoddy attempts to put your own personal allegiances ahead of an initiative which will clearly aid better relations between communities. Your blinkered attitude and political partisanship makes you no better than those you claim to oppose. For many years, you attacked the BNP, and ran with the slogan 'Not in my name', only for us to find the tables are now turned, and an increasing barrier to harmonious relations between communities is not the BNP and the EDL, but Hope not Hate and your refusal to back initiatives like Karmani's. If you must continue with such wilful blindness, be aware you do so on your own and not in my name. 

Read more about the Imam's initiative here Click here

More hypocrisy from HnH as pictures of Anjem Choudhary drinking and smoking resurface

As if further evidence were needed of Hope not Hate's desperation to target UKIP while ignoring other organisations which actually pose a risk to race relations in the UK, it is worth noting the attitudes displayed to one which it lists as one of its targets - Al Muhajiroun.


Headed by Anjem Choudhary, the group numbers among its former members the two Woolwich killers - one of whom was described by Choudhary as a 'nice guy' - and is responsible in large part for the perversion of Islam into a hate-filed vehicle of repression, at least in the UK.

Over the last few days, pictures of Choudhary during his days as a student at Southampton University have been published in much of the media showing him smoking, drinking beer and posing with a copy of 'Mayfair' magazine: all things he now rails against since he became a 'strict Muslim'. This is akin to having photographs of Nick Griffin attending a synagogue in a skull cap in his youth, or Tommy Robinson with his Islamic girlfriend in her burq'qa.

You hardly need to imagine the gloating articles that Hope not Hate would publish on their website, touting the hypocrisy of Griffin or Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon. I wouldn't much care, as I have no time for either of them. And yet after this photographic scoop of Choudhary - whose organisation is officially a Hope not Hate target - what do we find? Not a single word. Not a single photograph. Not a single comment.

What I can't understand is how Hope not Hate justify such negligence. Their methods in the past have always included ridiculing the leaders of organisations which peddle hate, and they have frequently made use of photographs and quotes which the leaders of such organisations have made in the past. So why the kid gloves with Anjem Choudhary? Why - despite having a whole page describing why Choudhary and his organisation is a hate group - have they not followed the precedent they have set in mocking the hypocrisy which is clear from the photographs?

Admittedly, these photographs are not new: they first surfaced back in 2009 in an article in the Daily Mail, but they have re-surfaced, and featured heavily in The Sun a couple of days ago. Needless to say, after the recent prominence of Choudhary and his group, they are more than topical, and yet HnH has instead focussed on a trip to Damascus by Griffin, and attacking the BBC for allowing Robinson on the 'Today' programme on BBC R4. Naturally, it has also continued its campaign against UKIP, as featured on this blog yesterday.

The question we must ask Nick Lowles and his fellow travellers at Hope not Hate is simple: why? If you are genuinely against hate - and are serious about including Al Muhajiroun amongst the hate organisations you oppose - then why the silence which seems nothing but rank hypocrisy?