Showing posts with label Harrow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harrow. Show all posts

Thursday, 20 June 2013

Hope not Hate hide meeting locations to avoid democratic debate

We notice this morning that Hope not Hate have removed location details from their meetings webpage in an attempt to ensure that they get the correct democratic response to director Nick Lowles 'consultation' meeting.

After Lowles fled from the Basildon meeting rather than engage in political debate there has been disagreement over how to deal with the threat of members of the public actually turning up at a public meeting. The answer - as with so much in Hope not Hate - has been to take a leaf out of the BNPs book and conceal the location of their public meetings, only revealing them if people actively sign up to attend.


Nick Lowles, HnH director, who fights racism
wherever he finds it except in the Labour Party
There is a certain irony in seeing Hope not Hate cower away from public debate in what is supposed to be a consultation exercise about their future stance regarding UKIP, even though that stance is already decided by Lowles, as Hope not Hate's owner. For years, Hope not Hate has actively encouraged its supporters to engage in a campaign of intimidation against political meetings of which it did not approve. Now that it finds itself the target not of a campaign of intimidation and violence, but of political engagement, it runs and hides itself away, although I suppose it is as an organisation only following the example of its leader, Mr Lowles.

Tonights meeting - despite the location being removed - is scheduled for 6:30pm at the Civic Centre in Harrow.


Former Harrow council leader
Cllr Thaya Idaikkadar, who was expelled
from the Labour Party for complaining
about institutional racism
 
This should be a particularly interesting meeting, as the Harrow Labour group has split over recent weeks. 9 councillors have left and established an Independent Labour Group because of what they claim is institutional racism within the Constituency Labour Party. The councillors - lead by former council leader Cllr Thaya Idaikkadar - were subsequently expelled from the Labour Party for going public with their concerns.

All of which should make for an interesting meeting, as despite being a 'Stand up for HOPE' meeting, there is little prospect of Hope not Hate dealing with the institutional racism within the local Labour Party. As we mentioned in a blog posting last week:

"One wonders whether Lowles will address the issue there in a way Hope not Hate have failed to do on their website, where mentions of Labour racism are studiously avoided. It is more likely that - should any of the independent Labour group attend - they will be asked to leave the premises if they raise their concerns and rock the Labour boat. I look forward to the irony of seeing 9 Asian independent Labour councillors being removed from a Hope not Hate meeting because they raised the issue of racism".

If you can get along to the meeting it should prove to be an entertaining spectacle as Hope not Hate brings its party political message to an area it clearly knows little about. If you do attend, as always please be calm, polite and respectful: however much we may disagree with Lowles and his shabby excuse for a consultation exercise, he has as much right to freedom of speech without fear or intimidation as anybody else does even if he tries to deny that right to others. One thing we can be sure of - the meeting in Harrow will offer a banquet of hypocrisy as they attempt to hold a public consultation meeting on what to do about UKIP while excluding the general public, and while not mentioning that the local branch of their Labour paymasters appears to be stuffed full of racists who have driven out 9 Asian councillors. Enjoy!

Sunday, 16 June 2013

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.

Friday, 14 June 2013

HnH climb the Woolwich bandwagon as anti-UKIP meetings fail


The failure of Hope not Hate's 'Stand up for HOPE' series of meetings has seen them being changed into something else. Originally planned as a nationwide 'consultation' exercise to decide what to do about UKIP, the failure of the meeting in Warrington to draw more than 5 members of the general public has seen them morph into something else.

With the death of Drummer Lee Rigby still fresh in people's minds, never let it be said that Hope not Hate doesn't know how to cash in on a good murder. After a series of posts attacking the EDL and BNP - deservedly so - for attempting to make political capital out of the murder, Hope not Hate has clearly decided that 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em', and has announced that the rest of the 'Stand up for HOPE' tour will not focus on UKIP. Instead, Nick Lowles writes, "The meetings were initially set up to talk about the rise of UKIP and if, and how, we should respond. However, given recent events there has obviously been a lot of interest in the re-emergence of the EDL following the Woolwich murder and our views about Islamist hate preachers."
Nick Lowles - tacit admission that
attempt at gaining public support for
anti-UKIP stance has failed

And so now we see 'Stand up for HOPE' being transformed due to public apathy into nothing more than a publicity bandwagon riding on the back of a dead man. The temporary re-emergence of the EDL - although in numbers far smaller than seen a few years back - has given Hope not Hate a justification for its own existence, and a means of drawing crowds which their 'consultation' on UKIP could never manage. Of course, this means that HnH will continue to attack UKIP - there was never any intention to do otherwise. The original purpose of the 'consultation' exercise was to provide a fig leaf of popular support to their refocusing on a legitimate, non-racist political party after spending months misrepresenting both UKIP and its members. After embarrassingly low turnouts at meetings, it became clear that this would never work, as most genuine HnH members - those who were fighting against racism, and not for the Labour Party, that is - refused to back this repositioning.

So where does this leave Hope not Hate? Lowles' blog proclaims as a triumph a turnout of 26 people for a HnH meeting in Shrewsbury (population 67,126) and talks of the biggest meeting of the week being attended by 70 people in Leicester (population 441,213). Allowing for organisers, security, speakers and their aides, that would give adjusted attendance figures of 20 and 60 respectively.
Will Cllr Thya Idaikkadar be removed from the
HnH Harrow meeting if he mentions Labour racism?

Lowles goes on to talk about meetings scheduled for next week. Interestingly, one is in Harrow, where the local Labour Party has been shattered by allegations of institutional racism with 9 councillors leaving to form an independent Labour group. One wonders whether Lowles will address the issue there in a way Hope not Hate have failed to do on their website, where mentions of Labour racism are studiously avoided. It is more likely that - should any of the independent Labour group attend - they will be asked to leave the premises if they raise their concerns and rock the Labour boat. I look forward to the irony of seeing 9 Asian independent Labour councillors being removed from a Hope not Hate meeting because they raised the issue of racism. As Richard Littlejohn in the Daily Mail is fond of saying, "you couldn't make it up".

UA-41917798-1