Lowles edges closer to admitting HnH culpability in child grooming scandal

A revealing blog post by Hope not Hate director Nick Lowles has edged closer to admitting his
organisation's culpability in driving the culture of fear over being labelled a racist which helped sexual offenders hide their crimes.

In an article posted this afternoon (Friday) entitled 'Whose side are we on?', he argues that Hope not Hate activists should not oppose a march allegedly organised by the EDL to protest against child grooming, and goes on to explain how his own organisation's approach to past grooming scandals lead to the perpetrators of such crimes escaping justice.

"There will be some who will be tempted to organise a counter-protest, which will amount to little more than standing behind a line of police chanting 'Nazi scum off our street'.
While I understand the desire to show opposition to the EDL, I believe that this approach is futile and counter-productive.
In the autumn of 2012, an EDL demo against grooming attracted a coach load of people (mainly men) from the former pit village of Maltby. These people weren't fascists and most weren't racist; in fact many were decent union men who had stood loyally with their union during the year-long miners’ strike and, more recently, had even leafleted with us against the BNP.
What they were, however, was angry.
They were angry because some of their daughters had been sexually abused and they were angry because the Labour Party - for so long their party – had, at best, ignored the problem or, at worst, connived to keep it under wraps. The EDL, on the other hand, gave them an outlet for their anger.
But as they filed through Rotherham town centre that day they were genuinely horrified to be called racists and fascists by those protesting against the march and rather than dissuade them against joining up with the EDL this name-calling only pushed them closer into the pack."

Which is all very well, but fails to address the wider issue: that there are some crimes which have a cultural or ethnic bias, and yet the motivation behind organisations such as Hope not Hate and UAF is to ignore this in the broader interests suppressing opposition to multi-cultural harmony through fear. In fact, Lowles goes on to admit that the combined actions of his organisation, their trades union financers and the Labour Party prevented an earlier investigation of similar offences in Keighley and Bradford by dismissing the claims of victims as 'BNP propaganda':

"We found this out, to our cost, in Bradford and Keighley in 2004, when there was a consensus to dismiss BNP claims of grooming in Keighley as racist propaganda. The BNP won four council seats and just missed out in several more.
Grooming was occurring in Keighley and everyone there knew it. In fact, nine Muslim men were sent to prison and as many as 65 young girls were believed to have been abused."

To 'our' cost? It didn't cost the left anything - that price was paid not by Lowles and his fellow travellers, but by 65 young girls. We already know that Hope not Hate is far from being a grass-roots organisation, and has few if any feet on the ground in terms of genuine activists. But still, we find it amazing that none of their Labour Party or trades union supporters on the ground in Keighley thought it worth mentioning if 'everyone there knew it'. It demonstrates one of two things: either the distance between their supporters and the genuine working class which Labour used to pretend to represent is so vast that they genuinely weren't aware that this was going on, or more worryingly - not to mention cynically - they were perfectly well aware of it, but after it was raised as an issue by their political opponents there was a conscious decision to conceal its existence and to use their media muscle to shovel it all under the carpet simply to prevent the BNP from using it as an issue. We tend to agree here that the latter is more likely, and there is something deeply, deeply sinister about it if that is the case.

Part of the reason for this wilful ignorance - which Lowles describes as 'a consensus' - is the entire modus operandi of HnH - it doesn't matter how obvious a problem is, if their political enemies annunciate it then it must be rubbished. This is particularly true of any issues which touch on immigration: we need only look at their denial of recent crime figures which show the scale of Romanian organised crime in the capital and elsewhere. The problem for Lowles is that if they cease doing this, then what is the point of their organisation? This is something which Lowles acknowledges without providing any solutions when he says,

"We need to have something tangible and meaningful to say about Grooming; we need to be genuine in our condemnation of this evil and, fundamentally, we need to have some answers to prevent it happening again."

Quite what those answers would be is difficult to guess. The fundamental problem with this type of grooming is that it is committed by groups of men who are immigrants and who are Muslim. It would also appear to be relatively widespread, and to affect significant numbers of victims. The nature of such offences leads inevitably to wider questions about certain types of Islam, and immigration from certain countries. While Hope not Hate have been happy to pay lip service to supporting sexual equality and gay rights, they have always shied away from tackling the difficult questions that certain strains of Islam raise and which spring from fundamental cultural differences which are diametrically opposed to the values of a secular western democracy: homophobia, misogyny, vote rigging and electoral violence spring to mind. Far from having Lowles 'answers to prevent it happening again', Hope not Hate has so far offered a mechanism to ensure it is kept out of sight by condemning all who raise any of these issues as 'racist'. Does anybody outside of Lowles closed circle really believe that all of a sudden his organisation will welcome free and open debate on issues relating to race and religion, particularly Islam?

"The people of Rotherham have every right to be angry about what has happened but unless we intervene in a constructive way then we become complicit – through our actions or our silence – in pushing them into the hands of right wing groups"

The problem with Lowles self-righteous sentiments is that there are 1,400 young girls in Rotherham, 65 in Keighley and God only knows how many across the rest of the country who are already paying the price in suffering for his attempts to stifle genuine, legitimate concerns. Lowles has nothing constructive to say - if he did, he would have said it already. He is already complicit, because his organisation is largely responsible for the conspiracy of silence which has infected mainly Labour authorities and which was brought about by a fear of being labelled 'racist', something the left views as worse even than the rape of a child.

So how sorry is Lowles? Apart from his failure to openly acknowledge his own responsibility, there is also the lack of any concrete suggestions as to how to proceed. His caution against calling people who are genuinely concerned about the issue 'racists' and 'fascists' has all the hallmarks of a stopgap measure designed to last until the heat is off: after all, how will they campaign on behalf of Labour against UKIP if they can't return to the tried and trusted (if discredited) tactic of calling any mention of immigration, race, culture, ethnicity or religion as 'neo-nazism'. If he was serious in his intentions to deal with the issue, he'd forget the Labour antipathy towards Respect and sing from the rooftops the details of Imam Alyas Kharmani's 'Together Against Grooming' campaign, which is based in Bradford - precisely where Lowles let down 65 young girls in the interests of political gamesmanship. Instead, his silence about this excellent campaign demonstrates that his statement - apart from being an unintentional admission of culpability - is nothing more than cynical, self-serving temporising designed to ensure that Hope not Hate continues to be a hobby horse for his own ambitions.

The responsibility for the grooming crisis lies within the culture Hope not Hate has infected the Labour Party with

Make no mistake - Nick Lowles and Hope
not Hate are a major part of the conspiracy of
silence in the Labour Party which allowed
this to happen repeatedly.
 

'Shining a light on abuse' is the disgraceful apologia issued by Hope not Hate director Nick Lowles following the publication of the report on child abuse in Rotherham. As an exercise in obfuscation and blame passing it is truly New Labour in its scope, which is only to be expected from an organisation so heavily supported by the New Labour faithful, many of whom have ended up in prison for expenses fraud.

Lowles - while at least having the decency to join calls for Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner Shaun Wright to resign - goes on to say, "HOPE not hate was vocal in its criticism of how local authorities were dealing with on-street grooming from as far back as 2005". Leaving aside the minor point that Hope not Hate as a separate entity did not exist in 2005, their interest in the issue was politically motivated and solely an attempt to counter BNP propaganda: the type involvementstawhich Hope not Hate advocated and which was deeply entrenched within the Labour Party - turning a blind eye and hoping the problem went away on its own - ensured the continued ability of these grooming gangs to operate.

The desperate attempts to play down their culpability have lead to major re-writes of sections of their blogs and websites as history is re-arranged to make their own actions seem less supportive of those who engaged in child grooming. Luckily, we still have their pages available off-line, meaning articles such as the snippet below are not entirely lost to posterity:

"New HOPE not hate leaflet - £700 needed by midnight tonight

We are producing a new leaflet to debunk the racists’ lies around grooming.... the leaflet will also debunk racist myths peddled by far right groups. We have a mother of a girl who was groomed condemning the BNP for exploiting the issue. We have people in the Muslim communities speaking out. And while racist groups try to blame all Muslims for the actions of a criminal few, this leaflet will also show that many of their own supporters have been convicted child pornography and child abuse"

Nobody was attempting to suggest that every Muslim or every Asian was a child grooming paedophile in waiting except in the deepest reaches of Lowles mind - but making out that that was what his political opponents really meant ensured that the problems could be deferred or ignored. It was a policy always destined to failure, and the price of that failure to date - 1,400 sexually abused young girls in Rotherham alone - is only the tip of the iceberg.

Their actions in opposing child grooming amounted to pointing the finger at the BNP and saying that they too were child abusers, while attempting to minimise the cultural associations which made it particularly prevalent within sections of the Asian community. Elsewhere, serious attempts to deal with the ongoing problem of grooming have been deliberately ignored by Lowles for political reasons. We have long supported the campaign by Imam Alyas Khamani which seeks to impose a 'khutba' in mosques underlining that grooming is un-Islamic behaviour. Hope not Hate meanwhile have never mentioned Khamani's initiative because he is a Respect councillor in Bradford: in fact, in Bradford Nick Lowles was recently praising a councillor with long, established links to the British National Party for managing to hold his seat and keep UKIP (and Respect) out in last May's elections.

 

Lowles goes on to paint himself as a martyr in the fight against Asian grooming gangs, writing, "Unfortunately, too many people have remained silent for too long,” I wrote at the time. “Police and local authorities have been slow to protect these young girls. Leading figures in local Muslim communities have often been too slow in speaking out on this issue, and in some cases simply dismissed it as Far Right propaganda. They have been joined in this by some on the left, who have been too quick to silence any discussion.". He fails to mention that he himself is one of those on the left who have for many years been desperate to silence calls for action by dismissing them as racist and attacking the messenger rather than the crime. It is Lowles and his band who have ensured that these crimes have continued by refusing to countenance the idea that there may be a racial/cultural/ethnic basis simply because it clashed with their dogmatic, blinkered approach to racism: all differences are good, and to suggest that some are not is to be a neo-Nazi.

We should be clear about this. When the report talks about councillors of Pakistani origin who blocked and mislead the inquiry, this is a direct result of the type of culture within the Labour Party which has been encouraged by Lowles and Hope not Hate. It is a culture which is so determined to turn a blind eye to anything which may have ethnic origins that they would rather sweep it under the carpet than deal with it head on, regardless of the consequences to some of the most vulnerable members of society.

In this, Lowles is as guilty as the PCC whose resignation he calls for: Labour's Shaun Wright, who was responsible for children's services in Rotherham at the height of the scandal, and who was also a member of the police authority at the time. His compliance with the idiotic, blinkered approach advocated by Lowles and the rest of the Labour Party hierarchy allowed this to happen. While taking foster children away from a couple because they happened to be UKIP members, they also permitted over 1,400 children to be sexually abused, threatened, beaten and trafficked as they turned a blind eye because to act may have been considered racist. If clearer proof was needed of the political motivations of this bunch of clowns elevated to high office, we're not sure what form it could take.

And so Lowles finds himself now walking a tightrope. Posts by his organisation which dismissed rumours of major and organised involvement in child grooming by members of the Pakistani and Kashmiri community have been deleted, while some attacking those who suggested a link between certain immigrant communities and child sex have been deleted altogether.

Time and again, Lowles and Hope not Hate have ignored some of the most unpleasant aspects of extremist Islam as they try to persuade us that there is nothing to worry about. Misogyny and homophobia have been ignored as they take aim time and again at any who would dare to raise the fundamental incompatibility between a secular western democracy and fundamentalist Islam. By refusing to shine a light on crimes which they are supposed to expose Hope not Hate have revealed their fundamental hypocrisy: it could be argued that they are in some respects even complicit for promoting an attitude and a culture within the Labour Party which actively prevented such issues from being dealt with.

So, Mr Lowles. Spare us your self-serving crocodile tears. You are not a martyr. You are not and have never been working towards a solution, and to suggest that you are is to overlook your own complicity with the culture of secrecy and silence which permitted such crimes to flourish in Labour controlled areas. 14 months ago, we wrote of Lowles refusal to even mention Imam Kharmani's initiative:

"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."

It is as true today as it was then. Shame on you, and shame on the cowards you represent. Your moral ambiguity has permeated the Labour Party to such an extent that it has failed in its duty towards not just children, but whole populations of a significant number of Metropolitan areas which it controls. The fault is your, so don't you dare try and wash your hands of it.

With 7 Oxford men sentenced for grooming, why is HnH silent on Imam Karmani's initiative?

News broke today of the sentencing of 7 men in Oxford for a string of sex offences against young girls. Now, I may just be scaremongering, but something about their names - Akhtar Dogar, Anjum Dogar, Kamar Jamil, Assad Hussain, Mohammed Karrar, Bassam Karrar and Zeeshan Ahmed - suggests that these men may have something in common beyond living in the Oxford area.

I don't intend to spend hours examining links between grooming gangs and Islam - it is sufficient to

Imam Alyas Karmani - his initiative
to tackle sexual grooming through an
Islamic 'Khutba' to be read in mosques
is being ignored by HnH

say that there is an increasing amount of evidence to suggest that this is an increasing problem, particularly with men from the Indian sub-continent. Whether there is a direct connection to Islam or whether their religion is incidental makes little difference to the victims.

As I have blogged previously, there is action being taken within the Islamic community to combat such crimes. Imam Alyas Karmani in Bradford has prepared a Khutba to be read in mosques during Friday prayers tomorrow. In it, he sets out beyond any doubt how such crimes are against the true teachings of Islam, and he aims to have it read in 500 mosques around the UK.

The Imam is also a Respect Party councillor in Bradford. Regardless of personal feelings or political preferences, this is an initiative which deserves respect, as Karmani - like many within the British Muslim community - recognise that it is their community which has the best chance of tackling such issues successfully, and I have said before that I feel he should be applauded for taking a stand which will not be universally popular.

What is particularly surprising then is the continued silence of Hope not Hate, both on the issue of grooming, and on Imam Karmani's initiative.

It seems to me that this represents little more than a betrayal of everything they are supposed to stand for. Sections of the far-right are already near-hysterical, painting all Muslims with the same brush and undoubtedly using the recent spate of convictions of groups of Islamic men as a powerful recruiting tool. Hope not Hate have the opportunity to use their e-mail database - the largest in the country, if their own words are to be believed - to spread far and wide information on Karmani's initiative, and to show that the actions of these men are not representative of the wider Muslim community.

Instead, we have a self-imposed silence on the whole issue.

I do not know whether this is because Imam Karmani is a Respect Party councillor in an area where Respect are making huge inroads in the Labour vote, or whether it is because by admitting that a problem such as this may exist, Hope not Hate will find themselves saying some of the things that those they condemn also say.

Whatever the reason, it is a further demonstration that there is much more Hate than Hope going on in their organisation. If it can not use its influence to promote an initiative which will blunt the advance of the far right, then we have to ask once again what is Hope not Hate for?

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.

Hope not Hate meeting schedule ties UKIP to Woolwich murder

Hope not Hate have finally published a list of upcoming meetings which readers may find of interest. Although originally billed as 'Stand up for HOPE' to discuss 'what to do about UKIP', many are now billed under the generic 'We are the many' or 'Where now for HOPE?' banner as the original billing failed to attract support.

It is clear from their information that these meetings will attempt to throw UKIP into the same pot as the BNP and the EDL and prominently features the Woolwich murder as can be seen by this advertisement for the meeting in Oxford:

 

To us this rather smacks of desperation; to complain about the 'EDL's attempts to exploit the Woolwich murder' and then doing the same thing in a weak attempt to garner support for a campaign against UKIP - whose only official statement on the matter was a call for calm - is clearly the pot calling the kettle black.

 

Note also how although they claim their campaign is about offering 'HOPE', there is still no mention on the Hope not Hate website of the excellent initiative on sexual grooming being lead by Respect councillor and Bradford Imam Alyas Karmani for the reasons discussed yesterday: Hope not Hate are only interested in 'HOPE' when it is themselves or Labour offering it.

 

A full list of meetings is available on their website, and you can find your local meeting at the Hope not Hate meeting locator. While we will attend as many as possible, we would be interested in receiving reports from those we are unable to attend. I know it goes without saying, but if you attend, please be polite, respectful and calm as they run through their list of distortions and half-truths about UKIP. Remember, it doesn't matter how many people at the meetings say they should leave UKIP alone and focus on racism and fascism, the decision has already been made by Nick Lowles - who is the sole owner of Hope not Hate Ltd - so even unanimous decisions against the proposal can not change that.

 

If you attend the meetings in Brighton, Oxford and several other locations, please be careful. There are large UAF branches in these areas, we have already seen how they use bully boy tactics, and they are likely to attend these meetings to push their own SWP agenda. There is little love lost between HnH and the UAF, who fight like cats in a sack in the absence of alternative opposition.

 

Most meetings are likely to see Nick Lowles addressing rows of empty chairs, although after the fiasco in Warrington it is likely that even as I write HnH are on the phone to local branches of trades unions and constituency Labour Partys to ensure the embarrassment of only 5 members of the public attending is not repeated.

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