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.

Lowles fights hypocrisy with hypocrisy in blog post

Nick Lowles - as guilty of hypocrisy
over freedom of speech as Igler

In an article apparently written without any sense of irony, Hope not Hate director Nick Lowles focuses today on the links between Pam Geller, Robert Spencer and Discourse Institute director George Igler. In it, Lowles says,

"it would appear that the Discourse Institute is quite selective in the  (sic) free speech campaigns and from a quick look at the organisation's website it regularly defends the EDL but seems not to offer these same freedoms to Muslims who are being silenced."

This is the same Nick Lowles attacking the Discourse Institute for not defending all free speech who just weeks ago organised the petition to prevent Geller and Spencer from coming to the UK and exercising their right to freedom of speech. At the same time, Lowles' organisation was quite happy to turn a blind eye to other hate speakers visiting the UK, including Mohammed al Arefe and Yasser al Habib. Lowles is also behind the 'no platform' campaign which seeks to deny activists his organisation deems 'far-right' from addressing public meetings, while just yesterday HnH and former NF activist Matthew Collins used the 'Insider' blog to lobby against Tommy Robinson/Stephen Yaxley-Lennon being given a platform a the Oxford Union.

As we have said before, we do not support the views of Geller, Spencer or Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon any more than we support the views of al Arefe or al Habib. The price of freedom of speech however is that even those on the extremes are entitled to it. You can not change peoples minds by victimising them, silencing them, ignoring them or inciting a large mob of UAF bully boys to turn up and beat them, you can only do it by taking on their arguments and defeating them. Lowles needs to get over himself and realise that without freedom of speech, you only have Hate, not Hope.

Geller & Spencer banned - al-Arefe & al-Habib are fine by HnH though

In what Hope not Hate will undoubtedly see as a victory, news reaches us this afternoon that Home Secretary Theresa May has banned US anti-Islamic campaigners Pam Geller and Robert Spencer from entering the UK - read more >here< - on the grounds that their presence is not conducive to the public good.

On the whole this is consistent with government policy, and the list of people banned on the same grounds includes significant numbers of what might be broadly termed 'Islamic hate preachers'. We disagree with the notion of banning people because they express views which are not widely shared, but that is not really the point of this article.

More interesting is the response to Hope not Hate's triumphalism on their Facebook page. While Lowles and Co celebrate the halting of free speech by foreigners - it's not as if there aren't already a multitude of people in the UK who express the same views - the views of those commenting are far from wholly supportive. Several comments regarding censorship have been removed from the comment string, but as Hope not Hate feel that too much democracy is not a good thing, this is not surprising.

For all the 'hurrah's on their post, they still resolutely refuse to address one burning issue: how can they justify running a campaign against the two Americans, while failing to address the issue of Mohammed al-Arefe or Yasser al-Habib mentioned earlier today? Their views are just as reprehensible in a democracy, so where is the petition campaign? Or would that be just too much democracy?

Al-Arefe & al-Habib vs Geller & Spencer: more Hope not Hate hypocrisy

Hope not Hate are currently running a campaign to deny entry to the UK to a pair of anti-Islam activists from the US, and are urging their supporters to write to Home Secretary Theresa May demanding that the couple - Pam Geller and Robert Spencer - be denied a visa.

Pam Geller and Robert Spencer:
HnH seek to deny them a visa

In addition to this front page campaign, there are 7 postings outlining the words and deeds of the pair, and all demanding that they not be permitted to enter the UK, allegedly to address an EDL rally.

Meanwhile, on the 20th June, HnH featured a single paragraph article on Saudi preacher Mohammed Al Arefe. The article, posted by Nick Lowles, paraphrases an Huffington Post article on Al Arefe described by Lowles as 'a really good piece'. Al Arefe's arrival in the UK follows that of another Islamic militant, Sheikh Yasser al-Habib, who was imprisoned in 2003 for inciting sectarianism. Al Habib has not even been mentioned by Hope not Hate.

We make no defence of Geller and Spencer: their views seem to us to be inflammatory and alarmist, sprinkled with absurd conspiracy theories and based on the worst possible misreading of Islam. They are true right wing nutcases in the American style. However, Al-Arefe and Al-Habib are simply the other side of the coin, doing their best to spread the worst of Islam, bringing sectarian strife wherever they appear and trying hard to fit the stereotype that Geller and Spencer seek to create.



Mohammed Al-Arefe - seeks to stir
up sectarian strife but HnH don't care

Our interest is solely this. Why do Geller & Spencer warrant a front page banner campaign and 7 news articles rehashing their past statements and actions and launching a petition to deny them visas to enter the UK, while Al-Habib doesn't feature at all, and Al-Arefe gets a single paragraph?

It seems to us that we either have freedom of speech in this country or we don't. If we do, then the answer to all of these visits is to take on what they say not by the use of violence and the UAF - which appears to be HnH's answer to most things - but by logical argument and reasoned thought. If - as Hope not Hate clearly wish - we do not, then the answer is to deny entry visas to all of these people on the grounds that they are divisive and not conducive to the public good.



Sheikh Yasser al-Habib - imprisoned
for stirring up sectarian strife, but no trouble for
Hope not Hate

What is truly hypocritical is to go after Geller & Spencer with a full-blown campaign, while ignoring Al-Habib and barely mentioning Al-Arefe - a man who even Lowles concedes as one whose presence will "negatively impact the peaceful co-existance (sic) amongst the Muslim community".

At least the Huffington post attempted to answer this conundrum, quoting Labour MP Khalid These preachers are purely here to promote themselves and create divisions where none need to exist. Neither Al Arefe or Al Habib should be allowed to do this, and the Home Office must take action on this issue. This is just another branch of hatred."

Why then does Hope not Hate stick to such a hypocritical line? We can only assume that their opposition to certain types of hate is superficial at best: while Geller and Spencer's approach is decidedly right wing Republican and opposed to the Democrats and therefore Labour, Al Arefe and Al Habib's visits are likely to have no political dimension which is electorally significant. Is there a better indication that Hope not Hate are betraying the very principles they are supposed to uphold?

Lowles in his brief article on al-Arefe says, "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". Let's just not look too hard, eh, Nick? After all, Labour votes and your position are at stake.