HnH 'Infographic' worst example of deliberately misleading propaganda

Hope not Hate continue to cash in on the death
of Lee Rigby with dishonest infographic

Hope not Hate continue to attempt to cash in on the death of soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich with the
launch of their new 'infographic' and its claim that it is a representation of anti-Muslim violence across the UK since May's events.

For some reason, HnH have also seen fit to include on their graphic not just marches by those it classes as 'far-right', but also wreath-laying ceremonies in memory of Rigby accompanied by what it claims are the number of those attending such ceremonies.

We can not see what the supposed link between the two is supposed to be. A quick glance at the map shows that there is no obvious link, with many areas which held wreath laying ceremonies experiencing no anti-Muslim events, and such events happening in areas where there was no wreath laying.

Hope not Hate also appear to have left off inconvenient wreath-laying events, such as the one in Woolwich attended by Labour MPs Stephen Timms, Saddiq Khan and Nick Raynsford. We assume that only events which cash in on Rigby's death in the correct fashion are approved by HnH: that is has ignored Labour organised events is understandable, as it will itself hope to share in the proceeds.

Then there are the 'anti-Muslim' incidents. Of the 31 they list, 13 related to either spray painting of graffiti or the leaving of bacon and pork at mosques. Included among the list is the vandalism at the Newport cemetery, where those who painted 'BNP', 'NF' & 'UKIP' on graves carefully avoided doing any other damage, and thoughtfully used a water soluble paint: we have discussed previously whether these were the actions of a far-right thug or a UAF/HnH supporter, and the same applies to these other incidents - it is in UAF and HnH's best interests to stir up religious strife.

Also featured are the arrests of Kevin Carroll and Tommy Robinson/Stephen Yaxley-Lennon in East London - nowhere near a mosque - and the threats sent to BBC political presenter Andrew Neill following his interview of Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon. The latter are more 'anti-Neill' than 'anti-Muslim'.

There are some outbreaks of honesty in their infographic, although perhaps unintentional. The supposed 'suspect device' left at a Liverpool mosque - which subsequently turned out to be a worshippers laundry - does not feature on the list.

HnH's Nick Lowles uses the opportunity in a blog posting to sell copies of his latest magazine, and he quotes liberally from his own editorial, saying:

"More importantly, ordinary people refused to let the extremists win. Most people understood that the actions of two people do not reflect the views of the British Muslim communities. "

Sadly, he seems to forget that while the actions of the two individuals in Woolwich may not be representative of their community, the actions of those who commit anti-Muslim vandalism or violence are not representative of theirs either. He then goes on to defend the 'Tell MAMA' organisation, despite the withdrawal of its government grant for massaging its own figures:

"It is disappointing then, amidst this hatred, that some journalists have attacked Tell MAMA, an organisation established last year to monitor and encourage reporting anti-Muslim hate crime, and even the very concept of Islamophobia. It is easy, sitting in their comfortable offices, to pick faults with Tell MAMA (an organisation HOPE not hate is proud to support) and downplay the level of violence. It is not they who are greeted by a nail bomb going off as they go to their place of worship or have to be woken from their beds in the middle of the night because someone has maliciously started a fire.
None of the journalists who attacked Tell MAMA and the concept of Islamophobia, have made a comment about Tipton."

Still no mention of
Karmani's positive
initiative

In the absence of any arrests or public comment on who the perpetrators of the Tipton event may be, it is difficult to make any informed comment beyond deploring all such violence. That Tipton
occurred does not however make 'Tell MAMA' right, and Lowles and Hope not Hate have consistently failed to deal with accusations that 'Tell MAMA' has deliberately lied over many months, in the process stirring up rather than damping down community divisions. To attempt to tie the two together from his 'comfortable office' is just more hypocrisy from HnH's head.

The article finishes with the usual publicity for groups and initiatives linked to Hope not Hate. Readers will be unsurprised to discover that there is still no mention of Imam Alyas Karmani's anti-grooming campaign nor any other event or initiative which is designed to improve community relations unless it is organised by an associate of Hope not Hate. Remember, only Hope not Hate are allowed to cash in on a soldier's death.

Does it really take a £1m organisation to combat people saying rude things about Islam on the Internet?

Hope not Hate last night reposted a Channel 4 news article headlined "EDL 'linked to a third' of

Data based on 'Tell MAMA's figures -
but they are losing their grant because
of doubts about their accuracy

online anti-Muslim incidents".

The report, by the Centre for Fascist Studies at Teeside University, runs to 30 pages of analysis, but suffers from a serious drawback: its data is based on information provided to it by the 'Tell MAMA' campaign. Tell MAMA, which was founded by Fiyal Mughal last year and funded by the government, has just lost its central government grant because its figures were unreliable. In an article on June 9th in the Sunday Telegraph, Andrew Gilligan wrote:

"A controversial project claiming to measure anti-Muslim attacks will not have its government grant renewed after police and civil servants raised concerns about its methods.

The project, called Tell Mama, claimed that there had been a “sustained wave of attacks and intimidation” against British Muslims after the killing of Drummer Lee Rigby, with 193 “Islamophobic incidents” reported to it, rising to 212 by last weekend.

 The group’s founder, Fiyaz Mughal, said he saw “no end to this cycle of violence”, describing it as “unprecedented”. The claims were unquestioningly repeated in the media.

Tell Mama and Mr Mughal did not mention, however, that 57 per cent of the 212 reports referred to activity that took place only online, mainly offensive postings on Twitter and Facebook, or that a further 16 per cent of the 212 reports had not been verified. Not all the online abuse even originated in Britain.

Contrary to the group’s claim of a “cycle of violence” and a “sustained wave of attacks”, only 17 of the 212 incidents, 8 per cent, involved the physical targeting of people and there were no attacks on anyone serious enough to require medical treatment."

 The Teeside report focuses on incidents over a longer timescale, but the figures are broadly in line with those since the Woolwich incident. In the period 1st April 2012 to 30th April 2013, Tell MAMA has recorded 584 anti-Muslim hate crimes, of which 434 took place on-line, as opposed to 150 in the real world. Of these real world incidents, only 8% - 12 - involved 'extreme violence', although there is no indication of what extreme violence means. This is not to downplay the seriousness of assaults, but to show that of the 584 incidents recorded by Tell MAMA, only 2% involved anything more than what amounts to name-calling or insults.

HnH would like you to think that this is commonplace -
but even Tell MAMA's figures show this is not so

Of the real world incidents, only 29 out of 150 involved an identifiable link to the far-right, or 19.3% - a figure the report refers to as 'nearly a quarter', when it is actually 'nearly a fifth'. By 'far-right', the report refers to the BNP, NF and EDL and its offshoots: it specifically excludes UKIP (HnH take note).

There are several gaping holes in this data. Most noticeable is the lack of any indication of how many of the real world incidents which resulted in violence also had connections to the far-right, which leads us to believe the figures were pretty evenly spread. This would mean that statistically only 2.4 violent incidents took place with far-right links of the 12 recorded. Online, the situation was clearer, with 300 out of 434 incidents having links to the far-right, although even here the methodology was not clear - was passing on an internet 'meme' which could be considered anti-Muslim sufficient? As EDL membership is self-selecting and not limited to the UK, it is also not clear to what extent the data is valid.

What is interesting is to turn this data around the other way. Hope not Hate and its associated groups

Once again, HnH prove inept at
sorting data which doesn't fit
their agenda

have an annual turnover approaching £1m, and a significant number of staff. For the past year, it has involved itself in opposing hate crimes primarily against Muslims living in the UK. But that really highlights the scale of the problem facing Nick Lowles and Ruth Smeeth. On Tell MAMAs figures since the Woolwich incident, HnH's expensive organisation has essentially spent the last 6 weeks going after 40 EDL members who said rude things online about Muslims, and a further 17 people who shouted rude words at a Muslim in the street. According to the data in the Teeside report - and merging it with that released by Tell MAMA since the Woolwich incident - it means this expensive organisation has been chasing a mere 796 incidents, the vast majority of

Ruth Smeeth - may have
to step off the HnH
gravy train

which - 554 - amounted to Muslims being called rude names in internet postings. Of the real world incidents, only 12 - or 1.5% - involved violence, and only 2.4 - 0.3% -of those involved the far right. This does not seem to justify the scale of resources which Hope not Hate deploy, and explains their desperation to find another target before their own supporters begin to ask the same questions.

Without UAF to hide behind, Weyman
Bennet is just another political thug

The same problem is also facing the other supposedly anti-racist organisations, chief amongst which is Unite Against Fascism and its various offshoots. Many of these groups like UAF are simply front organisations for other political groups such as the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) who use them for spreading their own propaganda. If organised fascism is seen to be defeated, this audience is lost to them and that
they can not afford to happen.

Hope not Hate is not all about the money. It is about the influence and the power that brings: the access to media which unquestioningly accepts what they say. It is a heady brew, rubbing shoulders with sympathetic MPs and Ministers, editors and journalists. By selectively using statistics, they are not combatting the problem of anti-Islamic attacks, they are making it seem worse than it is, and diverting efforts away from the majority of perpetrators of real-world incidents who have no connection to the far-right. If there is a better example of Hope not Hate failing in its primary task, we have yet to see it.

All of this adds to the evidence that many of the supposed racist incidents are orchestrated not by the far right, but by anti-racist groups desperate to hang on to their positions and bands of thoughtless followers. Incidents such as the careful desecration of Islamic graves we reported on yesterday appear increasingly calculated to extend what HnH and UAF define as 'far-right' into the political mainstream. We have seen continually decreasing attendances at EDL marches which the EDL leadership has attempted to combat by ever more desperate political stunts. We have seen the collapse of the BNP, with its own attempts to hijack the Woolwich incident descend into farce. The English Democrats attempts to harvest disillusioned members has resulted in the collapse of the party. Andrew Brons and his new political party have disappeared.

UKIP should be on their guard. Lowles, Smeeth, Bennett and Smith will not let power slip through their fingers, and will resort to almost any means to prevent their followers seeing their own irrelevance to the political debate. They recognise that unless they successfully convince their own followers that UKIP is more than a political threat, their ride on the gravy train is approaching the terminus, and we should be aware from past experience that there are almost no depths to which they will not stoop to avoid having to step off onto the platform.