The Institutional Racism behind Tower Hamlets Lawfare Coup

Institutional racism: “The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.” (The Macpherson report, para. 6.34).

“Let justice be done though the heavens fall”, Deputy High Court Judge, Richard Mawrey declared as he delivered a recent ruling which voided Lutfur Rahman’s reelection as Mayor of Tower Hamlets on 22 May 2014. Almost 37,000 people voted for Rahman in an election which saw a record turnout. In a 200 page judgement, Mawrey found Rahman guilty of a series of corrupt and illegal practices. But this verdict is not just. It rests on a failure to understand the meaning and extent of racism in Britain today and is itself based on racist and Islamophobic reasoning. How can Muslims in Britain be expected to have faith in a legal system that produces a judgement such as this?

Mawrey denies Bangladeshis are a “beleaguered minority” due to their relatively large size (32%) within the borders of Tower Hamlets and deduces that they are therefore not subject to “hostile racial prejudice”. Yet it is not the number of individuals belonging to a particular group in a borough that makes them a minority, but their presence as a racialised community within a broader political context of oppression. Had Mawrey sought to substantiate his claim, he might have come across the swathes of evidence demonstrating that the Bangladeshi community is subject to extreme economic and other forms of structural oppression. Met Police Service figures show that between April 2012 and September 2014, 100 “Islamophobic” hate crimes were recorded in Tower Hamlets, more than in any other London borough.

Mawrey’s downplaying of racism is not merely a matter of ignorance, but connects to a broader political agenda, manifested in his discussion of institutional racism. He expresses sympathy for the view that “the imputation of ‘institutional racism’ made by the Macpherson Enquiry, albeit 16 years ago, still dogs the [Police] Force” and acts as a hindrance to the proper carrying out of their work. For a judge to regret that the police force, or any organisation, might be concerned about institutional racism is unprofessional and dangerous. The origins of the Macpherson report lie in the Met’s failure to competently investigate the racially motivated murder of Stephen Lawrence. Mawrey’s comment is not only reckless in its dismissal of the importance of identifying and tackling institutional racism, but is also entirely out of touch with reality. Allegations of police racism have not subsided in the 16 years since the Macpherson Inquiry. In 2013, the Metropolitan Black Police Association declared that the force was still “institutionally racist”, an allegation that has gathered momentum following the recent revelations in the Ellison report that the Met police spied on Stephen Lawrence’s family. Black people are 6 times as likely to be stopped and searched, and Asian people twice as likely, as their white counterparts. In 2013, Stephen Lawrence’s brother, Stuart, lodged a racism complaint after having been stopped in his car by police 25 times.

Mawrey not only believes that the existence of racism is overplayed, but also that those who ‘call out’ racists, are merely “playing the race card”. He characterises the 1993 election of BNP councillor Derek Beackon as having elicited a reaction “bordering on hysteria” amongst Tower Hamlets politicians and was “used, for decades afterwards, to justify the claim that racism stalked the Borough and that only constant vigilance would prevent Tower Hamlets from becoming a fascist, not to say Nazi, outpost”. Mawrey deems “the BNP and later the EDL” to have been “a very useful bogeyman with which to affright the citizens, especially the non-​white citizens, of Tower Hamlets”. Yet there is much cause for Tower Hamlets residents to maintain a vigilant attitude towards racism. The EDL have three times marched through the borough. Beackon was the first of scores of BNP candidates to achieve electoral success. His win came shortly after the murder of Stephen Lawrence. After the BNP established their headquarters in South East London, the area saw a spate of racist murders, including that of Lawrence. Considering this context, for Mawrey to sneer at “hysterical” anti-​racist campaigners is not only facetious, but also significantly underplays the prevalence of racism in the borough. This glib and insinuating tone runs throughout the judgement and is indicative of Mawrey’s systematic trivialisation of racism.

Thus, Mawrey disparages dog-​whistle politics, congratulating the “wise folk of the Oxford English Dictionary” (OED) for not deigning to define it. He turns to Wikipedia and notes that dog-​whistle politics is “political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing…but has another additional, different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup”. ‘The advantage of the cliché”, he opines, “is that one may take a completely innocent, indeed anodyne, statement of a political opponent and claim that it contains a ‘coded’ message often…of a racist nature”. For Mawrey, to accuse a politician of dog-​whistling is always to cry wolf. In the face of the increasing popularity of anti-​immigration parties such as UKIP and the number of its members who are suspended for making racist remarks, it is naive to deny the existence of dog-​whistle politics, a point even the right wing press acknowledges.

Most disturbing is Mawrey’s adoption of racist reasoning. The perception that Muslims are of inferior mind runs throughout the judgement. On finding Rahman guilty of “undue spiritual influence”, Mawrey draws a comparison with the use of this offence to overturn the votes of Irish Catholics in the 1800s.“Time and again”, he says, “it was stressed that the Catholic voters were men of simple faith, usually much less well educated than the clergy who were influencing them, and men whose natural instinct would be to obey the orders of their priests… This principle still holds good…. a distinction must be made between a sophisticated, highly educated and politically literate community and a community which is traditional, respectful of authority and, possibly, not fully integrated with the other communities living in the same area…it is the character of the person sought to be influenced that is key to whether influence has been applied”. From this he concludes that “[i]t would be wrong…to treat Tower Hamlets’ Muslim community by the standards of a secular and largely agnostic metropolitan elite”. The suggestion is that the typical Muslim voter is not capable of the rational judgement and circumspection of her “White-​British” counterpart.

Mawrey cannot claim ignorance of the meaning of ‘racism’. He includes the OED definition in the judgement: racism is “a belief that one’s own racial or ethnic group is superior…also a belief that the members of different racial of ethnic groups possess specific characteristics, abilities, or qualities which can be compared and evaluated. Hence prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against people of other racial or ethnic groups (or, more widely, of other nationalities), esp. based on such beliefs”. Mawrey’s reasoning that Tower Hamlets’ Bangladeshi community, like the 19th century Irish, have a “natural instinct” to obey orders, are “less well educated” and not “politically literate”, and should be treated according to different standards than a “secular and largely agnostic metropolitan elite”, fits comfortably within the OED definition of racism.

Mawrey did not include the definition in order to be judged against it himself, but in order to test the allegation that Lutfur Rahman made “false statements” that John Biggs, the Labour mayoral candidate, was a racist. Mawrey sees no racism in Biggs’ claim that, “[a]ll [Rahman’s] councillors are from the Bangladeshi community and the primary focus of his policy making has been on the Bangladeshi community…what we don’t want to have is small communities that are separate from each other and are very inward looking because the world will pass them by”. Mawrey found the statement not to be “racially insensitive” and this laid Rahman open to a guilty verdict. Yet if we consider the reality of everyday racism  — subtle, commonplace forms of discrimination — and of dog-​whistle politics, we can see the racism in Biggs’s comment. It plays to a stereotype of the Bangladeshi community. The message is that Bangladeshis are the problem: their leaders are corrupt, their failure to ‘integrate’ is a result of their preference for an “inward looking” lifestyle, they are ignored by the world because of their own deficiencies rather than because they are victims of structural discrimination and Islamophobia. This is the very same reasoning about Bangladeshi Muslims that is reproduced in Mawrey’s judgment and that made their votes so expendable.

Surely a judge who not only believes the existence of racism to be overplayed, but also employs racist reasoning himself, cannot be trusted to ascertain the guilt of a Muslim and to accurately determine allegations of racism. That a judge can expound the view that the “natural instinct” of Muslims is to defer to their religious leaders and that Bangladeshis are a “less sophisticated” and “less well-​educated” people begs the question as to whether the accusation of institutional racism that Mawrey so derides cannot also be laid at the door of the judiciary and the legal system it is tasked with upholding.

Nadine El-​Enany is Lecturer in Law, Birkbeck Law School, University of London. @NadineElEnany



Islam Choice & Democracy

In Islam a muslims would always choose to regulate their lives according to Gods guidance as laid out in the Quran and Sunnah -Shariah

So given the chance to choose Sharia, or ‘man made laws’ it would be shirk to choose man made laws (putting aside urf (customary laws)

However there is no such choice living in a ‘Democratic’ Country

Rules (laws) are imposed, through the threat of incarceration or theft of your property.

So given that the laws are imposed, you are no longer in a position to choose how to regulate your life. much of it is imposed.

Given this situation. A vote is not a vote for ‘man made laws’. it is a vote to have the least crappy rules imposed on you.

#samosagate the lawfare coup

From the pro israeli Arieh Kovler

I’ve been reading the fascinating judgment(pdf) that today resulted in Tower Hamlets Mayor Lutfur Rahman being removed and barred from office and his election being voided.

The judgment is long but well-written and genuinely interesting. It covers a lot of ground specific to Tower Hamlets – internal Labour party splits, vote-tampering and personation, and the use of public funds to bribe Mr Rahman’s supporters.

The ruling also dealt with another element of English law that hasn’t been tested in court for a long time – that of undue spiritual influence in an election.

The Representation of the People Act 1983 s115 says that:

(2) A person shall be guilty of undue influence [on an election] —

(a) if he, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, makes use of or threatens to make use of any force, violence or restraint, or inflicts or threatens to inflict, by himself or by any other person, any temporal or spiritual injury, damage, harm or loss upon or against any person in order to induce or compel that person to vote or refrain from voting, or on account of that person having voted or refrained from voting;

This provision was originally passed to stop Roman Catholic clergy controlling Irish elections in the 19th Century by threatening their congregations with hellfire, but it has been repeately re-enacted and the Rahman ruling finds that it’s still in force.

The Rahman judgement (para 160) notes

…there is a line which should not be crossed between the free expression of political views and the use of the power and influence of religious office to convince the faithful that it is their religious duty to vote for or against a particular candidate. It does not matter whether the religious duty is expressed as a positive duty – ‘your allegiance to the faith demands that you vote for X’ – or a negative duty –‘if you vote for Y you will be damned in this world and the next’. The mischief at which s 115 is directed is the misuse of religion for political purposes.

The judgment goes on to fine Lutfur Rahman had broken this law by working with Muslim clerics who urged Muslims to vote for him.

This all sounded a bit familiar, and then I remembered why.


In 2012 George Galloway stood as a candidate in the Bradford West by-election. Bradford West is a majority Muslim seat. In the course of campaigning, Mr Galloway made the following comments to a largely-Muslim audience:

“I believe in the Judgment Day — not all of you do.

I believe that one day we will have to answer to the Almighty for what we did and what we did not do with the life that God gave us.

And I just say this and I ask you to say it, especially to other religious people:

how will you explain, on the Last Day, that you had a chance, on 29 March 2012, to vote either for the guy who led the great campaign against the slaughter of millions of people in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere — you could have voted for him — but instead you voted because of village politics for a party which has killed a million Iraqis?”


This certainly sounds like a spiritual threat to people who might vote Labour.

According to Andrew Gilligan, at another rally on the same night Mr Galloway said:

“I’m a better Pakistani than he [my opponent] will ever be. God knows who’s a Muslim and who is not. And a man that’s never out of the pub shouldn’t be going around telling people you should vote for him because he’s a Muslim. A Muslim is ready to go to the US Senate, as I did, and to their face call them murderers, liars, thieves and criminals. A Muslim is somebody who’s not afraid of earthly power but who fears only the Judgment Day. I’m ready for that, I’m working for that and it’s the only thing I fear.”




A letter claiming to be from Mr Galloway was delivered to many houses in the constituency in the days running up to the election echoing these themes.



Should the 2012 by-election result in Bradford West have been voided like the Tower Hamlets result? I’m not sure. In the Rahman case it was Muslim clerics doing the spiritual influencing. Here it’s the candidate himself, who is not a Muslim religious authority. But it’s also a much starker and more straightforward spiritual ‘threat’ than the Rahman case.

It’s too late now, of course, with Parliament dissolved and another election underway. But Mr Galloway might have to campaign rather more carefully following the Rahman judgement.


Quick Responses To Pro Israeli Propaganda

I have highlighted some quick Responses along with links for a more detailed response to Pro israeli propoganda aimed at enabling the Slaughter of Children.

Hamas wants to kill all the Jews – its in their Charter!

Response :The Likud Charter wants to ethnically cleanse Palestine & how does a call to return to pre 48 borders = kill all the jews?

If Hamas stops firing rockets , there will be no Israeli response

Response: If israel would stop occupying Gaza and wiping Palestine of the Map, Hamas would stop firing Rockets


Hamas Has launched thousands of Rockets at Civilian Areas

Israel has rained down thousands of sophistated US Rockets killing thousands of women and children.

Whereas there has only be 13 civillian casualties by Hamas in over 10 years.

Hamas digs terror tunnels to kill all the Jews

so why haven’t they and instead have used tunnels to fight IDF

Will add more, suggestions welcome

Hamas Terrorists Kidnap Israeli Soldiers

If they are invading Palestine, they are being detained by Palestinian Government

The reason they are detained is to try and secure the release of hundreds of women , children and political prisoners rotting in Israeli dungeons

Hamas are using Human Shields

The only side found and convicted of using Human Shields is the Israelis

So if children are being slaughtered by Israel because Hamas are using human shields does that mean Children are being slaughtered in UN schools because the UN are using human shields?



How We Can Help Palestine

Demonstrations, Social Media Blogging, Petitions are all well and good. But they should just be the stepping stone to pin point activism.

You don’t need to be part of a large organization with a hierarchical structure (my anarchism coming out) to make a big difference. Just a group of motivated friends are able to achieve huge things. And the power of a 100 or so of these groups would shake the foundations of the Zionist lobby

So how would it work?

Well the first and most important thing is focus.Focus on your specific objective. It could be focusing on diminishing the clout of a Pro Israeli business or lobby. Or on influencing or changing a key decision process that impacts Palestine. Or even of building ties between Palestine and your respective Country.

The Second most important thing is assess the knowledge and skills of your group of friends. Perhaps someone has strategic industry knowledge. they would then be able to identify the decision making process. Or maybe you have specific skills within your group, such as app designer, or rocket making skills ;-).

The Third most important thing is to structure your decision making process in the group, so that you can all agree quickly.  Small Fast and Agile

There is a huge groundswell and there is room for every group in this desire to help Palestine. The Group could be as small as 3 friends, or 100 strong.

But remember this is our time. This is where that change begins.


The Low Down on Hamas Rockets

Hamas Rockets have been an essential narrative for the pro israeli cheerleaders

“1000’s of rockets rained down on Israel”. We targeted a school because Hamas uses it to launch rockets.

Well lets look at these rocket launchers

Rocket Launchers







As You can See, the rocket launchers can be picked up and put into a backpack. Which means it takes 5 seconds to deploy them and another 5 seconds to pack them up and move them.

Which means they can be launched from anywhere at any time.

Which means that Israel can bomb schools, hospitals, graves, playground, beaches in fact every single place in Israel and claim they where targeting Hamas rockets.

What about the Rockets themselves

Qassam Rockets or as they are  known in the US Candy Rockets

the rockets are propelled by fertilizer (sugar and potassium). So when people talk of home made fireworks, they are not exaggerating . The explosives when used are generally recycled tnt


Can the firing of “candy rockets” at israel justify the mass slaughter of Children? Only if you are a racist who sees them as subhuman.





Ask UEFA Executive Committee to Remove Israel

The Following people are on the UEFA Executive Committe.

Some of them are on Twitter
@senezerzik @GiancarloAbete @Wolfg_Niersbach @MichaelvanPraag @SergeyFursenko

Today Israel Killed the Palestinan Football coach ahed zaqout

in March Israel also killed two Palestinan Football Players from the Westbank Jawhar Nassere Jawher 19 and Adam Abd al-Raouf 17

Israel also imprisoned Palestinan footballer mahmoud Sarsak for 3 years

Request that the UEFA executive committe vote on the expulsion of Israel from UEFA. Israel is not part of Europe and Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza.