Respect - playing with sectarian fire...

****

There are a couple of by-elections going on at the moment in, what might be described as urban seats - Rotherham and Croydon North (where I was educated - not that this has anything to do with what follows). And my dear friends in the Respect Party are standing in both seats.

I can't comment on the Croydon election - although you can never know with Lee Jasper - but in Rotherham, Respect have parachuted in Yvonne Ridley, former journalist and famous Muslim convert. All good politics I guess. But then we get a glimpse at the literature - in a reprise of the recent Bradford West by-election we see a blatant and disturbing appeal to sectarianism:

"The RESPECT Party Britain's only party that openly embraces Islam..."

 "...they (the Labour Party) are also going into pubs and clubs behind our backs and attacking Muslims, Asians and Muslim immigrants in particular."

"...we would remind you the last time the Muslim/Asian community voted to elect a Labour MP from Rotherham (he) set up an Israeli support group the so-called 'Labour Friends of Israel'."

"We have set up a database of Muslim/Asian families to make sure your voice is heard..."

This is what Respect have brought to Bradford and what they propose for Rotherham - divisive, insensitive, racist and sectarian politics. Less of a problem in Rotherham when the Muslim population is less that 15% of the electorate but the fact that this unpleasant sectarianism exists at all should be a cause for concern.

In the end there is little difference between the message pumped out here to young Muslims and the message that the BNP, EDL and National Front target at white working class communities. It's 'them' that cause your problems - vote for us because we're on your side against 'them'.

In Bradford we got a glimpse of this divisive approach at the last Council Meeting - motions on "islamaphobia" and questions attacking Israel. We sit quietly while JUST West Yorkshire - supposedly a 'racial justice' charity - churns out a stream of sectarian 'research' (using funding from those naive idiots at Joseph Rowntree) aimed at supporting this sectarian Respect agenda - indeed the leader of the Respect group on Council is a trustee of this "charity".

These people are not interested in integration, in tolerance or in peace. Respect and its allies are set on stirring up discontent in these communities, in finding demons where there are no demons and in dividing one group of Yorkshire people from another.

After a dozen years of building cohesion in Bradford it is distressing to see Respect attempt to tear that work down. And to see them spread this damaging message in Rotherham

....

Shisha, the next target for the anti-fun brigade

At its next Council meeting, Bradford Councillors will discuss the scourge of shisha smoking. In a time of austerity, when the Council is cutting services and too many people don't have jobs we're discussing how to shut down a few more businesses and spoil a few more folk's pleasure. But then the motion is from Respect - who seem to have appointed themselves moral guardians of the Asian communities in Bradford! 

I was therefore struck by the Pub Curmudgeon's spot of a similar campaign under way in Manchester:

Traders and  councillors say curry houses are now struggling to compete with the shisha bars and fear it could be the end for the Curry Mile.

They say some of the shisha bars are allowing customers to flout the smoking ban and illegally smoke shisha indoors.

Under the law, the shisha bars are meant to restrict customers to smoking outside, often on a terrace.

Manchester council is  now launching a campaign to crack down on people who flout the smoking ban at shisha bars, and to highlight the health risks of smoking shisha.

And doubtless the main element of the campaign will be this particular lie:

Yes folks this claim - from Bradford NHS - is simply not true. Nor is the claim in our Respect motion that:

...according to the WHO, an hour of smoking shisha for one hour is equivalent to smoking 200 times the volume of smoke in one cigarette.

 There are variations on this story depending on how many times it has been tweaked and adjusted from the original WHO report. And it's still not true:

...studies led by independent researchers at the Royal University of Saudi Arabia have shown that shisha smoke is 30 times less concentrated in chemicals than cigarette smoke, contradicting the WHO's warnings. "It is ludicrous and anti-scientific to claim that hookah or shisha smoke is 200 times more toxic than cigarette smoke," he says. "While about 5,000 chemicals have been identified so far in cigarette smoke, chemists and pharmacologists from Saudi Arabia only found 142 chemicals in shisha smoke. Also, a medical team in Pakistan found that shisha smoke can be much less carcinogenic and radioactive than cigarette smoke."

So shisha is a lot less of a problem than smoking cigarettes. This isn't to say that shisha is harmless just that it is a whole lot less harmful than smoking cigarettes. But that doesn't stop the prohibitionists (as the poster above shows) - despite little or no evidence at all for their claim this is the conclusion:

"The research on shisha is admittedly limited," concedes Anis. "But I have to concur with the WHO. If you watch the way people smoke shisha, they take deliberate, deep breaths before exhaling so there is a lot of smoke being inhaled."

Which rather begs a big question. Surely it's what the smoke contains that the issue rather than how much? The truth is that Dr Anis and the other prohibitionists just don't approve. These people are getting pleasure without purpose, they don't care about their health, they must be stopped!

....

Oh the gorgeous, indefatigable irony of it!

****

One has to smile:

George Galloway, the founder of the Respect party, ironically appears to be Britain's least respected politician. His overall net respect score is -67 points.

Miaow George!

....

Ooops! George Galloway's Respect discover the problem with 'cut and paste'!

****

The first proper Council meeting for Bradford's shiny new respect councillors and, taking their lead from George who confused Bradford and Blackburn, they submit a motion containing these words:

This will condemn more families to poverty and undermine progress made in reducing child poverty in Tower Hamlets and nationally.

I salute my Council colleagues' indefatigable concern for East London!

....

Do we believe in redemption...

****

...political redemption that is of course. Let me explain.

Bradford had two councillors who were elected as BNP - as it happens they are husband and wife and represent Queensbury ward. Almost a year ago, they announced their resignation from that party and their intention to sit as independent councillors. At that time they also said that the politics of race and religion did not serve Bradford well.

As a 'mea culpa' it was a start.

Over this weekend, these Councillors sent an e-mail out to all the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat members of council following the success of Respect candidates in the local elections. Here is a chunks of that e-mail:

"Please forgive Lynda and I if you consider this e-mail inappropriate.

As most of you will know Lynda and I were at the count on Thursday/Friday supporting our friend Conservative Cllr Michael Walls.

What we witnessed at the count made our blood run cold, the politics of division has again reared it's ugly head in Bradford..."

They were, of course, referring to the manner in which Respect had campaigned - so it went on:

"Lynda and I have to agree with Ian Greenwood's televised comment re Respect that he considered that Respect made promised they would not be able to keep.

Lynda spoke to our wonderful Lord Mayor Naveeda Ikram at a recent opening ceremony that Naveeda performed in Queensbury.

Naveeda explained to Lynda how worried she and Ian Greenwood were that Respect had brought religion into their election manifesto.

Respect targeted heavily populated Asian/Muslim areas of the City and in doing so has split the local Asian communities."

 Now I appreciate the slight irony of former BNP councillors speaking of the "politics of division" but Paul's e-mail seemed genuine - he expressed real concern at how hard-working councillors like Ian Greenwood could be swept aside by this sort of campaign (a reminder, I guess, that the BNP did this too - the current Conservative Group leader, Glen Miller lost his seat to them in 2004).

My question however, isn't whether you agree with the analysis these councillors present but whether it opens the door to the 'political mainstream' for politicians previously wholly beyond the pale.

Do we believe in redemption?

...

What an ex-Respect supporter has to say...

****

Most of those who make the mistake of viewing Galloway as some sort of hero end up regretting it. I know because I used to see him as a hero myself. I can remember attending many anti-war rallies in Hyde Park that involved Galloway speaking and galvanising the crowd. One Big Brother appearance and a speech supporting al-Qaeda in Iraq later, I changed my mind and began to see through the charade.

It seems the people who voted for him in East London in 2005 had the same realisation since the Respect party’s East London chapter was all but decimated in the 2010 general elections.  He is, after all, not a constituency MP but a political activist who spends most of his time gallivanting around the Middle East and furthering his media career. It’s only a matter of time before the people of Bradford West also see through the antics of this hapless anti-imperialist, yet pro-autocratic buffoon.

Interesting words there from Ghaffar Hussein.  There are more to be read here.


....

I'm still backing an elected mayor in Bradford...

****

The surprise of George Galloway's election for "Respect" has changed the way in which some people are viewing the campaign for an elected mayor in Bradford (such as it is) - I've witnessed a little e-mail debate where the possibility of someone like George being elected as Bradford's mayor is being used as an argument against having such a creature.

Instead we should rely on the (no longer) smoke-filled committee rooms of City Hall wherein the councillors you elect will decide who runs the City. And all because we're scared of democracy - or rather of the 'winner-take-all' democracy implicit in an elected mayor.

Of course it is possible that Respect could win an election for mayor but to do so they would need to get a significant number of votes from somewhere other than Bradford's muslim community which seems unlikely to me. We forget that the muslim community remains a minority in Bradford - about 30% of the population - and even George isn't going to get 100% of that community to vote for him!  In last weeks election Respect got 56% of the vote in the most muslim part of the City.

But even were Respect hot favourites to win, I would still argue that having a mayor is the right choice. Right now we have a "leader and cabinet" model where us 90 councillors pick a leader from the limited pool of political group leaders (currently four) and that leader appoints his cabinet. It seems to me that this process - much of which takes place in private - represents the essence of local government's problems. Everything is determined by the whip, by the party machine and by the policy direction given from senior officers.

The choice shouldn't be determined by the calculations of local party leaders but by the public. And, just maybe, the public will - as they just did in Bradford West - not do quite what we politicians expected. So be it. Maybe it will keep us honest?

....

Respect...

****

This anonymous comment from my post about the fleece closing closing left me (almost) at a lost for words:

Sorry to hear about the Fleece. Just about to spend a few days in Cullingworth too! As someone who was diagnosed with incurable lung cancer 10 months ago and a life-long non-smoker, aged 46, I am less sympathetic to smokers as nine out of 10 people with lung cancer are or have been smokers. However, smoking is all about personal choice and people should be able to do what they like in their own personal space. A room set aside for smokers in a pub is certainly preferable to allowing people to smoke in a pub garden, where the smoke always seems to waft my way.

Respect...

....