All Muslims are the same, to the Express

So today's Express front page ramps up the Islamophobia with a headline about Sharia Law.

Notice the use of the word 'Muslims' however.

The 'Muslims' in question are in fact a group called Islam4UK, who are led by favourite tabloid hate-figure Anjem Choudry.

But the phrasing of 'Now Muslims demand' makes it sound as if all Muslims are saying the same thing. And that's clearly no accident - it's exactly the impression the Express wants to give.

The story, by Martyn Brown, claims:

The fanatical group Islam4UK has ­announced plans to hold a potentially incendiary rally in London later this month...

Plans for the demonstration have been delivered to the Metropolitan Police and could see up to 5,000 extremists marching to demand the controversial system.

Going by figures from last week's Pew report, which said there were 1.6million Muslims in Britain, the 5,000 equates to 0.3% of the Muslim population.

And that is even assuming the shameless self-publicist Choudry can get 5,000 people along, which seems highly unlikely. In using the words 'could see up to 5,000' the Express admits as much.

So the Express is claiming this is what 'Muslims demand' eventhough it is what less than 0.3% of British Muslims are calling for?

As if to prove that point, buried deep in the Express story is the following:

A spokesman for the Islamic Society of Britain said: “99.999 per cent of Muslims despise these people. This only serves to fuel racial ­tensions.”

And the Muslim Council of Britain have issued a statement saying:

The overwhelming majority of British Muslims want nothing to do with such extremists...The Muslim Council of Britain deplores the proposed march by Islam4UK, a front organisation of extremist fringe group al-Muhajiroun, as a deliberate action to provoke hatred and division in the society.

They add:

The MCB is also appalled at the amount of coverage given to the fringe group’s call by the Daily Express which has wrongly characterised their demands as those of Muslims generally.

Quite. Why is the Express - and indeed other papers - obsessed with covering every obnoxious utterance of Choudry? Because they know they can push their anti-Muslim agenda. It's easy, and no doubt Choudry relishes it.

But more importantly, it's nothing short of disgraceful that the Express uses the headline to give the impression this is all Muslims, when it is in fact such a miniscule minority.

What is noticeable is that since the front page appeared last night, Islam4UK's website had been completely inaccessible with a 'database error'. They can't even get that right.

Mail wants you be to afraid of Sharia courts

The Mail's front page splash Britain has 85 Sharia courts is based on a a Civitas report, co-written by Denis MacEoin. MacEoin was author of the infamous Policy Exchange report, and also oversaw the nonsense about Harry Potter and Ludo being 'banned' in Muslim schools. So while intelligent people may want to question the report, the Mail cut and pastes the press release and sticks it on the front page. And adds an editorial.

The Mail isn't the only one - the Sun has also received the press release, but adds the word 'fundamentalist' to the word 'Sharia' to make it all seem more scary. It then adds, with some useful explanation that:

Some UK sharia courts work as part of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) system which works with British law to deal with commercial, civil, and matrimonial matters and some instances of domestic violence and neighbourly disputes.

And that is, apparently, 'fundamentalist'.

Then the Guardian has given MacEoin an opportunity to explain his position in their Comment is Free section. He states:

I have not been able to get reports of live rulings from tribunals, but there are a large number of online sites which offer fatwas in answer to questions posed by believers and these seem likely to represent the kind of answers which tribunals in Britain must produce.

So this 'academic' has written a report based not on what has actually happened, but what might have happened based on what he has discovered via Google. As there is, according to an earlier Guardian article, five different schools of interpretation of Sharia it seems near impossible to claim the examples he has found are sure to be representative anyway.

But no such analysis, or even attempts to find out facts, has come into the Mail's report. It does include a side-panel on the workings of a Sharia court from 2008, but even the headline to that - 'The elders who dole out justice' - sounds like it is something of the vigilante about it (who else 'doles out justice'?) Why does neither the Mail nor the report say the Jewish Beth Din courts, for example, 'dole out justice'? Could it be that MacEoin has declared himself 'pro-Israeli and involve myself in the defence of Israel'?

Instead the Mail includes a quote - again direct from the press release - from Civitas Director David Green saying:

The reality is that for many Muslims, sharia courts are in practice part of an institutionalised atmosphere of intimidation, backed by the ultimate sanction of a death threat.

Maybe the report provides evidence for this, but it sounds like wild anti-Islam scaremongering to suggest that this is the case in this country (certainly the Mail's sidebar example makes no such claim).

The Guardian have said columnists have been commissioned to write counter-articles to MacEoin, which will surely provide better and deeper understanding of the detail of the Sharia issue than I can. I will update the post then.

Sharia law is coming. Oh, no, it isn't

The Daily Mail's story EU judges want Sharia law applied in British courts gives the paper a chance to do two of its favourite things: bash Europe and suggest Islam is going to take over the UK.

The problem is, as you might expect, is that the story isn't very accurate.

As the Mail sees it, 'an EU plan calls for family courts across Europe to hear cases using the laws of whichever country the couple involved have close links to'. And of course, they suggest this means Saudi Arabia, although reasonable people might assume this is more aimed at people from other European countries who have freely moved to other parts of the EU.

Well, firstly, the so-called 'Rome III' is only draft regulation. Secondly, Rome III is not even new but been floating around for several years. Thirdly, the UK government opted out of Rome III is November 2006.

Indeed, in a letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, Baroness Ashton said:

The Commission has, however, brought forward no evidence to demonstrate that this is a real problem, and the Government remains to be satisfied that such rules are genuinely necessary.

The Centre for Social Justice report on which the Mail's story is based reveals all this. To quote the key passages (from pages 15-16):

There was a consultation and the UK, unusual among EU countries, had the power to opt out and did so. Subsequently a couple of other European Union countries who always only apply local law, emboldened by the UK approach, indicated that they were also unhappy with this new legislation, even though they did not have an opt out power.

The consequence is that the European Union has temporarily shelved its plans to impose applicable law on all European Union countries. Nevertheless Brussels has made it clear that it wants to review the position and still seeks to impose applicable law wherever possible. The UK must therefore be ready to deal with this proposed change in the law.

To repeat: the European Union has temporarily shelved its plans to impose applicable law.

The Mail does admit in its final paragraph that 'least nine EU states - not including the UK - are said to want to push ahead with the Rome III plan'. Said to? Rather vague, and the fact that the UK retains its opt out means this goes into the Shit that's never gonna happen category.