A long-formpiece tracing the origins of the anti-muslim rhetoric and hysteria in recent days in the country. Some of these lead back to Tower Hamlets and the leadership of the Tower Hamlets Labour Party.
Consisting of six parts:
A Week in Politics: From Downing Street to Whitechapel, via Rochdale.
A New War on/of Terror?
False Flags at the Town Hall in Tower Hamlets?
Best (Labour) Value(s) Inspection?
The Whitehall Inspectors: Arise Sir John Jenkins of Arabia!
Finally, the Tower Hamlets Labour Party: No Hope, All Hate.
A Week in Politics: From Downing Street to Whitechapel, via Rochdale.
Friday Evening Headlines in London
They say a week in politics can feel like an eternity, and indeed, this week has been nothing short of eventful. It kicked off with prominent Conservatives raising concerns about an alleged Islamist influence, thinly veiled as a discussion about Muslims taking control of Britain. The rhetoric escalated, with former Tory frontbencher Lee Andersen suggesting that the Mayor of London had succumbed to Islamists.
Then, adding to this toxic race-baiting, political mix, on Thursday, the Tower Hamlets Labour Party made allusions to the Council chamber being overrun by supporters of Mayor Lutfur Rahman the previous night. The statement was made on the same day as the Rochdale by-election.
Statement from the Aspire Party about Wednesday’s Budget Meeting.
The next day, the week reached its climax when George Galloway emerged victorious in the Rochdale by-election early on Friday morning. Then that Friday evening, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak seized the moment to reintroduce a revamped version of the previously unsuccessful War on Terror. Repackaged as measures against political extremism, subtly alluding to the alleged incident in Tower Hamlets and explicitly the outcome in Rochdale as justification for its necessity.
What is this statement by the Prime Minister?
A New War on/of Terror?
At the end of a turbulent week, the Prime Minister addressed the nation from the steps of Downing Street. Rishi Sunak declared a reinforcement of the policing of protests regarding what the International Court of Justice deemed a plausible genocide in Gaza. Additionally, there was an intensification of the controversial Prevent program, which disproportionately affects Muslims, many of whom are later found innocent. The program has been so widely discredited that the Tower Hamlets Labour Party pledged to reassess its implementation in their 2018 manifesto, under which I ran and was elected as a Labour councillor alongside others.
Yet, the most peculiar aspect of the speech was a possible allusion to an event in Tower Hamlets, the ‘storming of council chambers.’ What exactly was he referring to? Could it have been the budget meeting in Tower Hamlets the previous Wednesday?
False Flags at the Town Hall in Tower Hamlets?
Artist rendition of what transpired at Tower Hamlets Council at Wednesday’s budget meeting, according to media reports.
After the budget meeting on Wednesday evening, there was a stir on social media regarding an incident at the Town Hall that led to a temporary suspension of the meeting. Curious, I reached out to my neighbour, who also serves as a local councillor, to get the inside scoop. He recounted the incident and pointed out some familiar faces from the public gallery.
To get a clearer picture, I decided to contact those individuals from the public gallery myself. It turned out that the whole thing was a comedic misunderstanding, exacerbated by the poor acoustics of the new council chamber. However, I couldn’t shake the feeling that given the current national climate of anti-Muslim sentiment perpetuated by Conservative politicians and the right-wing media, this incident might be twisted into something more inflammatory.
Taking a leap of faith, I tweeted about the incident, urging my former Labour councillor colleagues to refrain from adding fuel to the fire. Unfortunately, they chose to escalate matters with divisive rhetoric, reminiscent of the cynical politics I witnessed during my time as a councillor. By Thursday, they were peddling a false version of Wednesday night’s events, which predictably gained traction in the right-wing press.
1/4 🧵
STORM IN A TEACUP AT THE BUDGET MEETING AT TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL?
Spoke to a few people to understand what happened at Tower Hamlets Council tonight, including members of the public.
The audience thought they were being abused by the Labour councillor, as he was referring to them. Hearing the word Islamophobic & the public gallery erupted.
Plea to my former colleagues:
Can we all, please, dial down the rhetoric and not cause further divisions. 🙏 pic.twitter.com/Qbc2coaWS8
Once more, the familiar sequence unfolds, as outlined by Rivkah Brown at Novara Media: Secretary of State Michael Gove dispatches Whitehall Inspectors. It begins with subtle insinuations from Labour councillors, which are then magnified by the right-wing media, prompting a response from Whitehall. This round, the focus is on scrutinising decisions made by the current Mayor. What specific worries do these concerns entail?
Summary by the Evening Standard into the Best Value Issues, government inspectors will be investigating at Tower Hamlets Council.
As per the Evening Standard overview, most of the matters being examined relate to practices carried out during the prior Labour administration, decisions made by councillors at that time, or topics discussed by Labour council members from that era. Let’s delve into these issues.
1. Independence of the Monitoring Officer
The monitoring officer was designated by the former Labour administration. So, why is her independence suddenly in question now, and why wasn’t it brought up during the previous Labour administration?
2. Mayor’s Recruitment of Policy Advisors
Under the former Labour administration, we operated with three Deputy Mayors (a unique setup among London Boroughs) and extra Mayoral advisors receiving additional Special Responsibility Allowances (SRA). There were no objections to this added expenditure or the existence of a dual council culture.
Now, under the current Aspire administration, we lack these positions, opting instead for additional technocratic policy advisors. Yet, there are newfound concerns regarding Best Value.
3. Bringing THH (Tower Hamlets Homes) In-House
On August 14th, 2019, I, along with four other Labour councillors, advocated for the integration of Tower Hamlets Home into our municipal services. Our proposal was endorsed by a majority of Labour councillors during the Overview and Scrutiny Meeting, where we successfully presented our arguments.
Throughout the deliberations, neither Cllr Marc Francis nor the then Deputy Mayor, Sirajul Islam, nor any officers expressed reservations regarding Best Value or Prudential Financial concerns.
Given this background, it’s perplexing that these concerns are now being raised after the Aspire administration has completed bringing Tower Hamlets Homes in-house.
Bringing the provision of leisure services in-house was a decision prompted by ongoing concerns about the outsourced practices of GLL (a private entity managing the leisure facilities), as voiced by Labour councillors. These concerns came to a head when Mayor John Biggs in London Councils agreed to approve additional funding for GLL. Some Labour councillors moved to block this funding and instead transition the service in-house.
The concerns encompassed various issues, from questions about the value for money to potential breaches of the public sector equality duty outlined in the Equalities Act by GLL. One significant issue was the preferential hiring of facilities to affluent clubs and patrons, thereby disadvantaging local working-class clubs. For instance, Tower Hamlets Hockey Club faced challenges accessing facilities within Tower Hamlets, a matter that I, alongside club members, actively campaigned on.
In none of the above discussions, was the issue of best value ever raised by the then Mayor, John Biggs nor his officers. So why are such concerns being raised now?
Considering the historical backdrop outlined above, one might find it perplexing why Whitehall would dispatch inspectors. Could the selection of the former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia offer some insight into this decision?
The Whitehall Inspectors: Arise Sir John Jenkins of Arabia!
Artist rendition of the Whitehall government inspectors sent in to investigate Tower Hamlets Council.
One of the inspectors assigned to Tower Hamlets is Sir John Jenkins, a former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia who is proficient in Arabic and, like myself, an alumnus of SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies). Recently, he authored a government report on the Muslim Brotherhood, an Egyptian Islamist organisation with branches across most Arab nations.
It’s worth noting that Tower Hamlets doesn’t boast a significant Arab community, except for a relatively small North African population, primarily Algerian. This observation is supported by the empirical fact that, unlike the Somali or Bangladeshi communities, there is a lack of mosques managed by Arabs, unlike in other areas of London.
As a Bangladeshi Muslim, I find it difficult to see how an outsider with expertise in Arab culture can truly understand our community. Bangladeshi Muslims have their language, culture, and history rooted in the Indian Subcontinent, distinct from the Middle East. Bangladesh is a secular republic that celebrates its multi-faith and multi-ethnic society, with national public holidays for Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, and Muslim religious festivals. This stands in contrast to the predominantly mono-ethnic and monocultural landscape of the Arabian Peninsula.
The primary commonality between Bangladeshi Muslims and the majority in the Middle East is a shared faith. But even within Islam, there are significant differences in interpretation and practice. Most Bangladeshis follow the Hanafi school of thought, which is predominant among non-Arab communities. This results in a religious practice more akin to that of a European Bosnian than a Gulf Arab. This peculiarity can be traced back to the historical concept of the Persianate. A cultural belt stretching from Eastern Europe, through Russia and Central Asia, to Northern India, roughly following the old Silk Road trade route, as described by the historian Marshall Hodgson.
This inclusion of Sir John Jenkins, in a local government inspection team, raises more questions.
Questions for the the general observer: Is Tower Hamlets a failed state, simply for electing a Muslim Mayor? That the nation/state-building experience of Sir John Jenkins is required. Experience gained from successful (or not so successful) endeavours, such as Iraq and Libya, could be applied in modern-day Tower Hamlets.
Question for Whitehall: Why is an Arabist sent to investigate a Bangladeshi Muslim Mayor? Is Whitehall, perhaps influenced by alleged briefings from Tower Hamlets Labour, generalising all Muslims in the area as being ‘Abduls’, rather than acknowledging the diverse characteristics within the Muslim community in the United Kingdom? Are modern local government policies being shaped by antiquated and racist Orientalist stereotypes from the 19th century?
Questions for the Tower Hamlets Labour Party: Given the large number of Muslim members in the local Labour party, why is the leadership of the Tower Hamlets Labour Party, if the allegations are true, supporting such untruths?
Finally, the Tower Hamlets Labour Party: No Hope, All Hate.
The Tower Hamlets Labour Party seems to have strategically shifted from embodying the anti-racist values of the Labour Party to adopting a structurally racist stance, resembling a slug rather than the butterfly it once represented. This assertion is based on the following context:
Recent statistics reveal a nearly four-fold increase in Islamophobic hate crimes. Considering that Muslims, largely situated in marginalised demographics with migrant backgrounds, may underreport such incidents due to a lack of confidence, the actual figure could potentially be ten times higher. Tower Hamlets, with the largest Muslim community in Western Europe, has become a crucial local dimension in this alarming trend. A disproportionate number of these victims are Muslim women, a fact that even the Prime Minister in his speech on Friday had to address.
In light of these statistics, circumstantial evidence suggests a deliberate choice by the de facto leadership of the Tower Hamlets Labour Party to exploit anti-Muslim sentiments. This strategic move appears aimed at undermining the Aspire administration through non-electoral means. The party seems to be capitalising on heightened anti-Muslim hysteria within the country, attributing the strong local sentiment for Palestine to imaginary connections and unfounded claims of Islamic extremism, and the influence of groups in the Middle East. This narrative echoes the sentiments of the disgraced former Tory Frontbencher, Lee Anderson, who asserted that Islamists have taken control.
1980s postal stamps in Bangladesh, expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people.
In response to this fabricated narrative, I wish to present the following truths. The Bangladeshi people endured their own military occupation and genocide in 1971, stemming from a democratic election where the rightful candidate, of the “wrong” ethnicity and language, emerged victorious.
Here in the UK, numerous families have felt the sting of loss or witnessed the horrors of the genocide first-hand. These survivors continue to grapple with the lasting scars of such a traumatic experience. External influencers don’t manufacture solidarity with the Palestinian people; it’s a genuine connection born out of empathy and shared humanity. This empathy is deeply ingrained in Bangladesh’s institutions, evident in recent speeches by its secular Prime Minister and its participation in the legal action alongside South Africa at the ICJ, against the state of Isreal.
A statement made by the Prime Minister of Bangladesh on the situation in Gaza.
Despite being aware of these facts, the leadership of the Tower Hamlets Labour Party opts to exploit anti-Muslim sentiments in Whitehall and Westminster, disregarding the well-being of its own constituents for short-term political gains.
In a climate of despair and hostility, can an organisation fuelled by hate rather than hope truly merit support at the ballot box? Or deserve the voluntary support of roughly 40% of its local Muslim membership? I leave such a judgment to the discerning reader
“Shall rank corruption pass unheeded by,
Shall flattery’s voice ascend the wearied sky;
And shall no patriot tear the veil away
Which hides these vices from the face of day?
Is public virtue dead? – is courage gone?”
Percy Bysshe Shelley(1792 – 1822) – ‘Poetical Essay on the Existing State of Things,‘
Recent Comments