Last November, I expressed astonishment about the level of factual inaccuracy contained within what its authors hoped would be major academic report on Islamophobia.
The report, Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Hate Crime: UK Case Studies, was written by Dr Robert Lambert and Dr Jonathan Githens-Mazer of the European Muslim Research Centre at Exeter University. It was part funded by the questionable Cordoba Foundation, more about which you can read in my original.
The academic report contained a chapter on Tower Hamlets called “Barbarians at the gates of the City” with the sub-heading, “A case study in the subversion of liberal democracy in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets”. A footnote said that section has been written anonymously by someone who has “worked extensively in Tower Hamlets politics”. It used several bits of information supplied on this blog and from my previous life at the East London Advertiser.
Last November, I wrote:
Now, in the all the time I’ve covered Tower Hamlets politics I’ve never seen either of the good doctors at the Town Hall. And neither did they or anyone else call me or try to contact me about this report, which, given that they have cited my name and quote extensively much of my work from this blog and from my time at the East London Advertiser, is a bit lazy to say the least.
If they had have done, they might have avoided the simplified and inaccurate rewriting of history – designed, no doubt, to meet their pre-determined conclusions – that this section of their report actually is. I read it agog.
Several other figures in Tower Hamlets politics experienced the same emotion. They complained to the University and now it has been forced to issue the following apology here and withdraw the offending chapter.
Here’s the academics’ climb-down:
Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Hate Crime: UK Case Studies
21st February 2011
The first version of this report published on 29 November 2010 contained a section ‘Barbarians at the Gates of the City’ that has now been removed from the report and the University of Exeter has issued this apology:
“The University has become aware that a third party account in the chapter entitled ‘Barbarians at the Gates of the City’ contained in an earlier version of the academic report ‘Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Hate Crime: UK Case Studies’ contained serious errors of fact which may lead a reader to misconstrue the conduct, actions and the intentions of Councillors Helal Abbas, Denise Jones, Ken Clark, Joshua Peck, Rachael Saunders, Michael Keith and Jim Fitzpatrick MP.
Whilst the purpose of publishing the third party account within the report was to reflect the views and opinions of an individual Muslim citizen, the University has received information and comments from the above individuals, and wishes to make it clear that it is not the position or finding of the University that the actions and intentions of those individuals were Islamophobic or racist in any way. Those individuals have passionately stressed to the University that they have worked throughout their careers to fight racism, discrimination and inequality in East London. The University have therefore removed the section from the report, and apologises unreservedly.”
In the circumstances we have sought to curtail distribution of that version of the report and to replace it with this revised publication.
Robert Lambert and Jonathan Githens-Mazer
Co-authors and Co-directors
EMRC, 21 February 2011
I’m not sure who wrote the original chapter, but Dave Hill of the Guardian says it was Kazim Zaidi, a political adviser to Mayor Lutfur Rahman. If so, his credibility has suffered a blow, just like the research centre at Exeter University.
I thought attempts to rewrite history were generally limited to political dictatorships.
So what’s going on here?
Who is this Kazim Zaidi? Is he on the Council payroll?
I’m assuming he is the same Kazim Zaidi described as the Chief Executives “Interim Policy Adviser” here:
In which case we are paying for him.
So does that mean that an officer of the Council has been making dafamatory remarks about specific Councillors in the knowledge that they will be published?
Has this officer sought to bring Tower Hamlets Council and its councillors into disrepute – whichever way you look at it?
How exactly does that fit with the Code of Conduct which is mandatory for all Officers?
Is there now a “case to answer” and will there be a disciplinary investigation of this officer’s actions?
Or does the administration and management of Tower Hamlets Council turn a “blind eye” to such behaviour?
Will you be asking further questions Ted? If you are, would you mind adding mine to the list…….
Interesting stuff. Terry Fitzpatrick appears at Snaresbrook Crown Court on Monday facing several years in prison after Operation Black Vote and Lee Jasper went to the police and lied about him being a racist.
I hope that all of those now aquitted of Islamophobia will be supporting Terry as he has a far longer record of of opposing racism and fascism than they do.
[CONTENT REMOVED FOR LEGAL REASONS.]
‘whitevanmanlondon’ sounds like ‘Essexlad’ sounds like Terry Fitzpatrick.
I wonder how long this will be up Ted?
You need to have a read of the Contempt of Court Act, or host your own blog and take the risk of prosecution.
I don’t think Mr Zaidi comes cheap and I am not even sure he had an interview for the job he’s doing!!!!
I wonder whether Dave Hill (Ken’s #1 fan) will cover this?
‘AWAY A WHILE’ post is closed, Ted, so will you accept this recent update, here, please?
Dear James “Folgate”:
While you have been telling us (in your role as a Labour Party activist?) on this blog that the concerns for residents around the EDL involvement with EEGP were “bullshit” – a link has now been proven between an organiser and the EDL and has resulted in the resignation of that organiser and now the cancelling of the East End Gay Pride March.
http://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2011/03/15/east-end-gay-pride-organiser-resigns-after-english-defence-league-link-is-revealed/
If only you had googled “Donna Mortimer EDL” on the East End Gay Pride Face Book page you yourself referred to then maybe you would have worked this out before telling us what to do. Oh, and you could have googled “Joanne Bell” of the EDL as well.
The investigation by IMAAN (LGBTQI Muslim Support Group)that proved the link between the EDL and East End Gay Pride is here:
http://www.imaan.org.uk/
Thankfully the event on 2nd April has been cancelled. (http://goo.gl/AG8cm). There will be an inclusive LGBTQQI Pride Event Organised by Out East in September.
Yes, I had seen that article and it is sad someone associated with the EDL was so closely involved. However, I didn’t go about googling anyone’s name – I leave that to you.
What I was describing as “bullshit” was the double standards I thought was going on and my own fears about the motives behind the people who were actively organising a counter demonstration against the EEGP and the majority of people planning to go on it for the right reasons. Such a counter-demonstration against the EEGP would only reinforce the notion of a “gay free zone” because it would no doubt attract intolerant extremists who were there not because they were anti-EDL but because they were anti-gay and wanted to intimidate people.
Any contentious issue happening in this borough is liable to attract the involvement of extremists.
By the way, why do you put emphasis on my pseudonym as if to highlight the fact it is not my real name when you yourself can only bring yourself to be named “anon” – double standards?
“Double standards”? I can only ‘bring myself’ to be named anon while you have brought yourself to appropriate East East End history in your name. Also in carving up the East End for your separate fiefdom:
http://www.norton-folgate.co.uk/
Citing historical precedent, you want to hive off some of the East End for yourself? What an elitist proposal. Less Pasport to Pimlico, more gated community.
Oh you are silly and a bit sad really aren’t you?
Proposals to restore the Liberty of Norton Folgate are not about myself, as you would make out – but part of an ongoing discussion with other residents, business owners and publicans based on the changes made by Labour to the Local Government Act that allow the restoration of real local government to local people and the proposed Localism Act.
The Liberty is something of real historic significance that was lost 110 years ago and which still enjoys the affections of many local people who live within it.
The devolution of local decision making powers to local people is something I and many others in the Liberty support because it would empower us to conserve local historic buildings and protect the interests of local residents from unwelcome planning proposals and big City developers who have ridden roughshod over local opinion recently. It isn’t some sort of conspiracy as you would believe, you poor thing. There are similar discussions (at a further stage) under way in Wapping and The Jago, also within LBTH.
I cannot help wonder why you continue to pursue such a grudge against me. Frankly, you are beginning to sound a lot like a “troll” who is just here to upset and annoy people. I recommend you do something constructive with your time like feed the pigeons as you might find it soothing.
Looks like the EDL’s cover has been well and truly blown! Who knows this whole homophobic sticker campaign may have been a false flag operation from beginning to end to stoke up anti-Muslim feeling in the gay community in particular and Islamophobia generally.
A new European wide report analysing prejudices against different groups of people has found widespread anti-muslim attitudes and Islamophobia. One section of the report states:
“Political actors, opinion leaders and the media, as well as individual European citizens, need to ask themselves critically whether they may in fact– possibly without even noticing – encourage, condone or prepare the ground for group-focused enmity. The hostility towards people of Islamic faith that is currently rampant in Europe provides clear evidence that even those who overtly reject prejudice can be involved here, willingly or un- willingly. Those who occupy political offices and public roles are human too, and as such not immune to prejudice.”
For the full report see the following link:
“Zaidi tells me that it was published by the European Muslim Research Centre at Exeter University but was withdrawn after a Tower Hamlets politician mentioned in the essay threatened legal action.
I’ve been unable to contact the person in question..”
This is from the Dave Hill, Guardian article (link above).
So who is the “Tower Hamlets politician” who threatened legal action and caused this ‘Barbarians at the Gates of the City’ essay in which their name appeared, to be removed?
Obviously, Kazim Zaidi and Dave Hill have the name of this Tower Hamlets politician. Did this local politician threaten legal action?
If it’s true, shouldn’t we be told? Surely the threat of legal action from a Tower Hamlets politician is the story here rather than than the “received information and comments” from “Councillors Helal Abbas, Denise Jones, Ken Clark, Joshua Peck, Rachael Saunders, Michael Keith and Jim Fitzpatrick MP.” ?
You don’t get it do you? Did you read the post up above?
The whole point of the story is that it’s NOT TRUE!!
The AUTHORS of the report ACCEPT that their report contained SERIOUS ERRORS OF FACT (ie that they apparently wrote in such a way that they libelled those identified in the report.)
The whole purpose of threatening legal action is to suppress the continued repetition of a libellous comment based on serious effors of fact.
It’s open to the authors, University and Kazim Zaidi to establish whether or not the comment is true in the courts – but they will incur legal costs and risk significant damages if they lose.
If they don’t choose to follow this route then by definition they must withdraw the publication from the public domain. It would appear from Ted’s post that the authors have agreed they were in the wrong and the report has been withdrawn.
If’ve got very deep pockets for legal costs I suggest you go searching and even repeat the name of the politician or politicians and the allegations if you can find them.
However I would suggest if the Guardian is not printing it then there’s a very good reason – such as that it has been proven to be evidentially libellous – or is simply not worth the risk and the cost of finding out.
Do you have more funds to hand than The Guardian?
You do understand that blogs work in such a way that, if required for the purposes of a legal case, every comment you make in public can be traced back to you and handed over as evidence should it be required.
If you don’t understand that I suggest you go and read the small print of the terms and conditions PDQ! (Plus anybody else who thinks a pseuodonym is all that is required to ensure they are never accountable for whatever they say)
Wow! Are you really telling me that my comment could be handed over as “evidence” – of some kind – or that I am “accountable” for something?
No.
However since your comment gave a very clear indication that you had either not read or perhaps not understood what Ted’s post, it struck me that
1) you maybe hadn’t read the small print either when you signed up to comment on this or any other wordpress blog.
2) you might possibly say something you could regret.
🙂
What I’m doing with my comment is suggesting there is a very good reason why people don’t name names in printed/published documents. Two words – libel law.
But maybe you know better?
My comment was about detail in an article written by Dave Hill. My comment was “Obviously Kazim Zaidi and Dave Hill have the name of this Tower Hamlets politician. Did this local politician threaten legal action? If it’s true, shouldn’t we be told?”
I said ‘IF’ it’s true.
Why intimidate contributors to this blog? It certainly doesn’t feel like you are “suggesting” and I am duly intimidated.
“If it’s true, shouldn’t we be told?”
I said ‘IF’ it’s true.”
Try and think of a reason why you shouldn’t be told. There’s a very good one. I’ve given you the signposts.
The tories didnt propose a cut of their own special allowences in their budget did they?
What does this have to do with Mayor Lutfur’s political advisor being caught out spinning “porkie pies”?
I wonder how long it will be before anyone who utters the idiotic term ‘Islamophobia’ is regarded universally as a laughable clown?
Bit concerning if a political assistant wrote that, if he was a political assistant at the time as it would possibly have been a breach of contract and a sackable offence. Political assistants are appointed under s 9 1989 local gov act. Boring i know but basically they can’t publish anything that may influence political opinion, to avoid the appearance of ‘campaigning on the rates’. This is different from say issuing news releases from the labour group as they are enabling the group to campaign; a fine distinction but one that is usually observed. And also…what is a labour group assistant doing allegedly writing such drivel?