Remember the dastardly death threat against Mayor Lutfur Rahman that, er, wasn’t quite that?
Hugh Muir of the Guardian ran the story here and here.
On March 24, during what former Labour party manager Rob Marchant described as a “bored Saturday afternoon”, he had a Twitter conversation with a couple of friends. The topic of Tower Hamlets came up, then the question of whether Lutfur would ever be readmitted to the Labour fold.
Rob tweeted that were that to happen: “Makes mental note to keep revolver well oiled.” Then: “I will load the revolver and we can all take turns.”
Now, in theory it is possible to infer that Rob does have a revolver, and that it would be used not for an actual game of Russian Roulette but rather for a genuine act of murder–but such a theory could only be held by sado-masochistic fantasists, the illiterate, the humour-free, or the plain trouble-making.
The only reasonable inference was that the remarks were a joke about shooting themselves, ie “if Lutfur is let back in, we may as well all pack up”. Rob later explained it all here.
Obvious, right?
No. Lutfur, a qualified solicitor, saw the remarks as a genuine, imminent threat against his life. So he reported them to the police.
And incredibly, the police, who clearly had no burglaries to solve that day, actually launched an investigation.
Here’s what borough commander Chief Superintendent Dave Stringer said:
I am satisfied an appropriate police investigative response has been put in place and the matter will be subject to regular review … We do not discuss the details of an ongoing investigation.
And unsurprisingly, following some exceptionally tenacious detective work, the police later concluded there had been no crime.
The Observer journalist Nick Cohen criticised Lutfur for acting like a bully and for wasting police time, to which the Mayor had this response:
Unsurprisingly, as a prominent Muslim figure, I frequently receive abuse and threats — mainly from racist extremists of the EDL-ilk. That and the sheer violence of Marchant’s language in discussing me (‘I will load the revolver and we can all take turns … [makes mental note to keep revolver well cleaned and oiled]’) should explain why I acted when the tweets were drawn to my attention.
Now, all this is old news of course, but I was intrigued as to who might have encouraged the Mayor to go to the police.
His paid media adviser Mark Seddon, the respected investigative journalist, broke the story to the world via Twitter on March 26 at 7.52pm, thus:
Extraordinary. Rob Marchant, former Labour Party Manager, reported to police for tweeting death threats to Mayor Lutfur Rahman.
That tweet seems to have since been deleted from Mark’s timeline.
So I submitted an FoI request asking for all emails concerning the Rob Marchant tweet sent between Lutfur and any of his advisers or council officers.
The council says it doesn’t have any.
But it does have the email sent to the borough commander reporting the suspected crime. Here it is (the council has redacted the name of the sender):
From:
Sent: 26 March 2013 16:03
To: xxxxxxx@met.police.uk’
Cc:
Subject: Death threats to Mayor Lutfur Rahman on Twitter
Importance: High
Sensitivity: Confidential
Dear Chief Superintendent xxxxx,
I have just been alerted to the attached threats made on Twitter on Mayor Rahman’s life by ‘Rob Marchant @rob_marchant’ and am reporting it as a crime.
I’m sure you will agree the serious nature of these threats and urge you to investigate as a matter of urgency.
We would be happy to assist the police with any enquiries as part of the investigation.
Kind regards,
Executive Mayor’s Office
t: 020 7364
“I’m sure you will agree the serious nature of these threats and urge you to investigate as a matter of urgency.”
As Mark Seddon quite rightly says….Extraordinary.
What strikes me from all this and other recent events is that there seems to be a tactic among Lutfur & Co to resort to the Standards Board, libel threats and the police in attempts to silence or discredit their critics.
And it’s also a little disturbing that Chief Supt Dave Stringer seemed so eager to please the Mayor that he ordered an investigation instead of just ringing him for a friendly chat to say, “Are you sure about this, pal?” I wonder how many silly (and clearly targeted) death threats are simply brushed off every day by the front desk at Bethnal Green police station.
Clearly, the borough commander is in a [small p] political situation (and he will surely think less of the mayor for being used like this), but Andrew Gilligan worried here about the relationship between the Met and the Tower Hamlet town hall. This episode gives more weight to that theory.
Trial by Jeory 
Good to have some background detail about this story Ted, thanks. It was reported elsewhere when it happened with with no detail at all.
The MO of the East London Mosque has been reported on by Gilligan before; lawyers on speed-dial, litigation papers sent like machine-gun fire from a machine with a hair-trigger (hope you like the way I got the gun link in there!) Complaints to the police seem to fit in the same category, although the closeness of the link between the Met and LBTH are concerning.
(A shame for more than one reason; the Met are a useless enough organisation but have been showing some signs of getting their act together of late. Close association with Tower Hamlets won’t help them at all in this regard.)
Tim.
Lutfur foolishly complained to the police over what was obviously a joke, and you link this to Gilligan’s lies about the East London Mosque? Bizarre!
For Tim, these are all but instances of the sinister Muslamic caliphate taking over Tower Hamlets as a prelude to taking over the world. And the Mosque is ‘extremist’.
Do you think Lutfur was right to report the tweet to the police? Honest opinion, please.
OldFord
You over-state things somewhat, but your general gist is accurate. Thank you for summing it up.
If you were to be more precise you’d change your first statement to “.. instances of the corrupt, divisive, self-serving, racist Bangladeshi administration taking over Tower Hamlets”. Your second statement is spot on.
Tim.
Ted, you probably weren’t asking me, but you can discern from my comment I don’t think he was right. However, in the grubby world of politics, ‘right’ is often interpreted as the choice that gets the most votes.
I’m just fed up with the tiresome, bigoted narrative that Lutfur is tied to Muslim organisations that are really extremists – yet more political grubbiness.
Konnu,
I may not be right but I have yet to see any convincing argument that proves my point of view as being wrong. In fact, the more I hear about the rotten world of Tower Hamlets politics the more my point of view is reinforced.
Lutfur has repeatedly refused to deny links with extremist islamic organisations. Given how undesirable such links would be, I’d have thought he would categorically deny them if he could.
However that is a different matter from the fact that he is running a deeply corrupt, self-serving and racist administration in Tower Hamlets. I notice that you helpfully separated them in your post – thank you.
Tim.
I don’t think it’s funny at all. Did it make you laugh, Ted?
Go and ask the JFK family if it sounds amusing. Go to Pakistan and tell people it’s just a joke to to talk about shooting politicians.
As for your comment about it being between mates, it was online for the whole world including Lutfur Rahman to see.
The extraordinary hypocrisy of this is that Ted Jeory makes his reputation by accusing Lutfur Rahman of being a terrorist, then when Lutfur gets death threats Ted Jeory criticises him for not having a sense of humour.
Grow up, Ted.
Well, the tweet didn’t fall into the laugh out loud category, but it was a wry smiler.
However, your comment has made me laugh. You’ve also completely missed the point. Rob wasn’t talking about shooting politicians, he was talking about shooting himself. It was a metaphor for despair, Dan.
It’s a bit like me saying I’d ready my revolver if you became a councillor. I don’t really mean it.
So I’m not sure which category you fall into. You’re a writer, so you can’t be illiterate; you work with lawyers and the police, so you can’t be a trouble-maker; I know you’ve got a sense of humour; so there’s only one left.
And by the way, I’ve never called Lutfur a terrorist. But I presume you were just exaggerating to make a point. Get it?
was it before or after police got involved that Rob Marchant says it was about killing himself, not killing Lutfur Rahman? because it wasn’t clear from the original tweet that it was
Does it really matter? In neither case was it seriously meant.
I can’t believe I’m having to spell this out to people. Is there some kind of language barrier here?
ROFL you make a fool of yourself Curry
He was joking about an assassination, Ted.
I once sent him a link to the my piece “Honour and Shame in Tower Hamlets” which you re-posted on this site. I was irritated by the stuff he was posting, taking into account that he’s not from here. He refused to read it, asking in response whether I was calling Jim Fitzpatrick a liar. I’m shaking my head in disbelief as i write this. He’s just an idiot.
Apologies if my language in the earlier comment was a bit sharp. That bloke just gets my back up.
In the gentlest manner possible, to hear McCurry, who on this point displays the comprehension skills and whining over-egged moral outrage of a toddler (and generally the writing skills thereof), describe Rob Marchant as an idiot… Well, let’s just say pots and kettles come to mind… Disbelief, nay incredulity, describes my state of mind too. I’m fed up of hearing a supposedly Labour guy make excuses for Rahman’s toy-town opportunism and bad practice…
Even if Marchant was joking about an assassination rather than suicide (and I’ll grant it’s not 100% clear), the key word is there – joking. It was light-hearted humour. The point of the story is that Lutfur deliberately fails to see what is transparently obvious, and chooses to make a formal complaint to the police. The icing on the cake is the laughably passive-aggressive statement from him when called to account.
Smacks more than a little of the school snitch in the schoolground running to teacher because someone laughed at him, and playing the self-righteous prig and wondering why people don’t like him.
Tim.
Well what’s the difference between this instance of calling the police and when Labour Group called the police when their door got jammed? Bit of over-reaction costing the taxpayer in both cases in my books.
It’s about time grown men stopped behaving like little kids, it’s Mr Marchant’s right not to like someone, and politicians are public property; however I think it would be better to make constructive criticisms rather than childish, attention seeking comments. That just reflects badly on yourself.
If it was funny perhaps it would have been a different story, but it wasn’t even funny, humour is a sign of intelligence, insults are used by people from the other side of the spectrum in my opinion.
We have all graduated from primary school, let’s leave gratuitous insults out when discussing persons who have a significant role in shaping the community. I would like to hear the facts, see politicians being held to account rather than regressive attacks by people feeling sore about losing an election. That’s not helpful to anyone.
It would have been better to say why he felt so strongly about Lutfur not being in the Party, if it is valid and relevant we should all know, objective discussions are more likely to persuade most folk.
Well, on one there may have been reasonable grounds for suspecting a crime. And on the other, there weren’t.
And on the first, the police weren’t called. Labour asked the council to see if they should be.
Capiche?
If Shumi, as a muslim, had made that death threat, he would have been in custody for 7 days answering questions about every remark he’s ever made online about Islam or Palestine or anything else they can chuck at him.
Capiche?
It
Was
Not
A
Death
Threat.
And were Shumi to have been arrested for making similar remarks, there would not only be outrage everywhere, the police would be sued for false arrest.
As someone who works in this area, Dan, surely you know that?
“Someone who works in the area”. Exactly.
You may have a point there, Dan.
When someone who was actually of the age where people make stupid death threat jokes, namely the young mayor, it actually made headlines in the local rag: http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/politics/new_young_mayor_of_tower_hamlets_posts_violent_twitter_threats_1_1929417
The BNP found it interesting, too: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t947790/
“To be frank. You’ll always be the looser [sic]. As my boys will pretty much kill you. Pahahaa.”
Sounds a little less sinister than ‘cleaning the revolver’. But then he’s Bengali, so it’s news.
The ironic and dismissive arrogance of calling your local paper a ‘rag’ while using its story to underline your point is a touch insulting, no?
And the sweeping “then he’s a Bengali, so it’s news”: don’t you think there are a fair few Bengals who are ashamed by this episode?
You still haven’t answered my question about whether Lutfur was right to call in the police.
In my experience off the cuff remarks which the ‘other’ are supposed to be taking in good humour become an Orientalist discourse, an oft repeated ‘fact’ becomes reality. You see I have been at the receiving end of people’s ani-Muslim ‘jokes’ as well as outright scary Islamophobia, it’s only funny when it happens to other people. If you had to listen to it over and over again it’s very stressful.
here are examples of when ‘humorous’ and ‘sarcastic’ comments become embodied discrimination:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/muslims-are-evil-lets-kill-them-all-us-tv-commentator-erik-rush-provokes-furious-reaction-with-boston-bombing-twitter-rants-8575176.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seema-jilani/racism-white-house-correspondents-dinner_b_3231561.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=1750713,b=facebook
I’m saying Mr Marchant’s remarks may have been completely innocent but some may add that with the oft repeated ‘fact’ of Lutfur having ‘alleged fundamentalist’ links etc and take it a step further and take it out on the wider Bangladeshi community. If people have concerns about particularly Muslim politicians they need to spell out what they are otherwise it is very easy for some people to paint everyone with the same brush. We all need to be responsible for what we say and how this impacts on others. The Orientalist discourse has been proven and discussed widely for more than 30 years.
Scaremongering may be a fun pastime for some people but they need to realise there are very real victims impacted by your off the cuff remarks.
But he was joking. It as gallows humour! Get a grip.
Everytime I defend a bloke who texted a threat to his ex, he always has the defence that it was just a joke. The problem is that sometimes people aren’t joking, they go and kill. That’s why the police assume it to be real, rather than assume it to be a joke.
The law (Making Threats to Kill) is not whether he meant to carry out the threat, but whether he meant Lutfur to believe it was real. In my opinion he certainly wanted to cause Lutfur real distress. He wanted Lutfur to see that message because he is nasty.
There isn’t anything funny about that tweet. Marchant hates Lutfur for no rational reason. If I was the police officer, I would definitely have looked into it.
I can see how having to deal with other people’s insensitivities is a horrible experience – in fact, I’m sure many of us have an experience of some sort of “joke” being made at our expense in terms of aspects of our identity, whether in a threatening or merely an unpleasant manner, and my heart goes out to you.
But I want to make one thing absolutely clear. in fact,Ted has already done so, but it needs repeating. The revolver comment, as in “we’ll take turns with the revolver”, is a reference to an almost universally understood way of jokily saying you will commit suicide out of frustration or because of defeat. This is gallows humour turned at the individual making the statement, not at anyone else. “Hand me the revolver”, “shoot me now” – these are ways of saying someone is going to shoot *themselves*. The language is reference to the real and apocryphal practice of sending defeated and disgraced military commanders to their study with a bottle whisky and a revolver to finish themselves off. See these for usage of the trope:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LeaveBehindAPistol
http://order-order.com/2009/05/02/whisky-and-revolver-proffered-to-gordon-by-pundits/
if we cannot understand this basic point then there is a major problem with use of the English language in this “debate”. Can we all get to a common understanding of the correct meaning of Marchant’s words please? People have a responsibility to understand what they are talking about before they run their mouths off. There is NOTHING Islamophobic or racist about Marchant’s use of metaphor and nor Is correct construction of the meaning capable of supporting the interpretation of any kind of threat or menace to any person other than Marchant. If there is a feeling of persecution here, then it results from your projection of motive onto Marchant rather than it lying in his words, Shumi.
I cannot believe I have felt the need to write this. Very frustrating that people can misconstrue regular turns of phrase in our language either deliberately or through ignorance in such a way that grossly traduces the character of another person. I aim this last point particularly at McCurry’s bone-headed literalism. Or, what would be literalism if his kafka-esque construction were not actually at odds with the literal as well as metaphorical meaning of Marchant’s words………
*claps loudly*
Shumi,
I’m sorry to hear you have been on the wrong end of genuine Islamophobia. That can’t be funny, and is not excusable in civilised society.
However by saying that because you have experienced genuine unpleasantness then this comment is also unpleasant is a significant over-reaction. I repeat my earlier comment about it all resembling the kid in the playground with no friends, running to teacher because someone ‘looked at him a bit funny’. Seriously. Grow a thicker skin. There was no death threat here. Marchant (the alleged perpetrator) said so. (Almost) everyone who has read it says so. The police said so. Really. Go away and man up and come back when you can survive the rough and tumble of day to day life and don’t go whingeing to our over-stretched authorities in the meantime.
Why and how you conflate this all with the fundamentalist links of Lutfur is a mystery to me, and you really are muddying the waters with it. However, to put some facts straight, Lutfur is alleged to have fundamentalist links, an allegation he has repeatedly failed to deny. The gauntlet has been thrown down for him; if he has no fundamentalist links then he needs to say so and to distance himself from organisations like the East London Mosque and the IFE. These are things he has repeatedly failed to do, hence the suspicion remains.
However this needs to be held as a separate point from the undeniable and demonstrable fact that he is running a crooked, corrupt, deceitful, racist and self-serving organisation which is funded by public money. Exposing this is, I believe, the purpose of this blog, and hence the principal point of discussion here. (I await correction by Ted if I am wrong on this point.)
Tim.
I’ve never denied having fundamentalist links, Tim. What do you infer from that?
Tim.
He’s denied it all the bloody time:
See here: “Let me be absolutely clear. I am not an Islamist, Islamic Supremacist, Fundamentalist or Entryist” (https://trialbyjeory.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/cllr-lutfur-labour_page_1.jpg)
Or here: “More objectionable still is the picture Cohen paints of me. I’m branded ‘the front man for the Islamic Forum Europe’. The truth is rather more pedestrian. I’m not even a member of the organization. Of course, I deal with the IFE as Mayor – but then so has every previous council leader – and equally, I work with groups of all faiths and none.”
(http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/04/right-to-reply-mayor-lutfur-rahman-responds-to-nick-cohen/)
Or here: “Do you support a caliphate, here or elsewhere?
I believe in a social-democratic society…I absolutely believe in a secular society.” (http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/11/tower-hamlets-believe-labour)
What more can you be asking for??
Why should Lutfur have to distance himself from the East London Mosque in order for you not to call him a fundamentalist, when Boris Johnson doesn’t have to do the same?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/london-mayor-election/mayor-of-london/6137842/Boris-Johnson-fast-during-Ramadan-to-understand-Muslims.html
If they’re extremist, then practically every Muslim in Whitechapel must be extremist.
Your first comment appears to link ELM to Lutfur, that’s exactly what I am talking about. It’s a mystery to me how you managed to link the two then find it mysterious when I say this is what will happen…I should have said has happened. That’s what people automatically assume now due to the repetition of some ‘facts’ by some people.
Previous comment intended for Tim
Dan, has anyone ever accused you of having extremist links?
OF, thanks for those links. I hadn’t read them before. Suffice it to say that, if he genuinely doesn’t have such links then I am wrong. I’m happy to leave it at that. The separate (and more pertinent) accusation still stands – that of the way he is choosing to run LBTH. I notice that no-one has yet suggested that that accusation is unfounded.
Shumi, I’m sorry but I really don’t follow what you are talking about. I’m happy to debate with you if I can understand the point you are making. As it is, I can’t.
Tim.
olford1 has nailed it in an excellent reply. Tim, leave your prejudices behind.
You [Tim] wrote:
“The MO of the East London Mosque has been reported on by Gilligan before; lawyers on speed-dial, litigation papers sent like machine-gun fire from a machine with a hair-trigger (hope you like the way I got the gun link in there!) Complaints to the police seem to fit in the same category,”
Why did you refer to ELM when this article had nothing to do with them then write:
“Why and how you conflate this all with the fundamentalist links of Lutfur is a mystery to me,”
when I said
“Mr Marchant’s remarks may have been completely innocent but some may add that with the oft repeated ‘fact’ of Lutfur having ‘alleged fundamentalist’ links etc”.
Were you not doing what I said people would do?
Hope this is clearer?
Konnu, Thanks for your comment. See my response (above).
Shumi – ah, gotcha. I follow. Let me explain the link; the non-existent threat of violence had Lutfur running to the police in much the same way as any non-existent slight or alleged slander has ELM running to lawyers and compensation courts. I see significant similarity, although this is completely unrelated to his (alleged) fundamentalism.
You then wrote “… with the oft repeated ‘fact’ of Lutfur having ‘alleged fundamentalist’ links … ” I had not mentioned fundamentalism up to this point; it was raised by you.
Hope that clarifies it. Apologies if I was not completely clear. For the record (and for possibly the third time), I see Lutfur’s alleged fundamentalist links as being separate to the issue of his integrity and honesty, and the manner in which he chooses to run LBTH.
Tim.
Your comments make sense Ben, poor cultural navigation on my part.
I dont want to hijack this post or anything, but does anyone else feel saddened to hear that a grandmother threw herself under a lorry, and in her suicide note she blamed it on the bedroom tax?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bedroom-tax-tragedy-must-act-1883643
And that seeing as we live in one of the most deprived areas in London, London being the most deprived city in Europe, with the highest suicide rates, depression, alchohol and drug abuse, depravity, child povverty, fuel poverty deaths, etc etc
That Tower Hamlets council, a borough which in its history, councillors have gone to prison for what they perceived as the poor tax, and their opposition to it. Whereby the term ‘Poplarism’ was born a political movement bent upon protection of the poorest in society, and the term itself has been wiped from our social memories, trod upon and forgotten. That out of at least 13 other boroughs in the country that have promised some form of no eviction policy, that Tower Hamlets Homes/Council/Councillors or anybody for that matter has not come out publically against the bedroom tax?
Tower Hamlets homes revealed in their recent residents conference at St Mathias Church that they had a £1 million pot of public money set aside to help those most affected by the ‘Government guidelines’ (their words for bedroom tax).
Personally i don’t think this is fair on the rest of the population, blaming someone else, and making others pay for policies you don’t agree with.
We have a history in this borough of changing the tide, don’t forget that, from the matchbox girl strikes, to barnados, to the fights in cable street, we have always protected the most poorest in society. We are, and traditionally always have been a port town, a community, we have taken the poorest, destitute, labourers, lost, homeless, drunks, addicts, abused, saddened, from amongst some of the most desperate and poorest environment from across the world, and ultimately, we have protected each other.
For gods sake, one of our most beloved writers Charles Dickens, lived, and wrote about the depravity of this borough. Then it was the Chinese, and Irish immigrants, destitute and alone amongst a population inhabitants who were struggling to just live in a dignified form of poverty. Our situation now, has not changed, we are still no different in societal structure across this borough now as we were then.
We still live under those same conditions, landlords making exorbitant profits, no real access to public subsidized housing for the majority of the actual working class, and for the unemployed and the lower classes, life is just a struggle, everyday, waiting for something which could potentially change their situation. Stuck in a system that offers nothing but despair.
Sorry too rant, just had to get it off my chest
Clearly some people are easily amused. Mr Marchant should try harder to impress all the rest of us with his satirical skills if he wishes to make further public comments, I suggest he watches political satire shows to get a few tips. This is funny because Tower Hamlets politics provides ample material for satire, you have to try very hard to fail. He tried a little too hard. LOL.
Well I think the whole “assassination” allegation was just another example of Islamists using the courts to suppress any criticism or perceived slight. It is part of a pattern of lies, bluster, deceit and threats of violence they use to advance their secret agenda. Look at the way the same Islamists have targeted Peter Golds when they don’t like what he says. They can shout any amount of hatefilled slander at him from the public gallery at council meetings and the security who threaten others for whispering too loudly do nothing. The material secretly recorded by Gilligan in “Britain’s Islamic Republic” showed genuine Islamists working out of the ELM seeking the end of democracy and the imposition of global sharia. They were recorded actively organising the petition to get the council constitution changed and “a brother” put in charge. All that time Lutfur, as council leader, was plotting with them to become the first mayor. Then Galloway endorsed him, dodgy votes in the Labour selection process… then Respect (e.g. the Islamist Abjol Miah) endorsed him… Lutfur continues to fraternise with Islamists at the ELM and that mosque continues to promote lectures by extremists and further indoctrinate vulnerable, ignorant people. There is a plot against our society and it opportunistically, connivingly takes full advantage of its weaknesses and contradictions.
Don’t believe everything you read in the papers Grave. Sounds like your substituting ‘Islamist’ for ‘Muslim’. For what its worth if there was any attempt to make this country an ‘Islamic Republic’, I would fight it, hope this makes you feel a bit less worried. I feel you are experiencing a bad case of misunderstanding. Have you spoken to Muslim people recently? We don’t spend our time potting about world domination. The truth is rather more pedestrian, we want a roof over our heads, food in our bellies, and a good life for our children. To just have a ‘normal’ life. Making every incident as more evidence in your teleological argument of Islamist domination is not helpful to anyone and promotes further misunderstanding and fear. Did you witness the abuse suffered by Cllr Gold? If so you should complain, particularly about the ‘Islamified’ security who only threaten the non-Muslim audience, that is definitely discrimination, and you are well within your rights to complain. No person has the right to discriminate against another, no person is superior to another, that’s a fact.
Or here: “Do you support a caliphate, here or elsewhere?
I believe in a social-democratic society…I absolutely believe in a secular society.” (http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/11/tower-hamlets-believe-labour)
==============
The above quotation is a contraction. And if you examine the full interview, Lutfur Rahman’s support of secular democracy is far less definitive.
“Do you support a caliphate, here or elsewhere?
I believe in a social-democratic society. I believe in a society where, through a democratic process, representatives are chosen and elected.”
There is nothing in that response to make one think that a follower of Hizb ut Tahrir could not say the same thing. Their proposal for the Caliphate involves the election of the Caliph and the election of advisory councils (but, of course, only muslims would get to vote, as the rest of us kuffar would be 3rd class citizens in their perfect society)
“Do you believe in a secular Britain?
I do. I live in a society based on a clear division of powers between the church and the state. Yes, I absolutely believe in a secular society.”
Note his belief in a secular society follows his statement about separation of “church and state”. There is NO such separation in islam, therefore it’s reasonable to construe his remarks as applying to Britain, a christian country which has churches.
If he wanted to be unambiguous about these answers, he could have been. Lutfur Rahman is a lawyer, they know how to twist words and to exploit ambiguity.
I wonder why the interviewer (who elsewhere said that non-muslims are cattle), does not push Lutfur Rahman for unambiguous answers.
James, you need to lay off the marijuana. Talk about paranoid claptrap.
James, I think maybe you have been watching too much hollywood:
Are Muslims to be guilty until proven innocent? and even then guilty for what they didn’t say?
Please explain how one Muslim Mayor in a country of majority Christian/atheist at 66 million will turn it into a Caliphate? You could sell your script to Hollywood for big money! Don’t forget us when your famous!