Mayor Lutfur’s decision to commit £3million of council money to paint domes, polish signs and refurbish faith-based community centres has caused a bit of a stink within the Labour party.
Many members are deeply unhappy that scarce public money is being spent to fund religious activities, particularly given some of those religious activities do not promote the kind of equality at the heart of their party’s values.
I asked them for a statement on their position on Tuesday and they sent it yesterday evening.
This is it:
Cllr Sirajul Islam, leader of the Labour group, said: “We strongly support our many faith communities and the good work that they do in supporting local people. Many organisations will have applied for this funding in good faith to continue the work that they do which strengthens our communities.
“We do not want any of our faith organisations to be stained by the grubbiness of the mayoral administration.
“There is a strong perception that this funding is being used to put pressure on people to support the Independent Mayor at the next election. It is wrong to seek to buy an election with local people’s own money.
“The Mayor does have a duty to explain to the people he is meant to serve how he has balanced these needs against the many other pressing needs in our community, as families face a lack of school places, social care budgets are squeezed, street cleaning cut and local people badly need help with getting jobs. There are many unmet needs in Tower Hamlets.
“We would not seek to reverse these decisions unless there was clear evidence of any corruption or wrongdoing.
“Labour Group have expressed our concern at the Mayor’s profligate approach to the Council’s finances and with this decision coming only days before the Conservative led Government announces further destructive cuts to the Council’s budget, we would urge the Mayor to ensure he is taking every step possible to safeguard the core services residents rely upon.
“If, however, anybody has evidence of wrongdoing or misuse of resources they should of course take this immediately to both the local audit service and the police.”
I then asked Labour’s John Biggs, who will challenge Lutfur for Mayor next year, whether “not seek to reverse these decisions” meant he would guarantee the entire £3million committed to this scheme.
This was his reply:
“It means what it says. We are committed to the decisions the mayor has made this week. We don’t give him a blank cheque. We consider each decision he makes and weigh it up against his commitments and justifications and other priorities.”
So that’s not a guarantee.
This is a tricky issue in Tower Hamlets.
In March 2008, a couple of weeks after Canon Michael Ainsworth was beaten up in the grounds of St George-in-the-East church in Shadwell, the East London Advertiser carried a front page editorial backing his call for “the council to to play its part” in improving security at the borough’s churchyards.
Lutfur was council leader at that point and while there were mumbles of “things must be done”, I don’t recall anything actually happening. Some of these historic churchyards remain vulnerable to violence and anti-social behaviour.
As Canon Michael’s call was about securing churches from violent elements in the borough, the money that he wanted used would have come from “community safety” budgets. That’s very different from paying for the running costs of churches and mosques etc.
Incredibly, £2,400 of the £15,000 Lutfur has given to the Aberfeldy mosque is for “sessional staff, management, ie Meetings, minutes, diary, letter…and £595 is for refreshment/volunteer cost/travel cost”.
So this means our council tax is being used to fund that mosque’s own salaries and expenses. Again, that’s very different from painting and decorating.
This is the danger of this policy: it creates a link between the state and religion, and in Tower Hamlets that really means between the council and Islam and the Council of Mosques. It sets a precedent for more money.
Another recipient of Lutfur’s largesse is the Shoreditch Masjid Trust in Redchurch Trust, just north of Brick Lane. It’s been awarded £25,000 to fund “improvement works”.
The Shoreditch mosque is listed as following the Deobandi tradition, which is closely linked to the Saudi Wahhabis’ outlook on life. And for a flavour of that, let’s have a look at an objection they made last night at the council’s licensing committee.
The committee was hearing an application for an alcohol licence for the small Burro e Salvia Italian deli opposite the mosque. The deli, which sells pasta, ham and cheese, and has seating for 12 people, wanted to sell wine until 7pm when it closes.
But this outraged the members of the mosque, which submitted two letters and a petition against it.
This is one of their letters:
Isn’t the language depressing? That a small, innocuous Italian deli could be accused of driving up levels of crime and racism…well, it’s the kind of argument you’d hear in Islamic republics.
And we’re giving them £25,000. Bit sickening really.
Bravo Sirajul Islam – that’s a rather more definite statement than the one from the Lib Dems. However I don’t get the ‘guarantee’ bit; are you saying that IF Biggs gets the post of Mayor he is not guaranteeing to carry on with the funding announced by Rahman, or that Labour have the ability to stop the funding at this point in time?
Tim.
You’re not joking, are you. I’ve just checked online and the application really is until 7pm only. Some people are divisive, but this lot are divisive by accusing everyone else of being divisive.
And they’re getting £25k of taxpayers’ money to help peddle their views.
What’s your view on that, Dan?
Well I don’t think they’re getting £25k “to help peddle their views”, are they?
However, I do think they are intolerant, and this does raise a serious question about their character, which in turn should affect their access to community money.
What kind of society do they chose to inhabit by living here? Would they feel more comfortable in Saudi Arabia? As Bangladeshi immigrants they would be treated like scum, yet that is the type of society and culture that they apparently advocate.
Tolerance is a two way street and it’s the role of our political leaders to explain that to all sections of the community.
Their ‘charitable objectives’ are stated as:
1. TO ADVANCE THE RELIGION OF ISLAM.
2. TO ADVANCE THE EDUCATION OF THE PUBLIC IN THE ISLAMIC CULTURE AND RELIGION.
In other words, to peddle their views.
Now, now, a deli serving wine could attract gang activities. Let’s not…Oh, hang on, this place is in Shoreditch, not Campania.
It is fascinating how these people use the language of multiculturalism to promote their own agenda. One can see good-natured councillors nodding and rubbing their chins over rhetoric about “communal tensions” and “racial disharmony”.
The local garage opposite me fuels lots of things. Maybe I should object to them ;).
I must make it my business to visit and patronise Burro e Salvia. I hope as many local residents as possible do the same.
The Deobandi sect are the same people trying to build a 40,000 seater Mosque by the River Lea near Bromley-by-Bow. We really don’t want these bigots anywhere near our Borough.
http://www.megamosquenothanks.com/faq
To say an Italian Deli “attracts gangs” is a total fabrication… and given that the only actual gangs operating in East Shoreditch are Bengali ones from the Boundary Estate I find it hard to appreciate what a ham and alcohol selling food outlet would have to offer them. Unless they were there purely to attack the patrons in a racist way…
What right has a mosque got to dictate what happens on the street it’s on? I thought this was supposed to be “tolerance” and “diversity” but it increasingly seems like the only people being tolerant is we infidels.
People should not blame Lutfur for this. They should blame the Labour Party in LBTH that nurtured this situation over many years. They should blame people like Biggs who even now is basically saying “Labour supports the state funding of religious propagation (and ideally if the people doing it are Muslims)”
What is Labour supposed to be about? Secularism? Inclusion? Cohesion? Harmony? Fairness? By this course they are demonstrating they stand only for the pursuit of power, social division, patronage and the balkanisation of our country…
I urge people to spoil their ballots come the mayoral election.
I despair. Are these Cllrs just plain stupid or are they creating poorly constructed strawmen? Why are they citing the ‘good works’ local religious organisations do? The funding isn’t to support good works it’s to renovate and refurbish.
I find the response from John and Siraj amazing when they released a press statement today entitled ‘Biggs slams Mayor car waste’. So they’ll attack the Mayor for his car usage but not spending nearly two million on faith organisations? Why? Because they don’t want to say no to these groups a year before the election.
I bet if it was a chicken and chips shop it would be immediately granted a 24 hour licence!
The village mentality prevails…no one but our own kind. … Multiculturalism is a joke, and I for one can tell you as an Asian and an immigrant and a Chrisitian, that Bengalis/ Muslims are having the last laugh, at the foolish white man’s expense…
Reblogged this on Andreaurbanfox ©.
its ok we will have muslim gangs stopping people from going there,the area has had it now….
Unfortunately this Mayor has a very narrow view of the needs of the community at large – divisive, weak, egotistical and vain – a petty functionary without function who bigs himself up at every opportunity. Well, pride comes before a fall Lufter – you had your chance and you blew it!
Vile.
A little digging shows that Shoreditch Masjid Trust is a registered charity numbered 1106236 in its full name of Shoreditch Masjid Trust and Islamic Cultural Education Centre.
One of the Trustees is former LBTH Councillor Abdul Matin who was himself seriously assaulted at the junction of Vallance Road and Derbyshire Street in April 2009.
The not-so-charitable objections to the application by Burro E Salvia not only came from Bashir Ahmed (whose name does not appear in the trustees register at the Charity Commission), but also from Tunu Miah, a registered trustee, who objects on the grounds that it is a ‘late night establishment’ serving alcohol ‘late into the night’ that would ‘attract more people into the area at unsociable hours.‘
Mr Miah knows not of what he writes. Burro E Salvia has applied to sell a limited range of wines up to 7pm on all days except Sunday when they close at 5pm.
A petition of 72 residents who objected to the granting of a licence was also submitted. 9 addresses were outside Tower Hamlets, 7 were unidentifiable and it includes signatures of the trustees who had already objected.
A copy of the covering report issued by LBTH is here:
http://modgov.towerhamlets.gov.uk/documents/s45659/Burro%20E%20Salvia%20cover%20report.pdf
The appendices referred to at the end of the report are here:
http://moderngov.towerhamlets.gov.uk/documents/s45660/Burro%20E%20Salvia%20Appendices%20Only.pdf
Ted, I think that point two of the letter needs some attention “ It will contribute to communal tensions, youth related violence and racial disharmony in a already racially divided locality”
Here we have a now publically (tax payer) funded religious organisation stating that this area of Tower Hamlets is “racially divided”. I genuinely fear for the future of tower hamlets within the current narrow politics of LR/IFE/Respect. We are divided and the “one community – one religion” politics of LR is causing community tensions. I repeat – It is wrong that my hard earned taxes are being pumped into religious organisations. This is an example of the dangerous rhetoric of fear being used to impose a religious ideology of the minority of this community upon the majority.