Northumbria Police investigating ‘Islam is Evil’ and ‘funds terror’ graffiti

Anti-Muslim and Islamophobic graffiti that re-appeared on a charity bin in Fenham, close to Nuns Moor Park, is now subject to a police investigation after a member of the public contacted Tell MAMA.

The graffiti identified read “Islam is evil”, and below was written “and funds terror”, which the member of the public lamented as ‘depressing’ to see such harmful remarks appear in the area again, when reporting to our service yesterday.

Tell MAMA has reported the incident to Northumbria Police to investigate.

Last year, a charity bin for an Islamic charity had been vandalised with language, accusing it of funding terrorism in the same area.

Newcastle City Council allows the reporting of racist and hateful graffiti online. Tell MAMA has also flagged the graffiti with them.

Anyone can report graffiti in public areas anonymously or otherwise – be it on bins, benches, and public buildings – to their local council, online or otherwise. In addition, racist and hateful graffiti can be reported to the police online via the True Vision platform or by calling 101.

Tell MAMA took the above steps when reporting racist graffiti last month.

In recent years, verified reports of vandalism (including graffiti) have been sizeable minorities in respective datasets (21 reports for the first half of 2019 and 45 reports in 2018).

We will continue to provide updates where available.

You can get advice from our confidential and free helpline on 0800 456 1226. Or through our free iOS or Android apps. Report through our online form. Or contact us via WhatsApp on 0734 184 6086.

 

The post Northumbria Police investigating ‘Islam is Evil’ and ‘funds terror’ graffiti appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Categories: graffiti, Newcastle, News

Analysis: Why Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson) lost the libel case

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson), the noted far-right agitator, extremist, and founder of the far-right English Defence League (EDL), has lost a libel case against him brought forward by the Syrian teenager Jamal Hijazi.

A video of an assault on Jamal Hijazi in the playground of Almondbury Community School in Huddersfield in October 2018 went viral.

Before Facebook’s long-overdue ban, Yaxley-Lennon posted two videos, “not innocent and he violently attacks young English girls in his school”, attracting almost one million views and twenty-four-thousand shares.

What Yaxley-Lennon said in those videos, including the fabrications that Jamal had “beat a girl black and blue” and “threatened to stab” another boy at the school, were the subject of the libel claims.

However, the judgment from Mr Justice Nicklin made clear that Yaxley-Lennon’s evidence “had fallen woefully short” and granted Jamal £100,000 in damages.

Yaxley Lennon’s choice of language in both videos, the judgment states, were a calculated effort to “inflame the situation” and portray Jamal as the perpetrator. Moreover, as the judgment clarifies, Yaxley-Lennon persisted with the allegations, even adding to them during the proceedings.

Jamal soon became the target of abuse and threats, leading to his family leaving their home and Jamal abandoning his education at a critical juncture. Yaxley-Lennon, the judge said, “is responsible for this harm, some of the scars of which, particularly the impact on the Claimant’s education, are likely last for many years, if not a lifetime.”

Catrin Evans QC, representing Jamal, had described how the comments had resulted in “death threats and extremist agitation” and, therefore, damages should total between £150,000 and £190,000.

Evans characterised Yaxley-Lennon as “a well-known extreme-right advocate” with an “anti-Muslim agenda” who used social media to spread his views.

Jamal described how some bullying referenced the EDL and the far-right. “I remember them saying: ‘The EDL’s talking about you.’ At the time when these incidents happened at school, I did not know what the EDL was, and I did not know what they were referring to when they talked about it,” he said.

Bailey McLaren, filmed pushing Jamal to the ground, denied being a racist or bully in evidence, adding that he had mixed-race sisters, lived in a mixed-race community, and had friends who were Black and Asian. However, records highlighted in the judgment show that staff at Almondbury School had concerns about his support for the EDL, including making a Prevent referral on November 28, 2018. Further questioning revealed from Evans QC that Bailey had stayed in a “safe house” owned by Yaxley-Lennon for four months.

On balance, the judge said, “I consider that the claim to have been told that the Claimant had threatened to stab him – by “Ahmed” or anyone else – was manufactured by Bailey.” Furthermore, he added that Bailey was also a victim and punished for his bullying, which he concluded was not racist in nature, and like Jamal also had to move homes. Mr Justice Nicklin said: “Both were schoolboys when they were catapulted into the maelstrom of a media storm. Neither was remotely equipped to deal with what then happened.” And concluded, “Bailey may yet come to reflect on whether he has actually been helped by the Defendant.”

On other allegations, including the alleged use of a hockey stick, one child identified in the judgment as OTP (to protect their identity) amounted to a “dishonest fabrication that fell apart when he was cross-examined on the details.” Evidence from Charly Matthews (who claimed that Jamal had hit her in the back with a hockey stick resulting in long-term injuries, which she could not prove medically) was also satisfactorily proven false in the eyes of Mr Justice Nicklin.

The judgment also drew attention to Yaxley-Lennon’s use of covert recordings in his evidence submissions. In one such example, the judge declined to name the former teacher, who, before speaking with Yaxley-Lennon, informed him that he was in no position to comment on the matter and it would, therefore, be “highly unlikely” that he would knowingly consent to record such an interview.  Having reviewed, the judge said that it is “quite apparent from the recordings that none of the individuals [including EYW’s mother and MVW] was aware that s/he was being recorded.”

Moreover, the judgment states that Yaxley-Lennon appeared to wear a concealed microphone and camera on the two occasions he attempted to speak with EYW’s mother over the alleged assault, and crucially, such footage had been edited, and therefore, Yaxley-Lennon had failed to substantiate that the group attack had occurred. Nor could the judge give weight to the evidence submitted “in respect of allegations that she has publicly disavowed.” Indeed, one of the answers provided by EYW’s mother in the second interview drips in ambiguity as Yaxley-Lennon combines two leading questions (“Was he there? Was he involved?”)  as their response of “Yeah” gives no clarity to which questions they are addressing.

Francesca Flood from Burlingtons Legal, representing Jamal, said in a statement: “Jamal and his family now wish to put this matter behind them in order that they can get on with their lives.

“They do however wish to extend their gratitude to the Great British public for their support and generosity, without which this legal action would not have been possible.”

A subsequent hearing will follow this judgment to consider the consequences of the ruling, as Mr Justice Nicklin granted Jamal an injunction that prevents Yaxley-Lennon from repeating the allegations.

The search for Yaxley-Lennon’s assets made headlines earlier this year following his bankruptcy declaration on March 2, 2021, and he subsequently represented himself in court.

Mr Justice Nicklin acknowledged that, due to the bankruptcy, “there are limits on what can be enforced against him” but stressed that Yaxley-Lennon must cover Jamal’s legal costs.

As pointed out by the BBC’s Dominic Casciani, total costs may go upwards of £500,000.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The post Analysis: Why Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson) lost the libel case appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Categories: Far Right groups, News, Stephen Yaxley Lennon, Tommy Robinson

Tommy Robinson ordered to pay £100,000 to Syrian schoolboy after libel case loss

Tommy Robinson has been ordered to pay £100,000 to a Syrian schoolboy who was filmed being attacked at school, after the English Defence League founder lost a libel case.

Robinson – whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – was sued by Jamal Hijazi, 18, who was assaulted in the playground at Almondbury Community School in Huddersfield in October 2018.

Robinson was also ordered to pay Jamal’s costs of bringing the libel claim.

Robinson said he was “gobsmacked” by the costs Jamal’s lawyers were claiming, which he said included £70,000 for taking witness statements.

He added: “I’ve not got any money. I’m bankrupt. I’ve struggled hugely with my own issues these last 12 months… I ain’t got it.”

Mr Justice Nicklin acknowledged that “there are limits on what can be enforced against him” as a result of Robinson’s bankruptcy, but ruled that Robinson should pay Jamal’s legal costs, which were not stated in court.

The post Tommy Robinson ordered to pay £100,000 to Syrian schoolboy after libel case loss appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Categories: Jamal Hijazi, libel, News, Syrian schoolboy, Tommy Robinson

Neo-Nazi jailed for seven years over fundraising for extreme right-wing group

A neo-Nazi student who led an extreme right-wing group and promoted its “distorted and wicked cause” online has been jailed for seven years.

Andrew Dymock, 24, the middle-class son of academics, was found guilty in June of 15 charges, including 12 terrorism-related offences.

On Wednesday, Judge Mark Dennis QC found Dymock to be a dangerous offender, highlighting his continuing “state of denial”.

He sentenced Dymock to seven years in prison, with a further three years on extended licence.

The judge said Dymock had been an “active and committed proponent for right wing neo-Nazi extremism”.

He held a “prominent role” in now-banned System Resistance Network (SRN) group in 2017, promoting it on a website and Twitter.

In 2018, when he was “ousted” as a leader, he went on to form of a new group, the judge said.

The judge found that Dymock’s pursuit of the far right cause was “calculated, sophisticated” and designed to incite “gratuitous violence and hatred”.

He said: “The use of the internet meant that the reach of his message was widespread and uncontrolled,”

Judge Dennis told the defendant: “Having listened with care to your evidence over several days in the trial it is readily apparent that you are intelligent, well read, very articulate and motivated but a wholly misguided individual who, despite all the advantages of a good education and family upbrining chose at the age of 20 to take the path of dreadful bigotry, intolerance and hatred towards other members of our society solely on the basis of their race, creed or sexual orientation.

“In setting up and running the website and Twitter account for your extremist cause you were prepared to inflame such vile prejudices in others and to promote and encourage hatred and violence towards other human beings in furtherance of your distorted and wicked cause.”

While others were involved, the judge said it was clear Dymock was “a leader and not a follower”.

Dymock, who wore a pink Hawaiian-style shirt, waved to the public gallery as he was sent down.

He had been supported throughout his trial by his parents, Stella and Dr David Dymock, a professor of dentistry at Bristol University, with whom he lived in Bath, Somerset.

The court heard they had written to the judge asking for leniency ahead of the sentencing.

Defence lawyer Andrew Morris said they were “extremely worried” about the impact of jail on their son.

Judge Dennis said it was a “sad factor” in cases like this that the defendant was comparatively young.

“The collateral damage on conviction is huge for the family, who knew nothing about it or did not recognise the signs, and thought they had done everything they could to bring their child up in a responsible way,” he said.

Previously, the court heard how Dymock held longstanding extremist views dating back to when he was 17, and included a Google translation of the words “Kill all of the Jews”.

SRN was one of a small number of groups which filled a “dubious gap” left following the proscription of far-right group National Action, and was itself banned in 2020.

On October 8 2017, Dymock wrote about its creation on a right-wing webpage, saying SRN was “focused on building a group of loyal men, true to the cause of National Socialism and establishing the Fascist state through revolution”.

He promoted the SRN group, which aimed to “stir up a race war”, through a Twitter account and a website.

He also used online platforms to raise money for the organisation, which “preached zero-tolerance” to non-whites, Jewish and Muslim communities and described homosexuality as a “disease”.

Dymock was expelled from SRN in late February 2018, and formed another group before he was arrested in June of that year at Gatwick Airport as he tried to board a flight to the US.

Police found in his luggage extreme right-wing literature including Siege, an anthology of pro-Nazi essays written by James Mason, and Mein Kampf, along with clothing bearing neo-Nazi logos.

He also had books, flags and badges associated with the extreme right-wing in his bedroom at home and university.

Dymock, who at the time was studying politics at Aberystwyth University in Wales, denied being behind the SRN accounts, claiming he was set up by an ex-girlfriend, who had failed to recruit him to join banned terrorist group National Action (NA).

He denied being a neo-Nazi and told police: “In fact, I am bisexual but lean towards being homosexual, in direct conflict with Nazism.”

He went on to tell jurors that he had Adolf Hitler’s autobiographical manifesto, along with books on Satanism, for “research” on right-wing populism.

The jury found Dymock guilty of five charges of encouraging terrorism, two of fundraising for terrorism, four counts of disseminating terrorist publications, possessing a terrorist document, stirring up racial hatred and hatred based on sexual orientation, and possessing racially inflammatory material.

Prosecutor Jocelyn Ledward suggested the offending was made worse by the fact that Dymock communicated with other known extremists and used encrypted technology to avoid detection.

Detective Chief Superintendent Martin Snowden said: “Dymock saw himself as an influencer and spent a lot of time and effort maintaining his online presence, fundraising for his cause and encouraging others.

“Concerningly, Dymock never acknowledged his wrongful actions, but fortunately a jury brought him to justice and safeguarded the public in doing so.”

The post Neo-Nazi jailed for seven years over fundraising for extreme right-wing group appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Categories: Andrew Dymock, Extreme Right Wing, Far Right groups, Group national action, Jailed, Neo-Nazi student, News, System Resistance Network

Neo-Nazi student to be sentenced for terrorism and hate offences

A neo-Nazi student who carved a swastika into his girlfriend’s buttock is to be sentenced for his leading role in an extreme right-wing group.

Andrew Dymock, 24, the middle-class son of academics, told jurors “Thank you for killing me” after he was found guilty in June of 15 charges, including 12 terrorism-related offences.

He will be sentenced by Judge Mark Dennis QC at the Old Bailey on Wednesday.

The court heard that Dymock promoted the now-banned System Resistance Network (SRN) group, which aimed to “stir up a race war”, through a Twitter account and a website.

He used online platforms to raise money for the organisation, which “preached zero-tolerance” to non-whites, Jewish and Muslim communities and described homosexuality as a “disease”.

Dymock, who at the time was studying politics at Aberystwyth University in Wales, denied being behind the accounts, claiming he was set up by an ex-girlfriend, who had failed to recruit him to join banned terrorist group National Action (NA).

Police found a picture on one of Dymock’s devices showing a swastika cut into the woman’s buttock and he told detectives in a January 2019 interview he had used his nail to scratch the symbol.

Dymock’s computer revealed longstanding extremist views dating back to when he was 17, including a Google translation of the words “Kill all of the Jews”.

The court heard that SRN was one of a small number of groups which filled a “dubious gap” left following the proscription of far-right group National Action and was itself banned in 2020.

On October 8 2017, Dymock wrote about the creation of SRN on a right-wing webpage, stating that the group was “focused on building a group of loyal men, true to the cause of National Socialism and establishing the Fascist state through revolution”.

Dymock was expelled from the SRN in late February 2018, four months before he was arrested at Gatwick Airport as he tried to board a flight to America.

Police found in his luggage extreme right-wing literature including Siege, an anthology of pro-Nazi essays written by James Mason, and Mein Kampf, along with clothing bearing neo-Nazi logos.

He also had books, flags, clothes and badges associated with the extreme right-wing in his bedroom at home and university.

Dymock claimed material linking him to content on the SRN website and Twitter account was “planted in his possession without his knowledge”.

He denied being a neo-Nazi and told police: “In fact, I am bisexual but lean towards being homosexual, in direct conflict with Nazism.”

He went on to tell jurors that he had Adolf Hitler’s autobiographical manifesto – along with books on Satanism – for “research” on right-wing populism.

The jury found Dymock guilty of five charges of encouraging terrorism, two of fundraising for terrorism, four counts of disseminating terrorist publications, possessing a terrorist document, stirring up racial hatred and hatred based on sexual orientation, and possessing racially inflammatory material.

Dymock had been supported throughout his trial by his parents, Stella and Dr David Dymock, a professor of dentistry at Bristol University, with whom he lived with in Bath, Somerset.

In previous email chat, Dr Dymock had sought to distance himself from his son’s views, telling him not to send “any of your political stuff to my work email account because I work in a multicultural institution, am proud to do so, and believe in the values of that institution.

“I would hate anyone who might see my emails to think that I sympathised with fascist views in any way.”

The post Neo-Nazi student to be sentenced for terrorism and hate offences appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Categories: Andrew Dymock, Far Right groups, Neo-Nazi student, News, terrorism

Tommy Robinson must wait for ruling on Syrian teenager’s libel claim

Tommy Robinson faces a wait to find out whether he has won or lost a libel case brought against him by a Syrian boy who was filmed being attacked at school.

The English Defence League founder – whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – is being sued by Jamal Hijazi, who was recorded being bullied in the playground at Almondbury Community School in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, in October 2018.

Shortly after the film went viral, Robinson claimed in two Facebook videos, which were viewed by nearly one million people, that Jamal was “not innocent and he violently attacks young English girls in his school”.

The 38-year-old also claimed Jamal “beat a girl black and blue” and “threatened to stab” another boy at his school, allegations the teenager denies.

At a four-day trial at the High Court in April, Jamal’s lawyers said that Robinson’s comments had “a devastating effect” on the teenager and his family, who had come to the UK as refugees from Homs in Syria.

Catrin Evans QC described Robinson as “a well-known extreme-right advocate” with an anti-Muslim agenda who used social media to spread his extremist views.

Ms Evans said Robinson’s comments led to Jamal “facing death threats and extremist agitation” and that if the teenager wins the claim he should receive damages between £150,000 and £190,000.

Throughout the trial Robinson maintained he was an independent journalist, telling the court: “The media simply had zero interest in the other side of this story, the uncomfortable truth.”

Robinson claimed to have “uncovered dozens of accounts of aggressive, abusive and deceitful behaviour” by Jamal and defended the comments as substantially true.

He said that, with people donating nearly £160,000 to a GoFundMe page set up for the claimant, he believed it was important for people to be given a “balanced view”.

Robinson, who represented himself, added: “I only reported what I was told. That is all I’m doing here in this court, looking for the truth.”

The trial also heard evidence from Bailey McLaren, the boy shown pushing Jamal to the ground and pouring water over him in the widely shared video, who denied being racist or a bully.

Robinson continued: “Almondbury Community School has its failings for sure, but racism and racist bullying was not one of them.”

He added: “Just because (Jamal) might have been a victim does not automatically mean he himself couldn’t be a nasty, foul-mouthed and often violent young person, particularly against girls and smaller, younger boys.”

Mr Justice Nicklin was due to hand down his written judgment on Monday; however, the ruling has now been postponed.

The post Tommy Robinson must wait for ruling on Syrian teenager’s libel claim appeared first on Faith Matters.

Categories: Jamal Hijazi, Judgement, Libel Claim, News, Tommy Robinson

Israel’s prime minister has no plans to change rules at sacred Jerusalem site

Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett is not changing the norms at a contested site in Jerusalem to allow Jewish prayer there, his office said, following comments that sparked angry reactions a day earlier.

Mr Bennett, Israel’s new premier, had raised concerns on Sunday when he said Israel was committed to protecting “freedom of worship” for Jews at the hilltop compound.

Under a long-standing practice, Jews are allowed to visit, but not pray, at the site, which they revere as the Temple Mount and which Muslims hold sacred as the home of the Al Aqsa Mosque.

Palestinians and the site’s Islamic authorities fear that Israel is slowly trying to take control of the area and have complained in the past that Jews continued to pray at the site.

Friction remains high there after unrest helped spark the 11-day Israel-Hamas war in May.

Despite Mr Bennett’s phrasing, the status quo holds, according to an official in the prime minister’s office.

The clarification came after a tense day in which hundreds of Jewish pilgrims visited the compound under heavy police guard to mark Tisha B’Av, a day of mourning and repentance when Jews reflect on the destruction of the First and Second Temples.

The hilltop compound, they believe, is where the biblical Temples once stood and is the holiest site in Judaism.

Muslims revere the site as the Noble Sanctuary, home to the Al Aqsa Mosque and the third-holiest site in Islam.

Earlier Sunday, Muslim worshippers briefly clashed with Israeli security forces at the flashpoint shrine.

No injuries were reported, but the incident again raised tensions.

It came just days before Muslims celebrate the festival of Eid al-Adha, or Feast of the Sacrifice.

The post Israel’s prime minister has no plans to change rules at sacred Jerusalem site appeared first on Faith Matters.

Categories: Al Aqsa, Jerusalem, Naftali Bennett, News, Temple Mount

Danish cartoonist whose work sparked anger in Muslim world dies aged 86

Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, whose image of the Prophet Mohammed was at the centre of widespread anti-Danish anger in the Muslim world in the mid-2000s, has died aged 86.

Mr Westergaard’s family announced his death to Danish media late on Sunday and told the newspaper Berlingske that Mr Westergaard died in his sleep after a long period of illness.

Danish media reported that he died on July 14, a day after his birthday.

From the early 1980s, Mr Westergaard worked as a cartoonist for Jyllands-Posten, one of Denmark’s leading newspapers, and was associated with the daily until he turned 75.

Mr Westergaard became known worldwide in 2005 for his controversial depiction of the Prophet Mohammed in Jyllands-Posten, which published 12 editorial cartoons of the principal figure of Islam.

Muslims consider images of the prophet to be sacrilegious and encouraging idolatry.

The images, particularly Mr Westergaard’s, sparked a huge wave of anger in the Muslim world and escalated into violent anti-Denmark protests by Muslims worldwide in 2006.

Several newspapers in neighbouring Norway also published the controversial cartoons.

Danish and Norwegian embassies in Syria were burned down by angry crowds during the demonstrations.

Political observers in the Nordic countries have described the cartoon incident as one of the most severe foreign policy crises for both Denmark and Norway in their recent histories.

In the aftermath of the uproar, Mr Westergaard received several death threats and was forced to have police protection.

In 2008, three people were arrested for planning to kill him, and in 2010 a 28-year-old Somali man broke into his home with an axe and knife.

The man was later sentenced to 10 years in prison.

“I would like to be remembered as the one who struck a blow for the freedom of expression.

“But there’s no doubt that there are some who will instead remember me as a Satan who insulted the religion of over one billion people,” Mr Westergaard said, according to Berlingske.

Jyllands-Posten said in an editorial published on Monday that with the death of Mr Westergaard “it is more important than ever to emphasise that the struggle for freedom of expression, which became his destiny, is the struggle of all of us for freedom”.

Mr Westergaard is survived by his wife and five children, 10 grandchildren and one great-grandchild.

Funeral arrangements were not immediately known.

The post Danish cartoonist whose work sparked anger in Muslim world dies aged 86 appeared first on Faith Matters.

Categories: Danish cartoons, death, Muhammad, News, Norway, Westergaard

Radical preacher Anjem Choudary’s public speaking ban lifted

A ban on radical preacher Anjem Choudary speaking in public is being lifted as licence conditions which were imposed after his release from prison come to an end.

The extremist was jailed five years ago after being convicted of inviting support for the Islamic State terror group, and he left Belmarsh high-security jail on licence in 2018.

Choudary, from Ilford in east London, was freed automatically half-way through a five-and-a-half year sentence.

A string of more than 20 strict licence conditions which Choudary has been subject to since his release will expire on Sunday, the PA news agency understands.

As well as being prohibited from speaking in public, his internet and mobile phone use was restricted and he was banned from being in contact with people who may be suspected of extremist-related offences without prior approval.

He had to wear an electronic tag and abide by a night-time curfew, only attend pre-approved mosques and stay within a set area, as well as adhere to other standard requirements, like having regular meetings with probation officers.

Police and MI5 were thought to be among a host of bodies involved in monitoring him under the system known as multi-agency public protection arrangements (Mappa).

Separate measures saw his name added to a UN sanctions list, which meant he was banned from travelling and had assets frozen.

Once a leading figure in the now-banned group al-Muhajiroun (ALM), the former solicitor had previously stayed on the right side of the law for years – despite being seen as a radicalising influence.

From the 1990s, the father-of-five was a prominent figure in ALM, which also operated under a number of other names.

Over 20 years he voiced controversial views on Sharia law while building up a following of thousands through social media, demonstrations and lectures around the world.

While there has been no suggestion Choudary organised any attacks, others previously linked to ALM include Michael Adebolajo, one of the murderers of Fusilier Lee Rigby, and Khuram Butt, the ringleader of the London Bridge terror attack.

During his teenage years the Fishmongers’ Hall attacker Usman Khan also took an interest in Choudary’s views.

Muslim convert Lewis Ludlow, who plotted a terror attack on Oxford Street, attended a demonstration led by Choudary and the ALM group.

But former head of counter-terror policing Mark Rowley previously said Choudary was not “some sort of evil genius”, dismissing him as a “pathetic groomer” during an interview with BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

“I think we have to be careful not to overstate his significance,” he added.

Whether counter-terror police and MI5 will continue to track Choudary or consider him a person of interest has not been confirmed. But ALM is expected to remain of considerable interest.

Other measures available to security services and police which could be considered in such instances are Tpims (Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures). They are seen as the strictest monitoring tool available to use against people suspected to be involved in terrorism or who present a threat, but cannot be prosecuted or deported.

A Tpim notice – which can be in place for up to two years – can involve conditions like an enforced curfew, tagging, having to stay away from certain locations and restrictions on overseas travel.

A senior security source told PA: “Disruptive measures – including jail terms and licence conditions – have had a substantial impact on the ability of ALM to propagate their toxic ideology.

“While the group cynically preys on vulnerable individuals, its spokespeople have hidden behind their cult-like status while encouraging others to commit acts of violence. The group breeds on propaganda, and should be starved of the oxygen of publicity it relies on to spread hatred.”

The post Radical preacher Anjem Choudary’s public speaking ban lifted appeared first on Faith Matters.

Categories: Al Muhaijroun, ALM, Anjem Choudary, News, Terrorist Prevention & Investigation Measures, TPIM, Usman Khan

Black Muslim woman awarded almost £25k discrimination payout

An employment tribunal has awarded a Black Muslim woman £24,945.72 after colleagues made racist comments in the office and posted threats against her on a group WhatsApp chat.

The tribunal upheld Muna Abdi’s claim of unlawful harassment contrary to the Equality Act 2010 – but dismissed her claim for equal pay.

Ms Abdi, who is Somali and wears the hijab, joined Deltec, a distribution services provider based in Hounslow, Middlesex, as an Evening Operations Clerk on November 6, 2017. She resigned with immediate effect on September 1, 2018.

She described a ‘juvenile and chaotic’ working environment in the Export Department with little training and high staff turnover. In addition, Ms Abdi raised concerns about a pay disparity between herself (starting at £7.45 per hour rising to £8.75 per hour from August 2018) and two male colleagues identified in the judgment as Tyrel Tripp and Oliver Rolls – both salaried at £20,000 per annum, above Ms Abdi’s salary which she raised multiple times with their line manager Simon.

On August 8, 2018, a conversation between Ms Abdi, a female colleague identified as Arouge, Tyrel Tripp, Brandon Tripp, and Oliver Rolls. During the discussion, white privilege arose from either Ms Abdi or Arouge, and from the resulting argument, Tyrel and Oliver made the racist claim that “the majority of crimes in England are made by black people”, which Ms Abdi challenged. The judgment detailed that Tyrel and Oliver reiterated this racist falsehood even after internet searches disproved it.

Muna Abdi described how the vile discussion and argument left her upset, as Arouge spoke of an uncomfortable dynamic which later improved when raising the issue with Cunningham.

Two days later, Ms Abdi logged onto her computer with a colleague’s login details and discovered a group chat on WhatsApp, including her manager Simon and her colleagues Tyrel, Oliver, and Brandon.

Extracts of the WhatsApp exchanges contained racist and dehumanising Islamophobic language and threats of violence towards Ms Abdi.

[Tyrel] ‘F****** immigrants’…. [Oliver] ‘smell like f****** chucked tikka’   [Oliver]‘’F****** c****, lot of them’ [Tyrel] ‘F****** YES, F******  SUFFER,  YOU  LITTLE  POSTBOX’,  [Brandon]  ‘Bruv whats her problem, Come we bang her’……‘bruv someone shut this terrorist up before I get vexed, bmt ill rip her head scarf off, ill swing them both mums.’

The group chat also contained excessive use of laughing emojis and emojis of Muslim women wearing the hijab.

Tell MAMA has long-documented how dehumanising anti-Muslim language towards Muslim women, as letterboxes and terrorists, have violent, harmful, and in some cases, discriminatory outcomes for Muslim women who wear the niqab or other veiling practice.

After raising concerns that included her pay and working conditions, Ms Abdi logged in again and discovered further WhatsApp content, including that the group chat image to that of a black hijab remained ‘ALLHAMDULLAH’ mocked Muna and Arouge. And, again, used excessive laughter and hijab emojis – as conversations that day in the office referenced ham.

An email sent from Ms Abdi to Helen Bergin came to the attention of the company’s CEO, Mr Cunnigham, who described the conversations as highly offensive and puerile – promising to take action having met with them in person. And, following his investigation, issued final warnings to Simon and Brandon as Tyrel and Oliver, both in their probationary period, had their employment terminated on August 20. Mr Cunningham had a face-to-face meeting with Muna Abdi two days later and apologised for their conduct.

Despite the action taken, however, Simon continued to cause Muna and Arouge to feel uncomfortable, so Munda tendered her resignation effective September 1, 2018.

The tribunal rejected a free speech argument, as it did not consider “any arguments relating to free speech assist the respondent or disapply the application of the Equality Act in these circumstances.”

Regarding the harassment, the tribunal concluded that it created an “intimidating, hostile,  degrading, humiliating and offensive environment for the claimant.”

The tribunal had harsh criticisms for her line manager Simon and his failures to act on her complaints, dismissing them as a mere ‘she said he said scenario’.

Regarding Mr Cunnigham, whilst dismissing an allegation of direct discrimination, the ruling did point a glaring inadequacy – as the violence and hate from  Brandon, “who was to continue working alongside the claimant, that was at least condoned by Simon, the claimant’s direct line manager, who would continue to have everyday contact with the  claimant.”

The remedy judgment, published on July 8, 2021, awarded Muna Abdi £24,945.21 to be paid within thirteen days.

Tell MAMA provides a free tool kit for workplace discrimination issues, downloadable from here.

The post Black Muslim woman awarded almost £25k discrimination payout appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Categories: discrimination, employment, Employment Tribunal, Hijab, letterbox, News