Britannia Radio

It is time that someone stood up to these pretend “moderate”  
Muslims.  They have no representative character at all being entirely  
self-appointed but in the named of ‘racial harmony’ have been allowed  
to strut the stage as if they represented anyone but themselves     
They include some some of the most virulently militant Muslims around.

I hope this does come to Court, but I doubt it.

XXXXXXXXXXXXX CS

=======
IAIN DALE Blogspot                    9.4.09

EXCLUSIVE: Blears Tells MCB Deputy Chair to Swivel On it
Iain Dale 11:56 AM

As readers may recall, the Cabinet Minister of People's Hearts, Hazel  
Blears, has been threatened with a libel action by the deputy general  
secretary of the Muslim Council for Britain (MCB) Daud Abdullah. He  
wants £75,000 of taxpayers' cash because he thinks La Chipmunk  
libelled him in a letter to the Guardian which questioned his signing  
of the Istanbul declaration (a call for global Jihad), and in  
particular the parts which seem to suggest that it is legitimate to  
attack UK forces. Hazel Blears has already made clear that she will  
robustly defend any such action and the government will refuse to do  
business with the MCB until this issue is resolved.

I can today reveal that her legal team have sent Abdullah's  
solicitors a very trenchant letter, which basically says, "see you in  
court".

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Letter from the Treasury Solicitor, acting on behalf of HMG
8th April

Farooq Bajwa & Co
Solicitors
Regent House
Nuffield Place
London W1H 5YN

Dear Sirs

Dr Daud Abdullah

We act for the Secretary of State for Communities and Local  
Government and have been passed a copy of your letter to her dated 31  
March.

We understand from your letter that your client, Dr Daud Abdullah,  
does not dispute that he is a signatory to the Istanbul Declaration  
from which the Muslim Council of Britain (the MCB) has distanced  
itself in its letter of 23 March. We further understand that Dr  
Abdullah has not yet sought personally to disavow the content of that  
Declaration, and that he has not taken any action to withdraw his  
signature from it.

We assume that Dr Abdullah would not dissent from the view that the  
contents of the Declaration are a matter of legitimate and  
substantial public concern, and that, as the Government Minister with  
lead responsibility for community relations and faith matters, the  
Secretary of State has a clear duty to comment on the issues raised  
by it, especially since Dr Abdullah has signed it whilst holding a  
senior position in the Muslim Council of Britain which has been one  
of the Government’s interlocutors in the Muslim communities.

In the light of the Secretary of State’s duty, and given that your  
client appears to stand by the contents of the Declaration, we  
consider that the assertions made in your letter are misplaced.

You complain on behalf of your client that, in her letter dated 25  
March 2009 which was published in The Guardian on 26 March, the  
Secretary of State commented that the declaration which your client  
signed,

“supports violence against foreign forces – which could include naval  
personnel.”;

That comment was based upon, and fully warranted by, the wording of  
paragraph 8 of the Declaration, which provides as follows:

“The obligation of the Islamic Nation to regard the sending of  
foreign warships into Muslim waters…as a declaration of war, a new  
occupation, sinful aggression, and a clear violation of the  
sovereignty of the Nation. This must be rejected and fought by all  
means and ways.” [emphasis added]

If, as you insist on his behalf, your client did not intend the  
Declaration to be seen as a call to attack foreign warships, then  
surely he should not have signed it whilst it contained paragraph 8  
and should now take steps to resile from it - as, we understand, the  
MCB has claimed it has done.

You also insist on your client’s behalf, in relation to the issue of  
anti-Semitic violence, that he has never advocated violence of any  
sort, least of all that based on race and or religion; and your  
client has, in his response to the Secretary of State published on  
the Guardian website on 26 March, directly stated his position as being

“…absolutely opposed to any attack or violence directed against  
innocent persons of any faith or no faith anywhere in the  
world…” [emphasis added]

The Secretary of State’s legitimate concern is however that, far from  
being “a declaration of political support” as you contend, the  
Declaration read as a whole does encourage such violence, since  
Paragraph II 7 provides as follows:

“The obligation of the Islamic Nation to regard everyone standing  
with the Zionist entity, whether countries, institutions or  
individuals, as providing a substantial contribution to the crimes  
and brutality of this entity; the position towards him is the same as  
towards this usurping entity.”

The clear meaning of this is that any supporter of Israel is to be  
regarded not as innocent, but rather as guilty of the perceived  
“crimes and brutality” of Israel, and as liable to the same treatment  
as that which the Declaration calls for against Israel. Elsewhere in  
the Declaration, reference is made to “jihad and resistance against  
the occupier until the liberation of all Palestine” [Paragraph II.5];  
to Hamas “maintaining the Resistance against the Jewish Zionist  
occupation” [paragraph II.2]; to the Palestinian Authority’s attempts  
to broker a peaceful solution as “the false peace process” [paragraph  
II.3]; and so on.

If, as you insist on his behalf, your client is opposed to all  
violence of any sort, then that is a further reason why he should not  
have signed the Declaration and should now distance himself from it.

In this regard, the Secretary of State welcomes the statement dated  
26th March (but not issued until 27 March, and in any case subsequent  
to the Secretary of State’s letter in the Guardian dated 25 March)  
signed by inter alia Dr Abdullah and agreed at a meeting attended by  
Mohammad Sarwar MP. While this clearly states that Dr Abdullah  
rejects violence, the conflict with the Istanbul Declaration remains  
and Dr Abdullah remains a signatory to it.

The Secretary of State’s preferred course is that these issues are  
resolved by discussion between all the interested parties, as offered  
in Mr Rossington’s letter of 25 March and accepted by Dr Bari,  
Secretary General of the MCB in his letter of 27 March to Mr  
Rossington. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State does not consider  
that such discussions can sensibly take place while the threat of  
legal proceedings remains.

Dr Abdullah will no doubt wish to consider this reply, with the  
benefit of advice from you. We should make it clear, however, that if  
his decision is to proceed with an action against the Secretary of  
State, that action will be defended robustly; and the Secretary of  
State will take all steps necessary to vindicate her position in  
front of a judge and jury. We hope this will not be necessary; but if  
proceedings are issued, we confirm that we have instructions to  
accept service on behalf of the Secretary of State.

It follows, of course, that your offer of settlement is rejected.

Yours faithfully,
etc
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well that told them! The only way to deal with this kind of issue is  
to defend yourself robustly and leave the opposition in no doubt that  
you will defend yourself at all costs. Abdullah now has a real  
dilemma. His only real option it to back down as gracefully as  
possible. Of course, if the MCB had any balls, it would fire him as  
deputy chairman. But we all know that the MCB is like when it comes  
to terror accusations. They condemn them, but someone always find a  
way of using the word 'but'.

===============================