The T-shirt says: There are two types: they are either your brothers in faith or your equals in humanity
Standing together in solidarity
Local people, including members of North West London Stand Up To Racism, received a warm welcome tonight at the Al-Majlis and Al- Hussaini Centre in Dollis Hill when they visited to express support and solidarity after the previous night's attack. The Chair and Secretary of Brent Trades Council were amongst the visitors.
The group were invited in to share in the celebrations and the atmosphere was positive with clear determination that such episodes would not be allowed to divide the community.
I was struck particularly by a very articulate lower secondary boy who was keen to explain his faith and at the same time emphasise his respect for all religions by explaining the meaning of the slogan on his T-shirt.
Women visitors were welcomed with food and sweets and speeches were made thanking them for their support.
There was a low-key police presence at the Centre in Edgware Road as well as effective stewarding by the Centre itself.
Earlier Brent Council had issued this statement from Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of the council:
Our thoughts and prayers are with those who have been injured and
all those affected by the serious act of violence which took place
outside the Al-majlis Al-Hussaini Center last night.
We are in close contact with the police who are looking into this as
a possible hate crime. However, we are reassured that the police do not
believe there is an ongoing threat to Brent's Muslim community. There
is absolutely no place for hate in our borough. Violence like this will
not be tolerated.
We visited representatives at the centre this afternoon and will give them all the help they need.
Brent has one of the most diverse communities in the UK and we are
extremely proud of this. We will not allow cowardly acts like this to
spread fear and hate amongst our residents.
The Labour Motion on Hate Crime was adopted by Brent Council this evening. It was moved by Cllr Nerva:
-->
Brent
Council expresses grave alarm and concern at the upswing in hate crime,
discriminatory acts and violations of dignity in the last year across the
United Kingdom.
We
condemn racism and xenophobia as well as all other forms of discrimination
(including but not limited to discrimination on the grounds of disability, sex,
acts of homophobia, religious intolerance, ageism and any other violations of
human rights such as modern slavery) as flagrant breaches of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
The
council is deeply concerned about the surge in religious hatred, such as
antisemitism and islamophobia and strongly condemn all forms of discrimination
against religious beliefs. This may constitute expressions of hatred,
rhetorical and physical manifestations of religious hatred, including against property,
community institutions and religious facilities.
Brent
Council welcomes the publication of “Hate Crime: A guide to those affected”.
This much needed guide results from a ground-breaking collaborative approach
involving the Community Security Trust, Tell MAMA, The Crown Prosecution
Service and the Department for Communities and Local Government.
The
council unequivocally condemns hate crimes against EU nationals which have seen
a rise in the last year. We recognise the essential contribution that EU
nationals make to our workforce and communities; the council will continue to
help and support this group in any way that we can.
Brent
Council pledges to combat all forms of pernicious racism and reiterates that
any form of hate crime and discrimination (including discriminatory and
mendacious statements or publications, harassment, bullying or victimisation)
will not be tolerated in our workforce and communities. The diversity of the
borough and the cohesion between its different communities are major strengths
and assets of Brent. We reassure our residents and employees that we continue
to provide support for victims of acts described above, to report incidents and
will within our powers, take action wherever possible against perpetrators who
commit such heinous acts.
“The government’s planned Extremism Disruption Orders (EDOs) are so vague and ill-defined that they are a potential threat to free speech and dissenting opinions. When questioned by the UK parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) on 29 June, the then counter extremism minister, Karen Bradley MP, offered ten different definitions of extremism in just over 60 minutes. The government wants to penalise extremism before it has even agreed what it is. This renders EDOs both anti-democratic and ineffectual. They are not consistent with human rights law,” said Anastasia Kyriacou, the advocacy officer of the Peter Tatchell Foundation.
Watch the video above of the government minister trying but failing ten times to offer a clear and consistent definition of extremism:
The government has belatedly agreed with demands by the Defend Free Speech campaign for a public consultation on EDOs – although a date and timetable has not yet been set.
Below is a summary of the current state of play on EDOs by Simon Calvert, Campaign Director of the Defend Free Speech campaign.
The Defend Free Speech campaign website: http://defendfreespeech.org.uk
The campaign for free speech human rights is supported by a diverse cross-section of organisations, such as the National Secular Society, Christian Institute, Peter Tatchell Foundation, Big Brother Watch, Index On Censorship, Freedom Association, English Pen, Manifesto Club and Article 19.
Prominent individual supporters include: Caroline Lucas MP, Lord Dear, Mohammed Amin, David Davis MP, Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, Prof Timothy Garton Ash, Fiona Bruce MP and Baroness Jones of Moulescoomb.
Simon Calvert, Campaign Director of the Defend Free Speech campaign, writes:
It was with considerable alarm that we watched the recent evidence session of the then counter extremism minister, Karen Bradley, before Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR).
In a little over an hour, Mrs Bradley put forward no fewer than ten possible definitions of ‘extremism’, including: “The public promotion of an ideology that can lead to greater harms” and “publicly promoting an ideology where the activity they are undertaking is not criminal and does not go beyond reasonable doubt but we know that that activity leads to a hate crime, a terrorist activity, or maybe FGM” (female genital mutilation).
We wrote to the minister to set out our fears. Here’s what we said:
The Defend Free Speech campaign, and many of the groups associated with it, are greatly concerned that the proposed 'civil orders regime' will damage both security and civil liberties. They risk distracting the authorities away from terrorism and violence and into monitoring and punishing legitimate expressions of opinion.
Finding terrorists and their enablers is like finding a needle in a haystack. Forcing the police and security services to operate at the much lower threshold of 'non-violent extremism' will massively increase the range of people and ideas under investigation, thereby making the haystack considerably bigger. Placing millions more people under suspicion is more likely to mask the activities of terrorists than to highlight them.
Your difficulty in articulating a clear, consistent definition of the kind of activity the Government aims to punish via civil orders was very concerning. The Home Office has been working on the issue for well over a year and yet the impression was given that the Government still has no clear idea how to legislate for what it wants to achieve.
Harriet Harman summed up the situation accurately when she told the Committee:
‘Still we don’t know what civil orders are being talked about, we don’t know what the sanctions are likely to be, we don’t know what the definitions are, we have no specificity about the timetable in terms of when the consultation will start, how long it will be. We know there won’t be a draft Bill, but we really are none the wiser about anything else’.
We were grateful that you confirmed that there would be a public consultation. But for the consultation to have any value, and for stakeholders to have a meaningful opportunity to influence the outcome, it must include precise statutory definitions that can then be subjected to scrutiny.
As members of the Committee pointed out, a consultation will be worthless if it does not give the actual wording with which the Government intends to resolve the tension between security and liberty. As it is, the planned consultation looks more a fishing expedition, carried out in the hope that somebody somewhere has a good idea of how this legislation could be drafted.
We concluded our letter by requesting an urgent meeting with the minister, and reassurances of a further consultation when the Home Office can tell the public how it actually plans to legislate in this incredibly sensitive and important area.
As we said quite clearly to the minister, when the matters at stake include terrorism and the fundamental civil liberties of millions, the Home Office cannot simply shrug its shoulders and say ‘we’re not sure what we’re doing’.
The groups backing Defend Free speech wrote to the Home Office back in January requesting a consultation on Extremism Disruption Orders. Having failed to respond for five months, the Government finally conceded the need for such a consultation in the Queen’s Speech in May.
Brent Council tonight unanimously passed an all-party motion (from London Councils) in the names of Cllrs Butt, Warren, A, Choudhary, Maurice, Tatler, Kelcher, Shahzad, Carr, Mahmood, and Hoda-Ben:
We will not tolerate hate crime or any kind of attack against people because of their ethnic origin. We are proud to be a diverse city and we will stay that way. We will continue to work together for the security and prosperity of all Londoners.
The movers made heart-felt speeches often based on their own and their family's experience. Cllr Mashari struck a practical note when she said it was clear that in Brent the majority of the victims of hate crime were Eastern Europeans. She said that the Council and councillors had to reach out beyond their comfort zone to make contact with the Eastern European community and should ensure that it did not take as long to provide services for them as it had for the Somalian community.
Cllr Carr, Lib Dem, supported the motion but warned that at the saem time we should protect free speech and 'the right to offend.'
Cllr Butt said that he wanted to send a positive message to those who were worried about their status after Brexit: 'Everyone is welcome in Brent, we value your contribution and will stand side by side with you.'
