Skip to content or view screen version

In the Name of Iraq? Luton Protesters Are Out of Touch

Hussein Al-Alak, London Progressive Journal | 23.03.2009 13:56 | Anti-racism | Iraq | Social Struggles | World

Many Arabs believe the group was even exploiting the Iraqi question to stir up racist divisions




What words can be used to the describe the protesters of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jammah, who recently took to the streets to greet the Royal Anglian Troops on their return from Iraq, with placards and chants and veiled women, shouting abuse at the soldiers as they marched in Luton.

The non-Iraqi group which organised the protest, is lead by an unemployed Asian who is allegedly in receipt of £25,000 worth of state benefits per year, and has also been quoted as saying that he is remaining in the UK because he likes “the fish and chips“ and wants to see all drunks flogged and women in Burkhas.

After the protest was staged, the Ahlus Sunnah have since been shocked by the public outrage to their actions and have claimed the response, is a consequence of the “racist nature of the British public”. For those of us who actually have roots within Iraq, many have found the demonstration to be counter productive, insensitive, racist, grotesque and crude. Many Arabs believe the group was even exploiting the Iraqi question to stir up racist divisions.

At risk of sounding simplistic, no Iraqi is currently receiving the equivalent of £25,000 per year in handouts, from either the "Iraqi" regime, international aid agencies or host countries. In fact, only last year the Iraqi government ended ration support to over five million people and, as it is commonly known, poverty within Iraq has lead to a dramatic growth in the sex trade, drug trafficking and kidnapping, with international news agencies reporting on the high levels of malnutrition among children and that some families have even been known to hunt in rubbish dumps for left over food.

The leader of Ahlus Sunnah, Mr Anjem Chowdry has also been fortunate, that his home in Luton is not being made the target of Mehdi Army or Badr Brigade death squads, that his mum, dad, wife and children, are not having holes drilled in their bodies under torture, or his female relatives are not experiencing rape, or being shot in the face for doing something basic like having a job. It’s fortunate that Mr Chowdry’s group can even afford the luxury of calling Britain "racist“, when in fact this delusional person doesn’t even understand the true meaning of the word.

Racism is when you have teenagers being crucified, or priests beheaded for being a priest, in attacks orchestrated by outside organisations, which came in with the occupation. Racism is when a country experiences hospitals being made the battle ground for those who are seeking to ethnically cleanse native Iraqi‘s of all ethnic groups. Racism is uprooting generations of people and forcing them into refugee camps along a country’s border, or imposing a higher rate of taxation upon minority groups. Racism is the forced separation of families, where men and women have been targeted by militias because they have been in a “Shiite/Sunni“ mixed marriage.

As for the drunks that Mr Chowdry wants to “flog”, it shows that his movement lacks even the basic understanding of human compassion, that he should want to see people publicly abused as a punishment for what is essentially a substance misuse problem which often has its roots in traumatic experiences, particularly in the case of troops and civilians caught up in war. Of course, such groups as his are too busy abusing people to have even read reports that Post Traumatic Stress Disorder has lead to a growth in alcohol and substance abuse among Iraqis and British troops alike. The absence of psychological support and functioning public facilities has meant that many Iraqis are turning to substances, in the attempt to survive what is going on around them.

But why should this be of concern, when shouting abuse at soldiers can grab the headlines of a national newspaper, which in the name of Iraq allows non-Iraqi groups to inform a country that you like “Fish and Chips” and your ultimate perspective is seeing the “flag of Allah” flying over Downing Street, that they see no shame in this, when silence exists over one million people dying as a result of the British governments actions. In this sense at least, these Muslim extremists and Britain's tabloid newspapers may be said to be singing from the same hymn sheet. After all, as it is said in Britain, the empty vessels always make the loudest noise.


Hussein Al-Alak, London Progressive Journal
- Homepage: http://www.iraqsolidaritycampaign.blogspot.com

Comments

Hide 1 hidden comment or hide all comments

Ahlus Sunnah

23.03.2009 18:03

It is unfortunate that our government pander to those sort of people because they cry racist when they can't get their own way. As you say, they really have no concept of what racism actually means.

When I hear that the goverment is happy to give Ahlus Sunnah £25,000 in state benefits when i have to work a in fulltime job to earn less, it makes me understandably angry. This is why people start listening to far right groups, because of people like Ahlus Sunnah.

Ultimately though, I think it is more the governments fault for not having the backbone to deal with such people in fear of some backlash.

ted


Why not protest at the troops

23.03.2009 22:03

Although we lambast the politicians for racist genocide, it seems to me that there is a feeling in the anti war movement that members of the armed forces are somehow exempt from responsibility for any actions they may carry out under orders. In 2003, 2 million people demonstrated in London against the forthcoming bombardment and invasion of Iraq, but spent the next five years going to work as normal, paying tax and funding the massacre. If those 2 million people had taken indefinite strike action the war could not have gone ahead and the ensuing genocide would have been avoided. At one point I was told that, if I suggested that people could stop paying tax "I would just alienate people". I was clearly out of touch with the feeling at the time. Routine protests became a weekend hobby and an opportunity to promote special interest groups, while Iraqi children had their arms and legs blown off, some by our own armed forces.

Although our armed forces have no choice about where they 'serve', they are human and as such have a free will. They chose to 'serve'. They may become victims of their own crime, of carrying out unlawful orders, but are fully responsible for it. They should be held to account, just as much as Bush and Blair. They should be just as much a target of protest as any politician, if not more so. With no willing forces the war could not have gone ahead.

The armed forces are told that they are fighting for their country and no one is telling them otherwise if they come home to an unchallenged rapturous heros welcome.

Many atrocities are racially aggravated, as are wars and maybe some anti war protests too. Although I hope they are more motivated by a revulsion of violence. Mr Anjem Chowdry and friends seem to be the only people brave enough to tackle the armed forces. They deserve some credit for that. Is their protest racially aggravated or are they just pointing out the racial diversity of the homeland of our armed forces, on their return from what many have maintained is a racially aggravated invasion and occupation?

anti war protester


Progressive?

23.03.2009 22:25

What is progressive about rehashing a load of tabloid tosh? Why is the author not concentrating on the issues, and instead reducing the whole matter to "fish and chips".

As for his definition of 'true' racism - how can this be taken seriously? Its not racist unless it involves crucifixions, beheadings or genocide - What is the man on?

As for the protestors 'luck' - perhaps it escaped the author's notice that the protest was about the killings in Iraq, not the conditions that the protestors live under.

I think it was pretty damn offensive to mount a public parade for the returning soldiers, a bit of ugly jingoism - exploited by Brown [1] :

""That pride in our armed forces was shown once again today when thousands turned out to welcome the 2nd Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment.

"It is therefore disappointing that a tiny minority tried, but ultimately failed, to disrupt today's event. We should all be proud of the outstanding work our armed forces do."

Yes - we should be proud that 'our boys' are sent to interfere in Iraq under palse pretences, unleashing the very hell that the author describes.

And then he lambasts the protestors for being non-Iraqi - as if no-one has a right to protest about Iraq if they aren't Iraqi.

LJ Sedley commented that 'the right to protest only inoffensively, was no right at all.'

The author would like to deny them the right to protest - and for some reason the London Progressive Journal publishes the bilge, the Iraq Solidarity Campaign adds it to their site and some plonker posts it up here.

[1]  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/7935049.stm

Free Iraq and Palestine


@progressive?

23.03.2009 23:30

I think you've missed the authors point. In that Ahlus Sunnah and his slippery friends are jumping on the protest bandwagon for their own ends (ie. Islam becoming the ruling force in the UK) and then shouting 'racist' next day because the offended majority criticised them.

We shouldn't forget: we live in a democracy. So, by definition, the majority's view is actually MORE IMPORTANT than the minority.

He also didn't quite understand that people are actually allowed to criticise him without being labelled racists because, guess what...... they arn't being racist. Ultimately, criticising someone does not make you a racist. And being islamic does not give you an automatic 'they are being racist' card.

Which leads to the authors final point that these "protestors" are no better than the tabloids by using cheap little tricks like: "You don't like what i say? Then you are a racist"

liz


WTF is this shit doing on indymedia?

24.03.2009 00:16

An article that slags off protesters and uses the info that one of them claims social security benefits as a way to discredit their position? what is this, the daily mail!!!?

this suck


liz

24.03.2009 01:12

"I think you've missed the authors point. In that Ahlus Sunnah and his slippery friends are jumping on the protest bandwagon for their own ends (ie. Islam becoming the ruling force in the UK) and then shouting 'racist' next day because the offended majority criticised them."

Is it? So you think he interviewed the protestors do you? Rather than rehashing the claims that the tabloids made. I think the term 'slippery friends' indicates your agenda pretty clearly. I fail to see how that protest could lead to Islam becoming the ruling force in the UK - I think you're not being very logical - I bet you never met the protestors either.

"We shouldn't forget: we live in a democracy. So, by definition, the majority's view is actually MORE IMPORTANT than the minority."

Oh really? Is that true for suffragettes and slave abolitionists as well? And what is it that THE MAJORITY support her liz? The killing of Iraqis on false pretexts?

"He also didn't quite understand that people are actually allowed to criticise him without being labelled racists because, guess what...... they arn't being racist. Ultimately, criticising someone does not make you a racist. And being islamic does not give you an automatic 'they are being racist' card."

Yes - I'm not suprised you reject the racist claims - "slippery friends" was the term you used, was it not? And then you misrepresented the demo and pretended that it wasn't about Iraq.

Even the Telegraph was fairer than you:

"When asked about the British soldiers from the Regiment who had died in Iraq, he told The Daily Telegraph: "They have lost men but while they were there many innocent Iraqis lost their lives.

"I am outraged that these soldiers paraded through the streets. They are nothing more than hired mercenaries, war criminals, terrorists.

"I was simply voicing my anger, in a lawful, peaceful way, against the Nazi British Army and the war. I do not regret that."
 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4976105/Luton-parade-protesters-were-members-of-extremist-group.html

"Which leads to the authors final point that these "protestors" are no better than the tabloids by using cheap little tricks like: "You don't like what i say? Then you are a racist"

Whatever liz. You appear to be on the wrong site altogether.

Try:  http://www.thesun.co.uk/discussions/forums/show/News-2.page

You'll have a ball.

Free Iraq and Palestine


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

yep

24.03.2009 02:25

>> Is it? So you think he interviewed the protestors do you? Rather than rehashing the claims that the tabloids made. I think th..."

lol, it was on the TV and the Radio!

>> Oh really? Is that true for suffragettes and slave abolitionists as well? And what is it that THE MAJORITY support her liz? The killing of Iraqis on false pretexts?
The majority of people on the street that particular day were supporting the return of the the soldiers and welcoming them back home. The majority also poured scorn on the protestors because they were disgusted by their actions. The majority then shouted down the protestors. Whether you like it or not, we have chosen to abide by a democratic system, so the majority's viewpoint is more important than the minorities. You don't like it? - tough, thats the way a democracy works.

>>Yes - I'm not suprised you reject the racist claims - "slippery friends" was the term you used, was it not? And then you misrepresented the demo and pretended that it wasn't about Iraq.
This is the whole point of the article. I'm calling them slippery for reasons that have nothing to do with their race. I'm criticising them for their intent and their motives based upon what they have said and done in present and past. Stop crying racist as somekind of last resort scattergun approach. Everytime someone cries racist when it isn't, is actually trivialising all the good work done in fighting racism.

>> Whatever liz. You appear to be on the wrong site altogether.
In your opinion. There were a few thousand supports of the soldiers shouting down a handful of the protestors so, even though your viewpoint is perfectly legitiment, it is ultimately in the minority.

It is interesting to note that the authorities allowed the protestors to have their say, yet Geert Wilders was prevented from having his. So, before you cry racist again, consider who has been given the greater leeway.


liz


yep

24.03.2009 02:25

>> Is it? So you think he interviewed the protestors do you? Rather than rehashing the claims that the tabloids made. I think th..."

lol, it was on the TV and the Radio!

>> Oh really? Is that true for suffragettes and slave abolitionists as well? And what is it that THE MAJORITY support her liz? The killing of Iraqis on false pretexts?
The majority of people on the street that particular day were supporting the return of the the soldiers and welcoming them back home. The majority also poured scorn on the protestors because they were disgusted by their actions. The majority then shouted down the protestors. Whether you like it or not, we have chosen to abide by a democratic system, so the majority's viewpoint is more important than the minorities. You don't like it? - tough, thats the way a democracy works.

>>Yes - I'm not suprised you reject the racist claims - "slippery friends" was the term you used, was it not? And then you misrepresented the demo and pretended that it wasn't about Iraq.
This is the whole point of the article. I'm calling them slippery for reasons that have nothing to do with their race. I'm criticising them for their intent and their motives based upon what they have said and done in present and past. Stop crying racist as somekind of last resort scattergun approach. Everytime someone cries racist when it isn't, is actually trivialising all the good work done in fighting racism.

>> Whatever liz. You appear to be on the wrong site altogether.
In your opinion. There were a few thousand supports of the soldiers shouting down a handful of the protestors so, even though your viewpoint is perfectly legitiment, it is ultimately in the minority.

It is interesting to note that the authorities allowed the protestors to have their say, yet Geert Wilders was prevented from having his. So, before you cry racist again, consider who has been given the greater leeway.


liz


liz - disenfranchise yourself

24.03.2009 08:32

" The majority also poured scorn on the protestors because they were disgusted by their actions. The majority then shouted down the protestors. Whether you like it or not, we have chosen to abide by a democratic system, so the majority's viewpoint is more important than the minorities. You don't like it? - tough, thats the way a democracy works."

No shit sherlock. The majority of people at a jingoistic event were unthinking supporters of the murder machine. As for this democracy - sufragettes fought for your vote even though they were a minority. I hope you'll boycott the polls in future to show your outrage.

Free Iraq and Palestine


oh dear...

24.03.2009 12:14

I fully support the protest against the returning troops.

The war was illegal and morally wrong - "I was following orders" doesn't negate anyone from responsibility. The British troops committed a War crime, just by going to Iraq, and many committed further acts upon the Iraqi people. They should be held accountable along with the politicians.

All members of the military make the decision to serve, or not. Of course it is a good way to get educated, for those that haven't a chance of a good job or training, however this can't be used as an explanation to why people join up; I have more respect for people claim benefits - than those who serve the forces.

The article bringing up how much the protesters receive in benefits is totally meaningless - mainly because we know nothing of their situation. Instead we will stop helping those that don't hold the same view, what next no access to education or the NHS.

A counter view could equally suggest that the wages paid to the forces are nothing more than blood money, or that the UK spends too much on the military, and supporting the UK arms trade by providing around £12,000 per an employee in the industry...

This, so called majority reaction to the protest isn't just racist, it is also managed by government, with the full support of the British press & media.

Sam


Right to Protest

24.03.2009 21:16

I agree with the protest but not the messages they were holding. I would have listed the names of those killed in this illegal war. "Thousands dead what is there to celebrate?"
"No WMD, The Government lied to us and the soldiers" "Support our troops bring them back home now!"

I found the whole parade rather distasteful! Why is it that the politicians think and expect us to "support our boys" the moment they are deployed overseas regardless of the fact that this attack of Iraq is immoral and illegal! Also look at the way the zio media uses the word "Hero" . I am sorry but hero for what? For fighting an army of a country with harsh 10 years of sanctions, no airforce, no weapons! I still remember the picture of the Iraqi soldier who was sleeping in the back of a pick up and he had a massive hole in his shoe! The pictured summed up who we were fighting! Hans Blix ensured what little weapons the Iraqis had was destroyed so that our "BRAVE" boys can go in and ACT all brave!

The British soldiers are protecting us from whom and what! When did Iraq last attack and invade Britain?

Be proud of your country but don't give blind support just because it is what one is supposed to do!

The brave soldiers are those who refused to participate in this occupation and oppression of Iraqis.

As for the group who protested I think they are just attention seekers otherwise why on earth would you make comments such as "Sharia Law in Britain" "Britain will be an Islamic State" "British women in Burkha". One can clearly see they want publicity! Why on earth would you make such a staement when the likelihood of Britain becoming an Islamic country is NIL. With 2 million muslims in a population of 60 million some serious movement in demographics is required before Islamic Law becomes a threat! But ofcourse the zionist media loves to publicise and add their lies to do some muslim bashing!

Where was the zionist media when some 200 plus BRITISH MUSLIMS drove an aid convoy to Gaza? Thousands more muslims helped to raise million plus!



John Smith


Protesting protests

25.03.2009 16:21

I have never come across people condemning troops as criminals, but if I had then I would have protested the protest. The troops are not to blame for the wars they are sent on. It is good to see sensible criticism of the protest here.

Danny


Hide 1 hidden comment or hide all comments