"Threat to burn Monica Ali book at meeting" reads the sub-heading in today's Guardian newspaper [page 14] allegedly reporting on an alleged campaign meeting. This is a serious item of 'news'. What is the context? Why is the Guardian able to 'find' such 'threats'? Is the Guardian being genuine in its reporting or is there perhaps an agenda to further distort the image of the community and make it look even more deserving of deprivation and misrepresentation?
The GUARDIAN backs CROSSRAIL Hole attack on east end, plugs 'book burning'
The guardian newspaper and its over-rated ‘guardian unlimited’ web site have been suppressing the real protests in defence of the brick lane and Whitechapel London e1 area over the pats three years.
Perhaps there is a guardian agenda when it comes to matters to do with a genuinely democratic multi-ethnic, multi-religious society that includes significant numbers of Muslims in its population.
Perhaps the agenda that the GUARDIAN follows when allegedly reporting a community of that description goes like this – if the campaign is intellectually high calibre and is conducted in a way that is lawful, dignified, coherent and democratic then the guardian preference is to suppress it.
However, if suppression is made untenable in view of the overwhelming evidence on the ground then the guardian second preference is top distort the situation and paint a picture so untrue that no truthful person aware of the facts could ever believe anything that the guardian ever published about anything that combined any part of the population that includes Muslims and had also the elements of any democratic representation in it.
That seems to be what has happened over CROSSRAIL.
The campaign led by Khoodeelaar! Against Crossrail hole attacks has been going on in the EAST END of London for almost three years now.
And even by the evidence provided by the Transport Secretary at the time, Alistair Darling, MP in his own ‘written statement’ dated 30 march 2006, the negative and devastating impact of the Crossrail hole plan on the East End would have been so serious that the Government conceded campaigners’ demand and abandoned the dirt hole plan that had been made in the first texts of the Crossrail Bill.
Yet the Guardian has not played any part in that significant phenomenon at all.
Whereas the Guardian ahs published hundreds of thousands of items in the past three years allegedly about events within the UK society, there has been neither a report nor a significant comment or mentionable item published by either the Guardian ort by the 'Guardian Unlimited, website in all that time about the very powerful community defence against Crossrail that the Khoodeelaar! Campaign has symbolised and carried out.
Apart from a typically ignorant and misleading report that over-dozed on a racist and divisive ‘ethnicity-based’ innuendo-filled characterisation of the ‘campaign’ in July 2004, the Guardian newspaper [and the 'Guardian Unlimited' web site] have refsued to carry any of the thousands of very detailed reports published by Khoodeelaar! and seen by thousands of people in the past 32 months.
The long term and the short term economic, social and environmental destruction to the area that the remaining Crossrail hole plan will cause has been suppressed by the Guardian.
And two days after the UK House of Commons Crossrail Bill Select Committee made a strange announcement [ Tuesday 25 July 2006] of a strange interim decision, which slipped in the committee’s servile and in effect whipped endorsement of the CrossRail hole plan on Hanbury Street – which has featured as a key aspect of the reason for the Khoodeelaar! campaign against Crossrail – the Guardian has painted a picture of Brick Lane today [Thursday 27 July 2006] that is more like Bradford in 1989 when the alleged fanatic opponents of Salman Rushdie’s ‘book’ were reported as having set fire to a copy of the Rushdie book.
There has been no indication in the past three years in anything that has appeared about the East End of London in the Guardian [or on its website] that shows even a fraction of affinity with the truth of the community, the reality of how the Blairing Tower Hamkest Coucnil is systematically breaking up the community and making the area increasingly more suitable for the Big Business, multinational takeover.
If there is any dissension around Brick Lane and the East End of London, the seeds of that dissension were sown and or given legitimacy by a Guardian group that was bent on fomenting disaffection, race and ethnicity-based rivalry, antagonism and fan the flames of hatred against particularly teetered religious and cultural groups who neither did anything to deserve the Guardian’s incitement nor deserved to be so betrayed via a news group that boats of being interested in opposing intolerance and in telling the truth.
Nothing could be more damaging to the East End economically and socially than the attack represented by the Crossrail hole in the next few years.
yet the Guardian treats the Crossrail attack as warranted!
No wodne3r the Guardian wants to portray the Brick Lane and Whitechapel London E1 area as being in the grip of a fanatic, fundamentalist uproar which can only be quelled by more and racist state and social repression, by more attacks on targeted religious, social and ethnicity linked groups!
Given the record of the Guardian going back more than 50 years of suppressing the truth about the demography and the social realities of the inner cities generally and of the East End of London in particular, it is very likely that the Guardian is suppressing the news about the Crsosrail hole plot on the East End as a contribution to Tony Blair's agenda that will be aided by the Guardian's latest promotion of a fanatic, book-burning image of the East End !
Further violations of the rights of the people in the East End can then be shown not only understandable but desirable !
e-mail:
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 23 comments
spelling of BOOK-BURNING
27.07.2006 09:08
Khoodeelaaronline
e-mail:
lawmedia@yahoo.co.uk
Homepage:
http://www.khoodeelaar.com
some confusions
27.07.2006 10:09
not had any poetry from you for a while, what a shame.... A} the guardian obviously does not support the khooledar campaign because it is a middle class newspaper, promoting the interests of the middle class. What does this have to do with Monica Ali or Salman Rushdie? I mean, they are authors whose work is being promoted by the Guardian because it is good, not because they want to attack the East End particularly. Which is more than can be said of your poetry. is not this gripe just about the fact that your poetry is shit and no one will promote it and you need to publish on Indymedia??
ali
reply to 'Ali"
27.07.2006 10:19
if your name is ali
my name is sally,
you are a liar
in pay of Tony Bliar
working for the fascist Guardian
in pay of the imperialist aggressor
so no to wonder you are a distressor
a racist confessor
breaking up da community
you are misnamed Ali
m haque
a novel idea
27.07.2006 10:59
Keith
The 'm haque' piece was not written by Muhammad Haque
27.07.2006 10:59
The 'm haque' piece, as shown on this site and following my original piece about the Guardian was not written by Muhammad Haque
I neither wrote it nor asked anyone to do so . Whoever has done that should not do so again.
And the indymedia ‘volunteers’ should be alert to this impersonation. They must stop impersonating items being displayed on the indymedia sites or on any linked sites or pages.
The key point of my original item about the Guardian this morning [Thursday 27 July 2007] is this: why has the Guardian not carried a single piece about the Crossrail attack on the Brick Lane and Whitechapel London E1 area
In the past five years during which the Tower Hamkest Coucnil has done the worst series of damage against the local community by making the secret deals for the Crossrail hole attacks on the area, the Guardian HAS carried several promotional pieces for the Tower Hamlets Council. Not one of those pieces would meet the requirements as claimed to be followed by the Guardian’s own editor, Alan Rusbridger. I am here thinking of Rusbridger's statements in relation to the Press Complaints Commission generally and his utterances, memos etc about 'editorial ethics'
On the matter of the Guardian carrying a second pieces in less than 10 days allegedly about the campaign against the 'Monica Ali' matter, the Guardian has published plain lies and the incitement about 'book-burning' is going to cause far more damage to the community than anything that the actual camapgn, set up on 15 July 2006, ever said or intended to so.
So, the question remains, why is the Guardian promoting phantoms who are bent on doing things like book-burning around Brick Lane?
Why is the Guardian giving ANY space to that at all?
What community's image is targeted for negative impact here?
The Khoodeelaar! Campaign against Crossrail has shown over the past 32 months the very serious damage that the community will suffer in economic terms, in social terms and in other respects if the Crsosrail hole attacks are not stopped.
At no point has any of our action been contrary to basic common sense, let alone contrary to the particular laws concerning public order and tolerance in society.
So why is the Guardian sop keen to portray a violent image of the Eats End while continuing to suppress the news and comments against the Crossrail hole attacks?
Muhammad Haque
e-mail:
lawmedia@hotmail.com
Tasleema Nasreen
27.07.2006 11:07
Kabir
Tasleema Nasreen
27.07.2006 11:07
Kabir
Crossrail hole in Hanbury street will sink many shops, ruin lives
27.07.2006 12:18
Let's hear about that and what the local community can do to stop the Crossrail hole
Objector to Crossrail
Hmmm....
27.07.2006 14:44
OK - so now you're saying The Guardian is making people up. If Abdus Salique is not the lead convener of the Campaign Against Monica Ali's Film Brick Lane and did not say he was going to burn the book or that "[Monica Ali] has the right to freedom of speech, we have the right to burn books" then I hope Mr Salique takes libel action against the paper. The funny thing is, I don't think he will because - call me naive - I don't think they'd invent anything that nutty and inflammatory without firm basis for fear of being sued or taken to the Press Complaints Commission. If you've got evidence that he *didn't* say that, or that the bloke they photographed does not actually exist, please post it on here.
Is it an interesting story that the campaign among the Bangladeshi community has led the producers of the film to stop making it in the Brick Lane area? Erm - yes. Kind of weird, actually, that noone from the anti-film campaign posted anything up here celebrating that.
There are then howls of outrage that the Khoodelaar campaign has never been mentioned by The Guardian, a suggestion that it's a deliberate cover-up. Can you give an example of *any* national newspaper to ever mention the Khodelaar campaign by name. Publication details would be handy or a weblink to one of the pieces.
Then there's also the stuff about the Guardian's deliberate campaign to promote Crossrail and the suggestion it was deeply biased. I've not done a proper web-trawl but I can only find one big piece they've done on Crossrail in the last two years. It was a front page story on April 2, 2005 with the headline "New rail tunnel may undermine London landmarks" and the whole piece seems pretty bloody negative about Crossrail to me:
Please could you also publish a link to somewhere that you set out clearly what your objections to Crossrail are. I'm genuinely interested. I'm sure it's going to cause lots of problems, but the only place I've read a clear description of them was, erm, in The Guardian article above plus some stuff in local papers. I work in the East End and want to know what the Khodeelaar campaign has to say, but you only seem to publish paranoid rants full of wild conjecture and easily proveable innaccuracies.
Please prove me wrong.
Norville B
Is it true Mayor Ken has been given £5M to buy off East Enders for Xrail?
27.07.2006 14:49
But I look in vain in my local rag for any news. Instead I read piles of plugs for all manner of fun things that have nothing to do with the truth of what's going on.
Where can I read the truth ?
The info I heard about Ken Livingstone's having got £5 million came to me by accident. A colleague in the association I belong to just mentioned it as we chatted about how remote the local council was, how we had nobody to speak for us in the local council and stuff like that.
Stepney resident
The evidenec against Crossrail plot is overwhelming - UK economy doesn't need it
27.07.2006 17:25
To 'Norvilleb'
The arguments against Crossrail are straightforward. You will have to find the time to read up on all the relevant topics involved.
Those are very detailed and will demand time and patience on the part of anyone who is seriously interested to know the facts and see the evidence.
Here is a very brief summary of an aspect of the objection to the crassly connected CrossRail plot that I have made during the past 32 months.
The majority of the objections to Crossrail have been published on the internet.
But a significant part of the analysis has also been demonstrated and conveyed in communications that have been taking place between Khoodeelaar! And the Department for Transport and other institutional promoters of the crassly conceived project.
The economic case for Crossrail is non-existent.
The UK macro economy does not need a Crossrail.
So the case the Crossrail promoters have made falls.
There is no evidence anywhere in anything any economist has published based on a comprehensive study of the UK economy over any reliable period in the past 30nyears on the performance of the uk transport system that says that a crossrail is the solution to whatever aspect of the transport system the crossrail plan is supposed to address.
The micro economy, defined in relation to the part of London that is identifiable by reference to the inner city east end is not in need of a crossrail.
The claim by crossrail promoters that it will 'bring benefits' is not made and cannot be mace when compared to the disbenefits it will cause. Those will overwhelm the alleged benefits.
There is no justification for the public money being spent in a mainly construction-intensive programme that will not transform the sustainable part of the existing UK transport economy.
There is no part of the UK economy that is not functioning to the optimum level because there is no Crossrail.
Compared to the costs involved in building a crossrail, the existing railway infrastructure is many times more economical if a fraction of planned public expenditure earmarked for the crossrail plan is applied to improving the quality and standard of the existing networks and rolling stock.
There are ten other heads of objections to Crossrail that I have identified and elaborated on in the past 32 months.
Muhammad Haque
e-mail:
lawmedia@hotmail.com
Homepage:
http://www.khoodeelaar.co.uk
Kabir
28.07.2006 09:53
OK, but what is the link
reply to Kabir
28.07.2006 10:00
kabir, kabir
tickety tack
whackety whack
dont attack
da community
you are glad
but we are sad
we get mad
we are not rad
but we have never been had
and we're not just a bunch of lads
who work and pray
and stay up all day
and we're not in the pay
of the paymaster Guardian
M Huque
The link thing - The Guardian's preference for violent Bangladeshi phantom
28.07.2006 15:34
1. Regarding the posts saying there is no link between the original Muhammad Haque / Khoodeelaar! Post about the Guardian giving publicity to Monica Ali and not reporting on the campaign against Crossrail,: what clearer link does one need?
2. The Guardian leads the way in British liberal camp cries of outrage at any fundamentalists. As it did in 1989 when the crowd in Bradford burnt a copy of the Salman Rushdie Book.
3. Ever since, the Muslims have been mentioned without fail, whenever censorship has been mentioned.
4. No other religious or cultural group has been so closely identified - or LINKED - with the banning of free speech or free expression as the Muslims have been.
5. And no other event has been known in Brian to compare with that incident of the Salman Rushdie book being burn in Bradford.
6. It is very strange that the same Guardian which reported deep anguish on the parts of all lovers of freedom of speech and freedom of expression and their Guardian-recorded despair at the 'Muslims' burning the book, should be reporting, on two separate occasions by the same journalist [Paul Lewis], alleged silence and an alleged threat to burn the Monica Ali book in Brick Lane.
7. The Guardian has not expressed any anguish. In fact the Guardian has been increasing the space and prominence the newspaper has obviously decided to give to the phantom that it has wanted to create in Brick Lane and describe its own creature, the book-burning phantom Brick Lane protester as the 'camapgn of Bangladeshis against Monica Ali in Brick Lane'.
8. Why would the Guardian condone an alleged maker of an alleged threat to burn the Monica Ali book, any ‘book’?
9. In what campaign setting did the Guardian 'meet' this 'leader'?
10. What evidence of what support did Paul Lewis witness on the streets of Brick Lane before the alleged threat to burn the book?
11. This has been the question that has emerged as the key question bout the Guardian media organisation’s decision to actively promote the phantom of a Brick Lane Bangladesh campaign that is violent to the point of being openly preparing to burn the Monica Ali book the first post which drew victors' attention to it.
12. The other point is that according to the Guardian [170-18 July 2006 and 26 July 2006] both the Police and the Tower Hamlets Council have been shown to be going out of their way to accommodate this Guardian-reported violent and book-burning ‘Brick Lane camapgn’ phantom!
13. As if the whole thing was set up under orders of Tiny Blair and the Police and Tower Hamlets Council were waiting ready to comply with the violent, book-burning ‘campaign’ demands!
14. Very odd indeed.
15. Compare this to the campaign against Crossrail. That Crossrail is going to decimate the Brick Lane community. In more ways than one.
16. Yet the very people that the Guardian is allegedly reporting as being violently against Monica Ali book-film, have not been heard or seen anywhere to be backing the camapgn against Crsosrail. How odd is that?
17. The answer might lie in the fact that the actual camapgn against the defamation of the community in the East End of London is so highly ethical and morally couched that to give them any space in the Guardian would defeat the agenda the Guardian exists to support and propagate – to show a population with significant Muslim leadership in it [as is the case in Tower Hamlets where Brick Lane is] as being naturally [!] violent and intolerant!
18. The Guardian’s role in creating the phantom, violent, book burning ‘Bangladeshi camapgn’ around Brick Lane on this occasion has proven so much about the Guardian’s own traditional and historic service that newspaper has rendered in keeping the myth going that to be Muslim is to be violent, irrational and militant and that the only world where the likes of the average Guardian reader would be able to live in reasonable peace would be a world where the Muslims do not share any leadership. No surprise then that the Guardian prefers Crsosrail to sink the East End community which does contain significant Muslim leadership in it. No wonder that the Guardian does want the East End also to become included in the list of the notorious violent, book-burning militants. That way the Guardian can do its job of having the evidences it needs to report on the mysteries of the Muslim propensities to irrationality, violence and lack of freedom
Justsurfing
Campaiagn against Monica Ali violations of community disowns 'threats'
28.07.2006 21:44
To read the Muhammad Haque rejoinder today [Friday 28 July 2006] to David Sexton's "The Brick Lane book burners are a menace to our liberty" as published on page 12 of the London Evening Standard on Friday 28 July 2006, visit
Campaign Against Defamation of the Community in the East End of London
e-mail:
cdceel@yahoo.co.uk
Homepage:
http://uk.geocities.com/aadhikareditor/muhammadhaque_cdceel_es_sexton28july2006.html
Eastenders wish to peacefully oppose defamatyion of community
29.07.2006 07:45
Eastender
still no link
29.07.2006 10:06
Kabir
The Guardian is stuffed with anti-Sylhetti bias record - eg Anne McHardie
29.07.2006 14:05
CBRUKcentral is participating in a historic survey of UK media role in creating what seems to be a planned image of the Seelotee speakers [Sylhetti-speakers] and generally of the Seelotee people.
Our programme has been going on for more than a decade and the findings are set to be published in the SEELOTworld journal later in 2006.
One of our subjects has been the print media in the British mainstream. And the most prominent element in that has been the Guardian.
Here we make this exclusive analytical revelation for the first time since the Monica Ali ‘hit the stands’ as it were:-
Twenty four years ago, the Guardian published a so-called ordinary news item about school places in inner London.
The byline was given to Anne McHardie.
McHardie went on to become a senior Guardian executive.
Her piece in September 1982 was totally racist and ignorant.
That incident of the Guardian's racism was aggravated by an utterly unjustified bias and concentration against the Sylhetti aspect of the identity of the pupils who were allegedly making the schools authorities in inner London experience distressing management problems.
There was no factual basis for that piece to be written in the emotionally anti-Sylhetti way that it was written.
Barely four years before that, the Guardian carried a similarly uncalled for and ignorant piece. But the piece, bylined to Lindsay McKie, was so bad that she was contacted by a Sylhetti rights advocate.
McKie was challenged to justify her attack on the Sylhettis.
When asked to produce evidence to justify the racist ignorant piece she had written, McKie fumbled before claiming that she had ‘Sylhetti friends’.
To this day, we have not been able to find a single person in the population who is Sylhetti and who has been friends with Lindsay McKie.
It is worth noting that the ‘letter’ by ‘Iqbal Ahmed’ reads very much like the article that Lindsay McKie had written against the Sylhettis in 1978.
We would be very interested to find out if an Iqbal Hussain really exists and if he lives in Ilford and if so, what evidence does he have to make the anti-Sylhetti claims in the Guardian that he did make.
That is assuming that he is not another of the Guardian’s phantoms that we have been reading about.
Incidentally, CBRUKcentral is noticing the incidents of the impersonation going on. The name ‘M Haque’ or ‘M Huque’ in context is not the name of Mr Muhammad Haque.
It is vital that that evidence is included in the claims against the Guardian and or its fellow travelling operatives of misinformation, stereotyping and phantom-creating journalism
CBRUKCentral
e-mail:
cbrukcentral@yahoo.co.uk
Haque
02.08.2006 12:29
You must be on crack
You goin off da deep end
When you rant about da Eats End
Media conspiracy?
Intervention of the military?
You paranoid, dat's dat
Don't forget your tinfoil hat!
You really an Eats Enda?
You jus a round-da-benda.
Not like Ricky or Bianca
Jus a silly wanka
DM
Abuse of the critics of the Guardian invention of fanatic phantom proves Guardi
03.08.2006 12:02
The Guardian has never been held to account in Britain. Largely due to the fact that it is on the whole the only British newspaper that has any space given to so-called liberal issues i. The history is being challenged quite effectively by the Independent. But the length of time that the Guardian has been around explains why the Independent is as yet not associated with the concept of any liberal British newspaper.
The Guardian’s agenda is deeply racist.
It has a long record of legitimising racism.
And the Crusade.
No wonder anyone with a ‘Arabic’ name who also happens to raise critical questions about the Guardian, is then traversed for attacks regardless of the
Evidence.
So we have here a situation where the reasonable, reasoned, rational, ethical campaign set up to defend the image of the whole of the East End, turned so unfairly and inaccurately upside down by the Guardian as to make the rationalist of the camapgn appear to have as their ‘token’ a phantom whom the Giuaart5diun then people to a location where only a phantom is visible.
The community that is now voicing the opposition to the attacks by the those like the Guardian has in fact experienced image wise the kind of moral, factual, social and cultural distortion that even the Monica Ali ‘book’ might not contain.
That is a very important fact.
And because the founding members of the community campaign against the defamation of the community in the eats End of London understood that, they did not refer to the camapgn as anything to do with the literal texts of any book, including the literal texts of the Monica Ali ‘book’.
That was very surprising for the agenda setters who operate the biased and the racist agenda via the ‘liberal; Guardian.
They found that there was no fanatic figure in the camapgn. No fanatic utterance.
So they decided to abandon the rational camapgn against Monica Ali tool altogether and opted for any phantom that would suit the purpose. That purpose was to use the Guardian's liberal image to stage perhaps this century's most lethal perpetration against a community in the UK.
That Guardian purpose was to mount an attack on the East End. And how the Guardian found their phantom and propelled it to the limits!
Now all the Guardian can rely on for defence is personal abuse and name calling !
Is that the moral standard of behaviour fitting the Guardian of free expression?
1255
Thursday 3 August 2006
povertycity
poverty rising in britain but the guardian says we are getting better off!
05.08.2006 19:20
bystander
Campaign against Defamation Seminar on 'Monica Ali as tool for violations'
09.08.2006 08:45
Campaign against Defamation Seminar on 'Monica Ali as tool for violations'
Seminar in the Brick Lane Whitechapel London E1 venue
Sunday 20 August 2006
Topics include
The role of the media in fomenting defamatory sterotypes
Attendance by invitation
CDCEEL
e-mail:
cdceel@yahoo.co.uk
have you any book written on brick lane by people who condemn monica ?
25.11.2006 23:37
student of world literature