We received correspondence from the Middle East Eye (MEE) web-site which was not only bizarre, it promoted a conspiratorial line of questioning where the journalist explicitly made a link between Government support to counter extremism and promote shared values through the Building Stronger Britain Together (BSBT) programme and how “the government is using public funds to support political attacks on the leader of the opposition”. This is what the journalist, (Simon Hooper), wrote in his e-mail – that there was a covert plan by Government to attack the leader of the opposition. It was suggested by him that Faith Matters and Muslims Against Antisemitism (MAAS) were involved in this conspiracy theory.

Given the nature of his questions, we wanted to stipulate the following publicly, (unlike groups like Middle East Eye who have repeatedly deflected questions on where their funding comes from).

Faith Matters has received no funding from the Prevent programme, unlike other groups who have been heavily funded and who continue to deny that funding whilst working with Muslim communities. At the very least these organisations should be open about it, as it tackles risk to our communities and country. We have received no social media training via the Home Office, unlike other organisations and we are proud to have developed Muslims Against Antisemitism, which receives no Government funding. Furthermore, we have received no assistance in counter-messaging from the Home Office.

Hooper’s theory that the Government is funding an anti-Corbyn campaign is not only perverse, it brings into question how such a twisted conspiracy could have been formulated.

Faith Matters has responded to the allegation and line of questioning in the below manner (in bold), which Middle East Eye journalist, Simon Hooper, purposefully claims he is not going to cite in his e-mail to us. It was the explicit comment below that he was instructed to use as our response and which he says he is not going to. So, the question we ask, is why not? Why is the Middle East Eye not willing to be transparent about its own funding or which state that money emanates from?

The response we gave him was:

“Given the irony that it is MEE who are apparently the beneficiary of political or State funding, it would be wholly inappropriate for us to provide any response to your unfounded and potentially defamatory assertions.”

Instead, by-passing our explicit statement, Hooper said that he would use a statement that was marked as private and confidential by our solicitor. Breaking a trust, (hardly good practice from from a journalist), he stated in an e-mail that he would use the following comment from our defamation and libel solicitor:

“Faith Matters received (BSBT support) from the Home Office and acts without fear or favour in its criticisms of anyone including politicians or political parties whose words or actions risk stirring up anti-religious hatred. It does so, and will continue to do so, from wherever such words or actions emanate”.

The BSBT programme is separate to the counter-terrorism strategy and was developed to build resilient communities against all forms of extremism. We utilized that funding to counter far right and online extremism and promote civil society and democratic engagement to young people, hardly any secretive ploy to attack Jeremy Corbyn.

Given that a number of our staff have been subjected to repeated and long-term threats, intimidation and abuse, we made a decision not to highlight this support publicly, but did do so to partner organisations and those working within the anti-extremism (far right) activities, so that they were aware. This is perfectly reasonable given the long term threats to colleagues and to our organisation, including threats to mob our offices by anti-Muslim activists.

Faith Matters has been and will continue to be critical of the poor way in which antisemitism has been tackled within the Labour Party and the way that Jeremy Corbyn has linked up with groups who have a very poor track record of relationships with communal Jewish organisations. Correspondingly, we have consistently been critical of the Conservative Party and their lack of transparency and action around stamping out anti-Muslim bigotry within parts of their membership base. Notably, Middle East Eye have missed this element out and focused on the former. 

It is also interesting to note what respected BBC journalist Daniel Sandford said of the Middle East Eye in August 2019:

“The story about the Home Office secretly funding the “This is woke” social media brand was brought to us by Middle East Eye, whose funder is unknown. Sigh. They are all at it.”

He then added:

“Basically what you do is run a “news” or “issues” web-site or brand. Put all kinds of content interesting to your target audience on it, and then slip in hidden messages or a deliberate editorial slant.”

Sandford clearly understood MEE is about.

Financing of Middle East Eye

Little information can be found on the funding sources of Middle East Eye. David Hearst, the MEE’s editor in Chief who was a former foreign correspondent for The Guardian has refused to highlight where the site’s financing comes from. He has previously stated that it comes from “individual private donors”. So much for the transparency that they try and enforce on others.

Hearst has previously written articles somewhat fawningly entitled, “It’s open season on the Muslim Brotherhood” and “Why the West Cannot Afford to Ignore Political Islam”.

In an article for Middle East Monitor (MEMO) in February 2019, Hearst commented on the cancelling of a Parliamentary room booked for the controversial Chris Williamson MP where the film ‘WitchHunt’, sympathetic to Labour activist Jackie Walker was to be shown. Hearst stated:

“The debate about antisemitism in the Labour Party is all about Israel, and whether indeed anti-Zionism is antisemitic”.

He also went onto add:

“The problem lies with the Board of Deputies (of British Jews) which claims to speak for all Jews in Britain. These are the leaders who have appointed themselves judge, jury and hangman in each and every allegation of antisemitism”.

For Hearst to reject what was at its heart calls to tackle antisemitism in Labour, betrays any empathy or understanding for Jewish Members of Parliament like Luciana Berger, Louise Ellman or Ruth Smeeth MP.

Additionally, Hearst’s attack on a respected communal organization where Board members are elected and held accountable by members of Jewish communities, was not only uncalled for, it deflected from the abhorrent and misjudged comments by Walker who previously said:

“In terms of Holocaust Day, wouldn’t it be wonderful if Holocaust Day was open to all people who experience Holocaust?”

This seems like a noble sentiment and when challenged that Holocaust Memorial Day included other genocides such as Rwanda and Srebrenica, she stated that it was not ‘advertised’ as such – which was patently untrue.

The Director of Middle East Eye – Jamal Bassasso

Al Jazeera (AJ) connections with Middle East Eye also should raise eyebrows as to who finances this outlet? The Director of Middle East Eye Ltd is Jamal Bassasso who was a former director of planning and human resources at Al Jazeera. It is also known that Jonathan Powell, who worked with Al Jazeera since 2009, was one of the founding members who supported the infrastructural set up of Middle East Eye. Powell worked for around 6 months to support the set up of MEE before returning to Doha to carry on his work for Al Jazeera.

Bassasso was a former director for  Samalink, which in turn was the registered agent for the website of the Hamas linked Al Quds TV. Hamas’ antisemitism is well known, and let us not forget that Hamas recently saluted Jeremy Corbyn for his support for a pro-Palestinian rally in which a speaker stated that Jewish organisations are ‘in the gutter’ and are ‘part of the problem’.

Al Jazeera and the state that funds it (Qatar), through its associations with some of the individuals mentioned above need to be highlighted. Remember this is the same state (Qatar) that gave sanctuary to one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s religious leadership, one Yusuf-Al-Qaradawi, who has been barred entry into the UK. It is precisely individuals like Qaradawi who have promoted antisemitism where he has issued fatwas authorizing attacks on all Jews. On Al-Jazeera Arabic in January 2009, he said:

“Oh God, take Your enemies, the enemies of Islam….oh God, take the treacherous Jewish aggressors….Oh God, count their numbers, slay them one by one and spare none”.

It is precisely this kind of hatred that Muslims Against Antisemitism (MAAS) was developed to challenge. Individuals like Qaradawi who were previously feted by the likes of Ken Livingstone need to be challenged and when leaders like Corbyn attend events in Doha in 2012, where in an interview with the Iranian state funded Press TV, he praised his ‘brothers’ – some of whom were speakers from questionable organisations, MAAS will challenge and hold to account such two faced leadership. At this very conference was Khaled Meshaal, Hamas’ political voice and Dr Abdul Aziz Umar who was given seven life sentences for his role in a Jerusalem suicide bombing.

So let’s be clear; Corbyn’s approach on tackling antisemitism has been abysmal and duplicitous. Until Jewish members and individuals feel that they have a home in Labour and until they feel that the leadership demonstrates tackling this hate, we will continue to critique this kind of behaviour. Attempts by sites like Middle East Eye to intimidate and bully us will not be tolerated. Muslims Against Antisemitism will continue to speak out as will Faith Matters which was founded on building better relations between Muslims and Jews; this is something that we know Corbyn has yet to enact through his actions. Instead he chooses to play off one community against the other.

Many Labour MP’s and members support our work. They have done so for many years and they continue to do so because we have challenged those who seek to divide and play off communities.

Finally, conspiracy theories suggesting that the BSBT programme is a covert mechanism to undermine Corbyn through not-for-profit organisations is not only perverse, it reeks of conspiracies that form the bedrock of parts of the hard left today. We don’t need to be critical of Corbyn or Boris Johnson for that matter because of a ‘higher’ plan. It is pretty simple; Corbyn has failed Labour and the leadership needed by many. This country needs a strong opposition. It needs a Labour Party that can hold the Executive and the Government to account, particularly at this turbulent time. For us, it is clear that Corbyn has fallen short of providing that.

In a recent column for Middle East Eye, Dilly Hussain (Deputy Editor of 5Pillars) wrote that Tell MAMA’s mission of providing a service for British Muslims to report hate crimes will soon be obsolete now that the Home Office has required all police forces in the United Kingdom to record anti-Muslim hate crimes on par with anti-Semitic ones.

He goes on to suggest that Tell MAMA, which has tackled anti-Muslim prejudice for over three years, has links with Islamophobes and shares the Quilliam Foundation’s narrow assumption that Islamist ideology is solely responsible for radicalisation. We have not been shy to criticise Quilliam in the past and we will not be in the future.

These accusations are based on shoddy, surface-level research intended to misinform readers.

Dilly should do his homework and look at Tell MAMA’s work in 2014 and 2015. Anyone who does will find that his accusations are untrue. We work hard to ensure that Islamophobia remains on the policy agenda and we helped bring about important changes.

We are not reliant on government funding. A number of charitable trusts have recognised the quality of our work and provide us with the funds to deliver our services. Dilly’s assumption that public agencies should not fund work countering the measurable rise of Islamophobia is naïve.

Tell MAMA stands up for Muslims in the UK facing hatred, racism, and prejudice. Our work on quantifying Islamophobia and bringing it into public debates is necessary and unrivalled.

We will not become obsolete any time soon.

Tell MAMA has no working links with the Quilliam Foundation

Dilly’s poorly researched column imitates the most facile examples of tabloid journalism. It is a gross inaccuracy to suggest that we ‘announced’ the findings of our 2013/2014 report at a Quilliam Foundation event. The official launch took place at Teesside University on 4 July 2014. Our director Fiyaz Mughal attended the Quilliam event as part of a wider tour that happened at nine different locations to promote the findings of this report.

To give an example of how this ‘Dilly-logic’ works, here is a recent photo from his Facebook page where he shared a platform with Tell MAMA’s Outreach Officer, Rehman Anwer. Based on his logic, Dilly must support Tell MAMA because he shared a platform with us. The more interesting question is why Dilly shares a platform with us one day, and smears us on another?

In fact, we shared a platform critical of Prevent with Moazzam Begg at a conference in June 2015. Our director Fiyaz also sat on a panel organised by iERA at Dilly’s invitation.

That does not mean Tell MAMA endorses their views, but shows that we are keen to engage and debate with the breadth of the British public to address Islamophobia.

Dilly takes a single event out of context as convenient ammunition to falsely accuse us of working with the Quilliam Foundation. We certainly do not.

We have voiced our differences of opinion with organisations that have suggested a top-down, highly centralised Prevent implementation. We have criticised this in a report to the London Assembly, calling for implementation to take community concerns seriously.

Before the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill passed, we posted an infographic that informed Muslims about the changes it would make and criticised the government’s approach. You can find it on the Stop the CTS Bill Website. We published this infographic before Dilly even addressed the bill on 5Pillars.

One of our staff members wrote recently that the Home Office had a ‘narrow’ definition of extremism based on a mythical set of ‘British values’ and consequently, ‘the outlook for democratic participation and accountability in counter-terrorism is grim’.

Eschewing an honest evaluation of our work for an accusation of guilt by association, Dilly suggests that we are linked to Quilliam and Islamophobes. This is a duplicitous smear.

If his accusation is true, why do we continue to have numerous Muslims on our advisory board, including community leaders, Imams, and academics?

Dilly’s article picks facts at his convenience and ignores counterpoints to suit his agenda. In fact, 5Pillars has used Tell MAMA cases or data in thirteen different articles.

Dilly seems happy to cite us when it drives web traffic to 5Pillars and disparage us when expedient for his online brand.

Tell MAMA puts Islamophobia on the agenda and works across government and civil society to counter hate

Hate crime policing demands partnerships with faith communities. Dilly seems to think that the recent Home Office announcement to record Islamophobic hate crimes under a unique crime flag will render Tell MAMA obsolete. Once again, Dilly did not do his due diligence.

Tell MAMA has played a crucial role in putting Islamophobia and anti-Muslim incidents on the policy agenda. Our data has been cited frequently in reports to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Islamophobia. FOSIS used our information to design infographics for Islamophobia Awareness Month 2015. From 2012 to 2015, Tell MAMA research documented a national rise in Islamophobia.

We used this data to push the government to require all police forces to record anti-Muslim incidents. While we commend Mend (then iENGAGE) for getting 10 Police and Crime Commissioners to pledge to record anti-Muslim hate crimes, we focused our efforts on lobbying the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Home Office to require all police forces to record anti-Muslim crimes.

Our lobbying capacity led to this ‘positive step forward’. Tell MAMA has representatives on hate crime panels across the country and advises police forces on how to address the nuances of Islamophobia.

It should be no surprise that the National Police Chiefs’ Council shares hate crime data with us. We have an important role to play in conducting crime analysis in a forthcoming report on Metropolitan Police data, disseminating figures about anti-Muslim hate crime, and sharing the experiences of victims.

With this shared data, we provide the police with monthly bulletins on trends and analyse their data to help improve hate crime policing. On top of that, we got the government to pressure Twitter and Facebook to take hate incidents more seriously. Sharing our reports on Islamophobia in schools has also put the issue on the agenda.

Tell MAMA will not be obsolete until hate and bigotry disappear

Third party reporting centres—bodies Dilly suggests will be obsolete now—were part of an important recommendation of the 1999 Macpherson report into the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993.

Third party reporting centres are a conduit between victims and the police. As one such reporting centre, this is what Tell MAMA does day in, day out.

These policies will not make Tell MAMA obsolete. Other Muslim organisations, including the organisation Mend whose 2012 report Dilly cites calls for PCCs to include third party reporting centres as part of their strategies (see page 8).

Most importantly, we serve victims. The data we record informs the UK public about the rise of hate crime and ensures that Islamophobia is on the policy agenda.

If Islamophobia disappears in the future, we will be more than happy to be rendered obsolete. Until then, our important work will continue to support victims and inform the public, the police and policy makers about anti-Muslim hate.

Note:

It is interesting to note some of the background of Dilly Hussain. These are some of the tweets that he has sent out previously. The first is clearly antisemitic which he tweeted out and only removed when he was publicly berated for it. Having said that he ‘apologised’ for the tweet, and subsequently went onto tweet the second tweet.

It seems that Dilly Hussain believes that bigoted material like this does not have an impact. Nor, does regarding Ahmadis as being less Muslim than monkeys, seem to be a statement that perturbs him and stops him from tweeting it out.

No doubt, someone can be given the benefit of the doubt for publishing odious material once, but twice? We leave it to the court of public opinion to make their decisions on the work of Dilly Hussain.