Ruth Gledhill’s column in the latest Church of England Newspaper makes a disturbing allegation about the media influence of Father Kit Cunningham. Cunningham was a popular figure and known as the “unofficial Roman Catholic chaplain to Fleet Street”, and there has been much shock and distress at revelations that shortly before his death in December 2010 he had privately admitted to paedophilia and had returned an MBE. Cunningham’s predations at a school in Tanganyika in the 1960s were outlined in a BBC documentary a few nights ago – he was not only an abuser himself, but allowed others to abuse as well.
Ruth’s column is behind a pay-wall, and so mindful of that I will provide a short quote only:
…Father Kit was unofficial chaplain to the Catholic Herald and also ran a club for journalists, The Keys. About a year or so ago, I was subjected to an extremely nasty campaign of vilification, after The Times ran a series of stories exposing paedophiles in the Catholic Church. A website was set up to attack me, nasty stories appeared in other publications…
One of those responsible for whispering poison against me was Father Kit. I never liked him and I knew he did not like me… But I never once suspected Father Kit to be apedophile…
I am trying to forgive those who tried to destroy my life and work. There has been no apology to me from these people and of course there never will be…
Ruth has also left a comment about this on my blog here.
As has been widely reported, last week saw Pastor Terry Jones protesting in Dearborn. Jones and his predictable stunts are of little interest in themselves, but it is perhaps worth keeping a note of the various characters who are willing to ally themselves with him. In April 2010 there was a short-lived flirtation with Fred Phelps, and last year Jones showed an interest in coming to the UK to meet the English Defence League and the National Front, although both plans fell through. Further, his anti-Islam book Islam is of the Devilwas published by Creation House, which is owned by the influential neo-Pentecostal media empire Strang Communications (it was later withdrawn, but not publicly repudiated), and the book came with a foreword by Jack Coe Jr, son of the 1950s-era faith healer of the same name. In April, Jones and “Surfing Rabbi” Nahum Shifren appeared together in April, after Jones was briefly arrested.
Shifren and Coe were also part of last week’s protest; Abby Ohlheiser of the Revealer was there:
Shifren reveled in the crowd’s anger, almost immediately calling the protesters “Low-level scum” and “communist rabble.” Something was yelled back, Shifren repeated, “Yes! Fuck the Jews. That’s right, they said it,” and went on to say that earlier, crowd members had told him to go to Auschwitz. Almost the entire content of his speech was insults, a repeat of insults thrown at him, a return of the lobs with some of his own. “These rappers and gangbangers, these low-level ne’er do wells,” he said. These are lede-grabbing quotes, if not for the protests later.
Shifren, it should be recalled, is also a popular figure with the English Defence League – he attended a rally in London last October, and the EDL’s financial backer Alan Lake has attacked me for examining Shifren’s anti-gay views (somewhat strangely, Lake claimed that my original post amounted to “masturbating in public”).
One wonders whether Shifren has ever asked Jones about his appearance on Mark Dankof’s anti-Jewish Ugly Truth Broadcast in August 2010:
Dankof: Dr Jones, I would hope, I would at least hope that you would give some consideration to the things that we discussed here today. You have been given a job to lead the flock, and I think at this point the real danger that is facing Christian America isn’t from a bunch of third world people who do not have the ability to influence the minds of our young people. It’s the people sitting in offices in New York and in Washington DC and Tel Aviv and in Hollywood who literally are infecting the minds of our young people with the same leaven of the Pharisees which Jesus warned us about.
Jones: Oh, I would definitely agree. There’s no doubt about it.
Dankof: And listen, when you’re burning these Korans on Septmber the 11th, throw a couple of Talmuds in with it, would you please?
Jones: OK. (1)
(1)theuglytruth.podbean.com/2010/08/07/the-ugly-truth-podcast-special-edition/ at 41:30
Last month, I wrote a blog entry about an organisation called “Rescue Christians”. According to the organisation’s blurb:
…Our work will involve providing safe houses, food and medical care for persecuted Christian families with direct one and one support, with no administrative costs or waste. Our work will also involve the gaining of visas for these families to restart their lives in Western countries so they can rebuild their lives. Full details of the program detailed on www.rescuechristians.org. We are already helping two families with many more on a waiting list for assistance…
That was written by Keith Davies, who is better-known as Walid Shoebat’s handler, and the Rescue Christians website heavily promotes Shoebat and his anti-Islam screeds.
Rescue Christians also uses the name “The Raoul Wallenberg Project”, and it goes on to explain:
The Raoul Wallenberg Project is working with people on the ground who are well connected in the Christian community. They have reached out to us for our support to help alleviate their suffering, and in certain situations, help with their escape. For their protection we cannot expose their names publicly. In the future, large donors who are concerned about the transparency of funding, we can provide the names and details privately.
…. We are working behind the scenes with members of Congress, in particular the staff of Congressman Allen West, who has kindly offered his help on Capital Hill… We’ve assembled a group who have been involved in running a charity, and are aware of working with activists.
I expressed some concerns about this at the time: the names of the Christians they are supposedly helping are either confidential or they are not – leaking them to “large donors” is an amateurish way to demonstrate “transparency” and would anyway show very little about how efficiently or competently the organisation is being run. Why is there no formal board structure, or any trustees? Why haven’t Shoebat and Davies established a 501(c)(3), with all the checks and balances which would come with that? Who is going to look after these “safe houses”? How will their safety be assessed? What protocols are in place should emergencies occur?
Less than two weeks ago on March 15th, Qamar David, 56 years old, was found dead in his prison cell… His wife and children are also been pursued by extremists – they are in hiding.
On September 2009, Fanish Robert was arrested, accused of throwing a Quran. Two days later he was found dead in police custody… His families have also received threats – they are in hiding.
…These are just the initial cases that our organization has been asked to support. These case histories come from our very reputable contacts in Pakistan.
Because of our background of having already rescued one family, the contacts are in place and we are ready to continue with our next rescue mission.
In May, Davies published an update on Rescue Christians’ work, introducing an unnamed “contact in Pakistan”:
…Currently there are about nine families which are associated with Rescue Christians.org (RC). We are trying to provide them Safe Houses,food, Visa’s and Transport. RC has observed that the victims of the blasphemy laws are usually killed in police custody, sometimes even in the court room as well as in Judicial custody.
Rashid Emmanuel , Sajid Emmanuel, Qamar David , Fanish Robert were all were murdered in police custody or in court rooms. Their families are till today hiding to save themselves from the Religious Zealots, which are trying to find them and kill them.
Qamar David’s family are regularly been threatened by the Islamic extremists, therefore they are kept in hiding by RC. Same in the Case of Rashid Emmanuel and Sajid Emmanuel and Fanish Robert…
Rescue Christians is a new organisation. It is remarkable that it is already playing a central role in the aftermath of four especially high-profile cases, particularly given that three of the deaths occurred a while ago: Fanish Robert died in police custody in September 2009 in circumstances that the the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan described as “judicial murder”, while Rashid and Sajid Emmanuel were gunned down in court premises in July 2010 while on trial for blasphemy. Qamar David died in suspicious circumstances in prison in March this year, having been convicted in February 2010.
Of course, if Rescue Christians is “working with people on the ground”, it could be the case that activists who were already helping various families chose to become associated with Rescue Christians when the organisation was formed last month. But if so, how did this come about? Why choose to partner with someone like Shoebat, an absurd figure who purports to believe that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim working for al-Qaeda? Why not turn to an organisation such as Open Doors or Release International, which have a track-record in this area, rather than a man known only for anti-Muslim punditry?
And why is there no apparent liaison with groups such as Christian Solidarity Worldwide or International Christian Concern, which have both worked on the specific cases mentioned by Rescue Christians? All of these cases have received international attention, yet the involvement of Rescue Christians has apparently gone completely unnoticed.
It should also be possible to report more information about the threats against the families without compromising security. There are a few details in other sources: in the case of Robert, it was reported that following his death his family had left the village of Jethikey “for security reasons”, but that they had returned two weeks later. Regarding the Emmanuel brothers, some details about their family were provided by an Australian evangelist named Steve Cook: in an an email update sent to a blog just before their murders, he wrote that “Rashid and Sajid’s family is in hiding and moving from place to place,” and after their funeral that
Rashid and Sajid’s family are safe and there is astrong police presence in the Christian areas to prevent riots or further violence. However, they are concerned about what will happen once things settle down and the police presence is reduced or removed.
The killer was sentenced to death in April – a report about this here does not mention the brothers’ family’s current circumstances.
In the case of David, a family member quoted in this report “refused to give his name”, but there is no indication that the family is in hiding. The claim does not appear in a report by ASSIST Ministries, either, despite references to the family:
Andrew Johnston, Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) Advocacy Director, said, “We are shocked to hear this sad news and our thoughts and prayers are with Qamar David’s wife and children. The last nine years of this family’s life have been utterly ravaged by the consequences of a vindictive blasphemy accusation that would have very likely been dismissed by the High Court in time. It is yet another tragic example of lives needlessly destroyed by the blasphemy laws in Pakistan and the inability of the government, court system and prisons to prevent this. Given the threats known to be faced by blasphemy prisoners, it is imperative that the true cause of his death be investigated properly and independently.”
…Joseph Francis, National Director of the Centre for Legal Aid, Assistance and Settlement (CLAAS), in Pakistan, told the ASSIST News Service, “Hopefully we will get the full details about his unexpected passing away and will up-date accordingly with the cause of Qamar’s death as the family is in contact with CLAAS.”
Of course, it’s possible that the continuing plight of the men’s families has simply been overlooked, but that seems rather strange given the wide interest in the situation.
…I will not be video-ed and edited for the programme, about Soni and Grace Dieu.
…I have decided to follow the advice given in the book of Lamentations: ‘It is good to wait in silence’ 3:16
So writes Father David Myers, Provincial Superior in the UK of the Rosminian Fathers (or Institute of Charity), concerning his decision not to participate in a documentary about clerical abuse that was broadcast on BBC television last night. St Michael’s School in Soni and Grace Dieu were two schools run by the order – the former in Tanganyika and the latter in Leicestershire – where children were terrorised by sadistic and paedophile priests forty to fifty years ago.
The documentary, Abused: Breaking the Silence (produced and presented by Olenka Frenkiel), explained that a group of victims contacted Myers in 2010 (although he had received at least one complaint prior to this, in 2007, according to a screenshot of a letter in the programme at 20:57); Myers arranged a meeting at St Etheldreda’s Church in London, and for the elderly abusive priests to write letters of contrition. Myers assured the victims that the priests concerned “are not allowed to represent themselves as priests in public”; that they had signed a document “stating that they are not priests in good standing”; that they would receive six-monthly visits from a child protection officer; and that local police had “been informed” and would perform “spot checks”. Other members of the order would also be informed. One of the guilty priests was Kit Cunningham, himself the former priest of St Etheldreda’s Church and a popular public figure; Cunningham quietly returned an MBE, asking for no publicity, several months before he died at the end of 2010.
However, Myers’ subsequent decisions all appear to have be the most convenient courses for action for himself and for the order: the order’s archives have been closed to public scrutiny, and he provided Kit Cunningham with a celebratory memorial service that buried the true facts about him and consolidated his public reputation. As well as the passive-aggressive response to the BBC’s request for an interview (“I will not be video-ed and edited”), Myers also chose to lecture the victims on the morality of their wish for compensation in a similar tone:
I have always acknowledged that in civil in civil law, you have a right to seek compensation. I would be blind not to. But it is another matter whether you have a moral right to so so. No-one has yet attempted to answer my question why innocent people today should be made to suffer by the wrongs done by somebody else in some cases. Until someone is able to give me a convincing moral argument on this point, I remain of the opinion that that morally speaking compensation would be wrong.
Myers’ choice of Biblical passage to take as guidance is of a piece with this general attitude. I’m sure we can all think of some more appropriate alternative verses.
(All quotes taken from screenshots in the programme)
At the weekend, the Daily Telegraph ran a lengthy non-story about Rowan Williams:
MI5 labelled the Archbishop of Canterbury a subversive over anti-Thatcher campaigns
When he launched a stinging attack on the Coalition government over policies “for which no one voted”, the Archbishop of Canterbury put himself squarely in the centre of a political storm.
Critics accused him of political bias, claiming it was a throwback to the days when his predecessors regularly clashed with past Conservative administrations.
But perhaps they should not be too surprised, as it can be revealed that the Archbishop has a long-standing left-wing political past.
The young Rowan Williams was once labelled ‘a subversive’ by a senior MI5 officer over his involvement with a group of Marxist, Trotskyite and socialist campaigners…
The group under discussion is the Jubilee Group; however, the Telegraph has hardly “revealed” the association – as the report goes to on acknowledge (much further down), Williams “edited a series of essays ‘Catholic and Radical’ for the group” with Kenneth Leech. The Jubilee Group is also discussed in sources such as Rupert Shortt’s biography of Williams.
Careful readers will also note the slight discrepancy between the headline “MI5 labelled” and the text’s “labeled… by a senior MI5 officer”. As the Telegraph goes on:
The Jubilee Group was identified as a “problem” neo-Marxist organisation in confidential intelligence documents drawn up by MI5 officer Charles Elwell.
…Mr Elwell, who died in 2008, spent much of his career investigating left of centre politicians, charity workers and trade unionists, first in MI5’s now defunct counter-subversion F branch and then privately for the shadowy Institute for the Study of Conflict, which was allegedly part funded by the CIA and MI6.
He delivered his warning warned about Dr Williams’ group in 1989 in the privately-funded British Briefing, a newsletter circulated to a secret list of politicians, including Baroness Thatcher, and selected journalists… Its contents were believed to have been approved at a high level in the Security Service.
However, according to Elwell’s obituary in the Times, that supposed “approval” did not in fact not come from MI5:
After his retirement from MI5 in 1979, he joined the Institute for the Study of Conflict, where he wrote and researched on subversion, producing regular briefing bulletins. In 1983 he published Tracts Beyond the Times – a Brief Guide to the Communist and Revolutionary Marxist Press. His former employers at MI5 regarded his views on the threat posed by subversion as exaggerated, which was a source of frustration for him.
MI5 declined Elwell’s suggestion that it should be the custodian of British Briefing’s archive when it stopped in 1990.
The Telegraph explains that
Details of confidential briefing from Mr Elwell, nicknamed the ‘MI5’s Witchfinder General’, were uncovered by a Canadian PhD student researching Rowan williams and the Church’s left-wing traditions.
Given that this is the hook on which the whole story hangs, why not give the “Canadian PhD student” proper credit? Could it be, perhaps, that this is in fact old information which is only being used now for David Cameron’s benefit? Or that there’s some extra context that the Telegraph‘s hacks don’t want us looking into?
The Telegraph also notes that alongside the alleged CIA and MI6 links:
The Briefings were also funded by David Hart, an adviser to Baroness Thatcher and to National Coal Board boss Ian MacGregor during the miners’ strike in 1984. Hart, who died earlier this year, founded the Committee for a Free Britain, a right wing pressure group.
British Briefing wasn’t just “funded” by Hart; he actually oversaw its publication on Elwell’s behalf. Hart also ran a companion newsletter, World Briefing, which was overseen by an ex-CIA agent named Herb Mayer.
“…I used to think that World Briefing was a bit funny. The only scary thing about those publications was the mailing list – people like George Bush – and the fact that Hart would talk to the head of British Intelligence for an hour. I used to think it was us having a laugh, putting some loony right-wing stuff in, and that somebody somewhere was taking it seriously. You’ve got to understand that we had a sense of humour about this.
“…[Hart is] completely charming and can charm senior people like Thatcher and appear sane for a while. But any close proximity to him for a prolonged period of time, you know he’s completely off his fucking head.”
A couple of days ago I noted a ranting post entry which Nadine Dorries MP had posted late on Friday night and deleted on Saturday morning. She has now re-instated it, which extra attacks on Tim Ireland (whom she does not deign to name). As well as boasting that the police are “monitoring” the blogs of anyone Tim “communicates with on a regular basis”, she now also tells us that she has the support of local media:
My local newspaper editors and journalists are well aware of him and describe him as a ‘menace’ and much, much worse.
This may be true – it’s certainly the case that hacks on the Bedfordshire on Sunday regularly use Dorries as a fount of easy churnalism, and have no interest in holding her to account.
In particular, back in February Tim highlighted some rather substantial payments made by Dorries (at tax-payers’ expense) to a company run by a friend named Lynn Elson. One payment to Elson had actually been the subject of a police investigation following whistle-blowing by a former employee, although it was eventually decided that there was insufficient evidence to proceed. Dorries has also been investigated by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner over her expenses, and she was cleared after explaining that material on her blog was fictitious.
Dorries, it should be noted, has a massive sense of entitlement as regards her expenses: such is her arrogance, she once posted a photo of her copy of the official expenses guide lying on the roof of a building after it had supposedly been blown out of her office window: “And there I think it shall stay”, she added, obviously sticking two fingers up at the Commissioner and at the plebs who keep her in the manner to which she is accustomed.
Elson resigned following Tim’s investigation, but – taking Dorries’ lead – she spun the unwelcome scrutiny as “internet intrusion”. Bedfordshire on Sunday duly decided that the story was indeed “MP’s aide quits her role after internet intrusion”, rather than anything of wider public interest.
I’ve used Twitter to ask Chris Gill, the editor of Bedfordshire on Sunday, whether Dorries’ latest claim was correct. Here’s the exchange:
Barthsnotes @Chrisg_BoS Nadine #Dorries is currently boasting that you regard @bloggerheads as a “menace” for writing about her. Care to clarify?
Chrisg_BoS@Barthsnotes tell me more. Haven’t had any personal contact with her since last October.
Barthsnotes @Chrisg_BoS See her blog entry here, 2nd para from end: bit.ly/lhXe19 “My local newspaper editors… describe him as a ‘menace’
Chrisg_BoS @Barthsnotes just seen it. can’t see me mentioned. She says editors, you shouldn’t jump to conclusions.
Barthsnotes@Chrisg_BoS So she means some other local editor, not the only one whose paper has written about @bloggerheads and interacted with him?
Chrisg_BoS @Barthsnotes I have no views on whoever it is she is referring to. I think there must b 5 papers in her area. Ask them
Chrisg_BoS@Barthsnotes no idea mate, ask her. I have no views and care not. Can’t make it any clearer.
Barthsnotes@Chrisg_BoS Thanks. But just to clarify 100%: her description of what “local editors” are saying does not reflect anything you said to her?
Chrisg_BoS Not getting involved in something that has nowt to do with me… Look elsewhere.
Barthsnotes @Chrisg_BoS #Dorries has got you involved, by citing “local editors” in her post. You should be able to see that.
I must say that I expected something rather less evasive and obtuse from a mature adult writing in a professional capacity.
Tim had communication of his own with Gill back in February, which can be seen here. Gill took the view that being challenged on his paper’s distortions was “offensive”.
Dorries’ new revised blog entry also returns to the issue of the fiction in her blog:
Occasionally, he gathers traction, notably with the storm he kicked up regarding my own blog. He wrote, and used Twitter to amplify the statement that my blog is 70% fiction 30% true. What he didn’t have was the whole statement or the context of that remark and indeed, he used it to pretend that my blog was instrumental in my having been cleared by the Standards Commissioner with regard to my expenses enquiry.
…I was advised by the Met Police to obfuscate my blog because of this man, which then brought about the 70/30 blog statement problem which he exacerbated.
According to documents published by the Standards and Privileges Committee, Ms Dorries responded: “My blog is 70% fiction and 30% fact.
“It is written as a tool to enable my constituents to know me better and to reassure them of my commitment to Mid Bedfordshire.
“I rely heavily on poetic licence and frequently replace one place name/event/fact with another.”
The idea that she lies to her constituents to “reassure them” of her commitment was met with howls of derision, and only then did she come up with the “stalker evasion” excuse. And either way, it was central to her defence against the accusation that she had fiddled her expenses.
As I’ve written before, she’s vicious and ridiculous – and I don’t believe that an intelligent man like Iain Dale (who is currently promoting her blog entry) can’t see it.
A few days ago, an organisation called Student Rights published a seven-page report entitled “Buying Influence? Saudi Arabia and the School of Oriental and African Studies”. The report – which also highlights links with Libya and Brunei – is presented as being based on the results of a Freedom of Information Request, although it contains very little that wasn’t already in the public domain: donations are openly commemorated with names such as the King Fahd Chair of Islamic Studies and the Brunei Gallery (1). However, the “gift of a set of cufflinks made of Quarter silver Riyals” made to SOAS officials looks shabby and ought to be a source of embarrassment.
The report also draws attention to the presence of the sanguinary Yusuf al-Qaradawi on the editorial board of the Centre of Islamic Studies’ Journal of Qur’anic Studies, along with 32 other names listed on the journal’s website. This has garnered the most media interest, and SOAS has defended his involvement:
Professor Yusuf al-Qaradawi and some other editorial advisers from the Middle East only advise on the Arabic section of the Journal, and not on the English section. His academic peers and Muslim scholars in the UK and across the globe consider him to be one of the most outstanding scholars of the Quran in the Arabic and Islamic world. No political or other consideration was involved in asking him to be on the board.
There is a dilemma when an academic has a reputation for technical competence in a certain area but is also notorious; however, the phrasing “no political or other consideration was involved” is simply dodging the issue, especially if the decision to involve him was made a number of years ago. The fact is that al-Qaradawi’s inflammatory statements, as increasingly revealed over the past few years, adversely affect the credibility and ethical standing of any academic project with which he is now associated.
The question-mark in the Student Rights report’s title is unencouraging: such question marks in titles are often a tacit admission that the case hasn’t actually been made properly. Certainly, the articles published in the Journal of Qur’anic Studies appear to be a perfectly respectable ordinary academic fare. However, I know from my own experience of SOAS that there was some disquiet about how the SOAS Centre of Islamic Studies came into being, and over the scholarly level of some of the events held under its auspices. It seems to me that it’s time for a review.
(1) Incidentally, I’ve often wondered if the Sultan of Brunei has ever been made aware that the Brunei Gallery is graced with a ludicrous plaque apologising for its architectural style, which is out of keeping with the rest of Russell Square.
A man has been cleared of harassing his wife’s millionaire lover on the internet in “a victory for free speech and the small man”.
Plumber Ian Puddick tweeted, blogged and posted videos online after being enraged by his wife Leena’s 10-year affair with Timothy Haynes, a City director.
…Puddick, of Enfield, north London, claimed he decided to expose the relationship after finding out Haynes was using company expenses to fund the affair, taking his wife to “wonderful places around the country”.
He described his shock when his home was later raided by anti-terror police at 6am, with officers removing phones, computers and even his satnavs.
Further details were given in an earlier report. Haynes’ company, Guy Carpenter, employed the private security firm Kroll and liaised with police (link added):
Michael Wolkind QC, representing Puddick, said his client intended to defend his actions. “This case is about Mr Puddick’s right to express his feelings about another person’s immorality. Ian Puddick dared to speak out about his wife’s affair and it has cost the public £1m for the extraordinary investigation carried out by an unusually enthusiastic police alongside an elite security firm.”
I haven’t looked into Puddick’s case in depth – it is possible that his pursuit of Haynes went beyond what Haynes could reasonably have been expected to take on the chin, but the use of anti-terror police to make life easier for a millionaire businessman at a cost of £1 million leaves an unsavoury impression. Puddick has a website here.
One person who disagrees with Wolkind – and with the judge who found Puddick innocent – is Nadine Dorries MP. According to a blog entry posted last night (and deleted this morning):
I am very disappointed with the judge’s finding following a three day trial of a case brought to court for on line harassment… I had really hoped for a different outcome today.
The reason for Dorries wished for “a different outcome” is because she believes that, despite being a public figure who is paid from the public purse, her political activities – and, crucially, her expenses – should not be subjected to hostile scrutiny. To this end, she employs false accusations of harassment to discourage critics, and boasts that the police do her bidding:
One of the especially ‘poorly’ compulsive obsessive’s [sic], recently alarmed the Police enough for them to issue a verbal warning on tape following a five hour interview. Following the warning, his tweets and blogs have remain monitored, as are those of people he communicates with on a regular basis in which I am discussed or mentioned.
This is an obvious reference to Tim Ireland; as I blogged here, Dorries objected to Tim’s presence at a hustings event in 2010, and the police advised Tim that further attendance at events involving Dorries could therefore be “construed” as stalking. Dorries has sought to portray this as as some sort of police acknowledgement of wrongdoing; milking it further, she now implies that the police consider his blog and others (including, surely, this one) to be a matter of police concern. Either she’s making it up, or we’re looking at more abuse of power.
There’s also a second reason why Dorries may have sympathy with Haynes: back in December, a married man left his wife to become her lover (this was a several months before Dorries began her campaign for “abstinence education”). Dorries did not appreciate her lover’s wife complaining to the Daily Mail, and took revenge.
If anyone wants to see what on-line harassment really looks like, I outline some genuine examples here, here, and here.
Following widespread ridicule of the suggestion that Anthony Weiner may have secretly converted to Islam as part of a socialist plot to orchestrate a Muslim takeover of the USA, the conspiracy-mongerers are now settling on the idea that Weiner’s wife Huma Abedin – who works as an aide to Hilary Clinton – may be a spy for the Muslim Brotherhood. The inspiration for this has come from Walid Shoebat (whose views I overviewed here) and Ben Barrack; as they explain:
Al-Liwa Al-Arabi(translated here) claims to have leaked an extensive list, which was partially published by Al-Jazeeraand several other major Arab newspapers. The detailed list included Huma’s mother, Saleha Abedin, as belonging to the Brotherhood’s secret women’s division known as the Muslim Sisterhood or what is known as the International Women’s Organization (IWO). Egyptian Al-Dostor revealed that the Sisternood included 63 International members that span 16 different countries; it’s also confirmed by the Arab Centre for Studies, headed by researcher Abdul Rahim Ali. Neither Huma nor any major western media outlet even mention what is common knowledge in the Arab world. Yet, confirmed by Arab sources – is that Huma Abedin has a brother named Hassan Abedin who works at Oxford University.
The theory is that because these relatives haven’t condemned Huma’s marriage to a non-Muslim, this may be a sign that they’re in on the conspiracy. Given this, we apparently do not need to dwell on the fact that there is no evidence that Huma has ever abused either her own or her husband’s professional position in any way.
But what what of Shoebat’s touted “SECRET Muslim Brotherhood Connections” among Huma’s relatives? Shoebat doesn’t give us much to go on: the link given for Al-Liwa Al-Arabi leads to an obscure and short-lived blog from January 2010, while the al-Jazeera piece is largely derivative of Egyptian newspapers (so far as I can tell from Google translate). The aforementioned Abdul Rahim Ali appears to be the actual source, but where he got his information from remains unclear.
Saleha Abedin appears to be a respectable academic and a moderate: she’s a co-chair of the Global Peace Initiative of Women, and, according to her profile there:
Dr. Abedin is a member of several inter-faith organizations committed to promoting peace and dialogue including the Millennium World Peace Summit, the Vienna Round Table for Christian Muslim Dialogue, the Peace Council, the Parliament of World Religions, and the World Council of Muslims for Interfaith Relations. She is also committed to promoting the advancement of women and has been part of a founding group for a pioneering women’s college. Dr. Saleha Abedin serves as the Director of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs.
But even if Shoebat’s claim turns out to be correct, it’s a rather big jump from identifying a “member” of the Muslim Brotherhood to showing that that this person’s daughter is therefore a spy working against the USA.
The “SECRET Connection” regarding Huma’s brother is even more tenuous: the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, where he’s based, has some troubling names on its board, but the notion that this is somehow the key to understanding the OCIS as an Islamist conspiracy is excessive.
There is no evidence that Huma Abedin has been involved in any wrongdoing. The abuse now being heaped on her by conservative websites in no more than a witch-hunt against a successful young woman, at a time when she is doubtless suffering great personal distress and humiliation over her husband’s sexual failings. It’s distasteful to witness.
UPDATE (26 June): It seems that Shoebat hadn’t quite scraped the bottom of the barrel. Here he is in Frontpage Magazine, warming to his conspiracy theory in conversation with Jamie Glazov:
FP: Look, someskeptics would still say: “So What? Huma is still not a member of the Sisterhood. And that’s that.” How would you respond?
Shoebat: Imagine during World War II, the U.S. government accepted Eva Braun, Hitler’s mistress or one of Hitler’s henchmen daughters to work with our State Department and even be with the Secretary of State 24/7?
After all “Braun” they argue “is not a member of the Nazi Party”; how will that bode with the American people?
A number of sites have noted a remarkable commentary piece that was recently pulled from the Washington Times website. Take a deep breath:
Less than a year ago, in July 2010, Huma Abedin married Jewish U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY). Attesting to the strength of her relationship with the Clintons, former President William J. Clinton officiated at the ceremony. Not unlike President Obama, the Clintons, as well as powerful politicos such as George Soros, are devotes of Saul Alinksy [sic] , who is considered “the founder of modern Community Organizing.” From my position, I clearly see that the actions of this group signal their socialist agenda, which includes domination of the U.S. by a Muslim ruled world.
Which begs the question of whether Huma Abedin been groomed by family and political leaders to carry this agenda forward? …Therefore we must consider that Mr. Weiner *may* have converted to Islam, because if he did not, we have to consider the unlikely, that being that Ms. Abedin has abandoned her Muslim faith, even while she still practices.
…The question that begs to be asked, however, is, has Huma been groomed to access leading political movers and shakers to advance the cause of Islam in America, including a politically positioned marriage to Congressman Anthony Weiner?
As “evidence” for all this, the author points out that an Imam in New York has urged “counselling” rather than stoning – therefore he must be in on the conspiracy. This is so absurd that a rebuttal is superfluous: political change in the USA is not brought about by “grooming” women to make “politically positioned marriages”, and the attempt to link the notion to Alinsky’s “Community Organizing” is simply bizarre. A secret conversion to Islam makes little sense, either: the whole point of a nominal conversion to Islam prior to marrying a Muslim woman (as does sometimes occur) is that it’s for show. Why would it be secret, and how could the secret have been conveyed to various Imams without leaking out?
Of course, “crank conspiracy theorist uses internet” is not a particularly original tale, although the article’s author, Eleana Benador (var. Eliana Benador), is of some wider interest. As Max Blumenthal notes:
She is the former CEO and founder of Benador Associates, an outfit that handled PR for a who’s who of the neocon movement, from Richard Perle to James Woolsey to Frank Gaffney. Is this what Beltway neocons are saying about Weinergate?
A profile was published in the Asia Times back in August 2003:
…Benador left the [Middle East Forum (MEF), a Philadelphia-based think tank headed by neo-con Daniel Pipes] in October 2001 to create Benador Associates, and credits Woolsey and [A.M.] Rosenthal, in particular, with helping her get started. “Woolsey really opened his doors for his other friends,” she said.
Clients listed included Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Hillel Fradkin, Michael Rubin, Meyrav Wurmser, and Laurie Mylroie, and “a number of Muslims, such as Amir Taheri, Ismail Cem, Fereydoun Hoveyda, Tashbih Sayyed and Mansoor Ijaz” (as well as Shaykh Kabbani), along with “two controversial Iraqis – Kanan Makiya and Khidhir Hamza – associated with the Iraqi National Congress led by Ahmad Chalabi”. And for a bit of variety, there’s “Arnaud de Borchgrave, a right-winger who has opposed the neo-cons’ Mideast policy as tilted too far toward Israeli interests” (the elderly De Borchgave is still “editor at large” for the Washington Times and for the associated UPI). Her most infamous moment was in 2006, as the promoter of Taheri’s bogus story that Iranian Jews were being forced to wear yellow stars.
Benador now promotes herself as a “Goodwill Ambassador” for the “Shomron Liaison Office, Samaria, Israel”. This organisation is run by David Ha’ivri, a militant settler who is regular source of quotes for Aaron Klein at WorldNetDaily.
Benador is not the only pundit to suggest that Weiner is a secret Muslim: the same conspiracy was suggested by a talk-show host named Ben Barrack, and perhaps inspired Benador’s article:
Omar Abu-Namous is the imam of the Islamic Cultural Center in New York and he is encouraging Huma Abedin – a practicing Muslim – to stand by her husband, New York congressman Anthony Weiner. Why would this imam support Anthony Weiner, who was raised Jewish, in a marriage with a practicing Muslim woman?
Every Islamic scholar agrees that it is forbidden for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim.
…Abu-Namous is in direct opposition to his Islamic superiors? Why?
