A guest post by LibertyPhile
ENGAGE says it is dedicated to promoting the involvement of British Muslims in politics and the media. That might well be the case but it is half the story. ENGAGE has its own political agenda that it wants to push.
Over a recent six month period ENGAGE published on the top page of its website 236 news items.
A quarter concerned British policy in the Middle East, Israel, Zionism or Jews, of a critical or negative nature; 12% concerned British anti-terror policies and actions (e.g., body scanners at airports are a bad idea, they interfere with freedom of religion!) and 8% concerned attacks or criticism of other Muslims especially those who show they are integrated in any way in British society, such as Yasmin Alibhai Brown (she doesn’t like the Burqa or veiling), the Quilliam Foundation, British Muslims for Secular Democracy, and Taj Hargey.
This is nearly half their news coverage. Typical headlines are shown below.
ENGAGE can say what it likes about British foreign policy and even Ms Alibhai Brown but it most certainly cannot claim to bring impartiality to the secretariat of the recently formed All-Party Parliamentary Group on Islamophobia. Its appointment to that position is causing astonishment.
And what about people who don’t agree with stoning? Shenaz Bunglawala, Head of Research of ENGAGE now has a parliamentary pass. Mr Inayat Bunglawala, an ENGAGE Advisor on Research and Policy, and a former spokesperson of the Muslim Council of Britain, is on public record as saying that stoning (torturing someone to death) for adultery (yes, for adultery) is OK if that is what people want for their legal system.
Do we now have the possibility that any criticism of stoning will be considered Islamophobic?
It is not clear from the ENGAGE website if Mr Bunglawala is still formally connected with the organisation. In fact there is nothing on the website about the people behind ENGAGE.
Typical ENGAGE headlines:
Liberty warn Tory MP of legal action if he refuses to meet veiled constituents
Alibhai-Brown continues her shrill crusade against Burqa and Niqab-wearers
Tories promise pro-Israel groups that war crimes legislation will be amended
A look at Britain 's Abu Ghraib
'Archly conservative' group accuses EU of undermining Israeli democracy
ENGAGE writes to Home Secretary Theresa May on Dr Zakir Naik’s exclusion order
The relevance of the burqa to stabbing of Stephen Timms MP? (it isn’t)
Conservatives reiterate support for Zionist goals in desperate bid for votes
ENGAGE Consultation Response: Use of advanced imaging technology in an aviation security environment (it interferes with freedom of religion)
Conservatives reiterate support for Zionist goals in desperate bid for votes
ENGAGE writes to OSCT about Quilliam's attack on Islam Channel
Special Branch accused of intimidating Scottish Muslims into spying for them
ENGAGE critique of Quilliam report: 'Re-programming British Muslims'
Cameron pledges support for Zionist goals in Jewish Chronicle interview
Surprise, surprise: Taj Hargey condemns mosque application in Surrey
UK Government conspires to grant immunity to Israeli war criminals
Tory MP mocks burqa-wearers in parliament
UK Government was briefed beforehand by Israeli Mossad of fake passport use
Daily Telegraph columnist confuses UK 's interests with Israel 's interests
For Israel , a reckoning
Government faces widespread criticism for 'futile' ban on Islam4UK but gains support of Quilliam and British Muslims for Secular Democracy (BMSD)
UK Stop & Search policy ruled illegal
UK Government factsheet shows clear bias towards Israel
Khalid Mahmood MP and BMSD voice support for profiling Muslim passengers
His Grace woud like to add that Harry's Place makes rather concerning reading on the issues surrounding iEngage. And His Grace is rather confused (actually, quite sincerely) as to how the Prime Minister can, on the one head, pledge himself to the eradication of Islamism and the causes of Islsamism, and, on the other, say absolutely nothing about the appointment of iEngage as the Secretariat for the APPG on Islamophobia. As is observed:
There is a real danger that iEngage will seek to prevent non or anti-Islamist Muslims from participating fully in the APPG, and will use it as a platform to attack, not those who hate Muslims, but those who are critical of Islamist political parties. The potentially important findings and recommendations of the APPG will be undermined by the involvement of iEngage.Frankly, His Grace wonders why there is as yet no APPG to examine Christianophobia. He can hardly wait to see which Christian extremists are appointed to its secretariat.
