THE BIG QUESTIONS, LIVE FROM LEICESTER

BBC One's The Big Questions is broadcast live from Samworth Enterprise Academy, Leicester, this morning. I've said before that I'm no fan of this kind of show and have turned down several invitations to appear on them over the years. While I’m all in favour of honest open discussion, I favour more the statement attributed to 'Abdu'l-Bahá, that “if two people quarrel over some religious subjects, both of them are wrong.” I make an exception for today’s broadcast and watch it for the sake of the blog. I wrote about a previous edition of the programme broadcast from the same venue. There's a change in the format this time in that there's no panel of experts out front (which I think is an improvement). Nicky Campbell hosts the programme, on which three "big questions" are discussed:

1. "Is it time for the police to favour black candidates?"
2. "Is criticism of Israel anti-Semitic?"
3. "Should gay couples be allowed to marry?"

I recognise several members of the audience. Leicestershire Sikh Alliance was well represented by Raj Mann (who spoke on the first topic), Harjit Singh (who spoke on the second topic), Kartar Singh (who raises his hand to speak several times, but to no avail) and Jasdeep Singh Lamaar. Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, Assiatant Secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, spoke on the second and third topics. Revd Canon Dr David Jennings, Vicar of Burbage, spoke on all three topics. Also in the audience is Resham Singh Sandhu, former High Sheriff of Leicestershire and former Chair of Leicester Council of Faiths. Last time I watched this show, there were several members of Leicester Secular Society in the audience. This time round, though, I don't see anyone I recognise from the Secular Society.

I don't like how shouty and bad tempered these programmes can become. That's not the best way to address religious, ethical and moral issues in the public eye. A big part of the reason why I have generally negative feelings about The Big Questions is the fact that, while it is undoubtedly worthwhile for it to travel the country and come from a different locality each week, the people who make the major contributions to the discussion and the groups they represent are not from the area. That might be considered fair enough, since the topics discussed are national or international in nature. For instance, while discussing the first question, Nicky Campbell refers to the 2011 Census results for Leicester (admittedly, in a rather "off the cuff" manner) backing up the conventional and historical argument that it's important for the police force to be representative of the community they are policing. I would say it’s not right that there's no one in the studio from Leicestershire Police, nor any statement from them or any description of the nature of diversity within Leicestershire Police (figures for which are readily available; I've got them and so has just about everyone else in Leicester and Leicestershire who is interested). There’s no one from the Jewish communities of Leicester (nor anyone from Leicester involved in the Palestinian issue) to engage with the second question. A similar argument goes for the third topic. I can say that because I know the local scene well enough to be able to spot the “well kent faces” (or those conspicuous by their absence). But the casual viewer inside or outside Leicester might be led to the conclusion that they’re getting a sense or flavour of how these issues play in Leicester, when that’s not the case.

COULD COMMUNITY RELATIONS SURVIVE A HOMOPHOBIC CAMPAIGN?

There's a common assumption that the two protected characteristics of religion or belief and sexual orienation are incompatible. While that's not necessarilly the case, I'm glad to say, the friction between the two can lead to considerable sparks. Here's a piece on that topic from today's Guardian Society:

Could community relations survive a homophobic campaign?

Jack Gilbert, gay rights campaigner, on what really happened between faith leaders and his community after homophobic stickers appeared in a diverse London borough

It's late afternoon on Bethnal Green Road, in east London, and I am rushing from the tube for a meeting. Suddenly, out of the corner of my eye I catch something that brings me to a stop: a rainbow flag turned into a no entry sign, with the words "gay free zone" written across. Above are the words "Arise and warn" and below "And fear Allah. Verily Allah is severe in punishment". Both with a Koranic reference. I shiver, and am reminded of the words "Juden raus" (Jews out) that my mother would have seen in Berlin in the 1930s. It is not something I thought I would ever witness 70 years on in one of the most diverse neighbourhoods in Britain, where gay pubs share the same streets as synagogues and Halal butchers.

The previous December, at a meeting of Rainbow Hamlets – the Tower Hamlets lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) forum, which I co-chair with Rebecca Shaw, the police had told us about two reported anti-gay sticker sightings in the borough. They linked them to a sighting in neighbouring Hackney, one across the capital in Twickenham, and another in Nottingham.

Between 11 February and the end of March, more than 65 similar stickers were displayed around London, with over 50 in Tower Hamlets. This was turning out to be the most intense homophobic hate literature campaign since the 1980s battle over section 28.

Coverage of the sticker campaign, particularly online, often seemed ill-informed. Comment pieces from both sides tended towards a rabble-rousing tone, inspiring a torrent of racist and Islamaphobic abuse. I experienced more back-to-my-roots shivers, this time thinking about my grandparents' fight against Oswald Mosley's blackshirts.

Acting on Rainbow Hamlets's advice, a joint statement was issued by Tower Hamlets' mayor Lutfur Rahman, the Inter-faith Forum, and the East London Mosque & London Muslim Centre (ELM). This represented the first public condemnation of homophobia by both Rahman and the ELM.

The local authority, Tower Hamlets Homes (the largest social housing provider in the borough), and the Metropolitan police also issued directives to ensure that within a further 48 hours hundreds of public servants were on the lookout to report the stickers and remove them.

A series of specially convened meetings at the town hall drew representatives from council departments, education, housing, the police and community organisations. At these meetings, the sticker campaign, homophobic hate preachers, racism among some members of the LGBT community and the infiltration by the far right of East End Gay Pride were placed firmly on the agenda, each with equal vigour. And here, the ELM first admitted there had been homophobic incidents in the mosque in the past and that it had adopted new policies and procedures to ensure it would not happen again.

Add in regular community consultation and the police operation, and these joint actions represented a rapid and timely response to events.

At informal meetings involving the Council of Mosques, the ELM, and the Inter-faith Forum, chaired by a Christian minister, we looked at how to address homophobia in faith communities. We argued that no hatred, harassment or bullying of any LGBT person is ever justified by faith, even when scripture forbids same-gender sexual relations. Whatever any community's teaching, this is entirely separate from its duty to respect human life and to develop good relations with its neighbours and other communities of culture and belief.

Out of these meetings came the idea for a major interfaith conference on the International Day Against Homophobia on 17 May. A multifaith LGBT steering group was assembled and Rahman and the cohesion minister, Andrew Stunell, agreed to join more than 80 LGBT and straight people from Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist and secular backgrounds.

But in April, it suddenly became hard to get a response from the Council of Mosques and the ELM. We realised that neither would talk publicly about their new stance on hate speech, or even, despite our strenuous efforts, send any formal representatives to the conference. A couple of community members were sent along to participate in their own right, but a chance was missed, goodwill dissipated and the trust that had been built up sorely tested.

All too often, these issues are dealt with in ways that create enormous tensions and hurt, reinforce ignorance and disrespect, and build anger and hatred. At the same time, whatever good words are said to us in meetings in private, they are only of value if they lead to public action. Otherwise, what use are they in building understanding between communities when tensions exist?

Meanwhile, it soon became clear that the law does not deal with anti-gay hate material in the same way as it does racist, antisemitic or anti-faith literature.

The relevant Public Order Act section depends on whether the material displayed is: threatening, abusive or insulting (section 5); whether there was also an intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress (section 4a); and if the conduct or material is threatening and is intended to stir up hatred (section 29).

If the offending material is racist, antisemitic or anti-faith, there is a special aggravated status given to the section 4a offence which means it becomes a serious criminal charge that can be dealt with in the crown court, with more extensive powers of sentencing and greater police powers of investigation. This does not apply to homophobic hate material.

Whereas the case law for racist and antisemitic material is well established, many of the provisions relating to homophobia only came into effect last year. There is no case law directing police or the Crown Prosecution Service towards the appropriate charging level or identifying what constitutes threatening homophobic material.

Neither Metropolitan police nor British Transport police (BTP) investigating officers would accept that the stickers were threatening. The BTP, which had CCTV footage, charged Mohammed Hasnath under section 5. He was convicted last month after admitting to displaying and disseminating the stickers to others, but not to intending to cause distress. Hasnath claimed he was merely promoting his faith. However, District Judge Jeremy Coleman said when passing sentence: "I think you used these stickers deliberately to offend and distress people, you certainly succeeded in doing that. You have upset people and they deserve an apology, you are not entitled to behave in this way." Hasnath received a £100 fine.

In June, we obtained a month-by-month analysis of homophobic crime figures in the borough. It reveals that incidents in Tower Hamlets have risen by a third (33%) between April 2009-March 2010 and April 2010-March 2011, much more than the 21% widely reported in the media. The increase is of even more concern because the data counted all the reports of stickers in the borough as one linked incident.

The ELM is a leader of the Muslim community, with a responsibility to set an example. It has accepted it has hosted at least one homophobic speaker, Abdul Karim Hattin, in 2007, whose Spot the Fag lecture was featured on Channel 4's Dispatches programme. Last month, the ELM contacted Rainbow Hamlets after accusations of culpability for the rise in homophobic crime in Tower Hamlets appeared in the national press. It asked what could be done.

We are now engaged in intense dialogue. Our approach is to treat the ELM like any other body in which homophobia has occurred. So we have made clear that we intend to compile an evidenced-based report. We have asked the ELM for a clear statement of its policy towards homophobic speakers. On its website it does say "those hate preachers who circumvented our bookings policy in the past are now barred; our vetting procedures for speakers and guests appearing at our mosque and centre have been significantly tightened over the past year". But to date no one has seen its policy. We have also asked how it will enforce the policy and, crucially, for a clear response about which preachers are barred. We intend to report progress next month.

Today, moderate communities have a simple unequivocal duty: to be seen to show all their neighbours respect – whether or not they agree or approve of their beliefs or lifestyle. What is needed is a paradigm shift among LGBT and Muslim opinion formers, one that enables the leaders to find a rhetoric that can speak of respect and joint-working publicly, and which addresses patterns of prejudice on all sides without fear.

Twenty years ago this month, I was secretary of the Jewish Lesbian and Gay Helpline when it was banned from a cross-community charity walk organised by the chief rabbi, Lord Sacks, because it was an event for families. Clerics, like all of us, can change. Nowadays, Sacks says: "Jews cannot fight antisemitism alone, Muslims cannot fight Islamaphobia alone, gays cannot fight homophobia alone. The victim cannot cure the crime, the hated cannot cure the hater. We are as big or as small as the space we make for others who are not like us."

We should all take note.

IS LEICESTER GETTING MORE RACIST?

From today's Leicester Mercury:

Is Leicester getting more racist?

Dr Samuel Lebens believes it is. This is his tale of two cities: an old, welcoming one, and a modern city that he says tolerates hatred of its embattled Jewish minority

I was privileged to grow in up in Leicester; a beautiful city with fantastic schools, and a vibrant multi-cultural community. I cherish the ethnic diversity of my childhood.

Now, I'm studying to become a Rabbi where the study of Judaism is the only religion on the curriculum.

But, so moved was I during my youth by the wealth of multicultural wisdom around me that I chose to take a GCSE in Sikhism – a strikingly elegant religion with an egalitarian ethic.

I was also struck by the beauty of the other religions that surrounded me: Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity. These experiences, I carry with me in to my adult life.

As a leader of the National Union of Students (NUS), I was in joint charge of their campaign against racism and fascism.

I recall a motion that was debated at a national conference. The motion called for the NUS to condemn the practice of women wearing a headscarf.

My childhood experiences in Leicester had inoculated me from the xenophobia that motivates this suggestion.

I was among the first to stand in front of the 1,000 students at the conference, to defend a woman's right to dress as she pleases.

I couldn't be moved by the notion that Islam is inherently bigoted or prejudiced. My childhood included too many counter examples to any such claim.

I grew up in a Jewish community that felt safe within this multicultural environment.

Leicester has never been home to a large number of Jews. But we've always been proud of our association with it.

Indeed, the number of Jewish mayors that have graced Leicester's City Hall is vastly disproportionate to our numbers.

Growing up in that community, habituated to the tolerance around me, gave me a confidence in my minority identity. I owe that to the city of Leicester.

But let me describe to you another city.

At best, it can be described as a city that tolerates the anti-Semitism in its midst.

In the past few years, I have found it is almost impossible to walk down its main streets without having anti-Semitic abuse hurled at me and my family.

Cars slow down, with windows opened, in order to unleash a bloodcurdling howl of Jew-hatred.

I don't feel comfortable to dress, outwardly, as a Jew in that city.

It is a place to which I fear to bring my children; I don't want them to know the face of anti-Semitism.

A young relative of the Rabbi, in that city, had a pellet gun shot at him indiscriminately. The synagogue there has been the target of repeated acts of vandalism.

Recently, anti-Semites located the home of its only Orthodox Rabbi.

They hurled bricks through its door in the middle of the night. The fear that such an attack can strike into the hearts of a young family is barely describable.

When will the next brick come? Will it still be a brick, or will it, God forbid, be something worse?

How are they supposed to explain the attacks to their children? It is the sort of fear that can drive a family, and even a community, out of a city.

The city I'm now describing is also Leicester; the Leicester of my adulthood.

Not since Simon de Montfort, who was known for his Jew-hatred, has Leicester been so overcast with the shadow of anti-Semitism.

Leicester's Jewish community is shrinking. It is unlikely to last as a viable community for another generation.

Its youth are attracted to larger centres of Jewish life. But, under the leadership of its vibrant young Rabbi and his wife, the community has been host to something of a renaissance.

Leicester would like to believe its greatest asset is its communal cohesion.

Mercury reporter Adam Wakelin's recent feature expressed his dismay at the attacks on our Rabbi and his family, but concluded that Leicester is, nevertheless, a tolerant town.

"Once upon a time we made socks and shoes," he wrote. "Now we do diversity. Rather well, usually."

But Leicester should be under no illusion about the scale of the problem it faces.

Very few of Leicester's Jews dress outwardly as Jews (in skull caps, and fringes on the corners of their clothes).

But, when a Jew does walk around dressed in traditional garb, there's almost bound to be to be a confrontation.

Community cohesion might be good, generally, but if even one religious identity cannot flourish there, then it cannot be said to be a city that "does diversity".

What are Leicester's faith communities going to do? What is the council going to do?

Other than issuing reassuring statements, how are they going to combat the rise of anti-Semitic attitudes?

Many of the anti-Semites who have confronted me in Leicester were of clear religious affiliation, and belonged to ethnic minorities themselves. They should have known better.

I haven't a clue who's responsible for this most recent spate of attacks; I certainly won't jump to any assumptions.

However, Councillor Sood was surely right to claim that "attacks on one religion are attacks on all religions".

Until the rank and file membership of faith groups in Leicester take this lesson to heart, those communities have a duty to do more than issue reassuring quotes, however heartfelt.

I appreciate their support but what are they actually going to do? What are you going to do?

The last chapter of Leicester's Jewish history is currently being written.

It could be a glorious ending: an old, venerable community, winds down, merging with larger communities elsewhere.

Alternatively, the last chapter could be one in which the Jewish community is hounded and bullied out of its city by an anti-Semitism that almost goes unnoticed.

Which of these cities does Leicester want to be?

Dr Samuel Lebens is studying towards Rabbinical ordination and lives with his wife and two children in Israel.

RABBI'S HOME IN LEICESTER ATTACKED BY RACIST THUGS

Here's the front page story from today's Leicester Mercury - a report of something distinctly unpleasant and unwelcome. This isn't the kind of story we want to hear (or tell) about Leicester, but here it is. I heard about these incidents yesterday, when I attended the MBCoL book launch (which was hailed by all as a triumph in terms of demonstrating how well the diverse communities of Leicester and Leicestershire can get along). From what I heard at that event, I understand that there was some discussion amongst the Jewish communities here about whether it would be better for the story not to be made public - that it might do more harm than good to the cause of peaceful coexistence locally, that it could embolden those of intolerant views. Whatever the virtues of either side of that argument, it's all over the front page of the Mercury today.

Rabbi's home in Leicester attacked by racist thugs

by Dan Martin

A rabbi's home has been targeted in a series of suspected anti-Semitic attacks.

Rocks have been thrown through the windows of Rabbi Shmuli Pink's house in Leicester, where he lives with his wife Rivkie and their seven children.

A brick was also thrown through the window of his car, parked outside his home near the Orthodox Jewish synagogue in Highfield Street, Highfields.

Rabbi Pink, who leads the city's 400-strong Orthodox Jewish community, said: "It has been an unpleasant experience but we have got the support of other faith groups and we are working very closely with the police.

"We are remaining strong."

Police are investigating the attacks which happened on May 7, May 20 and May 21, all late at night or in the early hours.

They say they are treating the incidents as religiously motivated because of Rabbi Pink's "position in the community".

Councillor Manjula Sood, chairman of the Leicester Council of Faiths, said she was extremely disturbed by the attacks.

She said: "This is completely unacceptable. It should not happen anywhere and especially not in our city, where we pride ourselves on the good relations that exist between faiths.

"Attacks on one religion are attacks on all religions and I hope the police are able to catch the people responsible. I have met the family and they are good people who do not deserve what has happened."

On two occasions the family was at home when the vandals struck.

Lawrence Jacobs, the synagogue's security officer, said: "When you have three attacks in as many weeks there is a reason for that and it looks like they were religiously motivated.

"We have no idea at all who has done it. These attacks were frightening for the children in the house at the time.

"We are very happy with the police response and we hope those responsible will be caught. The police are treating it with a lot of gravity."

Councillor Jeffery Kaufman, president of the Leicester Progressive Jewish Congregation, said: "I deplore any kind of attack on someone that happens because of their religion.

"I am proud of this city and its tolerance, so incidents like these are all the more upsetting. It is true that there has been a rise in anti-Semitic attacks in recent years, however."

He said the Community Support Trust, which campaigns against anti-Semitism and offers security advice to Jewish communities, had been informed.

Inspector Shane O'Neill, commander of Spinney Hill Park police station said: "We are treating these incidents as religiously motivated due to the victim's position in the community and believe that the incidents are isolated.

"We are working closely with the family, the community and other agencies to resolve this to everyone's satisfaction. If there is anyone who has any information regarding these crimes, we would urge them to contact police immediately."

Contact the police on 0116 222 2222 or Crimestoppers on 0800 555111.

In the article reproduced above, Councillor Kaufman is quoted as referring to the "Community Support Trust". I couldn't find a relevant organisation of that name online, but did find the Community Security Trust (CST). I assume that's the one he is referring to (though correct me if I'm wrong, faithful reader). On their website, CST states that it is, "proud of Britain's diverse and vibrant Jewish community, and seeks to protect its many achievements from the external threats of bigotry, antisemitism and terrorism."

ANTI-SEMITISM INCIDENTS IN UK REMAIN HIGH

Nicky Campbell's phone-in on BBC radio 5 Live this morning is on the topic of Anti-Semitism in Britain today. A Jewish charity which monitors acts of Anti-Semitism in the UK says it recorded 639 incidents of violence, threats and abuse last year. The figure, from the Community Security Trust, is the second highest since it began its work in 1984.

One caller is from Leicester; he identifies himself as "Abdul". He speaks up for Leicester as a place where a lot of work is being done to combat Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia by the faith communities getting together and working together. In fact (in the part of the show I hear) Leicester sounds like the only place with anything positive going on to tackle religious prejudice. Nicky Campbell gives a name check to Sheikh Ibrahim Moghra as a prominent figure in inter faith work, not only in Leicester but also further afield.

Read an article about the Anti-Semitism figures on the BBC News website.

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY: STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

As it is Holocaust Memorial Day, and since there are entries in this blog today about a couple of events commemorating it in Leicester today, I thought it would be good to round off the day with this published "Statement of Purpose". This describes the aims of Holocaust Memorial Day as being to:

• recognise that the Holocaust was a tragically defining episode of the twentieth century, a crisis for European civilisation and a universal catastrophe for humanity.
• provide a national mark of respect for all victims of Nazi persecution and demonstrate understanding with all those who still suffer its consequences.
• raise awareness and understanding of the events of the Holocaust as a continuing issue of fundamental importance for all humanity.
• ensure that the horrendous crimes, racism and victimisation committed during the Holocaust are neither forgotten not repeated, whether in Europe or elsewhere in the world.
• restate the conitnuing need for vigilance in light of the troubling repetition of human tragedies in the world today.
• reflect on recent attrocities that raise similar issues.
• provide a national focus for educating subsequent generations about the Holocaust and the continued relevance of the lessons that are learnt from it.
• provide an opportunity to examine our nation's past and learn for the fututre.
• promote a democractic and tolerant society, free of the evils of prejudice, racism and other forms of bigotry.
• support the Government's commitment that all citizens - without distinction - should participate freely and fully in the economic, social and public life of the nation.
• highlight the values of a tolerant and diverse society based upon the notions of universal dignity and equal rights and responsibilities for all its citizens.
• assert a continuing commitment to oppose racism, anti-Semitism, victimisationa and genocide.
• support our shared aspirations with both our European partners and the wider international community centred on the ideals of peace, justice and community for all.

"PREJUDICE AGAINST MUSLIMS IN BRITAIN IS AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH"

This article appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

"Prejudice against Muslims in Britain is at an all-time high"

The chairman of the Conservative Party has said prejudice against Muslims in Britain is at an all-time high and has become socially acceptable.

Speaking to the Mercury, Baroness Warsi defended her controversial comments on Islamophobia, the fear of Islam, which were released yesterday.

The contents of a speech, made at Leicester University last night, had been trailed to the media ahead of the event, sparking a debate on Islam in Britain.

In the first major comments on religion by a member of David Cameron's Government, she said Islamophobia was seen by many as normal, and said describing Muslims as either "moderate" or "extremist" fosters growing prejudice.

In our interview, she revealed how she had been the target of racist e-mails since entering the House of Lords in 2007, including receiving one just minutes earlier which read: "Instead of bleating like some Halal lamb being led to slaughter, how about ending the knee-bending to Islam at every opportunity."

She said: "Anti-Islamic sentiment is the last socially acceptable form of bigotry in Britain, and that e-mail is a typical example of the kind of behaviour I face.

"There's a rising level of anti-Islamic hatred in this country. When I get that kind of e-mail, that's being directed at me as a person whose family has a tradition of half a century in Britain."

Lady Warsi, who is the first Muslim woman to attend Cabinet, said she stood by every word of her speech.

"When you're open and honest about problems people know exist then people will make headlines out of it.

"I don't regret any of it."

She said discrimination against Muslims was more acceptable in Britain than ever before, and urged people to be more careful about what they said about the religion.

"People need to take stock of what they're saying and ask, 'if my next door neighbour could hear what I was saying, would they find it acceptable? Would it be okay for me to say these things about Muslims if they were Jewish or black?'"

She said Muslim communities had to organise themselves in the way Jewish communities had in the past, to tackle anti-semitism.

She said: "You can't draw exact examples between Muslim society in Britain today and the Jewish communities of decades gone by, but people used to say that anti-semitism was not really an issue.

"It was only when the British Jewish community started working with the police, evidence was logged, gathering information. Until that point people didn't acknowledge there was a problem. British Muslims need to do the same.

"We need to get beyond asking whether it is happening or whether it is an issue, because it is.

"This isn't a fight to the bottom for who is the biggest victim.

"The reason you have to be careful about your language is because of the potential consequences. We're on a journey as a country. Words can become unacceptable over time.

"Saying someone is moderate or extreme Muslim, you decide whether someone is good or bad based on their religion.

"If someone goes out and starts shouting 'death to Britain' and comes out with loads of crazy statements and wants to do us harm then they are criminals.

"They've become detached from their religion to such an extent that they should be defined by their criminality rather than their beliefs."

Asked whether she still faces regular discrimination, she said: "On the basis of my race? Less so. On the basis of my religion? More so."

Abdulkarim Gheewala, president of the Islamic Education Trust in Leicester, said: "Baroness Warsi's comments are timely and most welcome. No one should be allowed to justify the demonisation of Muslims as a whole, in the name of freedom of expression. We congratulate her for her honest comments."

Read the full speech given by Baroness Warsi at the University of Leicester.