Violent clashes broke out on Saturday between riot police and right-wing protesters.

About 2,000 members of the English Defence League (EDL) descended on Dudley town centre in the West Midlands to demonstrate against plans for a new mosque.

Some of the protesters broke out of a pen in a car park, breaking down metal fences and throwing the metal brackets at officers, who were armed with riot shields and batons.

Members of the demonstration started fighting their own stewards who were trying to calm them down as they attacked the fences penning them in.

The EDL had put signs up which read “Labour forcing mosques on Britain” and “No one wants this mosque”.

Some demonstrators held placards reading “Muslim bombers off our streets” and “Say no to the mosque”. The national anthem was played on a speaker system while demonstrators waved the flag of St George.

Dudley Council said in a statement on its website: “We didn’t invite the EDL to our town and we don’t want them here.”

But the council said it did not have the power to ban the event. It said: “The council has worked closely with the police to do all it can to protect and support local people, traders, businesses and the town centre. The EDL is proposing a static protest (rather than a march) and there is no legal requirement for an organiser of such a protest to notify the police or the council of their definite plans.”

The mosque is planned for Hall Street with details on the design and positioning of the building due for submission by July 2011. In July last year the council lost a high court challenge to prevent the planning application being given the go ahead.

The EDL protesters managed to break out of the car park by pulling down fences and barging their way past riot police officers. About half the group then ran off through the town. Lines of riot police officers fought running battles with protesters as they tried to contain the mob who pulled down barriers blocking off roads.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100403/tuk-violence-at-anti-mosque-protest-6323e80.html

FIFA banned the Iranian women’s football team wearing hijab from participating in the inaugural Youth Olympic Games (YOG) which will be held from August 14 to 26 in Singapore.

FIFA at first invited the Iranian team to take part in the games but unexpectedly decided to forbid wearing hijab (Islamic covering) in the games.

President of Iran Football Federation Ali Kafashian wrote a request to the world football governing body to reconsider their decision.

He pointed out that due to religious beliefs the Iranian women team will participate in the competitions only if they are allowed to observe the Islamic dress code.

Altogether 170 countries are expected to participate in the 2010 Youth Summer Olympics. About 3,500 athletes and 875 accompanying persons are expected to participate in the games. Each country will send at least four athletes.

http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=1057012

http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Quebec+veil+slap+face+Muslim+women/2741867/story.html

A Belgian parliamentary committee has voted to ban face-covering Islamic veils from being worn in public.

The home affairs committee voted unanimously to endorse the move, which must be approved by parliament for it to become law.

Such a vote could be held within weeks, correspondents say, meaning that Belgium could become the first European country to implement a ban.

France is also considering restricting face-covering veils.

There are several types of headscarves and veils for Muslim women - those that cover the face being the niqab and the burka.

‘Dangerous precedent’

The BBC’s Dominic Hughes reports from Brussels that there are about 500,000 Muslims in Belgium, and the Belgian Muslim Council says only a couple of dozen wear full-face veils.

FROM BBC WORLD SERVICE More from BBC World Service

Several districts of Belgium have already banned the burka in public places under old local laws originally designed to stop people masking their faces completely at carnival time.

The wording of the draft law approved by the parliamentary committee says the ban would apply to areas accessible to the public - which would include people walking in the street or using public transport - and would be enforced by fines or even prison.

Denis Ducarme, from the Belgian centre-right Reformist Movement that proposed the bill, said he was “proud that Belgium would be the first country in Europe which dares to legislate on this sensitive matter”.

Find out about different styles of Muslim headscarf In graphics

A colleague, Corinne De Parmentier, said: “We have to free women of this burden.”

But the proposal has alarmed some who see it as an attack on civil liberties.

Isabelle Praile, the vice-president of the Muslim Executive of Belgium, said any law could set a dangerous precedent.

“Today it’s the full-face veil, tomorrow the veil, the day after it will be Sikh turbans and then perhaps it will be mini-skirts,” she was quoted as saying by AFP news agency.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8597142.stm

POLICE officers are being drafted on to Merseyside school buses to stop Muslim pupils being racially abused.

The problems centre around verbal attacks on hijab- wearing girls at West Derby’s Holly Lodge Girls’ College. Last night, bus drivers who are accused of refusing to stop for the veil-wearing Muslim pupils in order to avoid trouble were also branded “racist”.

The Daily Post can reveal police officers will now board the buses to protect the school girls from the “racist” taunts of other passengers.

A probe was launched after concerned female members of Liverpool’s Muslim community highlighted the abuse of pupils travelling to Holly Lodge to police.

Police chiefs have since held talks with travel authority Merseytravel and the Muslim community.

Complaints are contained within a Merseyside Police Authority report that “young Muslim women are targeted by racists on the way to Holly Lodge School” and “often buses won’t stop” for the girls “easily identified by their veils”.

Merseyside police last night said community police officers would now board buses in the area to deter the racism and would work with city schools to remind pupils “racial abuse is a criminal offence.”

But police stressed the issue of drivers failing to stop for the girls was a matter for Merseytravel.

Merseytravel said it condemned “all acts of racism” and, after probing the claims, has “now drawn up an action plan to deal with and prevent any further incidents”. It was not, however, able to release details of the measures which might be implemented.

Members of the Muslim community said the problem was a long-running one.

Amina Ismail was approached by Holly Lodge pupils while overseeing a widening participation event for Hope University last year.

Ms Ismail, now employed by Liverpool John Moores University, said: “They said people driving past were being abusive because they were wearing the hijab (head scarf) at the bus stops on Queens Drive or West Derby Road.”

She said bus drivers refusing to stop were “cowardly” and that “they should not push their own personal prejudices on young people.”

And with pupils now frequently travelling farther afield to the school of their choice, she urged people to “see past the scarf or skin colour and look beyond this”.

Around 10% of the 1,274 Holly Lodge pupils on roll are from ethnic minorities, and the school has won praise from Ofsted for its “promotion of equality and diversity”.

Head teacher Julia Tinsley said: “There have been a small number of cases where ignorant people have directed racist comments at our pupils while they are on buses. It is completely unacceptable and very upsetting for those involved and we have provided support to those affected.

“We welcome the assistance from Merseyside Police in tackling the mindless minority who think it is acceptable to make racist comments.”

Merseyside Police Authority committee member and city councillor, Paul Clein, said any driver deliberately failing to stop was “guilty of racism and bullying”.

But Colin Carr, regional advisor for the North West branch of giant union Unite – whose members include bus drivers – said he would be surprised if they were failing to stop.

“The union would condemn this kind of action, and equality and diversity is something we promote across the spectrum,” he said.

A Merseyside police spokesman said the force was committed to tackling racism and added: “We will be putting police community support officers on public buses during the periods these incidents are happening to reassure passengers and deter would-be offenders. CCTV will be routinely checked following allegations of any criminal offence.”

The police are also looking at ways for people to anonymously pass on information so they could catch the culprits.

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2010/02/26/police-to-ride-school-buses-to-save-girls-from-racism-92534-25918777/

Most people in Britain hold a critical opinion on the (niqab) veils worn by some Muslim women, according to a poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion. 67 per cent of respondents say that garments that conceal a woman’s face represent an affront to British values, while 25 per cent disagree with this notion. However, 58 per cent of respondents believe the government should not be allowed to tell individuals what they can and cannot wear.

Angus Reid Global Monitor, 27 January 2010

Full poll here

Unfortunately, the apparently reassuring opposition to state interference didn’t prevent 66% of respondents backing a ban on the niqab in public places, 75% a ban in schools and universities and 85% a ban at airports.

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2010/1/27/uk-poll-66-per-cent-back-ban-on-niqab-in-public-places.html

When is a racist hate crime not a racist hate crime?

When no-one dies, or nothing racist is shouted or the whole building doesn’t go up in flames… but anything short of this is not a hate crime, apparently. Just hide behind a good lawyer and you’ll be all right:

————-

A teenager who petrol bombed a mosque has escaped a jail sentence after it was judged not to be a race hate crime.

Peter Clark, from Livingston, set fire to Livingston Mosque and Community Centre in West Lothian with a beer bottle filled with petrol.

Members of the mosque stamped out the fire before police were called in.

Clark, 19, appeared before Livingston Sheriff Court and was fined £400. He was also ordered to pay the mosque £60 in compensation.

Fiscal depute Victoria Greening told the court that members of the mosque found the smouldering remains of the bottle smashed against a door at the back of the religious building on 17 August, 2008.

The bottle was taken away for analysis and the DNA proved a match to Clark who had earlier denied any knowledge of the fire.

It was an act of profound foolishness, nothing more, nothing less than that Ian Bryce Clark’s solicitor

In mitigation, Clark told the court that he had been having problems with his pregnant girlfriend and had also learned that his father was not his biological dad.

He said he had turned to drink and had been walking through woods when he came across a green container with petrol in it.

Clark said he set fire to some of the petrol before filling a beer bottle with more of it.

The father-of-one said he tried to throw it at the fence of the mosque but missed and hit the building.

Ms Greening said: “There is no indication that this was a racially motivated crime.”

Clark’s solicitor, Ian Bryce, said his client was not a racist and he was not acting in a racist manner.

“It was an act of profound foolishness, nothing more, nothing less than that,” Mr Bryce added.

Sheriff Alan Miller said: “You are very lucky really.

“This incident could have turned out to be so much more serious than it did had the fire really taken effect or had there been injury to people as well as damage to premises.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/8476002.stm

A devout Christian couple have been cleared of insulting a Muslim guest because of her faith.

Benjamin and Sharon Vogelenzang were accused of launching a tirade against Ericka Tazi at the Bounty House Hotel in Aintree, Liverpool, in March.

The couple had denied using threatening, abusive or insulting words which were religiously aggravated.

The Crown Prosecution System said it was satisfied there had been sufficient evidence for a successful prosecution.

District judge Richard Clancy dismissed the case at Liverpool Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday afternoon.

Mrs Tazi, who converted to Islam 18 months ago, spent a month at the hotel in Church Avenue while attending a course at Aintree Hospital.

Business affected

She claimed the couple became enraged when she wore a hijab on her last day and accused Mr Vogelenzang, 53, of asking her if she was a murderer and a terrorist.

She also told the court Mr Vogelenzang called the Prophet Muhammad a murderer and a warlord and likened him to Saddam Hussein and Hitler.

But the couple denied her version of events and claimed Mrs Tazi told them Jesus was a minor prophet and that the Bible was untrue.

Mr Vogelenzang admitted that his wife may have referred to the hijab as a form of bondage, but said he only listed historical figures such as Hitler, Nero and Mao to make light of the situation.

Earlier on Wednesday the court heard that takings at the couple’s hotel were down by 80% since they were prosecuted for the public order offence.

Speaking from the witness box, Mr Vogelenzang accused 60-year-old Mrs Tazi of “trying to ruin his business” during heated scenes.

The two-day trial ended when Judge Clancy ruled that the evidence against the hoteliers was “inconsistent” and dismissed the case.

He told the couple that religion and politics was the “tinderbox which set the whole thing alight” because of both parties’ “strongly entrenched positions”.

Evidence inconsistent

Explaining his reasons for dismissal, Judge Clancy said Mrs Tazi’s claim that she was verbally attacked for up to an hour had not been backed up by the other witnesses.

He also said the language Mrs Tazi used in the exchange “did not quite form the same religious view” that was put to him on the stand.

Judge Clancy said: “I’m not satisfied on the facts that this case has been made out.”

Mr and Mrs Vogelenzang were backed by campaign group The Christian Institute which held demonstrations of support outside the court.

Their supporters cheered as the couple emerged from the building after the hearing.

We were satisfied that there was sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction Nicola Inskip, CPS

Speaking outside court, Mrs Vogelenzang, 54, said: “It has been a very difficult nine months and we are looking forward to rebuilding our business and getting on with our lives.

“We would like to thank all those who have supported us over the last nine months - our family, our friends, our church, and Christians from all around the world and non-Christians.

“And as Christmas approaches we wish everybody peace and goodwill.”

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) later defended the decision to prosecute saying it was a “serious allegation”.

“In looking at the evidence in this case we had to consider whether there was any evidence that the defendants had caused harassment, alarm or distress and in so doing demonstrated to the victim hostility solely based on the fact that she was Muslim,” said senior lawyer Nicola Inskip.

“We were satisfied that there was sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction that a religiously aggravated offence should be charged.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8404212.stm

Swiss voters have supported a referendum proposal to ban the building of minarets, official results show. There are only 4 minarets in Switzerland.

More than 57% of voters and 22 out of 26 cantons - or provinces - voted in favour of the ban.

The proposal had been put forward by the Swiss People’s Party, (SVP), the largest party in parliament, which says minarets are a sign of Islamisation.

The government opposed the ban, saying it would harm Switzerland’s image, particularly in the Muslim world.

But Martin Baltisser, the SVP’s general secretary, told the BBC: “This was a vote against minarets as symbols of Islamic power.”

The BBC’s Imogen Foulkes, in Bern, says the surprise result is very bad news for the Swiss government which fears unrest among the Muslim community.

Our correspondent says voters worried about rising immigration - and with it the rise of Islam - have ignored the government’s advice.

In a statement, the government said it accepted the decision.

It said: “The Federal Council (government) respects this decision. Consequently the construction of new minarets in Switzerland is no longer permitted.”

This will cause major problems because during this campaign mosques were attacked, which we never experienced in 40 years in Switzerland Tamir Hadjipolu Zurich’s Association of Muslim Organisations Minaret vote: Your views Result “reflects unease with Islam”

Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf said: “Concerns [about Islamic fundamentalism] have to be taken seriously.

“However, a ban on the construction of new minarets is not a feasible means of countering extremist tendencies.”

She sought to reassure Swiss Muslims, saying the decision was “not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture”.

Switzerland is home to some 400,000 Muslims and has just four minarets.

After Christianity, Islam is the most widespread religion in Switzerland, but it remains relatively hidden.

There are unofficial Muslim prayer rooms, and planning applications for new minarets are almost always refused.

Supporters of a ban claimed that allowing minarets would represent the growth of an ideology and a legal system - Sharia law - which are incompatible with Swiss democracy.

But others say the referendum campaign incited hatred. On Thursday the Geneva mosque was vandalised for the third time during the campaign, according to local media.

Amnesty International said the vote violated freedom of religion and would probably be overturned by the Swiss supreme court or the European Court of Human Rights.

‘Political symbol’

The president of Zurich’s Association of Muslim Organisations, Tamir Hadjipolu, told the BBC: “This will cause major problems because during this campaign mosques were attacked, which we never experienced in 40 years in Switzerland.

“Islamaphobia has increased intensively.”

And there was dismay among Switzerland’s Muslims upon hearing the result.

It’s a message that you are not welcome here as true citizens of this society Elham Manea, co-founder of the Forum for a Progressive Islam

Farhad Afshar, president of the Coordination of Islamic Organisations in Switzerland, said: “The most painful thing for us is not the ban on minarets but the symbol sent by this vote.

“Muslims do not feel accepted as a religious community.”

Elham Manea, co-founder of the Forum for a Progressive Islam, added: “My fear is that the younger generation will feel unwelcome.

“It’s a message that you are not welcome here as true citizens of this society.”

Sunday’s referendum was held after the SVP collected 100,000 signatures from voters within 18 months calling for a vote.

In recent years countries across Europe have been debating how best to integrate Muslim populations.

France focused on the headscarf, while in Germany there was controversy over plans to build one of Europe’s largest mosques.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8385069.stm