Behind The Times?

This is not the best of The Times: this is the worst of The Times. It is relentless.

Top story on the website of The Times in the early hours of 20th August was the barbaric and brutal murder of captive journalist James Foley by “Muslim extremists”. The point singled out for the leading extract was that this US journalist was murdered by a Brit – and murdered in a vicious fashion too.

(Where did these Muslim extremists come from, by the way? Who is funding them? Who is giving them arms? Why are young Muslims inspired to join them? What parts have US and UK foreign policy played in their formation and in their success? But that is another story…)

Underneath the piece about this war crime, this crime against humanity, this sick perversion different only in degree from the slaughter unleashed by the Israeli Defence Force on the Palestinians of Gaza (yet another story, that one) is… a story about Tower Hamlets and the elections back in May. And the point singled out for the leading extract of this second story is an allegation that election petitioners who have pursued a case in the High Court have alleged that some voters were told it was their religious duty to vote for Mayor Rahman and the Mayor was thus “exerting unlawful ‘spiritual influence’ over voters”.  And just in case the readers don’t get the point, The Times extract opens by reminding us, “Britain’s first Muslim mayor…”

Muslim mayor? Muslim? Muslim like in the Muslims in the first article? All alike, these Muslims who seem to be a bit British, are they?

Mayor Lutfur Rahman could be described in many ways. How about “Britain’s first qualified solicitor to be an elected Mayor”? (We have no idea if there are others, but you get our point.) How about “Britain’s first Mayor to have been endorsed by three Labour Party Regional Selection Boards running”?  Damn it: how about “Britain’s first directly elected Mayor who irons his own jeans”? (Again, we admit our research on that point has not been thorough – at least with regard to the other elected mayors, that is.)

The allegation that Mayor Rahman, imperfect though he is, is lecturing people of his own or any other faith that it is a religious duty to vote for him is as hilarious as it is bonkers. His very secular election manifesto was full of some rather good policies on funding education and housing (which The Times probably hates). It did ask voters to support his programmes on housing and street cleaning and youth services, but nowhere did it say “and a vote for Rahman will bring you eternal salvation so make sure you put your cross in the right box (sorry about the Christian iconography)”. He may not be a naughty boy, but he’s certainly not claiming he’s the Messiah either.

In a couple of days, The Times will probably be running a front page story on GCSE results. They may or may not mention the results in Tower Hamlets, and many of us hope our results, which have been so good in recent years, stay good and will be worth a mention. But the sting in the tale (sic) is that every Times-reading university admissions tutor (and there are many) and every Times-reading HR who reads application forms will see those words “Tower Hamlets” on the application forms and bells will ring that this is the borough associated with the mad butchering Muslims, the oddball religious nutters, and if there’s a Muslim-sounding name on that application form it is even more likely that the background prejudice will kick in. And this is how The Times feeds an institutional racism in the heart of society.

Against this great injustice, where are our MPs? Where’s the Leader of the Labour Group and her fellow councillors? Where’s our GLA member and MEPs? Why are our other elected representatives not shouting from the rooftops, “leave our Borough alone, free from this sleazy, insidious racist drivel which presents another hurdle for our young people to clear!” They’re silent. They’re silent because they have some contorted and non-Labour notion that they can some how cash in on this denigration of our Mayor (even though it didn’t work for them last May, it seems that hope springs eternal). And silence, as so many have said over the ages, amounts to complicity. They are, literally, “Behind The Times”.