Tuesday, 8 December 2009

Attacks on Osama motivated purely by party political benefit!

Interesting post at a blog called Harry's Place. It seems that Labour's Glasgow Central MP Mohammad Sarwar serves on the board of the Finsbury Park Mosque in London, which readers may recall from Abu Hamza infamy.

After the hook-handed preacher was pushed out, the Metropolitan Police arranged for individuals from the Muslim Brotherhood to take over in 2005. At that point, Sarwar joined the board of trustees too, has been serving alongside them since then and has even defended one of them for links to Hamas.

I'm not suggesting that Mr Sarwar has necessarily done anything wrong here. My point however is to look at how differently this story would have been handled had it been my friend and colleague Osama Saeed in this position. Osama is in with a great chance of being the SNP MP for Glasgow Central after the general election.

If Osama had been in the same situation as Sarwar, it would have been all over the press ages ago and he would have been portrayed as some kind of extremist who was helping the Muslim Brotherhood take over a mosque.

So the fact this this has been the situation since 2005 and hasn't been uncovered till now is curious. Or is it? It is clearer than ever to me now that the attempted smears on Osama are motivated purely by party political concerns. Osama is not even an MP yet, but no one has subjected Sarwar to the same degree of scrutiny. Nor has he been asked to explain his actions or distance himself. Why not?

The accusations against Osama always come from people who don't know him. He's been in the SNP for years and the rubbish that Labour puts out about him couldn't be further from the truth. It's a dangerous game and a dishonourable one when it's only played for party political benefit.

Am I wrong? Let's find out. Let's see what Labour MP, prolific blogger and outspoken critic of just about every move Osama makes Tom Harris has to say about his colleague Mr Sarwar. Sorry? What's that I hear you say Tom? Can't make it out. Ah I see, nothing. Deafened by the silence. I rest my case!


  1. I don't think you've made any case other than an "imagine how the press would have reacted to a story if it had been someone else at the centre of the story" attempt to play the victim where no crime has been committed.

    It reminds me of attempts by certain commentators to rustle up outrage over the court treatment of Neil MacGregor and his deluded threats to the Glasgow Mosque - "Imagine if it had been a Muslim" they yelled.... oh wait a minute! That was Osama Saeed that said that wasn't it...

  2. It is distasteful the way some in politics play the race/religion card to discredit opponents.
    Tom Harris in particular gets my goat on this one. He's otherwise a fairly decent-seeming bloke (never actually met him, but I've exchanged enough comments, and of course his politics are misguided), but on this score he is so far out of order it's unbelievable.

  3. Indygal,

    I thought I said that Osama Saeed was coming ridiculous attack?

    I thought I posted it here?

    Other than denying it, why have you not allowed it?

    I am 100% on Osama Saeed's side.

    I think his enemies ought to be dragged out into the sunshine and beaten with a stick.

    What say you?

  4. Douglas, this is all I've had from you. I don't always publish comments and some I publish but it takes me ages because I hardly ever get time to look at them, but def not had any others from you :-)