Ahmed – Response to Steve Smith

Received from William Ewart:

I sent this in the the Advertiser a couple of weeks ago  in response to a bizarrely long defence of Ahmed in their Letters section

In that same week, before the Tizer’s story deadline, Ahmed admitted to The Huffington Post that he had made the comments ascribed to him in a media broadcast in Pakistan. Many thought these comments to be racist.

The Tizer did not cover this confession and apology.

I feel that the Advertiser too often lets the people of Rotherham down by failings in it’s journalistic standards. I do not blame the Tizer for not printing my letter, maybe it was too long? However shame on them for acting as his apologist which maybe acted to cover his potentially racist behaviour and apology.

Here is the letter I submitted:

“Response to The letters section Lord Ahmed’s Solicitor and friend have been given a far larger than average amount of space to defend his actions.

“I was always taught that letters to the Ed should be short, sharp, punchy and topical. Not long, ramblings by someones solicitor and a friend; ramblings that simply rehash old news.

We already know that Ahmed was not responsible for the death of the motorist. That his texting while driving at speeds up to 70 miles per hour on a rainy motorway was stupid, dangerous and illegal; but not a causal factor in the death. There it is said in two sentences.

These ramblings seem in your editors mind to outweigh the hot news, that in an interview to an internationally renowned news journal Ahmed “completely and unreservedly” apologised to “the Jewish community, to the judiciary, to the newspaper owners” for blaming Jewish-owned media organisations for his imprisonment for dangerous driving.”

His original words, spoken in Urdu to  Pakistani media being perceived by some as a racist attack on the Jewish people, and possibly what lead to his recent removal as an ” International Expert “with the  Institute For The Research of Genocide – Canada.

Is it a coincidence that his solicitor and a friend write such lengthy letters in the week when he has admitted to very poor judgement and an attempt to blame others for his actions? Could it be a  smokescreen?

Your newspaper has a responsibility to investigate and report the truth, or if feeling lazy at least read other newspapers. This was a bit shabby.”

Rik, I am not a racist, indeed I think myself quite the opposite. What I really hate is politicians who play two faced games with their own communities. I am concerned about the quality of representation we get in Rotherham, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation etc.

Wil Ewart

17 thoughts on “Ahmed – Response to Steve Smith

  1. I have a lot of sympathy with what Mr William Ewart has written.
    Yet,
    1. I haven’t read the letters in the ‘Tiser that he refers to. If Mr Ewart can provide the publication dates, I can look them up.

    2. Has Mr Ewart any evidence of a linkage between lord Ahmed’s remarks and his no longer acting as an “International Expert” for the Canadian Institute for the Research of Genocide?

    Like

    • An earlier contributor “Regular Reader” asked a couple of questions about my Lord Nazim letter and the failure of t’Tiser to do some real journalism. The answers are:

      1. The publication date of the Letters section referred to would be the 3rd of April. I allowed the Tiser 2 editions to print the Ahmed apology (www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/27/lord-ahmed-_n_2963644.html) and thereby show some journalistic integrity before approaching Rothpol out of frustration with our local example of the democratic free press.

      2. My statement about Ahmed losing the position as International Expert with the Institute for the Research of Genocide – Canada comes from a series of emails between myself and Professor Emir Ramic, Director of the Institute, dated Apr 3, 2013. The Times article regarding Ahmed’s comments in Pakistan appeared on the 14th March (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3713009.ece ) Interestingly the Director ends up using the phrase about Ahmed that “The Governing Board of the Institute decided [to remove him] two weeks ago.” Take the date of the Times article and appears the Board took the decision to remove Ahmed a few days later. Coincidence?

      Often in these situations a Board will allow the departing member a fig leaf of respectability by saying that they “accepted the resignation of…”
      Not in this case.
      I will happily share the full email exchange with Rothpol should anyone doubt my account.

      Like

  2. I too wrote a letter to the Advertiser in which I pointed out that Steve Smith is one of those lawyers who will defend his client at ANY cost. I don’t fully agree with EW that Ahmed was not to blame for the death of the motorist as it is quite obvious to any right thinking person that their concentration is not fully on their driving if they are or have recently been texting whilst driving. As I have said before on this matter, you cannot defend the indefensible.

    Like

  3. It is a fact, the texting was in no way a causal factor in the death of the motorist. Something accepted by the courts, the media, and anyone who has acquainted themselves with the full facts.

    We must not let let the truth be replaced by prejudice and bigotry. Ahmed has enough to answer for, and your bigotry is both unpleasant and likely to allow allow him to get off the hook. When his real opinions are exposed he always cites your kind of prejudice to the Muslim community. You are his smokescreen.

    We must remember that he is also trying to fool many in the Muslim Community as well as us.

    What I would really like to hear is another one of the moderate voices from the Muslim Community, many of whom I know are are equally appalled at his behaviour.

    Like

      • Definitely not “Asbo” Akhtar, as you know from my other stuff. Your blog’s ability to irritate Asbo, alone makes it worth the cover price. In fact Asbo has already acted as Ahmed’s apologist on regional TV and that along with your blog is what brought Ahmed to my attention.

        No, maybe liberal is the wrong term. What I I think is that there is there is an issue of leadership throughout ALL of Rotherham that is to do with nepotism and cronyism acting to suppress a lot of talent, views and skill from which the Town could benefit..

        I would like to hear lots of different voices in local politics; some of these should be from the Muslim community and hopefully expressing outrage at the awfulness of some of their their community leadership

        Like

  4. First of all, I object to this ridiculous term ‘moderate’ in Islam. It’s not used in any other religion so why label Muslims either moderate or extreme? Moving on, I don’t mind addressing the point you raise.

    Do the Advertiser favour Labour? Unfortunately, yes. It has only started to do so in the last few years which is a great shame. My view on Lord Ahmed’s sickening comments are that he is not helping the Islamic community with outrageous remarks like that. I have nothing against Jewish people, just like many Jewish people having nothing against Muslims. (The Israel/Palestine atrocity is a completely different matter, Netanyahu and co are a disgrace to Judaism in my opinion but that’s a different matter.) However, these racist remarks are not the only time the Labour Party get away with contempt. We have seen time and again the likes of Diane Abbott resort to despicable and criminal language (West Indian mothers remark, white people like to divide and rule etc) and get away with it which cannot be tolerated.

    As far as the Rotherham Advertiser are concerned, they are not entirely to blame. There needs to be a credible and robust political opposition to the Labour Party and at the moment the Conservative Party needs to buck up, as do our left wing opponents (TUSC, Respect etc) and as we have four elected councillors, I believe it is our duty to lead the way, which we are and will consolidate on in the future.

    Will, you say your letter may not have been published due to its length; I disagree, unfortunately I think it is as you say ‘failing’ journalism which is why more people are ‘converting’ to independent, online outlets such as this site. Some of the writers at the Advertiser are nice enough, but the editor needs to be much more brave in his depiction of Rotherham and the problems we face.

    Like

    • Read my article again. I said moderate voices from within the Muslim community, not moderate Muslims. That isn’t the same thing. Though actually terms like moderate, radical and fundamentalist are often applied to other religions, especially Christianity (of which I am not an advocate as sadly I am truly an unbeliever).

      I suspect you want to agree with me, but find the idea difficult to digest:)

      Like

  5. Perhaps William Ewart could give Rothpol readers an example of “moderate voices from within the Muslim community” if, as he says, these are not the same as “moderate Muslims” ?
    Could he also explain why he states “sadly I am truly an unbeliever” ?
    Why “sadly” ?

    Like

  6. Wrap up for the Ahmed mails
    I think this one is dormant without some more research and information

    Responses to recent comments & requests

    1. Having worked with people from many communities not surprisingly found (save to racists) that there are moderate voices in every community, religion etc, Indeed they tend to make up the vast majority of the people. This is no less or more true for Muslim communities.

    Think about it. If all people & communities were judged by outsiders on the basis of their local political leadership what would that say about you… or about any of us who live in Rotherham.

    2. Re my being sorry for being a non-believer, well it looks like Maltbyblogger does not do irony and hyperbole.

    3. The full correspondence with Emir Ramic Director of the Institute for Research of Genocide, Canada. Note there may well be a greater significance behind Ahmed only having apologised in English. Omar, your thoughts?

    From: William Ewart [mailto:wil.ewart@gmail.com]
    Sent: April-03-13 8:01 AM
    To: info@instituteforgenocide.org
    Subject: Institute For The Research of Genocide – Canada (IGC) Contact:

    Message:
    Are you aware of the allegations and some proof of anti-Semitism
    surrounding a member of your International Expert Team Council
    Members, Lord Lord Ahmed?

    A few examples:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/03/antisemitism-hatred-wont-go-away?INTCMP=SRCH
    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/27/lord-ahmed-_n_2963644.html

    There are now too many examples, for which he has “apologised, but
    never in urdu.

    Reply Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:09 PM
    Subject: RE: Institute For The Research of Genocide – Canada (IGC) Contact:
    To: wil.ewart@gmail.com

    Dear William Ewart,
    Lord Ahmed is not longer a member of the International Expert Team of the Institute Research of Genocide, Canada.
    All the best
    Professor Emir Ramic
    Director of the Institute for Research of Genocide, Canada

    Wil Ewart
    To Emir

    Thank you, it gives me hope. Best wishes for your valuable work.

    Wil Ewart to Emir

    I forgot to say. Were i you I’d get him off the web site soon…cheers.

    From Emir Ramic
    To Wil Ewart

    The Governing Board of the Institute decided two weeks ago. Web master did not up date to the present date.
    All the best

    Like

  7. Pingback: Naz Ahmed – Less than honest HOL Interests Declaration? | Rotherham Politics

Leave your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.