What will it take for the authorities to recognise hate crimes against Muslims as acts of terror?

Letters
The attack on the Al-majlis Al-Hussaini Islamic centre in Cricklewood on Tuesday night which hospitalised two people and one other injured was largely ignored: iStock/Getty

Any act of terror involving a Muslim perpetrator gets headline coverage and is usually accompanied by outraged editorials demanding visible contrition from the Muslim community en masse.

However, attacks on Muslims are clearly not as newsworthy as attacks by Muslims.

The attack on the Al-majlis Al-Hussaini Islamic centre in Cricklewood on Tuesday night which hospitalised two people and injured one other, for example, was largely ignored.

And despite the fact the attack was carried out after people verbally abused the congregation there as “dirty Muslims” before a driver drove their car into the crowd, the police have stated with confidence that the attack was “not terrorism”.

This is, presumably, on the grounds that the racists who carried out the attack weren’t Muslims. The police and the media seem to have an agreement to only apply the terms “terrorism” and “terrorist” to attacks perpetrated by Muslims.

The police do admit that the attack might have been a “hate crime” carried out by racists, a possibility which is “being looked at by detectives as an aggravating factor”.

This cowardly attack on a Mosque comes less than a week after Home Office statistics were released which showed that the number of white people arrested for terror offences now outstrips any other single ethnic group. The Home Office went on to note that “the proportion of prisoners holding far-right ideologies has increased steadily over the past three years”.

This is the product of decades of anti-Muslim propaganda spewed out by MPs in parliament, in hate groups like the EDL and in the mainstream media. The normalisation and acceptance into mainstream political discourse of hate-preachers like Tommy Robinson has produced a new generation of violent extremists.

Robinson and his ilk have provided the theory; the violent thugs they have radicalised are putting it into practice.

But the police say such attacks are “not terrorism”.

Sasha Simic
London, N16

Trump’s trade war

Trump is either too naive or too ignorant to recognise that China could retaliate to his trade war with a currency war.

China has indicated quietly that they could do this by assuring us that they will not take such action. An ancient Chinese diplomatic strategy. A threat in a soft glove.

If Trump continues with his madness, China will start a currency war and that would make the 2008 financial crisis in the West look like a modest blip in financial affairs.

The Western world is being led by men who are quite incapable of recognising the consequences of their actions.

Martin Deighton
Address Supplied

Brexit is a sinking ship

Given the impasse in Salzburg and adding in the European Research Group’s rejection of Chequers, the rabid Brexiteers will, nay, must, challenge Theresa May’s position as PM before, in their eyes, all is lost.

May, the supplicant, can only move towards Brussels’ position. Hence in the eyes of the rabid Brexiteers and ironically given the silent view of the DUP which props her up and has no interest in cross-Irish relations, she must go. As Chequers is rejected by the EU as well and doomed in the Tory party, maybe Theresa May will leave the sinking ship as it is the end of her signature policy take on Brexit.

The Tory conferences, not conference, will be fascinating scenarios to watch.

John Edgar
Kilmaurs, Scotland

Lewis Chinchen (Letters) sets out a fair argument in response to David Lowndes’ letter regarding the divisions caused by Brexit. But it’s not enough for me.

I admit to being one of those Remainers who fail to accept the result of the 2016 referendum. I’m sorry my views are not seen as helping to heal the divisions in our society. I see those divisions as being fed by MPs looking to their own advantage rather than to the good of the UK and by very unpleasant far-right groups. A united Europe seems to me to be something greatly to be desired. The alternatives are horrendous. So how can I not fail to accept that result – which should, after all, have been advisory? (And which, with a little more thought by people who had benefited from a very expensive education, could have been given a margin by which a “majority” could have been more robustly defined.)

Many people have built their political careers on opposing our 1975 referendum and have sabotaged the European partnership at every turn instead of working with it, seeking to improve it and correct its failings. They know who they are. Please allow me not to accept the result of the incredibly poorly debated 2016 referendum. Otherwise I, like other Remainers, may, to quote Mr Chinchen, “think the politicians at Westminster viewed their votes as irrelevant”.

Mr Chinchen’s argument about the 2017 general election being an endorsement for Leave is one that, in my view, will not stand the test of time. The leader of the (so-called) opposition has long been anti-Europe, despite what his young supporters think, and the Liberal Democrats are a very faint voice. The Tories had already chosen to accept an advisory referendum as the will of the people. There was no channel for our Remain voice. That is not a great endorsement for democracy.

So, we keep speaking. I ask that the “deal”, whatever that is, is presented to us honestly as something to accept or reject with the further option of remaining. That sounds a little more like democracy to me.

By the way, the NHS is against Brexit. So, the NHS or Dr Liam Fox? You choose.

Beryl Wall
London W4

An alternative Brexit bus slogan

Apart from being implausibly long (“Brexit plan to bring in more non-EU workers could lead to 'sharp rise' in exploitation, warns charity”, 19 September), why wasn’t a precise “migrants from the EU contribute £2,300 more to the exchequer each year in net terms than the average adult, and over their lifetimes they pay in £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits” plastered over the side of a red bus during the 2016 referendum?

Michael O’Hare
Northwood, Middlesex

No-fault divorce

I am exceedingly concerned by the incompetent way in which the government is approaching its idea of no-fault divorce. It is recommending the most fundamental change to our divorce laws in 50 years on the basis of a document which does not consider the benefits of the current system in its impact analysis, does not analyse any alternative models of divorce law reform other than “no-fault”, and does not include any proposals to help people work to save their marriage, like counselling. The negative impact of the proposed “no-fault” on society will be extensive and costly both socially and financially. It smacks of blinkered thinking. Not healthy from government, but all too common.

J Longstaff
Buxted, East Sussex