Support Gaza, Lose Your Bank Account - HSBC's New Mantra?

Why is HSBC closing down the accounts of its Muslim clients in UK? Is it connected with where their sympathies lie on Gaza? On July 22, a few prominent organisations got letters saying that they have until September 22, after which they would not be permitted to bank with them because the services "now falls outside of our risk appetite".

They are solvent, and owe the bank nothing. So, what is it and why the pregnant-with-meaning "now"? According to the BBC report, the bank has said:

"Discrimination against customers on grounds of race or religion is immoral, unacceptable and illegal, and HSBC has comprehensive rules and policies in place to ensure race or religion are never factors in banking decisions."

They have an alibi in "poor money-laundering controls". This should be their lookout and not of those who have no such history.

The Finsbury Park Mosque's chairman Mohammed Kozbar said:

"The bank didn't even contact us beforehand. Didn't give us a chance even to address [their] concerns. For us it is astonishing - we are a charity operating in the UK, all our operations are here in the UK and we don't transfer any money out of the UK. All our operations are funded from funds within the UK."

HSBC is being irresponsible. It could not be because Abu Hamza, who was earlier in charge of the mosque, was convicted of terror offenses in the US. He was not with the mosque since 2005. Nobody is trying to hide anything. In fact, Mr. Kozbar said:

"The positive work we have done since taking over over from Abu Hamza to change the image of the mosque, there is nothing really that can explain [HSBC's decision]."

Ummah Welfare Trust has a more real Gaza connection. The letter from HSBC-UK said, "You will need to make alternative banking arrangements, as we are not prepared to open another account for you". The Trust has become defensive:

"We make sure we go out of the way to work with organisations that are non-partisan. What we do now is we do a check on Thomson Reuters and make sure that there is no link whatsoever with blacklisted organisations. We don't want to damage our relief efforts. We have tried our best to be non-partisan as much as possible."

A Trust has a right to choose its beneficiaries, and in Gaza they don't have to be balanced because Israel is getting enough from the West. Who is deciding on the blacklisted organisations that benefit, and what are the yardsticks to gauge that?

The Cordoba Foundation, a Muslim think tank acting as a link between Europe and the Middle East, and Anas al Tikriti who runs it, his wife, and two children have all separately received letters of closure without any reason at all. He said:

"It is unsettling. I am not used to being addressed in those terms. It's like I have done something wrong. The involvement of my family disturbs me. Why the entire family? I can only speculate - and I wish someone from the bank could explain [why the accounts were closed]. The organisations are mainly charities and the link is that many of them if not all of them are vocal on the issue of Palestine. It would be a great shame if that was true. As I'm left to speculate, that's the only reason I can come to."

HSBC-UK is doing something patently wrong, not only to its clients but also to itself. Had it provided a reason, however vague, it would still have some ethical leverage. If non-Muslim organisations have been told about closures, they would have had similar complaints. Where are they? Are they being circumspect, and if so why?

A sharp Op-Ed in Forbes blames it on "some discreet pressure from the American authorities (or the possibility of it in the future)". It also points out the hypocrisy:

"Whatever the youngest Mr Tikriti has been spending his pocket money on, it’s hard to believe that a small boy falls outside the “risk appetite” of Europe’s largest bank. And especially a bank that was, until recently, perfectly happy with the business of Mexican drug cartels, allowing them to launder their money through HSBC accounts in the Cayman Islands. Not only that, but the same US Senate committee that fined HSBC $1.9bn in 2012, also questioned the bank’s dodgy links with financial institutions in Saudi Arabia that, they believed, were responsible for funding terrorism."

Is the bank more concerned with its financial interests?

Nicholas Wilson, a HSBC whistleblower and UK-based financial activist, thinks so, and believes that is the reason for its pro-Israeli stance:

“HSBC has a bank in Tel Aviv and have held a licence there since 2001. They claim on their website to be the only foreign bank in Israel offering private banking. It could therefore be possible that they consider being seen to bank for pro-Palestinian organisations puts them in conflict with their ambitions in Israel."

What HSBC-UK is doing is passive-aggressive at different levels.

• By not giving a reason, it is being non-committal while at the same time expecting that the 'banned' clients come out with their own doubts. This will, the bank and its masters hope, expose them. Once their social and political affiliations are exposed, they can always use that to hit out at them. It won't be past them to suggest that money laundering is done through those tunnels of Hamas.

• The BBC report states:

The Charities Commission has confirmed that it is not investigating any of the organisations involved and says that if the charities don't have a relationship with a bank it could harm public trust in their work.

Targeting specific organisations will ensure a slow death of many of them, thereby pushing them out of the mainstream.

• Bringing young family members into the picture is the absolute low in stereotyping. It can have a psychological impact, and these youngsters might be forced to either protest (and oh the West knows how they will protest) or retreat and stop being "partisan". It is another matter that in their school other kids can take sides.

It comes down to just one thing: You can only be on the side that is decided for you.

© Farzana Versey

---

Image: Finsbury Mosque, Reuters

The pose and the mosque

Why was Rihanna posing for pictures at the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque in Abu Dhabi? Some are likely to titter over the accusation of "inappropriate" or “indecent pictures” that made the officials ask her to leave. Nobody is bothered about one simple fact: she was told to leave before she posted the photographs online. She was going against visitor protocol prior to the religious one.

However, one cannot nitpick about some things, such as when model Claudia Schiffer had Islamic verses on her dress at a ramp show. Indeed, there was a reaction to that as much as there was to Madonna using Sanskrit shlokas in a song or images of the Virgin Mother or the Buddha being commercialised.

But, every place has its cultural requirements, and a place of worship is not meant for 'posing'. I include politicians and celebrities doing so at various shrines, seemingly in a fit of adept fervour, but in reality to get mileage and publicity.

She was on a tour in the UAE, so clearly she must have seen people in various kinds of clothes, including western wear, at her performances, in her hotel, at clubs. These include women from some Arab countries. So, why did she have to mimic a veil, by wearing a hooded jumpsuit?

If anything, this is offensive. This makes some people laugh at 'indecent' (put in single quotes). She, in fact, appears to be smirking at some of the other women. It is insensitive, and insensitivity is indecent.

New York’s Muslims in danger?

Had no one decided on opening this Islamic Centre in Manhattan, a driver assaulted by a 21-year-old tipsy guy would have been just another crime. Not a hate crime. Is there anything like a love crime? Yes, of course, there are crimes of passion and we suddenly seem to have become a world desperately passionate about religions we know precious little about – our own or those of others.

Ahmed Sharif a Bangladeshi, was assaulted by Michael Enright. The newspaper versions interestingly add a twist here and a turn there, making them seem different from each other. Some say the attacker greeted the cabbie with an “Assalamalaikum” just as he entered; others say he uttered those words after verifying if he was a Muslim. Some say he cursed; others says he made jokes about Ramadan after asking Sharif how he was faring in the month of fasting. Some say Enright brought out a knife and slashed the cabbie’s throat and neck; some pictures show him with chest wounds. This was through the plastic partition that divides passenger and driver. Some say these are slashes; some quote doctors as saying that had it been an inch deeper he would have died.

It was not; he did not. But I can already see everyone jumping on the mosque at Ground Zero bandwagon.

The question is: why is every crime being connected to this Cordoba whatever that is to be built?

The driver says he was attacked because of his religion. It is possible, but it may not be. Worse, he says or it is implied on his behalf that it is because of the controversy over this centre. Please, profiling has been going on since 9/11 and suspicions about different groups of people have been there always.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg felt it was necessary to comment and said:

"This attack runs counter to everything that New Yorkers believe, no matter what God we may pray to.” 

Why is the religion of the victim emphasised and not the attacker’s then? How does the mayor know what all New Yorkers believe? This incident did not take place at the site of the proposed building, so why is Mr. Bloomberg entering the fray? We know he thinks the Centre will bring about amity and all that but he does not have to use unrelated incidents to further his agenda.

This is a political issue but why politicise every act? Those opposing the structure have also got into the act. Republican mayoral candidate Carl Paladino’s spokesman, Michael Caputo, said:

"Violence in New York City is nothing new, no matter who stabs whom....Blaming the debate over whether there should be a mosque at Ground Zero for the violence in New York City is a simple-minded way to heat up the debate even more."

True. So, he should have kept silent. Most people should have. But it is too good an opportunity to pass up. Enright’s friends talk about how tolerant he was. Reports say the cabbie was against the centre. This is all just so very convenient. Never mind that.Now it is about Muslim cab drivers who have expressed nervousness, according to Bhairavi Desai, the director of the taxi drivers' alliance:

"In light of the Ground Zero mosque debate, 'Are you Muslim?' has taken on new meaning."

The cops did reach the site, Enright, who incidentally has had a little past of some violent behaviour and was booked for trespassing last year, is in custody without bail. Why rake it up? Perhaps in the course of that ride other crimes might have been committed in New York and no one even knows or cares.

As for hate crime, heck, if only minds could be taken into custody then there would be many, many more. So, it’s time to cut out the claptrap on all sides and not give religious identities to every darn thing.