Britain’s largest Muslim advocacy groups have called for a review of the decade-long, disproportionate de-banking of British Muslims, Muslim-run NGOs, and charities. The appeals for a review of the arbitrary bank closures were made in the wake of the government’s involvement in aiding populist politician-turned-pundit on the same issue.
The uproar over the closure of Nigel Farage’s bank accounts with NatWest-owned Coutts Bank resulted in ministerial mediation, the resignation of two bank chiefs, and countless media debates about political bias.
The swift institutional intervention, which resulted in the reinstatement of the former UKIP leader’s bank accounts, has left Muslims fuming at the blatant double standards that had them abandoned for years as they raised concerns about the systematic practise.
The glaring disparity between the handling of the cases was first made apparent by the level of media attention, with Farage’s story receiving consecutive days of wall-to-wall coverage.
The Telegraph, which reported the Farage scandal with the cautionary “Banking’s problem is bigger than NatWest” editorial, had, in 2015, refused to publish a story by award-winning journalist Peter Oborne on HSBC’s flurry of Muslim bank account closures the previous year.
Writing about his decision to resign as chief political commentator of the Telegraph, Oborne said, ‘I set to work on a story about the international banking giant HSBC. Well-known British Muslims had received letters “out of the blue” from HSBC informing them that their accounts had been closed. No reason was given, and it was made plain that there was no possibility of appeal.’
‘When I submitted it for publication on the Telegraph website, I was at first told there would be no problem. When it was not published, I made inquiries. I was fobbed off with excuses and then told there was a legal problem.
When I asked the legal department, the lawyers were unaware of any difficulty. When I pushed the point, an executive took me aside and said that “there is a bit of an issue” with HSBC. Eventually, I gave up in despair and offered the article to OpenDemocracy.’
Muslims, told repeatedly that parliament has no oversight of financial institutions, watched in awe as the city minister summoned bank chiefs to voice his “significant concern” over Farage’s bank account closure. Andrew Griffith, Treasury’s Economic & City Minister, took it even further, sending a warning letter to 19 banks that the government is prepared to “take the action necessary” to protect freedom of speech.
The Chancellor and Prime Minister also stressed the importance of protecting universal values, with the Prime Minister warning that freedom of expression was “at stake.” However, many will be forgiven for thinking those values were only at risk when Farage’s account was closed.
A spokesperson for 10 Downing Street told The Muslim News that it would be for the “regulator first and foremost” to investigate and publish any findings of anti-Muslim banking practices.
So, what about our banking regulator? The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) stressed the obvious to The Muslim
News that “banks cannot discriminate against the Muslim community or any religious beliefs” and that its Consumer Duty Rules include communicating well with customers. Yet, the FCA’s announcement that it is looking into de-banking is not as reassuring as it appears.
The regulator is ultimately counting on an industry caught blatantly lying about the de-banking of a rich white man to be forthright about the de-banking of British Muslims.
According to media reports, the regulator will ask banks to submit data on the number and reasons for account terminations as part of its investigation. However, for Muslims forsaken by the establishment to deal with de-banking, anything short of a review that, as the Muslim Council of Britain puts it, examines why Muslims “appear to be systematically singled out and disproportionately impacted” by the practice would be a missed opportunity to redress the double standards exposed by the Farage saga.
READ MORE
