Tories are for debating white extremists, but not Muslim ones


by Sunny
25th October, 2010 at 10:22 am    

Most Tories say they’re against the ‘no-platform’ stance with extremists like the BNP. They put up Baroness Warsi against Nick Griffin on BBC Question Time even though Labour MPs like Peter Hain refused to share a platform with the BNP.

Their reasoning is that white extremists should be debated rather than shunned, otherwise the problem gets worse. And debating solves everything, right?

But you won’t be surprised to hear that it’s one rule for white extremists and another rule for Muslims. The Observer reported yesterday that David Cameron has banned Baroness Warsi from attending the Global Peace and Unity event organised by the Islam Channel. Since it’s the IC, you can expect some Muslim extremists to also be part of the proceedings. But the Tories don’t want them to be debated. Neither does Paul Goodman of ConservativeHome – who previously argued that we should debate the BNP.

Oh, bloggers at Harry’s Place are also applauding this decision, but they gave up any pretence on having equal standards on free speech ages ago.

As I’ve documented before – this hypocrisy of neo-conservatives, on the left and right, crops up regularly. Tories are against racial profiling when it’s to encourage equality in representation, but for it when arguing for black and Asian men to be stopped and searched. They want to allow white extremists like Geert Wilders coming into this country, but not Muslim ones like al-Qaradawi. They wouldn’t like white extremist groups like the BNP to be banned, but happy to advocate for groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir to be banned.

I don’t suppose it makes the heads of these ideologues explode with irony and hypocrisy, but you’d think at least government ministers who claim to care for free speech and civil liberties engage their brains a bit more. For the record: I’m not fussed either way – what pisses me off is the double-standards. Either say you’re going to debate all extremists, or don’t share a platform with any.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Civil liberties,Media






102 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. sunny hundal

    Blogged: : Tories are for debating white extremists, but not Muslim ones http://bit.ly/ddjIpb


  2. Jacob Uzzell

    RT @sunny_hundal Tories are for debating white extremists, but not Muslim ones http://bit.ly/ddjIpb


  3. Press Not Sorry

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Tories are for debating white extremists, but not Muslim ones http://bit.ly/ddjIpb


  4. Miles Weaver

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Tories are for debating white extremists, but not Muslim ones http://bit.ly/ddjIpb


  5. fionamc

    RT @sunny_hundal: Tories are for debating white extremists, but not Muslim ones http://bit.ly/ddjIpb <<plus gov policy approach is the same


  6. Daniel(le) Nobody

    RT @sunny_hundal: Tories are for debating white extremists, but not Muslim ones http://bit.ly/ddjIpb


  7. Because there is no such thing as Racism, right? « Me And My Revolution

    [...] Tories are for debating white extremists, but not Muslim ones Tories are against racial profiling when it’s to encourage equality in representation, but for it when arguing for black and Asian men to be stopped and searched. They want to allow white extremists like Geert Wilders coming into this country, but not Muslim ones like al-Qaradawi. They wouldn’t like white extremist groups like the BNP to be banned, but happy to advocate for groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir to be banned. [...]




  1. cjcjc — on 25th October, 2010 at 11:05 am  

    Oh bollocks.

    I’m sure Warsi would turn up to debate Al-Q or equivalent on Question Time.

    I’m sure she would not turn up to debate Griffin at a BNP rally.

  2. Enlightenment — on 25th October, 2010 at 11:06 am  

    IConsistency is important here.

    The organisers of this event chose to invite hate preachers to the UK. A lot of them. That tells you what kind of event this was.

    I doubt that the Tories would send a speaker to a conference run by the EDL or the BNP. They might debate against Geert Wilders, but not at an event run by Stop The Islamisation Of Europe.

  3. Sarah AB — on 25th October, 2010 at 11:41 am  

    I agree with the other commenters here – there’s an important distinction between appearing on QT, which routinely invites on people with opposing views and does not endorse any particular view, and appearing at an event which has apparently gone out of its way to invite objectionable people along.

    But I agree that it’s important to be consistent about who and what one bans. I’d have to look again at the individuals and groups Sunny mentions to be sure whether I agree with those particular examples, but it’s definitely an important principle.

  4. damon — on 25th October, 2010 at 1:41 pm  

    The panelists on Question Time with Nick Qriffin didn’t really debate him, they hectored him and showed their disgust and contempt of him, as did the audience and as did the crowds demonstrating outside.

    It certainly looks like a dynamic and interesting event. If I was in London, I’d have gone myself.

    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=global+peace+and+unity&aq=o

  5. Sunny — on 25th October, 2010 at 1:42 pm  

    Ahhh right Sarah – what you mean is that the BBC is a ‘safe’ environment so it’s ok… but turning up to a Muslim event is only for scary people with beards. Right, got it.

  6. Sunny — on 25th October, 2010 at 1:44 pm  

    They might debate against Geert Wilders, but not at an event run by Stop The Islamisation Of Europe.

    I’d be careful before spouting stuff found on Harry’s Place. The last guy who did that in print found himself sued… and lost.

  7. muslim — on 25th October, 2010 at 3:31 pm  

    Who were the Muslim extremists at the conference? Tahir ul Qadri spoke there! It had Jewish , Christian and Buddhists speakers as well as other MPs from the other parties. Just shows the Tories having an Asian/Muslim chairwoman is a fig leaf.

  8. Rectifier — on 25th October, 2010 at 3:41 pm  

    How are the BNP extremist? And that’s a serious question.

  9. Lucy — on 25th October, 2010 at 3:43 pm  

    The Tories are in favour of religious groups running alternatives to council services – such as youth groups – so that they can shut down council services or justify allowing lower operating costs for local councils. That is certainly one motivation for looking both ways. ££££££££££££££££££££££££££

  10. africana — on 25th October, 2010 at 3:53 pm  

    @7,what do you mean by muslim extremist, anyway?if we are talking anjem chaudry and other agents provocateurs of his ilk, i would agree with the term. terminology means different hings to different people. take “moderate muslim” (used to imply the ideal muslim by the establishment), to many muslims means lapsed/assimilated/given to token shows of islamicity. if, when we talk about extremist it’s the tony blair version (ie. a person who hasn’t sold out in order to sit amongst the establishment)then it could be argued that, in the form of lauren booth, tony has one in his very midst.

  11. Brownie — on 25th October, 2010 at 3:56 pm  

    Oh, bloggers at Harry’s Place are also applauding this decision, but they gave up any pretence on having equal standards on free speech ages ago.

    Epic fail. There is no ‘free speech’ issue here; Warsi’s attendance or otherwise has no bearing on whether the event goes ahead. It’s a question of which invitations one should be accepting.

    An invitation from the BBC to appear on QT when the panel includes an extremist is not nearly the same as accepting an invitation from a bunch of extremists to one of their shindigs.

    The logic of your position, Sunny, is that we must accept any invitation we receive from whomever sends it lest we stand accused of shutting down free speech.

    It’s nonsense.

    Ahhh right Sarah – what you mean is that the BBC is a ‘safe’ environment so it’s ok… but turning up to a Muslim event is only for scary people with beards. Right, got it.

    Sarah can fight her own battles, but I think the insinuation here is rather nasty and, at least in so far as it can be made against Sarah, wholly unwarranted.

    It’s possible to disagree with you without being an Islamaphobe, you know?

  12. Soso — on 25th October, 2010 at 4:11 pm  

    Despite the risk of appearing to support the BNP, it must be said that Nick G. represents a far far smaller danger to Britian than the rabid blood-soaked jihadism as espoused by Rahman and company.

    Rahman is a corrupt, islamist dirtbag whose policies would lead the country straight down the path to an unending dark age, a Dark Age that has now engulfed whole areas of the Islamic world.

    Let’s face it, hundreds of muslims have been killed by other muslims in Pakistan in just the past week in a series of tit-for-tat mosque bombings.

    Griffin doesn’t even compare. His brain may not function at 100% capacity, but it still functions a hell of a lot better that those of islamists.

    Nick may be an extremists, but to be honest, he isn’t inbred

  13. Sunny — on 25th October, 2010 at 4:12 pm  

    The logic of your position, Sunny, is that we must accept any invitation we receive from whomever sends it lest we stand accused of shutting down free speech.

    Try reading the blog post again. You’re either for debating them or you’re not. This lame excuse that it’s ok at one place but another doesn’t work.

  14. muslim — on 25th October, 2010 at 4:29 pm  

    soso
    “Nick may be an extremists, but to be honest, he isn’t inbred”

    neither is Lutfur Rahman. He’s from a Bangladeshi Muslim background and Bengali Muslims very rarely marry cousins (perhaps a Hindu legacy). If you are going to preach hatred and bigotry at least make it vaguely accurate hatred and bigotry.

  15. Yoni — on 25th October, 2010 at 5:04 pm  

    What Soso said.

    And please Brownie, do give up the idiotic term ‘Islamophobe’.

    As to Warsi being a ‘figleaf’, what a crock. Instead of applauding the Conservatives for being colour-blind – I notice that Labour and LibDem equivalents are not Muslim women – the slow-of-thinking use it as something to beat them with. Talk about hypocrisy.

  16. Brownie — on 25th October, 2010 at 5:35 pm  

    Try reading the blog post again. You’re either for debating them or you’re not. This lame excuse that it’s ok at one place but another doesn’t work.

    On the QT hand, the extremist is a mere co-panelist who controls neither the format nor the agenda. On the Global P&U hand, the extremists are your hosts and you are their guests.

    You can pretend that this is all the same thing if you like, but it isn’t.

  17. Lamia — on 25th October, 2010 at 6:47 pm  

    Question Time, as has been said, is a neutral forum where the guests don’t get to control who else appears. It doesn’t have a particular political stance, nor subject topic.

    By contrast, this conference, like any political one, has a particular ideological tone and focus and (unlike most political conferences) contained a good number of vicious antisemites and homophobes. Africana and co may not consider such speakers as ‘extremist’, but that maybe says less about the speakers than about her own bigotries (antisemitism and homophobia considered ‘moderate’ on here now, are they? What a strange idea of ‘liberal’).

    Here are five of those speakers with a few representative quotes. You’ll get the idea pretty quickly as the filth they spout is hardly new:

    Shady Al-Suleiman

    On the Jewish lobby’s supposed control of the media:

    “We work with great professionalism, and we have managed to break the Zionist lobby’s monopoly over the media in Britain”

    On homosexuals:

    “Also homosexuality that’s spreading all these diseases. Let’s not deny the fact. Don’t call it the name of freedom. Don’t talk about freedom and, you know, this is the freedom of action and we could do whatever we want. It doesn’t mean that freedom of action you destroy a nation. These are evil actions that bring evil outcomes to our society.”

    Yasir Qadhi

    On the Holocaust:

    All of these Polish Jews which Hitler was supposedly trying to exterminate, that’s another point, by the way, Hitler never intended to mass-destroy the Jews. There are a number of books out on this written by Christians, you should read them. The Hoax of the Holocaust, I advise you to read this book and write this down, the Hoax of the Holocaust, a very good book. We’re not defending Hitler, by the way, but the Jews, the way that they portray him, also is not correct.

    Muhammad Alshareef

    On homophobia: “And I thought to myself, that’s an amazing word to be called. Alhamdulillah [praise to God] that you’re homophobic. And then they will say it as if it is a derogatory term, but in fact it is a praiseworthy term.”

    Zaghoul Al-Naggar

    On Jews: “With the Jews, one cannot achieve anything by means of peace, or a settlement, or open borders, or diplomatic and commercial ties. They are devils in human form.”

    On AIDS: “Allah, Exalted and Glorified be He, has punished them with diseases that humanity has never known before, just as He punished the sodomites of previous times with an unprecedented punishment.”

    Muhammad Al-Ya’qoubi

    On freedom of speech: “…these wrong and false ideals like freedom of religion’ or ‘freedom of expression’.”

    “Now the West has crossed every red line in respect of norms and ethics and I don’t think Muslims should tolerate this. If you’re asking me about how to react, how to respond, I believe we should show the highest angry level of response.”

    Africana, how would you feel if others uttered similar slurs, smears and threats against Muslims as those made above against Jews and gay people above – and then people on here rushed to defend them against the charge of extremism?

    Shame on you.

    No decent politician will want to associate with an event which hosts such a group of people as speakers, whether they are Islamists or BNP-ers. To keep pretending not to see the difference between that and Question Time is a poor tactic, Sunny. But if it’s really the best you can do, carry on. And whatever you do, don’t criticise Africana’s defence as antisemitism and homophobia as ‘moderate’ qualities.

  18. Sarah AB — on 25th October, 2010 at 8:10 pm  

    Thanks Brownie. Sunny – I’m quite prepared to rethink my opinion on this issue but you don’t offer much to go on in your comment. You say in your own post that ‘Since it’s the IC, you can expect some Muslim extremists to also be part of the proceedings’ whereas I assume you don’t think the QT producer is a BNP supporter. I’m not saying there isn’t a case to be for Baroness Warsi attending this event. But it seems reasonable to me to draw a distinction between GPU and QT, even though there are also some parallels.

  19. douglas clark — on 25th October, 2010 at 8:54 pm  

    I was invited by the good David T, about a year ago, to go onto ‘Harry’s Place’ and make my point about what a shower of thugs he had in his comment column.

    Y’know what? I knocked him back.

    And you know why? Because I’d have got a kicking off a shower of bullies. It is impossible to talk sense into Brownie here, what hope is there on his own turf?

    None whatsoever.

    Sunny, it is all very well to argue that we should all address any forum that is put in front of us, it is wrong to think that we would win over the dreck, filth and garbage that our opponents would raise.

    For that is what they do. All the fucking time….

    And they have chums that come out of the woodwork and invent or make up stuff – all the time.

    It gets very tiring to argue against the bullshit that Brownie posts here, a combination of ‘arguing from incredulity’ which is Brownie’s favourite tool, and ‘arguing from stupidity’, which is his other one.

    How likely do you think it would be that I’d get a word in edgewise on his chums stupid web site?

    Brownie is a thug that doesn’t seem to even appreciate that he is a thug.

    But you should not be advocating standing in the Celtic end as a Ranger supporter, when Rangers score a goal.

    That would just be silly.

  20. douglas clark — on 25th October, 2010 at 9:54 pm  

    It is a kind of a sad consequence, that Harry’s Place thugs, who have lost any credibility everywhere else, try to talk here?

    Why should the editorial team put up with them?

    Why the fuck should they be given space?

    They lost all credibility on their own home turf a long, long time ago. Especially Brownie, who breaks eggs before he writes…And certainly hasn’t any idea about reason.

    Why should we need to listen to this second hand, hand me down, shit?

  21. africana — on 25th October, 2010 at 9:58 pm  

    @17,@lamia,

    other than yasir qadhi whom i’m slightly familiar with, i’m not that familiar with any of the other scholars you mention.
    these statements on homosexuality should come as no surprise to anyone,really since all of the monotheistic religions(and sikhism, i believe) do not approve of homosexuality or homosexual lifestyles.one has to appreciate that muslim scholars (and indeed christian, jewish and sikh scholars/adherents, also) do not view homosexuality in the same way as others have been encouraged to do so, that is to say as a natural inclination with which people are born.had the likes of yasir qadhi made such statements based on a belief that homosexuality is inherent then i think it would fair to say that the comments would be unjust, to say the least, as this would be to problematise something natural. yasir qadhi and others, instead, view the behaviour as arising from a inner sickness which is in the control of the individual and means that any acting upon it is blameworthy.it is in this light the comments need be understood.
    whilst some of the language use is emotive, yasir qadhi has, on the site, Muslim matters (which i think he’s part or wholly in charge of) written a very heartfelt article aimed at helping those muslims struggling with, what those a religious persuasion deem, same sex attraction.
    as for the statements regarding jews, i really think that they need be understood in the context of the current situation in palestine. scholars such as hamza yusuf,(who would probably fall into your extremist category with his statemensts on homosexuality)have spoken out on the palestine issue, yet remain on very cordial terms with orthodox jewry,about whom he has a good deal of positive to say.

  22. KB Player — on 25th October, 2010 at 10:38 pm  

    Ahhh right Sarah – what you mean is that the BBC is a ‘safe’ environment so it’s ok… but turning up to a Muslim event is only for scary people with beards. Right, got it.

    What a gratuitously spiteful reply to a perfectly reasonable point that Sarah raised.

  23. KB Player — on 25th October, 2010 at 11:40 pm  

    I doubt that the Tories would send a speaker to a conference run by the EDL or the BNP. They might debate against Geert Wilders, but not at an event run by Stop The Islamisation Of Europe.

    Aaaah right Enlightenment, what you mean is that if they turn up at a Stop the Islamisation of Europe event they’ll meet a load of scary white guys with tattoos and wearing shirts with big red crosses on them.

  24. damon — on 26th October, 2010 at 12:29 am  

    douglas clark – you never gave any opinion of the issue at hand, just attacked someone who I thought made good points.
    Sunny calls this ”a Muslim event”.
    So is that how it should be deemed? Like mainstream?
    And that Muslims inviting really unpleasant people to their events is to be expected …. as that’s what they do?

    On the one hand that’s fair enough, but were the ones who have said the most backward and poisonous things going to get the treatment like Griffin did on QT?
    With members of the audience booing and hissing them.
    Or was it all going to be a much more welcoming place for them to be?

    I’m all for inviting all kinds of dodgy people to speak at your event, it just depends if they get cross-examined in a robost way, or are feted.

    There’s an event next weekend in London that has got hundreds of invited speakers from all kinds of backgrounds …. and that’s good IMO.
    http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/

    Would it be ignorant of me to guess that Yusuf al-Qaradawi would have got a warm and respectful reception at this event had he appeared – or would people have been booing and interupting his speech with shouts of ”shame” and such things like Griffin got?
    That’s the difference really I think.

  25. Shamit — on 26th October, 2010 at 1:13 am  

    What I find difficult to understand is why would the governing party give up a political opportunity like this?

    Warsi is undoubetedly a brilliant speaker, proud of her Muslim faith and proud of being British. She has challenged dogmas and extremists as a Muslim woman and can hold her own against nutjobs any day.

    Why wouldn’t you send her?

    Douglas – I disagree with your asessment of going into someone else’s teritorry.

    Let’s just imagine, if she just gave a speech -which would blend in the sacrfices by many muslims defending this country and the stigma of guilt by association. She would of course highlight the tenets of compassion, egalitarian and peaceful teachings of Islam while condemning extremism and terrorism in the strongest possible way.

    If she got heckled, the first Muslim as well as the first Muslim Woman Cabinet member is being heckled while delivering a thoughtful speech – in front of the full glare of the media – wow! that would be PR coup worth in gold for the Tory party and Cameron, I would think.

    In fact, she should have gone and taken questions and slapped around a few extremists while embracing her heritage and Britishness in her discourse with the gathering. And she would have been good. Then why not and change the main headlines from spending cuts to Muslim Cabinet Minister stares down extremist while they abused her.

    Except for loony fringes of both the left and right, the country would have supported the Government and they could have made this into a few news cycles story.

    And, some of them could have used this to hit labour about Tower Hamlets. Why didn’t they do it? I don’t know but if its because of what Harry’s Place believe it to be – then I was overestimating Cameron’s political skills. But I doubt it.

  26. Lamia — on 26th October, 2010 at 1:25 am  

    @ Africana

    “as for the statements regarding jews, i really think that they need be understood in the context of the current situation in palestine.”

    Well he didn’t refer only to Palestine, he referred to Jews, plain and simple. I think you need to address that rather than try and change the subject. If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, ‘context’ is surely the first.

    “yasir qadhi and others, instead, view the behaviour as arising from a inner sickness which is in the control of the individual and means that any acting upon it is blameworthy.it is in this light the comments need be understood.
    whilst some of the language use is emotive…”

    It’s not merely ‘emotive’, Africana, it’s appalling, and from my perosnally perspective alarming. I ask you to consider how you would feel if you as a Muslim were on the receiving end of such language. You would rightly consider it hateful not merely ‘emotive’. If a BNP racist claimed he base his intolerant views of black people or Muslims on sincerely held views about race and culture would you accept that as some kind of acceptable excuse? I think that (rightly) you would not. So why do you try to mitigate hateful and intolerant views by others on other groups on the gournds that they are ‘sincerely’ held?

    Your reply boils down to a polite callousness that you would not find acceptable if directed at you. You seem to be incapable of empathising with the people who are the targets of such preachers. On what basis, therefore, do you expect non-Muslims, especially Jews and gay people to empathise with you and other Muslims?

  27. Shamit — on 26th October, 2010 at 1:27 am  

    Brownie’s and Harry’s Place argue – if you go there you are giving them credibility. I disagree.

    Going to a event called Global Peace Unity and slapping down extremist elements – how is that giving credibility? If someone tries to use that as credibility in any informed political discourse, s/he would be laughed out of the room.

    So, that argument does not stick. More importantly, this would have not only helped the Tory party but the country as a whole.

    For goodness sake, they should have leaked a much harsher version of the speech beforehand and start a story. It would have smashed the extremists while praising the plurality of the event – highlighting Britsh principles of freedom of speech. Wouldn’t that have been politically better move to stir up the base and the country?

    Why wouldn’t you go there and say your piece? Or may be right wing nutters with little political acumen aided by blogs such as HP, and Cameron simply did not want a fight with that base right now. That would be one more battle he and his coalition have to fight through then.

    That is probably the real reason – I doubt whether the government was really shunning Muslims or extremists who happen to be Muslims.

  28. Sunny — on 26th October, 2010 at 2:44 am  

    On the Global P&U hand, the extremists are your hosts and you are their guests.

    Oh no, they’re asking questions! And it won’t be nice Mr Dimbleby moderating them! Oh noooo! what will these loud-mouth bloggers do now? Of course, they’ll stay at home and spend their time on the interwebz being angry at anyone who actually bothers to go there and argue with them.

    you lot really are pathetic.

  29. Lamia — on 26th October, 2010 at 3:16 am  

    “…being angry at anyone who actually bothers to go there and argue with them.”

    Care to name some examples of British politicians who HAVE ‘gone there and argued with them’ at Islamist conferences?

    You must have some, surely? Plenty, I’d have thought, considering GPU has been going several years now and a number of politicians have attended. Can you link us to some of their critical comments about the Islamist attendees? To three or four of them?

    No? Really? Fancy that…

  30. Sarah AB — on 26th October, 2010 at 7:05 am  

    Lamia – are you referring to the fact that Dominic Grieve’s speech was taken off youtube?

    http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/10/this-weekend-marks-an-important-test-for-the-governments-anti-extremism-policy.html

    I think Shamit makes a good case for Baroness Warsi attending, but the deletion of evidence of criticism in the past is another factor helping explain the conservatives’ decision perhaps.

  31. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2010 at 7:20 am  

    damon @ 24,

    What good points does Brownie raise?

    Brownie starts his commentary here with the words:

    Epic fail

    If that isn’t shooting from the hip, I don’t know what is.

    Sunny’s post was gathered together in the final paragraph. He said:

    Either say you’re going to debate all extremists, or don’t share a platform with any.

    My point is merely that Harry’s Place is nowadays an ideological home for extremists.

    Which, frankly, is all it is going to get from me. Brownie doesn’t engage his brain before he posts, why should I?

    It is their proselytising here that I find wearying. They can put up an arguement, sure, but it usually of such little quality that all it deserves is contempt. But they are a bit like global warming denialists, they have a theme of incredulity, a theme of having half an arguement and assuming no-one knows the other half, it is what they do. All the time. If you are going to argue against the merits of something, it is completely exhausting to be told you are a drunk, told you are stupid, told you are credulous. Which is what Brownie does, continually.

    I’d refer you to the thread on a Muslim Girls School in Kabul. Brownie was absolutely positive he was right. Because that is what he does. When I started doubting his narrative he tried to throw the kitchen sink at me. Which is what he does. Nothing may be predicated against the truth that is what goes on in Brownie’s head. Oh, no!

    ——————————–

    Shamit, ever tried commenting there? Frankly they operate a clique of like minded attack bots that would attempt to destroy any arguement that didn’t meet their criteria, mainly by weight of numbers. What Brownie hates about this site is that he is a single voice here and he can’t bring that force of opinion to bare. Whenever he posts here he is exposed as an advocate rather than someone seeking truth, enlightenment and decent relationships. I’d have thought he’d have a bit of a job saying he doesn’t.

    _____________________________________

    So, the question comes down to whether you should attempt to occupy your opponents turf or not? Feel free to try, but you will end up as tired of their bullshit as I am.

    I am just a cynic about human relations these days.

  32. Sarah AB — on 26th October, 2010 at 7:42 am  

    Douglas – do please come and comment on my post on the Lawful Industrial Relations (minor amendments) bill which is unnaccountably proving less popular than the post about Lauren Booth converting to Islam ;-)

    http://hurryupharry.org/2010/10/24/lawful-industrial-action-bill-fails-to-get-to-next-stage/

  33. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2010 at 7:53 am  

    Sarah AB,

    You are quite funny. OK, I’ll comment on it and lets see what happens… I hope you haven’t told the HP attack bots to be on their best behaviour. Would it be arrogant, perhaps it would, to assume that my name alone would attract a hive of bees? For I am no friend of Harry’s Place, and Harry’s Place is no friend of me. Still, as an expirament:

    There, done.

    I find Nick (South Africa) a complete creep…A sort of Duke or summat in the times of Elizabeth the First. Arrogant, self centred and daft.

  34. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2010 at 8:01 am  

    For we are just the ‘little people’ that allow his fragrant progression across the landscape of his life to continue uninterrupted by dissent or stuff. What a tit.

  35. Sarah AB — on 26th October, 2010 at 8:16 am  

    Douglas – Nick from SA’s no great pal of mine as I could demonstrate if archived HP comments were still available. You have a rather odd idea of HP – I certainly wouldn’t email their bloggers to tell them to be nice to you! If that post gets any further comments (other than one from me thanking you for your comment perhaps)I’ll be mildly surprised.

  36. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2010 at 8:21 am  

    Well, Sarah AB, that should have wound up at least one of your chums. You’d be far better writing here, rather than there….

    ’cause you have wit, and Harry’s Place has none.

    Least that’s what I think.

  37. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2010 at 8:37 am  

    Sarah AB @ 37,

    I like you, but you are completely wrong about Harry’s Place. It is nowhere for a decent person like you.

    It seems to me that you have fallen into the trap of assuming that the first web site that seemed to meet your criteria was the one for you.

    No, it isn’t.

    You are a decent human being and I have no idea why you see Harry’s Place as an acceptable home. You write good and entertaining stuff. Why you do it there is beyond me. There is a far larger audience here.

    You could write it here. Given your obvious education Sunny would probably let you write it above the line.

    Something he rarely allows me to do.

    A bit of pique?

    Yes.

  38. Rumbold — on 26th October, 2010 at 8:38 am  

    SarahAB does make some good points. As does Sunny (in his piece). I am leaning towards Shamit’s argument, given that Baroness Warsi could strike a blow against these people. However, the opposing view is quite persuasive as well, since Baroness Warsi going to an evwent does lend it an extra legitimacy, and this is different from debating someone at a ‘neutral’ venue.

    He ladyship should go though. And show them all up.

  39. Sarah AB — on 26th October, 2010 at 8:43 am  

    Thanks Douglas! I think there are many decent human beings above the line of HP though …

  40. Sarah AB — on 26th October, 2010 at 8:43 am  

    I mean *on* HP.

  41. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2010 at 8:59 am  

    Rumbold @ 40,

    In an ideal world, yes.

    he[r] ladyship should go though. And show them all up.

    If she could.

    I am not as convinced as you appear to be that it is just down to force of conviction. I’d certainly like to think it was. But it ain’t. It is down to prejudice, least that’s what I think. Not her, but her opponents…

    Shamit, as ever, makes a convincing case. I don’t think either you or he have attempted to argue the demon lords of Harry’s Place in their own lair? I have, and it is fruitless.

    Come back and talk to me after you have.

  42. cjcjc — on 26th October, 2010 at 9:08 am  

    “I don’t think either you or he have attempted to argue the demon lords of Harry’s Place in their own lair? I have, and it is fruitless.”

    Hahahahaha – this was your latest “argument” over there:

    “Still and all,
    Nick (South Africa)
    I find you, Nick (South Africa) a complete utter creep…A sort of Duke or summat in the times of Elizabeth the First. Arrogant, self centred and daft.
    And.
    For we are just the ‘little people’ that allow your fragrant progression across the landscape of your life to continue uninterrupted by dissent or stuff.
    What a tit you are.”

    Brilliant.
    Absolutely brilliant.

  43. Rumbold — on 26th October, 2010 at 9:12 am  

    Douglas:

    I jused to go and debate on HP occasionally, but now I mostly stay on PP.

  44. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2010 at 9:15 am  

    Sarah AB @ 39,

    I am quite fond of David T. Apart from him and you, I think most of the people that write above the line on Harry’s Place are stupid, and I picked that word deliberately.

    For most of them can only project some sort of affront at you. For they have no grip on an arguement, they have no grip on common sense, they just do what they do. Which is to be an affront to sense, an affront to living a life, even.

    Well, that’s what I think. I take it you are a believer in the Euston Manifesto?

    Which, obviously, I am not.

  45. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2010 at 9:22 am  

    cjcjc @ 42,

    Yes it was brilliant, wasn’t it?

    You should try to engage, but you can’t, can you, you moron.

    It is to the point that cjcjc has nothing worthwhile to say and is a completely vacuous idiot. Perhaps the sort of tit that hangs around Harry’s Place.

  46. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2010 at 9:23 am  

    Rumbold @ 43,

    Me too.

  47. cjcjc — on 26th October, 2010 at 9:25 am  

    “For they have no grip on an arguement, they have no grip on common sense, they just do what they do. Which is to be an affront to sense, an affront to living a life, even.”

    I would love to meet you DC.

    You can’t possibly be as rantingly bonkers in person.

    It must be the keyboard that does it.

  48. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2010 at 9:28 am  

    cjcjc,

    And it was true, too?

    He is a regal piece of shite, is he not?

  49. dmra — on 26th October, 2010 at 9:33 am  

    Sarah AB

    At the risk of derailing this thread even more

    “Douglas – do please come and comment on my post on the Lawful Industrial Relations (minor amendments) bill which is unnaccountably proving less popular than the post about Lauren Booth converting to Islam”

    Not so unaccountably I think. I suspect that most of the Labour supporting HP commentators are finding the whole subject of their MPs failing to support the right to strike a bit embarrasing.

    I notice that, probably for the same reason, the issue seems to have passed by this blog too.

  50. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2010 at 9:37 am  

    cjcjc @ 47,

    Well, they don’t do they?

    “For they have no grip on an arguement, they have no grip on common sense, they just do what they do. Which is to be an affront to sense, an affront to living a life, even.”

    cjcjc, that is what I think about you and your chums. It is not going to go down well with you, but it is what I think. I think it is you that is ranting, not me. Try to prove me wrong, why don’t you? I will guarantee that you will lose, unless I become bored. Which is all you folk do, make us bored.

  51. platinum786 — on 26th October, 2010 at 9:40 am  

    The King of Jordan thought it was legitimate enough and event to turn up too.

  52. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2010 at 9:40 am  

    dmra,

    probably.

  53. cjcjc — on 26th October, 2010 at 9:45 am  

    “I think it is you that is ranting, not me.”

    Hahaha

  54. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2010 at 9:46 am  

    Or platinum786,

    Probably. Does that make him right or wrong?

    Did he win or lose his arguement? I don’t know. Do you?

  55. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2010 at 9:48 am  

    cjcjc @ 53,

    Not really. Try to discuss stuff instead of going ‘Hahaha’.

    It just makes you look like the idiot you are.

  56. cjcjc — on 26th October, 2010 at 9:51 am  

    Sorry, still laughing…

    I said all I had to say on topic at comment #1.

  57. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2010 at 10:05 am  

    well cjcjc, you are a laughter a minute idiot.

    And everything I had to say about you was encapsulated in my post about 50.

    You have had nothing, worthwhile, to say across the length of this thread. And that is what you do around here.

    Charming, I’m sure.

    Hahaha

    Genious!

  58. joe90 — on 26th October, 2010 at 11:43 am  

    post #17

    is it ok for politicians to share platforms with israeli politicians who come to the uk who have only just washed the blood from their hands following the massacre in gaza?

    or is your bias only one way.

  59. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2010 at 12:16 pm  

    joe90.

    If you take the editorial stance, it is to the point to engage with these folk.

    As it is with islamicists, and probably recidivist holocaust deniers too. Or climate change nutters or folk that think Darwin was wrong.

    Me? I am tired of their arguements from ignorance or stupidity. It is all they have. And it makes me feel weary. Not exactly angry, just feeling very, very old…

    There is no conversion possible for these mugs. They are who they are. They will propound shit until shit becomes the new currency. It is what they do.

    It is, perhaps, worthwhile to argue against them in a common forum such as this, lest someone else slips to the dark side.

    I am not holding my breath!

  60. Brownie — on 26th October, 2010 at 1:00 pm  

    Rumbold,

    I suspect we all draw our lines in different places. I’m sure there are events you would attend that I owuld not, and vice versa. But that is not the issue.

    The last two parapgraphs of the post are about an imagined hypocrisy of what Sunny descirbes as “neo-conservatives”, a group to which Sunny insists HP belongs. I’m simply arguing that there is no hypocrisy becasue going on QT when there’s a nutter on the panel is not the same as going to speak at an invite-only event organised and hosted by another group of nutters. In other words, the premise of Sunny’s argument is utterly flawed.

    For the record, the HP stance on the issues Sunny highlights are as follows:

    Wilders coming to Britain – pretty much divided.
    Banning Hizb ut-Tahrir – consistently opposed. DavidT has written at least half-a-dozen posts on this issue over the years and he, like the other HP authors, is opposed to a ban, for the same reasons we don’t want to ban the BNP.
    Stop and search based on racial profiling – totally opposed.

    As I say, just for the record.

  61. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2010 at 2:16 pm  

    Brownie @ 60,

    I have a lot of respect for Rumbold, I have met him and I think he is a very good human being. So that’s Rumbold out of the way.

    What is this nonsense?

    For the record, the HP stance on the issues Sunny highlights are as follows:

    Wilders coming to Britain – pretty much divided.
    Banning Hizb ut-Tahrir – consistently opposed. DavidT has written at least half-a-dozen posts on this issue over the years and he, like the other HP authors, is opposed to a ban, for the same reasons we don’t want to ban the BNP.
    Stop and search based on racial profiling – totally opposed.

    That is nothing like your agenda Brownie, and you know it.

    It is what you do, Brownie, you extract a few brief details and pretend they represent all of what you mugs say. Are you happy to represent this?

    http://hurryupharry.org/2009/12/07/bunglawala-obsesses-about-zionists-while-mpac-brands-them-%E2%80%98scum-of-the-earth%E2%80%99/

    Interesting that you can’t link properly to your sad and pathetic web site.

    Anyway, I think you do Brownie. I think you do stand behind that sort of stuff.

  62. muslim — on 26th October, 2010 at 2:20 pm  

    Yoni — on 25th October, 2010 at 5:04 pm
    “And please Brownie, do give up the idiotic term ‘Islamophobe’.”
    —————————————-
    Lamia — on 25th October, 2010 at 6:47 pm

    “By contrast, this conference, like any political one, has a particular ideological tone and focus and (unlike most political conferences) contained a good number of vicious antisemites and homophobes.”

    (Lamia criticising) Muhammad Alshareef

    On homophobia: “And I thought to myself, that’s an amazing word to be called. Alhamdulillah [praise to God] that you’re homophobic. And then they will say it as if it is a derogatory term, but in fact it is a praiseworthy term.”

    —————————-

    Yep Muslim haters are the very soul of consistency and fairness

  63. damon — on 26th October, 2010 at 2:40 pm  

    This is Zakir Naik at last year’s event – and who in July Sunny called a ”hate-preacher”.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyqMQgI6VaE

    If he is a hate-preacher then what is one meant to make of the enthusiastic reception of the large audience? If this was Griffin or Geert Wilders getting such a reception from such a large crowd you wouldn’t want to be anywhere near the event.

    But there is a difference between this GPU audience and an audience that would cheer on Geert Wilders I fully understand. Most of the people at this event aren’t hate filled racists in a way that a Wilders event would attract.
    But still, there is also a double standard here in the way that UAF give this event a complete free ride, and would only have mobilised if the EDL had said that they were going to show up.

    I would like someone to defend the event overall though. I don’t pretend to be all that informed about this. I’d like to see some evidence of counter-islamist argument at the event, and to see whether real debate was had.

    For example, would there be clear lines drawn between people who supported muslim girls wearing niqabs as part of their school uniform outside school and those bitterly opposed to the idea? (If there had been such a discussion?) If there was genuine debate there, then I don’t have such a problem with it.

  64. cjcjc — on 26th October, 2010 at 2:51 pm  

    “Most of the people at this event aren’t hate filled racists in a way that a Wilders event would attract.”

    Well I would be prepared to bet there are a large number of Jew and gay haters at that event, given the speakers.

  65. Sunny — on 26th October, 2010 at 3:46 pm  

    If people are against offering them legitimacy, then they should be against the BNP appearing on BBC Qt too – and then take the stance Peter Hain did.

  66. damon — on 26th October, 2010 at 4:09 pm  

    cjcjc

    Well I would be prepared to bet there are a large number of Jew and gay haters at that event, given the speakers.

    Yes I’m sure that’s right. Maybe the difference is that these ”haters” who are there, don’t behave like the EDL thugs. The EDL can’t try to gloss over their repugnance, as they do things like attack people in a resturant in Leicester … whereas some of the people at GPU might have only attacked a ‘Zionist coffee shop’ in a symbolic way, and weren’t out to deliberately scare or attack the people who were inside it at the time … like the EDL thugs so clearly did.

    On Liberal Conspiracy today there is a description of an anti-EDL protest outside the Israeli embassy on Sunday where a person in the opening post says this:

    Anyway, so at this demonstration the EDL brought along a clown who is also known as Rabbi Nachum Shifren. This man just like every single member of the EDL was vile. I had never with my own ears heard so much hatred. While he spoke about all Muslim’s being “the dogs that they are” who will eat eachother alive, his crowd barked loud and proud. On the other side they shouted “free free Palestine.” I also heard a member of the EDL shout “go shag your dad” to a young Arab girl, now I’m not one for violence but that guy, actually all of them deserved a slap or two.

    And I’m thinking that’s just the same kind of hate-speech that some of the people speaking at the GPU event engage in. Who call women tennis players ”perverts” and horrible things like that.

    So the only real difference is that of the thuggishness of the EDL – who like to get drunk and behave abominably.

  67. Scooby — on 26th October, 2010 at 5:55 pm  

    If people are against offering them legitimacy, then they should be against the BNP appearing on BBC Qt too – and then take the stance Peter Hain did.

    The BNP were offered an appearance on Question Time because they were picking up a significant vote. When the Islamists get a comparable vote then they too should be offered a chance to appear and it would be worthwhile for mainstream politicians to debate them in order to challenge their ideas amongst those voters taking them seriously. Until that happens, it isn’t.

    There, that wasn’t so hard to understand, was it?

  68. Lamia — on 26th October, 2010 at 7:02 pm  

    A ‘muslim’

    1. what was unfair about what I said?

    2. Do you have a defence for Muhammad Alshareef glorying in the description ‘homophobe’ – apart from ‘look over there,’ which you have so pitifully attempted there?

  69. joe90 — on 26th October, 2010 at 9:26 pm  

    post #64

    did you actually got to the GPU event and ask the 60,000 people if they are jew haters or put them through a lie detector test to proove your point? or do you make random generalizations as a hobby?

    It’s bit like me saying a large number of middle age white people are paedophiles not an accurate or fair conclusion i think you would agree!

  70. damon — on 26th October, 2010 at 10:14 pm  

    Maybe I should take a leaf out of the rudeness book that some writers take on here and say: joe90 – that’s really poor.

    Most of the EDL would say that they aren’t racists, and most – I’m guessing – if you showed them that YouTube of EDL racists attacking that restutant in Leicester (because Asian looking people were inside), would probably disassociate themselves from it too.

    It doesn’t matter if many EDL people say they just want to hold peaceful protests. They are associated with their violent lumpen friends, whether they like it or not.

    But this GPU thing can just be called ”a Muslim event”. If I was a Muslim that would annoy me a bit.

  71. Ravi Naik — on 26th October, 2010 at 11:15 pm  

    Gert Wilders had enough votes in the last election that he is now sustaining the Dutch government. The BNP had enough votes to elect not one but two MEPs who represent Britain. So, both Wilders and Griffin had enough appeal to be appointed where they are. This makes them more dangerous extremists because they successfully used our democratic institutions to get where they are. And therefore, it is in our interest that mainstream politicians debate them and show the farce that they are, otherwise they only gain politically by not being challenged.

    Having said that, I see little good that would come out from Baroness Warsi attending the event.

    So, it is true that extremists come in different colours, but in this case, I think it is the size that matters. The white ones you mention are actually in a position of power.

  72. damon — on 27th October, 2010 at 3:20 pm  

    I’m not sure what’s worse Ravi Naik, the BNP having two people elected to Europe or this kind of event being seen as quite mainstream. And the world wide network that islamists have.
    The two BNP people are in Brussels, but are they really having much of an effect in the country as a whole? I haven’t noticed it particularly. Although I don’t know what it’s like in the north of England where they got a lot of their votes from.

    Geert Wilders is a different story. His million plus votes is more concerning, but it’s what might happen with him and his party. With the islamists, they exist already and are always looking for ways to advance. It’s not surprising to me that such a man like Wilders could rise to prominence, when there have obviously been some problems with integration and people being scared by the likes of this event in London. When you see the huge crowds cheering Zakir Naik last year, you wonder do people really know who he is. And if they do, then no wonder the likes of Wilders could hype things like that up.

    It only takes a couple of documentaries like this one to be put on TV in Holland (I’m guessing) to get people worried and alarmed.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/documentary_archive/6563371.stm

    Muslims sitting at cafe tables in Amsterdam calling out ”Gas the Jews” at Jews going to synagogue.
    After what happened in Holland during the Nazi occupation.
    I can see how with even just occasional instances like that happening, that people with bad intent could use them to frighten Dutch society and move it to the right.

    Just google ”Jews leave Malmo” and there’s loads of jucy stuff there for right wingers to drool over.
    It’s a bit of a cause and effect situation, with worries about islamophobia and islamism feeding off each other.

  73. arifa — on 27th October, 2010 at 3:45 pm  

    Ravi Naik
    “So, it is true that extremists come in different colours, but in this case, I think it is the size that matters. The white ones you mention are actually in a position of power.”

    An excellent point. White extremists can potentially tap into 90% of the population. Muslim extremists 3%.

    Big difference.

  74. arifa — on 27th October, 2010 at 3:47 pm  

    “Muslims sitting at cafe tables in Amsterdam calling out ”Gas the Jews” at Jews going to synagogue.
    After what happened in Holland during the Nazi occupation.
    I can see how with even just occasional instances like that happening, that people with bad intent could use them to frighten Dutch society and move it to the right.

    Just google ”Jews leave Malmo” and there’s loads of jucy stuff there for right wingers to drool over.
    It’s a bit of a cause and effect situation, with worries about islamophobia and islamism feeding off each other”

    Yeah Damon blame a whole community for what a few idiots do.Thats fair. Can you blame the whole Jewish community for what extremist anti-Muslim bigots like Pamela Geller or Baet Yor say?

  75. john — on 27th October, 2010 at 3:48 pm  

    damon is an idiot and an anti-Muslim bigot

  76. Sarah AB — on 27th October, 2010 at 4:46 pm  

    I don’t know whether john’s comment is based on damon’s last comment (72) or not but I don’t see what’s wrong in saying that extremists from opposed sides wind each other up and perhaps drag people who wouldn’t normally be extremists into the arguments, polarising communities in a vicious circle.

  77. africana — on 27th October, 2010 at 4:48 pm  

    i must say, as a muslim, i didn’t find any of damon’s comments offensive or suggestive of bigotry, unlike those of soso.

  78. damon — on 27th October, 2010 at 4:52 pm  

    John and arifa – can you not understand a simple point without getting it backwards? Who’s blaming Muslims?
    The likes of Geert Wilders, not me. My point is that it doesn’t take much to spook people. And small ocassional things like Jews getting abused on the streets can quickly be seen as a trend that happens regularly. As you will know if you looked at that google search I mentioned.

    As 8,500 Chinese people who came out onto the streets of Paris were convinced that their community was being particulary targeted by muggers and anti-social elememts. Maybe they are just being paranoid, but it seems to be the general opinion amomgst thousands of Parisian Chinese people.

    I bet that within the British Jewish community there is a fair ammount of feeling that Jews in Europe are getting singled out by Muslims. If you think I’m wrong and that most Jews think these stories are over-hyped alarmism, then fair enough.
    But if you even spent two minutes looking at a google search with the words ”anti-semitism” and the name of a European country, you will see that lots of people do say that anti-semitism is rising.
    That it might not be, is neither here nor there.
    If enough people think it, then they go out and vote for the right.

    Why you should think that I am blaming muslims for saying that I don’t know.

    So instead of just slagging me off, why not give your oppinions on the GPU event. Is it just a mainstream muslim event that invites a few hot-heads just to liven things up a bit and get a debate going?

  79. arifa — on 27th October, 2010 at 4:57 pm  

    Damon of course ignores the numerous attacks on Muslims and on mosques across Europe. Doesnt fit his narrative.

  80. Don — on 27th October, 2010 at 5:21 pm  

    Damon pointing out that highly visible actions by people visibly identified with a particular group are apt to skew perceptions of that group is hardly contentious.

  81. cjcjc — on 27th October, 2010 at 5:33 pm  

    How many other kinds of “mainstream” events invite that kind of “hot head” along to liven things up?

    If GPU is mainstream, well, it’s a gift to the EDL.

  82. advise — on 27th October, 2010 at 7:38 pm  

    Don @80 -dont use complicated or long words. It’s damon you’re addressing.

  83. damon — on 28th October, 2010 at 1:28 am  

    arifa @73

    Ravi Naik
    “So, it is true that extremists come in different colours, but in this case, I think it is the size that matters. The white ones you mention are actually in a position of power.”

    An excellent point. White extremists can potentially tap into 90% of the population. Muslim extremists 3%.

    Big difference.

    I don’t know if that is such a great point, as it suggests that although a Mulslim event (as Sunny calls it) might be sacringly Islamist, because Muslims are such a minoity of the UK population, then it doesn’t really matter.

    It’s like when I went with visitor from India (a Hindu student) to the biggest Gurdwara in Southall last year and almost the first person we saw inside was someone wearing a Bhindranwale T-shirt.

    I think it does matter when minorities are disproportionately extremist.

    There’s only so much of a bulwark that stops the UK from being like Dubai.
    I spent a week there this time last year and it is a really horrible place. Quite disgusting in fact.

  84. africana — on 28th October, 2010 at 4:36 am  

    @Damon,
    “like Dubai.I spent a week there this time last year and it is a really horrible place”

    could you explain why you feel this is so? dubai has never really appealed to me. it strikes me as horribly consumerist and nouveau riche, although some people love it.

  85. damon — on 28th October, 2010 at 12:19 pm  

    Africana, Dubai is horrible but also fascinating and I’d recommend anyone to go there and have a good look around. It is possible to get a cheapish hotel in the old town area by the creek. It’s horrible because it’s such a place of contrasts, with poor workers from India, Pakistan and The Philippines being used (and abused) as semi-slave labour.
    If you travel about on the bus system you will never see one real Emratie person – in fact the only place you see them is inside the plushest of the shopping malls. All over the city there are notices like these from people who are looking for people of their national origin and religion to share the rent by taking a ”bed space”.
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_zALUcwwcw4I/SkOboYK0WXI/AAAAAAAAALI/7s1o10j3m1Q/s400/IMG00009-20090625-1819.jpg

    Johann Hari wrote a scathing article about Dubai last year, and some people didn’t like it and started going on about bad things in the UK. He replied to them like this, by calling it ‘what-aboutery’.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-to-spot-a-lame-lame-argument-1667373.html

    There’s a fair bit of that on Pickled Politics too it seems. Because if I critiscise ”a mulslim event” like the GPU one, you’ll get people saying ”but what about Islamophobia” like someone did yesterday.

    It would be interesting to have gotten to the bottom of whether the GPU thing was a tainted and backward event overall. Or just a controversial but still mainstream event. Would protests outside it by Unite Against Fascism have been justified?
    Should they have been outside like they were outside the BBC when Griffin was on Question Time shouting ”Fascist scum off our streets” ?

    Or is that just taking it too far?

  86. douglas clark — on 28th October, 2010 at 12:39 pm  

    damon @ 85,

    Could we please download you into the next Mars exploration Rover?

    There is nowhere you haven’t been, and I quite enjoy your tours of the world :-)

  87. Ravi Naik — on 28th October, 2010 at 5:48 pm  

    I don’t know if that is such a great point, as it suggests that although a Mulslim event (as Sunny calls it) might be sacringly Islamist, because Muslims are such a minoity of the UK population, then it doesn’t really matter.

    It matters, but I was talking in the context of this post and whether politicians should either debate all extremists or none of them – I disagree with that black-and-white view. Extremists will be around in every society, and I certainly do not see the point for mainstream politicians to debate religious extremists who think gays should be punished or that we should be better under a Caliphate – there is no possible good that could come out of this. Nick Griffin and Gert Wilders, on the other hand, should be challenged and debated, or otherwise we risk them having more power than they already have.

    Which leads me to the point you were making. I do think it is important for people like you and me, and society in general, to stand against all forms of bigotry, including those that stem from minorities.

    What I do not get is your empathy towards EDL.

  88. damon — on 28th October, 2010 at 6:27 pm  

    Ravi Naik, I have no empathy towawards the EDL.
    They are idiots and thugs. Just because I don’t quite go along with the UAF view of them doesn’t mean I have any empathy towards them.

    I don’t think they deserve the amount of attention they get – that’s all. If real Nazi’s had been such a pushover, the history of the 20th century would have been so much different.

    Still, I do think that ”all forms of bigotry” should be opposed. In the case of this GPU event, Pickled Politics has been mostly reluctant to give it’s opinion of whether this was a mainstream Muslim event with a few extemist speakers, or an event that should be denounced overall.

    I got most of my knowledge of it from looking at some youtubes – and the ones of people cheering Zakir Naik last year left me a bit less than impressed.

  89. damon — on 31st October, 2010 at 12:37 am  

    I saw that someone had tonight writen a post on the ”Fuck the gay haters” youtube that Sunny put up a couple of weeks ago. It only turned out to be a ‘tweet’ but I was wondering how it would have gone down if it was shown on the big screen at that Global Peace and Unity event.

    Like I was thinking something similar last night when they have that Newsnight Review programme on a friday night after BBC2′s Newsnight programme. They have a bunch of people sitting around reviewing recent plays, films and books and last night they discussed this film about a lesbian couple and their children:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kids_Are_All_Right_(film)

    I wondered how that kind of discussion would go down with the people who cheered on Islamists at the GPU event. Would they even get it? Or would people walk away from it shaking their heads and muttering about films and discussions like that being haram?

  90. Sajn — on 31st October, 2010 at 12:35 pm  

    “Muhammad Al-Ya’qoubi

    On freedom of speech: “…these wrong and false ideals like freedom of religion’ or ‘freedom of expression’.”

    “Now the West has crossed every red line in respect of norms and ethics and I don’t think Muslims should tolerate this. If you’re asking me about how to react, how to respond, I believe we should show the highest angry level of response.””

    I cannot see what in the above statement would classify this scholar as an “extremist”. He has a point of view that is saying that Muslims should protest against deliberate attempts to disrespect and insult their faith. He is not advocating violence or hatred in this statement.

  91. Sajn — on 31st October, 2010 at 12:37 pm  

    And as someone who would never vote for the Tories, I am embarrassed by the fact that Labour (or the Liberals) cannot put up a representative from a Muslim background who can represent themselves half as well as Baroness Warsi. She is infinitely preferable to the likes of Lord Nazir.

  92. Sarah AB — on 31st October, 2010 at 1:33 pm  

    Sajn – depends how you define extremist. The first quote suggests that he is EXTREMELY illiberal – though not an extremist, necessarily, if by extremist one means using or advocating violence. The second quote – well that all depends on how you interpret ‘highest angry level of response’ – or how he interprets it.

  93. Don — on 31st October, 2010 at 2:25 pm  

    the highest angry level of response…

    You mean … 11?

  94. Trofim — on 31st October, 2010 at 8:08 pm  

    sajn @ 90:

    A religion cannot be insulted. The verb “insult” refers to hurting the feelings of a human being, usually a thin-skinned one, in some way. Semantically it is nonsense to talk about insulting non-human phenomena. A religion is simply a system of ideas. like scientific hypotheses, systems of ideas just need to have their flaws, errors and inconsistencies revealed by all possible means. There is no such thing as a sacrosanct idea in a free society.

    http://www.bartleby.com/130/2.html

    And you cannot force anyone to respect anything. Respecting is an internal, cognitive phenomenon.

  95. africana — on 3rd November, 2010 at 1:59 am  

    @damon,@85,

    many thanks for your perspective on dubai as well as the link to the article on whataboutery. i must admit that i’ve probably been somewhat afflicted by this malady myself.

    how odd that one is unlikely to see indigenous emiratis in normal settings. i’m not sure i could cope with so so much unselfconscious racism and classism, to be honest.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.