Pickled Politics






  • Family

    • Clairwil
    • Daily Rhino
    • Leon Green
    • Sajini W
    • Sid's blog
    • Sonia Afroz
    • Sunny on CIF
  • Comrades

    • Aqoul
    • Big Sticks, Small Carrots
    • Blairwatch
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Catalyst magazine
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Clive Davis
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Derek Wall
    • Dr StrangeLove
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry's Place
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • Liberal Review
    • Matt Murrell
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Humanist Editor
    • New Statesman blogs
    • open Democracy
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy's Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Tasneem Khalil
    • The Other India
    • Tim Worstall
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Desi Pundit
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Real man's fraternity
    • Route 79
    • Sakshi Juneja
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown





  • Site Meter

    Technorati: graph / links

    ‘Familial homicide’


    by Sunny on 11th June, 2007 at 12:01 am    

    A while back I said I’d be happy to see family members being charged for murder if a woman was killed by someone within the family while others did nothing to stop it. It may be that an increasing number of lawmakers are also seeing it that way (or is it a happy coincidence?).

    Police have charged four people in connection with the murder of a woman who was beaten to death by her new husband after an arranged marriage. Sabia Rani, 19, was killed by Shazad Khan after coming to Leeds from Pakistan. He has been jailed. On Thursday it was confirmed that four members of Khan’s family had been charged with familial homicide. The Crown Prosecution Service said they were accused of causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable adult. [BBC Online]

    Meanwhile the case of Surjit Kaur Athwal’s murder is still continuing. There too, both the mother-in-law and husband were charged.

    Update: As GB points out below, Banaz Mahmod’s father and uncle were also convicted today.



    Print this page and comments   |     |   Add to del.icio.us   |   Share on Facebook   |   Filed in: Sex equality




    69 Comments below   |  

    1. Old Pickler — on 11th June, 2007 at 1:46 am  

      Murder is murder, whoever does it. Family members who acquiesce in such murders are accessories at least.

      I believe one of the first “honour” killing cases in which family members were implicated was in Denmark.

    2. Kulvinder — on 11th June, 2007 at 8:07 am  

      I really don’t support the ‘familial homicide’ law. It has no finesse and does little more than assign group punishment. The presumption seems to be that in cases where young men kill their spouses the ‘family’ could have controlled them; when in reality the highly patriarchal and probably mysogynistic attitudes that were present meant the exact opposite.

      As with all of Labour’s shitty laws the bloodlust for convictions for anyone connected with murder will probably mean a widening of the scope and powers available. It isn’t a massive leap to go from jailing the family of a murderer for killing within the family to jailing them for something that happens outside. Infact knowing the Labour party we’re probably not that far away from jailing parents for not being careful enough with their mentally disabled children.

      It is grossly unfair to make individuals not responsible for a crime culpable for what someone else did on the basis they should have been more careful. If we’re going to go down this route we may as well listen to what i thought were the fairly outlandish cries of those who think the McCanns were guilty of child neglect.

    3. Kulvinder — on 11th June, 2007 at 8:16 am  

      nb not that anyone cares about their non-existant right to silence anymore, but ‘just for the record’ the law attributes guilt - not just adverse inferences - but guilt on those who remain silent. I’m sure society will be over the moon with its sense of fairness and rationality if (when) a situation arises where complex familial ties mean an innocent man or woman has to remain silent and be convicted of something they had no knowledge of and did not do because someone they love on the otherside of the earth is in danger.

    4. Galloise Blonde — on 11th June, 2007 at 8:42 am  

      Kulvinder, the law does not attribute guilt in that case! I have been attending the Banaz Mahmod case (jury currently out on that one), and the situation is, if a defendent ‘no comment’, the judge in his summation will list all of those points relevent to the defence’s case which he believes the defendant could have made in police statements and refused to do so.

      And as to your presumption, I think it’s presumptious. I have no more information on that case than the bare paragraph above and I daresay you don’t either, and until we know how the CPS want to prove that the death was caused or allowed it’s jumping the gun to assume as you do.

      And the Danish murder was Ghazala Khan, just for the record.

    5. Chairwoman — on 11th June, 2007 at 9:38 am  

      OP of course you’re absolutely right. An accessory to murder is an accessory to murder whether they’re related to the victim or not.

      Where have you been hiding BTW?

    6. Kulvinder — on 11th June, 2007 at 9:44 am  

      Kulvinder, the law does not attribute guilt in that case!

      Attribute was the wrong word to use, and i would have edited it if i could.

      And as to your presumption, I think it’s presumptious. I have no more information on that case than the bare paragraph above and I daresay you don’t either, and until we know how the CPS want to prove that the death was caused or allowed it’s jumping the gun to assume as you do.

      Er what? I didn’t mention any ongoing trial; my comment was ‘in general’ about any man killing his wife.

    7. Galloise Blonde — on 11th June, 2007 at 9:52 am  

      The presumption seems to be that in cases where young men kill their spouses the ‘family’ could have controlled them; when in reality the highly patriarchal and probably mysogynistic attitudes that were present meant the exact opposite.

      This is your presumption and seems to be based on the facts of the case: where a young man has killed his young wife and all that you are assuming that the family failed to prevent him. But we don’t know, from these bare facts, if the case was just that they were aware that he was abusive and ignored this or if they actively prevented her from seeking aid, or if they encouraged violence against her or any other of scenarios which don’t fit your charactersation of a sin of ommission.

    8. Katy — on 11th June, 2007 at 9:55 am  

      Er. Right.

      1. There is no duty in English law to prevent someone else from committing a crime. You can only charge people with murder as accessories if they have in some way actively participated in the murder. That includes acting as lookout or standing on the sidelines shouting “Kill her! Kill her!” or in some other way encouraging or facilitating the murder. But knowledge that a murder is about to take place plus some sort of action in support or encouragement of the crime is required. If, for example, I am in a room with two other people and suddenly A hits B with a stick until B is dead, I am not committing a crime if I had no idea that it was going to happen and did nothing to encourage it or facilitate it.

      2. You can draw an adverse inference from a defendant’s failure to answer a question in interview which he had no innocent reason not to answer at the time. Where this issue arises at trial the judge will give the jury the following direction:

      ————————————-

      1. Before his interview(s) the defendant was cautioned. He was first told that he need not say anything. It was therefore his right to remain silent. However, he was also told that it might harm his defence if he did not mention when questioned something which he later relied on in court; and that anything he did say might be given in evidence.

      2. As part of his defence, the defendant has relied upon (whatever he did not mention in interview but mentions now). But the prosecution say/he admits that he failed to mention these facts when he was interviewed about the offence(s). This failure may count against him. This is because you may draw the conclusion from his failure that he had no answer that he then believed would stand up to scrutiny/has since invented his account or has since tailored his account to fit the prosecution’s case/(here refer to any other reasonable inferences contended for]. If you do draw that conclusion, you must not convict him wholly or mainly on the strength of it; but you may take it into account as some additional support for the prosecution’s case and when deciding whether his evidence about these facts is true.

      3. However, you may draw such a conclusion against him only if you think it is a fair and proper conclusion, and you are satisfied about three things: first, that when he was interviewed he could reasonably have been expected to mention the facts on which he now relies; second, that the only sensible explanation for his failure to do so is that he had no answer at the time or none that would stand up to scrutiny; third, that apart from his failure to mention those facts, the prosecution’s case against him is so strong that it clearly calls for an answer by him.

      4. (Add, if appropriate:) The defence invite you not to draw any conclusion from the defendant’s silence, on the basis of the following evidence (here set out the evidence). If you accept this evidence and think this amounts to a reason why you should not draw any conclusion from his silence, do not do so. Otherwise, subject to what I have said, you may do so.

      5. (Where legal advice to remain silent is relied upon, add the following to or instead of paragraph 4 as appropriate:) The defendant has given evidence that he did not answer questions on the advice of his solicitor/legal representative. If you accept the evidence that he was so advised, this is obviously an important consideration: but it does not automatically prevent you from drawing any conclusion from his silence. Bear in mind that a person given legal advice has the choice whether to accept or reject it; and that the defendant was warned that any failure to mention facts which he relied on at his trial might harm his defence. Take into account also (here set out the circumstances relevant to the particular case, which may include the age of the defendant, the nature of and/or reasons for the advice given, and the complexity or otherwise of the facts in which he relied at the trial). Having done so, decide whether the defendant could reasonably have been expected to mention the facts on which he now relies. If, for example, you considered that he had or may have had an answer to give, but genuinely relied on the legal advice to remain silent, you should not draw any conclusion against him. But if, for example, you were sure that the defendant had no answer, and merely latched onto the legal advice as a convenient shield behind which to hide, you would be entitled to draw a conclusion against him, subject to the direction I have given you.

      —————————————-
      I am not a fan of the curtailment of the right to silence in interview. It is likely, however, that juries drew inferences from defendants’ silence in interview before the law was changed in 1994 to allow them to do so. On that basis there is an argument that it is right to direct them as to the possible evidential significance of silence in interview rather than leaving them to possibly convict people solely on the basis that they said nothing. Personally I would prefer an unqualified right to silence. Anyway, the important points are:

      1. You cannot convict solely on the basis of a defendant’s silence in interview. The net effect of this, I have always thought, must be that a jury has to decide whether the defendant is guilty on the rest of the Crown’s case before they come back to the question of silence in interview in any event. It is therefore clearly not right that the law allows juries to impute guilt from silence.

      2. You can only draw an adverse inference against the defendant if you are satisfied that there is no innocent reason for him having failed to mention something in interview.

    9. Kulvinder — on 11th June, 2007 at 9:57 am  

      This is your presumption and seems to be based on the facts of the case

      ’seems’ isn’t the same as ‘is’. What on earth is you point?

    10. Galloise Blonde — on 11th June, 2007 at 9:59 am  

      Thanks Katy. That’s exactly what the judge said in his summing up in my case (but a bit shorter). I think adverse inferences seems accurate.

    11. Katy — on 11th June, 2007 at 10:00 am  

      I think the direction on how to treat silence in interview is hugely confusing - ditto the form of the new caution, which is:

      “You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you fail to mention when questioned anything which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say will be given in evidence.”

      Research indicates that defendants tend to hear “You do not have to say anything” and “Anything you do say will be given in evidence”, but rarely hear or understand the import of “but it may harm your defence if…”, particularly defendants with special needs. Similarly, I am not sure that juries always grasp the intricacies of how silence in interview is to be approached - bear in mind that the judge generally does not provide them with a written summing up and therefore it is up to them to take notes as best they can, although of course they can come back to ask for clarification if they need it once they retire. For both of these reasons I think that an unqualified right to silence is fairer: everyone knows what their rights are and everyone knows where they stand.

    12. Galloise Blonde — on 11th June, 2007 at 10:00 am  

      Kulvinder: you presume that familial murder is identical to failure to prevent murder through domestic violence. Why?

    13. Kulvinder — on 11th June, 2007 at 10:01 am  

      Katy im not really sure if you were addressing something i wrote.

    14. Katy — on 11th June, 2007 at 10:03 am  

      a situation arises where complex familial ties mean an innocent man or woman has to remain silent and be convicted of something they had no knowledge of and did not do

      Kulvinder, if the only evidence against someone was the fact that they had said nothing in interview there would be no case against them. There has to be evidence apart from silence in interview in order to even get a case to a jury.

    15. Katy — on 11th June, 2007 at 10:04 am  

      Yes, I think you misunderstood the law in relation to inferences from a defendant’s silence in interview - which is fair enough because it is quite convoluted.

    16. Kulvinder — on 11th June, 2007 at 10:06 am  

      Yup i know, sorry #3 was an add on paragraph and as i’ve said i’d have edited it if i could. I wasn’t implying guilt was based only on silence.

    17. Katy — on 11th June, 2007 at 10:11 am  

      Oh, I didn’t see that. So much happens on a thread whilst I am carefully shaping my responses you know.

    18. Katy — on 11th June, 2007 at 10:11 am  

      Booo it was a waste of time.

    19. Kulvinder — on 11th June, 2007 at 10:15 am  

      Yes, I think you misunderstood the law in relation to inferences from a defendant’s silence in interview - which is fair enough because it is quite convoluted.

      I’ve never ‘understood’ it. The legal advice of a solicitor to remain silent isn’t in itself enough. The conviction can’t be solely on the silence so the only real reason for it is as a tool for the police to exert pressure.

    20. Galloise Blonde — on 11th June, 2007 at 10:33 am  

      Not the only reason…it’s also pertinent for the jury to be able to establish whether the defence’s explanation of the events surrounding the crime was formed before or after they were charged.

    21. sonia — on 11th June, 2007 at 10:34 am  

      well if you can prove some did something wrong - sure - go ahead and charge them . But you’ve have to find out who - as Kulvinder says - you can’t just assign ‘group’ punishment without having a damn good understanding of who did what in the group. otherwise it’s no better than locking up every member of Year 1 because someone shot someone in the cafetaria. a witchunt looking for a scapegoat: so yeah, no blunt instruments please just because the crime is heinous.

    22. sonia — on 11th June, 2007 at 10:35 am  

      Katy thanks for post no. 8

    23. Kulvinder — on 11th June, 2007 at 10:46 am  

      Not the only reason…it’s also pertinent for the jury to be able to establish whether the defence’s explanation of the events surrounding the crime was formed before or after they were charged.

      ‘the only real reason’ But yeah far be it for a suspect who’s easily confused to keep silent inorder for his/her defence to get access to all the relevant evidence (assuming adequate disclosure isn’t given). Unless they can articulate to a satisfactory level in the fairly traumatic confines of a police interview theres probably something suspicious about them.

    24. Kulvinder — on 11th June, 2007 at 10:51 am  

      The police never ever ever use disclosure to their own advantage even in high profile situations or in circumstances where they arguably knew the innocence of a suspect.

    25. Galloise Blonde — on 11th June, 2007 at 11:04 am  

      It’s the evidence that is called into question, not the character of the defendant. If the interview was felt to be traumatic or there were reasons why the suspect felt unable to speak, the defence will make these points and the jury will weigh them accordingly. The judges summing up, as I have witnessed, follows the pattern:
      Listing the aspects relevent to the defence case which the defendents could have made in interview, but did not
      The reasons given by the defence for this not happening
      Not all suspects are vulnerable and easily confused.

    26. Galloise Blonde — on 11th June, 2007 at 11:10 am  

      Looks like some HTML doesn’t work, I was trying to be flash with bullet points so that it went:

      The judges summing up, as I have witnessed, follows the pattern:

      1. Listing the aspects relevent to the defence case which the defendents could have made in interview, but did not
      2. The reasons given by the defence for this not happening

      Now that’s prettier

    27. Kulvinder — on 11th June, 2007 at 11:20 am  

      It’s the evidence that is called into question, not the character of the defendant.

      And as i said, obviously the police give adequate disclosure at all times.

      We’ll just have to agree to disagree on the nature of the justice system. Personally i don’t think an individual should be under the obligation (in the sense of nothing being infered from their refusal) to answer any of the allegations put to them. The state is accusing you of something, its not up to you to help the state. This was fine for decades, even when we had a death penalty. Its ironic that just when a revolution in forensics occured with the likes of DNA evidence the state started erroding individual rights.

      With the vast resources at its disposal, not only in terms of fingerprints and DNA, but CCTV and most probably ID cards the state should allow you complete silence as it did when none of those things existed. Instead we have an erroding of our rights in terms of civil liberties (ID Cards etc) AND an erroding of our rights when presented with that evidence.

    28. Galloise Blonde — on 11th June, 2007 at 11:36 am  

      It’s not just a question of answering allegations, it’s a question of providing information.

      If you ask me if I killed my brother and I refuse to answer, then that’s an allegation, and I don’t see that my refusal to answer has anything to do with creating a case against me. If they ask me where I was on the night of my brother’s murder and I refuse to answer that, then when I’m in court I say I was doing a pub quiz at the King’s Head, then that’s information, and the prosecution can ask why I didn’t remember it up until that point. You’re casting it as ‘helping the state’, but it could equally be cast as rejecting the opportunity to help myself.

      But I take Katy’s points in #11 and think that direction to the jury could be clearer, particularly for vulnerable defendents. And probably many many defendents are vulnerable.

    29. Halima — on 11th June, 2007 at 11:38 am  

      I couldn’t find a link to this but here’s a very good book on the topic written with contributions from lawyers assisting with these cases from different parts of the world.

      Honour Crimes, Paradigms, and Violence Against Women: Lynn Welchman & Sara Hossain

    30. Galloise Blonde — on 11th June, 2007 at 11:45 am  

      And my second point: you may be placing too much faith in forensics and surveillance technology, as if the Crown can say, ‘He is guilty and Science proves it’, because this evidence is disclosed and is as open to challenge as any other. DNA sample? It was consensual. Car seen leaving the area on CCTV? It had been stolen. Phone records indicate prescence in the area? Lent it to my cousin.

      And I didn’t mention any of this in interviews because I was confused and vulnerable.

    31. Galloise Blonde — on 11th June, 2007 at 11:50 am  

      Halima’s book recommendation is excellent, and if anyone wants it, it’s acutally cheaper to order from Amazon.com even with the postage, because the one through Amazon.co.uk is a silly price.

    32. Random Guy — on 11th June, 2007 at 12:32 pm  

      Never mind the legal gobbledygook, as long as they get the ba****s who not only perpetrate, but also let stuff like this happen, it is all good as far as I am concerned.

    33. sonia — on 11th June, 2007 at 12:48 pm  

      well i for one think the continued popularity of arranged marriages makes the fine line between ‘arranged’ i.e. (heavily recommended you marry this person) - and arranged -( you don’t REALLY have a choice if you want our family to be respectation ) and forced marriages very fine indeed.

      And the whole buying into ‘respectability’ and honour thing - also makes this sort of thing much more likely to happen. So who lets this sort of thing happen then? All of us? Those who want to cling onto ‘our traditions’?

      a little bit of controversy there.

    34. sonia — on 11th June, 2007 at 12:49 pm  

      *never mind the gobbledygook, just nab ‘em terrorists*

      justification for grabbing hold of any old person we can blame - sound familiar? just because there is a crime that none of us like, does it mean we don’t need to think about who we’re going to ‘nab’ for it? How are we different from Tony Blair then?

    35. sonia — on 11th June, 2007 at 12:51 pm  

      respectation?! respectable i meant of course

    36. sonia — on 11th June, 2007 at 12:52 pm  

      well let me put it like this: if there weren’t so many pressured arranged marriages around ( which frankly let’s admit it there are) then it would be DAMN Obvious ( at least far more obvious than it is now) when someone is being ‘forced’ into a marriage.

    37. Galloise Blonde — on 11th June, 2007 at 1:00 pm  

      Calm down Random Guy. ‘Letting this stuff happen’ is not what we’re talking about. See Katy at #8.

    38. Random Guy — on 11th June, 2007 at 1:03 pm  

      uhhhh…..Sonia, wth are you talking about in #34???

    39. Galloise Blonde — on 11th June, 2007 at 3:48 pm  

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6722699.stm

      Guilty verdicts in the Banaz Mahmod case!!!!!

    40. Jagdeep — on 11th June, 2007 at 4:28 pm  

      Depressing stories everywhere. Makes me want to hug someone close to me.

    41. Jagdeep — on 11th June, 2007 at 4:28 pm  

      Depressing stories everywhere. Makes me want to hug someone close to me.

    42. Puffy — on 11th June, 2007 at 4:40 pm  

      What’s the definition of familial homicide? Why don’t they just call it honour killings (if that’s what it’s there for)? Didn’t Hirst-Ali get the Dutch parliament to pass a law recording honour killings?

    43. Puffy — on 11th June, 2007 at 8:01 pm  

      I just saw the story on C4. How upsetting. How can human beings treat their daughters like livestock?! In England in the 21st Century. A nightmare.

    44. Ms_Xtreme — on 11th June, 2007 at 8:45 pm  

      What’s the definition of familial homicide? Why don’t they just call it honour killings (if that’s what it’s there for)? Didn’t Hirst-Ali get the Dutch parliament to pass a law recording honour killings?

      I’m reading Hirsi Ali’s book now - The Infidel. Sorry, but her thought process for “new era government” is not practical.

      Kulvinder, I’m not sure what you’re proposing? If parents are standing in the room while someone is beat to death by her husband, they should be punished too, no?

      Hallelujah @ this case. I’m all for punishing people who are an accessory to murder, whether they are family or not.

    45. Ms_Xtreme — on 11th June, 2007 at 8:46 pm  

      Oh man ^ .. I mean I support the “honour killings” legislation. I mean other things she’s promoting in the book.

    46. Gibs — on 11th June, 2007 at 9:30 pm  

      It was good to see just how much coverage the conviction of Banaz Mahmod’s father and uncle received on BBC, ITN and Sky News - as did the matter of honour killings.

      It sends a simple message to the so called “community leaders” who would rather not talk about the issue so as not to provide ammunition for the ‘racist’ (as they would see it) media.

      That simple message is: TOO LATE. THE SECRET IS OUT. Almost EVERYONE in the UK now knows that forced marriages and honour killings are a HUGE problem.

      That being the case, isn’t it time these community “leaders” (personally I would call them “bigot protectors”) stop trying to sweep this problem under the carpet ?

    47. Muzumdar — on 11th June, 2007 at 9:37 pm  

      Wow, community leaders really are a demonised bunch on PP. They are deemed responsoble for terrorism, domestic violence, honour killings and everything in between.

      While you may be right that they are largely a bunch of idiots, wouldn’t you agree that the media is to blame for putting them on TV and giving them the platform to spew their ususally incoherrent rhetoric?

      No British South Asian I know has ever seen one of these ‘community leaders’, let alone been influenced by one, so they are clearly not representative.

      The media is lazy.

    48. Gibs — on 11th June, 2007 at 9:52 pm  

      That’s very true (about the media being lazy).

      The following is what I would like to see:

      Next time “Newsnight” should put up one of these “community leaders” but they should also put up another person (preferably Asian and female) who REALLY does know the subject and (crucially) has the guts to say “NO, THAT’S BULLS**T” in response to what the “leader” has just said.

      The look on everyones’ faces in the studio would be a sight to behold - but the effect would be that more and more people in the public eye would come forward and support that remark over the coming days.

      [The analogy would be with Hans Christian Andersen’s story “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. As soon as a small kid pointed out “The King Is In His Altogether!” - all of a sudden - EVERYONE noticed]

    49. Ms_Xtreme — on 11th June, 2007 at 9:55 pm  

      No British South Asian I know has ever seen one of these ‘community leaders’, let alone been influenced by one, so they are clearly not representative.

      What? You obviously haven’t been in a Mosque then.

    50. Puffy — on 11th June, 2007 at 9:59 pm  

      Muzumdar. Quite right, but he who shouts loudest? Isn’t it the case that the “community leaders” of the MCB etc represent variations of Islamism, which in its turn has seduced (white) liberal left opinion - hence BBC, C4 News - and the govt. until someone work them up.

      More importantly, um, would “moderate” Islamic opinion in the UK please let itself be known? I’m not talking Tariq Ramadan or Cat Stevens, I’m talking ordinary Muslims who don’t want to see sharia in the UK and, well, represent some of the post-Englightenment opinions I read here, from time to time. Sunny (a citizen of the world?) can’t be the only one. Is it because you are terrified of the Islamists? Is it because you are all Islamists? It’s something of a mystery tbh.

    51. El Cid — on 11th June, 2007 at 10:06 pm  

      Political correctness gone mad? Think about it. It works both ways.

    52. Muzumdar — on 11th June, 2007 at 10:48 pm  

      Sunny (a citizen of the world?) can’t be the only one.

      This is quite funny. You think Sunny is a Muslim? Very funny. I wonder why…

      Anyway, Gibs

      In a way, this is what they try to do already but the problem is that they always get two ‘community leaders’ of opposing views (Tariq Ramadan and Anjam Choudary for example).

      My point is that your average Abdul Bloggs will never have seen, met or had any contact whatsoever with these people so they are (a) not representative and (b) give a false impression of public opinion.

      What the solution is I don’t know. Every journalists’ nightmare is the ‘vox-pop’ so I can’t see that kicking in….

      Ms_Xtreme

      Why would I want to go to a Mosque?

      Puffy

      Yes, the liberal left (Sunny et al) have to a large extent been seduced and duped by Islamist sleuths. But this is what the liberal left is there for and this what they have always done and this is why they will never be voted into power in this country. They are useful idiots.

      re: moderate Muslims - the timing for these people to come out of the woodwork is wrong. In fact, it would be suicidal for them to start proclaiming Enlightenment values etc. The Islamists are in the ascendancy and are willing to kill for the cause.

    53. lithcol — on 11th June, 2007 at 11:02 pm  

      You connive to kill another and succeed you are guilty of murder. There are no cultural excuses. Murder is murder. Most so called honor killings are of women. Say no more. There are of course the more insidious causes of the death of young women, suicide. Murder by proxy. I am sick and tired of the brutality of some who call themselves human beings.

    54. Puffy — on 11th June, 2007 at 11:29 pm  

      Muzumdar. Why don’t we just kill the Islamists then?

      Whoooops….

    55. Sunny — on 11th June, 2007 at 11:38 pm  

      Yes, the liberal left (Sunny et al) have to a large extent been seduced and duped by Islamist sleuths.

      And here I was thinking Muzumdar had actually temporarily stopped talking out of his arse.

    56. Muzumdar — on 11th June, 2007 at 11:44 pm  

      Sunny

      It’s all over your blog yet you don’t see it. With the exception of Sonia, all of the Muslims here (whether ‘moderate’ or not) hold views that are the very antithesis of what you would consider liberal.

    57. Refresh — on 11th June, 2007 at 11:50 pm  

      Muzumdar has already advocated genocide.

    58. Sunny — on 12th June, 2007 at 12:15 am  

      hold views that are the very antithesis of what you would consider liberal.

      hold on, are you under the mis-conception that you’re a liberal? because i’d classify you along with some of them.

    59. Puffy — on 12th June, 2007 at 7:34 am  

      But I’m interested in this -

      “re: moderate Muslims - the timing for these people to come out of the woodwork is wrong. In fact, it would be suicidal for them to start proclaiming Enlightenment values etc. The Islamists are in the ascendancy and are willing to kill for the cause.”

      My point about killing Islamists wasn’t entirely flip. In the 30’s liberal leftists went to Spain to kill fascists and later fought them (Japanese and Italian as well as German) across the globe. Now they attack the few people brave enough to stand up to them - ie, Bunting, Baruma, et al - on Hirst Ali, Husain.

      Even in the Eighties the left largely stood by Rushdie, but now they queue up to boycott Israel (not such a different subject - I mean, oh for the outrage against Iran for its treatment of gays and women, Zimbabwe, China for heavens sake) or remain silent. There appears to be next to no argument against the fascists, save by a few lambasted heroes - flawed though they may be. It is almost evil in itself, and I would suggest precisely how fascism triumphs.

    60. Muzumdar — on 12th June, 2007 at 10:42 am  

      Sunny

      No of course I’m not liberal, but you are. And the fact that you identify with these Muslims (Refresh, sid etc) could lead some people to (a) believe that you actually agree with them and (b) lead others to think that you are a Muslim yourself.

      Thus placing your liberalism alongside their Islamism.

      This is what I meant by the term ‘useful idiots’.

      You are seen by some as a Bob Geldof type figure for Muslims; always standing up against ‘Islamaphobia’, no matter if the accusation is baseless, championing their causes, no matter how fascistic, and supporting some pretty sick ideology (see Sonia’s blog: troubling hadiths).

    61. Muzumdar — on 12th June, 2007 at 11:01 am  

      Puffy

      Where to begin…

      After the collapse of the Soviet Union, and particularly after 9/11, issues like Muslims/Islam/Islamism etc came into play. The Left had to ally itself somewhere. Traditionally anti-USA and anti-Israel, they chose the Muslim world (despite Islam’s ideology - imperialism, fascism, barbarism, misogyny, backwardness etc - being pretty similar to the US’s).

      Goerge Galloway being a prime example.

      Now they have allied themselves with Islamdom, snubbing all the heroic Marxists across the Muslim world (Tudeh etc) who see in Islam fascism itself, they are finding it hard to back peddle.

    62. sonia — on 12th June, 2007 at 11:38 am  

      i think trying to classify who’s liberal and who’s not is an illiberal activity

    63. sonia — on 12th June, 2007 at 11:45 am  

      ooh muzumdar - ive just seen you mention my on troubling hadiths post.. but i didn’t see any comments from you! very interesting discussion it’s been.

      i don’t think i said anything about sunny supporting the ideology though…!! ( or necessarily everyone, too many Muslims themselves don’t know about the hadith) sunny i think supports everyone’s right to religious freedom. as far as i know he is also challenging people like the MCB to have a good look at themselves, so..

    64. sonia — on 12th June, 2007 at 11:47 am  

      ah, what happened to my link? very interesting discussion

    65. Muzumdar — on 12th June, 2007 at 12:01 pm  

      Sonia

      I singled you out twice in this thread (#56 also).

      Your troubling hadiths blog is indeed very interesting - in fact, you remind me of someone I know.

      Anyway, the reason I didn’t enter the discussion is because I think that you need to work things out, religiously, for yourself. There is no point in me jumping in and pointing out what you clearly already know. And in any case, by reading your reservations about certain aspects of Islam, I’m confident that you will reach the correct conclusions by yourself - despite sid, refresh and ms_xtreme trying to skirt around issues and act as apologists for sexual exploitation/rape/pillage/imperialism etc.

      Hats off to you for questioning your entire social order.

      As for other Muslims not knowing about these hadiths, and other equally disgusting ones (ie: Aisha), most Muslims are happy to sit in their ignorance and wallow in hagiography.

      Re: sunny - I know he doesn’t support Islamism etc, but he has allied himself with people who do: he has even been mistaken for being a Muslim himself on this thread. Thus allying liberalism with Islamofascism.

    66. sid — on 12th June, 2007 at 12:17 pm  

      despite sid, refresh and ms_xtreme trying to skirt around issues and act as apologists for sexual exploitation/rape/pillage/imperialism etc.

      I’m pretty sure you’re mispreprenting me Muzumdar, because apart from indulging in the odd sexual exploit, I’m not exactly what most people regard as a sexual exploiter, rapist, pillager and imperalist.

      But thanks for coming to PP and making it so entertaining by adding to the general hilarity. :-)

    67. Muzumdar — on 12th June, 2007 at 12:22 pm  

      sidney

      I never accused you of being a rapist etc. If you read my post with your glasses on, you will see that I accused you of being an apologist for the Prophet’s and his army’s rape/pillage/plunder/imperialsim etc.

    68. sid — on 12th June, 2007 at 12:29 pm  

      If this is a reference to my comment on Sonia’s post, then it’s you who should be wearing the bifocals, old boy.

    69. Sunny — on 12th June, 2007 at 12:36 pm  

      I’ll ally myself with who I want to Muzumdar. I don’t need lessons on avoiding religious fanatics from a deluded Khalistani.
      This thread is now off-topic. Please stick to the topic.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2007. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.