The fetishisation of Anjem Choudhary by some middle-class luvvies


by Sunny
11th May, 2011 at 3:28 pm    

Last week BBC Newsnight decided, in their infinite wisdom, to invite Anjem Choudhary (who heads up various now-banned Islamist groups) as representing Muslim opinion on the death of Osama Bin Laden.

Now it turns out some philosophy festival in Hay has invited him to debate on two separate panel discussions.

Anyone who has watched Choudhary debate as long as I have can tell you he’s not a particularly bright chap. He’s a master at pulling stunts to attract publicity, but his thought-process is boiler-plate extremist rubbish that Hizb-ut-Tahrir and al-Muhajiroun types have been spouting for years. I could probably predict his response to most political questions.

So why invite him? Will he add to the discussion in an intelligent way? Or will he simply represent the ‘Muslim radical’ that some luvvies can’t get enough of?

Yahya Birt, who probably has more brain-cells in his pinky finger than Choudhary has in entirety, asked them why he had been invited.

Their response:

Yahya – thanks for your interesting post. Anjem Choudary hasn’t been invited to speak because he has a ‘mandate’ from the British Muslim community. He’ll be expressing views that are his and his alone. As mentioned below, the fact that he’s… speaking in debates and not delivering a solo talk means that he’ll be forced to defend his views and held to account by his fellow panelists – and, indeed, the audience.

Ultimately it’s for individual members of the audience to decide for themselves who to disagree with and who to support.

Do these idiots actually think that Choudhary is there because he relishes the intellectual battle of ideas?

I already know who most of the audience will support, and it wont be Choudhary, because this isn’t meant to be a serious debate but more a spectacle. He’s being fetishised in a way that Nick Griffin wouldn’t be by the same crowd. Double-standards? I shall leave that for you to decide…


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Culture,Islamists






20 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. sunny hundal

    Blogged: : The fetishisation of Anjem Choudhary by some middle-class luvvies http://bit.ly/mxyyvS


  2. Derek Bryant

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : The fetishisation of Anjem Choudhary by some middle-class luvvies http://bit.ly/mxyyvS


  3. Kit

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : The fetishisation of Anjem Choudhary by some middle-class luvvies http://bit.ly/mxyyvS


  4. Ziggy Stardust

    The fetishisation of Anjem Choudhary by some middle-class luvvies http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/12643 #edl


  5. Ziggy Stardust

    The fetishisation of Anjem Choudhary by some middle-class luvvies http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/12643 #edl


  6. Nemesis Republic

    RT @Zzigggyyy: The fetishisation of Anjem Choudhary by some middle-class luvvies http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/12643 #edl


  7. sunny hundal

    @grouchiemarks yes i do! http://t.co/kBTffDr




  1. Carl — on 11th May, 2011 at 3:36 pm  

    He’s the rent-a-nut of choice because of the luvvies’ inclination towards the absent referent – they just can’t understand the link between his propaganda and the sick mindset inherent to violent Jihadism. To them he’s a bit of fun, an eccentric.

  2. jamal — on 11th May, 2011 at 5:17 pm  

    probably the same reason that lunatic nutter douglas murray gets invited bi weekly on question time.

  3. Boyo — on 11th May, 2011 at 5:52 pm  

    It is racism, cant you see that? They prefer their Muslims to be funny men with beards, just as they prefer their WWC people to be Nick Griffin.

    There is no room for folk who may seriously challenge their hegemony of power and ideas, and I am afraid when they do allow dissenting voices, how often will that be someone curiously from their own class? Without going all “LP” again they will inevitably have Oxbridge behind them…

    Honestly, nothing has changed in the UK for centuries – flatter, co-opt, marginalise, ridicule, exclude.

  4. damon — on 11th May, 2011 at 7:07 pm  

    Agreed. This calls for a Comment is Free article spelling this out quite plainly. And criticising Paxman directly as well. You’d think these people with their cushy media jobs would be more sophisticated than this.

    He’s being fetishised in a way that Nick Griffin wouldn’t be by the same crowd.

    Nick Griffin is fetishised in a different way.

  5. Rita Banerji — on 12th May, 2011 at 5:48 am  

    I think it’s a narcissistic form of “liberalism” — sort of see what a good, tolerant person I am, that is exercised not on the ‘majority’ or the ‘First world,’ but on the ‘minority’ communities and the third world. If this is their logic why shouldn’t they put that protestant pastor from Florida who burnt the Koran on the same panel — now that would make for an interesting debate! http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-09/us/quran.burning.media.reaction_1_quran-terror-attacks-muslims?_s=PM:US

  6. Kismet Hardy — on 12th May, 2011 at 11:33 am  

    “Nick Griffin is fetishised in a different way.”

    The terrifying image of Griffin in a gimp suit and a snooker ball belted into his mouth will stay with me for too long I fear

  7. Eurasian Sensation — on 12th May, 2011 at 12:12 pm  

    Why interview any Islamic hardliner at all? All they do is give the stock same answers…
    1. Muslims are really, really oppressed, everywhere, always, by everyone.
    2. I condemn terrorism, but mostly when it’s done by the USA. When Muslims do it, it’s because they are defending themselves against oppression (see number 1, above).
    3. Israel is bad.

    And repeat ad nauseum.

  8. Lamia — on 13th May, 2011 at 12:27 pm  

    “Anjem Choudary hasn’t been invited to speak because he has a ‘mandate’ from the British Muslim community. He’ll be expressing views that are his and his alone.”

    In which case hay should just invite random people from out of the phone book to come and speak.

    They invited Choudary because he tickles their egos and makes them feel smug about their supposed ‘tolerance’.

    To the idiots at Hay, his advocating of killing homosexuals and British troops is an absolute hoot and a boost for the jaded ‘liberal’ palate. Nothing to take seriously, because they’re not the ones he’s singling out for such demonisation.

    As long as it’s annoying the Daily Mail, then Choudary is their man. Not ‘their man’ in THAT sense obviously, after all they’re not gay are they? I mean, god knows the Hay people are tolerant… and some of their best friends… but Choudary really does have a point when he says there should be a death penalty for homosexuals, doesn’t he?

    Fair enough. I mean it’s not as if the organisers at Hay on Wye would have a problem with someone saying that they should be killed, would they? All good clean freedom of speech stuff like that delightful Anjem. Right?

  9. Jemmy Hope — on 13th May, 2011 at 3:07 pm  

    How long before this gent is signed up for “I’m a celebrity …” (if they’re still making it).

  10. dave bones — on 15th May, 2011 at 12:28 pm  

    @Jeremy -That is a bloody brilliant idea. Mr Choudharry in the jungle with all that reality TV opens up would be really fascinating. When Abu Hamza and David Blunkett were throwing buns at each other from their respective pulpits I thought they should be put in the Big Brother house together.

  11. damon — on 15th May, 2011 at 12:42 pm  

    They spent a whole hour talking about ”Does Britain have a problem with muslims?” on BBC’s usually silly programme ‘The Big Questions’ this morning.

    It was better today because they gave the subject the whole hour, and they purposely did not invite Anjem Choudhary.

    It’s worth catching on i-player.

  12. TORY — on 15th May, 2011 at 9:15 pm  

    Interesting, I can only assume some of the lefty Hay goers think he ticks enough boxes.

    Anti-American? Tick

    Anti-’Zionist’? Wow, double tick.

    Hates British tradition, the Royal family etc? Tick

    Believes the world is controlled by ‘neocons’? Tick

    Thinks certain terrorist groups might have a point, or at least can be understood? Tick

    @3

    Thing is, they haven’t invited Griffin. They wont ever invite Griffin. You see the point here.

  13. jamal — on 17th May, 2011 at 11:40 am  

    damon

    i saw the programme you mention, i think it was ironic they invited extremist right wing speakers from the henry jackson society instead :)

    Programme was bit of eye opener the lady from oxford university stated some facts such as terror in europe is committed by non islamic people/groups in 99% of incidents, In the US according to fbi records 94% of terror incidents are committed by non islam groups such as hispanic, extremist jews, communist etc, you don’t hear that mentioned in the daily’s.

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.