‘The Muslims… are like cockroaches’
This was one of the more shocking bits from Peter Oborne’s recent documentary ‘It shouldn’t happen to a Muslim’. A BNP activist tells Oborne about this views on Jews: “Probably seem as an ally…. for the future. There’s there’s the potential there for teamwork… the avenue there is for fresher cooperation.”
Then the BNP operatives run into this guy who is opposing the building of a local mosque…. (7 minutes in).
The full doc is on YouTube: part 1 / part 2 / part 3 / part 4 / part 5 and part 6.
Part 6 features Michael Gove MP at the start (one of my favourite bits) - who is confronted with the article where he wrote that wearing the full veil in itself is a badge of allegiance to Islamist politics. In other words, if you wear the full veil you’re an al-Qaeda supporter. Of course, he’d hate to think that would inspire anyone to pull the veil off a woman… after all she’s only an al-qaeda supporter right? Michael Gove MP presumably interviewed a lot of niqabi women for the purposes of an article. Or maybe he was just inciting hatred. Who knows eh?
Is it just me but do most of the supporters of these far right groups seem like they belong in the geriatric ward?
In other news, the Dudley central mosque application has been passed, finally.
Good news in my opinion.
You really are quite thick, aren’t you Sunny?
You take a quote from Michael Gove - to the effect thatwearing the full veil is a badge of allegiance to Islamist politics - and then add the following non sequiter: “In other words, if you wear the full veil you’re an al-Qaeda supporter.”
Most Islamists - MCB, BMI and even Hizb-ut-Tahrir - are not al-Qaeda supporters. Don’t you know that? Gove is accusing wearers of the full veil of implicitly aligning themselves with a very hardline and doctrinaire version of Islam. He is NOT accusing them of backing terrorism.
That’s the second time you’ve libeled Gove. It may have escaped your attention but he is the shadow schools minister - almost certainly a future Cabinet member - and clearly has a reputation to protect. I really hope he sues your arse off for treating him as if he’s a mad Robert Spencer/Gert Wilders-type Islamophobe.
You won’t be so cocky when exchanges like this one are used in court to establish that you continued to defame him even after your mistakes were drawn to your attention.
Cockroaches eh? Well we’ll inherit the world in that case. Nice one!
Dude! Don’t threaten Sunny with a defamation suit!
Iain, let us start of with the term Islamist, an oxymoron in itself. Islamist is a Muslim who considers Islam to be more than just a religion, particularly in the political sphere. Here’s a newsflash armchair Scholar, as a Muslim I can tell you all Muslims consider Islam that, it’s a fundamental part of Islam. An Islamic political system is an ideology, a system of governance by which the laws of Islam are respected. Historically there have bee hundreds of interpretations of that, some excellent, some terrible.
In today’s day an age, the lack of education around the Muslim world is the main reason we have emergence of Muslims who know nothing of the greater aspects of Islam in their lives (as they have not been taught it) and others who claim they do. Those who say they do and speak of it are labeled Islamist, but that is a pointless term, as they are simply following Islam and are more informed about the sphere Islam falls in in our lives, than others.
Secondly the Niqab (full face veil) is a required religious dress of some Shia Muslims, and also of the deobandi, wahhabi (prefer to be known as Salafi)and some Shafi members of the Sunni School of thought. The Schools of thought that feel it a requirement are centered in the arab world and the deobandi’s who are an Asian off-shoot of that theology. To align it to political thinking is moronic.
Suddenly your mate Mr Gove has less of a leg to stand on doesn’t he, I’d love to see him try and sue Sunny, he’d fall flat on his face.
I would go after Michael Gove for incitement. And just for being creepy.
Platinum - thanks for such a lengthy response, albeit one that completely fails to address my central point - that accusing someone of being an Islamist is not the same as accusing them of being an al-Qaeda supporter.
As for the term ‘Islamism’ being meaningless because all Muslims see Islam as political, well you would ssay that, wouldn’t you? I’ve met plenty of Muslims who don’t see their faith as political - but of course in your book they’re not proper Muslims, are they?
Gove wasn’t talking about benighted women in Saudi forced by their menfolk to wear a veil - he was talking about women in the UK who choose to wear it. It’s a statement to the rest of society: I want as little to do with you as possible - your gaze is impure. In reality, some of them are silly little girls but it is still clearly a badge of ostentatious difference verging on hostility, even when it is wrapped in the spurious language of love for Allah.
Most Islamists - MCB, BMI and even Hizb-ut-Tahrir - are not al-Qaeda supporters. Don’t you know that? Gove is accusing wearers of the full veil of implicitly aligning themselves with a very hardline and doctrinaire version of Islam. He is NOT accusing them of backing terrorism.
Sorry, where exactly was that distinction made??
If you don’t put Al-Qaeda in the category of Islamists, what category would you put them in?
As for libelling him the second time. I’m sorry if law isn’t your strong point but if I think he’s a bigot then that’s called “fair comment”.
Of course, if Michael Gove has made this clear distinction somewhere I’d love to see it.
All cats are quadrupeds. But not all quadrupeds are cats.
Jesus - you really ARE thick.
Yes, al-Qaeda are Islamists but not all Islamists support al-Qaeda.
Let me make it simple so you can see what you’ve done.
If Gove had said “Blokes who wear kilts are aligning themselves with Scotland.”, would you respond by saying “Gove has just accused all kilt wearers of being SNP supporters”?
You are gulity of a logical fallacy. Do you understand now?
It’s a statement to the rest of society: I want as little to do with you as possible - your gaze is impure. In reality, some of them are silly little girls but it is still clearly a badge of ostentatious difference verging on hostility, even when it is wrapped in the spurious language of love for Allah.
I’m sorry, but what gives him or you the right to judge this? If he thinks they’re like that, then I’m of course justified in thinking he’s using that as a cover for other “urges”.
Yes, al-Qaeda are Islamists but not all Islamists support al-Qaeda.
So in other words he COULD BE referring them to as al-qaeda supporters but this isn’t made explicit anywhere. Or is it? Will we see the profoundity of Michael Gove’s analsis anywhere?
Oh, by the way.
Shouldn’t we be pursuing an inclusive approach to policy making, which includes the BNP. We may not like the BNP’s characterisation of Muslims as “cockroaches”, but is is very important that the Government listens to, and properly takes account of, this very large section of opinion. After all, if we are to deal with the problem of the alienation from the political process of a significant section of the population, which is angry and is being ignored and might turn violent…..
(Joke)
Iain, how can you compare two things, Islamists and Al Queda sympathisers, when one of those does not even exist. As for your mates being bad Muslims, your words not mine.
Politics as a part of Islam exists. Your mates cannot deny that. Politics is a mean of governance, governance is guidance, and the Quran provides us guidance. How we implement that, now that is what everyone differs on. Islam provides your friends as a set of rules to help setup their moral compass, government provides society with law to do the same thing. Government is formed through politics. It is inter linked. Why can a man not have two wives in Britain? Because of Christian tradition, hence ever Christianity has some part in politics today. Politics is a means of determining governance, which in itself is a method of guidance. Understand?
Ask your secular friends, the Muslim ones, whether Islam provides them with guidance and helps form their moral compass. Then ask them whether an ideal Islamic state would allow Muslims to freely practice their religion and abide by it’s laws. Then ask them whether Britain as a state allows them to freely practice their religion and abide by the laws of their religion. Don’t be surprised if you hear 3 yes’s.
You have to understand, that an Islamic state is purely a state that allows for freedom of religion and preserves Islamic society. Britain nearly does that.
It doesn’t have to be Iran or Afghanistan.
You don’t even understand what Islam is, yet you comment on it’s politics and it’s followers like your an expert.
Once you have understood this and you realise that Islamists don’t exist, we can move onto stage two of why your wrong and I’m right.
We already have to take them seriously.. both Labour and the Tories can’t stop telling us that unless we coopt the BNP’s policies, we’ll end up with them having more electoral support!
It’s no longer a joke I’m afraid.
I found myself sitting next to a pretty Muslima in a hijab in Stratford the other day. She was reading the paper and poring through the football pages.
I’m a “westernised babu” in a jacket and shirt who couldn’t give a flying fig whether England lives or dies on the football pitch.
Which one of us is wearing “a badge of ostentatious difference verging on hostility, even when it is wrapped in the spurious language of love for Allah”?
Platinum - who said my Muslim friends are secular?
Your assumption says everything about your sick and vicious version of Islam. I prefer my friends’ version - you know, the one that doesn’t hate the ‘kuffar’.
Iain -
Where has Sunny defamed Michael Gove? Legally speaking, Gove’s point in the article in Times does not articulate what he thinks but there is clear indication that he assumes those wearing veils are non supportive of Western Values and Culture. And there is clear implication in that article, that this behaviour of some Muslims are detrimental for British Society.
Sunny has challenged that premise - which is well within his rights as a citizen of a free country but obviously you are too thick to realise that.
This is how Nick Griffin explained the move away from an anti-Jewish BNP to being anti-Muslim, in 2006:
“It’s no longer a joke I’m afraid.”
Yeah.
So, in a straight fight for the attention of Government between (a) let’s say 10% of the small British Muslim population with some sympathies for Islamism and (b) the 10% of the rest of the population with some sympathies for the BNP’s politics
… who do you think will win?
Do you think that we should be purusing a policy of:
(a) undermining and confronting the politics of the Islamist and White Supremacist far right; or
(b) trying to see how we can accomodate the demands of both groups
?
I want to quote Shamit: “Where has Sunny defamed Michael Gove? Legally speaking, Gove’s point in the article in Times does not articulate what he thinks but there is clear indication that he assumes those wearing veils are non supportive of Western Values and Culture. And there is clear implication in that article, that this behaviour of some Muslims are detrimental for British Society.
Sunny has challenged that premise - which is well within his rights as a citizen of a free country but obviously you are too thick to realise that.”
What Sunny actually said was that Gove had equated veil-wearing with terrorism. That’s a straight lie.
Dave T - “So, in a straight fight for the attention of Government between (a) let’s say 10% of the small British Muslim population with some sympathies for Islamism and (b) the 10% of the rest of the population with some sympathies for the BNP’s politics”
What about the even smaller communities that you so skillfully fail to mention who get the attention of government particularly Blair to push forth their policy views?
Why just focus on 10% of Islamists? What about the smaller communities who have great influence on government?
The point is that government will listen to a wide variety of communities to form policy. Some you will agree with and stay quiet about and some you won’t agree with and will then blog about.
That is the nature of Govt. Didn’t Margaret Hodge say that we needed to listen to the views of people who may be inclined to support the BNP?
Taking this all away from Islamists and BNP, do you seriously think the Govt doesn’t list to say Scottish Nationalists? They may not accomodate them but as a growing voice they do listen to what they are saying.
If the Government listened to the Islamists as you imply then they wouldn’t be approving the actions of Israel in Lebanon by allowing the USA to refuel planes sending cluster bombs ready for use would they? Equally they wouldn’t be putting oin border restrictions to satisfy the right wing.
What you’ll find is that support for Islamists will fade once major issues such as I/P are resolved. Thankfully people are realising this, including Blair. It is a shame he didn’t see this when he was in office and could do something about it.
If your poster boys and girls had their way we’d be fighting a war in Iran now. Thankfully many people have now seen sense and are negotiating.
Even your poster boy Bush is thinking of opening a mission in Iran which states to me at leats that he sees that his past 8 years of saying I won’t talk to so and so is unproductive.
What happens in a generation when your current policy advice is flipped on its head, Muslims have more political clout and if things aren’t sold they follow the advocacy of the neocons and say Govt should listen to Jews. Where does that leave us? Up the creek without a paddle because a small number of the community advocating a policy of non-dialogue and didn’t seek to resolve the Major Issue between Jews and Muslims.
The last Chief Rabbi saw this and the current one is starting to.
Sometimes one needs to be practical, I don’t want to talk to MB or Islamists but realise we have no choice.
….after all she’s only an al-qaeda supporter right? Michael Gove MP presumably interviewed a lot of niqabi women for the purposes of an article. Or maybe he was just inciting hatred. Who knows eh?….
Isn’t that what Sunny said or wrote?
Also Gove was not clear in his writing what he meant - - and there are various implications and may be was he trying to incite hatred about those who wear veils thatthey are less British than his own pompous self. May be and maybe not.. who knows?
by the way, Cameron made sure that Gove kept his mouth shut on 42 days as he was for it in a big way. Just for that he needs to be opposed and we need better schools secretaries than either Ed Balls or Michael Gove. Both men of formidable intellect selling us false bill of goods.
If you want to spin Sunny’s words and attack him do it at least with some intelligence but thats too much to ask isnt it?
Avi — are you being an apologist for Hezbollah? You must be mad.
Israel’s attack was disproportionate - I agree. But Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation which went over Israeli borders to kidnap two Israeli soldiers for release of a child killer.
I am unapologetic fan of Blair because he has got more convictions that any other politicians that I have known of. And, Blair did achieve a lot in foreign policy than you give him credit for. His main thrust was International Development which Britain has achieved much on. But obviously, you would like to ignore that. Selective amnesia.
Secondly, armed intervention is necessary and has been proven to be a success in former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone,East Timor and dare I say Iraq.
But lets call spade a spade. What would you think we should do, if say a terrorist organisation infiltrates our borders kidnaps our soldiers and goes back to a country where the Government is not in control and cannot control armed insurgents. We let it slide. Thank god you are no where near running national security.
What about the even smaller communities that you so skillfully fail to mention who get the attention of government particularly Blair to push forth their policy views?
Why just focus on 10% of Islamists? What about the smaller communities who have great influence on government?
Which “even smaller communities”, “Avi Cohen”? Do you mean the Saudis?
If the Government listened to the Islamists as you imply then they wouldn’t be approving the actions of Israel in Lebanon by allowing the USA to refuel planes sending cluster bombs ready for use would they? Equally they wouldn’t be putting oin border restrictions to satisfy the right wing.
They don’t listen to the Islamists. And they won’t.
What you’ll find is that support for Islamists will fade once major issues such as I/P are resolved. Thankfully people are realising this, including Blair. It is a shame he didn’t see this when he was in office and could do something about it.
I/P will be resolved by ensuring that the Israeli and the Palestinian rejectionists don’t scupper it. There’s huge will to resolve it on both sides.
However, that won’t stop the domestic Islamists. Remember, the big recruiter for Islamism in the late 80s and early 90s were two issues:
1. The example of Iran. I’ve read the UK Sunni Islamist material from that period, and it is absolutely full of excitement at the great experiment under the Ayatollahs.
2. Bosnia: the West’s indifference and inaction.
Islamism has its own dynamic. It isn’t simply reactive and parasitic. They have their own institutions, and are self motivating.
But you’d know this, Avi, wouldn’t you.
I think semantically speaking, Iain is right. However, as he knows very well, the implication is there- if you wear a full veil, you’re drawn towards Islamist politics therefore more likely to by an al qaeda sympathiser/supporter.
Its typical Daily Mail drip drip politics.
Iain, you said your Friends are secular. You said they were Muslim and did not believe in Islamic being involved in politics. Secularism is wanting state and religions to be separate, as your friends are Muslim (as you stated) and they don’t want to mix Islam and politics, or they see them as separate, then it is safe to assume they are Secular. Your trippin’ sunshine, looking for an excuse to have a dig at my comments, you probably thought I called them atheists, I didn’t I called them secular. A Muslim who does not want to mix Islam and state is secular. A Christian who does not want to mix Christianity and state, is secular.
Do you follow, is it simple enough for you? Perhaps you ought to take some time to read my comments again and understand them this time before commenting. Or perhaps you should check the definition of secular.
A good parallel is skinheads
Skinheads are/were not necessarily neo nazis. The skinhead style was an emulation of west indian “rude boy” dress. Some skinheads are anti-fascists. Some skinheads are gay. Some skinheads just like having short hair and wearing big boots.
However, most people see a skinhead and think that they’ve bought into this politics.
Similarly, for a lot of people, Niqab wearing appears to be a symbolic statement along these lines.
I’m sure that there are many people who wear niqabs and the like who aren’t aligned with far right politics. Mostly, I’d expect that they’ve fallen in with a sect which has taught them that the world is intensely sinful, and that they must withdraw from it.
The problem is this. Many of those who have hit the headlines - Shabina Begum for example - over headgear issues have turned out to be aligned with far right groups, like Hizb ut Tahrir.
Dave T - If I knew that and your opinion I wouldn’t be asking you now would I?
“Which “even smaller communities”, “Avi Cohen”? Do you mean the Saudis?”
I meant locally like Sikhs, Hindus, Jewish etc.
“They don’t listen to the Islamists. And they won’t.”
So why was the neocon movement complaining about the Islamist influence at the Foreign Office?
I/P doesn’t have dynamic because of Bush. It could have been solved by now if he had done something. Blair didn’t keep his word to resolve this issue if he got backing for war in Iraq.
Skinheads are/were not necessarily neo nazis. The skinhead style was an emulation of west indian “rude boy” dress. Some skinheads are anti-fascists. Some skinheads are gay. Some skinheads just like having short hair and wearing big boots.
Actually my one and only friend when I was a teenage fresh-off-the-boat immigrant back in the early 80s was a skinhead. And then My Beautiful Launderette came out and art mimiced life. Or at least my life.
Shamit - don’t talk bollocks. First of all the response was to a different scenario. Secondly as was evidenced by Israel’s own reports the response to the kidnapping was piss poor and had a detrimental effect on Israel’s security and international standing. The fact that you support Blair and his idiotic policies says a lot.
Losing suport on the ground oin Lebanoindiscriminate use of poor US made cluster bombs did Israel no favours which is why they freakin changed policy. So what was the suiccess that Blair gave Israel
Actually my one and only friend when I was a teenage fresh-off-the-boat immigrant back in the early 80s was a skinhead. And then My Beautiful Launderette came out and art mimiced life. Or at least my life.
You had sex with Daniel Day Lewis!!!!!!!!!!!???????!!!!
Unfortuantely not. Nor with Rita Wolf either.
Sex seemed more exciting in the 1980s
But people were less attractive, back then.
Avi Cohen wrote
“Have you ever noticed that Israel only makes peace when your poster boys in the USA are not involved?”
Avi Cohen wrote
“I/P doesn’t have dynamic because of Bush. It could have been solved by now if he had done something.”
Bloody Hell Avi, thats in one morning.
yes, agreed.
Either it is because the clothes are better now, and people have got better at presenting themselves.
Or alternatively, we’ve just become old letches.
“A Christian who does not want to mix Christianity and state, is secular.”
According to your definition, Rev Ian Paisley is a secularist. He is involved in politics in a personal capacity but insists on the seperation of church and state.
Muppet.
BTW - are you a secular individual, based on your own definition?
“Sex seemed more exciting in the 1980s
But people were less attractive, back then.”
Agreed. It was certainly more fun making it up as you went along (sex, fashion, attitude etc) rather than buying it off-the-peg, so to speak, as the young seem to do today. Now it’s so easy to be hip - then you had to try hard and, invariably, fail.
Avi
Yes I do support Blair.
I was not commenting on how well Israel executed their policy. Now, lets look at my post and underlying argument without putting any names.
I was commenting about the very nature of the conflict between a foreign armed militant group and a nation state. In this case, the militant group is supported and financed by an unfriendly nation - and that’s putting it mildly. Also, this armed group is recognised by the United Nations and the G8, EU and the United Nations, and China and India as a terrorist group.
The response by Israel of that incursion was disproportionate and I accepted that in my last post. But Blair supported the right of a nation to defend itself from incursions by terrorist groups.
Now, we do face a threat from terrorism and it has no boundaries. And nation states must unite against terrorism under acceptable international code of conduct which must include the enforcement of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Now, let’s look at another question without names attached –
A genocidal dictator uses gas on his own people to kill them in the middle of the night including many many children. Under every human rights and international law, that dictator stands indicted. And this extermination of any threat or aspiration of any community had been the norm under this particular regime. Repeated offender.
Action against that pathetic dictator should be a moral obligation.
Now, may be you could understand why I think Blair had convictions. Either way, I think I have clarified my thinking on this and I just think its probably not all Bollocks as you so eloquently put.
Ta
From 16 to 19 my wardrobe, hair, taste in movies, books, profession and women was influenced by Rattlesnakes. And you can still buy a decent black turtleneck at M&S!
And I’m STILL working on my great unfinished novel…
I wore a green cordroy jacket to a Smiths concert. I have a friend who still mocks me for it.
I don’t understand why, though.
I was a fan of the Smiths, but figured Lloyd Cole got more girls. Sounded like it, anyway…
Only marginally though.
I don’t think Morrissey was that interested in girls.
And so, my task is done. Another Pickled Politics thread, subverted to a discussion of Morrissey!
Shamit - Blair had some conviction but if you want to get rid of a dictator then why not say so? That wasn’t his reason for going to war now was it? You know that, I know that and Blair knows that.
He said at the time that it wasn’t about regime change but about WMD’s. When they didn’t materialise then he changed tack. So that isn’t conviction that is opportunism.
In addition what about the use of dodgy evidence and his 45 min claim? Was that conviction?
What about the way he limited the BBC Enquiry to the point it was useless? What about his conviction of open government there?
What about his promise to work on the I/P peace process what about his conviction there? He didn’t do anything even near substantive until out of office which went against his conviction and promise.
Yes Israel had a right to defend itself, I don’t have a problem with that but Blair rather than ask for a proportionate response went to talk to Murdoch instead of parliament so where was his conviction then?
Where was his conviction in becoming Catholic whilst PM’s. Why wait until you are out of office.
Although I don’t like Bush I’d say he had more conviction than Blair.
‘And so, my task is done. Another Pickled Politics thread, subverted to a discussion of Morrissey!’
Indeed it is. Michael Gove off the hook. BNP’s desire to work with jews left untouched. Sunny saved from a defamation case.
All in a day’s work.
“Action against that pathetic dictator should be a moral obligation.”
I agree wholeheartedly but then please don’t allow let offs for your own allies and friends. I’d be more convinced if Blair stood up to allies as well about the treatment of civilians in other war areas.
No one has an issue with getting rid of Saddam what they had an issue was the double standards in not confronting other rulers who broke international law.
There is a great imbalance and Blair never addressed that.
For every Saddam there is a Sharon that gets photocalls and handshakes. For every Mugabe there is a Ahmadinajad. So we should be able to confront them all.
All in a day’s work.
But others seem to be working overtime in trying to legitimise the Muslim Brotherhood and the Jamaati Islami!
‘But others seem to be working overtime in trying to legitimise the Muslim Brotherhood and the Jamaati Islami!’
I am sure they are. But what is your point?
BNP’s desire to work with jews left untouched
A few years ago Nick Griffin also tried to get cash from Muslim leaders, to run his campaign against Jews. Don’t think he got any, though.
Let’s put it this way. The BNP isn’t particularly good when it comes to putting together little schemes with any chance of success.
I don’t think the Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus etc. agreed to work with the BNP and actively campaigned against them.
I also think that by discussing the BNP’s desire to work with the Jewish Community may start to bring it credibility of the BNP’s claim and hence the approach of not acknowledging it which the Jewish Community and oragnisations are taking is the correct approach because they aren’t giving it the time of day. Same with the Muslims, Sikhs and Hindu’s
These days there seems to be little difference between DailyMail/Sun sensationalist reporting, and Sunny’s blog entries. All you do is get an Islamist/Islamophobe village idiot to say something outrageous (”jihad!!! cockroaches!!!”), write the incendiary quote as a big headline, get everyone upset and outraged, widen the already gap between Muslims and non-Muslims. But, hey sensationalism = revenue.
The lesson one learns is that if you want your voice to be heard, you need to make it as extremist as possible. And then the opposing brigade will gather its troops and write how extremist/irrational the other side is… rather than engage the problem by its roots.
Of course, moderate and reasonable voices get lost in the noise, and that’s the reason why this cycle of misunderstanding and distrust only keeps widen up… and no resolution is achieved.
I don’t think the Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus etc. agreed to work with the BNP and actively campaigned against them.
I also think that by discussing the BNP’s desire to work with the Jewish Community may start to bring it credibility of the BNP’s claim and hence the approach of not acknowledging it which the Jewish Community and oragnisations are taking is the correct approach because they aren’t giving it the time of day. Same with the Muslims, Sikhs and Hindu’s”
I think the problem here is that you’ve written some words. All of them make sense individually. However, in the order you’ve arranged them, they don’t make sense at all.
Their little schemes of divide/conquer smell so much of pandering, that when you combine their incompetence… oh well, still it’s entertaining when they engage with a token minority…
I loved it when they got some very old and bewildered looking Sikh bloke on their BNPTV show.
It was like a Chris Morris parody!
Hahahaha.
@8 ” still clearly a badge of ostentatious difference verging on hostility, even when it is wrapped in the spurious language of love for Allah.”
By that sweeping assertion should we also accuse nuns who wear their traditional habit (which is VERY similar to a muslim wearing a hijab) of the same ostentatiousness, hostility, wrapped in the spurious language of love for Christ. Do we automatically perceive that habit wearing nuns may be catholic and so allied to the IRA??
So, in a straight fight for the attention of Government between (a) let’s say 10% of the small British Muslim population with some sympathies for Islamism and (b) the 10% of the rest of the population with some sympathies for the BNP’s politics
The thing is David T, I don’t think its a zero sum game. Some people will make it a zero sum game, but I’m not in the business of playing people off against each other. I’m afraid this says more about how you view things than anything else.
All you do is get an Islamist/Islamophobe village idiot to say something outrageous (”jihad!!! cockroaches!!!”)
Are you saying I shouldn’t highlight such naked bigotry?
You do what you please, Sunny. I love your blog and the people that write here. But I feel you are engaging in the same type of sensationalism as the Sun, which you often criticise.
If one combines both realities: yours and the right-wing tabloids, one would assume that this country is inhabited by raving Islamic terrorists and racist Islamophobes. Are these the exception or the rule? They can’t be the rule, because we know the electorate is moderate, and one would assume reasonable people who apparently are ok living in a multicultural society. So, why highlight the extreme if it is an exception? Because it sells. But you should not be under the illusion that you are solving this problem.
You will never reason with extremists: racist whites and Islamic radicals. But you case reason with moderates who are trap between both narratives and offer a third narrative. One that begins by acknowledging that both sides have a reason to feel threatened even if unjustified - without accusing anyone of bigotry - and start a dialogue based on what people have in common. After all, isn’t that what communities should focus on?
I must confess that I think wearing the full veil (in the UK) is a badge of allegiance to Islamist politics. I’ll go further: for me, it is a hostile, anti-social gesture. I don’t like it.
That doesn’t necessarily follow that I think wearing the full veil means that the wearer is an al-Qaeda supporter. I would also support the right of anyone to wear what the hell they like.
I second #55
Actually Ravi, Pickled Politics used to be like the Sun, Express and the Mail all rolled into one.
Not so much now.
Refresh reminds us that whilst his/her comments can be occasionally entertaining, we should never take them seriously…
marvin,
Who is new around these parts, reminds me that whilst occasionaly entertaining, he should never be taken seriously, either.
Are we reduced to this? Trading insults is just willy waving, I think.
good one douglas.
Sid,
I thought ‘cockroach man’ was everything anyone human should stand against. Here was a Kafkaesque character writ large. And what used to be someone that would have ended up on the cutting room floor, for his ignorance, for his stupidity, for his failure to comprehend analogy even, nowadays makes it into a mainstream broadcast. It is quite sickening how stupid some folk are.
And they are broadcasters, rather than the ‘vox populus’. They fucking well loved him, largely because he reflected their belief systems. It is so easy to present an idiot to the public and claim that the idiot speaks for us all. It is what is so cheap about media.
I love alternative media, such as this. It gives me a modicum of hope.
Is it too optomistic to say that we can take this down?
Maybe aye, maybe naw…….
Ok fair enough.
I’d just like some evidence for Refresh’s seemingly spurious assertion that PP was like “be like the Sun, Express and the Mail all rolled into one”.
Actually Douglas I’m not new, I’ve been a reader for a long time - before I started posting as Marvin
But I feel you are engaging in the same type of sensationalism as the Sun, which you often criticise.
Ravi, first I’ve already signalled a change in editorial direction, and given my reasons for that.
Second, we’re engaged in a war for creating a narrative. Last week, everyone from the Sun (Trevor Kavanagh) to Harry’s Place (Neil D) rubbished the idea that all Muslims shouldn’t be blamed for the fanaticism of a few by pointing out to a few lunatics and saying they were justified in putting out the constant negative stories they do.
Am I guilty of sensationalism? Not necessarily. Douglas says this guy’s rubbish should have been left on the cutting floor. But no - I argue it shouldn’t. We need to expose and highlight people like this to point out that such naked bigotry exists just under the skin. The Daily Mail won’t talk about it, unless a few people with conscience like Oborne highlight it. They would just rather pretend the only nutters walking around are of the Muslim variety.
I’m happy to say I’ll use their techniques against them. We’re in a war after all - why shouldn’t I use all the weapons at my disposal? This isn’t about hits really, I make no money from the site. This is about the future of this country. I’ve always been against bigots and I will continue to be so. And I’ll expose them at every opportunity.
Could have been said by any blogger of any political persuasion. Bigots being white racists or islamist nutters. Any bigot, not just the one’s it’s trendy in left wing politics to call a bigot.
Most “islamophobic” bloggers would say much the same thing I’m sure.
You seem to have given the justification (which is fair enough) to focus on your bigots… without a disclaimer (saying most white people don’t actually think all Muslims are cockroaches)
So it IS ok for a blog or the media to focus of bigots with brown skin and who refer to themselves as Muslim, without a necessary disclaimer that not all people with Brown skin and who refer to themselves as Muslim are bigots.
Ya get me?
Or are the white proletariat are stupid enough to see these articles and conclude alls Muslims are terrible (and vis a vis brown people are clever enough to see it’s not all white people who think Muslims as cockroaches)
What narrative are you fighting for?
You argue you must show bigotry from the other side even if they are just a few lunatics. So you basically accept Sun’s justification as you adopt the same methods. They do it for the money because such news help sell papers, you do it because you think you are helping this country.
No doubt. I am sure you also feel you are doing it for Muslims. But I argue quite the opposite: you are actually increasing the level of paranoia and distrust against non-Muslims by also constantly highlighting bigotry - I would actually support you if I believed that the majority of people compared human-beings with “cockroaches”. To me you would be helping the future of this country by building bridges between communities: understanding the fears on both sides, and treating people as human-beings in all their weakness and strengths: irrationality and prejudices go side-by-side with wisdom and kindness.
All I see are people - from Left to Right - in their high-horses going for wars of narratives in a shiny D. Quixote uniform.
—
A French acquaintance of my wife was telling me his opinion of Muslims in this country. He said proudly - “in France, there is more integration and therefore less racism. Before I could interrupt him and say: “No you stupid frog, this country is far more tolerant than France will ever hope to be”, he said something quite amazing: “For instance, half the English population is racist against Indians and Pakistanis”. Then he looks at me carefully, and says - “People look at you and think you are Pakistani, and therefore…”. I interrupted him.
I don’t need to know.
Another point of note; the person who said “Muslims are like cockroaches” - does he have sway in his community? Perhaps he’s priest of the biggest local church? The community holy man? Somebody people would look up to as having some authority?… Or just the village bigot?
When Islamists have been allowed to speak, with an apparent authority, they have at many large and prominent mosques throughout the country (though of course through whistleblowing etc this is gradually diminishing I suspect). They have been supported by New Labour initiatives through tax payers money, and various left wing organisations in the name of cohesion or dialogue or socialist or ‘anti-imperialist’ ideologues.. Can the similair be said of the muslims-are-cockroaches crowd??? Apart from the BNP, and tiny NF crowds, where do these bigots get supported and paid by the mainstream?
This war of yours to create a narrative is a distraction and potentially divisive. Beware the words of the tortoise Master Oogway (from Kung Fu panda
)
“Often the path one takes to avoid their destiny is the very one that leads them to it.”
Luckily, the long-term trend is progressive. Sooner or later the narrative will become post-racist (It already is at a local level and in business).
Look, Sunny, I’m not challenging your right to complain about ‘cockroach man’. I am just saying that if you interview enough folk you’ll eventually get someone stupid enough to fit into any narrative.
What does happen after that is an editing process whereby the producers of the programme select from what they have filmed down to what they will broadcast. What I object to is the subliminal message that he was in any way representative. The ’secret voice of the people’, if you will. No, he is just a bigot.
Apart from that criticism, I thought Obornes’ piece was excellent.
“All I see are people - from Left to Right - in their high-horses going for wars of narratives in a shiny D. Quixote uniform.”
Digging furiously for evidence to butress a narrative is intellecutally dishonest to yourself. Logical/truthful people look at the evidence and then come to a conclusion based on the totality of the evidence. Ideolgues come to a conclusion and then looks for the tiniest bit of evidence to support their conclusion/narrative.
“A French acquaintance of my wife was telling me his opinion of Muslims in this country. He said proudly - “in France, there is more integration and therefore less racism. Before I could interrupt him and say: “No you stupid frog, this country is far more tolerant than France will ever hope to be”.”
I would agree France is less tolerant and multicultural (e.g. banning headscarves) than Britain is, though I would also say that French muslims are more integrated than British muslims. No good deed goes unpunished eh?
The title of this thread is perfect.
That was a grotesquely racist and bigoted comment to make and should be highlighted to illustrate the strange state we are reaching in this country, where comments like that are semi-normalized….it’s attention-grabbing, but for a very good reason…what would other people suggest for a title? ‘generic inter-religious disupte 7642′
I’m happy to say I’ll use their techniques against them. We’re in a war after all - why shouldn’t I use all the weapons at my disposal?
‘We had to destroy the village in order to save it’.
First, before firing a weapon, you first need to consider whether the effects of that weapon are likely to constitute progress towards achieving your goal.
Secondly, if it turns out your goal _is_ the kind of thing best served by weapons of a high level of indiscriminate destruction, it becomes time to question your goals.
Sensationalism, distortion, taking the worst and claiming it is the norm, feeding paranoia, inciting hatred, are all deadly weapons. They have probably killed more people than all but a few types of military hardware.
If you choose to deploy them you better be damn sure you know what you are doing.
Ravi Naik:
“But I feel you are engaging in the same type of sensationalism as the Sun, which you often criticise.
… So, why highlight the extreme if it is an exception? Because it sells. But you should not be under the illusion that you are solving this problem.
You will never reason with extremists: racist whites and Islamic radicals. But you case reason with moderates who are trap between both narratives and offer a third narrative. One that begins by acknowledging that both sides have a reason to feel threatened even if unjustified - without accusing anyone of bigotry - and start a dialogue based on what people have in common. After all, isn’t that what communities should focus on?”
Amen.
“we’re engaged in a war for creating a narrative”
Wonk.
One that begins by acknowledging that both sides have a reason to feel threatened even if unjustified
Sunny, recently, only acknowledges that Muslims can feel threatened. People threatened by Islamists (do I really need to remind people of 7/7?) are not acknowledged. Their narrative is pure bigotry it seems.
How many people have died in Islamophobic attacks in the past 5 years?
How man people have died in kuffarophobic attacks in the past 5 years? At least 52. Not through want of trying I might add.
So, in Sunny’s new post-Ken Livingstone narrative, Muslims are the real victims from Islamophobia (even though, actually they are not, at all). And the media are being vicious ….. by focusing their narrative on Islamist bigots…. And yet Sunny is fully justified in focusing on white racist bigots… Because, like, they are the real enemy, not Islamist bigots who are literally plotting to blow up people.
This doesn’t sound like a very progressive policy Sunny. Don’t forget we already have the pinnacle of the Islamophobic paranoia narrative with http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/
Perhaps you could become a guest writer, why not email Bob Pitt?
I don’t agree with his assessment of race relations in France, but he was right about a large proportion of the English population, lthough I wouldn’t like to hazard a percentage like he has. Being white though, his English friends and acquaintances probably speak entirely freely with him, and so you can only imagine by extrapolating from there what white people say about us behind our backs. Many people just mistake English politeness (not saying things to your face) as an absence of racism.
Nevertheless, the narrative is cast, and ‘Asians’ are officially the virus and bacteria in the system; we must get ready for the medicine.
I feel bad for you sunny.
I know you only want to make things better, so do I..
and sadly so does everyone else out there! even the “terrorists”, all over the world think they are doing good.
The saying …. “you are either part of the problem or part of the solution”
never leaves my mind.
I think once a problem has been acknowledged constantly attending to debating and pointing out the “problem” then adding more and more to the table on top of it… only keeps the problem going, which makes for larger PROBLEMS and one giant angry mess to clean up.
On the other hand little is ever said for the ones on the solution side of the equation.
not one comment here on the man in this series working inside the community to protect muslim youth from extremists by doing something as simple as talking to and spending positive time with them.
I wont go on with a million examples for every topic….
Honestly I think “good” will eventually lead the world to its own self destruction cause everyone is so worried about what everyone else is doing instead of themselves.
I admire Sunnys new direction, and I suppose he is seeing from the comments in response to this post, how much of an uphill struggle it is just to lay the argument on the table, let alone dissect and analyse it. Good work Sunny, and a brave move. This is all about “the narrative” - and if it stays about the narrative, we can all go round in circles and bicker, while we never pass the issue of narrative and answer the hard, fast and simple questions:-
- are illegal foreign interventions that kill hundreds of thousands in return for privatisation and oil in the interests of our populace?
Idiots who actually still have the temerity to say they agreed with Blair should be immediately air lifted and parachuted into Iraq to witness the poverty, prostitution and violence that ensued and destroyed so many lives. And yes, that does go both ways. Only, the innocent population of one side has been terrorised far out of proportion than the other.
If that doesn’t make Sunny break out in a cold sweat then I don’t know what will. Heh.
Just joking Random Guy.
Lol?
That’s funny. I think all those who would rather the Iraqi populace be under the Saddam terror regime, should go to Iraq and explain to the Iraqi people why they would have not toppled the Baathist terror regime, and would have allowed a genocidal dictator, that gassed 200,000, to remain in power.
Iraq is slowly becoming a success story. I think ALL who stenuously opposed the Iraqi intervention to watch some of the BBC footage interviewing Iraqis.
Al-Qeada are moving out. Soldiers want to leave Iraq. Because they are BORED. They want to go to Afghanistan.
Any success in Iraq is seemingly out of the question for those obsessed and partly deluded with those pithy slogans such as “No blood for Oil! Bush worlds no.1 terrorist!” bla bla bla.
Sunny’s “brave” new direction. Yes that did make me chuckle too. I wonder if Sunny will now be receiving death threats for insulting white bigoted ideology that threatens the very basis of Western society?
Sunny has reassessed his direction after Ken’s and Labour’s defeat in the elections. Surprisingly he has lurched further to the left. I think this is a mistake. When your politics become sidelined by the general consensus the last thing you want to do is isolate yourselves by lurching off centre. You run the risk of becoming irrelevant. Much like the Tories were for the past 10 years. They kept lurching to the Right. People just weren’t interested.
‘If that doesn’t make Sunny break out in a cold sweat then I don’t know what will. Heh.’
LOL?
Indeed. Marvin (#89), there is a growing consensus among historians that the Iraq War is one of the worst blunders in foreign policy in recent years. It’s nothing to be proud of. And this is 2008, not 2005 - debating about whether it was a good idea is pointless. As for “No blood for Oil!”… you should see that Panorama documentary about the missing billions. It tells you who got the oil contracts in Kurdistan… care to guess?
The most worrying thing about the cockroach comment was that it was picked up unsolicited (Oborne did not go seeking it), and it was made to a BNP councillor in Stoke.
Stoke is a hotbed for the BNP, and the Councillor in question would have been delighted to hear their own message being played back to him. Their work is being reinforced by the message from the media, some mainstream politicians. And of course shenanigans of the blogging sites like Harry’s Place.
To dismiss the individual who made the comment as a bigot is a mistake for the simple reason that he has been lost to us and the recognisable version of ‘British Values’.
Whereas those generating and reinforcing the message are snakes without any abiding virtue.
So the battle that Sunny has voiced is the correct one. Its taken a good while getting here but he did get here and in the end that is what I have been waiting for.
Back to the cockroach comment, the question is how much of the population of Stoke would be patting that citizen on the back for ’speaking up’.
As for the politicians, pundits and bloggers, how many will be getting nervous about their role?
Marvin @ 89: “Thats funny.”
How appropriate a response. Tells me all I need to know tbh. You must have some pretty low benchmarks for defining something a “success story”. Anyway, lets not get OT here.
Good points Refresh, I too wonder how many of the native population would be congratulating this individual for “breaking free from the confines of political correctness”.
Disastrous handling post Saddam indeed. And yes Ravi, the contracts awarded to the american companies is questionable. But then you could argue no other fucker wanted to help so why should they get a piece of the action
Still, it was right to go in, I believe and topple the fascist regime. Terrible botch ups from there on. At least now the Iraqis have something to look forward to. Al-Qaeda are moving out. They are not wanted. Hopefully, I can come back in 10 years to PP, and say I told you so.
Time will tell…But yes apologies this is OT!
Refresh & Random Guy,
Probably exactly the same number as are likely to vote BNP in the first place. I am dismissing him as a bigot because that is exactly what he was. I can only find a ComRes opinion poll, where BNP support seems to be nationally about 2 - 3%.
http://www.comres.co.uk/systems/file_download.aspx?pg=352&ver=2
Or am I missing something here?
The 2-3% is even more significant if its concentrated. Beyond the 2-3% are the larger percentage who will have bought into the invective-laden media and blog coverage, and then come the acquiesent. These are the ones who will not participate in scapegoating language but will not question or challenge it.
Only then do we get into the layer who are sceptical and willing to question the rhetoric.
The job that needs doing is to work with each of these layers of opinion, in reverse order.
Worse is the media coverage which reinforces the views of racists and make it a lot easier for their views to gather momentum. Half the battle is, after all, having a receptive audience. So being softened by the myth-makers at the Sun, Express, Mail and others is manna for them.
These papers have to be taken on directly by a growing number of concerned bloggers, veteran anti-racist groups, the Trade Union movement (lets rule out Boris Johnson in London and the government nationally). Muslims wilfully misrepresented are to be encouraged to take legal action for defamation. eg Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam who won significant damages last week for being portrayed as a mysognist.
Another layer of action is with local journalists who act as stringers for the national press - their generally innocent stories are being turned into hate-pieces. They need to reminded and supported in their craft as ’seekers and chroniclers of the truth’, such that they maintain a say in what becomes of their original reports.
I am reluctant to write-off that particular indvidual in Peter Oborne’s program as a bigot - mentally weakened by the media, kept ignorant by the government and embittered by his lot perhaps.
Writing off people hardens their position.