• Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • The ‘not in our name’ card


    by Sunny
    13th March, 2009 at 4:08 pm    

    Someone called Peter Whittle, director of an obscure organisation called New Culture Forum writes on ConservativeHome:

    But I would ask the Baroness [Sayeeda Warsi], why were there no Muslim voices in that crowd angrily denouncing the protesters? Why did there appear to be virtually no Muslims amongst the crowds lining the pavement? Why is there no ‘Not in Our Name’ campaign by moderate Muslims? These are the questions to which we need answers.

    This sort of bigoted drivel is still too prevalent in our media unfortunately. What I’d like to know is when was the last time Peter Whittle went on a march against the BNP. If he hasn’t been, then one can only assume he sympathises with them. Going by that idiotic article, I wouldn’t be too surprised.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Current affairs,Media,Religion






    47 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. pickles

      New blog post: The ‘not in our name’ card http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/3684




    1. munir — on 13th March, 2009 at 4:36 pm  

      As bad as Labour has been with its wars, the coming Conservative government is going to be a nightmare for Muslims.

    2. Refresh — on 13th March, 2009 at 4:47 pm  

      ‘Not in Our Name’

      That was the only placard worth carrying, if you were to make an anti-war protest.

    3. fug — on 13th March, 2009 at 5:12 pm  

      folks did do an ‘Islam is peace’ campaign a few years back.

      but i dont think playing games to satiate the white appetite for righteous indignation is a credible thing to do.

    4. Don — on 13th March, 2009 at 5:22 pm  

      the white appetite for righteous indignation

      Fuck off.

    5. Refresh — on 13th March, 2009 at 5:40 pm  

      Oh dear, and there is me suggesting on another thread that we resume discussion about bigotry and campaign against on this thread; and what do we find?

      Aaargh!

    6. Sid — on 13th March, 2009 at 5:45 pm  

      and what do we find?

      PP’s Islamists in residence minus one Far Left Useful Idiot?

    7. fug — on 13th March, 2009 at 6:52 pm  

      ‘not in our name’ doesnt work on both the muhajirun types and the anti islamic types. it works insofar as earning a few figures some white political capital, but that only a very superficial level. therefore other things should be experimented with, like ‘slap and hug’.

      ‘not in our name’ did work in expressing uk revulsion at their government’s attacks on the middle east. it galvinised a lot of people here under a single banner.

    8. MaidMarian — on 13th March, 2009 at 7:35 pm  

      Or - in the alternative they (Whittle and the PP provocati) could have come here to Watford for the next day’s parade. Instead they blithely assume that things always and everywhere are the same and that one incident is indicative of all ‘muslims’ and ‘whites.’

      Sunny - Whittle just likes the sound of his own voice. Ignore.

    9. KB Player — on 13th March, 2009 at 8:48 pm  

      the white appetite for righteous indignation

      There may be tribes in the Amazon who don’t share that appetite, but I would say it’s pretty universal.

    10. Refresh — on 13th March, 2009 at 8:49 pm  

      Sid, what and who are you referring to?

    11. Sunny — on 13th March, 2009 at 9:27 pm  

      There may be tribes in the Amazon who don’t share that appetite, but I would say it’s pretty universal.

      I was just going to say. Fug is the most pompous commenter with righteous indignation around.

    12. Katy Newton — on 13th March, 2009 at 10:23 pm  

      Fug is the most pompous commenter with righteous indignation around.

      And a racist to boot. I don’t think a regular commenter has ever been pulled up for antisemitism and racism as much as he has.

    13. fug — on 13th March, 2009 at 11:36 pm  

      9
      An appetite that keeps going ‘why aren’t you condeming them?’ points to a bunch of randoms, places the mike where it chooses, has very poor memory for the times when muslims ‘have’ played ‘condemnation ball’ and probably doesnt actually know one.

      This appetite draws on vast geographies (pin the tail on the map of the world) of which its audience has little knowledge, perpetually playing a moral high ground which belongs to nobody. This is how consent is manufactured.

      12
      I dont think use of the word ‘white’ attached to add desriptive value to culturally embedded need to imperialise, is rascist. I’m just not into israel like you are, and you are simply used to perpetual reinforcement and running for your safety blanket (which in turn links into a discourse of white power).

    14. Chris Stiles — on 13th March, 2009 at 11:47 pm  

      When someone called Peter Whittle, director of an obscure organisation called New Culture Forum writes on ConservativeHome …

      .. why should I give a shit.

      I think the argument that moderate muslims shouldn’t need to disassociate themselves from extremists, in the same way that ‘moderate whites’ don’t feel the need to disassociate themselves from the actions of the BNP has been well made. The only people who aren’t listening are the people who aren’t going to listen anyway.

      So you can either stamp your feet, wave your fists and give yourself a case of the screaming fantoids or you can get on with the rest of your life.

    15. Sunny — on 13th March, 2009 at 11:54 pm  

      So you can either stamp your feet, wave your fists and give yourself a case of the screaming fantoids or you can get on with the rest of your life.

      Sure, but I don’t think such stupidity should entirely go unobserved and not commented on. Otherwise it encourages others to perpetuate the same stupidity.

    16. platinum786 — on 14th March, 2009 at 12:24 am  

      Chris made an excellent point, I agree with you, why should normal members of society take time out to distance themselves from lunatics. I’ve been to anti war rallies, I’ve been to pro peace rallies, i felt i needed to, I’ve never bothered attending an anti BNP rally, as I’ve never felt the need too, I’m not going to attend a rally because someones feathers got ruffled over some heckling.

    17. Amrit — on 14th March, 2009 at 12:44 am  

      why were there no Muslim voices in that crowd angrily denouncing the protesters? Why did there appear to be virtually no Muslims amongst the crowds lining the pavement? Why is there no ‘Not in Our Name’ campaign by moderate Muslims?

      *coughs and points downwards*

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/12/antiwar-protest

      FAIL.

    18. douglas clark — on 14th March, 2009 at 12:44 am  

      fug,

      Let’s start the way I intend to go on.

      satiate the white appetite for righteous indignation

      That is just so much pish.

      fug, baby, baby. It is you and your mate munir that tries their absolute best - which is not very good - to alienate the whitey. ‘Cause that’s what you’d like, in’t it? A conflict, a war of the eons, the Saracens and the fucking Crusaders all over again?

      Be honest. That it what you strive for.

      The fact that it is adolescent passes you and munir by. You are for the conflict for that meets some sort of hormonal nonsense in your head, or body, or gonads come to that. Lets’ go to war against the people we hate, and whom you completely fail to understand.

      There are people like Don and me that think, and I’m extemporising here, who think most Muslims are OK, and we are the worst sort of enemies you could ever have.

      Because we do not think or indeed know any Muslims that are your ghostly army. We do not feel that the chap that treats us - we call him or her a GP - is perhaps about to stab us in our bed. On the contrary.

      We deal with the world as we see it.

      And when we see the sort of gatekeeper shit you come out with, and that of the perhaps brain dead and incapable of discussion munir outwith his own pre fontal whatever it is, we see lies, half truths and pish.

      I would be horrified if either munir or fug represented any Muslim I’ve met in ‘real life’ or on here. They are a couple of complete wankers.

    19. fug — on 14th March, 2009 at 1:01 am  

      Let me break it down. Which of the following sections do you feel most whitely about?

      1)satiate the 2)white appetite for 3)righteous indignation.

      1) satisfy, tick a box, provide nourishment for

      2) the percieved public audience for 3)

      3) overblown mediatised ‘shock and disgust’, performed for maximal superficial effect

    20. douglas clark — on 14th March, 2009 at 1:20 am  

      fug,

      You are drunk, I think. Answer the question, why don’t you?

      Viz: Are you against or for a fight between Islaam and secular democracy? fug,

      I’ll admit I might expect a reply from you. Though your pal munir can’t talk to me, probably for religious reasons.

      Well, getting munir to get out of his ghetto, and actually answer me, might be asking the impossible.

      Because he is even more arrogant than you.

      Answer me this fug. How do you explain your gatekeeper approach to your religion? What makes you and munir right? You come on here, all the time, you have the right to say you speak for Islam. When you obviously don’t?

      Well do you?

      And if so, why do you?

      fug, I don’t know, but most Muslims I have come across are not you. And they are certainly not your chum munir.

      But there you go, a couple of IP addresses speak for all Muslims, who’d have thought it?

      No they fucking don’t.

      Munir remains a wee silent lamb. Unable to talk to me because I might not be Hallal, or summat. What a tit.

    21. dave bones — on 14th March, 2009 at 2:15 am  

      Nice one, you have pulled this round a bit. Pundits are making money jawing about people with placards. People here discuss people with placards and what placards are good, which ones are bad. What I don’t get is why don’t the people talking about people with placards, and the pundits paid to jaw about people with placards just find and talk to the people with placards?

      Why is that not being said anywhere by anyone? Why is that not happening?

      Then the people paid to jaw about people with placards will be engaging with the people with placards and we can all see if they make any fucking progress maybe?

      Whether the people paid to jaw are worthy of their paychecks and whether the people with placards would really be more comfortable elsewhere? I mean, I am British. I want to know the answers to these questions.

      Also, the people who say “The media shouldn’t give airtime to Anjum Choudhary cos it gives the impression that Anjum Choudhary represents mainstream Islam”.

      I sort of get this, I sort of don’t. I shook hands with Mr Choudhary a couple of weeks back, I hope to chat to him some more. He is clear about who he represents and gives out his card which says who he represents. If you are some sort of journalist and ask him a question, he likes to come up with an answer.

      We all saw, there were 8 people in Luton. I am bad with numbers but I’d say there were between 2-300 at the Islam4UK meet in Harrow.

      I’m not critisizing anyone.I’m here for a pep talk. I am fairly neutral in all this to a point, that point being that I don’t want to live under Shariah law.

    22. fug — on 14th March, 2009 at 8:57 am  

      i think your misrecognition of my ‘approach’ as a ‘gate-keeper’ one is a consequences of your whiteness. that is your problem invader.

      I think in the little that i have written on the internet you’ll find that secular democracy does not really float my boat for the Muslim countries. The UK isnt all that secular despite the branding, political culture is a negotiation with time, ideas and environment. Secularism isn’t sacred, its quite ‘white’.

      I don’t find a secularist position tenable for a Muslim (white or otherwise), unless they have suffered gross injustice and are traumatised, are stupid, malevolent, or have just given up the ghost and are being pragmatic for the time being.

      The fields of politics and religion are not orthogonal to eachother. Therefore a polity in which Muslim mojo breathes would have an islamic character to it. Character that ‘white’ epistemicidal views have got all wrong.

      Secularism doesnt do it for me, neither do nationalisms or mislamism 1.0. But then again, the inquiry that you frame assumes that some kind of validation is required with respect to ‘white’ standards.

    23. marvin — on 14th March, 2009 at 11:02 am  

      I think you would see “Not in our name” if there were 2,000 BNP activists being monitored by MI5, with around 30 active plots at any given time, and they had recently slaughtered 52 people in London, with heinous threats constantly being thwarted.

      Remind me, when was the last BNP terror attack, how many people did they kill?

    24. marvin — on 14th March, 2009 at 11:05 am  

      Amrit, as long as Sarfraz Manzoor is consistent, i.e. he supports the right for anti-muslim protestors with offensive slogans from the BNP to picket large Muslim gatherings.

    25. marvin — on 14th March, 2009 at 11:14 am  

      why were there no Muslim voices in that crowd angrily denouncing the protesters? Why did there appear to be virtually no Muslims amongst the crowds lining the pavement? Why is there no ‘Not in Our Name’ campaign by moderate Muslims? These are the questions to which we need answers.

      Because they are, almost, unanimous in being against the Iraq war. Quite why, considering the Baathist track record will remain a mystery to me. I’ve never heard a Muslim that was for the Iraq war. A little odd, considering at the time in 2003, the nation was split around 50/50 in a poll at the time.

      The ones that DO support the soldiers (most of them I’m sure) would not want to be seen supporting the soldiers because of the extremists in their own community, and thus ostracisation from members of ‘their own’.

    26. Amrit — on 14th March, 2009 at 12:00 pm  

      Amrit, as long as Sarfraz Manzoor is consistent, i.e. he supports the right for anti-muslim protestors with offensive slogans from the BNP to picket large Muslim gatherings.

      Well, you’d have to ask him now, wouldn’t you? :-D Seriously though, I don’t see why he wouldn’t. I liked his take on the matter, I thought it was quite… controlled.

      Though the way things are nowadays, I really don’t think it’d be *just* BNPers you’d see, sadly.

      Tbh, I think people should’ve laughed at those protestors and then ignored them. ‘Baby-killer’? For fuck’s sake, grow up, would you? Simplistic morons should be treated as they behave, i.e. stupidly. Let’s bring back the hating on these village idiots. :-D

    27. damon — on 14th March, 2009 at 12:50 pm  

      What I found most unpleasant about this story was listening to this LBC (London) morning radio talk show host called Nick Ferrari talking about it.
      http://www.lbc.co.uk/nick-ferrari-3466
      He sets it up in a way that is bound to get callers ringing in with the most reactionary kinds of points of view (”deport them” etc) - and then comes back all disingenuously ”liberal” saying how that is just not acceptable, as they are as British as him.

      Then the next day he’s talking about one of the Luton protesters being found to be a baggage handler at Luton, and what do we think about that?
      Cue the calls like ”well I’m never flying from Luton again” - with Ferrari coming across as all liberal again by insisting that he hasn’t commited a crime.

      But what he will have done by talking about it on two consecutive mornings will be to have stirred up ignorat ill feeling towards muslim people (and perhaps, our multi-cultural society in general.
      It sounds like what that Peter Whittle bloke was doing too.

    28. marvin — on 14th March, 2009 at 2:07 pm  

      Damon, LBC is breath of fresh air, BBC radio is often seen as too liberal-left for many ears. And how many times have they given air time to that born again radical Anjem Choudrie? Great piece in the Mail by the way about his past life.

      Furthermore, the ill feeling towards Muslims is generated by self-declared Muslims themselves, not the press who are report it. Indeed it would have been fantastic to see some ordinary Muslims supporting the troops there. But I don’t blame for not, considering they may well have to mix with people who are more ‘radical’ than they are.

      This whole idea of not being critical of brown skinned fascists for fear of creating ill feeling towards anyone with brown skin is insane.

      If it was a neonazi terrorist type working at Luton airport, would you feel the line “well I’m never flying from Luton again” so uncomfortable by your liberal-left ears? Surely demonising all white people there?

    29. The Queen of Fiddlesticks — on 14th March, 2009 at 2:43 pm  

      just clicking through the news today …
      http://tinyurl.com/dy349c
      Imagine an attack like this against even people like these protesters - what would be said, and by who …
      don’t have time to look into who the attackers were but I am curious.
      anti BNP “thugs” …. thats kinda funny

    30. Jai — on 14th March, 2009 at 3:06 pm  

      I shook hands with Mr Choudhary a couple of weeks back, I hope to chat to him some more. He is clear about who he represents and gives out his card which says who he represents.

      More accurately, he is clear about who he thinks he represents and gives out his card which says who he claims to represent.

    31. damon — on 14th March, 2009 at 3:18 pm  

      I just don’t agree with you Marvin.
      LBC a breath of frsh air?
      Ferrari is not, (but James O’Brien is a genius).

      The Anjem Choudary thing is a distraction - as he’s been on as many BBC radio and TV programmes as he has been on the LBC/Talk Sport programmes of James Whale.
      (Who definately was hamming it up for laughs …. well he was two years ago anyway).
      To me he’s a breath of fresh air only sometimes.

      And sometimes he is a breath of fresh air, ……but mostly he is a negative as far as progressive ideas go.
      In my opinion.

      Choudary is ”sexy” for that sensationalist media - but a fool without a real constituency.

      And why should anyone ”support the troops”?
      I (as a white secular person) have never done so from the time of the Falklands.
      Would it have been OK for the SWP to have held this protest?

      Jeering troops is OK I think. They are the ones firing the bullets and artillery rounds.
      Are we all expected to be as ”loyal” as Ross Kemp in Afghanistan?
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUabJjH_gOE

      I say no.

      Btw Marvin. I remember the start of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. That twat Nick Ferrari was starting his 7am radio programme with the national anthem, and asking listeners if they felt the swell of pride that he did as our troops rolled into Iraq (etc etc).
      In the last 5 years he’s backtracked - but always to the latest populist position.

    32. Jai — on 14th March, 2009 at 3:20 pm  

      Chris made an excellent point, I agree with you, why should normal members of society take time out to distance themselves from lunatics.

      1) Partly because of the reasons I mentioned here http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/3671#comment-154001 , although this should be done as an organised collective political effort rather than as individuals. It certainly shouldn’t be necessary for us to have to run around and having to proactively disavow these nutters when meeting/interacting with non-Muslims/non-Asians in our normal daily lives.

      2) But especially in order to make it clear to Anjem Choudary himself that he doesn’t have the support or mandate of the majority of Muslims in this country, since he’s a self-appointed leader claiming to represent ‘real Islam’ and claiming to act in the best interests of the Muslim population as a whole. Effectively he needs to be very publicly cut off at the knees.

    33. Adnan — on 14th March, 2009 at 10:28 pm  

      Marvin @23 It would not necessarily be a BNP terrorist attack - it would be something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copeland. The point being the “Islamist” does not automatically equate to “terrorist” except on Planet Marvin.

      Amrit @ 26, Damon @31 - good replies.

    34. dave bones — on 15th March, 2009 at 10:51 am  

      Jai-

      The card says “Principal Lecturer & Judge of the Shari’ah Court of the UK”. His number is on the islam4UK website.

    35. Jai — on 15th March, 2009 at 1:12 pm  

      Thanks Dave.

      Anjem Choudary actually claims a lot more than that, as per point 2 in #32 above.

      As for ‘engaging’ with him, I don’t think there’s much to negotiate, considering he’s made his aims and agenda perfectly clear.

      The answer is simply “No” — which should be the same response to any other power-hungry psychopath who wishes to overturn a country’s existing, liberal democratic culture and impose a brutal, fascist totalitarian regime on its entire population.

      ‘Engaging’ with him with the specific intention of changing his mind is of course a slightly different matter, but it depends entirely on whether he’s willing to listen to the other party and, indeed, whether his beliefs and the consequent worldview mean he’s psychologically able to listen to (and take on-board) counter-arguments at all. Bearing in mind that, inside his head, he’s currently built up an entire edifice of behaviour patterns, circular arguments, narrow linear logic and plausible-sounding self-rationalisation (both morally and theologically) that would make it very difficult indeed for him to process the possibility of himself being wrong on this entire issue and any contradictory party being right.

      It’s a real psychological house of cards. Or, pull at any loose threads and everything starts to unravel. (Pick your favourite analogy). People such as Anjem Choudary who have this level of self-perpetuating and internally-consistent theologically-based certainty would find it very traumatic to accept that large sections (or even all) of what they believe are based on false premises, unless they gradually reach those conclusions themselves, because the psychiatric consequences for them would potentially be devastating.

    36. persephone — on 15th March, 2009 at 1:55 pm  

      Recently it was mentioned that PP would do an Un-cocooning series ref: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/3419

      What about one of the PP editors inviting Anjem Choudary?

    37. dave bones — on 15th March, 2009 at 2:26 pm  

      Yeah, I mean media coverage and treatment of these people bothers me more than the people themselves. Its all just the same old cud chewing.

      I am just interested in people with off the wall views and ways of life. I like old 70s style documentaries where people are filmed as they are. So there are a few people in the UK who want an Islamic state, I am just not going to run around screaming. They don’t seem like bad people. They are idealistic. Obviously if they were the majority I would be worried for my way of life, but I am worried for my way of life with the bunch of fuckin extremists we have in charge now so to me its all gravy!

    38. Jai — on 15th March, 2009 at 6:34 pm  

      They don’t seem like bad people. They are idealistic.

      It might be worthwhile to check out this interview with Anjem Choudary from BBC World, where he refuses to condemn the murder of innocent British civilians in 7/7 because, as far as he’s concerned, “there is no such thing as an innocent non-Muslim”.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C73ePf_2KVw

      He also states unequivocally that he is on the side of Al Qaeda and its leaders purely because they are fellow Muslims, irrespective of the righteousness (or lack) of their cause and actions, and (right at the end of the clip) that he stands with fellow Muslims “whether they are oppressed or the oppressors”.

      In his own words, people.

      There’s idealism, and then there’s jingoistic, psychopathic, murderous fanaticism.

    39. dave bones — on 15th March, 2009 at 7:35 pm  

      That is just the sort of confrontational interview that I can’t really learn a lot from and why I started filming these people for myself. Whether Mr Choudhary himself is bad or good, I was making more a general statement about the vibe I got among his posse, who the Police still don’t arrest, and my own experiences in Finsbury amongst Muslims some of whom have since been arrested.

    40. dave bones — on 15th March, 2009 at 7:43 pm  

      I’m not saying you are necessarily wrong, I am just wondering if you asked the same question whether you would get a different answer because I have seen the attitude between these sorts and journalists up close for myself over a long period of time.

    41. Jai — on 15th March, 2009 at 7:51 pm  

      So there are a few people in the UK who want an Islamic state, I am just not going to run around screaming.

      Well, it’s not just that. As I’ve said previously on PP, I don’t think the mainstream British public or indeed the British government would allow that too happen, and in the spirit of pragmatic self-preservation they’d probably take suitable steps to prevent that from occurring if at any stage there really was a tangible probability of it becoming a reality.

      However, I wouldn’t be surprised if, in terms of initiating decisive actions to deal with “the Anjem Choudary/Al-Muhajiroun/Islam4UK” problem, fears of a backlash or causing significant damage to “community relations” are causing the powers-that-be to hesitate or drag their feet. Which is another reason that it needs to be made clear by the rest of the British Muslim population that Anjem Choudary and his friends don’t actually have their support, and that no “backlash” would happen if suitable steps were indeed taken to deal with him.

      And if anyone needs further proof that Anjem Choudary is a massive liability to the rest of the British Muslim population (and to British South Asians as a whole), watch this interview and listen to the part where he grossly exaggerates the level of support for Al Qaeda amongst Muslims everywhere, thereby (as I keep saying) confirming people’s most paranoid fears about British Muslims and matching the most extreme negative stereotypes which have become increasingly prevalent in many quarters:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7xzwUWfJp0&feature=related

      This is yet another reason that he needs to be cut off at the knees; he may claim that he “stands with his Muslim brothers whether they are oppressed or the oppressors”, but it needs to be hammered home to him directly by huge numbers of other British Muslims that the feeling is definitely not mutual.

      According to interviews in the last few days, Anjem Choudary claims that currently being quite probably the most reviled man in Britain is a “badge of honour” as far as he’s concerned; however, if it’s made clear to him that he’s also a pariah from the perspective of the vast majority of British Muslims (ie. not just “community leaders”, many of whom he obviously despises and views as sell-outs, collaborators etc, but also absolutely huge numbers of “ordinary” Muslims), it should have the necessary effect on him.

    42. Jai — on 15th March, 2009 at 8:11 pm  

      I am just wondering if you asked the same question whether you would get a different answer

      Because I’m an ordinary (ie. non-journalist) person or also because I’m Asian ? ;)

      Okay, the second point was made mostly tongue-in-cheek, but you know what I mean. He might be less “mouthy” to me since I’m a fellow brown person — particularly since he wouldn’t be having to “perform” in relation to giving his “official” stance on things for the benefit of the wider audience.

      On the other hand, if he’s one of these hyper-orthodox Muslims who only identifies with other Muslims and feels no Asian-based kinship with me whatsoever (since I’m not Muslim), his attitude could be even worse, especially if he also feels excessive jingoistic pride in the fact that the subcontinent’s history during the past 1000 years includes large sections of the non-Muslim majority being ruled by Muslims, including some pretty nasty individuals (one of the Youtube clips above already has him on record as refusing to condemn any wrongdoings by fellow Muslims), and hence his self-identifying with the “conquerors & rulers”…..which would have some fairly unpleasant implications for his internal perspective towards the rest of us.

      He and his organisation (in its various re-named incarnations) is doing a massive amount of damage to the public image, safety and well-being of the rest of the British Muslim and British Asian population, though. If he’s not aware of this already, I think it needs to be made clear to him. If he subsequently doesn’t give a damn, I think everyone’s got a definitive answer on the question of exactly how selfish, self-centred and self-serving Anjem Choudary actually is.

      Lastly, and speaking from a very Asian point of view, God knows how all this has affected his parents, in terms of their emotional wellbeing, their social circles, and their lives in general (assuming that they don’t support his views). I do feel really bad for them.

    43. dave bones — on 15th March, 2009 at 11:15 pm  

      I meant because you are an ordinary non-journalist. I would imagine because you are Asian would make these guys more wary- though I wouldn’t presume to assume in Mr Choudharry’s case.

      I know the reality of Hamza in front of me on aggregate over a long time gave me a different concept of the man than the one I saw on TV. Maybe it was because I was looking for one? I don’t know. Maybe.

      I sat through as much of the court case as I could get to and the picture he painted of himself was consistent with what I saw on the street- and that is all I am saying. Everyone else can form solid opinions with much less information than I have if they want. A lot of them get paid to which makes me laugh. Strange concept of work and value.

      I think it interesting that everyone has an opinion of Hamza/Bakri/Choudharry without meeting them. That is not abnormal, I have an opinion of Nicholas Anelka and I don’t know the man.

      When I was trying to film Atilla Ahmet he once introduced me to the whitest and most footie looking market stall holder. He said

      “When I look at the tabiolds and see Hamza and what he says, sure. I think, sling ‘im out- but I don’t know the man. They say all this about Atilla, I know im. If he wants to kill me why did he bring all his whole kitchen round and cook a big barbecue for my whole family?”

      That was priceless for my gonzo style and the way I am apporaching stuff.

      There are some really, really obvious things about the Hamza story no journalists have noticed which say a hell of a lot as facts in themselves. I have to leave this cryptic at the momment I am afraid. A lot of journalists are idiots.

    44. dave bones — on 16th March, 2009 at 12:24 am  

      I can see that as an Asian you will feel much more rsponsible for the Asian community in Britain, I am more just fascinated by what it is to be alive in London in the 21st century. I see Mr Choudharry lined up against a load of extremists and its like- take your pick. Do you remember what Bill O’Riley said about Falluja? He advocated terrorism on TV. he said “I don’t care about the citizens”. That was before the troops moved on the place.

    45. Jai — on 16th March, 2009 at 11:31 am  

      I can see that as an Asian you will feel much more rsponsible for the Asian community in Britain,

      I don’t feel any kind of “responsibility” for the Asian population at all (particularly in the cases of those who originate from a different country in the subcontinent, belong to a different religion, and when ‘radicalised’ quite frequently do not identify with the rest of us on any kind of “Asian” basis), any more than I’d expect an English person to feel “responsible” for the rest of the English population or, to make the analogy even more accurate, for the behaviour of Scottish or Irish people. However, I live in the real world and am aware of the dynamics involved, as stated in my post on another recent thread (link supplied in #32) and subsequently followed up by Don there.

      It’s not about “collective responsibility”, it’s about the rest of us being tarred with the same brush and the subsequent fall-out we have to deal with.

      It’s also worth bearing in mind that “the Asian community” is a very broad term and, in some senses, is a non-existent entity. It’s not necessarily a broadly homogenous block whose members mix and identify with each other far more than they do with anyone else; some do, some do not, and although there may generally be an underlying thread of common ethnicity and some common cultural aspects, it’s a bit like someone in the US referring to sections of their fellow American population as “the local European community” even if its constituents are Norwegians, Greeks and Estonians. (And yes, I’m aware that people there do sometimes make generalised comments about “the Hispanic community”, “the African-American community” etc). There is a hell of a lot of internal diversity and, of course, ultimately people are individuals too.

      I’m not saying that this is necessarily what you meant, Dave, but hopefully you understand my point as many other people in Britain do make these assumptions (and this is a public website, so it’s worth clarifying for the benefit of the wider audience).

    46. davebones — on 16th March, 2009 at 11:46 am  

      Yeah of course, the “tarred with the same brush” is what I meant, not that skin colour meant any connection culturally. I’ve been to India and Pakistan and found them culturally like chalk and cheese in lots of ways.

    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.