Sunny Hundal website



  • Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sunny Hundal
  • 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

  • Mousawi barred


    by Sid (Faisal)
    14th March, 2009 at 1:33 pm    

    The good news is Ibrahim Mousawi, the spokesman for Hezbollah, has been barred from entering the UK. Unconditional awards to the Hezbollah is something I argued against here.

    The story is covered in the Daily Mail. And before anyone starts baying for my blood for linking to the devil’s toilet paper, I would be more than happy to link to any other news site that is covering the story.

    Jacqui Smith has ruled the spokesman for the terrorist organisation Hezbollah should not be allowed to travel here - despite him making at least two previous visits to the UK on her watch.

    The Mail understands the Home Secretary ruled his presence here - where he was due to lecture Government officials - would not be ‘conducive to the public good’.

    Moussawi, who had been invited to speak on ‘political Islam’ at the School of Oriental and African Studies later this month, is a newspaper editor for the Lebanon-based terrorist organisation Hezbollah’s newspaper.

    The Home Secretary has made the right decision here in spite of the FCO establishing contacts with the Lebanese terrorist organisation.

    It means Mousawi and Dr Kemal Helbawy, the former spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood, will not be giving comfy lectures about their cuddly organisations at the one week course on Political Islam at SOAS.

    And that’s a good thing.

    Sunny adds: I look forward to all those people screaming hysterically in support of Wilders now saying something about this too.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Islamists






    83 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. pickles

      New blog post: Mousawi barred http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/3704


    2. » Ibrahim Moussawi was barred from enterin … Talk Islam

      [...] (Via PP.) [...]




    1. marvin — on 14th March, 2009 at 2:11 pm  

      It says a lot that many people fear linking to the second most widely read newspaper in the UK. What was that about tolerating other peoples view points, even if you disagree yourself? :P

      The Mail does sometimes do some good investigative journalism, I like their story today about Anjem Choudry. Of course it also writes a lot of crap, but then so do all the newspapers. And you can’t expect too much from a tabloid.

      The Home Office have made the right decision at long last. It really should have been a no-brainer.

    2. Bo — on 14th March, 2009 at 2:15 pm  

      The trouble with the FCO is its Arabism. Not because being pro anyone for the right reason is necessarily a bad thing, but simply because the elitists of the FCO have had a thing for the “noble savage” - it’s a kind of inverse racism.

      It has always been thus - in their sophisticated world it always made more sense to appease the Prussian boot boy (because that was how the German was) than take him on (because they were also sophisticated enough to reason we didn’t stand a chance).

      So it is with Islamists - Muslims are essentially violent medievalists, so we have to deal with their worst elements. Forget the moderates - you don’t actually expect these people to be able to develop functioning democracies do you?

      The posturing Blues laud their worldly cynicism, while never having experienced the world beyond Eton, Oxford and a gap year building schools in Tanzania.

      It is said that the trouble with the civil service is it prizes first class intellect over first class insight, which is why you get a lot of Rolls Royce minds driven in to the ditch. Nowhere is that more so than HM FCO.

    3. Anon — on 14th March, 2009 at 2:36 pm  

      So Sid opposed the ban on far-right racist Geert Wilders, who wanted to enter the UK to incite hatred against Muslims (“it was a cop-out, nothing more than a shoddy moment of capitulation”). But he applauds the ban on Ibrahim Moussawi, who wanted to address a conference at SOAS and didn’t intend to incite hatred against anyone.

      The report of Moussawi’s exclusion can in fact be found at a number of news sources, including the BBC. But you can see why Sid might prefer to link to the Daily Mail can’t you?

    4. marvin — on 14th March, 2009 at 2:46 pm  

      Oh yes Anon, how cutting! You’ve really shown Sid up there!

      You do talk bollocks ‘anon’. Ibrahim Mousawi is heads up Hizbollah (that’s a terrorist outfit, Anon) propoganda, refers to the Jews “as a lesion on the forehead of history” and was head of political programming at Al Manar which is viciously antisemitic.

      But that’s ok. But you probably don’t see that as any kind of hatred. Probably it’s legitimate defence against Zionist oppression, right?

    5. marvin — on 14th March, 2009 at 2:57 pm  

      Bo, true. The FCO still have the Empire mentality, of getting the powerful (and brutal) tribal chiefs on side, regardless of the way they treat their populace.

    6. Asif — on 14th March, 2009 at 3:03 pm  

      I am curious, though, from a rights point of view, how do you differentiate between who should be allowed in and who should be not. Geert Wilders is on record of asking to halt Muslim migration in Netherlands and can be called as much an anti Muslim as the next door anti-semite. So what makes his banning not okay vs this one which is being hailed?

    7. Anon — on 14th March, 2009 at 3:05 pm  

      Furthermore, it’s less than a week since Sid assured us: “I am not asking for Mousawi to be banned from the UK.”

      Has something dramatic happened over the last six days that has led Sid to execute a 180-degree turn on this issue? Or is he just incapable of rational thought?

      In response to Marvin: Moussawi says that the quote about Jews being a lesion on the forehead of history was falsely attributed to him.

      He has visited London twice before, in 2007 and 2008. He spoke publicly on both occasions and didn’t say anything to incite hatred against the Jewish community or anyone else.

      His exclusion is a disgrace and those who support it should be ashamed of themselves. Particularly those who called for Wilders to be allowed into the UK.

    8. Sid — on 14th March, 2009 at 4:11 pm  

      Bob Pitt (Anon)

      The only dramatic happened has happened in the last 6 days is that Mousawi has been barred. My position remains exactly the same towards allowing the entry of terrorist outfits: if the government is going to admit representatives of terrorist groups, it has to be for a reason which goes beyond mere hand-shaking. The terrorists must also make direct concessions that must be made transparent. Obviously the FCO could not come up with any sign of what these concessions were at this moment.

      His exclusion is a disgrace and those who support it should be ashamed of themselves. Particularly those who called for Wilders to be allowed into the UK.

      His exclusion should be celebrated by all Muslims who refuse to be associated with the guilt of Muslim extremists, terrorists and their sympathisers. This includes members of the far-left such as yourself who have absolutely no concern for the welfare of moderate Muslims.
      1) Moderate Muslims reject the victim mentality that is fundamental to your sixth form political ideology. Islamists don’t.
      2) Moderat Muslims reject antisemitism and Jew-baiting as the articulation of their religious identity. Islamists don’t.

      In other words, Islamists such as Mousawi are for you useful idiots whose support base you can co-opt. Or you thought you could but the RESPECT project has shown us how successful that idea was.

    9. marvin — on 14th March, 2009 at 4:41 pm  

      Bob Pitt (Anon)

      Hahahaha

      His exclusion should be celebrated by all Muslims who refuse to be associated with the guilt of Muslim extremists, terrorists and their sympathisers. This includes members of the far-left such as yourself who have absolutely no concern for the welfare of moderate Muslims.

      Go Sid, go Sid, go Sid!

    10. Bo — on 14th March, 2009 at 5:37 pm  

      Well said Sid, the sinister Pitt differs little from his opposite numbers at the FCO, typifying a deep-seated Euro-centric racism, whereby the rich and complex Muslim identity represents nothing more than a seam for cynical exploitation, regardless of the cost.

      Totalitarian causes have always featured psychopaths like Pitt who conceal their contempt for humanity behind the veil of realpolitic. Be thankful for one thing though: at least you are facing off over the interweb and not across a table at the Lubyanka.

    11. Harlan Leyside — on 14th March, 2009 at 11:11 pm  

      When any political group seeks to speak rather than express themselves through violence, we should welcome them. That is the essence of free-speech, something all you ignorant proponents of banning people seem so blind to. Jaw-jaw rather than war-war.
      Giving a politician the power to ban whomsoever from entering this country to speak is a gross, fundamental abuse of the rule of law and the principles of a lberal democracy.
      There can be no democracy without free speech, and the increasing restraints on speech in this increasingly plutocratic country show all to clearly how far from democracy we are.
      The bans on WIlders and Moussari are an obscenity.
      However, as this country’s politcal economy rapidly collapses, how long before nobody will feel we are worth visiting to speak to?

    12. Sunny — on 14th March, 2009 at 11:39 pm  

      The trouble with the FCO is its Arabism. Not because being pro anyone for the right reason is necessarily a bad thing, but simply because the elitists of the FCO have had a thing for the “noble savage” - it’s a kind of inverse racism.

      Whatever the point is - I’d also like to know on what basis people should be allowed in or not.

      I totally expect people like marvin to have double standards.

      The guy doesn’t head up Hezbollah, he edits a newspaper linked to them.

      I have no love for Islamists - but I love to see fools scream and shout when nasty Muslims come here, but when its a white fascist in a suit, then they’re all for free speech.

    13. David Jones — on 15th March, 2009 at 10:03 am  

      How is a spokesman for a terrorist group anything like Geert Wilders? That’s a sly one to slip past people reading this blog isn’t it?

    14. Anon — on 15th March, 2009 at 12:09 pm  

      A week ago I asked this question: “what about supporters of Israeli state terrorism, which has been responsible for the deaths of far more civilian non-combatants than suicide bombers ever have – does Sid argue that they too should be banned from entering the UK?”

      Sid’s response was: “I am not asking for Mousawi to be banned from the UK.”

      So, now we know that Sid does in fact support a ban on Ibrahim Moussawi, perhaps he would like to answer that question.

    15. Anon — on 15th March, 2009 at 12:22 pm  

      And to repeat another question which Sid has also failed to answer – given that he’s so enthusiastic about attributing anonymous or pseudonymous comments to particular individuals, why doesn’t he post under his own name?

      This actually a serious question. Some of us know perfectly well who “Sid” is, but I’m hesitant to refer to this publicly because I know myself that there is often a good reason why someone might not want to reveal their real name – politically sensitive job, possible trouble with their employer, whatever.

      Presumably there is a good reason for Sid hiding his identity, because whenever anyone posts a comment alluding to Sid’s real name, Sunny deletes it!

    16. Sid — on 15th March, 2009 at 12:35 pm  

      Sid’s response was: “I am not asking for Mousawi to be banned from the UK.”

      And then I went on to qualify on what terms Mousawi should be allowed in, but I notice Bob Pitt (Anon) has chosen not to paste that. I wonder why?

      Perhaps because Bob Pitt is far more interested in maligning British Muslims, associating them with the guilt of extremists and terrorists. He is not interested in protecting Muslims from Islamophobic attacks, he is far more interested in scoring cheap political points for the Social Workers Party at the cost of the welfare of Muslims.

    17. Sid — on 15th March, 2009 at 12:42 pm  

      This actually a serious question. Some of us know perfectly well who “Sid” is, but I’m hesitant to refer to this publicly because I know myself that there is often a good reason why someone might not want to reveal their real name – politically sensitive job, possible trouble with their employer, whatever.

      What complete bollocks. Bob Pitt has already posted my first name on this thread himself with an intent to “expose” who I am, although he is, as usual, hiding behind the actions of others.

      So why is he now pretending to be sensitive to the issue of an individual wanting their dentity protected? This is exactly the kind of rank hypocricy that the far-left is ready to deal in.

    18. Katy Newton — on 15th March, 2009 at 12:48 pm  

      There seems to be a bit of a confusion between using a pseudonym and being anonymous here.

      Sid has been posting under the name Sid Golmal for at least as long as I’ve been commenting on here if not longer. He blogs regularly at PP and also for a long time had his own blog. He has a recognised presence on the web and links back to it when he blogs elsewhere. You know who he is on the web and you know where to find him. That is a very different thing from blogging as “Anon”, particularly if you actually have your own website and web profile. I frankly don’t get the latter at all.

    19. Anon — on 15th March, 2009 at 12:48 pm  

      Well, it’s good to know that social workers now have their own party. Personally I’m a member of the Labour Party and have been since the 1980s.

      But what about supporters of Israeli state terrorism, Sid – should they be barred from entering the UK or not?

    20. blah — on 15th March, 2009 at 2:48 pm  

      And we think WE have a problem with the zionist lobby

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7944677.stm

    21. blah — on 15th March, 2009 at 2:54 pm  

      marvin
      “It says a lot that many people fear linking to the second most widely read newspaper in the UK.”

      “Of course it also writes a lot of crap, but then so do all the newspapers. And you can’t expect too much from a tabloid.”

      Proof, if any was needed, that HP rots your brain.

    22. Anon — on 15th March, 2009 at 3:04 pm  

      The central question here is, as Sunny has pointed out, “on what basis people should be allowed in or not”.

      I argued on PP earlier as follows: “Decisions on excluding someone from entering this country should be based on what they do, are are judged likely to do, in this country. If they come here with the intention of inciting hatred or advocating violence against the Jewish, Muslim or gay communities, that is the basis on which they should be banned…”

      On that basis it was right for the Home Office to ban both Geert Wilders and the homophobic US pastor Fred Phelps, who wanted to come here to incite hatred against the Muslim community and the gay community respectively.

      It was wrong to ban Ibrahim Moussawi because, given the content of his public speeches on the two previous occasions he had visited the UK, it was quite clear that he didn’t intend to incite hatred or violence against the Jewish community or anyone else for that matter.

      On the same basis I’m against calling for a ban on Narendra Modi, who is due to visit the UK in May. If Modi were coming here to incite anti-Muslim sentiment among the Hindu community, that would be grounds for banning him. But he isn’t. He’s coming here to address a business conference organised by Dow Jones.

      The appropriate response to Modi’s visit, it seems to me, is to organise a demonstration telling him that he’s not welcome here and call on the government to refuse to have any official dealings with him.

      Of course, if you apply the reasoning that was evidently behind the ban on Moussawi – that he is a member of an extremist organisation which promotes antisemitism – the government should in all consistency ban Modi too. He is a long time member of the borderline-fascist RSS. He was implicated in the anti-Muslim pogroms in Gujarat in 2002 in which thousands were killed.

      But I can offer a cast-iron guarantee that when Muslims and other opponents of Modi demand that he should be banned, the government will refuse to listen to them. Modi is the chief minister of an Indian state that is making an aggressive bid to attract foreign investment. He is a possible future leader of the BJP and therefore potentially the prime minister of a country that represents a vast and expanding market for the West.

      The last thing the government will want to do is piss him off by barring him from entering the UK. And, for the same reason, I predict you won’t hear a peep of protest from the Tories when Modi is allowed in.

      At any rate, Modi’s visit will provide an opportunity to expose the government’s double standards and pressure them into adopting a more liberal approach towards individuals like Ibrahim Moussawi.

    23. RedSeaPedestrian — on 15th March, 2009 at 3:04 pm  

      Hi blah. What do you think of Freeman’s views on China?

    24. The Dude — on 15th March, 2009 at 3:12 pm  

      If there is one thing that I hate, it’s hypocrisy. Either you do believe in freedom of speech or you don’t. What you can’t do (but many attempt) is to pick and choose, who gets away with what. Sunny, you’re the man.

    25. Sid — on 15th March, 2009 at 4:35 pm  

      I argued on PP earlier as follows: “Decisions on excluding someone from entering this country should be based on what they do, are are judged likely to do, in this country. If they come here with the intention of inciting hatred or advocating violence against the Jewish, Muslim or gay communities, that is the basis on which they should be banned…”

      By this reasoning, this means you be supporting individuals such as Delwar Hussain Sayeedi (look him up) to be allowed into this country.

      By your logic, he can easily claim entry by assuring us that he has no intention of inciting hatred or advocating violence against Muslims he regards as anti-Jamaat and Hindu communities, in spite of a long record of exactly that in Bangladesh.

    26. David Jones — on 15th March, 2009 at 4:41 pm  

      @The Dude Either you do believe in freedom of speech or you don’t

      So ridiculously simplistic I’m sure you are not actually a supporter of free speech yourself. Dangerous and false claims can and sometimes should be prevented, as Oliver Wendell Holmes famously pointed out.

      Mousawi is dangerous and many of his claims are false. I don’t really think Wilders is dangerous and some of his claims are certainly true.

    27. Sunny — on 15th March, 2009 at 4:46 pm  

      How is a spokesman for a terrorist group anything like Geert Wilders? That’s a sly one to slip past people reading this blog isn’t it?

      Hezbollah is a political organisation that holds the balance of power in Lebanon.

      Mousawi is dangerous

      Oh yeah? How?

      I don’t really think Wilders is dangerous

      Well that’s nice, we’ll take your word for it shall we? I don’t suppose you’re a Muslim who is at the end of that bigotry, are you?

    28. Sunny — on 15th March, 2009 at 4:47 pm  

      Further to my last post, if we want to ban representatives of political organisations, then maybe someone could draw up a list of Chinese, Indian, Israeli, Russian and other political orgs that could be banned too.

      After all, Putin was a KGB agent. and yet that’s less dangerous than Hezbollah?

      You people are outta your minds.

    29. Anon — on 15th March, 2009 at 5:28 pm  

      Sid: “By this reasoning, this means you be supporting individuals such as Delwar Hussain Sayeedi (look him up) to be allowed into this country.”

      I know quite well who Sayeedi is, so I don’t need to look him up. And I’m opposed to banning him.

      Sayeedi has visited this country on any number of occasions and as Sid admits he has no record of inciting hatred or violence here (though in the past there have reportedly been clashes when Awami League supporters demonstrated against him).

      In reality, the reason Sid and others like him want Sayeedi banned is because of allegations about his role in 1971, although Sayeedi has never been charged with any offence in Bangladesh itself.

      1971 is the issue that colours all the politics of people like Sid. He doesn’t care if he assists the right-wing witch-hunt of Azad Ali. He doesn’t care if the East London Mosque, which basically plays a positive role in the local community, is falsely depicted as a nest of extremists. He doesn’t care that Martin Bright’s attack on Sayeedi in 2006 was utilised by the BNP to bolster their argument that mainstream Muslim organisations like the MCB are no different from terrorists. All that Sid is interested in is settling scores with Jamaat-e-Islami over their role in the liberation struggle nearly four decades ago.

      It is of course true that Jamaat-e-Islami played a disgraceful role in 1971 and moreover that they occupy a place on the right of political life in Bangladesh. But social context is everything. JI-associated activists living in the UK find themselves as part of an oppressed minority community, facing racism, discrimination and sometimes violence from the far right. They live under a government that invades and occupies majority-Muslim countries.

      Who do they form alliances with to oppose racism and imperialist war? With the labour movement and the left, is the answer. So the role played by Jamaatis in this country is not at all the same as in Bangladesh. Trying to apply the politics of Bangladesh to the politics of the UK causes confusion at best and at worst leads to an “anti-Islamist” alliance with the likes of David Toube and Harry’s Place.

      Incidentally, what is Sayeedi’s current status as regards entry into the UK? I heard that he was turned back at the airport when he tried to visit in 2006, but there was no formal announcement of a ban.

    30. David Jones — on 15th March, 2009 at 5:44 pm  

      @Sunny : Hezbollah is a political organisation that holds the balance of power in Lebanon

      I said Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation. You’re disagreeing with that are you?

      And do you not think a spokesman for a terrorist organisation is dangerous?

      I’m a little bemused at your responses. I presume you didn’t mean to imply what you’re implying. Have another think.

    31. Sid — on 15th March, 2009 at 6:15 pm  

      This is the most simplistic and self-defeating demagoguery I have seen posted on PP in a while.

      Let’s deconstruct. Do you realise, your reasoning for allowing the likes of Mousawi and Delwar Hussain Sayeedi into this country can also be applied to likes of Wilders or David Duke? They too can claim that they are not inciting hatred *while physically is in this country*. The excuse you apply to Mousawi can be applied to all of them, because you know full well that they have no intention of inciting hate whilst they are physically in this country. They are here to show themselves as the embodiment of their ideologies and all that they stand for.

      In reality, the reason Sid and others like him want Sayeedi banned is because of allegations about his role in 1971, although Sayeedi has never been charged with any offence in Bangladesh itself.

      Delwar Hussain Sayeedi’s career of hate incitement does not end in 1971. He has a long record of inciting hatred and violence against minorities in Bangladesh in the 38 years have followed the Bangladesh independence. He and his fellow Jamaati war criminal have been allowed to get away with it because the Awami League made the serious misjudgement of conferring amnesty to these war criminals, as a gesture of liberal goodwill. And that is why no case has been made against them not, as you and the Jamaatis insinute, because of a lack of a body evidence against them.

      Sayeedi’s recordings and khutba speeches which are replete in full-throated demonisation of Hindus and moderate Muslims are widely available in the East End of London. It would not take much to tranlsate them from Bengali into English to make a mockery of your insipid contextualisation and excuse-making for this man.

      It is of course true that Jamaat-e-Islami played a disgraceful role in 1971 and moreover that they occupy a place on the right of political life in Bangladesh. But social context is everything.

      You can say exactly the same thing about Geert Wilders and his political activity is completely confined to Dutch-Flemish politics. If “context is eveything” in this scenario, what right do we have to condemn him of demonising Muslims immigrant in Holland, if he is not going to make a peep when he comes to England, ins’t that so Bob? If you continue your line of reasoning, Wilders is also rendered untouchable, Modi is completely welcome, and Delwar Hossain Sayeedi is just another Bangladeshi Jamaati cleric when they pass the immigration boundaries at Heathrow Airport.

      But the question I really must ask Bob Pitt is, why the ridiculous double standards?

      If anything this last post of yours has completely denuded your attitudes and attempts to apologise for Islamist tendencies in the Muslim community and create a false equality between these Islamists and large majority of Muslim moderates who reject their hateful ideologies, and thereby contributing to the growth of Islamophobia in this country.

    32. Anon — on 15th March, 2009 at 6:35 pm  

      When it comes to “simplistic and self-defeating demagoguery” I’m afraid I fall well short of Sunny’s abilities in this field.

      If Sid thought about it for a minute he’d know that the objection to Wilders being allowed into the UK was precisely that he was coming here with the explicit intention of inciting hatred against the Muslim community. That’s what the film “Fitna” is all about.

      “If ‘context is eveything’ in this scenario, what right do we have to condemn him of demonising Muslims immigrant in Holland…”

      What sort of stupid argument is that? Your logic is as flawed as your grammar.

      “If you continue your line of reasoning, Wilders is also rendered untouchable, Modi is completely welcome …”

      Oh give us a break.

      Why don’t you go away for ten minutes or so Sid, collect your thoughts, and then try and post something marginally less irrational?

    33. Anon — on 15th March, 2009 at 6:41 pm  

      Many apologies, Sunny, that should of course read “Sid’s abilities in this field”!

    34. Rumbold — on 15th March, 2009 at 6:43 pm  

      Anon:

      Who you are I do not know (and am not particularly bothered) but you do share a common bond with many of Sid’s antagonists, and that is to try and discredit what he says by referring to his opposition to clercial fascists who helped massacre Bangladeshis. I, for one, and glad that I share a platform with people who oppose these type of groups.

      Try and deal with the issues instead please.

    35. Sunny — on 15th March, 2009 at 6:48 pm  

      David:

      I said Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation. You’re disagreeing with that are you?

      And do you not think a spokesman for a terrorist organisation is dangerous?

      You haven’t answered my points though:

      1) Does Hezbollah not hold the balance of power in Lebanon?

      2) do you think peace is possible there without Hezbollah?

      3) Do you think the KGB is less dangerous than Hezbollah?

      Let me know the answers in your leisure.
      cheers

      If you continue your line of reasoning, Wilders is also rendered untouchable, Modi is completely welcome, and Delwar Hossain Sayeedi is just another Bangladeshi Jamaati cleric when they pass the immigration boundaries at Heathrow Airport.

      Sid - here’s my problem - right now we have a situation whereby the rightwingers and a lot of the “decent left” will support Wilders coming into the country and not Modi/Sayeedi etc.

      In fact Modi is part of the Indian govt so he has even more chance of coming in.

      Now - either we don’t allow any of these fools to come in, with one standard applied to all - or we allow all of them to come in.

      But there is disgusting hypocrisy among the Harry’s Place crowd, which is why I’d rather all of them allowed in.

    36. Don — on 15th March, 2009 at 7:19 pm  

      I must be missing something. Mousawi is a senior member of an organisation which the UK government officially designates as terrorist. That has to be a major factor, right? Hezbollah are a proscribed organisation. You may or may not consider that position helpful, but isn’t that how it stands?

      Unless he’s coming here for negotiations or some officially recognised constructive purpose then banning him is just being consistent.

      The other jerks in question are not members of proscribed organisations, so the issue is less clear.

    37. David Jones — on 15th March, 2009 at 7:52 pm  

      @Sunny - I was initially taken aback by your equation of a propagandist for terrorists with a Dutch MP. I’m very sorry you haven’t recognised your mistake. I still don’t wish to think you really do believe the two equivalent.

      I’m done here. I’m also very suprised.

    38. Anon — on 15th March, 2009 at 8:49 pm  

      “I must be missing something. Mousawi is a senior member of an organisation which the UK government officially designates as terrorist. That has to be a major factor, right? Hezbollah are a proscribed organisation. You may or may not consider that position helpful, but isn’t that how it stands?”

      Actually, no. It’s the military wing of Hezbollah that’s a proscribed organisation in Britain, not the political organisation itself. Nobody is claiming that Ibrahim Moussawi is a member of Hezbollah’s military wing.

    39. marvin — on 15th March, 2009 at 9:05 pm  

      Oh that’s ok then Bob. I take it you’re happy for Al-Qaeda to come in too. Just a long as it’s the Media wing or PR department. As long as they don’t actually get their hands dirty. It’s fine.

    40. Anon — on 15th March, 2009 at 9:35 pm  

      Sunny: “… either we don’t allow any of these fools to come in, with one standard applied to all - or we allow all of them to come in.”

      Well, that has the appeal of simplicity, but neither alternative is really practicable.

      As Sunny agrees, it highly unlikely that the Home Office will ban Narendra Modi, even though he’s a long-time member of a semi-fascist organisation and was implicated in a murderous pogrom against the Muslim population of Gujarat.

      And they certainly have no intention of banning the Israeli political and military leaders who were responsible for the slaughter of innocent civilians in both Lebanon and Gaza. State terrorists don’t count, at least when the state in question is a western ally.

      So there’s really no chance of a blanket ban.

      And I’m sure Sunny isn’t seriously proposing that people who want to enter the UK to advocate violence against vulnerable minority communities here should be allowed in.

      So allowing entry to anyone who wants to come here is not a serious proposal either.

      The way things work at the moment is that some people – Wilders or Phelps – are banned for a good reason, namely that they want to enter the UK to incite hatred.

      In addition to this, however, an individual who wants to come here to address a conference and has no intention of inciting hatred – Moussawi – is also banned, because of pressure from the Zionist lobby.

      The solution is for the government to stop capitulating to the Zionist lobby and stick to banning people who intend to enter the UK to incite hatred or violence.

    41. marvin — on 15th March, 2009 at 9:55 pm  

      ‘ere Bob, a Pakistani has been attacked in West London for his religious stance. I look forward to your latest blog post on this faith hate crime.

    42. The Dude — on 15th March, 2009 at 11:22 pm  

      David Jones

      It’s you who don’t understand NOT Sunny. Someone on this forum said that my argument about freedom of speech was “simplistic”. I couldn’t agree more. If people like you had their way, Mandela would still be on Robben Island and Gerry Adams would still be making bombs. People like you FEAR the argument, even the logic of these type of people, so much so that the right of the free exchange of idea’s is curtailed for something quite different and opposite from that of reason. Denomination of your adversaries views and opinions in an attempt to kill debate is just plain stupid. This way EVERYBODY looses.

    43. Sunny — on 16th March, 2009 at 12:24 am  

      David Jones: I’m very sorry you haven’t recognised your mistake. I still don’t wish to think you really do believe the two equivalent.

      No see, I’m interested in applying the same standards to white and brown and black folks. You’re not.

      If a member of the Lebanese national coalition, also part of Hezbollah, came over, what would you say then?

      Anyway - the fact you didn’t answer my points illustrates how your position clearly.

    44. douglas clark — on 16th March, 2009 at 12:47 am  

      Funnily enough I agree with Sunny, now there’s a surprise!

      I don’t really care whether someone is an elected fascist. Does that make them legitimate? Not for me it doesn’t.

      Pretending that Enoch Powell wannabees are legitimate is playing a game with democracy. You allow hate to outweigh reason. You allow media to outweigh your own experience. You allow, frankly, prejudice to outweigh common sense.

      That is the game you bastards play.

    45. Sid — on 16th March, 2009 at 1:08 am  

      Sid - here’s my problem - right now we have a situation whereby the rightwingers and a lot of the “decent left” will support Wilders coming into the country and not Modi/Sayeedi etc.

      Maybe because I’ve never regarded myself as part of the left, I don’t quite understand these tribalisms and these internecine wars of political soggy biscuit lefties indulge themselves with.

      Let me say this in the simplest terms: Mousawi and Sayeedi are spokesmen for fascist organisations. Wilders is a meat and potatoes fascist. The BJP are Hitler fanboys and the Jamaat Islami are clerical fascists. And Bob Pitt (Anon) has the shittiest politics west of Hamas.

      Pitt would like us to believe the Jamaat are less fascist than the BJP, simply because they do “community work” via the East London Mosque. So for Bob, the BJP are more fascist for engineering a pogrom that killed 1000+ Muslims in 2002 than the Jamaat, whose death squads murdered some 2 million Muslims and Hindus in 1971. And why? Because he is a liar. He is not interested, all he is interested in is the alliance he can create with Islamists who hate Jews as much as he does.

      David T actually supported the banning of Wilders. So I think you’re wrong when you say the “Decent Left” will suppoort Wilders. He didn’t.

      And let me remind you Sunny, that in 2006 you supported the banning of Delwar Hussain Sayeedi. But here you are today questioning the efficacy of banning a Hezbollah fascist.

      What moral relativism has brought to you to this juncture?

    46. Sunny — on 16th March, 2009 at 1:24 am  

      David T actually supported the banning of Wilders. So I think you’re wrong when you say the “Decent Left” will suppoort Wilders. He didn’t.

      He’s just one, out of many. Besides, all the other HPers and commenters disagreed.

      And let me remind you Sunny, that in 2006 you supported the banning of Delwar Hussain Sayeedi. But here you are today questioning the efficacy of banning a Hezbollah fascist.

      I’ve changed my mind on these issues since and become much more militant about free speech.

      I’ve actually repeatedly stated this in my articles: free speech is very necessary and an important right, even if you hate the people who are being afforded it. I’m now simply applying that view to these situations.

      David T on the other hand is becoming increasingly confused about the views he holds because at one point he was pro-free speech. Now it seems he’s not.

      Phrases like “moral relativism” mean nothing to me. This is a matter of principle - that of free speech. If you don’t believe in it, and want to ban people you don’t like, fine. I just don’t agree with that policy any more. As I’ve said repeatedly, curbing free speech and expression hurts minorities more than it hurts the middle.

    47. Sid — on 16th March, 2009 at 1:30 am  

      I’ve changed my mind on these issues since and become much more militant about free speech.

      So you would support his short advocacy holidays to London now, would you?

      What’s changed? More militant or more soggy?

      You can deny phrases like “Moral relatvism” now if you want to at your peril, but it is a phrase with context and meaning.

    48. Sunny — on 16th March, 2009 at 1:51 am  

      So you would support his short advocacy holidays to London now, would you?

      Let’s be quite clear about this Sid. I hated Narendra Modi to the extent I freely said it on Indian tv and was as a result threatened and nearly attacked by Hindu fanatics.

      But this time I’m not going to oppose his right to entry into the UK, though I may still protest when (and if he comes in) to highlight his complicity.

      I hope that explains my stance clearly enough for you.

      I’m pro free speech - whether that includes politicians or not is irrelevant (except perhaps to people who throw around the phrase “moral relativism” with such ease). I genuinely desire a country that isn’t afraid of people who say nasty things.

    49. douglas clark — on 16th March, 2009 at 7:20 am  

      I’d like to think that anyone who came to these shores and tried to stir up dissent between us, would be stuck on the next boat out. However, words are just that, words.

      Until they are of the order of shouting ‘Fire’ in a theatre our civil society ought to be able to cope without government intervention. It seems to me that there is an assumption here. That UK Muslims are begging to be led by clerical fascists. My, admittedly limited, experience, is that nothing could be further from the truth. We ought to have a little more, err faith, in our fellow citizens…

      What say you?

    50. Bo — on 16th March, 2009 at 7:44 am  

      Wilders was banned to balance the banning of other shit-stirrers. The UK experience has been formed by the past, not the present: the accommodation with Islamists that led to some of the problems we have today. The UK is as confused as some of the arguments on this thread, and hoisted on its own petard so to speak: it stands for freedom of speech yet bans some, does not ban others…. Its response reflects a lack of clarity within the society as a whole. Unlike France or the US it does not have a constitution that says what it stands for. Instead it tries to preserve mushy compromise in increasingly uncompromising times, and fails.

    51. douglas clark — on 16th March, 2009 at 8:00 am  

      And, Sid. I don’t think it is ‘moral relativism’ to allow folk to hear different points of view. What we are scared of is ourselves. We are scared that we have no moral agency of our own, that we are incapable of listening to a demagogue without swallowing what they have to say, hook, line and sinker.

      (Perhaps a tad off topic, but Billy Graham came to Sin City once and people were very impressed. It lasted about a day or so. Then they went back to their usual.. And he was very, very good at what he did.)

      We fear ourselves, or alternatively, we fear others who are much like ourselves. Some folk make a living out of exploiting that, our Melanie being one of them.

      So, where I’d agree with the Libertarian stance is that we are all free agents, free to agree or disagree with so called opinion formers. Now that is what we should be hammering into kids in Primary School. No-one is obliged to consent to a pretty phrase or a clever arguement.

    52. David Jones — on 16th March, 2009 at 8:19 am  

      I just had to pop back to comment on this:

      @Sunny No see, I’m interested in applying the same standards to white and brown and black folks. You’re not.

      My point, Sunny, is that the two cases are not the same. Not because of skin colour but, for instance, because of advocacy of terrorism.

      Yelling ‘racist’ at me because you’ve made what I still hope is a genuine mistake in saying that Wilders and a spokesman for terrorists are much of a muchness makes you look at best silly and at worst something much more unpleasant. I’m beginning to favour the latter in the light of your response.

      Yah-boo to you to. Makes you feel better does it?

    53. Sid — on 16th March, 2009 at 8:29 am  

      And, Sid. I don’t think it is ‘moral relativism’ to allow folk to hear different points of view.

      I agree with you. But I do think it is moral relativism if you build your response to Fascism A differently to Fascism B based on a sliding scale that is calibrated to, say, “the Decent Left” or this or that political trend. In other words, to arbitrary and portative goalposts. And those are exactly the incidences where the phrase “moral relativism” can be applied.

    54. munir — on 16th March, 2009 at 8:50 am  

      Anon your post #29 was superb

    55. fugstar — on 16th March, 2009 at 9:14 am  

      its ridiculous christocentric. white-speak for a person such as sid to think of hezbollah as fascist.

      what an evil evil tit you are. feel sorry for any progeny who regard you as an authority figure. may they be liberated from your twisted ugly presence.

    56. douglas clark — on 16th March, 2009 at 9:30 am  

      David Jones,

      The only difference that I can see is that one says nasty things under a rather iffy perm, and the other says nasty things above a rather iffy beard.

      Just because someone has been elected doesn’t make them any less of a tit. Indeed our own political class is a 101 on that.

      Suggesting, as a solution, as opposed to appealing to the worst elements of Dutch and UK society, that transportation is an answer to any problem probably went out of fashion when the Australians finally grew a set of balls. He is a pretty pathetic example of demagogery, which lest we forget, led to more evil than most of us could even contemplate. Just because it’s ‘politics’ doesn’t excuse it. State terrorism is still terrorism, is it not?

      He is no less extreme than his counterpart. And your apologia for him does you no favours.

      Still, let him in! We used to welcome eccentric nutters. It added to the gaiety of the nation.

    57. David T — on 16th March, 2009 at 9:57 am  

      He’s just one, out of many. Besides, all the other HPers and commenters disagreed.

      No, I think all my co-bloggers who expressed any view, supported the banning of Wilders.

      David T on the other hand is becoming increasingly confused about the views he holds because at one point he was pro-free speech. Now it seems he’s not.

      No, I’m strongly pro-free speech.

      But banning somebody from entering a country does not - in these days of telephones and free skype videoconferencing - amount to a ban on speech.

      My position offends against the principle of free movement of persons. You can have a go at me about that instead, if you’d like.

    58. Bo — on 16th March, 2009 at 10:20 am  

      “christocentric. white-speak”

      What, you mean like the english language? Why not wash your own mouth out, twat.

      “what an evil evil tit you are. feel sorry for any progeny who regard you as an authority figure. may they be liberated from your twisted ugly presence.”

      Lower than shit beneath my shoe. You coward. Why not come outside and say that? LOL.

    59. douglas clark — on 16th March, 2009 at 10:28 am  

      fugstar,

      its ridiculous christocentric. white-speak for a person such as sid to think of hezbollah as fascist.

      I have no idea whether Hezbollah are fascist or not. But the judgement on that ought to be independent of what I can only assume you intended as an insult. An ad hominem even.

      If Sid were to be christocentric then he’d be sticking up for a small minority in this land of ours. Neither do I really know what ‘white speak’ actually is. If you get out and about a bit, I think you’ll find that there are nearly as many opinions as there are white people. In other words, white people are no more of a monolithic block than, oh, I dunno, Muslims. Despite what you’d like to portray.

      what an evil evil tit you are. feel sorry for any progeny who regard you as an authority figure. may they be liberated from your twisted ugly presence.

      You are beyond parody. I am however hopeful that you are not responsible for any kids yourself as your bile flecked rant really doesn’t need to be passed on to another generation.

      Good to see munir back. Perhaps he and thee could actually try to argue your points and not indulge in your own version of apartheid and hate speech. Too much to ask?

    60. munir — on 16th March, 2009 at 10:37 am  

      sid
      “Pitt would like us to believe the Jamaat are less fascist than the BJP, simply because they do “community work” via the East London Mosque. So for Bob, the BJP are more fascist for engineering a pogrom that killed 1000+ Muslims in 2002 than the Jamaat, whose death squads murdered some 2 million Muslims and Hindus in 1971.” ”

      Thanks for this fascinating history lesson. I had been under the impression that JI , volunteers supporting the Pakistani army, killed a small number of Bengali intellectuals (and from what I have heard from JI these groups were initatially formed to stop the killing of Imams and religious Muslims who supported Pakistan/opposed independence and the Awami Legaue by the terrorist Mukthi Bahini death squad (who freely roam Bangladesh and the UK with no complaint from Sid)- but dont expect that side of the story to be told)

      Now Sid informs us that it was in fact the JI , Bengalis, who killed 2 million people not as we had suspected the Pakistani army . Sid thus absolves the Pakistan army.

      “And why? Because he is a liar.”

      LOL

      “all he is interested in is the alliance he can create with Islamists who hate Jews as much as he does.”

      Wow strong stuff… when someone critises Israel you play the race card. Desperate stuff. Your hatred of someone who spends his life defending Muslims is highly instructive.

    61. fugstar — on 16th March, 2009 at 10:39 am  

      Who is monolithic blocking you? you sound like you are dining on stale policywonk speak and cliches.

      You cannot call a non-western christian social movement fascist, because that ideology is alien to the non western christian cultural context. You have to resist the the urge to paint the world in the wrong image of yourselves. I know its hard, but you’ve got to try, though visiting the brown sahibs is not really intended to achieve that.

    62. Sid — on 16th March, 2009 at 10:51 am  

      It is not difficult to see why munir and fugshite are confused about Hezbollah’s politics.

      They are fellow travellers with the sort of noble, high-minded people who cannot put a foot worng. Because
      * They deny the Jamaat’s role as collaborators with Pakistan military in the genocide in 1971. And killings perpetarted by the al-Badr and al-Shams death-squads of JI.
      * They deny the connections with those individuals and their counterparts in the East London Mosque.
      * They excuse Maulana Maududi’s pogroms of Ahmadiyya Muslims.
      * They deny the Holocaust.
      * They are free and easy with the use of antisemitic language on this site.
      * They deny the fascist ideology of the Hezbollah because this is *only* a picture of men exercising their right to free speech and the fascist overtones are just accidental.

    63. fugstar — on 16th March, 2009 at 10:52 am  

      58.
      its pretty evil to celebrate the banning of mousavi in partnership with the british minions of zion. he was no threat to order or peace, it was just zionist forces asserting their power. its undignified position play, a la quilliam.

      its a sellout tactic that should be publicised as one, not so any harm can visit the pitiful twisted individual, but so the anti-example can be seen. however in the close family scale, gosh those kids will cringe when they grown up.

    64. Sid — on 16th March, 2009 at 10:58 am  

      Wow strong stuff… when someone critises Israel you play the race card. Desperate stuff. Your hatred of someone who spends his life defending Muslims is highly instructive.

      Your love of someone who spends his life blowing smoke up the arse of Islamists like you is even more instructive.

    65. douglas clark — on 16th March, 2009 at 11:02 am  

      fugstar @ 61,

      Who is monolithic blocking you?

      Err, you are. Because, generally I tend to agree with Sid, not you, and you flame his position as being christocentric. Which is a bit rich, considering I am an atheist. You do, accidentally I suppose, make my point for me.

      I am not painting anyone anywhere as an image or reflection of me or the culture I live in. Did I not just say that I don’t know whether Hezbollah are fascist or not? Yes, I do believe I did.

      I know it is really tough for you, and you probably think it makes you look cool in the playground, but attempting to bully people is really, really counterproductive. Quite what you meant by:

      I know its hard, but you’ve got to try, though visiting the brown sahibs is not really intended to achieve that.

      is beyond me.

      ‘Tis not me that is going around being a cheeky wee boy.

    66. fugstar — on 16th March, 2009 at 11:09 am  

      1) I dont deny, i just don’t believe you are capable of knowing more than your locally brainwashed and partially witnessed truth.
      2) I wasn’t there, the cases didn’t really make it. so its not my role in life to mislead people with distracting politicised accusations. thats something i cant defend on the day that counts.
      3) Maududi wasn’t the best politician, nor journalist, not thinker in the world, his movement is belongs to me as much as it belongs to you. only it seems to me that he inspired quite a few people to do good work and you are a waste of carbon resource.
      4) no, thats you playing to a jewish gallery, whiteboy
      5) as above

      Arguments you use are best leveled at people a generation or so older than you. They hold no currency in this context as far as i can see. Whats amusing is when you try to re-scent your foul odour with anti-semitism perfume, which is really quite ameobic of you. That is why you are a Jionist, a bad imitation of a Zionist, your discourse is aligned with theirs.

    67. Sid — on 16th March, 2009 at 11:13 am  

      4) no, thats you playing to a jewish gallery, whiteboy

      lay down the boogie
      and play that funky music til you die!

    68. Sid — on 16th March, 2009 at 11:25 am  

      blue-eyed funk on a Monday morning.

    69. soru — on 16th March, 2009 at 12:00 pm  

      ‘You cannot call a non-western christian social movement fascist, because that ideology is alien to the non western christian cultural context.’

      Is Hizbollah is fascist? arguable.

      Is Lebanon outside the Western Christian cultural sphere? debatable.

      Is fugstar a fascist? Absolutely.

      There exist in the world societies that are genuinely structurally different, cultures with myths and symbols that struggle to be translated.

      Thing is, if you are a fascist within a democratic capitalist western culturally Christian country, you don’t get to be a member of one of those culture by adopting one or two of their symbols like a totem.

      Otherwise Hitler would have been an Indian.

    70. Hannah — on 16th March, 2009 at 12:32 pm  

      * They deny the Jamaat’s role as collaborators with Pakistan military in the genocide in 1971. And killings perpetarted by the al-Badr and al-Shams death-squads of JI.
      * They deny the connections with those individuals and their counterparts in the East London Mosque.
      * They excuse Maulana Maududi’s pogroms of Ahmadiyya Muslims.
      * They deny the Holocaust.
      * They are free and easy with the use of antisemitic language on this site.
      * They deny the fascist ideology of the Hezbollah because this is *only* a picture of men exercising their right to free speech and the fascist overtones are just accidental.

      My, you like the straw men, don’t you Sid? What if someone were to say they don’t agree with any of these points (I cannot speak for munir and fugstar), but still thought you were a fool for always lining up with David T and the racist HP lot when it came to Islam and Muslims? What if someone agreed with you on a number of things but thought you were stark raving mad to want to stop Mousawi but let Geert Wilders in? How about Sunny? He thinks you are a hypocrite on this one.

      You hate Islamists. Fair enough, most people do. But why let this hatred blind you to the fact that you have taken an untenable, racist position on this issue of who can and cannot come to the UK to speak? White Wilders in. Brown/Muslim Mousawi out.

      Stop trying to knock down the straw men you build up, Sid. Stick to the facts. (I expect a large amount of unsubstantiated abuse or ridicule from Sid in response, instead of any reasoned justification of his hypocritical position)

    71. Katy Newton — on 16th March, 2009 at 12:37 pm  

      Great points by Douglas on this thread.

      I have to tell you, fug, your opinions are so obscured by anti-jew and anti-white conspiracyspeak that I don’t bother to read past the abuse to see them. You can try to label that as “not being into Israel” but it reads like hate speech to me. You might want to think about that. The fact is, I don’t know if you have anything worth listening to or engaging with or not because the text is so offensive that I can’t get past it to the subtext. If there is a subtext.

    72. munir — on 16th March, 2009 at 1:04 pm  

      I dont know why Sid even bothers - whenever the absurd things he posts are shown to be false he simply ignores it and worms his way out by falsely attributing things (easily checkable) to others. As Hannah says in her excellent post he, unable to answer or defend his absurd comments, invents straw men.

      “They deny the Jamaat’s role as collaborators with Pakistan military in the genocide in 1971.”

      I stated in post 60
      ” I had been under the impression that JI , volunteers supporting the Pakistani army…”

      I do deny your absurd claim that JI killed 2 million people in 1971!!!

      “* They excuse Maulana Maududi’s pogroms of Ahmadiyya Muslims.”

      1)Im not a member of JI and consider parts of Maududis writing heertical
      2)What pogroms? As far as I knew Maudodi wrote a pamphlet against the Qadianisn for which he was jailed
      3) Ahmadis are not Muslims by consensus of Muslim scholars because they believe in a prophet after the last prophet Muhammed (pbuh)

      * They deny the Holocaust.

      when ?

    73. Aaron — on 16th March, 2009 at 1:06 pm  

      I look forward to the day Sid will learn to stop being a hypocrite and apply the same standards he calls for, including the banning of pro-Israeli-terrorism figures and anti-Muslim/anti-koran figures, etc.

      Either that or he should call for allowing all these figueres, be they pro-Jewish, pro-Israeli, OR those like Musawi and Sayeedi into the UK.

      But he can’t have it both ways.

      Until that happens, his excuses of ‘moral relativism’ will simply remain cheap and shodddy (despite his attempts to ‘sophisticate’ them) and will only act to further expose his hypocrisy that is becoming increasingly clear to all who interact with him.

    74. munir — on 16th March, 2009 at 1:08 pm  

      Hannah

      “Stop trying to knock down the straw men you build up, Sid. Stick to the facts. (I expect a large amount of unsubstantiated abuse or ridicule from Sid in response, instead of any reasoned justification of his hypocritical position)”

      exactly. Sid is incapable of debating points- he just hurls abuse, unsubstantiated allegations and thinks thats an answer.

    75. Sid — on 16th March, 2009 at 1:18 pm  

      I expect a large amount of unsubstantiated abuse or ridicule from Sid in response, instead of any reasoned justification of his hypocritical position

      The question you need to ask is why should I have to abuse or ridicule you when you’re doing such a fine job of it yourself?

      Regarding this as a “White/Brown Wilders In/Mousawi Out” issue is the only strawman here. Trying to ascribe your racist reductivism onto me is just personal projection.

    76. munir — on 16th March, 2009 at 1:25 pm  

      munir
      “Your hatred of someone who spends his life defending Muslims is highly instructive.”

      Sid
      “Your love of someone who spends his life blowing smoke up the arse of Islamists like you is even more instructive.”

      I greatly admire Bob Pitt for the work he does defending MUSLIMS. You claim he only defends “Islamists” but he posts articles about attacks on Muslims for religious non-political issues (eg on a woman being discriminated for wearing hijab)

      The fact you hate someone who defends Muslims is as I said highly instructive. Like others you hide behind hatred of “Islamists” when really you hate the Muslim religion.

      If you dont like him defending “Islamists” why not produce a website solely detailing the levels of hatred against “non-Islamists” Muslims ? You dont - instead you join with those spreading the hatred
      against Muslims and defending them!!

      When this bogus “war on terrorism” started many Muslims said it was a war on islam for which they were criticised. Yet what started as attacks on extremist terrorist Muslims (who we all oppose) has swiftly moved to attack as extremists any Muslim defending their land against armies then attacking as extremist any Muslim who believes religion and politics can be mixed then attacking as extremist any Muslim who wears Islamic clothing etc etc.

      “First they came for the “Islamists” indeed

    77. munir — on 16th March, 2009 at 1:28 pm  

      Sid
      “Regarding this as a “White/Brown Wilders In/Mousawi Out” issue is the only strawman here. Trying to ascribe your racist reductivism onto me is just personal projection.”

      No its accurate with a tweak - you dont like Mousawi because he is an Arab and you hate Arabs - as has been demonstarted time and time again on this site.

    78. Sid — on 16th March, 2009 at 1:37 pm  

      What was that about hurling “abuse, unsubstantiated allegations” again?

      You realise don’t you that I could just as easily claim you hate Jews, Ahmadiyya, Hindus, Sikhs, Bangladeshis, gays, women, etc etc - as has been demonstarted time and time again on this site

    79. Sid — on 16th March, 2009 at 1:38 pm  

      The fact you hate someone who defends Muslims is as I said highly instructive. Like others you hide behind hatred of “Islamists” when really you hate the Muslim religion.

      Of course you do, it’s a completely symbiotic relationsip.

    80. munir — on 16th March, 2009 at 1:45 pm  

      “You realise don’t you that I could just as easily claim you hate Jews, Ahmadiyya, Hindus, Sikhs, Bangladeshis, gays, women, etc etc - as has been demonstarted time and time again on this site”

      Hehhee - Sid that is your whole modus operandi !!!
      Except you dont actually need evidence. You impute to people what they havent said.

      Your anti-Arab racism is evident on numerous posts

    81. Sid — on 16th March, 2009 at 2:32 pm  

      Your anti-Arab racism is evident on numerous posts

      Naturally when Saudi Arabia’s or Kuwait’s record of human rights abuses and racist attitudes towards Southasian migrant workers (especially women) is held up to scrutiny and criticised, Islamists of your sort will personalise it and attempt to shut down debate by throwing down the “anti-Arab racism” card.

      Nothing new there.

    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.