Segregated weddings and opportunistic MPs


by Sunny
18th August, 2009 at 5:11 am    

Rumbold has already written that its difficult to know what to do in situations when confronted with things you don’t like. But I do know what I don’t like – opportunistic MPs such as Jim Fitzpatrick throwing a tantrum and using that to score cheap political points.

Let me put it this way. One of these days I’ll hopefully get married and a ceremony is likely to be held at a Sikh Gurdwara (more because my parents will want to have a ceremony there rather than on account of my own religiousness). In a Gurdwara the guys sit on one side and girls sit on the other side, and the bride-groom in the middle. If some MP came and didn’t like it, buggered off, and then sent a press release to all the media going on how about insulting he found it – I wouldn’t speak to that tosser ever either.

It’s one thing to raise the issues of female foeticide, forced marriages or other activities where people are forced to do things against their will. It’s entirely another to try and squeeze votes out of a situations you may not agree with. Let minorities deal with their own issues as long as it’s within the law. How about that for a revolutionary idea?

I have a suggestion: why don’t Labour MPs ban the practice of British women adopting the surname of their husband once they get married? That’s a pretty unequal situation too and I know plenty of feminists who won’t do it. It’s only right these MPs register their disgust and refuse to stand for it.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Moral police,Sex equality






42 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. pickles

    New blog post: Segregated weddings and opportunistic MPs http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5551


  2. Tim Whale

    RT @pickledpolitics: New blog post: Segregated weddings and opportunistic MPs http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5551


  3. Carmen D'Cruz

    RT @pickledpolitics Pickled Politics » Segregated weddings and opportunistic MPs http://bit.ly/FxdJv


  4. Jim, Joan and that Muslim wedding « Splintered Sunrise

    [...] may simply assume from this that Jim Fitzpatrick is an ignorant ganch. Such is the line taken by Sunny: One of these days I’ll hopefully get married and a ceremony is likely to be held at a Sikh [...]


  5. Now Jim Fitzpatrick MP wants a ban on ’segregation’ 

    [...] wedding in a huff because him and his wife had to be temporarily separated. I thought he was being quite opportunistic and idiotic, though Jobeda Ali wrote a guest post for us saying, ‘Let’s not confuse [...]




  1. anarchyintheuk — on 18th August, 2009 at 5:16 am  

    Very well written and concise article.

    Just hope they don’t decide your final paragraph makes for a good policy initiative.

  2. billericaydicky — on 18th August, 2009 at 6:59 am  

    Pretty pathetic article Sunny but then I suppose I should take into account the fact that you totally unaware of the extent to which IFE has penetrated Labour Party politics in Tower Hamlets.

    This is the first shot the war to halt the control of a billion pound a year budget coming totally under the control of people who cannot make a move without consulting the MCB/IFE clique who run the Mosque and Islamic centre who in turn consult people like the Immam of the Ka’ba in Mecca.

    The whole of the selection process in the borough has been suspended and the fifty one candidates for next years elections will be selected centrally. The bad news at the moment is that the borough is being run from a mosque, the even worse news is that it is in Mecca.

    You seem to think that every time someone criticises Islam or some aspect of it that you have uncovered another Islamophobic plot in the way that the race industry is forever looking for unconscious/institutional/unwitting or whatever they have just dreamt up racism.

    Jim Fitzpatrick is only to well aware of the threatof political Islam in East London and this incident is the latest in a series of events, most of which you will not be aware of as you nothing whatsoever about theEast End and seem to see everything through the prism of poor Muslims being persecuted.

    The next few months are going to be very interesting and I will keep you posted on what is happening as it happens.

    Can’t you get your head around the fact that

  3. Cauldron — on 18th August, 2009 at 7:08 am  

    Most MPs are opportunists. Many Labour MPs are desperate opportunists given the impending threat of the next election. So expect more of them, like drowning sailors, to grasp anything that comes to hand. Including the odd race card.

    More so than other parties, NuLab MPs have been trained to think only about short term sloganeering rather than the long term consequences of their actions. That, after all, was the whole basis of Blairism. So if community relations suffer as a result of some MP trying to grab a few quick headlines I wouldn’t think that Labour will be that bothered. Labour has spent years screwing up community relations.

    Man, you lefties really make John Major’s administration look competent. A spell in the wilderness will do you no end of good (not to mention being a good thing for those benighted communities in whose name the Left created all this identity politics bollocks).

  4. KB Player — on 18th August, 2009 at 8:31 am  

    Ban stag parties! Ban hen parties! Actually, I think that would do a wonder for relations between this country and places like Riga, Prague and other unfortunate stag capitals. It would also make the streets and pubs in Edinburgh and Dublin a lot pleasanter.

  5. Edna on Hols — on 18th August, 2009 at 9:11 am  

    I-F-E is on the march and not just in Tower Hamlets.

    Their influence is such that wimmin in suburban American are forced to chat and do the washing up in the kitchen when the menfolk watch baseball and drink beer!

    And Billericaydickey needs to learn to spell!

    Makkah and Madinah are the accepted spellings in the land where those two cities are located!

  6. douglas clark — on 18th August, 2009 at 9:28 am  

    Edna on Hols’

    And Munchen is Munich, and more controversially I really doubt that Makkah is the only accepted spelling: they probably call it, مكة‎ at least according to Wikipedia. They are, after all, quite able to write in their own language.

    Unlike me.

    The Wiki entry is here. Perhaps you should edit it?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca

    Translations of place names tend towards customisation for the recipient, however irksome that might be for the pedants among us.

  7. Rumbold — on 18th August, 2009 at 10:00 am  

    Billericaydicky:

    With respect, you are missing the point. Sunny isn’t trying to defend the IFE. in fact, he makes no mention of them. What he criticises is the behaviour of Jim Fitzpatrick, who felt it necessary to go and talk to the media.

  8. douglas clark — on 18th August, 2009 at 10:22 am  

    Billericaydicky,

    On the other hand:

    This is the first shot the war to halt the control of a billion pound a year budget coming totally under the control of people who cannot make a move without consulting the MCB/IFE clique who run the Mosque and Islamic centre who in turn consult people like the Immam of the Ka’ba in Mecca.

    It wasn’t that long ago that Catholics were considered less than fully patriotic because they, allegedly, listened to some chap in Rome. We seem to have got over that.

    It would be interesting to see your evidence. Has refuse collection been declared unislamic? Is roads maintenance now haraam? Local Authorities are, in many ways, simply the agents of the centralised state. They cannot really be said to be ‘in control’ of the totality of their budgets. At the margins, sure.

    Whilst I think it is completely ludicrous to invoke God, or more exactly his corrupt representatives on Earth, it wouldn’t be the first time that a priesthood claimed authority over temporal concerns. And it probably won’t be the last.

  9. Anon — on 18th August, 2009 at 12:03 pm  

    @billericaydicky

    Well, if this is “the first shot in the war” against the IFE, then it’s backfired spectacularly on Fitzpatrick.

    As the London Muslim Centre made clear, they have no policy against mixed-gender wedding ceremonies. They leave it up to the people who are getting married to decide such matters.

    Fitzpatrick’s bizarre claim that the gender separation at that particular wedding was some extremist practice imposed by the IFE, rather than the choice of the couple who had invited him, just demonstrated how utterly divorced he is from the culture of 35% of his constituents.

    And why does Terry Fitzpatrick publish some of his comments under his own name and others as billericaydicky? I’m not saying that’s wrong, I just wonder why. Is it because he wants to give the impression that there one other person who is just as ignorant and bigoted as Fitzpatrick himself?

  10. Edna on Hols — on 18th August, 2009 at 1:54 pm  

    #6 No Munich is Munich ‘cos that’s what Der Speigel and the BRD Embassies call it in English.

    The rule is that the accepted official usage IN ENGLISH is the right one – thus Peiping became Peking became Beijing

    FOR ADVANCED STUDENTS ONLY:

    For years, the PRC and ROC authorities had amusing spelling games to do with Peking and Peiping and also Nanking and Nanjing.

    No sooner had the U.S. State Department conceded that Peiping was really Peking than it changed – not so long later – to Beijing

  11. Sunny — on 18th August, 2009 at 2:33 pm  

    I suppose I should take into account the fact that you totally unaware of the extent to which IFE has penetrated Labour Party politics in Tower Hamlets.

    Man you really are stupid aren’t you?? There are Gurdwaras all over Birmingham that are dominated by Khalistanis. Should Sikhs stop marrying in them?

    Am I responsible for the political views of the committee that run the Gurdwara in Southall? No I’m not.

    Try engaging that thing you call a brain once in a while yeah?

  12. billaricaydickey — on 18th August, 2009 at 3:08 pm  

    Good, children! I seem to have rattled a few cages out there, especially your’s Sunny boy.

    Challenge what I have said, you silly people, with specific rebuttals, point by point, of what I stand by.

  13. Sunny — on 18th August, 2009 at 3:09 pm  

    I just challenged what you said.

  14. Chris Baldwin — on 18th August, 2009 at 4:24 pm  

    I think you’re correct Sunny. Fitzpatrick’s behaviour leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.

  15. simon woolley — on 18th August, 2009 at 5:11 pm  

    Guy’s you have to ignore this hate filled clown. It doesn’t matter how much you try and have a reasoned debate with him, he’ll just keep coming back with more hatred and bile that interestingly, for a so called anti-racist, is nearly always targeted towards people of colour.

    Just don’t sink to his nasty level.

  16. Mike — on 18th August, 2009 at 5:12 pm  

    Let minorities deal with their own issues as long as it’s within the law. How about that for a revolutionary idea?
    —————————————————–
    Thats all very well, but a certain minority group whinges and moans that the majority is doing things against that minorites faith and then calls for the Majorities to adapt to that minorities wishes.

  17. Shatterface — on 18th August, 2009 at 5:31 pm  

    ‘And why does Terry Fitzpatrick publish some of his comments under his own name and others as billericaydicky? I’m not saying that’s wrong, I just wonder why. Is it because he wants to give the impression that there one other person who is just as ignorant and bigoted as Fitzpatrick himself?’

    Do you have any evidence at all that billericaydicky is Fitzpartick or are you just spouting shit?

    How about evidence that Fitzpatrick – you has attended many unsegregared Muslim weddings – is ‘ignorant and bigoted’?

  18. Leon — on 18th August, 2009 at 5:58 pm  

    It’s long been assumed dickyboy is that stalker idiot TF…

  19. Sunny — on 18th August, 2009 at 6:16 pm  

    but a certain minority group whinges and moans that the majority is doing things against that minorites faith and then calls for the Majorities to adapt to that minorities wishes.

    Evidence please?

  20. Sunny — on 18th August, 2009 at 6:17 pm  

    Oh Bill is well known for libelling other people on this blog and then running away when called out on it. As Simon has said above, his beef comes up when minorities complain about anything. They should just quietly STFU and take whatever abuse they’re handed out.

  21. Westerly Halloo! — on 18th August, 2009 at 6:19 pm  

    Did you know that an anagram of billaricaydickey is:

    Racial lie by dicky

    ????

  22. Shatterface — on 18th August, 2009 at 6:31 pm  

    ‘Oh Bill is well known for libelling other people on this blog and then running away when called out on it.’

    Is Fitzpatrick known for this too?

    ‘As Simon has said above, his beef comes up when minorities complain about anything. They should just quietly STFU and take whatever abuse they’re handed out.’

    Was Fitzpatrick abusive at the wedding?

    Either Anon is claiming that these two people are one in the same, or else that they are behaving in the same manner.

  23. Don — on 18th August, 2009 at 6:41 pm  

    Shatterface,

    That’s Terry, not Jim. Different Fitzpatricks.

  24. Ben — on 18th August, 2009 at 7:59 pm  

    Jim Fitzpatrick’s actions aren’t that difficult to understand, most islamosceptics would feel the same way if they were asked to condone muslim sexism.

    The only question is did the couple put on the invitation that it was a segregated service? If so then its rude of him to make a scene.

  25. damon — on 18th August, 2009 at 8:35 pm  

    Sunny @ 11, about whether Sikhs should continue to marry in Gurdwaras dominated by Khalistanis.

    I don’t know, as I don’t know the politics of Khalistanis these days (but while visiting the big Southall Gurdwara several weeks ago, was slightly surprised to see a young guy in there with Bhindranwale’s image printed on his sweatshirt).

    But there obviously does come times (like that time when Abu Hamza’s group controlled Finsbury Park Mosque) when you’d have to think a place of worship was to be avoided for some period of time.

    What the position of East London Mosque is I wouldn’t know. But some people equate islamists with the BNP, and while there were said to be 1500 anti-fascists picketing the BNP in a Derbyshire field at the weekend, the likes of Shaykh Abdul Rahman Al‐Sudais visiting gets pretty much ignored by the left.

    http://www.eastlondonmosque.org.uk/?page=home&news_id=179

  26. anobody — on 18th August, 2009 at 9:43 pm  

    Did my maghrib at ELM not so long ago. Didn’t witness any jihad training, or martydom video shoots :)

  27. anobody — on 18th August, 2009 at 10:00 pm  

    billericaydicky,

    You’re getting boring now.

    You said:

    “I suppose I should take into account the fact that you totally unaware of the extent to which IFE has penetrated Labour Party politics in Tower Hamlets.”

    You’re quite delusional. What decisions have been made by the cabinet since IFE penetrated the Labour Party (as you allege), which has led to the radicalisation of people within the borough? Please can you provide examples of policy directly attributed to IFE or Sheikh Al-Sudais?

    No fluff about what you’re told by your sources in the council. You’re making some categoric allegations and unless you bring solid evidence it’s conjecture.

  28. fugstar — on 18th August, 2009 at 11:55 pm  

    many happy returns to the newly weds!!

    intriguing how this crassness is a very labour move to pull. tories wouldnt pull such a thing.

  29. Shatterface — on 19th August, 2009 at 1:58 am  

    ‘The only question is did the couple put on the invitation that it was a segregated service? If so then its rude of him to make a scene’

    He didn’t make a scene, he and his wife just left.

    And, it wasn’t on the invitation: Fitzpatrick had attended several unsegregared Muslim weddings in the past but had only been invited to one earlier segregated wedding, where the invitation had stated upfront that the attendees would be segregated, and he had declined that invitation, just as he would on this occasion had the invitation made clear the nature of the ceremony.

  30. Shatterface — on 19th August, 2009 at 2:09 am  

    Fitzpatrick also left at the suggestion of his wife: I note none of the ‘liberals’ on this site have so far had the gall to call her a ‘racist’ for refusing to be segregated.

    Now that would be hard to stomach – the Left, criticising a woman for refusing to collaborate with religious bigotry; so much easier to demonise a white MAN – but it’s the logical extension of your arguments.

  31. Sunny — on 19th August, 2009 at 2:09 am  

    Most weddings are segregated in some ways. Even some Hindu ones.

    Anyway, if he didn’t make a scene how the hell did it end up all over the media?

  32. Halima — on 19th August, 2009 at 7:02 am  

    Shatterface

    The reason why no one has called anyone a racist for leaving the segregated wedding is because it’s not an issue – the wife simply chose to leave and the politician was silly enough to make a public event out of it.

    What’s charges of racism got to do with it?

    If Jim Fitzpatrick didn’t intend to cause a media scene he can issue a statement saying segregated weddings aren’t too his liking but that he’s very sorry to bring undue attention to a private wedding ceremony.

    In any case, being a man of the people in East London for many years, it doesn’t matter what the invitation states or doesn’t, he and his wife would’ve been used to attending segregated weddings for the last 15 years. They know the score bettter than we do. They live their lives through these invitatations and they ‘show’ for public support.

    Who is demonising the white man? He’s a politician before he is white.

  33. Gibbs — on 19th August, 2009 at 10:34 am  

    As Transport Minister Mr Fitzpatrick virtually declared war on the motorist. It was he who suggested making average speed cameras more widespread.

    This anti car mentality is part of NuLab’s DNA but some politicians take it on with particular zeal. One was Ken Livingstone (already turfed out by the voters), and another is Mr Fitzpatrick (who i suspect will soon be turfed out).

    As for the issue it hand, it is one that either side (the couple OR the MP) “could” potentially have used for political purposes. The question is to who actually did comes down to this “who (or whose henchmen) leaked the story to the presss in the first place ?”

  34. Leon — on 19th August, 2009 at 2:15 pm  

    Anyway, if he didn’t make a scene how the hell did it end up all over the media?

    Current wisdom is he sent a press release out. Not seen that confirmed mind…

  35. bananabrain — on 19th August, 2009 at 2:31 pm  

    backbenchers…. leaks…. i suspect the welsh nationalists.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  36. damon — on 19th August, 2009 at 6:05 pm  

    So it’s fair to suggest that this MP is such a lowlife that he’d ditch all his (probably) youthful ideas about a better society, to seek the grubby endorsement of Islamophobes and racists at the next election?

    It was suggested by Mezba on the other thread about this story (@ 65) that:

    ”It seems like Islamophobia is on the rise in Europe.”

    I’d say that might be true, but let’s not confuse where unnecessary criticism of the religious and traditional becomes legitimate and progressive.

    Btw, as much as I have the suspicion that George Galloway is a a fraud, I enjoyed him and Mathew Paris in discussion yestereday about a young English poet who was killed in the Spanish civil war called, John Cornford.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qxsb

  37. thortz — on 20th August, 2009 at 9:43 am  

    “how the hell did it end up all over the media?”

    To be honest I think this is the crucial point: whoever blurted this to the media is in the wrong IMHO. Fitzpatrick excusing himself from a wedding is a little rude but not newsworthy. If he then whipped up a press release then this is pompous, manipulative and reprehensible.

    However, if the bride & groom did the informing in order to declare how offended they were by the MPs actions then I would think similarly little of them.

    Of course, we don’t get to hear of how the story got to the press as this would break the illusion that they are reporting on objective pre-existing events rather than actively constructing them.

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.