(a) That his credibility as a ‘community affairs’ person has gone out of the window, rendering him useless, and

(b) There are plenty of Orange Muslim customers who would feel offended enough to move to a rival network as a result of his blog, which Orange doesn’t want.

Orange is a private corporation and is driven by the profit motive. In that, you cannot blame customers for pointing out something that they feel strong enough about to complain about.

Secondly, I reckon this issue is more about balance and consistency than anything else. Irrespective of the rights or wrongs or suspending or sacking this bloke, people have been sacked and suspended for making remarks about other groups that wouldn’t raise an eyebrow had the same thing been said about Muslims in this current climate.

Remember when the Boards of Deputies of British Jews got all uppity about Ken’s remark to that Evening Standard reporter Sarah? It goes both ways.

Authoritarians are hardly renowned for their sense of humour and islam is authoritarian and can brook no disagreement. Perhaps the best way to get to the more extreme muslims is to laugh or poke fun at them – in fact to do just as Inigo did.

muslims rant about the extent of Jewish power. I hadn’t realised that theirs extended to putting the squeeze on Orange. I guess that it’s Orange’s fault for caving in. Perhaps they should rebrand themselves as Yellow

If push comes to shove (i.e., if it gets legal), it is possible to trace an individual from an IP address and other tagged information. However, I do think that blogs such as Comment is Free should implement a verifiable registration system, and the site Editor, Georgina Henry, knows my view on this as we have corresponded about a number of matters relating to the operation of the site.

Masquerading is a problem, and, as with mirax above, it has on at least one occasion happened to me.

That has happened to me. I recently discovered a post(personally very abusive to clairwil) under my username at clairwil’s blog. The post was definitely created by someone who lurks or posts at PP- and done for malicious reasons. It was at the time of the Ayaan Hirsi Ali controversy during which I only posted at PP. I felt a sense of trepidation as I contacted Clairwil to clarify the matter-I am a stranger to her, why should she believe me?
It was a relief to find out she had had her suspicions all along about the post as she was discerning enough about my writing style- smart woman! Still, it was an unpleasant discovery.

Anyway can we leave it now – I’m bored.

One concern of course is someone masquerading as someone else for malicious reasons.

The crux.

Open debate is good for democracy, which is why I said it. But when lobby groups go for the real life heads of people expressing opinions contrary to their own that ceases to be open debate. Theo van Gogh put his art up for all to admire or criticise, and what happened to him wasn’t open debate either.

“I’m gobsmacked by this observation! No antimuslim bigotry at all? What about other kinds of real-life discrimination? Don’t care?”

I’ve heard about them, it hasn’t happened to me. Not since I was about 13. A very long time ago. Its happened to members of my extended family. But they rarely tell me about them. I guess they’ve become immune to it all.

So not seen any first hand.

Care? Its the one thing that is a passion with me.

The last one I did come across was anti-semitic (from a christian actually). Which was challenged robustly.

I’ve spoken with directness to a neo-nazi skinhead who was almost twice my size. I think we could have become friends, but didn’t care for his mates.

I’m quite pleased with the name my parents gave me because that allows jews to see me as a jew, sikhs and hindus see me as one of their own.

In my work, over the phone I have been taken for a knight of the realm, which always amuses me, friends and colleagues. And it helps getting through the PA filter.

I used to be diplomatic, but PP shows it doesn’t work – so I’ve tried the other approach, hopefully without being offensive. Also I seem to have developed an impatience – maybe out of frustration you picked up on – so tend to write in a sort of shorthand. I know the posts are still too long.

As for virtual discussions, they are not quite that are they? Most of them are feeding into one campaign or another.

“Should each commenter be identifiable?” [Refresh]

Each and every contributor is identifiable, at least to the owner/s of the blogs to which they contribute, so there is always a degree of accountability. If, however, you refer to anonymity, this is another matter entirely, and one to which I see no easy answer.

Most blog commenters use online names of varying degrees of silliness. Some may be forced to hide their real identities, and although I would prefer that all bloggers and commenters post under their real names, this is clearly not possible. I get the impression, however, that many who do not post under their real names do so in order to avoid being seen in public for the complete and utter tossers they are.

But the principle of anonymity must be preserved, at least for those cases where the individuals concerned are prevented from writing under their own names. In the case of civil servants, for example, this covers a lot of people, and to deny them a voice renders meaningless the concepts of liberal democracy and the open society.

“Scott Burgess is, as far as I know, a house husband with a wife who is a successful businesswoman.” [DavidT]

As a divorced man and political blogger, I envy Scott Burgess in his househusbandness. So much so, in fact, that I would, despite my negative experience of marriage, gladly consider suitable proposals, especially from successful businesswomen.

I’m gobsmacked by this observation! No antimuslim bigotry at all? What about other kinds of real-life discrimination? Don’t care?

>> I lead quite a different life to most.

So it seems.

>> But I am conscious that when it spills into the real world it may become uncontrollable.

So you really think that virtual discussions create the real world rather than the other way round?

Too matrix like for me, Neo-refresh!

If it was me, I’d concentrate on real life discrimination before anything on the web. Seriously.

*Applause*

Refresh

DavidT, how did the Guardian come to the view that keeping Aslam was now a liability? What was the campaign and who ran it? Basically how was it done?

There was no campaign. We didn’t encourage people to write to the Guardian, and as far as I know, people didn’t. Scott posted a story at a time that both his blog and ours were writing about the bizarre extremists and apologists for theocracy who were parading across Seamus Milne’s comment pages at the time. We emailed each other a handful of times to congratulate each other on having identified an aspect of the discussion.

The subject matter of the articles we wrote were the Guardian’s editorial positions and the compact which was developing between extreme Islamists and left liberals.

As you have seen, this is a theme which has been picked up and discussed widely, and I know that it was an issue that the Guardian considered.

The other point I picked up – the guy behind it Scott Burgess is supposed to have applied (unsuccessfully) for a job at the Guardian and his CV passed through Mr. Aslam’s hands. Mr Burgess denied this would have motivated him against Mr Aslam. Which has the potential to raise another question about the power of the blog for malicious reasons.

Er. I think you’ve slightly missed the point. Scott Burgess is, as far as I know, a house husband with a wife who is a successful businesswoman. He’s almost middle aged. He’s a right wing libertarianish guy.

He has a number of themes, which the two most prominent are:

(a) The Guardian and the Indy’s politics

(b) Environmental issues: he focuses on statistical innaccuracies in reports

He slags off newspaper personalities, and generally gets good stories which expose editors and journalists at their most foolish. His style is pretty biting, and he enjoys mocking them.

He often corresponds with newspapers, to ask them to print clarifications, or challenge things that have been written.
Sometimes he pulls stunts, of which one was to apply for a journalism scholarship with the Guardian: the joke being that he was way to old for an internship, and was openly vituperative about the Guardian’s editorial line.

Do you follow?

On your point about challenging bigotry in the real world. I don’t see any. I lead quite a different life to most. But I am conscious that when it spills into the real world it may become uncontrollable.

And I really feel for those that are at the receiving end. For all the intellectualising about women’s rights, they are usually more exposed to it. And of course children.

A slight majority but not all. 60:40, I think. Sunny tries his best to catch the Sikhs and Hindus too. Muslims are very much a part of the social discourse at the moment. Some see it as an opportunity I daresay – in fact some UK hindus are apparently jealous of the attention muslims get. Go figure!

So this talking halal chicken says to the halal cow: Hey there

The cow goes: moo

The chicken goes: you don’t say much

The cow goes: moo

The chicken goes: you’re fat, I’m slim

The cow goes: moo slim

(needs some work)