- Pickled Politics - http://www.pickledpolitics.com -

India Knight is angry

Posted By Sunny On 15th October, 2006 @ 4:39 pm In Current affairs | Comments Disabled

The Sunday Times columnist India Knight rarely writes about brown issues but is very angry this weekend. “[1] Muslims are the new Jews,” she says. As I said [2] earlier, this media hyper-ventilation about the veil and any Muslim related news story is getting out of hand. My own ban against following this agenda stays.
Update: [3] Anarcho Akbar mentions more non-stories.


Comments Disabled To "India Knight is angry"

#1 Comment By ky On 15th October, 2006 @ 6:53 pm

vote: no muslim day

#2 Comment By brok On 15th October, 2006 @ 6:54 pm

wow at that article.

That woman is a serious journalist?

#3 Comment By El Cid On 15th October, 2006 @ 7:58 pm

I agree that it can seem a little disquietening when the non-moslem majority get obsessed with an aspect of minority moslem behaviour and the criticisms start to pile up.
However, there are a number of mitigating factors which India conveniently chooses to ignore in order to make your point.
1) Most British moslems aren’t fans of the burkha/niqab either.
2) After all, there’s nothing in the Koran that demands it.
3) No one is suggesting that women should be BANNED from wearing the veil in private. (A poll I saw today showed 84% were against doing that, versus 55% who supported Straw’s initial comments). After all, we don’t ban crossdressers and people with terrible fashion sense.
4) The story has been extended in the media for legitimate reasons because a) it has struck a popular chord and politicians see votes in it and b) because, most importantly, the focus has switched to the issue of the veil in the workplace because of the primary school teacher’s case.
5) Even more moslems, I’m confident, are against the veil in the workplace, particularly when the role is client-facing, let alone impressionable children. I’m sure most UK moslems are cringing with embarassment when they hear that teacher arguing that she can be an effective teacher with the veil. She is sooo not going to win her case in court.
6) The full veil is anti-social, unlike covering your hair. The nun comparison was completely irrelevent, and you know it. Since when were head scarves part of the debate?
7) At least you can see the bruises on a mini-skirted women who has been beaten. You can also judge her emotional state.

#4 Comment By Kulvinder On 15th October, 2006 @ 8:08 pm

As I said earlier, this media hyper-ventilation about the veil and any Muslim related news story is getting out of hand.

I agree; its a bizarre fetish.

My own ban against following this agenda stays.

!

#5 Comment By ZinZin On 15th October, 2006 @ 8:10 pm

Why bring the Jews into it?
Stooping to Galloways level.

#6 Comment By fridgemagnet On 15th October, 2006 @ 8:14 pm

Sunny: yeah, I’ve been vacillating myself between going on a huge rant about it, and not wanting to give the whole fiasco any credibility. “What to do about the veil?” shouldn’t even be considered a legitimate topic for debate, even if that was the basic issue in the first place rather than it basically being about Islamoids wanting to Take Over Our Culture.

Ask me about gender behaviour codes and their social implications and I’ll tell you in no uncertain terms, but I refuse to do that as part of a “debate” that isn’t motivated by any concern for women or sexual politics, instead having an agenda of division and demonisation.

I’ll keep blogging about eggs and stuff instead.

#7 Comment By razib On 15th October, 2006 @ 8:19 pm

Especially since July 7, it has become acceptable to say the most ignorant, degrading things about Islam.

saying degrading things about religion is something that we atheists won the right to during the enlightenment. the contempt and opprobrium that secular intellectuals and thinkers (jewish and non-jewish) hurled toward the obscurantism and separatism of the haredi and ‘orthodox’ jewry of europe is well known. now muslims want insulation from the critique? here in the states it is acceptable to mock inbred fundamentalists. well, muslims are even more inbred (cousin marriage) and fundamentalist than our own kind. there are nations where islam is sacrosanct. they should move to those nations.

#8 Comment By Gibs On 15th October, 2006 @ 8:20 pm

The veil issue is very trivial and I do wish the media wouldn’t keep up bringing up “yet another veil story” each and every day.

They would do much better if they instead brought up a new “forced marriage story” each and every day - or better still, TEN forced marriages stories every day. (In fact they wouldn’t even have to “make them up” - there would be more than enough genuine incidents to go round).

If the media took this advice, then maybe, just maybe, the government would be shamed into reversing its disgraceful decision not to introduce a specific law against forced marriage.

The result would be that something useful and substantive would have been achieved - rather than this silly “sideshow” about a piece of cloth.

#9 Comment By Kulvinder On 15th October, 2006 @ 8:23 pm

If the media took this advice, then maybe, just maybe, the government would be shamed into reversing its disgraceful decision not to introduce a specific law against forced marriage.

Because duplicating laws that already exist would do wonders, amirite?

New Labour have pushed through more shit laws and more shit ammendments to laws than anyone can remember. When they say something isn’t needed it really isn’t needed.

#10 Comment By Yakoub/Julaybib On 15th October, 2006 @ 8:28 pm

This is a media panic and Muslims are the latest folks devils. Stanley Cohen wrote about it in ?1968 (his book was a reissued a couple of years ago to much acclaim), and still the media have yet to awake. If the government look like they have it “in for us”, I don’t think it’s personal - New Labour have always been a populist party who like to play to the tabloids. Watching the news today, I think Muslim leaders e.g. Bari are responding with remarkable clear mindedness.

Wasalaam

TMA

#11 Comment By Gibs On 15th October, 2006 @ 8:28 pm

I do wish the media would stop bringing up “yet another veil story” each and every day – and do something USEFUL – like bringing up a new “forced marriage story” – or better still, TEN new forced marriage stories each and every day.

In fact – the word “story” would be a misnomer – since there would be more than enough genuine cases to go round.

If the media did this, then maybe the government would be shamed into reversing its disgraceful decision not to being in a specific law against forced marriages. Something useful and substantive would have been achieved – rather than this silly war of words about a piece of cloth.

#12 Comment By Gibs On 15th October, 2006 @ 8:30 pm

I don’t think the current laws are adequate since they seem to give some the impression that “forced marriage is OK”.

A new law is needed whose wording is unambiguous.

#13 Comment By Kulvinder On 15th October, 2006 @ 8:31 pm

saying degrading things about religion is something that we atheists won the right to during the enlightenment

No. They questioned the church and the state, they never got a right to be blasphemous. Im sure Nigel Wingrove is crying tears of joy over his ‘right’ won in the 18th century.

#14 Comment By Kulvinder On 15th October, 2006 @ 8:32 pm

I don’t think the current laws are adequate since they seem to give some the impression that “forced marriage is OK”

Can you elaborate?

#15 Comment By Gibs On 15th October, 2006 @ 8:41 pm

The problem was that the government first gave clear hints that it would bring in a law against forced marriages.

When it then backed down (under pressure from so called “community leaders”), many of those who were inclined to resort to forcing girtls to marry were given an extra “spring in their step”.

Some took this capitulation to mean literally that “forced marriage must be OK then”. A senior police officer said as much (unfortunately his name escapes me).

#16 Comment By Socrates On 15th October, 2006 @ 8:53 pm

Yakoub/Julaybib

I agree that the media is going overboard at the moment but I have little sympathy for people like you or Bari or anyone else who in the run up to 7/7 tried to neuter debate on the elephant in the room of Islamic fundamentalism in Britain with screaming accusations of ‘Islamophobe’! or ‘Racist’! If things are unreasonable now it is because you made it so by being so unreasonable in denying the existence of extremist elements and seeking to stifle debate on that issue. Furthermore Bunglawala and Sacranie were all too busy trying to literally install a law negating freedom of speech than facing up to the extremism amongst Muslim youth. After the suicide bombs of 7/7 they didnt really change their spots. For too long Muslim commentators denied and refused to face up to this extremism and attempted to bully people into not discussing it. Therefore I take all the things you say with an extreme pinch of salt - Muslims did not face up to their responsibilities of confronting the extremist ideology in their midst before 7/7, Bari, Bunglawal and Sacranie included.

#17 Comment By Kulvinder On 15th October, 2006 @ 9:10 pm

The problem was that the government first gave clear hints that it would bring in a law against forced marriages.

When it then backed down (under pressure from so called “community leaders”), many of those who were inclined to resort to forcing girtls to marry were given an extra “spring in their step”.

Although i respect a difference of opinion on this; what you’ve said is little more than emotive nonsense. The government promised nothing more than having a consultation. They didn’t back down from ‘community leaders’ but because it would be incredibly difficult to make a law that had a suffeciently clear test. Im not a community leader but i opposed the law. Noone had an extra spring in their step.

#18 Comment By Galloise Blonde On 15th October, 2006 @ 9:51 pm

I don’t know where you get that clear test idea from. There certainly was pressure from ‘community leaders’, but also reluctance from the police forces. I think they didn’t want to get tied up in ‘community policing.’ The final decision, according to Baroness Scotland, was taken because it may drive forced marriage deeper underground, as some victims would prefer to stay in a position the UN considers legalised slavery than see their parents in prison.

But: it is not emotive nonsense to say that raising the issue and then dropping it did not encourage the criminals. I don’t think you can credit families who force their children into rape and slavery with much subtlety of thought. Unless you think Cmmdr Steve Allen of the Met, the CPU’s Nazir Azfal, and Laura Richards of the Homicide Prevention Unit are unstable and irrational people. Please read this from the Times:
[4] Despair as Forced Marriages Stay Legal.

And there was a really good piece on the Ashiana refuge in the Indy the other day. I’ll link to it [5] here in case it gets pay-walled.

#19 Comment By Galloise Blonde On 15th October, 2006 @ 9:55 pm

[6] This was really good too, from the Education Guardian.

#20 Comment By Sunny On 15th October, 2006 @ 10:10 pm

Socrates - You’re conflating two different debates here to be honest. I’m no fan of the MCB crew and I agree that they’ve tried to bury the debate on extremism far too long. But that has nothing to do with media headlines that blow a story all out of proportion when an ordinary Muslim person is involved.

The niqab issue has bugger-all to do with extremism, they are not two sides to the same coin. One the one hand people cannot bang on about keeping Britain a liberal and libertarian society, while at the same time demanding that a miniscule percentage of people change their customs or behaviour just because an MP thinks so.

#21 Comment By El Cid On 15th October, 2006 @ 10:15 pm

while at the same time demanding that a miniscule percentage of people change their customs or behaviour just because an MP thinks so.

But he didn’t, did he?

#22 Comment By Jagdeep On 15th October, 2006 @ 10:54 pm

Bloody Hell I just read those links Gaulloise Blonde. Why the f*#@ing hell did they drop the plans?? This is crazy. I’m going to write to my MP about this, or better still, Baroness Scotland. That article from the Times made my blood boil. Personally I think the time for getting religious leaders involved is over — act now and bypass them because I think that the behaviour is so ingrained in those who do it that religious injunction will not mean a thing. They can follow or be cajoled later, the religious leaders.

#23 Comment By Galloise Blonde On 15th October, 2006 @ 11:11 pm

Jagdeep, you should look in the PP archive: there was one hell of a thread going there on the consultation and I think it covered just about all angles. I don’t think the criminalisation idea is absolutely dead in the water however, despite this lost opportunity.

#24 Comment By Jagdeep On 15th October, 2006 @ 11:20 pm

Well it shouldnt be. And frankly I’m sick and tired of waiting for religious leaders to do anything. They should just do what is nessecary and whoever doesnt like it will have to cut their cloth accordingly. Who should I address my letter to on this topic?? When will the legislation be considered next?

#25 Comment By Sunny On 15th October, 2006 @ 11:36 pm

Jagdeep see this:
[7] http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sunny_hundal/2006/06/the_government_has_betrayed_as.html

El Cid - No he didn’t but that was the implication. He can state his preferences, I don’t mind, but the consequent media bandwagon has been entirely silly.

#26 Comment By Refresh On 16th October, 2006 @ 12:30 am

Interesting article - it may explain the ‘odd comments’ I received today from some youngsters passing my house as I was up a ladder painting windows.

‘Mohammed’ they called.
I ignored them. Leaving them to think I did not realise it was aimed at me. It could have been a friend of theirs.

Then it got a bit funny. ‘Batty man?’. Now I can guess what that means. But then it changed to ‘Batty man up the ladder?’

Hmm I thought - is this linked to what’s going on with Straw ?

Of course I don’t know. Now I look no less muslim than most Asians posting on this thread.

I chose to let it go. After all I hadn’t seen them before, they seemed to be passing through. The fact that they were aged 12 or 13 bothered me more. If they feel encouraged to have a go at me, then what are they going to be doing at school?

#27 Comment By Chairwoman On 16th October, 2006 @ 12:38 am

I am so, so sick of this veil business. It is ridiculous. There is a big difference between saying you wish that people wouldn’t do something, and forcing them to stop it against their will, or discriminating against them when they don’t, and people really need to get their heads round that difference - especially India Knight, who should know better. Does Jack Straw refuse to continue conversations with constituents who don’t remove their veils when they are with him? Does he neglect to follow up the issues of those constituents who refuse? No one says he does, and you can bet they would have done by now if he did. Until there is evidence that he has actively discriminated against a constituent because she refused to remove her veil, this is a complete non story and a storm in a teacup on both sides.

#28 Comment By Katy Newton On 16th October, 2006 @ 12:38 am

Sorry - that was me, Katy, not the Chairwoman. I am using her old computer. Mine still doesn’t work.

#29 Comment By Kulvinder On 16th October, 2006 @ 12:43 am

I don’t know where you get that clear test idea from.

Knowledge; they couldn’t define something new adequately enough for it to be anything other than totemic

it is not emotive nonsense to say that raising the issue and then dropping it did not encourage the criminals

Im slightly confused; i don’t claim anyone had a spring in their step. Raising the issue and dropping it did not encourage anyone.

I don’t think you can credit families who force their children into rape and slavery with much subtlety of thought.

I never said anything of the sort one way or the other!

Unless you think Cmmdr Steve Allen of the Met, the CPU’s Nazir Azfal, and Laura Richards of the Homicide Prevention Unit are unstable and irrational people.

As a general rule of thumb i think the police are morons.

but also reluctance from the police forces. I think they didn’t want to get tied up in ‘community policing’

Their representatives seemed keen (above).

#30 Comment By Katy Newton On 16th October, 2006 @ 12:43 am

Refresh, that is dreadful. You should have tipped the paint over them :-)

#31 Comment By Refresh On 16th October, 2006 @ 12:49 am

Katy, you’re taking it back to ’should he shouldn’t he have said anything?’. We’ve passed that.

I for one never expected this from Straw or anyone else in government.

Now we are seeing consequences, real consequences against people least able to defend themselves. Its no teacup. Feels close to a perfect storm!

#32 Comment By Galloise Blonde On 16th October, 2006 @ 8:44 am

If you had read the consultation document you would see that the majority of police forces in general were against the criminalisation, while coppers who work in the areas of honour crime and forced marriage, like Steve, Nazir and Laura were in favour. Just as community groups were generally against criminalisation while child protection agencies were in favour.

#33 Comment By soru On 16th October, 2006 @ 10:49 am

Refresh: [8] Batty man is Jamaican slang for gay, so I don’t get how it could be Straw’s fault.

Were you thinking it was a reference to [9] the caped crusader?

#34 Comment By Refresh On 16th October, 2006 @ 11:10 am

No, I guess you don’t. I presumed it was meant in the pejorative sense.

#35 Comment By Chairwoman On 16th October, 2006 @ 11:22 am

I wonder if Ms Knight is more angry at the slight against Muslims than I am at the pops she’s taken at Jews in her article?

#36 Comment By Refresh On 16th October, 2006 @ 11:26 am

Can’t believe how this one is going already.

#37 Comment By Chairwoman On 16th October, 2006 @ 11:33 am

Sorry - not another word, but only just actually read the article.

#38 Comment By Galloise Blonde On 16th October, 2006 @ 11:40 am

Jagdeep, would you like to [10] email me for info on FM to avoid derailing the thread?

#39 Comment By Jagdeep On 16th October, 2006 @ 11:42 am

Sure GB! Check your mail in 5 minutes.

#40 Comment By Don On 16th October, 2006 @ 12:09 pm

It really is a shabby piece of journalism. She starts by informing us that Straw is a white male, as though this automatically disqualifies one of the most senior politicians in the country from expressing views on some topics. She then switches in the course of a single sentence from Straw politely indicating a preference for seeing the face of the person he is talking to, to ‘demanding’ to see their hair.

She asserts that ‘it has become acceptable to say the most ignorant, degrading things about Islam.’ Acceptable in which circles? And how about some specifics?

It is not only white males who are unqualified to have an opinion, there are all those old ‘feminists’ whose entire combined critique is apparently encapsulated by ‘In their view all Muslim women are crushed because they can’t wear visible lipstick or flash their thongs’.

Right, because the only two options are full coverage or slapper. Consider the implications of that casual judgement.

As for ‘… an observant person’s religion is as integral a part of them as their genetic make-up.’ I’d really like to see a reasoned argument for that.

#41 Comment By bananabrain On 16th October, 2006 @ 1:54 pm

i don’t know where to post this but i advise people to take a look at this earnest religious interchange from the “today show”.

[11] http://extremegh.blogspot.com/2006/09/religious-debate.html

b’shalom

bananabrain

#42 Comment By Chairwoman On 16th October, 2006 @ 2:07 pm

bananabrain - Surely required viewing.

#43 Comment By Refresh On 16th October, 2006 @ 2:45 pm

Excellent stuff - I feel better already. Probably more relevant on that other thread.

#44 Comment By Anas On 16th October, 2006 @ 3:30 pm

saying degrading things about religion is something that we atheists won the right to during the enlightenment.

With rights come responsibilities. The avalanche of criticisms specifically targeting certain practises of some Muslims are worrying at this point in time because of:

(i) The specific cultural context they come in. One of increasing intolerance, bigotry and racial abuse, in many cases targeted against Muslims or people of Muslim appearance. You cannot separate the criticism from the context.

(ii)In lot of instances the criticisms are misleading because they focus on the behaviour of a small atypical minority and yet are played up as symbolic of the intransigence of a whole community.

(iii)There seems to be an agenda behind them. Especially with the BNP who’re disguising racism as criticism of Islam.

the contempt and opprobrium that secular intellectuals and thinkers (jewish and non-jewish) hurled toward the obscurantism and separatism of the haredi and ‘orthodox’ jewry of europe is well known.

Err, not it’s not generally well known. Pray tell.

now muslims want insulation from the critique? here in the states it is acceptable to mock inbred fundamentalists.

I guess it’s more (morally) acceptable because the fundamentalists aren’t exactly a small powerless community.

BTW forced marriage is an issue that effects all south asian communities, and is something that most Muslim scholars decry.

#45 Comment By ZinZin On 16th October, 2006 @ 6:57 pm

Rights and responsibilities of freedom of speech.
1. if you do not like what they say ignore it.
2. Behave in a calm and rational manner if offended. This means that you don not incite violence, issue death threats or call for censorship.

Anas if your looking for someone to blame for all this Islamophobia blame the MCB. It is this cabal which started the Muslim identity politics that afflict us all. Their focus on placing their religion as a marker of identity makes it a legitimate target for criticism.

I would also like to state that Islamophobia is a myth. It barely exists and is an invention of Islamic victim politics.

#46 Comment By Anas On 16th October, 2006 @ 7:35 pm

Rights and responsibilities of freedom of speech.
1. if you do not like what they say ignore it.
2. Behave in a calm and rational manner if offended. This means that you don not incite violence, issue death threats or call for censorship.

It’s not about what I do or do not like, or whether I can behave in a calm or rational manner; it’s the concern I have about people using positions of power, or influence to spread misinformation and half-truths that can in the current situation be conceivably seen as fuelling hatred and bigotry. Plus, I’m not calling for censorship just awareness.

I’d love to live on planet ZinZin where Islamaphobia doesn’t exist, but unfortunately I have to live on this one.

#47 Comment By ZinZin On 16th October, 2006 @ 7:40 pm

I’d love to live on planet ZinZin where Islamaphobia doesn’t exist, but unfortunately I have to live on this one.

I will make you a new one happy now.

#48 Comment By ZinZin On 16th October, 2006 @ 7:46 pm

it’s not about what I do or do not like, or whether I can behave in a calm or rational manner; it’s the concern I have about people using positions of power, or influence to spread misinformation and half-truths that can in the current situation be conceivably seen as fuelling hatred and bigotry. Plus, I’m not calling for censorship just awareness.

Anas you are calling for censorship you are asking us not to criticise Islam because you get some grief off a minority of idiots. Anas a word of advice asking anyone who is not a friend of yours to respect your particular sensitivities only encourages them. Rise above it you baby.

#49 Comment By El Cid On 16th October, 2006 @ 7:53 pm

That was very funny Bananabrain.

The irony from a moslem fundamentalist point of view, is that Allah and Mohammed are now on the comedy radar screen and flashing bigger all the time. Trying to scare people can only get you so far. At some point it will rebound on you.

#50 Comment By Bob Lord On 19th October, 2006 @ 10:46 am

“One the one hand people cannot bang on about keeping Britain a liberal and libertarian society, while at the same time demanding that a miniscule percentage of people change”

Obviously I think it’s a banal and stupid article with some horrendous content but the veil is an important issue on a number of counts.

Firstly you have the liberal notion of equality. The presumption that women wear the veil without some co-ercion takes some believing particularly world wide so there are possible issues of social presure albeit many do wear it as a matter of choice. A fashion statement, which expects only women to cover their faces is of some concern.

Secondly there is the issue of false religious consciousness. The Koran has precious little evidence for face covering, arguments based on the semantics of transalation of arabic words such as Hijab etc and obscure passages, which require some convalution of interpretation to derive face covering as their essential meaning.

Thirdly there is the issue of integration and there has to be some recognition that a society that has largely rejected it’s own monotheist religion and has no history of social face covering can expect to be able to critisice those who’s religious or fashion statements conform to expectations beyond certain expected boundaries of reasonableness.

Underneath Straws comments are the start of the nation’s talking heads attempting to start the process of acknowledging Islam as a fundamental aspect of British life ending forty years of either ignoring it or patronising it under the auspices of multi culturalism.

Any way you look at it though whether it be from an Islamic, Western or any other point of view it cannot be healthy for women to conceal their faces. And any society that can go through contortions of anti intellectual naval gazing to justify it is one that has little comprehension of secular liberalism whatever it’s rhetoric.

It’s not a question of legislation, but of Islam being taken seiously and the arguments surrounding it being of a nature you would expect of a nation that does take it seriously.

#51 Comment By Paul Moloney On 19th October, 2006 @ 4:45 pm

Just posted on PopBitch, so have _no_ idea of its validity, but it’s a hoot:

-
Interesting exchange between India Knight and Burchill.
On October 15, India Knight wrote in her column in the Sunday Times headline “Muslims are the new Jews” where she attacked the negative views of Jack Straw and feminists towards the Muslim veil. This email exchange followed shortly after:

To: [12] letters@sunday-times.co.uk

From: Julie Burchill

Dear India Knight,

I dare you to walk into any mosque - after covering your filthy female head in the Islamist fashion, of course - and spread your glad tidings that “Muslims are the new Jews.”

You’ll be lucky if you get out alive.

Yours sincerely,

JB

PS: I see that your new book is a compilation of ‘dirty bits’ from novels. I’d love to know how this fits in with your new found love of feminine modesty and discretion.

To: Julie Burchill

From: India Knight

Oh, for fuck’s sake. I don’t have a “newfound love of modesty and discretion” - I just don’t despise people on the basis of what they wear.

Regards,

IK

To: India Knight

From: Julie Burchill

What, not even the working class slags in crop tops you’re forever slagging off, you hypocritical snob?

To: Julie Burchill

From: India Knight

I do NOT slag off working class people in crop tops, you fucking loon. Where? When? Why would I slag them off? I am many things but I am not a snob. God, you’re driving me mad. Go away.

To: India Knight

From: Julie Burchill

I wrote to the letters page, not YOU, you stalking cretin. Why dont you fuck off and turn yet another of your husbands gay?

#52 Comment By Refresh On 19th October, 2006 @ 4:57 pm

Wouldn’t it be a disaster for Julie Burchill’s career if we all started seeing ‘muslims as the new jews’.

She could not bear it!

I have to say I would want to protect my children from Julie Burchill - so rude. I’ve just added to my wife’s list of people who should be forced to wear the veil:

1. Tony Blair
2. Jack Straw
3. Julie Burchill + a gag.

add your own.

#53 Comment By justforfun On 19th October, 2006 @ 5:09 pm

Bit late to ask - but who is India Knight? - name sounds like a Tamil pornstar, but I get the impression from her photo she isn’t.

Justforfun

#54 Comment By Elahi Nathanyahu On 23rd October, 2006 @ 4:31 pm

Who is Julie Burchill? Does she like young Jewish cock?

#55 Comment By granny pictures On 7th November, 2006 @ 8:14 am

granny pictures snq [13] granny pictures
giving hand jobs snq [14] giving hand jobs
gay teen sex snq [15] gay teen sex
casting couch teens snq [16] casting couch teens
female squirting snq [17] female squirting
transsexual snq [18] transsexual
party girls snq [19] party girls
granny sex snq [20] granny sex


Article printed from Pickled Politics: http://www.pickledpolitics.com

URL to article: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/837

URLs in this post:
[1] Muslims are the new Jews: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2404281,00.html
[2] earlier: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/822
[3] Anarcho Akbar: http://anarchomuslim.blogspot.com/2006/10/this-is-london-wins-weekly-aas-bmms.html
[4] Despair as Forced Marriages Stay Legal: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2282623_1,00.html
[5] here: http://www.stophonourkillings.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=733
[6] This: http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1891237,00.html
[7] http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sunny_hundal/2006/06/the_government_has_betrayed_as.html: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sunny_hundal/2006/06/the_government_has_betrayed_as.html
[8] Batty man: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=batty+man
[9] the caped crusader: http://uk.comics.ign.com/articles/688/688140p1.html
[10] email me: http://www.stophonourkillings.com/index.php?name=Contact
[11] http://extremegh.blogspot.com/2006/09/religious-debate.html: http://extremegh.blogspot.com/2006/09/religious-debate.html
[12] letters@sunday-times.co.uk: mailto:letters@sunday-times.co.uk
[13] granny pictures: http://www.granny-pictures.blogspot.com
[14] giving hand jobs: http://www.giving-hand-jobs.blogspot.com
[15] gay teen sex: http://www.gay-teen-sex.blogspot.com
[16] casting couch teens: http://www.casting-couch-teens-blog.blogspot.com
[17] female squirting: http://www.female-squirting-blog.blogspot.com
[18] transsexual: http://www.transsexual-blog.blogspot.com
[19] party girls: http://www.party-girls-blog.blogspot.com
[20] granny sex: http://www.granny-sex-blog.blogspot.com