Andrew Gilligan on Trevor Phillips


by Sunny
24th October, 2006 at 9:39 pm    

I’m posting here in full a piece by Evening Standard columnist Andrew Gilligan on Trevor Phillips’ comments over the weekend. I’m doing this because it captures what I (and many others) think of his scare-mongering soundbites. And because it’s not available online.

——————-
PHILLIPS CRIES WOLF OVER RACIAL TENSIONS
Evening Standard – 23/10/2006

BY ANDREW GILLIGAN

WITH HIS latest warning that failing to debate race segregation will bring ‘civil strife’ and ‘fire’ to our streets, and his claim that racial divisions in many urban schools ‘cannot get any worse’, Trevor Phillips, head of the Commission for Racial Equality, risks becoming the new Enoch Powell, an apparently authoritative figure specialising in false, populist and inflammatory rhetoric on race.

Just as Powell was not personally a racist, nor is Phillips. But both men have exploited public anxiety over race relations. Last year, the CRE chief spoke of ‘black holes’, ‘fully-fledged ghettoes, crime, no-go areas and chronic cultural conflict’, with ‘the walls going up around many of our communities’. And yesterday he wrote: ‘All the recent evidence shows that we as a country are becoming more socially polarised by race and faith.’ In fact, all the recent evidence, as Phillips must know, shows nothing of the sort.

I’ve spent the past few weeks talking to and reading the work of people who, unlike Phillips, actually are experts on British segregation. Professor Ceri Peach, of Oxford University, describes Phillips as ‘alarmist’ and says the most commonly used statistical measure shows ‘decreasing or stable degrees of segregation in English cities’.

Dr Ludi Simpson, of Manchester University, says Phillips is ‘peddling falsehoods’. Professor Simon Burgess, of Bristol University, co-author of research only last month on ethnic mixing in schools, says that ‘school ethnic segregation is not generally increasing across England, except in a few areas’.

Some areas are becoming more predominantly non-white, but not many. And there are very few areas indeed – particularly in London – where a single ethnic minority or faith group dominates. Even in the most ‘non-white’ places, there is usually a mix of Muslims and Hindus, or Asians and blacks. Far from growing levels of ‘crime and conflict’, race crime in London fell by 10.7 per cent last year.

Ask Phillips’s own people at the CRE what evidence they have for their boss’s claims and they shrug their shoulders. Privately, one of them even condemns his chief’s ‘crude’ treatment of a ‘complicated’ issue.

Few would claim that everything in Britain’s multi-racial garden is lovely, but Phillips’s ‘debate’ desperately needs to be conducted with far greater precision. Overall racial integration in Britain (as measured by rates of mixed marriage) is among the highest in the Western world. Multiculturalism works. But there are specific integration problems with specific communities in specific places. These can be addressed quietly and locally without stigmatising entire races and faiths.

Powell’s motives for predicting a race war (which never materialised) were simple enough: political ambition. Phillips’ motives are harder to guess. To the despair of many, he has already won his desired job as head of the Government’s new equality ‘super-regulator’.

Perhaps it’s simply this: Phillips is a former journalist. We hacks love the sound of our own voices, and we can’t resist a simple, dramatic story. But we should never be placed in positions of responsibility.
————————-

Of course, what Gilligan does not say is that newspapers such as the Evening Standard and Daily Mail, part of the same group, that thrive on Trevor Phillips’ hysterical ruminations.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Media,Race politics






128 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Clive Davis

    DIVIDED BRITAIN?…

    Some quick thoughts on Andrew Gilligan’s reply to CRE chief Trevor Phillips, as posted at Pickled Politics. Yes, it may be true that physical segregation may not be as acute as Phillips claimed in his article. So Gilligan and the…




  1. Bobby — on 24th October, 2006 at 10:26 pm  

    These words should be read by everyone:
    ——————-

    But there are specific integration problems with specific communities in specific places. These can be addressed quietly and locally without stigmatising entire races and faiths.

    ——————-

    I am sick of the generalising and lack of nuance in the debate. Yes there are problems, but then you can’t extrapolate that all white people are culpable for the acts of racists or that all black people are culpable for the dysfunction of a section of them. Problems in Oldham or Dewsbury are problems to be solved locally without all Muslims or Asians being stigmatised.

  2. soru — on 24th October, 2006 at 10:58 pm  

    racial integration in Britain (as measured by rates of mixed marriage) is among the highest in the Western world. Multiculturalism works

    Huh? I never understand it when people say that. Surely mixed marriages are, if they mean anything, a sign of the success of integration, the polar opposite of multiculturalism?

    Under strong definitions of multiculturalism mixed marriages are actually bad, as they will inevitably reduce diversity, blend things into the hated ‘melting pot’, leading to the loss of distinct group identity.

  3. Sunny — on 24th October, 2006 at 11:17 pm  

    Well, my interpretation, and I suspect Gilligan’s interpretation, is that cultures do borrow from each other. You would be very hard-pressed to find any British-Asian who has not adopted elements of British culture.

  4. Amir — on 24th October, 2006 at 11:20 pm  

    What a piece of crud:

    (I) ‘Overall racial integration in Britain (as measured by rates of mixed marriage) is among the highest in the Western world. Multiculturalism works.’

    Nonsense. Interracial marriage does not “prove”, in any way, shape, or form, that multiculturalism works. “Culture” has nothing to do with skin colour. I’ve made this point on so many occasions now that my brain is beginning to bleed. Negative features of multiculturalism include: voodoo-curses, jihadism, oppression of women, homophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, gangs, female circumcision, discrimination by immigrants, forced marriages, anti-intellectualism, anti-free speech and religious/racial supremacism.

    (II) ‘Dr Ludi Simpson, of Manchester University, says Phillips is ‘peddling falsehoods’.’

    Well, not according to Ted Cantle’s extensive report. Let me quote Section 2.1:

    Whilst the physical segregation of housing estates and inner city areas came as no surprise, the team was particularly struck by the depth of polarisation of our towns and cities. The extent to which these physical divisions were compounded by so many other aspects of our daily lives, was very evident. Separate educational arrangements, community and voluntary bodies, employment, places of worship, language, social and cultural networks, means that many communities operate on the basis of a series of parallel lives. These lives often do not seem to touch at any point, let alone overlap and promote any meaningful interchanges.

    Tell ya what Sunny: take a trip to Bradford or Blackburn or Leeds or Tower Hamlets, and see if you still feel and think the same way about your quasi-religious faith in multiculturalism. According to Harvard scholar Robert Putnam, cultural diversity weakens trust; according to Oxford Professor David Miller, a cultural mosaic weakens social solidarity; according to legal philosopher Jeremy Waldron, “multiculturalism” is incompatible with the rule of law (i.e. the problem of compossibility); according to political analyst Brian Barry, multicultural policies quite often produce illiberal outcomes; according to feminist and political theorist Susan Moller Okin, a concern for cultural diversity is anathema to the continued emancipation of women in society. According to Charles Taylor and Amitai Etzioni, “multiculturalism” hurts indigenous communities (and leads to populist backlashes).

    If anyone here wants a “progressive” alternative to the “regressive” multicultural policy, may I recommend David Goodhart’s superb pamphlet: Progressive Nationalism. There is another way.

    Amir

  5. ZinZin — on 24th October, 2006 at 11:40 pm  

    Well, my interpretation, and I suspect Gilligan’s interpretation, is that cultures do borrow from each other. You would be very hard-pressed to find any British-Asian who has not adopted elements of British culture.

    We British have adopted tea drinking and acquired a taste for curry. Sorry about screwing up your economy (Indias that is) for close to 200 years.

    The political idea of multi-culturtalism is bad for us all. The social idea of multiculturalism as expressed by Kenan Malik; “Diversity is important, not in and of itself, but because it allows us to expand our horizons, to compare and contrast different values, beliefs and lifestyles, and make judgements upon them.”

    Good point Amir. The Northern towns are a more accurate example of what Phillips is refering too. Phillips language may be intemperate but at least we discuss what problems exist and to what extent they exist this in itself is no bad thing.

  6. Katy — on 24th October, 2006 at 11:51 pm  

    For crying out loud. Look, I’m sorry but I read what Trevor Phillips actually wrote. To compare it with Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech is ludicrously unfair.

    Besides, if Andrew Gilligan’s own university source can’t do better than “school ethnic segregation is not generally increasing across England, except in a few areas”, which means, in case you didn’t fully appreciate it, that school segregation is (a) not decreasing across the country, and (b) actively increasing generally, then there’s a problem brewing for the future that we’d be stupid to ignore.

  7. Katy — on 24th October, 2006 at 11:52 pm  

    Ouch – misquote. Gilligan’s expert said “not increasing, except in some areas” which means “increasing in some areas” – to say “increasing generally” is to misrepresent what he said. Apologies.

  8. soru — on 25th October, 2006 at 12:00 am  

    Well, my interpretation, and I suspect Gilligan’s interpretation, is that cultures do borrow from each other.

    Fair enough, but just remember that every time you use the word ‘multiculturalism’, what you actually mean by it is what other people would call ‘integration’, and if other people use the word ‘integration’, some of them will mean the same as what you mean when you say ‘multiculturalism’.

    Meanwhile, other people are using those same two words to mean things trending towards ‘apartheid’ and ‘deportation’.

  9. Don — on 25th October, 2006 at 1:44 am  

    Soru,

    Damn, better stop using those words then.

  10. Amir — on 25th October, 2006 at 2:11 am  

    Genghis,

    It’s Yvonne Ridley!!! You’re Yvonne Ridley in disguise!!

    Ridley me’ Smidley!!

  11. Amir — on 25th October, 2006 at 2:28 am  

    Yeah,… jihad is just like “yoga”, innit genghis?

    Ha ha ha ha! 8) Ridders me’ Smidders’. I luv you Yvonne. Smiden me Riden!!

    Coz, ya know, we don’t like d’hem anti-Arab-Semitism; coz, ya know, we’re just like d’hem dirty, stinking Jews – errrr, sorry, err, I mean, “Zionists”.

    Ridders’ me’ Smidders!

  12. Sunny — on 25th October, 2006 at 2:32 am  

    Katy: I’m sorry but I read what Trevor Phillips actually wrote. To compare it with Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech is ludicrously unfair.

    Ok that is a bit outlandish but it’s annoying how one after the other TP comes out with ludicrous soundbites that simply play into the hands of lunatics.

  13. Amir — on 25th October, 2006 at 2:33 am  

    Er yes, “lunatics” like Ted Cantle.

    Whatever.

  14. Douglas Clark — on 25th October, 2006 at 5:07 am  

    Amir,

    My brain bled too when I read your piece at 4, above. Give me some references to Voodoo curses, why don’t you.

    I’d have thought that if two tribes don’t go to war, but get married to each other instead, it might be quite a strong indicator of social cohesion. I’d also have thought that Mr Philips is indeed, in danger of becoming the new Enoch Powell. A man I hated, incidentally. Educated in Classics and intellectuallly bankrupt at the same time.

    The links you posted didn’t really help your case. Try to do better next time.

  15. Douglas Clark — on 25th October, 2006 at 5:22 am  

    Sunny,

    I said to my daughter the other day, “see that Sunny guy, I wouldn’t care what label he stood under, I’d vote for him”. Because, frankly, you have been a breath of fresh air in an otherwise sick or sickening debate. Please, do not go down the total dead end of agreeing with anything David T says. His politics are not your politics. If I can take what you write as an example, your most recent piece on CiF, there is no excuse for outing an idiot. Given the combat 18 dimension.

    Aw shit, is every wannabee politician willing to sell their soul?

  16. El Cid — on 25th October, 2006 at 7:15 am  

    Having gone to a 70% black school, I think I am well placed to judge Britain’s multiculturalism. And from my perspective, it does work. Nowhere more so than north London is the world living together.
    However, I think Cleva Treva is being disingenuous. His article is really a coded critique of one community methinks, and what he has in mind is what is happening in some northern towns and, arguably, parts of the East End.
    Are some moslem communities good mixers? That is the question he really has in mind. Marrying within the family and niqabs/burkhas and talk of kafrs and loyalty to the ummah would suggest not.
    And lets not deny there has been some polarisation on these very pages. For example, I think Sid and I would get on very well on a personal level and yet we are being pushed further apart. He, naturally, will increasingly feel the need to defend his community from under perceived attack, even urging moslems to vote Tory (!), while my tolerance levels have been stretched. Shame, but that’s the way it is.
    So Trevor does have a point, even if he sensationalises it.

  17. Vikrant — on 25th October, 2006 at 9:33 am  

    Give me some references to Voodoo curses, why don’t you.

    Well Voodoo sacrificial murders have taken place in London in late 1990′s.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1861393.stm
    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20050617/ai_n14671803

  18. Douglas Clark — on 25th October, 2006 at 9:52 am  

    Vikrant,

    Bloody hell! I must admit I was completely unaware of this.

    Thanks

  19. Sid — on 25th October, 2006 at 10:18 am  

    I think Sid and I would get on very well on a personal level and yet we are being pushed further apart.

    Are we? naaaaaaah.
    Don’t believe the hype.

  20. sonia — on 25th October, 2006 at 10:57 am  

    what a lot of hoo-ha.

    x said this. y said that. then z said that y said that f said this. w came along and got outraged about what z thought x said. sigh. did jack straw ever say anything after the original statements? would he have needed to anyway – the media and everyone seems to be running around like wildfire in any case, so it wouldn’t make a difference even if he just sat quietly and didn’t say anything ever again. all sorts of motives have been ascribed to him, fine.

    but from where im sitting, looks like a lot of folks are foaming at the mouth to try to make a big a deal as possible. ( i agree with katy about the comparison of philips with powell) but even if i didn’t, they’d hardly be the only ones getting their knickers in a twist over ‘race relations’

    it looks like a lot of people want to make a hoo ha about ‘race relations’ and are doing so very happily. just think – there would be nothing to talk about otherwise..

    p.s. amir there’s nothing ‘progressive’ about nationalism :-) it’s good old patriotism re-packaged and re-framed.( in case you hadn’t worked that out but i suspect you’re fully aware of that ..)

  21. Jagdeep — on 25th October, 2006 at 11:05 am  

    I’m getting bored of religion again. Midweek open thread please.

  22. sonia — on 25th October, 2006 at 11:05 am  

    ‘Northern towns’ – are we using Amir and Raz as the spokespersons for the ‘Northern Towns’? its starting to sound as if we’re referring to the Outer Hebrides or something.

  23. sonia — on 25th October, 2006 at 11:06 am  

    yeah me too, im getting bored of religion and race.

    monomania x 2

  24. Jagdeep — on 25th October, 2006 at 11:11 am  

    I’m so bored of religious controversy today.

  25. Genghis — on 25th October, 2006 at 11:57 am  

    Amir

    Yeah,… jihad is just like “yoga”, innit genghis?

    According to Wikipedia:

    Jihad has been classified either as al-jihād al-akbar (the greater jihad), the struggle against one’s soul (nafs), or al-jihād al-asghar (the lesser jihad), the external, physical effort, often implying fighting.

    Muslim scholars explained there are five kinds of jihad fi sabilillah (struggle in the cause of God):[1]

    * Jihad of the heart/soul (jihad bin nafs/qalb) is an inner struggle of good against evil in the mind, through concepts such as tawhid.
    * Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan) is a struggle of good against evil waged by writing and speech, such as in the form of dawah (proselytizing), Khutbas (sermons), et al.
    * Jihad by the pen and knowledge (jihad bil qalam/ilm) is a struggle for good against evil through scholarly study of Islam, ijtihad (legal reasoning), and through sciences (such as medical sciences).
    * Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad) refers to a struggle of good against evil waged by actions or with one’s wealth, such as going on the Hajj pilgrimage (seen as the best jihad for women), taking care of elderly parents, providing funding for jihad, political activity for furthering the cause of Islam, stopping evil by force, or espionage.
    * Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war).

    You simply need to read up. Thats all. ;)

  26. Genghis — on 25th October, 2006 at 12:02 pm  

    Sonia,

    In the context that the media and politicians continue to attack muslims and whip up race hate (amir et al) errm i think this discussion is quite relevant.

    Although i dislike what Amir stands for, i think i do agree with him (and trev!) that we are, as a society, a powder keg. There will race riots, its a matter of when rather than if…

    All this mamby pamby stuff about Trevor being completely wrong is nothing short of ‘kidding oneself’.

    There are definitley race issues. Muslims feel under attack. Whitey is feeling threatened too. Politicians arent helping, the media is whipping up the fervour. Sooner or later something will give. Anger is growing on both sides…

  27. Sid — on 25th October, 2006 at 12:12 pm  

    Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war).

    I was quite the swordsman in me younger days. ;-)

  28. Leon — on 25th October, 2006 at 12:15 pm  

    Trevor Phillips, head of the Commission for Racial Equality, risks becoming the new Enoch Powell, an apparently authoritative figure specialising in false, populist and inflammatory rhetoric on race.

    I don’t see anything particulary controversial about that paragraph. It doesn’t say he is or that he’s destined to become only it’s a real possibility given his headline grabbing antics.

    I wonder sometimes if his apparent position jumping is a result of his own confusion or confusion that comes from a myriad of forces such as public opinion, government pressure and/or his advisors?

  29. Genghis — on 25th October, 2006 at 12:27 pm  

    Sid,

    Penknife?

  30. Leon — on 25th October, 2006 at 12:29 pm  

    We hacks love the sound of our own voices, and we can’t resist a simple, dramatic story. But we should never be placed in positions of responsibility.

    Hehehe nice conclusion!

  31. Jagdeep — on 25th October, 2006 at 12:29 pm  

    Genghis, why do I think you are rubbing your hands with glee at the prospect of the powder keg being lit and it all kicking off?

    Anger seems to have been growing on the Muslim side for a long time. I cannot remember a single time in the last 17 years, ever since the Satanic Verses affair, when some Muslims have not been describing their anger and predicting imminent violence and bloodshed of a kind because of their anger. Someone should have suggested in the light of this loathsome rhetoric that they take some anger managment courses, study meditation and breathing exercises or something. Instead people cowered before this kicking and flapping and self created anger, this anger of pompous bullies always threatening their anger will result in violence, then acting like a spoilt child when it is pointed out that something is deeply fucked up about the attitude of these angry boys and angry men screaming their anger and threats of ‘jihad bis saif’ left right and centre.

    Spoilt babies.

  32. sonia — on 25th October, 2006 at 12:38 pm  

    yeah that’s pretty bloody obvious genghis – duh – why look at the opinions expressed here in PP -

  33. sonia — on 25th October, 2006 at 12:38 pm  

    and people are looking for excuses where possible to express their anger – there’s definitely an element of that let’s not kid ourselves

  34. sonia — on 25th October, 2006 at 12:39 pm  

    p.s. genghis – who the hell is ‘Whitey’?

  35. sonia — on 25th October, 2006 at 12:41 pm  

    jagdeep = yes you’re definitely right re: the anger management courses! + meditation etc.

    or lighting up a joint..

    :-)

  36. Leon — on 25th October, 2006 at 12:53 pm  

    Is a race war coming? Or is a “economic” war (ie the have nots rioting) coming that will be whipped up and spun by politicians, BNP and the media into a race war to avoid the really hard issues of capital?

  37. Jagdeep — on 25th October, 2006 at 12:55 pm  

    You missed the ‘angry boys and men’ of the likes of ‘Angry Genghis’ in the actors of ‘race war’ whipping in the equation of the question you pose, Leon.

  38. Jagdeep — on 25th October, 2006 at 12:57 pm  

    pass the spliff sonia….

    Sonia, ‘whitey’ is all white people, whom angry people are angry with, a single undifferentiated mass of ‘white’ people, with whom angry boys, whipped up into pompous anger by angry ideologues and angry people who refuse to go to anger managment classes, are going to clash.

  39. bikhair aka taqiyyah — on 25th October, 2006 at 12:58 pm  

    Amir,

    I become bareable when you are around. Thank you for being so crack crazy sometimes. It is a burden I wish not to carry everytime I visit. Anyway I was reading an article the other day about how many Eastern European immigrants carry with them very racist attitudes towards non white minorities in Britian. Would you describe that as one of the problems of multiculturalism?

  40. Chairwoman — on 25th October, 2006 at 12:58 pm  

    genghis – You know what antisemitism means. Pretending to be ingenuous invalidates your point.

  41. Chairwoman — on 25th October, 2006 at 1:00 pm  

    bikhair – Of course it’s one of the problems of multiculturalism.

  42. soru — on 25th October, 2006 at 1:19 pm  

    Jihadism – is simply sacrifice in the path of god, simply that means doing anything for NOT necessarily WAR! stop the misinformation!

    To a large extent everything going on is symmetrical, two camps neither of which is all that much better or worse than the other in itself, at least when compared to how bad things could get if the camps fight.

    But I think there is a bit of an asymmetry, a specific detail which, if cleaned up, would make the world a slightly nicer place.

    Look at this list of recent Sun stories about the BNP:

    ‘Brit’ BNP wine is foreign
    RACIST British National Party faces ridicule for flogging foreign wine

    Male sex porn of BNP boss
    A BRITISH National Party councillor faces ridicule for his gay porn film

    Keighley kicks out BNP
    BRITISH National Party loses seat in by-election caused by resignation

    Fury as BNP pair walk free
    OUTRAGE as BNP leader and activist are cleared of inciting racial hatred

    BNP chief’s Muslim slur
    RACIST BNP boss branded Asians rapists and muggers, court hears

    BNP bomb leaflet storm
    FAR-RIGHT party attacked for using bombed bus photos in election flier

    Muslims print BNP rag
    BNP newspaper printed by ARAB firm because no British firm will touch it

    BNP chiefs arrested
    TOP officials in the British Nationalist Party arrested in racism probe

    Anger at Le Nutter visit
    FRENCH far-right leader Le Pen gives his support to BNP election campaign

    BNP visit ‘despicable’
    FAR right group to visit area where murdered teen was abducted

    Now, the Sun is definitely loutish, maybe a little bit bigoted, certainly nationalistic and often just plain dumb. But the thing is, it does have a vocabulary (‘nutter’, ‘racist’, ‘far right’, even ‘neo-Nazi’) that allows it to identify, criticise and mock a certain brand of politics, isolating it from the kind of thing its readers see as good.

    And, importantly, that is something that happens before anyone commits a crime. Reform is about a thousand times more difficult than prevention. If say one in five Sun readers were to become full-blown fascists, it would take a police state or a counter-insurgemncy campaign to stop them.

    In contrast, when people try to describe the corresponding strands in muslim-oriented politics, they end up using words that either mean the equivalent of ‘patriot’, ‘brit’, ‘conservative’; or describe a specific type of convicted criminal. There really is no commonly used middle-ground.

  43. sonia — on 25th October, 2006 at 1:33 pm  

    ha sounds like a lot of people are pretty racist towards the Eastern Europeans!

    jagdeep :-)

    leon, i think economic problems definitely have a large part to play – people end up feeling like they’re ‘competing’ with some other people – and instead of working out the overall problems – just opt for the much more facile ‘well if weren’t for them lot we’d be fine’ approach. the problem i can see is that a lot of people opt for this approach, add in the stirrers and who knows what will come out..

  44. Sid — on 25th October, 2006 at 1:35 pm  

    soru

    Agreed, with all of it #43. But what do you mean by “the corresponding strands in muslim-oriented politics, they end up using words that either mean the equivalent of ‘patriot’, ‘brit’, ‘conservative’; or describe a specific type of convicted criminal”.

    Fundamentalists are called brit and patriot due to a lack of a lexicography to describe mad mullah types?

  45. Chris Stiles — on 25th October, 2006 at 1:39 pm  

    Amir –


    Overall racial integration in Britain (as measured by rates of mixed marriage) is among the highest in the Western world. Multiculturalism works.’

    Nonsense. Interracial marriage does not “prove”, in any way, shape, or form, that multiculturalism works. “Culture” has nothing to do with skin colour.

    No. I think you are right albeit for the wrong reason. Interracial marriage ‘proves’ a degree of shared culture generally – and in that sense ‘multiculturalism’ ‘works’ or ‘integration’ – if you want to call it that.

    Where you are right is that the figures for mixed marriages varies widely from community to community, from around 30% to insignificant, generally speaking figures are highest for people of West Indian and Indian (either subcontinental or East African) origin and lowest for Pakistanis and Bangladeshis.

    So using those figures as a proxy for integration – cuts both ways.

  46. Chairwoman — on 25th October, 2006 at 1:53 pm  

    Amir – As someone who had a mixed marriage (Jewish/RC (lapsed)), the biggest cultural difference was that I was from London, and he from Liverpool. He had several Jewish Scouse friends, who had far more in common with him than with me :-)

  47. soru — on 25th October, 2006 at 2:18 pm  

    Fundamentalists are called brit and patriot due to a lack of a lexicography to describe mad mullah types?

    I mean they get called words that the other camp hears in that way.

    Roughly speaking:

    ‘Muslim’ = ‘brit’
    ‘patriot’ = ‘jihadi’
    ‘nationalist’ = ‘islamist’

    If someone said ‘British culture is inherently imperialistic’, ‘anyone who waves a flag at an England match is supporting petrol and cluster bombers’, or ‘a few brits are liberal, but those who aren’t plan to lock people up in camps’, there wouldn’t be a lot of communication about to happen. And if they didn’t have the vocabulary to criticise race attacks, or Abu Ghraib, any other way, that lack of communication would not exactly help the situation.

    Question for Genghis: do you acknowledge there is anyone whose politics is ‘too muslim’, in the same way the BNP is ‘too british’?

    If so, what would you call them?

  48. sonia — on 25th October, 2006 at 2:20 pm  

    ha ha genghis if you think this society is a powder keg -( and all societies are to a certain extent anyways) have you ever lived anywhere else? you could try somewhere like bangladesh, that would be a nice eye opener methinks with regards to relative strengths of ‘powder kegs’…

    **laughs all the way off into the sunset*

  49. genghis — on 25th October, 2006 at 2:34 pm  

    Sonia,

    genghis – You know what antisemitism means. Pretending to be ingenuous invalidates your point.

    Are one of them what pretends that arabs are not Semites too?

    If anti semitism = Anti Jewish then explicitly state that. If anti-semitism is Anti-Zionist then state that.

    As fer powder-keg. Well i think 4/5 Riots (involving pakistani comminities – who are muslim) in 6 years is enough to indicate that there is growing schism. the root causes – perceived injustice?

    You like Jagdeep may want to ignore the facts on the ground. But that simply amounts to ignorance!

  50. Don — on 26th October, 2006 at 12:43 am  

    ‘If anti semitism = Anti Jewish…’

    Yes, always has. No other meaning. Clear?

    ‘…perceived injustice?’

    Unfortunately, perceived injustice seems to be edging out real injustice in the public debate.

  51. Sunny — on 26th October, 2006 at 1:15 am  

    Douglas – Yes I do see your point regarding that thread. To be honest I didn’t even think of Redwatch or any of those connotations when I first put the picture up. I was just curious. But I do see your point. Btw I don’t agree with everything David T says… I was anti-Iraq war while he wasn’t.

    soru – I know you’re saying something intelligent there but I still don’t get your point about developing a lexicon.

    genghis:
    Are you one of them what pretends that arabs are not Semites too?
    Politically speaking, anti-semitism now means hating Jews, regardless of the ethnic origin of surrounding Arabs. Given some of the nasty stuff written and said about Jews in the Arab media, if you don’t think thats disgusting and racist demonisation then you’ll have little credibility here.

  52. JC — on 26th October, 2006 at 10:11 am  

    When will everyone finally understand that Trevor Philips is NOT part of the solution, he is part of the problem, irrespective of the colour of his skin. This is VERY good news. For a very long time this debate as been stuck in the cul-de-sac of cultural identity. Me Black, You White etc, etc. I’ll pose a question. If I accuse a Jew of being a racist, can I then be accused of being an anti-semite? You see going round in circles rarely gets us anywhere. What we need now is to break the circle and Andrew Gilligans contribution as gone some way in doing that. Anyone spot the irony?

  53. genghis — on 26th October, 2006 at 10:48 am  

    Sunny et al,

    Its not that i dont recognise anti-semitism. I abhor it and i dislike at much as the next man. Problem we have at the moment is that anything you say that is critical of the zionist movement is seen as being anti-semitic, when clearly it isnt. I went to R Fisks Conversation in london and in Birmingham, on both occassions he emphasised that he is constantly accused of being an anti-semite when he is anything but. He also states that one of the major issues in journalism is that journalists fear criticising zionists/isreal for fear of being labelled anti-semite. The same might be happening here. It curbs debate. His second point was that anti-semite is a bit of a misnomer, as arabs are semites too? The label needs to change. It also needs to be applied more appropriately rather than labelling every tom dick and harriet anti-semite!

    Going back to the Gilligan article. Historically (60s and 70s and some of the 80′s) there was better racial harmony. We cant bury our heads in the sand and ignore current underlying tensions.

    The birmingham riots Asian v Black illustrate clearly the underlying tensions. There is real anger amongst muslims, particularly the young, as they have access to the web and ahve a much clearer picture of the middle-east and the hypocrisy of western policies there. Furthermore, they are much more likely to do something about it than our previous generations, who mainly were not concerned with politics but were busy working nightshifts to earn a simple living.

    Gilligan is understating the tensions at the ground level, he is also ignoring racial tensions in the northern towns. There, the white indeginous population simply resent the ‘brownies’ getting jobs, government aid and to top it all they are seen to complain about foreign policies and this turn is interpreted as ‘If they dont like it here why dont they go back home’ (whereever that is????)

    A few years ago northern towns had racial riots, those were followed up later with the bradford riots again. And then birmingham had a piece of the action too.

    I still think its simply a matter of time before something happens. The BNP are exploiting the muslim fears and anger. Clearly this relates to one of your other articles of the BNP and Chemicals Haul…Muslims will simply see the media coverage as another example of the already hypocritical media doing muslims a diservice and showing ‘its true colours’. And it doesnt stop there. I think muslims also feel that the media represents what the white majority feel about muslims vis-a-vis your veil articles. To top it all, Politicians have lined up in attacking muslims: David Cameron: Muslim Ghettoes, John Reid: the constant speeches on ‘The Enemy within’ and Ruth Kelly: ‘Muslims not doing enough’ and blair with ‘approval’ of israels murderous onslaught against innocent civilians in lebanon.

    In summary, there is growing mistrust and anger on both sides and unless there is a big change on both sides…something will give.

  54. sonia — on 26th October, 2006 at 11:48 am  

    genghis : post no. 49 you said:


    Sonia,

    Genghis – You know what antisemitism means. Pretending to be ingenuous invalidates your point.

    sorry honey – i didn’t say that – perhaps you wanted to address it to someone else? i.e Chairwoman – presumably you’re referring to her comment no. 40. You poor thing – did you get yourself in a tizzy? But by all means carry on addressing your comments in my direction. I don’t mind! and yes moi made the powder keg comment. did you not get what i meant? ah well not to worry.

    p.s. sounds like you could use a sense of humour. getting your knickers in a twist you are. heh heh.

  55. soru — on 26th October, 2006 at 11:49 am  

    You really won’t get very far in communication if, instead of looking up the meaning of a word or phrase describing a political movement, you break it down into parts and try to argue about what you think the parts should mean.

    ‘communism’ isn’t about living in a commune, ‘mohammedism’ wasn’t some rappers who thought there should be more education on the topic of ‘ham’, and so on.

  56. genghis — on 26th October, 2006 at 11:55 am  

    Soru,

    I knew you wouldnt get the point being made, instead you will take from it what you will…the devil is always in the detail. Like i said ive agreed with the definition that you regular users use here. I was just making a point about how the definition is applied? move on!

    Sonia,

    Yep you’re right i did attribute a comment to you that i shouldnt have. Apologies.
    Nope im not in a tizzer.

    Rolls eyes! shakes head!

  57. sonia — on 26th October, 2006 at 12:10 pm  

    and oh genghis – if you’re going to be a Cassandra – think along the lines of a world war why don’t you?

  58. genghis — on 26th October, 2006 at 12:15 pm  

    Have you got anything useful to say about the points being raised about the article or are you so consumed by me that you simply want to get personal with me?

  59. soru — on 26th October, 2006 at 2:32 pm  

    genghis: I think it is true to say that the newspapers could whip up at least a riot, possibly even a terror campaign, although probably not an actual civil war.

    It is also true that if anyone associated with the government speaks that obvious truth, the newspapers (the Guardian as much as the Mail) will use those words as fuel for that campaign. What’s more, if noone in government speaks, the same papers will use their silence the same way.

    Unopposed power without responsibility is always going to be ugly.

    And all that’s completely ignoring the actions of those on the Muslim side who want a confrontation too.

  60. genghis — on 26th October, 2006 at 3:30 pm  

    Soru,

    Indeed there wont be a civil war, however a possibility, as you have stated, of serious riots, which can be very damaging to the very fabric of this society. ala paris.

    It seems there is a deliberate and planned political attack on muslims: John Reid, Ruth Kelly, Jack Straw, Tony BLair, David Cameron, Woolas etc. We are not talking about a few politicians here and there, or even a government trying to deal with issues that are affecting a community, rather, we are talking about the governments timing of statements which seemingly condemn a particular set of people, without being compelled to do so.

    The rhetoric coming from papers is no better, polarised views, as opposed to centralist views, are now gaining ground.

    The pattern is clear.

    Those on the muslim side looking for a confrontation are in a tiny minority, the lunatic fringe. However, it is this very fringe that seems to get the column pages, and its not like they appeared yesterday or 4 months ago or even 10 years ago, they ahve always been here, cept Newpaper sensationalists use the views of this minority fringe as if they can be ascribed to ALL muslims. And therein lies the problem. The media being sensationalist and polarising people and the policticians further highlighting those views to cause more anxiety. which inevitably leads to feelings of persecution and fears of attack and reprisals.

    Its no biggie. But trouble is brewing! No doubt about that!

  61. soru — on 26th October, 2006 at 4:11 pm  

    It seems there is a deliberate and planned political attack on muslims: John Reid, Ruth Kelly, Jack Straw, Tony BLair, David Cameron, Woolas etc.

    It might seem that way to you, but stop and think for a second about how you came to that opinion.

    Did you get that opinion from meeting any of those people, talking face to face, or by reading the full text of a long article or book they wrote?

    I’m guessing not. I’m guessing you get that impression from the papers (who want conflict in order to increase sales), or from, at source, a web site run by those who want conflict, or the threat of conflict, in order to reinforce their own power.

  62. Sunny — on 26th October, 2006 at 4:38 pm  

    He also states that one of the major issues in journalism is that journalists fear criticising zionists/isreal for fear of being labelled anti-semite. The same might be happening here.

    Not very different to many Muslims then, who seem to declare anyone who criticises religious fanatics as “Islamophobes”. I’ve been called that on the MPAC forum a few times, which always makes me laugh.

    So what we have here is double standards. People such as Asghar Bukhari and others on MPAC want the right to criticise Israel but they don’t want to be called anti-semities. Yet they see a ‘Zionist conspiracy’ in everything and expect us to treat them like intelligent adults. At the same time they accuse anyone who criticises Muslim organisations as ‘Islamophobic’, with the aim once again of shutting down debate.

    Double standards, no?

    Here too, you’re talking about attacks on Muslims by these politicians. No, the real people who we have to worry abotu are the BNP lot. These are simply opportunistic politicians.

    If you want the right to criticise others, then you have the right to accept being criticised too. It doesn’t work one way only.

  63. Genghis — on 27th October, 2006 at 7:50 pm  

    Sunny,

    Not very different to many Muslims then, who seem to declare anyone who criticises religious fanatics as “Islamophobes”. I’ve been called that on the MPAC forum a few times, which always makes me laugh.
    I cant comment on what you might have placed on MPAC. Or what was said, however in the main media outlets, I haven’t seen muslims calling everyone an islamophobe, what we have seen in the media is where the lunatic fringe doing something stupid and that being highlighted as ‘Muslim – book burners – terrorists – not liberal – undemocratic’ which potentially is some what stereotyping muslims ? no? at the very least it stigmatizes a whole community. And then when some says ‘Hey your’re stereotyping us we’re not all terrorists that’s islamophobic’, people like yourself state ‘see you don’t like criticism?
    So what we have here is double standards. People such as Asghar Bukhari and others on MPAC want the right to criticise Israel but they don’t want to be called anti-semities.
    That’s why I bought up the definition of anti-semitic. To my mind virtually anything you say against Zionism is seen as ‘anti semitic’. You state that MPAC have called people islamopohobic, I haven’t seen that have you references?
    Yet they see a ‘Zionist conspiracy’ in everything and expect us to treat them like intelligent adults.At the same time they accuse anyone who criticises Muslim organisations as ‘Islamophobic’, with the aim once again of shutting down debate.
    Im not sure MPAC is encouraging the closure of debate if anything they are encouraging muslims to enter politics to enter debate?
    Here too, you’re talking about attacks on Muslims by these politicians. No, the real people who we have to worry abotu are the BNP lot. These are simply opportunistic politicians.
    Im more worried about mainstream government saying things against a community under siege than I am about the BNP. BNP is as opportunistic as the policitians. And it’s the politicians in Government providing the BNP oxygen for their scaremongering. Somehow in a sick way they (the gov) are setting up the platform for anti-muslim sentiment to gain some validity.
    If you want the right to criticise others, then you have the right to accept being criticised too. It doesn’t work one way only.

    I don’t mind one bit that muslims ought to be criticized, it’s the context, timing, and background that is important. In world where the major wars across the world are against muslim countries or muslims, its important to recognize how certain statements are going to be viewed. No doubt that Straw knew exactly what he was saying as did woolas as did Reid and as does R Kelly! (Ruth not the…anyhow!)

  64. soru — on 28th October, 2006 at 11:24 am  

    You state that MPAC have called people islamopohobic, I haven’t seen that have you references?


    101 uses of the word on the MPAC web site news section
    .

    List of Islamaphobic journalists

    Brian Sewell, Melanie Philips, Ian Buruma, David Horowitz, Douglas Davis, Richard Littlejohn, Tony Parsons, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Howard Jacobson, Nick Cohen, Mark Steyn, Julie Birchill, Carol Sarler, Fay Weldon, Christopher Hitchens, Conor Cruise O’Brien, Bernard Lewis, Susan Goldenberg, Andrew Marr, Adam Porter, Johann Hari, David Aaronovitch, Barbara Amiel, Ann Coulter, Polly Toynbee, Mr Neuhaus, Daniel Pipes.

    Given a reasonable definition of islamophobia, some of those (e.g. Coulter, Pipes, Steyn) probably match it. Others are supporters of Israel, neocons, feminists, or supporters of Blair over Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Which is all stuff you might disagree with, but labelling it as islamophobic is exactly equivalent to calling someone who disagrees with Israeli policy antisemitic.

    Others (e.g. Jacobsen, Andrew Marr, Boris Johnson, Polly Toynbee) seem to go beyond that, to suggest that you you have to actively agree with and support the MPAC’s political plans in order to avoid the charge.

  65. genghis — on 28th October, 2006 at 11:40 am  

    Can anyone post a reasonable definition of islamaphobia? These are the defnitions i can garner:

    Runnymede Trust:
    The Runnymede Trust has identified eight components that they say define Islamophobia.
    This definition, from the 1997 document ‘Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All’ is widely accepted, including by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia.
    The eight components are:

    1) Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
    2) Islam is seen as separate and ‘other’. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
    3) Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
    4) Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a ‘clash of civilisations’.
    5) Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage.
    6) Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.
    7) Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
    8) Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.

    —————
    Wikipedia:
    Islamophobia is the fear and/or hatred of Islam, Muslims or Islamic culture. Islamophobia can be characterised by the belief that all or most Muslims are religious fanatics, have violent tendencies towards non-Muslims, and reject as directly opposed to Islam such concepts as equality, tolerance, and democracy.

    It is viewed as a new form of racism whereby Muslims, an ethno-religious group, not a race, are nevertheless constructed as a race.

    A set of negative assumptions are made of the entire group to the detriment of members of that group.

    During the 1990′s many sociologists and cultural analysts observed a shift in forms of prejudice from ones based on skin colour to ones based on notions of cultural superiority and otherness.
    ————-

    By the above definitions how can any of the names mentioned by MPAC not be islamophobic.

    Melanie Philips, jesus, how can i even take you seriously if you think she is not islamophobic???? Richard Littlejohn. Clearly an islamophobic.

  66. soru — on 28th October, 2006 at 12:34 pm  

    By the above definitions how can any of the names mentioned by MPAC not be islamophobic..

    Post #64 – they don’t do it.

    Post #66 – they do it, and a good thing too.

    Would it be possible for you to spend a sentence or two agreeing that yes, you were wrong?

    jesus, how can i even take you seriously

    Interesting turn of phrase.

  67. ZinZin — on 28th October, 2006 at 1:33 pm  

    Genghis
    I am an Islamophobe. I only became an Islamophobe around 2003/4 long before the Runnymede trust invented this idiotic term.

    I became an Islamophobe when i realised that the post-modern leftist approach of the Stoppers was wrong on every level with regards to Islamic terrorism. Islamophobia can be justified. Islamophobia which conflates race and religion and confuse the two is nothing more than an attempt to stop criticism of Islam.

    In short you can change your religion but not your race.

  68. genghis — on 28th October, 2006 at 3:24 pm  

    Soru,

    Post #64 – ‘They dont do it’

    Obviously it was too much for me to ask of you to take the context into consideration. What i was s’posed to say ‘They dont do it: call people an islamophobe out of hand and/or apply that term liberally willy nilly’

    ZZ,

    Genghis
    long before the Runnymede trust invented this idiotic term.

    Of course islamophobes would say that. It is tantamount to rascism! Simple as! You can ignore it all you like and dislike it as much as you like but the truth is…its rascism!

    Islamophobia can be justified.

    I presume then that you being the beacon of freedom and equality would allow anti-semitism to be justified in the same way. Vile!

    Islamophobia which conflates race and religion and confuse the two is nothing more than an attempt to stop criticism of Islam.

    Complete and utter hogwash you simply ignoring the definitions read them again. Digest them and post something that might be a bit more intelligent.

  69. Sunny — on 28th October, 2006 at 4:03 pm  

    The runnymede trust’s definition is really silly.

    6) Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.

    How does one define ‘the west’ and ‘Islam’? Are we talking of specific countries in the west, do we include british Muslims? And how do they mean by ‘Islam’? If a wannabe Hamas suicide bomber criticises the west for being too aggressive, and we dismiss his criticisms on account of being hypocritical, then we become Islamophobes?

    The wikipedia definition is a bit better. But what MPAC haven’t done is give examples of how these people hate all Muslims or hate Islam as a religion by itself. As far as I can tell Polly Toynbee hates all religions. That doesn’t make her an Islamophobe.

    And as I said earlier, these slurs are thrown around to shut down debate. Instead of name-calling, why don’t they deal with the arguments on their own merit?

    It would be easy for me put up a banner saying that MPAC hate all non-Muslims. But what purpose would that serve? I don’t want to go down to their level.

  70. genghis — on 28th October, 2006 at 4:14 pm  

    Sunny,

    Are we talking of specific countries in the west

    Commonly the countries in Europe excluding Turkey, N America, Australia and N.Zealand.

    do we include british Muslims?

    For the muslim perspective ? yes!

    And how do they mean by ‘Islam’? If a wannabe Hamas suicide bomber criticises the west for being too aggressive, and we dismiss his criticisms on account of being hypocritical, then we become Islamophobes?

    No not all thats criticising a wannabe terrorist as opposed to criticising all muslims and the religion itself? no?

    But what MPAC haven’t done is give examples of how these people hate all Muslims or hate Islam as a religion by itself.

    Sensible point, why dont you ask them to do that. If not done already. I think there may be a presumption of their part that people read the works of the aforementioned. Bernard Lewis, Melanie Phillips, Richard Littlejohn…are accurately described as islamaphobes. There works are clear in what their are stating. Like i said perhaps you need to point the deficiency.

    As far as I can tell Polly Toynbee hates all religions. That doesn’t make her an Islamophobe.

    Doesnt exclude them from being an islamophobe if there is particular statement that is islamophobic.

    eg i hate all races cepts mine…them n***ers are stupid!

    see the point?

    And as I said earlier, these slurs are thrown around to shut down debate. Instead of name-calling, why don’t they deal with the arguments on their own merit?

    It would be easy for me put up a banner saying that MPAC hate all non-Muslims. But what purpose would that serve? I don’t want to go down to their level.

  71. genghis — on 28th October, 2006 at 4:18 pm  

    oops sorrt missed the last bits fao sunny:

    ‘And as I said earlier, these slurs are thrown around to shut down debate. Instead of name-calling, why don’t they deal with the arguments on their own merit?

    In opinion they are dealing with them and no i simply dont think they are shutting down debate. They are encouraging people to enter politics and are willing to hold open discussion! Perhaps you’re mistaking MPACs perspective with individuals who might have called you ‘islamophobe’

    It would be easy for me put up a banner saying that MPAC hate all non-Muslims. But what purpose would that serve? I don’t want to go down to their level.

    You could indeed, but other than going ‘down to their level’ you would be wrong in making that assessment!

  72. soru — on 28th October, 2006 at 5:12 pm  

    Obviously it was too much for me to ask of you to take the context into consideration. What i was s’posed to say ‘They dont do it: call people an islamophobe out of hand and/or apply that term liberally willy nilly’

    I was giving you the benifit of the doubt, but it turns out you are functionally insane on matters of politics. You can simultaneously believe that:

    1. the MPAC says that Andrew Marr, Polly Toynbee, Conor Cruise O’Brien, Johann Hari and Boris Johnson are Islamophobes.

    2. the MPAC never makes frivolous or spurious accusations of islamophobia, uses that accusation as a weapon.

    The part of your brain that would detect a contradiction between those statements simply doesn’t work, you are incapable of self-examination or self-critical thought in the same way a blind person is incapable of sight.

    Orwell talked about that kind of mental issue a lot, in reference to Stalinists.

    Are you a member of the SWP, by any chance?

  73. soru — on 28th October, 2006 at 5:17 pm  

    zinzin: ‘I am an Islamophobe’

    I’n not, but I am fuckwitophobic, and you’re scaring me.

  74. ZinZin — on 28th October, 2006 at 5:31 pm  

    In truth Genghis I bacame an Islamophobe long after the Runneymeade trusts definition.

    Comparing “Islamophobia” to anti-semitism is a misnomer. It beggars belief that you can make a comparision between the two as Jews have suffered two millenia of persecution Muslims have suffered no such thing in fact they have been the aggressors.

    “Islamophobia which conflates race and religion and confuse the two is nothing more than an attempt to stop criticism of Islam.”

    “Complete and utter hogwash you simply ignoring the definitions read them again. Digest them and post something that might be a bit more intelligent. ”

    The Runymede trust definition does such a thing. Genghis this document published in 1997 had lain dormant for 4 years it would still be largly ignored if it wasn’t for 11/9. After 11/9 you could not move without hearing this idiotic term. So Genghis my point is that Islamophobia is used by Islamic fundis to silence debate is true, those who use it most are the Muslim community leaders who are fundamentalists to the core.

  75. ZinZin — on 28th October, 2006 at 5:36 pm  

    zinzin: ‘I am an Islamophobe’

    I’am not, but I am fuckwitophobic, and you’re scaring me.

    I fail to see the social stigma unless you believe that fundamentalists and the faith itself should not be criticised.

    On the upside, Mo wasn’t a workshy asexual collaborator with Roman imperialism.

    Above is a criticism of Jesus you posted on a thread on Harry’s place. My question are you a Christianophobe?

  76. Sunny — on 28th October, 2006 at 5:42 pm  

    Genghis you make so many assumptions:

    1) That all of “the west” thinks the same, even on political issues. That is just downright stupidity o the Runnymede Trust’s part.

    2) When I referred to British Muslims, I meant that the term “west” does not seem to include British Muslims, assuming that the “west” and “Islam” are mutually exclusive.

    3) I have no love for Melanie Phillips or Littlejohn, but the list includes people who blatantly do not hate Muslims. Hating all Muslims just because they are Muslim would be Islamophobic.

    4) The term Islamophobic is a bit silly. Given that about 25% of Britons are atheist and don’t like any religion at all – your assumption would mean that automatically hate Muslims.

    5) By the same reasoning I can declare that Muslim are anti-Sikh or anti-Hindu because they don’t like those religions.

    6) In opinion they are dealing with them and no i simply dont think they are shutting down debate.
    Dealing with them how? Certainly not intellectually. The whole point of labelling is to shut down debate. If MPAC are willing to call others Islamophobic without any proof then there it is right to call them Jew-haters, just because of the stuff on their website.

    7) Lastly, and more importantly. You have to get this clear in your head. Is it ok to criticise organisations and countries without being labelled a xenophobes or not? If it is, then anyone who criticises the MCB, MPAC or Saudi Arabia are not Islamophobes. If it isn’t, then the likes of MPAC are anti-semites.

  77. ZinZin — on 28th October, 2006 at 6:11 pm  

    It’s pretty obvious Mohammed can’t have been an Islamist, he didn’t even _own_ a copy of the Qu’ran. Consequently, he can’t have read it literally as a complete guide to the perfect society.

    Soru again on Harry’s place.
    The Comedy just writes itself. How can anyone make this up?
    I’m a fuckwit?!!!!

  78. soru — on 28th October, 2006 at 6:33 pm  

    Comparing “Islamophobia” to anti-semitism is a misnomer. It beggars belief that you can make a comparision between the two as Jews have suffered two millenia of persecution Muslims have suffered no such thing in fact they have been the aggressors.

    That kind of stuff is a perfect example of the reason I became a fuckwitophobe. People that incapable of abstract thought, of anything other than identifying an ‘us’, a ‘them’, who define truth as anything that makes ‘us’ look good and ‘them’ look bad, really shouldn’t be considered fully human.

    homo sapiens, homo fuckwitiens, two related sub-species.

  79. ZinZin — on 28th October, 2006 at 6:42 pm  

    Phobia is a fear i don’t fear Muslims or their faith. I have nothing but contempt for Muslim fundis who pose as moderates while espousing fundamentalism ie MCB. I despise the muslim politics of offence that is used to curb free speech. I also hate the treatment of women and non-muslims in the Islamic world.

    Your a fine one to call me a fuckwit. According to your reasoning because the prophet did not own a copy of the Koran he is not a muslim.

  80. genghis — on 28th October, 2006 at 7:30 pm  

    In truth Genghis I bacame an Islamophobe long after the Runneymeade trusts definition.

    I dont know you so i cant ascribe a label to you, unless, of course, i see evidence of islamophobia within the confines of the definition laid down by Wikipedia/Runnymeade Trust.

    Comparing “Islamophobia” to anti-semitism is a misnomer. It beggars belief that you can make a comparision between the two as Jews have suffered two millenia of persecution Muslims have suffered no such thing in fact they have been the aggressors.

    really? so we cant site the crusades as the start of islamphobia ? Ridiculous! Besides i didnt know length of time was a consideration of persecution. I think the recent occupation of palestine and general middle-east policies of the west plus the recent bosnian wars and the current war on ‘Terror’ is persecution. Regardless…Islamophobia is as abhorrent as anti-semitism!

    The Runymede trust definition does such a thing. Genghis this document published in 1997 had lain dormant for 4 years it would still be largly ignored if it wasn’t for 11/9. After 11/9 you could not move without hearing this idiotic term.

    It was after 09/11 that islamophobia came to the fore in mainstream media. and as a consequence, people (not all) start making islamophobic remarks. Its simple logic that by the sheer number of people commentating on muslim and islam that that word be ascribed to people who were being islamophobic.

    So Genghis my point is that Islamophobia is used by Islamic fundis to silence debate is true, those who use it most are the Muslim community leaders who are fundamentalists to the core.

    Im not sure that it is used to curb debate, in my experience, it used to curb islamophobic commentary. Muslim Community leaders? who? name them! The problem here is that you are failing to understand what has caused the rise of fundamentalism. The moderate muslim voice has disappeared mainly due to the fact that western policies in the mid-east have pushed those people to align themselves with Fundamentalists. This is a reaction that could be reasonably expected after a millenia of persecution!

    I think there is a need for a separate debate:

    What happend to the moderate muslim voice!

  81. genghis — on 28th October, 2006 at 7:34 pm  

    Soru,

    The part of your brain that would detect a contradiction between those statements simply doesn’t work, you are incapable of self-examination or self-critical thought in the same way a blind person is incapable of sight.

    Pot Kettle Black!

  82. genghis — on 28th October, 2006 at 7:58 pm  

    Sunny,:
    1) That all of “the west” thinks the same, even on political issues. That is just downright stupidity o the Runnymede Trust’s part.
    It doesn’t say that? You’re taking things out of perspective and out of context!
    2) When I referred to British Muslims, I meant that the term “west” does not seem to include British Muslims, assuming that the “west” and “Islam” are mutually exclusive.
    I suppose, you can state there are ‘western/west’ Perspective and then a ‘Muslim’ perspective. You can be British muslim but take western perspective and be a ‘westerner’ and take a ‘muslim’ perspective. It’s the perspectives of each that is important.
    Western Perspective generally has the underlying following perspective:
    a) The Middle-east requires western intervention to teach them ‘Brownies;’ how to govern.
    b) Implement Democracy but only if that democracy will be supportive of the western governments
    c) Isreal doesn’t have to be made or forced to follow UN resolutions whereas Muslim countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria etc do!
    3) I have no love for Melanie Phillips or Littlejohn, but the list includes people who blatantly do not hate Muslims. Hating all Muslims just because they are Muslim would be Islamophobic.
    4) The term Islamophobic is a bit silly. Given that about 25% of Britons are atheist and don’t like any religion at all – your assumption would mean that automatically hate Muslims.

    You don’t have to hate muslims per se to be islamophobic In the same way I don’t have to hate jews to be anti-semitic! Stop twisting the debate! No-one has ascribed an atheist as islamophobic for simply atheist, they would have to say something that is islamophobic to labeled as such (ever feel like you’re in a goldfish bowl?)
    5) By the same reasoning I can declare that Muslim are anti-Sikh or anti-Hindu because they don’t like those religions.
    Yes I agree you could!
    If MPAC are willing to call others Islamophobic without any proof then there it is right to call them Jew-haters, just because of the stuff on their website.
    Like what for example? What have they written that would make them jew haters? And there is proof of those writers. You’ll have read their commentaries and books in order to make that label stick. Are you absolutely positive that they have never said anything that is islamophobic?
    7) Lastly, and more importantly. You have to get this clear in your head. Is it ok to criticise organisations and countries without being labelled a xenophobes or not? If it is, then anyone who criticises the MCB, MPAC or Saudi Arabia are not Islamophobes.
    It is ok to criticize them without being labeled an islamophobe!
    If it isn’t, then the likes of MPAC are anti-semites.
    Nope the two statement are mutually exclusive! One does not result in the other! MPAC are not anti-semites. You need to reference what they have said for you to label the organization as such!
    This what makes this debate really important. Am I anti-semitic if I say Israel should not exist cos it had no legal basis to exist? Are we entering the realms of a separate debate?
    We need to go back to the original debate. Gilligan is wrong because we are seeing race hate crime go up, politicians becoming more and more zealous in putting muslims under the spotlight in a negative way, media is highlighting it even more and considering the background in the world…it could construed as: islamophobia.

  83. genghis — on 28th October, 2006 at 8:14 pm  

    Sorry poor setting out here goes again!

    Sunny,:

    1) That all of “the west” thinks the same, even on political issues. That is just downright stupidity o the Runnymede Trust’s part.

    It doesn’t say that? You’re taking things out of perspective and out of context!

    2) When I referred to British Muslims, I meant that the term “west” does not seem to include British Muslims, assuming that the “west” and “Islam” are mutually exclusive.

    I suppose, you can state there are ‘western/west’ Perspective and then a ‘Muslim’ perspective. You can be British muslim but take western perspective and be a ‘westerner’ and take a ‘muslim’ perspective. It’s the perspectives of each that is important.
    Western Perspective generally has the underlying following perspective:

    a) The Middle-east requires western intervention to teach them ‘Brownies;’ how to govern.

    b) Implement Democracy but only if that democracy will be supportive of the western governments

    c) Isreal doesn’t have to be made or forced to follow UN resolutions whereas Muslim countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria etc do!

    3) I have no love for Melanie Phillips or Littlejohn, but the list includes people who blatantly do not hate Muslims. Hating all Muslims just because they are Muslim would be Islamophobic.

    4) The term Islamophobic is a bit silly. Given that about 25% of Britons are atheist and don’t like any religion at all – your assumption would mean that automatically hate Muslims.

    You don’t have to hate muslims per se to be islamophobic In the same way I don’t have to hate jews to be anti-semitic! Stop twisting the debate! No-one has ascribed an atheist as islamophobic for simply atheist, they would have to say something that is islamophobic to labeled as such (ever feel like you’re in a goldfish bowl?)

    5) By the same reasoning I can declare that Muslim are anti-Sikh or anti-Hindu because they don’t like those religions.

    Yes I agree you could!

    If MPAC are willing to call others Islamophobic without any proof then there it is right to call them Jew-haters, just because of the stuff on their website.

    Like what for example? What have they written that would make them jew haters? And there is proof of those writers. You’ll have read their commentaries and books in order to make that label stick. Are you absolutely positive that they have never said anything that is islamophobic?

    7) Lastly, and more importantly. You have to get this clear in your head. Is it ok to criticise organisations and countries without being labelled a xenophobes or not? If it is, then anyone who criticises the MCB, MPAC or Saudi Arabia are not Islamophobes.

    It is ok to criticize them without being labeled an islamophobe!

    If it isn’t, then the likes of MPAC are anti-semites.

    Nope the two statement are mutually exclusive! One does not result in the other! MPAC are not anti-semites. You need to reference what they have said for you to label the organization as such!

    This what makes this debate really important. Am I anti-semitic if I say Israel should not exist cos it had no legal basis to exist? Are we entering the realms of a separate debate?

    We need to go back to the original debate. Gilligan is wrong because we are seeing race hate crime go up, politicians becoming more and more zealous in putting muslims under the spotlight in a negative way, media is highlighting it even more and considering the background in the world…it could construed as: islamophobia.

  84. ZinZin — on 28th October, 2006 at 8:15 pm  

    It this all we are going to get from you Genghis more bleating and whining about the suffering of Muslims?

    Islamophobia is a joke. The West has been pesecuting Muslims for 900 years. Genghis your no historian because anyone with an ounce of sense know that the saracens defeated the crusaders. Funny how the crusades are brought up by Muslim fundis in their passive-aggressive rants. This has everthing to do with the Islamic world lagging behind the West and the Far-East as for many years the crusades were a non-issue. Frankly bringing up Palestine, Iraq and Bosnia along in this context suggests paranoia. No rational person would make such a link.

    After 11/9 criticising Islam was a perfectly reasonable thing to do after all it was not an isolated event. There had been many terror attacks carried out by Islamic terrorists prior to 11/9. Islam was the prime motivation behind such attacks therefore it is reasonable that it comes under scrutiny.

    Im not sure that it is used to curb debate, in my experience, it used to curb islamophobic commentary. Muslim Community leaders? who? name them! The problem here is that you are failing to understand what has caused the rise of fundamentalism. The moderate muslim voice has disappeared mainly due to the fact that western policies in the mid-east have pushed those people to align themselves with Fundamentalists. This is a reaction that could be reasonably expected after a millenia of persecution!

    I think there is a need for a separate debate:

    What happend to the moderate muslim voice!

    Indeed this a site for progressives your non-de-plume and postings indicate that you are not a moderate. A moderate would own up to the problems that exist within the Islamic faith and Islamic society in your case its always the west.

    Genghis this is victim politics writ large. Evade responsibility, blame others and demand protection from from the powerful who happen to be opressing you.

  85. Sunny — on 28th October, 2006 at 8:16 pm  

    Well, attacks on Jews are also going up… primarily by British Muslims. So we can say that British Muslims are increasingly becoming anti-semitic. Right? What should be done about that?

    You say: What have they written that would make them jew haters? And there is proof of those writers.

    Well, going by how MPAC define people as ‘Islamophobes’, and there is no evidence to suggest that all these people have said ‘Islamophobic’ things, then we can only deduce they are labelled as such because they hate Muslim extremists or Muslim organisations.

    But as you admitted that is not ‘Islamophobic’. So just because MPAC say so doesn’t mean I’ll take it as given. If you search their forums you’ll see insults chucked at me too – showing how hypocritical and silly this whole debate is.

    You also say:
    race hate crime go up, politicians becoming more and more zealous in putting muslims under the spotlight in a negative way, media is highlighting it even more and considering the background in the world…it could construed as: islamophobia.

    Well, we can also say that, on the flip side, we have more Muslims than ever trying to blow up ordinary Britons; we have more hate crimes against Jews in the UK; the media is highlighting people who are full of hatred, not your ordinary Muslim joe. Some of those stories are false, as I’ve highlighted, but not all. #

    you don’t really have a singular definition of Islamophobia. What you have instead is a series of events – attacks on Muslims, and media hype, and you’ve labelled that Islamophobia. But really, you need to prove how the media establishment specifically hates all Muslims.

  86. Don — on 28th October, 2006 at 8:24 pm  

    ‘You don’t have to hate muslims per se to be islamophobic In the same way I don’t have to hate jews to be anti-semitic!’

    Could you calm down and explain that one? I’m genuinely confused. You don’t have to hate jews to be anti-semitic? I thought that was a basic requirement.

  87. genghis — on 28th October, 2006 at 11:25 pm  

    Sunny

    Well, attacks on Jews are also going up… primarily by British Muslims. So we can say that British Muslims are increasingly becoming anti-semitic. Right? What should be done about that?

    Im not justifying any attacks merely trying to understand what the underlying causes are. If your statement above is correct doesn’t that go against what Gilligan et al (you included) have stated? That there aren’t growing race hatred issues? Contradiction?

    You say: What have they written that would make them jew haters? And there is proof of those writers.

    Well, going by how MPAC define people as ‘Islamophobes’, and there is no evidence to suggest that all these people have said ‘Islamophobic’ things, then we can only deduce they are labelled as such because they hate Muslim extremists or Muslim organisations.

    Err again that’s simply opinion and conjecture on your part! What is MPACs definition of an islamophobe? If it is within definition of the Runnymeade Trust/Wikipedia then they are right to label islamophobic comments and attribute those comments to those who write them?

    If you search their forums you’ll see insults chucked at me too – showing how hypocritical and silly this whole debate is.

    Err again I’ll ask you to differentiate between users of the forum as opposed to the official Line that mpac take.

    You also say:
    race hate crime go up, politicians becoming more and more zealous in putting muslims under the spotlight in a negative way, media is highlighting it even more and considering the background in the world…it could construed as: islamophobia.

    Well, we can also say that, on the flip side, we have more Muslims than ever trying to blow up ordinary Britons; we have more hate crimes against Jews in the UK; the media is highlighting people who are full of hatred, not your ordinary Muslim joe. Some of those stories are false, as I’ve highlighted, but not all.

    Again that seems to contradict what you posted earlier that race hate crime is not on the up?? Why are more muslims trying to blow Britons? I suspect frustration at foreign policy? Failure of the democratic process? Injustice? The answers and reasons are there.

    # you don’t really have a singular definition of Islamophobia. What you have instead is a series of events – attacks on Muslims, and media hype, and you’ve labelled that Islamophobia. But really, you need to prove how the media establishment specifically hates all Muslims.

    Agreed that is what I do do. In particular I think there has to be a pattern not one off comments. A stream of anti muslim sentiment from the same people again and again is…(blank)?

    Again you have attributed the word ‘hate’ to me. I haven’t stated the media hates muslims. I have merely (time and again) stated that certain sections (not all) have been islamophobic!
    Evidence?
    For example Faith Schools no problem…islam faith schools are!

    There are too many too numerous to list all of them here but Melanie Phillips column is a good starting point!

  88. genghis — on 28th October, 2006 at 11:42 pm  

    ZZ,

    It this all we are going to get from you Genghis more bleating and whining about the suffering of Muslims?

    What? As opposed to you bleating on like a castrated donkey?

    Islamophobia is a joke. The West has been pesecuting Muslims for 900 years.

    Indeed it has, glad we agree on something! Lol!

    Genghis your no historian because anyone with an ounce of sense know that the saracens defeated the crusaders.

    Thank Allah for small mercys! How dare them foreigners defeat gods army!

    Funny how the crusades are brought up by Muslim fundis in their passive-aggressive rants. This has everthing to do with the Islamic world lagging behind the West and the Far-East as for many years the crusades were a non-issue. Frankly bringing up Palestine, Iraq and Bosnia along in this context suggests paranoia. No rational person would make such a link.

    Passive-aggressive!? Same argument of Bernard Lewis: them brownies are simply too dumb!

    No rational person would make the link?

    Err…yeh right! Frankly dude, it seems you just want the White anglo perspective view of the world to be the only view. Well I would attempt to see the world from your perspective ‘cept, my head just wont go up that far up my rectum!

    After 11/9 criticising Islam was a perfectly reasonable thing to do after all it was not an isolated event. There had been many terror attacks carried out by Islamic terrorists prior to 11/9. Islam was the prime motivation behind such attacks therefore it is reasonable that it comes under scrutiny.

    Islam was the prime motivation? Not the foreign policies? Are you related to George Bush?

    Indeed this a site for progressives your non-de-plume and postings indicate that you are not a moderate. A moderate would own up to the problems that exist within the Islamic faith and Islamic society in your case its always the west.

    I do see the problems with muslims around the world, and there are lots of shortcomings. I also see Uncle Sam and his poodles foreign policies in the Middleast…that are far worse!

    Genghis this is victim politics writ large. Evade responsibility, blame others and demand protection from from the powerful who happen to be opressing you.

    Nope im asking for international law to be applied equitably and justly and not the hand picked few…ala israel!

  89. genghis — on 28th October, 2006 at 11:49 pm  

    Don,

    Could you calm down and explain that one? I’m genuinely confused. You don’t have to hate jews to be anti-semitic? I thought that was a basic requirement.

    Apparently not! You can be anti-semite by simply pissing in the direction of Tel Aviv!

  90. genghis — on 28th October, 2006 at 11:56 pm  

    At a time when the Cleric in Australia is being lambasted by the national Media Outlets i wonder why this bernard is not dealt with in the same way:

    The Jewish Chronicle interviews French philospher Bernard-Henri Levy:

    “Our time is almost up, but BHL becomes the most animated I have seen him when I ask him about Jack Straw’s intervention on Muslim women and the veil. ‘Jack Straw’, he says, leaning close to me, ‘made a great point. He did not say that he was against the veil. He said it is much easier, much more comfortable, respectful, to speak with a woman with a naked face. And without knowing, he quoted Levinas, who is the philosopher of the face. Levinas says that [having seen] the naked face of your interlocutor, you cannot kill him or her, you cannot rape him, you cannot violate him. So when the Muslims say that the veil is to protect women, it is the contrary. The veil is an invitation to rape’.”

    Jewish Chronicle, 14 October 2006

  91. ZinZin — on 29th October, 2006 at 12:02 am  

    Genghis this is the kind of dissembling i have come to expect from some Muslims.

    Frankly dude, it seems you just want the White anglo perspective view of the world to be the only view. Well I would attempt to see the world from your perspective ‘cept, my head just wont go up that far up my rectum!

    Blame whitey. Or foreign policy.

    But not the ideological dominance of Islam which has held the Islamic world back for centuries.

    I do see the problems with muslims around the world, and there are lots of shortcomings. I also see Uncle Sam and his poodles foreign policies in the Middleast…that are far worse!

    More dissembling but then lying to non-believers is acceptable in Islam. Also MPAC are an Anti-semitic organisation they have been from their inception.

  92. Don — on 29th October, 2006 at 12:04 am  

    ‘ You can be anti-semite by simply pissing in the direction of Tel Aviv!’

    Sorry. thought this was an actual discussion.

    If you mean; can you be accused of anti-semitism if you oppose Israeli policies?’, then yes you can. By fools.

    But that wasn’t your point.

    ‘You don’t have to hate muslims per se to be islamophobic In the same way I don’t have to hate jews to be anti-semitic’

    ‘No-one has ascribed an atheist as islamophobic for simply atheist, they would have to say something that is islamophobic to labeled as such…’

    Islam is based on a false premise. Simply atheist, islamophobic?

  93. Sunny — on 29th October, 2006 at 12:08 am  

    Why are more muslims trying to blow Britons? I suspect frustration at foreign policy? Failure of the democratic process? Injustice? The answers and reasons are there.

    So let me get this straight. Tony Blair takes us into war without my approval and that of millions of people in this country. Nevertheless, many religious extremists have decided that the only response is to blow up innocent people in this country and Iraq (incl Muslims) as a response. That they are killing innocent people doesn’t seem to bother you, you seem to imply this is an adequate response.

    So when I say that I have had enough of religious extremists trying to blow Britons up, and don’t like the organisations who give legitimacy to those extremists – then I’m an ‘Islamophobe’?

    Have I got your train of thought right?

  94. ZinZin — on 29th October, 2006 at 12:08 am  

    Genghis
    BHL unlike that Islamist mufti is not defending rapists, stating that muslim men have no need to control their sexual impulses or demanding that women be subjugated.

    Put that in your islamist pipe and smoke it.
    No comparision can be made other than one is a Muslim who you feel has been unfairly treated and one is an islamophobe.

    Not very bright are you.

  95. genghis — on 29th October, 2006 at 12:15 am  

    Sunny,

    I knew wouldnt answer your contradictions about the the rise of hate crime,(you said!) but at the same time agree with Gilligans commentary that it isnt so!

    let me get this straight. Tony Blair takes us into war without my approval and that of millions of people in this country. Nevertheless, many religious extremists have decided that the only response is to blow up innocent people in this country and Iraq (incl Muslims) as a response.

    There you go again mixing up sectarian violence in baghdad as a result of occupation as opposed to terrorism as a result of the whole of the middleeast?

    That they are killing innocent people doesn’t seem to bother you, you seem to imply this is an adequate response.

    Not at all i dont find that reaction any more acceptable than bombs dropping on innocent civilians in qana or basra or afghanistan. The link you’re not prepared to make is that one is causing the other. no matter how reprehensible terrorosm is, you gotta simply acknowledge the underlying root causes? no? how else does one try to find a solution?

    So when I say that I have had enough of religious extremists trying to blow Britons up, and don’t like the organisations who give legitimacy to those extremists – then I’m an ‘Islamophobe’?

    Have I got your train of thought right?

  96. genghis — on 29th October, 2006 at 12:17 am  

    oops sorry posted to early again:

    So when I say that I have had enough of religious extremists trying to blow Britons up, and don’t like the organisations who give legitimacy to those extremists – then I’m an ‘Islamophobe’?

    Have I got your train of thought right?

    Nope you have me completely wrong! You are labelled islamphobe for reason im not aware of. Can you tell me who gives these terrorists legitimacy bar al-qaida and the lunatic fringe? hardly spokespeople of islam? are they?

  97. genghis — on 29th October, 2006 at 12:21 am  

    ZZ,

    Genghis
    BHL unlike that Islamist mufti is not defending rapists, stating that muslim men have no need to control their sexual impulses or demanding that women be subjugated.

    Put that in your islamist pipe and smoke it.
    No comparision can be made other than one is a Muslim who you feel has been unfairly treated and one is an islamophobe.

    Not very bright are you.

    BHL saying wimmin wearing the veil are inviting rape, is no different from what the cleric was saying ‘Women who dont wear the veil are inviting rape!’

    Its the same thing. Muppet!

  98. genghis — on 29th October, 2006 at 12:24 am  

    Islam is based on a false premise. Simply atheist, islamophobic?

    By the definition of islamophobia…you are not, by saying that, islamophobic!

  99. Sunny — on 29th October, 2006 at 12:31 am  

    I knew wouldnt answer your contradictions about the the rise of hate crime,(you said!) but at the same time agree with Gilligans commentary that it isnt so!

    I agree with that Genghis – this is the point. Gilligan says the demonisation of Muslims has led to more hate crimes. I assume yo agree with this. So why doesn’t this apply to Jews? Why can’t demonisation of Jews (or as MPAC calls them – Zionists) lead to more hate crimes against them? If you accept one, you have to accept the other right?

    The link you’re not prepared to make is that one is causing the other. no matter how reprehensible terrorosm is, you gotta simply acknowledge the underlying root causes? no? how else does one try to find a solution?

    I’m making a link. My link is that religious extremists have been able to recruit more Muslims to their cause to blow themselves up. But you cannot deny there were suicide bombers before Afganistan and Iraq.

    The Muslim blogger Thabet and the Muslim magazine Q-News have more on why blaming foreign policy is a cop-out:
    http://underprogress.blogs.com/weblog/2006/10/qnews_blaming_f.html

    They make the same point I do. So that deals with religious extremism.

    My final point is that most of the people mentioned on that list of ‘Islamophobes’ have done nothing other than criticise religious extremists and those who justify their actions. MPAC for example have no problem with agreeing with suicide bombers in Israel. And for that they are called Islamophobes. That is an attempt at slurring people and shutting down the debate.

  100. ZinZin — on 29th October, 2006 at 12:37 am  

    Not very bright are you.

    BHL saying wimmin wearing the veil are inviting rape, is no different from what the cleric was saying ‘Women who dont wear the veil are inviting rape!’

    Its the same thing. Muppet!

    The veil turns women into things. It was shocking to find on the streets of Kabul that invisible women behind burkas are not treated with special respect. On the contrary, they are pushed and shoved off pavements by men, jostled aside as if almost subhuman without the face-to-face contact that recognises common humanity.
    Polly Toynbee 17/10/2006 Guardian

    Willful misinterpretation. Liar.

  101. genghis — on 29th October, 2006 at 12:44 am  

    Sunny

    I agree with that Genghis – this is the point. Gilligan says the demonisation of Muslims has led to more hate crimes. I assume yo agree with this. So why doesn’t this apply to Jews? Why can’t demonisation of Jews (or as MPAC calls them – Zionists) lead to more hate crimes against them? If you accept one, you have to accept the other right?

    I do agree with hate crime being on the increase, and its on the increase for jews as it is for muslims. The salient point is, the Muslim community being attacked the way it currently will only lead to race riots…? no? Which is waht you are now seemingly agreeing to (i think) and what gilligan disagrees with? no?

    I’m making a link. My link is that religious extremists have been able to recruit more Muslims to their cause to blow themselves up. But you cannot deny there were suicide bombers before Afganistan and Iraq.

    err no i dont agree with that. Home grown suicide bombers killing briton occured after the invasions. Home grown suicide bombers in Tel Aviv – after the invasion of iraq?

    My point is that most of the people mentioned on that list of ‘Islamophobes’ have done nothing other than criticise religious extremists and those who justify their actions. Not at all i dont agree with that assessment at all. Most that are labelled islamophobic by MPAC are so cos they are islamophobic not simply cos of their criticism of Suicide Bombers and the muslim extremist but because they blame the religion!

    MPAC for example have no problem with agreeing with suicide bombers in Israel.

    I dont think they agree with suicide bombers per se, but they realise that sometime there are only certain ways to defend oneself. In the absence of military might and odds that are so huge, what other option do they have? diplomacy under occupation certainly hasnt?

    One thing stands out from all this. You dont seem to condemn western foreign policy in the middleeast in same way you condemn ‘suicide bombers’ or ‘terrorists’.

    Im just wondering why you find one form of killing human more reprehensible than the other?

  102. genghis — on 29th October, 2006 at 12:47 am  

    ZZ,

    Care to stick to the point?…why is the cleric lambasted for saying wimmin invite rape if they dont wear a veil, and when a french jewish philosopher says the same about women who do wear the veil isnt highlighted in the media at all? ta!

  103. Katy — on 29th October, 2006 at 12:56 am  

    It is probably because no-one who isn’t Jewish reads the Jewish Chronicle, genghis. And not very many Jewish people read it either. It is a well known fact that in every Jewish household only one person actually reads the JC. That person is then tasked with the responsibility of alerting everyone else in the house to any interesting marriages, births or deaths in the Social and Personal columns.

  104. ZinZin — on 29th October, 2006 at 12:57 am  

    Genghis you have read what you have wanted to read. BHL point is as amplified by Toynbee is that the veil is a tool of oppression of women. In short BHL and Toynbee are saying that the veil makes it easier for men to rape women as they do not have to see the terror on their faces and they can use the veil to muffle their screams.

    Its easy to harm others if you don’t have to look at their faces.

    This is just a red herring and a non-issue BHL is right about the veil. The muftis sermon is incitement to violence considering that he is defending rapists who were found guilty and given long sentences. There is also an issue of Muslim men in Sydney harrasing Australian women who are wearing bikinis on the beach.

    Genghis you are a moron for suggesting an equivalence.
    When BHL defends rapists i will retract my comments.

  105. genghis — on 29th October, 2006 at 1:13 am  

    Katy

    Oh write, i suppose that makes it ok then?

    *shakes head and rolls eyes*

    zz,

    Just for your benefit (you being a muppet an all) i’ll just re-post the entry so can that you can digest it, and then perhaps mount a defence that would stand up to some scrutiny rather than that shyte that is tantamount to diverting from the issue!

    At a time when the Cleric in Australia is being lambasted by the national Media Outlets i wonder why this bernard is not dealt with in the same way:

    The Jewish Chronicle interviews French philospher Bernard-Henri Levy:

    “Our time is almost up, but BHL becomes the most animated I have seen him when I ask him about Jack Straw’s intervention on Muslim women and the veil. ‘Jack Straw’, he says, leaning close to me, ‘made a great point. He did not say that he was against the veil. He said it is much easier, much more comfortable, respectful, to speak with a woman with a naked face. And without knowing, he quoted Levinas, who is the philosopher of the face. Levinas says that [having seen] the naked face of your interlocutor, you cannot kill him or her, you cannot rape him, you cannot violate him. So when the Muslims say that the veil is to protect women, it is the contrary. The veil is an invitation to rape’.”

    Jewish Chronicle, 14 October 2006

  106. Katy — on 29th October, 2006 at 1:20 am  

    It was a joke, Genghis.

  107. genghis — on 29th October, 2006 at 1:23 am  

    Katy,

    oops sorry! so it is. My apologies!

    in which case LMAO!

    (i know, i know but it is 1:20am you know!)

  108. ZinZin — on 29th October, 2006 at 1:23 am  

    I apologise for calling you a muppet Kermist and his gang are able to understand simple arguments.

    Its hard to quantify your stupidity.

    Let the Picklers decide who is right on this issue.

    Genghis why not do what that Danish Iman did and take this article around the middle east and stoke up some artifical rage.

    Your getting angry over nothing.

  109. Katy — on 29th October, 2006 at 1:24 am  

    Which was rather nice of me, I thought, seeing as you’ve effectively hijacked this thread as a vehicle for the old Zionists-control-the-media shtick, which I actually find vaguely offensive.

    But then it wouldn’t be a thread on Pickled Politics if someone hadn’t turned it into a Zionists-control-the-media discussion, would it?

  110. genghis — on 29th October, 2006 at 1:34 am  

    katy,

    Not at all, that wasnt my aim, all i did was try to highlight how and why muslims feel targeted and singled out. which may lead to feelings of anxiety and a seige mentality and some feelings of persecution plus with the background of the middle-east leaves people feeling ultra sensitive (i know that sunny and co dont agree with this phenomenon). The media+politicians are largely responsible – as are extremists too! I certainly dont think the media is controlled by zionists in tel-aviv or deepest manhatten etc. My humblest aplogies if ive spoilt the thread. wasnt my intention. i think my spleen is vented now anyhow!

    Wheres the ferking smirnoff ice when you need it!

    You were saying?

  111. Sunny — on 29th October, 2006 at 1:56 am  

    The salient point is, the Muslim community being attacked the way it currently will only lead to race riots…? no

    It will read to race-riots only if someone starts a race riot isn’t it? Will you go out on a rampage beating up ordinary white people because of the Daily Express coverage? Let us know if you do.

    err no i dont agree with that. Home grown suicide bombers killing briton occured after the invasions. Home grown suicide bombers in Tel Aviv – after the invasion of iraq?

    No I didn’t think you’d agree either. Then your whole argument falls apart. Well that is not my concern and neither do I agree with you on that. Myself and others (incl Muslims) have made the same point. If you disagree then you have a right to. I’m just going to ignore your analysis.

    but they realise that sometime there are only certain ways to defend oneself.

    Which is the argument that the London suicide bombers used too. You add that:

    Im just wondering why you find one form of killing human more reprehensible than the other?

    No I don’t. Maybe you haven’t read this website much but I’m absolutely against and always have been against the British invasion of Iraq. You’re the one making excuses for people “fighting back”. I don’t want innocent people killed either way.

    And lastly:
    Most that are labelled islamophobic by MPAC are so cos they are islamophobic

    I’ll repeat this again – most of those people listed have only professed their hatred of religious extremists and the organisations that justify them (like MPAC). That does not make them Islamophobic. Just because MPAC says so doesn’t make it law. You find the related quotes and then you let us know.

  112. Jai — on 29th October, 2006 at 11:52 am  

    =>”but they realise that sometime there are only certain ways to defend oneself.”

    No. If you claim to be acting in the name of a religion and, furthermore, claim divine sanction for your actions, then you should follow the principles of the religion’s tenets (and prohibitions, especially regarding acceptable tactics for warfare) to the letter, and then live or die with the consequences.

    Sometimes taking the higher moral ground means you will face defeat. So be it. There is such a concept as “Death before dishonour”.

  113. genghis — on 29th October, 2006 at 12:13 pm  

    it will read to race-riots only if someone starts a race riot isn’t it? Will you go out on a rampage beating up ordinary white people because of the Daily Express coverage? Let us know if you do.

    I wont be joining in race riots. Your stance is an arrogant one. A community under seige will react. History has shown this (paris, bradford, oldham etc). For you to ignore history is your perogative. Just wanted to know your thoughts on the mini riot last night in Prestwich…point proven!

    No I didn’t think you’d agree either. Then your whole argument falls apart. Well that is not my concern and neither do I agree with you on that. Myself and others (incl Muslims) have made the same point. If you disagree then you have a right to. I’m just going to ignore your analysis.

    You can ignore my analysis.Its your perogative. And not a problem. Muslim suicide bombers have existed in the middle-east to fight against military odds that are stacked against them. The home grown Suicide bomber only came after the invasion of Iraq!

    Which is the argument that the London suicide bombers used too.

    Yes and ? Like i said, the home grown suicide is no different from the bombers that bomb innocent civilians in Falluja or Qana or Afghanistan. And im not justifying the home grown suicide bomber, but i do recognize the ingredients that have led to such an extreme reaction. You can ignore those reasons. If you feel that both are as reprehensible then at least attack both with equal fervour!

    You’re the one making excuses for people “fighting back”. I don’t want innocent people killed either way.

    Sunny, just out of interest, how would you advise palestinians defend themselves. Diplomacy hasnt worked.

    I’ll repeat this again – most of those people listed have only professed their hatred of religious extremists and the organisations that justify them (like MPAC).

    Thats a crude if not loose interpretation. My opinion. MPAC does not justify the homegrown Suicide bombers. But does recognize why the middleeastern Suicide bomber exists. Thats not tantamount to justification.

    I dont think the the time nor the inclination of finding all the commentary of those people. Their commentary is well documented is widely available on the Web!

    Going back to a point you raised earlier about why i think the Media isnt impartial. No other religion has been highlighted with so much daily negative reports of it as headline news. eg the guide dog and muslim taxi driver. Had that been a sikh taxi driver do you think it would have been newsworthy? let alone headline national news?

  114. Sunny — on 29th October, 2006 at 2:40 pm  

    Thats a crude if not loose interpretation. My opinion. MPAC does not justify the homegrown Suicide bombers. But does recognize why the middleeastern Suicide bomber exists. Thats not tantamount to justification.

    See, now you’re contradicting yourself. You are either against the killing of innocent people by others or you are not. Get it right in your head before preaching to others. I’m against the bombing of Iraqis/Afghanis/Palestinians and I am fully against suicide attacks against innocent people (that incl women and kids remember). You are against the first and making excuses for the second, as MPAC do. In fact MPAC are not making excuses they actually call suicide bombers in Israel ‘martyrs’ – so they support those actions.

    Neo-cons justify attacks on Palestinians and Iraqis on the same basis – that they are under attack from suicide bombers. You’re not that stupid that you don’t recognise that.

    So in other words – both sides (MPAC and neo-cons) justify attacks on innocent people by saying the other side is aggressive. It doesn’t matter about the balance of power: that is how they justify it.

    So I repeat, you are either against killing innocent people or you are not. Don’t make excuses to me. Then you’re just trying to wiggle out of it like the neo-cons.

  115. genghis — on 29th October, 2006 at 3:32 pm  

    Sunny

    See, now you’re contradicting yourself. You are either against the killing of innocent people by others or you are not.

    Here in black and white I AM Totally and utterly against the killing of any Innocent people!

    You are against the first and making excuses for the second, as MPAC do.

    Nope, not at all thats simply your spin on my posts and grossly misconstruing the points being made. I’ll explain again in simple terms.

    Im against ALL killing, murdering, maiming of innocent people. That said, i understand what is right and wrong in a given scenario. And i all comprehend and understand what the cause and effect of certain actions are. Occupation, oppression, suppression and killing of innocent civilians will lead to more of the same (suicide bombers etc!). Its no biggie, in fact im surprised you dont understand that concept. You dont seem to present the solution for the oppressed, simply criticising their actions. Demonstrations, albeit peaceful have no affect. Diplomacy has had little effect, UN resolutions are applied inequitably which renders that organization almost useless bar the humanitarian aid. Let me know if you still dont understand where im coming from!

    In fact MPAC are not making excuses they actually call suicide bombers in Israel ‘martyrs’ – so they support those actions.

    Again thats simply your spin on it. They are against suicide bombing but understand why its occuring in the middleeast. They wholeheartedly condemn home made suicide bombers, as i do.

    Neo-cons justify attacks on Palestinians and Iraqis on the same basis – that they are under attack from suicide bombers.

    Yes they do. It would be useful if we could state which way around things occured. Suicide bombers or the occupations?

    You’re not that stupid that you don’t recognise that.

    Ditto!

    It doesn’t matter about the balance of power: that is how they justify it.

    Completely disagree. One side is oppressed, the other side are the oppressors. So yes it matters. alot!

    So I repeat, you are either against killing innocent people or you are not. Don’t make excuses to me. Then you’re just trying to wiggle out of it like the neo-cons.

    So I repeat, i am against killing innocent people. Don’t make excuses to me. Then you’re just trying to wiggle out of it like the neo-cons.

  116. Anas — on 29th October, 2006 at 4:01 pm  

    Errr, someone mentioned the Jewish Chronicle, and that is my cue to inform picklers that I’ve finished the Melanie Philips/Lebanon War article (based on something written in the JC) I’ve been talking about for my blog, it’s entitled WHO IS SHE?!?!?!:

    http://anask.wordpress.com/2006/10/29/who-is-she/

    Seems that it’s not only rape that the JC condones nowadays.

  117. Anas — on 29th October, 2006 at 4:04 pm  

    I’m making a link. My link is that religious extremists have been able to recruit more Muslims to their cause to blow themselves up. But you cannot deny there were suicide bombers before Afganistan and Iraq.

    The Muslim blogger Thabet and the Muslim magazine Q-News have more on why blaming foreign policy is a cop-out:
    http://underprogress.blogs.com/weblog/2006/10/qnews_blaming_f.html

    They make the same point I do. So that deals with religious extremism.

    Thabet’s talkin’ bull, my own fab article puts forward the case that FP is chiefly responsible for terrorism:
    http://anask.wordpress.com/2006/10/11/its-the-foreign-policy-stupid-part-1/

    Check dis out too

  118. Sunny — on 29th October, 2006 at 4:29 pm  

    You guys are failing to understand the naunces of my arguments here.

    1) On foreign policy: There were religious extremists way before Iraq/Afghanistan, and many times they didn’t even care about Palestine. We have Al-Muhajiroun and Hizb ut Tahrir people plastering posters on uni campuses telling us that the Khalifah was coming to Britain. They sent around leaflets calling on Muslim boys to actively convert Hindu/Sikh girls (search the net) and organising rallies in London calling for people to convert otherwise others would burn in hell etc.

    We ignored these religious supremacists. But the Iraq war has helped them develop their supremecist ideology further and recruit brainwashed kids who they tell that resistance in the form of violence is the only way.

    So let me put this briefly for you Anas, maybe because you haven’t been on the receiving end of religious extremists who are Muslim – the wars have recruited more to their cause – hence there are more people willing to blow themselves up. But that does not negate the existence of poor, sexually frustrated jihadis who wanted to blow themselves up for the Ummah and kill innocent people who they saw as the oppressors .

    Anas your argument is old and already covered here plenty of times. Do a search for ‘tipping point’ on PP and you’ll see my response.

    2) Occupation, oppression, suppression and killing of innocent civilians will lead to more of the same (suicide bombers etc!). Its no biggie, in fact im surprised you dont understand that concept. You dont seem to present the solution for the oppressed, simply criticising their actions. Demonstrations, albeit peaceful have no affect. Diplomacy has had little effect,

    genghis I’m going to try and get this over to you last time. During a conflict both sides see themselves as the oppressed (or under attack) and the others as aggressors.

    Israelis think that the whole Arab world is after their destruction and the killing of Jews and if they give the Palestinians autonomy, it will only quicken their own deaths because Hamas will have more power. That much is obvious.

    You think you’re the only one who is the victim? You think Palestinians are the only ones feeling under attack? Who you think is the oppressor or who is the oppressed is irrevelant. The other side sees it the same way but with the roles reversed.

    So above, all you’ve done is justified terrorism by saying the Palestinians have no choice. Israelis meanwhile justify the wall and the economic blockade saying they have no choice either. So you are then justifying terrorism, there is no point denying it because that is what you’re doing. You and MPAC are saying there is no other choice.

    The only option available, according to you, is that Hamas recruit some boys and convince them to blow themselves up in Israeli shops where innocent women and children also die.

    Well how is that different to the UK? Those four fuckwits who blew themselves up in London are simply saying, like you, that they had no other choice in order to help the Palestinians or Iraqis. Isn’t it? The only reason you and MPAC don’t admit that is because it is too close too home and because then they’d be shipped off to Belmarsh. the reasoning is the same.

  119. Chairwoman — on 29th October, 2006 at 5:14 pm  

    Sunny – That is a reasoned and non-partisan assessment of the situation.

  120. Anas — on 29th October, 2006 at 5:25 pm  

    genghis I’m going to try and get this over to you last time. During a conflict both sides see themselves as the oppressed (or under attack) and the others as aggressors.

    Israelis think that the whole Arab world is after their destruction and the killing of Jews and if they give the Palestinians autonomy, it will only quicken their own deaths because Hamas will have more power. That much is obvious.

    You think you’re the only one who is the victim? You think Palestinians are the only ones feeling under attack? Who you think is the oppressor or who is the oppressed is irrevelant. The other side sees it the same way but with the roles reversed.

    So above, all you’ve done is justified terrorism by saying the Palestinians have no choice. Israelis meanwhile justify the wall and the economic blockade saying they have no choice either. So you are then justifying terrorism, there is no point denying it because that is what you’re doing. You and MPAC are saying there is no other choice.

    Sunny, that’s why it’s so important that both parties fulfil their obligations under International Law. And why any serious critique of Israel and/or Palestine must be based on international law and human rights guidelines, see for example Norman Finkelstein’s brilliant analyses of the conflict.

  121. Anas — on 29th October, 2006 at 5:27 pm  

    RE: foreign policy

    Sunny, in answer to your points I could do little better than to quote from my own essay here:

    It is also claimed that were it not for foreign policy, the extremists would find plenty else wrong with our secular Western civilisation (i.e., free-speech, sexual liberality, equal rights for women, materialism, etc), or with the process of globalisation that’s exporting Western values across the world. This is what I call the ‘one amongst many’ (OAM) hypothesis: Western foreign policy is only one amongst many grievances that the extremists have. And of course broadly speaking it is true, but when it comes to tackling the threat of terrorism it seems that proponents of the idea that the terrorists have some other agenda — and that by invoking Western foreign policy they are effectively masking their real intentions — are slightly missing the point.

    To see why this is so you only have to ask yourself why it is that Islamic extremism poses such an overwhelming threat to the West. In other words what has been consistently identified, by security forces, academics, and politicians as one of the, if not the core challenges that the West faces in its battle against Islamic extremism and terrorism? Simply put, the problem is that of recruitment: the more Muslims that the extremists can convince of the righteousness of their mission, the more likely they are to find recruits willing to help plan and carry out further atrocities; the more sympathy they elicit within the Muslim community, the less likely members of that community will cooperate with intelligence services or the police (a recent survey done for a British newspaper suggested that 9% of British Muslims would not inform the police of any suspicions they had of terrorist activities), the harder terrorist perpetrators will be to identify. If the issue were only that of a few isolated madmen plotting to blow themselves up with no support or sympathy from a wider community, then the threat would be significantly reduced indeed would most likely be minimal; it’s their power to convince others and to dissiminate their poisonous message that poses the real, longstanding threat. As the politicians constantly iterate, the so-called war in terror must also incorporate the battle for Muslim hearts and minds if it is to be at all successful, not least at home.

    Therefore bearing this in mind and given the quotes above, we have to ask, why these prominent proponents of terrorist ideology almost exclusively justify their actions — to their intended audience, which we must assume is primarily Muslim — as revenge against an unjust and immoral Western foreign policy? Why does recruitment propaganda focus almost exclusively on the atrocities supposedly perpetrated by the West — if not, that is, to capitalise upon the very real Muslim anger at these perceived injustices, and at the policy of which they are part? Why use foreign policy as a so-called proxy and so adamantly repudiate suggestions that there may have been other reasons for the bombings, going so far as to set as the grounds for a truce the immediate cessation of Western actions in various parts of the Muslim world, if not to recruit (primarily) young Muslims radicalised by Western FP?

    The evidence suggests that the OAM hypothesis when it relates to the hidden intentions of extremist ideologues is at best an irrelevance: the real question is why would these particular extremists be so careful to present a certain image across to the rest of the Muslim world? If you are willing to accept Islamic extremists as rational agents (and we have to attribute some level of rationality to them if we’re going to label them terrorists and therefore willing to use terror as a weapon to further some agenda) then we must judge the public statements of Bin Laden et al, as we do every other kind of propaganda, indeed as a particularly effective piece of propaganda, the risk assessments with regard to the increase in terrorist activity in the UK testify to that. Some commentators argue that denied the opportunity of exploiting extreme discontent felt towards foreign policy, the extremists would use, for example, Western promiscuity as a pretext for committing acts of terror, but in that case how many others could they convince of the righteousness of their cause to the extent that they’d be willing to kill themselves and others? Anyone who thinks it wouldn’t make any difference to their ability to recruit potential suicide bombers and terrorists is absolutely deluded.

  122. ZinZin — on 29th October, 2006 at 6:05 pm  

    Anas its not foreign policy it is adulterous practices.

  123. Sunny — on 29th October, 2006 at 6:14 pm  

    This is what I call the ‘one amongst many’ (OAM) hypothesis: Western foreign policy is only one amongst many grievances that the extremists have. And of course broadly speaking it is true, but when it comes to tackling the threat of terrorism it seems

    Anas – I don’t think you read my points above carefully. Tackling terrorism in the short term will indeed mean re-evaluating our idiotic and hypocritical foreign policy.

    But that does not take away religious extremism. That does not take away tensions between different faith groups in the UK or the issues of integration/political participation and Khalifah etc. Those were there before FP became a big issue and people such as MPAC, HuT and Al-M etc will always use some sort of grievance to rally their base. That is central to their existence.

    If there was nothing to get agitated against, how else would MPAC write a really angry article and then ask people to donate to MPAC to “help the cause”? Think about it. If there were no “issues” as such, then don’t think they’d become irrelevant? Go bust? Of course they would. So it’s in their interests to agitate.

    And lastly – you seem to exaggerate the “threat” we face from Muslim extremism too. I don’t buy Bush’s hyperbole that western civilisation is under threat. Bollocks. If worse comes to worse the state will simply enact very harsh rules of engagement, deport or imprison agitators and declare war on any country that threatens it. The west remains waaaaay more powerful than all of the Middle East combined. It’s because the threat isn’t very big that we’re seeing all this rubbish from the police and politicians. If the threat was real they’d actually do something useful.

    But the fact is the vast majority of British Muslims don’t want to get involved in this jihad that MPAC are trying to create simply because they want to get on with their lives.

  124. Anas — on 29th October, 2006 at 6:27 pm  

    Sunny, my essay and my post were specifically focusing on the threat of terrorism from Islamic extremists. You’re talking about Islamic fundamentalism in general which is a much more complex and difficult topic.

    And I am hyping things up in my essay, but that’s cause I assumed that most people reading it (if any)would tend toward that way of thinking.

  125. genghis — on 29th October, 2006 at 6:48 pm  

    During a conflict both sides see themselves as the oppressed (or under attack) and the others as aggressors.

    And so the UN Resolutions and international Law must have be completely wrong ? What an ignorant and ridiculous position to take? The reality on the ground is that Hamas was voted in only AFTER 40years of increasingly bad oppression? the Oppressed have become more and more fervent in seeking freedom. You are quite comfortably side-stepping the issue of occupation. Very convenient i might add!

    Israelis think that the whole Arab world is after their destruction and the killing of Jews and if they give the Palestinians autonomy, it will only quicken their own deaths because Hamas will have more power. That much is obvious.

    And so lets continue the oppression of palestine? Is that your position? lmao!

    Hasnt US – Isreal – UK – Palestinians etc stated that there should be a 2 state solution? To what end? In the end, Hamas were voted in just 2 years ago…notice that previous leaderships in Palestine wanted a two state solution too and Isreal did what…yes carried on occupying! All mouth no action?

    You think you’re the only one who is the victim? You think Palestinians are the only ones feeling under attack?

    Not at all. The facts speak for themselves. Have a look at the death tolls of each respective people, the picture is clear as to who is attacking who! And that doesnt even take into account the effects of occupation in terms of denying basic human rights. You’re completely ignoring the oppressed and the effect/affects of occupation.

    So above, all you’ve done is justified terrorism by saying the Palestinians have no choice.

    Err no. Im not justifying terrorism. Are you saying only one side is committing terrorism?? It seems to me that you are saying isreal is not committing terrorism thro occupation, despite civilian population centres being deliberatly targeted but if palestinians do the same lets label that as terrorism. Let be completely unequivocal here. If terrorism is the use of terror against civilians then Isreals policies can be called ‘State Terrorism’ and that my friend is the crux of this matter. That BOTH sides are terrorists. Hence, if there is going to be a solution then ONLY international law can clear up the mess. And that is why UN Resolutions 242 ought to followed right now. If not. Then isreael ought to be punished in exactly the same manner as Iraq was when it invaded Kuwait. No amount of acadamic debate will change the facts on the ground!

    Israelis meanwhile justify the wall and the economic blockade saying they have no choice either.

    No-one has a problem with ANY wall, the issue more importantly is where the wall is built. And yes in the occupied lands! Again i think you’re completely ignoring the facts! They do have a choice. Simply follow international law.

    So you are then justifying terrorism, there is no point denying it because that is what you’re doing.

    As is israel? Im simply suggesting if Isreael continues to oppress there will be FREEDOM fighting! What you term terrorism? Its a 2-way street.

    The only option available, according to you, is that Hamas recruit some boys and convince them to blow themselves up in Israeli shops where innocent women and children also die.

    Nope, I would like the option to be that Isreal withdraws to what international Law says its borders are. If it doesnt then, of course, what choice is there for palestinians?? You still cant come up with what should happen!

    Well how is that different to the UK? Those four fuckwits who blew themselves up in London are simply saying, like you, that they had no other choice in order to help the Palestinians or Iraqis. Isn’t it? The only reason you and MPAC don’t admit that is because it is too close too home and because then they’d be shipped off to Belmarsh. the reasoning is the same.

    Not at all. Again great spinning on your part. Ive written it black and white. And its documented above. Home grown terrorists were wrong and what they committed was an act of gross inhumanity. And i condemn them eaqually as i condemn the acts of US/Britain/Israel in the middleast. I cannot see the difference between people dying in London and people dying in Baghdad or Qana or Sabra and Shatila etc. Should i have more sympathy for people in london than in palestine? no way! To me they are all humans. There is wrong and a right here, which you just dont want to recognise nor do you want to acknowledge it. There is a cause and there is an affect.

    Perhaps one day the UN will force Isreal to comply with UN Resolutions. That day, i hope arrives soon and i hope peace may come to all in the middleeast.

    Your continual ignorance of my disapproval of terrorism is tiresome. Frankly, you wont condemn the policies that have given rise to terrorism in the first place. That much cannot be denied either!

  126. Chairwoman — on 29th October, 2006 at 7:15 pm  

    It is a truth universally acknowledged that no country other than the UK ever complies with UN Resolutions.

  127. Anas — on 29th October, 2006 at 7:20 pm  

    that’s why the world is in such a happy state at the moment

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.