Zakir Naik’s exclusion from Britain


by Rumbold
22nd June, 2010 at 9:18 pm    

Zakir Naik, an Indian-based Islamist preacher, has been banned from entering Britain after the home secretary revoked his visa due to his comments on Osama Bin Laden, Jews and other issues:

While it is evident that most of Naik’s views are out of step with the values of any 21st-century liberal democracy, this in itself does not provide sufficient justification to exclude him from the UK. As Lord Justice Sedley stated in the notable high court judgement Redmond-Bate vs Director of Public Prosecutions [1999]: “Free speech includes not only the inoffensive, but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, providing it does not intend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.” Incitement to violence is a crucial caveat of this fundamental principle, and forms the basis of the Home Office’s “unacceptable behaviour” policy.

I am always dubious about such bans, and am not sure what to think. No one has a right to enter this country, Britain is unlikely to benefit from Mr. Naik’s presence, and he is clearly an unpleasant anti-Semite, but do his utterings constitute an incitement to violence? Perhaps.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Civil liberties,Islamists






77 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. sunny hundal

    Blog post:: Zakir Naik's exclusion from Britain http://bit.ly/bqxWb3


  2. Yakoub Islam

    Zakir Naik’s exclusion from Britain – Pickled Politique: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/9069




  1. Cauldron — on 22nd June, 2010 at 10:05 pm  

    The only valid reason for letting him would be to give MI5 an opportunity to identify potential enemies of the state from amongst his audience.

    That aside, the best approach is to tell him to sod off.

  2. Sunny — on 22nd June, 2010 at 11:04 pm  

    the above comment is an example of typical right-wing authoritarianism and desire to censor ‘the wrong kind of speech’.

    Rumbold – the ‘perhaps’ at the end of your article a bollocks isn’t it?

    Nick Griffin said muslims were like cockroaches. the danish cartoons said all muslims were terrorists. would you ban that too?

    actually this ‘right-wing’ k=jibe is perhaps misrepresentation. there are plenty of ‘left wing’ fuckwits calling for him to be banned too.

  3. Sunny — on 22nd June, 2010 at 11:05 pm  

    Incitement to violence is a crucial caveat of this fundamental principle, and forms the basis of the Home Office’s “unacceptable behaviour” policy

    rubbish. the only thing they’ll do is start describing anything they don’t like as incitement to violence,

  4. MixMatch — on 22nd June, 2010 at 11:50 pm  

    @ Sunny,

    Naik has advocated the execution of apostates and homosexuals. That is a fact. It is also a fact that in almost all Muslim countries apostates and homosexuals get imprisoned and in some cases even executed. Naik’s views and those of other Islamists critics do spell actual harm to such people. It is not as if he has just dreamed up a wacky idea which won’t catch on and which no one would ever anywhere actually enforce. That is a fact.

    So which part of ‘incitement to violence’ are you having trouble fitting into that?

    “the danish cartoons said all muslims were terrorists”

    No they didn’t. You are just making that up.

    @ Rumbold,

    “No one has a right to enter this country.”

    And that is about it. I object to my government allowing into my country someone who advocates that I should be executed. I don’t think that is unreasonable on my part. Those NOT on Naik’s list of groups to be executed may find it titillating and ego-massaging to treat this as an intellectual parlour game, but then they are not the ones about whom it is being said they should be killed. Are you, Sunny?

  5. AndyB — on 23rd June, 2010 at 12:01 am  

    @MixMatch

    I agree

    Everyone has a right to say what they want.

    This right doesn’t give such people the right to enter the uk without uk citizenship

    I include the pope in this

    Kind regards

  6. Vikrant — on 23rd June, 2010 at 12:17 am  

    Nick Griffin said muslims were like cockroaches. the danish cartoons said all muslims were terrorists. would you ban that too?

    The difference Sunny is that, Griffin is a British citizen while Naik is Indian. No one has automatic right to a British visa, its a privilege.

  7. earwicga — on 23rd June, 2010 at 12:18 am  

    AndyB – under what reason could Benny be banned from the UK?

  8. Jon — on 23rd June, 2010 at 1:16 am  

    Vikrant
    “The difference Sunny is that, Griffin is a British citizen while Naik is Indian”

    So much for universal liberal values !

  9. damon — on 23rd June, 2010 at 1:48 am  

    I agree with Vikrant. Why on earth should we let him in here? What do we get out of it? Knowing that we’ve protected his human rights and freedom of speech or something? This is taking wishy-washy liberalism too far in my opinion. And it’s anti-democratic, as the vast majority of Brits (if they read the Guardian piece) would say keep him out.

    Btw, where is his audience in Britain?
    If large numbers of people are going to come and listen to him speak at some mosque of Islamic center then you can understand why EDL types are getting wound up.

    I remember being in Australia when the Bali bomb went off, and then it came out that the spiritual head of Jemaah Islamiyah, Abu Bakar Bashir had made several visits to Australia in preceeding years and had toured the country giving lectures.
    The talk radio shock jocks and their audiences were scandalised by this revealation – and the muslim community in Australia took a lot of flack for it.

    I wonder where these people who turned out in Tower Hamlets to show opposition to the EDL would stand on this.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehillblog/2010/jun/21/tower-hamlets-english-defence-league-march

  10. Notabloodyfeminist! — on 23rd June, 2010 at 5:29 am  

    When the ‘feminists’ on this site are done fellating Moazzam Begg, they can turn their attention to Zakir Naik.

  11. Yakoub — on 23rd June, 2010 at 6:01 am  

    Given it’s such a privilege to enter the vice president of the Imperium’s chamber, aka Britain, or as I prefer to call these days, America’s second ars’ole, I think we should realise this notion by asking far-right loonies to stand at the various entry points, at ports and at airports, shouting at the new arrivals, “You lucky lucky bastards! Be grateful Her Majesty is letting you in. Put one foot wrong and you’ll be out!! Gorrit?”

    How long before they start telling all Muslims it’s a privilege to live here, too?

  12. MixMatch — on 23rd June, 2010 at 8:46 am  

    @ Yakoub,

    How long before you admit that want Naik to be allowed in simply because he is a Muslim, and that you don’t object to his hate-mongering against Jews, apostates, gays and others?

    It is a privilege to enter any country of which you don’t have citizenship. Perhaps get someone to explain to you concepts like national sovereignty, borders, etc, as you evidently haven’t yet grasped them.

  13. mashkoor — on 23rd June, 2010 at 12:37 pm  

    Peace be upon You All here… Zakir Naik stands for peace. This is just another attempt at misquoting Islam and muslims. Theresa May should sit and listen to his lectures in full before making absurd decisions because we need more people like Zakir Naik in this world in order to be informed and for peace to prevail. We are with Dr. Zakir naik and he is with us. May Allah guide the UK Government to the straight path Aameen… I strongly condemn the UK action of exclusion of Dr. Zakir Naik. This shows the true picture of the UK democracy and the fact that they fear from the impressive & influential personality of Dr. Zakir and they also fear from the rapid increase of Muslim conversions in the UK & the west. This is UK’s Freedom of Expression where they encourage cartoon’s of our beloved Prophet Peace be upon him and ban our learned heroic personalities like Dr. Zakir Naik.

  14. Yakoub — on 23rd June, 2010 at 3:26 pm  

    @Mixmatch

    Perhaps when you learn to see that, when it comes to UK admissions policy, it’s one law for Muslims (and I don’t have much time for the likes of Naik), and another for Zionist hatemongers and war criminals (who will soon be protected from arrest by new Lib-Con legislation), then perhaps you’ll understand the meaning of the concepts such as injustice and discrimination, as you evidently haven’t yet grasped them. But then, never having been on the shitty end of those nasties, you probably don’t give a flying toss.

  15. MixMatch — on 23rd June, 2010 at 5:44 pm  

    Absolute bullshit. Islamist hatemongers have been entering Britain freely for years. Instead of whining about it now that one of them is stopped, maybe you should ask yourslef why your religion seems to beat all other sput together in exporting bloodthirsty ‘religious scholars’ all round the world. The British public are sick of people like Naik.

    Show me the other examples of people who have said apostates, gay people, people not of a particular religion etc, should be executed, and who have been allowed into the UK. You won’t find any, because at the moment your religion has a monopoly on such people coming here from abroad to preach. And there is no bias against Muslims. The revolting Westboro Baptist church are also banned from the UK and they have never even advocated violence. Even they, horrible as they are, are far less extreme in whattwy advocate than ‘victims’ like the odious Naik.

    How do you think allowing in yet another Muslim cleric who preaches death to unbelievers et al is going to improve Islam’s image in the UK? Why would ordinary British people think, “Gosh, he wants a load of us executed, that sounds like a nice religion”?

  16. Sunny — on 23rd June, 2010 at 6:58 pm  

    No one has automatic right to a British visa, its a privilege.

    Why? Don’t you believe in free speech? After all, people can access Naik over the internet can’t they?

    The same idiots going on about “privilege” didn’t say the same when Geert Wilders was banned the first time

  17. Sunny — on 23rd June, 2010 at 7:01 pm  

    Naik has advocated the execution of apostates and homosexuals. That is a fact.

    You’d have to show that he actually asked people to go out and kill homosexuals and apostates before this becomes incitement. If you have the quote, then I’ll accept he incited violence.

    Can you show me where he said that?

  18. Rumbold — on 23rd June, 2010 at 7:13 pm  

    Sunny:

    Rumbold – the ‘perhaps’ at the end of your article a bollocks isn’t it?

    No, rather I was unsure whether his recorded words constituted incitement to violence. I haven’t seen definitive proof either way.

  19. Rumbold — on 23rd June, 2010 at 7:15 pm  

    Are any non-writers having trouble accessing the site? I couldn’t get to it until I logged in to my moderator account.

  20. earwicga — on 23rd June, 2010 at 7:23 pm  

    I can only get in by logging into my mod account too Rumbold.

  21. Don — on 23rd June, 2010 at 8:22 pm  

    I had to take a circuitous rout via the archives. 2005 was an interesting year.

  22. Rumbold — on 23rd June, 2010 at 8:29 pm  

    When we were all young and innocent, and Sunny still had hair.

  23. Sarah AB — on 23rd June, 2010 at 9:10 pm  

    I’ve also had problems and only got here by googling PP on google blog search to see if anything sinister had happened.

  24. damon — on 23rd June, 2010 at 9:15 pm  

    “You heard the Muslims saying Osama Bin Laden is right or wrong. I reject them … We don’t know. But if you ask my view, if this is the truth, if he is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him.”

    Apparently he made those comments in 1996 …. so that does put a different slant on them. He’s not backing a post 9/11 Bin Laden.

    Sunny’s points are interesting ones – ”show me where he incited violence (or commited a criminal act) otherwise he’s no different to Geert Wilders” – and it’s all about freedom of speech.
    Hmmmmm. This a difficult one.

    So no matter what kind of BS foreign ‘missionaries’ come and preech, and no matter how successful they are at building a reactionary movement which degrades our society …. because we can’t deny free speech to the world, we can’t say anything?

    Geert Wilders coming to Britain doesn’t really cause the country much harm, because apart from a few fools in the house of lords and a bunch of EDL twerps, no one is really taking him seriously here.

    But the description of one of Zakir Naik’s speeches given as a link in the Guardian piece sends shivers down my spine. Maybe I’m Islamophobic?
    What do you reckon earwicga? Is’t this following description from that link the creepiest thing?

    ”Standing before hundreds of Muslims filling a Melbourne University auditorium, Dr Naik posed a disturbing question.

    “There are two sisters, equally beautiful, and they are walking down the streets of Melbourne. One is wearing the Islamic hijab, the complete body cover, except hands and face, and the other sister is wearing Western clothes, the mini-skirt or shorts,” he said.

    “And around the corner, there is an anti-social element, who is waiting for a catch, who is waiting to tease the girl. I’m asking the question: which girl will he tease? Quite naturally, he will tease the girl wearing the Western clothes,” he said.

    Men, seated at the front of the auditorium, nodded in agreement. Women in the audience, wearing hijabs and seated at the back, stayed silent.

    Under Islam, he said, a man who raped a woman was punished with the death penalty. Only Islam, he argued, gave women true equality. Using what he said were official US figures, Dr Naik told the audience that about 2700 rapes took place daily in the United States.

    “That means every 32 seconds, one rape is taking place in America,” he said. A man in the crowd exhaled a whistle of disbelief.

    “We are here, for the past half an hour, and already more than 50 rapes have taken place in America,” Dr Naik said, throwing his arms in the air. The audience laughed.”

    Should we just be neutral about giving someone a visa to come and speak to thousands of people at venues like Wembley Arena and in Birmingham and Sheffield?
    To convert people to this way of thinking?

  25. Don — on 23rd June, 2010 at 9:23 pm  

    Yeah, Rohin and Col. Mustapha are missed.

    Anyway, back on topic. I took the time to watch a few of Naik’s videos, to make sure I had the context, and he seems to be on an intellectual level with Glenn Beck. And just as pleased with his own smirking vacuity.

    He makes that rather common chicken-shit move where he says that killing gays and appostates is the right thing to do but only in a true islamic society, so he obviously isn’t advocating it here and now. It ain’t his fault if some of his fans don’t get the distinction.

    Do we let hate-preachers in, whether Naik or the Phelps clan or any of the other pond-life about whom the question is raised?

    We don’t have to and they are not being censored by being told to sod off. I suppose it has to be done on a case-by-case basis and in this case I’d say, meh, let him in and monitor every word for actionable incitement. But I really don’t have a problem with him being kept out.

    And I too would put the pope in that category. And to hell with his ‘diplomatic immunity’.

  26. Vikrant — on 23rd June, 2010 at 9:36 pm  

    Why? Don’t you believe in free speech? After all, people can access Naik over the internet can’t they?

    How does this have anything to do with free speech? Britain isn’t censoring him from television or internet is it? And yes foreign office has the right to keep odious people out. Didn’t you cheer their decision to ban Narendra Modi from entering the UK?

  27. Sunny — on 24th June, 2010 at 12:08 am  

    Geert Wilders coming to Britain doesn’t really cause the country much harm, because apart from a few fools in the house of lords and a bunch of EDL twerps, no one is really taking him seriously here.

    That’s not the point though is it. You can’t let people in because you think they’re not that consequential. He now leads the third largest party in Netherlands. Trying to make him out to be inconsequential is rather silly.

    How does this have anything to do with free speech?

    When the govt uses the law to ban or censor people, that directly affects free speech.

    Didn’t you cheer their decision to ban Narendra Modi from entering the UK?

    Narendra Modi was actually and directly complicit in ethnic cleansing.

    He isn’t like Naik, he’s more like Mugabe. He should be arrested when coming here.

  28. damon — on 24th June, 2010 at 1:57 am  

    That’s not the point though is it. You can’t let people in because you think they’re not that consequential. He now leads the third largest party in Netherlands. Trying to make him out to be inconsequential is rather silly.

    OK then, he’s not inconsequential, but my point is more about the impact people like this chap from Mumbai might have.

    If David Duke was to come over to Britain and to be holding Billy Graham type meetings in front of thousands of fawning people, we’d all be alarmed, even if he didn’t say anything illegal. And to make it worse, if he had even toned down his overt racism just enough to be able to say his message had changed.
    There would still be big UAF demonstrations outside the venues where he was to speak.

    Here is an argument I have tried earlier on PP and it’s bombed any time I have mentioned it.

    The Republic of Ireland has a smallish but growing muslim population. When you go to the two big Dublin mosques for friday prayers, you see that practically all of them have come to Ireland in the recent years and the culture is still quite Arabic. The sermons are mainly in Arabic – then a translation in English is done.
    So far so good. But here’s the dodgy part.
    One of the two mosques is also the headquaters of the European Council for Fatwa and Research headed by Yusuf Al-Qaradawi.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council_for_Fatwa_and_Research

    Is no one allowed to be disappointed that this group have come to have such influence on Ireland’s relatively new muslim population? Where you get the whole sermon on a friday going on about ”the Zionist entity’ and Israel’s desire to destroy the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem and rebuild the Jewish temple on the site.

    They are not saying anything illegal, but many of the new Muslims to Ireland are single young men from places like Algeria, and if they are to fit in, do you really want them to be listening to that kind of thing?
    An answer could be that it’s none of my business.
    Or that I’m patronising them as if they were simple.

  29. Sunny — on 24th June, 2010 at 2:15 am  

    They are not saying anything illegal, but many of the new Muslims to Ireland are single young men from places like Algeria, and if they are to fit in, do you really want them to be listening to that kind of thing?

    So you want to dictate what people should listen to and think?

    This is what I mean by a lot of people who go on about how great free speech is. They just don’t believe in it when it comes to groups they don’t like. The twats at Harry’s Place are a prime example.

  30. damon — on 24th June, 2010 at 3:52 pm  

    No not particularly – but I can be disappointed if Ireland’s new muslims integrate less than they might have into Irish society because of these outside influences dominating public discourse within the Irish muslim orbit.
    The same way that you might if Geert Wilders was to pick up a large following here in Britain, and he was selling out places like Wembley Arena when he came to speak.

    And in there somewhere lies a problem to do with racism and immigration. If it came to be known (just supposing) that Ireland’s new muslims had some of the most backward opinions and were having them reinforced by their seriously reactionary muslim hierarchy, then you are going to have people suggest that giving young men from places like Algeria and Somalia asylum was not in the interests of Ireland’s people.

    And the only answer to that from the left will be to call them racists and islamophobes I guess … which does seem to me to be a rather elitist position, as it looks down its nose and a wide part of society who aren’t that sophisticated in all the nuances of progressive liberal thinking.

  31. Don — on 24th June, 2010 at 5:54 pm  

    Still having a problem accessing the site. Is anyone else?

  32. Noor — on 24th June, 2010 at 9:17 pm  

    He’s been allowed in numerous times before, so this ban is baffling

    He’s hardly a rabid extremist seeking divisions- He produces talks like this after all

    Similarities between Hinduism and Islam – Dr. Zakir Naik

    http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5619946571510310036#

  33. Noor — on 24th June, 2010 at 9:19 pm  

    damon
    “No not particularly – but I can be disappointed if Ireland’s new muslims integrate less than they might have into Irish society because of these outside influences dominating public discourse within the Irish muslim orbit.”

    Hmmm yes because the Irish abroad always integrate well. There are no pro-IRA speakers or raising money for the IRA amongst the Irish diaspora.

  34. persephone — on 24th June, 2010 at 11:28 pm  

    @ 31 yep I am having problems accessing under the direct link to the main domain. only way seems to be going in via others link to PP

  35. Sunny — on 25th June, 2010 at 6:25 am  

    damon: No not particularly – but I can be disappointed if

    There is a difference between banning by govt and someone being “disappointed” – yes or no?

    which does seem to me to be a rather elitist position, as it looks down its nose and a wide part of society who aren’t that sophisticated in all the nuances of progressive liberal thinking.

    Dude. Do you ever do irony? Because I sometimes wonder if you write this stuff without actually thinking through it. You’re calling me elitist while saying I’m looking down on people who’re not all that nuanced? Sheesh. Give people some bloody credit.

  36. cjcjc — on 25th June, 2010 at 8:25 am  

    On balance I think the ban is bad.
    Had he come in it would have been nice to think that UAF might have wanted to organise against his kind of fascist – cue ROFL.

  37. Mark T — on 25th June, 2010 at 9:37 am  

    “The difference Sunny is that, Griffin is a British citizen while Naik is Indian”

    So much for universal liberal values !

    How do you propose banning Griffin from his own country?

  38. Mark T — on 25th June, 2010 at 9:47 am  

    Don’t you believe in free speech? After all, people can access Naik over the internet can’t they?

    If Naik can be accessed over the internet, how has his free speech been violated?

    Jesus effing Christ.

    The right to free speech is not the same as the right of entry to a foreign country.

  39. damon — on 25th June, 2010 at 10:18 am  

    There is a difference between banning by govt and someone being “disappointed” – yes or no?

    Yes. Actually, I know I’m wrong in what I said, because ‘the line’ from Spiked online is probably the right one.
    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/9076/

    Where the boundaries of acceptable liberal thinking are, is something that interests me, but I don’t think I was calling you (Sunny) an elitist particularly.
    It really depends on what you think of that large section of society that doesn’t get the all the nuances of the most difficult of issues that are raised on here and Liberal Conspiracy.
    Sun and Daily Mail readers for example.

    Does the Irish government have the right to have an opinion on Dublin having become the headquaters of Yusuf Al-Qaradawi’s European Council for Fatwa and Research, and all that entails for the future of Islam in Ireland?
    And to be concerned about it’s activities, with leading muslims from all around Europe and the muslim world constantly coming in and out of the country on their ECFR business? (If that’s what happens).

    Or are you just required to shrug your shoulders and let them get on with it in the name of free speech, the same as we are ‘obliged’ to do for all kinds of movements and religions … like the evangelical mormons and scientologists who like to propagate?

    This is a really interesting BBC radio documentary about some issues that arose in a very multicultural neighbourhood in Amsterdam, when some local Muslims began being abusive to some local Jews when they would see them in their Jewish religious clothes.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/documentary_archive/6563371.stm

    Thankfully the issues were worked out in that instance, but it still seems to be a problem in Holland.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/7846704/Dutch-police-use-decoy-Jews-to-stop-anti-Semitic-attacks.html

    If a country thinks that people coming to a country are going to bring about a mood where this kind of thing is more likely to happen, do people have the right to be wary of those people?
    In spite of the Spiked line … I’m not sure.

  40. marwan — on 25th June, 2010 at 2:27 pm  

    This comment was deleted from Spittoon “Heresy is another word for freedom of thought”

    http://www.spittoon.org/archives/6855

    “Dr Zakir Naik is medical doctor by professional training and not an Islamic preacher or scholar. He has no degree in Islamic studies”

    All of this is true: but since when did Spittoon care? Like Naik they are non scholars yet indulge in Quranic exegesis and commenting on the religion all the time instead of leaving it to the ulema.

    “Below is a collection of Fatwas against Dr Zakir Naik; where he has been banned; and some of the outrageous things that he preaches:”

    So now Spittoon accepts fatwas from the ulema!!!

    “(1) Fatwas issued against him

    The Uttar Pradesh decision led to calls from Sunni Islamic scholars calling for a total ban, and the declaration of a fatwa against him by Mufti Mohamed Ashraf Qadri, an Islamic scholar (United News of India, 8 November 2008).
    A fatwa was also issued by the Qazi of Lucknow, Maulana Mufti Abdul Irfan Qadvi, for supporting Osama Bin Laden on terrorism and asking the youths to join terrorism. In the fatwa, the Qazi also demanded a ban on Peace TV and asked the authorities to probe into the funds received by Dr Naik for his support to the terrorism. The fatwa says that he should be treated as ‘Kafir’ and be debarred from the Muslim community. The Deoband also issued a similar fatwa against him (United News of India, 7 November 2008).”

    What do you think Islamic scholars would make of Spittoon a site which publishes articles supporting South Park mocking the Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wasalaam) , says homosexulaity is halal and questions the divine origin of the Quran – things far more heretical and kafir than anything Zakir Naik has every said!

    “Blasphemous to say ‘happy Christmas’
    In a speech in Toronto in 2003, Dr Naik is reported to have said it is blasphemous for Muslims to wish Christians a happy Christmas as it acknowledges Jesus as a son of God (The Jerusalem Post, 23 August 2006).”

    So the Jerusalem Post and Spittoon would support this Rabbi (and many others who say the same) being banned from the UK.

    How should a Jew respond to a “Merry Christmas” greeting?
    From Rabbi Jeffrey Wolfson Goldwasser
    http://judaism.about.com/od/interfaithquestions/f/xmas_greet.htm

  41. boyo — on 25th June, 2010 at 3:46 pm  

    The reason you can’t access PP is because I’m from the British gov and i’ve banned you all from entry on to PP island…

    Hold on a minute. It looks like i’ve even banned myself.

    Hello?

  42. persephone — on 25th June, 2010 at 10:18 pm  

    ” Or are you just required to shrug your shoulders and let them get on with it in the name of free speech, the same as we are ‘obliged’ to do for all kinds of movements and religions … like the evangelical mormons and scientologists who like to propagate?”

    We all take a part of our culture with us when we emigrate like these http://britishexpats.com/articles/moving-abroad/british-expatriate-culture/

    But that does not mean that a whole religion/asian group is going to be extreme

  43. damon — on 25th June, 2010 at 11:48 pm  

    But that does not mean that a whole religion/asian group is going to be extreme

    You’re right, of course it doesn’t.
    In Dublin at the moment though from what I’ve seen, it’s not really a long standing community with people who have grown up there, and a lot of them are young men. It would be interesting to know what the ratio of muslim men to women is there actually and how they are fairing in their new country more generally.

    They do get sermons about ”the Zionist entity” in both big mosques, (I heard them myself), which Ireland’s small jewish community might find a bit worrying … and you wouldn’t really also want them to be listening to the likes of Zakir Naik telling them that if women dressed ‘immodestly’ they were basicly ”asking for it”.
    That is what he was saying, and it will be pretty much the point of view they were taught growing up in Algeria and Yemen.

    If he shouldn’t be banned by government, what should be the attitude towards backward preachers who manage to get a large audience? Just ignore them?
    It’s all very well saying that thier ideas should be challenged, but that conversation usually never takes place.

  44. Bemused — on 26th June, 2010 at 4:28 am  

    Can Sunny post the Danish cartoon in question that said or even suggested “all Muslims are terrorists”?

    Obviously there is no such thing and the real bollocks being bandied around is the above kind of bullshit by race baiter / “progressive” Sunny.

  45. Noor — on 26th June, 2010 at 8:55 pm  

    damon
    “They do get sermons about ”the Zionist entity” in both big mosques, (I heard them myself), which Ireland’s small jewish community might find a bit worrying ”

    cool so you’d support banning speeches critical of Muslim countries actions on the same basis

    “… and you wouldn’t really also want them to be listening to the likes of Zakir Naik telling them that if women dressed ‘immodestly’ they were basicly ”asking for it”.
    That is what he was saying, and it will be pretty much the point of view they were taught growing up in Algeria and Yemen”

    Zakir Naik grw up in Algeria and Yemen…. well I never.

    You still havent answered my point above
    “damon
    “No not particularly – but I can be disappointed if Ireland’s new muslims integrate less than they might have into Irish society because of these outside influences dominating public discourse within the Irish muslim orbit.”

    Hmmm yes because the Irish abroad always integrate well. There are no pro-IRA speakers or raising money for the IRA amongst the Irish diaspora.

  46. damon — on 27th June, 2010 at 3:33 am  

    Noor, I’m not calling for any banning. I had not realised that this guy saying he loved Bin Laden was quoted in 1996 – and not more recently. It of course makes a difference.

    Though I think people have the right to be concerned about what kind of messages are being put foreward (and here’s a controversial bit) to ”impressionable people”.
    Now, I only say that as someone who doesn’t have any faith … so I see any kind of world religion as a bit suspect in the first place. Then with muslims you also have the Ummah thing … which again can be problematic.

    ‘How concerned’ though is something I’m not sure about. France wants imams to come from France I think. Is that reasonable? I doubt the Imam at the South Dublin mosque has anything useful to advise the young guys from Algeria and Yeman about making new lives in Ireland.
    Away from their families and communities that gave them so much guidance growing up.

    I don’t think the question about the Irish diaspora is really relevant. Personally I am sad to see the European Council for Fatwa and Reserch in Ireland. But maybe it’s just that I don’t understand them.
    I’d be interested if anyone had a good word to say about them.

    I read Christina Patterson in the Independent the other day and she was also ‘a bit rude’ about some people and their religion.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/christina-patterson/

  47. boyo — on 27th June, 2010 at 7:20 am  

    I don’t know about banning or not, but increasingly i think there is a basic gap between principle and reality. The UK, European Convention etc sets itself in a principled world outside the reality of communities, nation states, people. For example for all France’s pronouncements about human rights etc, we all know they are the first to bundle awkward imams on the plane. This leads, of course, to charges of hypocrite. But show me a country or culture where it does not exist.

    Talking up our fine values is all very well, but what’s the point if we can’t live up to them (and no one ever can, least of all those loud-mouthed mullahs and libertarians).

  48. sofia — on 28th June, 2010 at 1:25 pm  

    I wish the pope lived outside the EU ..then it would be fun and games getting him entry clearance

  49. boyo — on 28th June, 2010 at 2:14 pm  

    I think you’ll find he probably does? I don’t think the Vatican State belongs to the EU, does it?

    Hey, it does!

    http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/others/vatican/index_en.htm

    But then, even if it didn’t the Pope still would be – he’s German.

  50. Don — on 28th June, 2010 at 4:35 pm  

    No, it’s not an EU State. It’s ‘other’.

    The Pope has both German and Vatican citizenship. But is he still a head of state if he is here as a German national?

  51. proud indi — on 28th June, 2010 at 8:53 pm  

    throw this zakir to arabian sea. from there he will go directly to heaven to fuck 72 virgins. whats there in britain.

  52. me — on 28th June, 2010 at 8:55 pm  

    lol bet “proud indi” chooses to live in Britain …not holy Bharat.

  53. proud indi — on 28th June, 2010 at 9:08 pm  

    live in holy bharat, u ignorant me.

  54. me — on 28th June, 2010 at 9:10 pm  

    “live in holy bharat, u ignorant me.”

    hahaha you are probably too busy murdering and raping religious minorities to learn the Ingleesh praaper.

  55. DF — on 28th June, 2010 at 11:20 pm  

    Sunny – Have you banned people from posting comments on this blog?

    Have you deleted comments from this blog?

  56. persephone — on 28th June, 2010 at 11:25 pm  

    Damon @ 44

    “ If he shouldn’t be banned by government, what should be the attitude towards backward preachers who manage to get a large audience? Just ignore them? It’s all very well saying that thier ideas should be challenged, but that conversation usually never takes place.”

    It does get challenged – for instance right here, right now. There appears to be an illusion that the congregation passively go home and mechanically follow such people. The majority may politely listen but judge him for what he is and others would ignore him. On your oft quoted visit/s to mosques do you know the congregation?

    Damon @ 47

    Much of what you say can apply to Nick Griffin/BNP:

    “I had not realised that this guy saying he loved Bin Laden was quoted in 1996 – and not more recently. It of course makes a difference.”

    You are not then concerned about Nick Griffin who likes Mein Kampf & who said the Nazis only went too a little too far very recently?

    “Though I think people have the right to be concerned about what kind of messages are being put foreward (and here’s a controversial bit)to ”impressionable people”. “

    A lot of people think that about BNP supporters

    “Then with muslims you also have the Ummah thing … which again can be problematic.”

    Like the indigenous race, miscegenation, dropping mixed heritage kids over Africa thing with the BNP. Also similarly problematic

    “France wants imams to come from France I think. Is that reasonable? I doubt the Imam at the South Dublin mosque has anything useful to advise the young guys from Algeria and Yeman about making new lives in Ireland.”

    I doubt Griffin has anything useful to advise the UK as to globalisation. Actually even having a coherent UK policy in fact. And I am not sure where I prefer Nazis/racists to come from.

    “Personally I am sad to see the European Council for Fatwa and Reserch in Ireland. But maybe it’s just that I don’t understand them.”

    I am equally disappointed at the BNP being endorsed as a political party. Thats because I do understand them.

    If extreme Muslim groups were to gain a political party then I would understand your concerns. But given the numbers of Asians and % of those who would be that extreme its not a current worry.

  57. Jai — on 29th June, 2010 at 12:40 pm  

    “ If he shouldn’t be banned by government, what should be the attitude towards backward preachers who manage to get a large audience? Just ignore them? It’s all very well saying that thier ideas should be challenged, but that conversation usually never takes place.”

    As Persephone correctly said, they DO get challenged. Frequently on an international scale.

    See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-eteraz/the-myth-of-muslim-condem_b_67904.html

    ….along with the following articles from PP:

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/8838

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/7999

  58. damon — on 29th June, 2010 at 3:04 pm  

    Persephone, I don’t really think you are equating like with like there. What has the BNP got to do with this?

    If you want my final opinion, I’ll say that no bannings should occur, and that I’m not really that fussed over this issue (of suposidly extremist preachers coming to Britain).

    But that I like to kick these ideas back and forth and see if there are any little corners that could be ironed out and not overlooked.

    I have found over the last three years, that liberal blogs are not really the place to do this, probably just because of the restrictions of the medium and the very easy possibility for misundestandings to take place, and for some people to be very defensive.

    Having been banned off one forum and even been told I was ”Pinochet like” by one eejit over on Liberal Conspiracy, I have given up somewhat on my early enthusiasm for trying to knock ideas back on forth in a way that gets beyond the mundane.

    I think Irish people have a right to be disappointed that the European Council for Fatwa and Reserch have made Dublin their headquaters and are shaping the future of Islam in Ireland, without comparrisons of: ”well what about the BNP?”

    Since I’m living in Northern Ireland now, I have been spending some time on this Irish political site. Just last night this guy from the Nationalist catholic community suggested that I was a bigot because I found humanity in people he sees as just sectarian bigots (the Loyalist flute bands of the Unionist community.)

    Here’s how a thread started on some racist attacks in a couple of parts of Belfast the other night. The guy who wrote the OP is the one who says I must be a bigot, on post number 149.
    http://www.politics.ie/northern-ireland/132136-solstice-long-knives-belfast.html

    I know he’s a good guy, and maybe it’s just the fact that we’re trying to talk over the internet – that, and having so many sectarian people on that website. Makes it all a bit too much.

    I don’t know if my point that ”Daily Mail woman” and ”Talk Sport radio man” have got a certain ”right” to be somewhat ignorant and reactionary about some of the issues that people on PP take very seriously.

    Because they are just ordinary people, and shouldn’t be judged to a much higher standard than people anywhere else in the world.
    That’s a point the catholic guy on the Irish website couldn’t understand me saying about Unionists and Loyalists, and I have found that that is the case with liberals and the left in Britain too often also.

    As for ”knowing” the people in the Dublin Mosques listening to speeches about ”the Zionist entity”.
    I can see their demographic make up, and they are people from muslim countries (many of them young men who I’m guessing are there without their families), and I wonder what kind of education and values many of them were brought up with.
    And what experience of war in Algeria they had for example.

    Whether where they grew up or what kind of ‘mindset’ they might have is one of those areas that could be interesting to discuss, but I can see that it is really too controversial for many people, and wouldn’t go anywhere.

    Did anyone ever read ”Kandahar Cockney” ?
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kandahar-Cockney-Tale-Two-Worlds/dp/0007156979

  59. Jai — on 29th June, 2010 at 4:38 pm  

    I don’t know if my point that ”Daily Mail woman” and ”Talk Sport radio man” have got a certain ”right” to be somewhat ignorant and reactionary about some of the issues that people on PP take very seriously.
    Because they are just ordinary people, and shouldn’t be judged to a much higher standard than people anywhere else in the world.

    That’s extremely patronising towards the people you’re trying to defend, and also a way of making excuses for them. It’s the equivalent of saying that someone who sympathises with Al-Muhajiroun and/or Al-Qaeda has “the right to be reactionary and ignorant” because they allegedly “don’t know any better”.

    Condescendingly viewing people as imbeciles who intrinsically lack a moral centre is intellectually lazy and effectively a way of acting as an apologist for their behaviour.

    As for ”knowing” the people in the Dublin Mosques listening to speeches about ”the Zionist entity”.
    I can see their demographic make up, and they are people from muslim countries (many of them young men who I’m guessing are there without their families), and I wonder what kind of education and values many of them were brought up with.
    And what experience of war in Algeria they had for example.
    Whether where they grew up or what kind of ‘mindset’ they might have is one of those areas that could be interesting to discuss,

    Here’s a very simple suggestion for you, Damon, since your comments along these lines have now become a wearily familiar running theme on PP: Perhaps you should actually talk to these people directly and find out for yourself, instead of constantly speculating from afar and then making various assumption-driven nefarious insinuations behind their backs to complete strangers across the internet.

    Stop spending so much time on the internet and start interacting face-to-face with the people you’re apparently so unsure about. It would be a good step in the right direction, and one which is long overdue.

  60. damon — on 29th June, 2010 at 7:56 pm  

    Hi Jai, this is about only the second time we have ever communicated, so I had no idea that you found my points of view wearily familiar.

    I think we may have quite a fundamental difference in the way we view things – or at least argue them anyway.

    First I think you have this point completely wrong:

    Condescendingly viewing people as imbeciles who intrinsically lack a moral centre is intellectually lazy and effectively a way of acting as an apologist for their behaviour.

    I’m certainly not viewing those people as ”imbeciles who intrinsically lack a moral centre”. I am certainly not saying that.
    They are my family and people I have lived and worked amongst all my life.

    That you saw it that way though is perhaps one of these internet communication problems I was talking about. Maybe the medium is just too ‘two dimensional’.

    That you say it’s wearysome makes me doubt I can explain myself clearly here.
    That people don’t ”get” the most well worked out of arguments on PP, like for example Sunny saying that the debate on immigration had been lost, and asking what was the way foreward in promoting a pro immigration agenda …… that a lot of people are not going to be able to follow that argument so well is not patronising of me, I think is just me stating a fact.
    I could barely understand it …. and I had studied it and given it some thought.

    As for getting to know the young men who attend the Dublin mosques …. and I don’t live there now, that’s easier said than done, but onetime I did get into conversation with a Libyan man in his 40s or 50s in the resturant after friday prayers. He had introduced himself to me while we were eating and we chatted away for a while, but it’s not really the place to be talking politics.
    But on my backpacking trips around Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt in the last ten years, I spoke to loads of local people (all male apart from one or two female hotel receptionists). I would be talking to people from morning to night it seemed sometimes. Nearly always by people who would come up to me and start chatting.
    I am more than willing to talk to anyone, anytime. It’s actually something I really enjoy. When I worked in a big American hotel in Germany, I liked nothing better than to become friends with all my co-workers from all over the world and be talking to them all the time.

    About going and meeting people face to face is exactly the thing that upset the catholic guy on the Irish forum, as he couldn’t understand how I could be ”fraternising” with people he is convinced are sectarian bigots – and I tried to argue that it was a lot more subtle than that. Some of the Loyalist bandsmen and Orangemen are, but it is also a celebration of a particular culture that has a nice side to it too.

    Another catholic nationalist said she had put me ”on ignore” for saying such things.

    As I said, I think we just come at things from different points of view. I for example am much closer to the Spiked-online position on the BNP than yours …. but that’s just politics I guess.

    Did you find my comment about the European Council for Fatwa and Research being based at one of the two big Dublin mosques wearisome too?

    And that’s not a ”cute” clever dick kind of question Jai.
    But there is some frustration in it as it seems that ignoring points like that is a way that internet conversations go.

    I find the Pickled Politics verses Harry’s Place kind of adversarial politics to be really negative – and I don’t know if you are giving me that kind of ”shot across the bows”.

    It’s a pitty if you are, as I find the issues raised on PP most interesting. (But frustratingly difficult ones often as well).

  61. Jai — on 30th June, 2010 at 10:59 am  

    Damon,

    this is about only the second time we have ever communicated, so I had no idea that you found my points of view wearily familiar.

    As I’ve previously said on PP comments threads a few times, something people should always remember is that this website isn’t even remotely a private conversation. There are always other people silently reading whatever anyone writes here, and the former applies to PP’s writers and regular commenters as much as it does to the website’s much larger silent audience.

    Beyond that, I don’t currently have the time or the inclination to get involved in a drawn-out conversation about this matter, so I’m going to keep this brief. However, what I will say is the following:

    If you’re finding that your commenting on various internet discussion forums repeatedly triggers a negative response from people from a wide range of different backgrounds, then your best bet would be to either radically rethink your approach, or consider calling it a day (or at least cutting down dramatically on your internet commenting, if it’s persistently proving to be counterproductive).

    Both of the above would be more constructive courses of action than doing the same ineffective and/or counterproductive thing over and over again, yet expecting to miraculously get a different result each time.

  62. damon — on 30th June, 2010 at 6:35 pm  

    I’m not really sure what you mean Jai. Everyone gets some negative criticism sometimes if they write about politcal things.
    Sunny comes in for quite a lot (but it’s his blog and he usually has something to say when that happens).

    Is it that if you find yourself disagreeing quite strongly with a ”general line” that is being put forward in an OP, that it’s really best to say nothing, or just keep comments very brief?

    I suppose I can live with that. I don’t agree with earwicga sometimes (like on the ‘rape culture’ thread), so I thought I’d just say nothing.

    Same with the killer questions for the BNP. I thought the whole thing was pretty pointless so didn’t really say much about them.

    Maybe that’s what you mean. I don’t know, I’m just guessing.

    As someone who doesnt like the Harry’s Place way of thinking, or Duglas Murray, and the way he praises Ayaan Hirsi Ali, it can hardly be that I’m too ‘right wing’ (?)

    Maybe my liking of the Spiked-online way of thinking on some issues is grating and tedious. One of the moderators (if that’s what you’re called) refuses even to click on a link of theirs as she finds then really annoying. Things like this.
    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/issues/C44/

    If it’s the case that there is too much clear blue water between those positions and common PP general views, I can see where a problem might lie.

  63. Refresh — on 30th June, 2010 at 11:34 pm  

    Damon

    I think what Jai is trying to say, politely, is that you are a tit.

    A much travelled tit, who has experienced far and distant lands, a Stanley of our day, and yet philosophically is still to leave his front door.

    Now don’t take it as an insult, as I am trying to distil this discussion into something we can understand and engage in. I will take the perspective that it is all about language, and who says it:

    ‘Fighting talk: The new propaganda

    Journalism has become a linguistic battleground – and when reporters use terms such ‘spike in violence’ or ‘surge’ or ‘settler’, they are playing along with a pernicious game, argues Robert Fisk

    Monday, 21 June 2010′

    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/fighting-talk-the-new-propaganda-2006001.html

  64. persephone — on 30th June, 2010 at 11:39 pm  

    ” Whether where they grew up or what kind of ‘mindset’ they might have is one of those areas that could be interesting to discuss, but I can see that it is really too controversial for many people, ”

    So you don’t know them but still predict that it would be controversial. Thats exactly why I asked you in the first place.

    I juxtaposed bnp with the preacher as the mindset is very similar.

  65. damon — on 1st July, 2010 at 3:22 am  

    You could be right Refresh. It does seem that that’s the way things can go, talking about political issues on the internet.
    People will say nothing at all for a long time, and then just tell you they think you are a tit or something.

    It might be your opinion too, but how would I know if you don’t say. You haven’t said anything on this thread about Zakir Naik, and I have said quite a lot …. which means that you would have an advantage over me because I have shown my hand (as it were) and you have not. Advantage you.

    But on a political forum, if everyone did that there would be no discussion.

    The expression ”philosophically is still to leave his front door” is of course intriguing. I guess I’ll just have to flesh it out with my imagination unless you care to expand.

    If I was clever enough I would write the ”less is more” way, but when issues are complex it’s dificult not to run into paragraphs to try to explain what you mean. These are often complex issues, and I wonder if this only works amongst people who are in general agreement in the first place.

    What I have found on political blogs (not that I bother with too many of them) is that it is often trench warfare between the left and those who disagree with a certain kind of left approach.

    You can see it between PP and Harry’s Place, and you know that it’s never going to get anywhere. Strong points of view from the ”other side” are ignored and it just goes around and around.

    A bit like on the Politics.ie site when Unionists and Nationalists talk about Northern Ireland.

    I’m realyy not sure about what you mean with the Robert Fisk article, although in itself it sounds interesting enough.

    Maybe that’s the problem. Unless you keep it simple, or are very gifted, it’s easy for people to not understand what your saying.
    I don’t understand what your saying, Jai thought I was being condesending to a large swathe of ordinary people when I said they would never get all the nuances of the kinds of discussions that are had on PP (when I wasn’t). I don’t really get persephone’s point about the BNP (or Jai’s questions for the BNP) .. it’s all a bit untidy really.

    Persephone, about knowing the young muslims in the Dublin mosques or not. I think this is one of those make or break issues where most time the gulf can be too much.

    I go there and see hundreds of muslim men packed into this mosque sitting listening to a long sermon on the ”Zionist entity” and the plan to tear down the Al Aqsa mosque.
    http://www.islammuslim.lv/Atteli/Dublin_mosque.jpg

    Maybe my mistake was commenting any further.
    I don’t know them, but I know that most of them haven’t been in Ireland very long. Some I’m sure are very bright students, and I’m sure others are asylum seekers, or are just young guys who have pitched up in Ireland after making journeys around Europe. In which case many of them might be without proper authorisation to be in the country.

    If I’m a tit for struggling with issues like this over the internet then maybe I am.

    Much to the disgust of a couple of catholics on Politics.ie, I’ll be attending an East Belfast Orange Order flute band parade tomorow evening. It’s said to be the biggest one before the 12th, and I’ll chat to some of the people, to know them and to try to see things from their point of view.
    Tit or not, it’s what I like to do.
    http://www.the-twelfth.org.uk/images/mournedefenders.JPG

  66. Jai — on 1st July, 2010 at 12:36 pm  

    Damon,

    Assuming that your reasons for commenting on the internet are constructive, benevolent, and with the intention of effectively conveying your opinions to other parties in the interests of facilitating a positive dialogue and elevating the discourse, as opposed to using comments threads as meandering “stream of consciousness” opportunities for self-indulgence or counterproductive, inappropriate “Devil’s Advocate” contrarian behaviour (or, even worse, pushing a malicious underlying Trojan Horse agenda), I’m going to simply reiterate what I said in #61:

    If, as you’ve mentioned, you’re finding that you’re repeatedly triggering a hostile response from a very wide range of people with whom you’re trying to amicably communicate across the internet, then — assuming that the reason is either the inherent flaws of the medium or some kind of persistent crossed-wires on the part of the other parties involved — your only solution is to either take a completely different approach when attempting to make your points, or (if you can’t think of one) to refrain from writing such comments altogether.

  67. damon — on 1st July, 2010 at 3:04 pm  

    It’s difficult to know what to say to that Jai as I feel you are saying much more than you are actually writing down.
    But I guess you’re saying that you don’t like the way I talk about things. What you said in the first couple of lines in that last post is how I try to be, but do understand that if someone is out of sorts, or out of step with some leading commentators on a site too often, then that may be resented.

    So if I really don’t give much weight to the ”killer questions for the BNP” … there is a conundrum right there. One might think: ”Is this thread really open for wide ranging debate where you can strongly disagree with the OP, but explaining why might be quite complicated …. or is it best to say nothing?”
    It is a bit of a dilema, and you seem to be telling me my decision to try to say why I might think such a thing is unwelcomed.

    Being a white person could have something to do with my more ”blazie” attitude to the BNP or the EDL perhaps, and I do take that into consideration.

    But as I say Jai, I don’t really know. There is certainly no Trojan horse thing going on with me though.

    Unless you think my trying to bring ideas like this into a debate about free speech is contrarian and trys to bring an agenda.
    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8896/

    You might appreciate that your manner in the way you broguht your opinion to my atention is quite a dramatic one. A little warning after saying nothing for so long, and keeping your comments quite understated, then being much more blunt, but letting me know there could be a lot more.

    It is an interesting way of doing things.
    Earwicga called me a BNP troll after she had been on the site just two days or so.

    Anyway, I appreciate the comments.

  68. Jai — on 1st July, 2010 at 6:59 pm  

    Damon,

    I see that I’m going to have to simplify this even further, since it appears that it’s still not registering with you:

    1. You’ve repeatedly said that you keep eliciting a hostile response from people from a diverse range of backgrounds on a number of internet discussion forums.
    2. Therefore, the best course of action for you would be to either take a step back, objectively analyse exactly what it is about your pattern of behaviour which keeps causing people to react so badly to you, put yourself psychologically in the other party’s shoes in order to understand the reasons, and then adjust your own subsequent actions accordingly…….Or, if you genuinely find that you can’t figure it out (and none of your friends or relatives whom you show your online comments to can shed light on the subject either), it would be more constructive to refrain from commenting on the internet per se.

    I’m not going to spoonfeed you the answers. I’m afraid you’re going to have to do some hard thinking about exactly what you keep doing wrong, so that you can subsequently reach the correct conclusions yourself. Achieving this will require a degree of humility and brutal honesty on your part.

    You’ll also need to refrain from continuing to write long “explanatory” comments justifying your own actions and automatically assuming that the people really at fault are your detractors for allegedly “misunderstanding you” (including individuals who have forcefully objected to your comments on other blogs and in some cases have actually banned you from there). Again, this will require you to “stop talking and start listening”.

    However, in terms of this particular website, advice to point you in the right direction would include suggestions that a) You should stop giving alleged anecdotal examples about various random non-white people you see in public and the associated negative assumptions you keep making about their respective backgrounds and attitudes on any given subject, especially the open-ended rhetorical questions you keep posing, b) You should stop making excuses for the ignorance and bigotry exhibited by various members of your family and social/professional circles just because you happen to be related to them or are friends with them, and c) You should stop making assumptions about the motivations of PP writers in relation to their comments on this thread and their presumed barely-veiled “real thoughts” in relation to your remarks about previous PP articles they’ve written.

    Finally, regarding Earwigca’s allegation about your political sympathies, perhaps it would be worthwhile if you attempted to objectively analyse exactly what it is about the contents of about 95% of your ongoing comments about non-white people on this blog over a lengthy period of time which may cause Earwigca and others to have certain suspicions about your underlying attitudes towards non-white people in general.

  69. Refresh — on 2nd July, 2010 at 12:17 am  

    Jai,

    when I started reading your last comment to Damon I thought that perhaps it was a little hectoring in tone. But your last two paragraphs justified it rather well.

  70. Refresh — on 2nd July, 2010 at 12:43 am  

    Damon,

    that link to the Robert Fisk article connects quite well to the discussion about Mr Naik, the Teresa May and the general sense of superiority we need to feel to justify our sneering at others.

    It is about language. And what got me interested in this topic was someone’s comment on CIF to the quoted article – it comes down to this – you can have two people say the same thing and be interpreted differently. Not because they don’t say and mean the same thing, but we choose them to be ascribed different values.

    You really should read the link – and then we can discuss your interest in ‘the skirt and the hijab’ as well as your visits to the Dublin mosque and the ‘zionist entity’. And I may even be tempted to discuss the Orange Order.

    [Did you know Trimble, yes Trimble, is one of the two 'international observers' on the Israeli commission looking into the 'botched' anti-humanitarian mission against the flotilla for Gaza].

    And finally, to answer your question (using the principle of ‘less is more’), yes I do think you are a tit. A smug one.

  71. Refresh — on 2nd July, 2010 at 1:02 am  

    Rumbold, I have to say the post is rather weak. Very little to go on, for an informed debate. The linked article is even worse, as someone pointed out it looks like another organisation seeking attention ( a la Quiliiam).

    And Teresa May is stupid, she has made a political decision to establish her credentials, and she is wrong. Naik is not a preacher, he is someone who appears to be versed in the scriptures of several religions. His TV channel appears to be a lot of razmattaz, and he answers questions which puzzle and have puzzled people for a long time, from all religions. He clearly relishes the challenge from muslims and non-muslims alike.

    Teresa May would have been better off sending one of her PPS to take the microphone at one of Zakir Naik’s and ask the questions that troubled her about Mr Naik.

    And a perfect opportunity for that other beardie DavidT to go strut his stuff.

    And you Mr Rumbold can do a lot better (I know, because we have seen better, consistently), than cast aspersions without presenting any material eg links.

    I am seriously concerned that you should think its enough to link a person for being muslim to anti-semitism without presenting the evidence. Not good enough.

    So I agree with Sunny, the ‘perhaps’ was uncalled for – it verges on the cowardly.

  72. damon — on 2nd July, 2010 at 3:21 am  

    Jai – I don’t think we’re getting anywhere here, but it is noted that you don’t like the things I say. Fair enough. And you don’t really want to go into too much detail what it exactly I might be saying that you don’t like. Much of what you have said, is simply wrong.

    I just started writing out a couple of paragraphs about your points one and two, but I’ve deleted them because I don’t think there is much point.
    But this is a joke:

    You’ve repeatedly said that you keep eliciting a hostile response from people from a diverse range of backgrounds on a number of internet discussion forums

    Therefore your second paragraph is also wide of the mark.

    And do you mind if I get a bit miffed for a few seconds Jai, as your first ”friendly post” to me so obviously was not friendly.
    Who said I do this?

    and none of your friends or relatives whom you show your online comments to can shed light on the subject either

    You just made that up.

    You talk about ”my detractors” Jai. Who are you talking about. Two not very bright people who leave one sentence comments on Liberal Conspiracy? And one of them said I was ”Pinochet like?” This website has plenty of detractors. Is anyone worried?
    Rod Liddle said something very rude about Sunny on the Millwall blog. Do you think Sunny’s worried and is thinking he should perhaps change his approach?

    Being banned off a blog is not something to be ashamed of particularly. It depends on what it was about. For example, I’d be honored to get banned from a Socialist Workers Party supporters forum.

    I’m sure some people on here would not feel ashamed to get banned off some Sikh, Hindu or Muslim blog if it was populated by headbangers.

    The ”random non-white people” is much more interesting, but apart from not liking me talking about the Dublin mosque with about three hundred mostly new people to Ireland being given a ”Zionist entity” sermon, I don’t think you’re going to give me too many more examples.
    Is it laughing at Diane Abbott on This Week last week, where she showed herself up? There’s even a PP thread about it. Maybe that was one instance.
    Being a bit rude about the country of Pakistan on a thread a couple of weeks ago – the one about photography from Pakistan? Maybe I shouldn’t have said anything – it only got three comments, and the last one was mine. Maybe you mean things like that. Maybe it was highlighting something that Simon Woolley said about ”most non black people in Britain finding black people inferior” – and saying I thought that was unfair.
    But I’m only guessing as you don’t tell me.

    Maybe I made some iffy remarks when I was in Malaysia over the winter? I can’t remember.

    And Refresh, If I sound smug here, this is really a way of talking that Jai has ‘bounced’ me into by his out of the blue ad hominem contact with me.

    Again, this is just unbelievable:

    You should stop making excuses for the ignorance and bigotry exhibited by various members of your family and social/professional circles just because you happen to be related to them or are friends with them

    I never said my family were bigoted. They are not.
    I said that they would not get all the nuances of a complicated PP type argument. And that they were just ordinary people.

    The next bit I haven’t got a clue what your saying. About PP writers ”real thoughts” or whatever.

    I’m not a mindreader, you have to give me some examples, or it’s meaningless to me.

    The same for the last bit. It’s clear that we just don’t see hardly anything the same way. And that’s fair enough, but maybe we should just agree to disagree. You think I talk shite, but for more than a year said absolutely nothing …. and I think all that stuff about the BNP and EDL is pretty pointless, as we already know their a bunch of scum bags who couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery, so why spend so much time worrying about them? It’s a bit chalk and cheese isn’t it?

    Anyway, I’ve got to crash, I walked miles all over East Belfast tonight.

    You can read about it hear if you want Refresh. Post number 54.
    http://www.politics.ie/northern-ireland/132469-whiterock-parade-6.html#post2807184

  73. Jai — on 2nd July, 2010 at 10:30 am  

    Refresh,

    re: #69

    Thanks mate. As you can see from #72 above, this may be a lost cause, not least because several of the statements directly contradict previous remarks on this thread alone; the problem is either cognitive/comprehension difficulties along with a marked lack of accurate self-awareness, or alternatively it’s yet another case of fake disingenuousness and extreme dishonesty.

    Giving certain people the benefit of the doubt, we can hope that it’s “merely” the former.

  74. damon — on 2nd July, 2010 at 7:29 pm  

    This is what I said at post 60, and the qoute in the middle is Jai’s:

    ”First I think you have this point completely wrong:

    Condescendingly viewing people as imbeciles who intrinsically lack a moral centre is intellectually lazy and effectively a way of acting as an apologist for their behaviour.

    I’m certainly not viewing those people as ”imbeciles who intrinsically lack a moral centre”. I am certainly not saying that.
    They are my family and people I have lived and worked amongst all my life.”
    ———————
    You see how he read that and replied:

    You should stop making excuses for the ignorance and bigotry exhibited by various members of your family and social/professional circles just because you happen to be related to them or are friends with them

    … even though I said I was ”not saying that” twice, and had said he had got that completely wrong.

    So with that level of totally getting the wrong end of the stick, I won’t bother continuing this discussion. And as anyone can see, Jai came at this with great deal of condescension. I think anyone would be a bit p’d off about his tone if it was said to them.

    There is a thread about Englishness just been posted up today, and my points about ”Daily Mail woman and Talk Sport Radio man” – with Jai obviously not having a clue what I was talking about – are really part of that discussion too.

    My point was that you can’t come down too heavily on these Middle England people if they vote Tory and read backward newspapers – and have reactionary views, because they are just ordinary people – like my family and the people I have lived and worked amongst all my life, and like all the people in east Belfast last night celebrating their protestant culture.

    But you can see how Jai interpreted that.
    That I was saying that my family were bigots and should be left to be bigots.

    So it’s best to knock this on the head for now I think.

  75. damon — on 3rd July, 2010 at 1:18 pm  

    One thing that I think rankled with a few people was this idea of me thinking I might have some perception to things I couldn’t really know about for sure.
    The men in the Dublin mosque for example; how it might look in the foyer of Wembley Arena as thousands of people went in to listen to Zakir Naik speaking.
    Or like I said last summer when I had heard that some guy from Saudi Arabia was speaking at the center next to East London Mosque.
    It had been flagged up in Harry’s Place – and as I was coming back from doing a delivery to Newmarket, I was passing in my van at about 7.30pm and saw the crowds, saw a spot to park outside and went in. Took my shoes around with me in a plastic bag and sat down and listened for 15 minutes. ”Was this the guy?” I thought as someone was giving a sermon. I wasn’t sure, maybe he was a local doing a warm up act (so to speak).

    After a bit more of a look around, and walking around the back and just taking in the summer evening scene as the crowds of muslim people all converged on the mosque, to hear the Saudi preacher I presumed, I drove back to my work place.

    It probably rankles like I said that I, a white non muslim, might do such a thing – and mention it on PP. Because yes, it did leave a slightly negative feeling inside me.
    ”That’s not really good” was probably my thoughts as I drove back through south London.

    The kind of thing that has Refresh saying this:

    A much travelled tit, who has experienced far and distant lands, a Stanley of our day, and yet philosophically is still to leave his front door.

    Which is fair enough and quite funny, but the thing about perception I think is a really important one. Sunny has pulled me up about this once or twice about this. And that’s OK too.

    Though I would reject this idea that was raised about ”random non-white people”.
    Over the winter I spent three months in the Malay Peninsula. Most of it in Mayaysia, but a couple of weeks in both Singapore and southern Thailand.

    And although my ”perception” and judgement might be as suggested, really suspect, a perception of the people I was living and travelling amongst (of course) developed in me. And of the Malay muslims, it was a wholly positive one.
    I was very impressed by the people of Malaysia as a whole, and I found the Malays, particularly in some towns and cities on the east coast which is more Malay than the rest of the country, more islamic and has less tourists – I found those people to be (and I’m generalising of course) to be quite fantastic people. Really laid back – (of course I didn’t really know a fraction of what was going on) – but my perception was that it was a society that was comfortable with itself.

    When I was there, there were a few attacks on christian churches, but I found myself disagreeing with Robert Fisk, who I rate highly, when he added these attacks (which were front page news and several of the perpetrators were arrested) to the list of ”Islamic persecution of Christians”.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisks-world-the-neverending-exodus-of-christians-from-the-middle-east-1876432.html

    When in Singapore, I stayed in the area called Little India, which is really a bit of an anomaly in mostly very staid Singapore. It’s like a part of India, Hindus and Muslims, and the muslims are very different from the Malays in Mayaysia. The Indian muslims are far less ”cool” than the Malay ones. But there’s lots of reasons for that I know.
    Mainly that in Singapore, so many of the Indian men are migrants on their own – without their families. And some I’m sure are overstayers. Illegals.
    Same as in Dubai when I spent a week there on the week out. It’s a desperate horrible slave labour kind of city, and the people from Pakistan and India (mostly muslims) were suitably brutalised by their living and working conditions to make them somewhat coarse and uncouth. It wasn’t really their fault. They had come from poverty at home, to squalor and exploitation in Dubai.
    All they had really was each other (that’s why all the ads posted up for ”bed spaces” in shared appartments and dorms specified the religion required and often the state from where they were looking for a new person to take over this bed space – language, culture food etc).
    http://blog.neo-nomad.net/files/images/20080416//bed-space-abu-dhabi.jpg

    So I’m a know nothing ”Stanley of our day”, philosophically still to leave my front door.
    Fair enough. I do my best.

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.