Sunny Hundal website



  • Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sunny Hundal
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • Not taking the BNP seriously


    by Sunny
    2nd February, 2007 at 11:59 am    

    Ever get the feeling the police don’t really take the BNP that seriously? Some were only caught with chemical weapons, bio-suit and rocket launchers you know. Apparently that was no big deal. So how about this?

    Brian Wainwright, 38, had already been convicted for sending offensive and threatening racist posters to a councillor, a mosque and an anti-fascism campaigner in Halifax. But now the case against him might be dropped because he was not charged within the legal time limit. The posters sent between February and April 2005 featured swastikas, insults against Islam and threats to spill Muslim blood and to incite a race war in the town.

    Sending offensive and threatening letters is a summary offence which means the accused must be charged within six months of committing the crime. But Wainwright was not charged by police until nine months after he sent the last poster.

    Good to see the police on top of things and locking up all hate-mongers. Oh whoops I forgot, only if they’re brown. For more reasonable reading, both Maleiha Malik and Munira Mirza appear in the Guardian today.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Current affairs,The BNP






    76 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs


    1. soru — on 2nd February, 2007 at 12:41 pm  

      Most telling statistic from the Minira article: 7% of Muslims admitted admiration for organisations such as al qaeda, but so did 3% of the general populace.

      By my math, if muslims are 2% of the population, that means that about 96% of al qaeda admirers in the UK are non-muslim.

      How those number break down between the flippant, the confused, the far left and the far right would be an interesting thing to know.

    2. Katy — on 2nd February, 2007 at 12:42 pm  

      That’s odd. I don’t know the full facts of it but on the face of the story there are more serious offences that he could have been charged with to which that time limit would not have applied.

    3. ZinZin — on 2nd February, 2007 at 1:18 pm  

      “Good to see the police on top of things and locking up all hate-mongers. Oh whoops I forgot, only if they’re brown.”

      Bit harsh your not suggesting that they (police) are racist? If you are suggesting that they are incompetent then i would agree with you.

    4. Sid Love — on 2nd February, 2007 at 1:29 pm  

      Why, because accusations of racism and incompetence would be too harsh?

    5. Sid Love — on 2nd February, 2007 at 3:54 pm  

      Is radical Islam the mirror image of the BNP?

      cast your vote on the NS poll:
      http://www.newstatesman.com/200702050032

    6. Trash The Fash — on 2nd February, 2007 at 6:05 pm  

      The police are (by definition of what they do) an inherently authoritarian organisation.

      Under the Blair government, the laws of the UK have become increasingly totalitarian. Maybe not quite “fascist” in the traditional sense of the word, but in a rather more insidious manner, in that it’s by subtle playing on fears, rather than outright brute force.

      Why bother forcing people to support a fascist regime when you can more-or-less achieve it by mind games, surveillance and enslavement to debt instead? Not that Blair actually enjoys popular support, but he has just enough (thanks to a broken voting system) to still claim a mandate and carry on his programme.

      Any police officer enforcing Blair’s totalitarian laws (eg. suppression of protest and free speech, the upcoming ID scheme, extended pre-trial detention without charge for suspected “terrorists”, stop and search used to harass youths, all offences arrestable even minor ones) is unfortunately, by default, enforcing a type of fascism. Regardless of the politics of the individual officer, if they take orders from above without question or dissent, they help Blair achieve his totalitarian aims.

      This is part of the problem of the police - the job requirement is to do what you are told. The good-heartedness and community spirit of certain individual officers is irrelevant when you look at who they take orders from.

      The government is only too happy to blame problems on illegal immigrants, Islamic terrorists, people on welfare, blah blah blah - it’s all a load of crap, designed to heighten your sense of fear, increase bigotry against disadvantaged minorities, and subtly get you to swallow their lies, giving them ever more control.

      The out-and-out bonehead fascists are only the small protuberance of a proto-fascist government, who need groups like the BNP around so they can point and say “don’t vote for those fascists”, while carrying on their own proto-fascist objectives.

      It makes no difference who you vote for - Labour, Tory, LibDem, Green, Respect, UKIP, whoever. If voting changed anything, those who are really in power (corporations and big media) would ensure it was abolished, or more likely, would just carry on using bribery and corruption to continue to buy influence, while pretending that we live in a democracy. (Case in point: BAE Systems.)

      No, mainstream politicians of all colours need the BNP, since it gives them an air of being less evil than the “alternative” - though they never offer us “completely new system” or “no government whatsoever” or even “none of the above” as a choice, do they? (When is a choice not a choice?)

      Look to the nascent fascists at the top of the heap, and you will know why the BNP exists - because they enjoy a symbiotic relationship with each other. Despite their claimed dislike of each other, Tony Blair and Nick Griffin were forged in the same furnace.

      The only fair system is “anarchy” in the true sense of the word - meaning (in the broadest sense) no hierarchical power structure, everybody equal, and where we all really do have a direct say in the running of our lives and our communities.

      The problem is power itself. I don’t want to vote for politicians, who by definition can’t represent me. I want to give my support to specific ideas I agree with, and withdraw my participation and walk away from ideas I do not.

      Until then, fascism is alive and well, and it extends much further than just the BNP. There can be no surprise that the government is not interested in dealing with fascists - the government ARE fascists!

    7. El Cid — on 3rd February, 2007 at 9:38 am  

      Yeah Sid, the hard left are a confused bunch aren’t they?

    8. El Cid — on 3rd February, 2007 at 9:56 am  

      Actually, maybe they have a point — after all, the BNP don’t bomb packed tube trains or plot, allegedly, the kidnap and beheading of soldiers.

    9. El Cid — on 3rd February, 2007 at 10:24 am  

      The problem we have with the police is that — as that TV reportage showed last year (was it Dispatches or Panorama?) — there are some hardcore BNP foot soldiers/elements within the force. They still need to be rooted out. I don’t think the issue of racism within the force has ever been taken sufficiently seriously. And neither has the deaths in custody, issue, which often has racist overtones. It just isn’t good enough. I’ve long been involved in the deaths in custody campaign after a childhood friend, Roger Sylvester, was murdered by the police.

      But, provoked by Sid’s earlier post, it could also be argued that the wider muslim community isn’t taking the internal terrorist threat sufficiently seriously either. Everytime I hear someone from Birmingtham whining about the recent raids, that feeling among the wider non-muslim population is reinforced.

      The police are paranoid. Yeah right
      But what about New Cross, New Cross? Well bungled police raids happen. The intelligence was wrong. The policeman was overzealous.
      But they could make the arrests more diplomatically, why pile in with numbers? Coz that’s how it’s usually done with criminals. I’ve seen it first hand — nuff said. To turn an arrest into a conviction you need EVIDENCE, capiche.
      It’s just like Germany in the 1930s! Shut your cakehole.

      And who is this joker, Chairman Dr Mohammed Naseem of the Birmingham Central Mosque:
      “They have invented this perception of a threat. To justify that, they have to maintain incidents to prove something is going on.”

      This isn’t the same guy who rushed in like a bull in a china shop to deny the London tube bombs was the work of home-grown muslims, within days of 7/7, is it?

      Does he honestly believe this? Or is it a load of Machiavellian posturing?

    10. El Cid — on 3rd February, 2007 at 10:30 am  

      Sorry, one thing I should clear up:
      “long involved in the deaths in custody campaign” is an exaggeration. Only in the financial sense is it true.

    11. Sid — on 3rd February, 2007 at 11:26 am  


      But, provoked by Sid’s earlier post, it could also be argued that the wider muslim community isn’t taking the internal terrorist threat sufficiently seriously either. Everytime I hear someone from Birmingtham whining about the recent raids, that feeling among the wider non-muslim population is reinforced.

      whachootalkinbout El Cid? You got all that from my admittedly flippant posts of #4 and #5? This is your classic straw man argumentation tactics. And I salute you for playing it so well.

      OK, all that notwithstanding, I have to tell you that I completely agree with you. And that is the “wider Muslim community” are not taking this matter seriously. And thats because even using the term ‘wider Muslim community’ is too wide-net and amorphous.

      Part of this is because I think they are almost all regard these idiots who plan to kill Muslim members of the armed forces as idiotic criminals. Why should the “community” be expected to rally behind these people? Do you really expect them to simply because they are Muslims who are attempting to kill other Muslims because of allegiance problems?

      As for Naseem - well in my opinion he does not speak for the Muslim community. He speaks as an advocate of the ghettoised Mirpuri Pakistani community of the West Midlands and Yorkshire.

      And therein lies the problem. But no one has yet had the clarity or the courage to say so.

    12. El Cid — on 3rd February, 2007 at 11:39 am  

      You’re a gentleman and a scholar Sid.
      But what’s strawman argumentation tactics? Is it some technique invented by Perecles or Clauswitz or some such. I don’t even know I’m doing it.
      I clearly need to start reading books again instead of The Sun.

    13. Chris Stiles — on 3rd February, 2007 at 1:00 pm  


      Most telling statistic from the Minira article: 7% of Muslims admitted admiration for organisations such as al qaeda, but so did 3% of the general populace.

      By my math, if muslims are 2% of the population, that means that about 96% of al qaeda admirers in the UK are non-muslim.

      Yes - and it’s one of those statistics that is hard to read from (at least on the surface), and Munira Mirza admitted as such when interviewed on the Today programme.

      Having read some of the report by policy exchange, I get the feeling that the set of questions asked elicited answers about causality (false or otherwise) that could have been interpreted as support.

    14. El Cid — on 3rd February, 2007 at 2:46 pm  

      Sid,

      I’m just going over your words again because they merit greater attention and because I’m relaxing with my laptop, hoping my backache goes before tomorrow’s Watford Half-Marathon (maybe a few pints later might help).

      And thats because even using the term ‘wider Muslim community’ is too wide-net and amorphous

      You know, I completely agree with that. I guess it’s all too easy to slip into generalisations in the current climate. I’m not the only one to fall into that trap, but it helps to be aware of it.

      The bite-sized delivery of balanced modern news has a lot to answer for. Even the news agencies — which are much more objective in style — will have headlines like “Muslim groups angry after police raid” or “Angry muslim reaction after Birmingham arrests.” These are technically true and snappier than an alternative such as “Some muslim groups..” but they are also misleading, even socially irresponsible.

      The typical news format: first the police raid, then the “muslim” reaction, in this case local. All the Brum complaints I listed above I have either read in a broadsheet or heard in a TV bulletin. Dr Mo Naseem, to all intents and purposes a popular spiritual leader, reinforced the impression of a paranoid community in denial with his “I’m starting from the premise that you are out to get us and that you are (dirty kaffir) liers who are victimising completely innocent people, whatever the evidence you think you may have.”

      You say that it’s just a subset of the wider muslim community. Fair dos. So… you wash your hands of them, and say they are nowt to do with us? Or are you downplaying the sig of the threat represented by UK radical islam (7/7, dis, 21/7, airlines, etc)? In your view old Mr Reid is lying when he talks about: http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13537251,00.html (after all they lied about WMD)?

      I’m not trying to put words in your mouth — I’m just trying to figure out what you mean. Apols if I have got it wrong yet again.

      Finally, you mention the ghettoised Mirpuni Pakistanis (although we’ve also — i think — had young Somalis, West Indian or African converts, and North Africans caught up in this sorry state of affairs). That’s v interesting. Are they a particularly underachieving community? Would you rather the media focused on that rather than on just “muslims”?

    15. Sunny — on 3rd February, 2007 at 3:20 pm  

      I briefly spoke to the Policy Exchange people about this yesterday, and Abi (who did the methodology) said support for Al-Qaeda and ‘anti-western ideas’ (I don’t know how to define that and neither did they) was higher among non-Muslims than Muslims in absolute numbers.

    16. El Cid — on 3rd February, 2007 at 3:26 pm  

      Alien Nation

    17. Chris Stiles — on 3rd February, 2007 at 4:17 pm  


      I briefly spoke to the Policy Exchange people about this yestreday, and Abi (who did the methodology) said support for Al-Qaeda and ‘anti-western ideas’ (I don’t know how to define that and neither did they) as higher among non-Muslims than Muslims in absolute numbers.

      Heh - it gets a little clearer as to what they mean by “anti-western ideas” when you read their report:


      “One way to tackle this is to bring to an end the institutional attacks on national identity – the counterproductive cancellation of Christmas festivities, the neurotic bans on displays of national
      symbols, and the sometimes crude anti-Western bias of history lessons – which can create feelings of defensiveness and resentment.”

      “Encourage a broader intellectual debate in order to challenge the crude anti-Western, anti-British ideas that dominate cultural and intellectual life.”

      So .. it seems it’s serving as a stalking horse of the usual ‘Political correctness gone maaaad’ obsession of some on the Parochial right.

    18. El Cid — on 4th February, 2007 at 11:43 am  

      Continuing on my theme that the threat of radical Islam is not being taken seriously by the “wider muslim” community and by the crusty liberal-left:
      http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2005511,00.html

    19. Katy — on 4th February, 2007 at 12:05 pm  

      I am a bit baffled by the way in which the radical left, which used to be anti-homophobia, anti-sexism, anti-racism and anti-organised religion is currently falling over itself to get into bed with homophobes, sexists, racists and religious fundamentalists, I must admit.

    20. Chairwoman — on 4th February, 2007 at 12:14 pm  

      Interesting article, El Cid. I’m sorry that our friend Nyrone found it boring.

    21. Katy — on 4th February, 2007 at 12:25 pm  

      Nyrone has been working tirelessly to bring us entertainment and cheeriness on the open thread :-D

    22. ZinZin — on 4th February, 2007 at 12:30 pm  

      Katy the SWP are the reactionary left not the radical left.

    23. Chairwoman — on 4th February, 2007 at 12:37 pm  

      Nice distinction ZZ

    24. ZinZin — on 4th February, 2007 at 12:43 pm  

      Had to be said. Although I very nearly joined them about 5 years ago.

    25. Katy — on 4th February, 2007 at 12:44 pm  

      Dammit ZinZin I was trying to sound like I knew what I was talking about. Now I have had to ask my mother to explain the difference between the radical left and the reactionary left and it turns out that you are right. Gaaaargh.

    26. Katy — on 4th February, 2007 at 12:45 pm  

      I used to be verging on the communist in outlook, but I didn’t join the SWP because all of the SWPers at university were such utter tossers. And besides, as my friend Sam always used to say, they were just a bunch of poncy Trots.

      (They are Trots, right?)

    27. Katy — on 4th February, 2007 at 12:46 pm  

      Where’s Vikrant these days? I miss him with his girl-frenzy and his scarily knowledgeable historical-political essays.

    28. ZinZin — on 4th February, 2007 at 12:51 pm  

      Trots/Stalinists/Leninists you can barely slip a ciggie paper between them they are so similar still it doesn’t stop them falling out with each other. Splitters. Pass the ice pick Joe.

    29. El Cid — on 4th February, 2007 at 1:32 pm  

      Re #20
      Have I missed something (apart from this morning’s planned run)?

    30. Katy — on 4th February, 2007 at 1:40 pm  

      Nyrone put a comment on the Comment Is Free piece itself, I think.

    31. William — on 4th February, 2007 at 2:25 pm  

      I remember that anyone to the right of the SWP was a Tory. To the left of the SWP was Moscow which was really capitalist anyway (state capitalism) so presumably they were Tories.

    32. William — on 4th February, 2007 at 2:36 pm  

      Katy

      “I am a bit baffled by the way in which the radical left, which used to be anti-homophobia, anti-sexism, anti-racism and anti-organised religion is currently falling over itself to get into bed with homophobes, sexists, racists and religious fundamentalists, I must admit.”

      Does this mean who the enemy is happens to be more important than the truth i.e. USA, Blair, the west.

    33. Anas — on 4th February, 2007 at 2:42 pm  

      I am a bit baffled by the way in which the radical left, which used to be anti-homophobia, anti-sexism, anti-racism and anti-organised religion is currently falling over itself to get into bed with homophobes, sexists, racists and religious fundamentalists, I must admit.

      I guess for some of them it might be that they’re trying to stand side by side with a group of people who they currently see as underdogs, or losers in the struggle against the excesses of Western Capitalism/Imperialism. Or they’re choosing to align themselves with the lesser of two “evils”.

    34. Chairwoman — on 4th February, 2007 at 2:50 pm  

      And for too many of them it’s like having the right handbag.

    35. ZinZin — on 4th February, 2007 at 2:54 pm  

      Anas
      Are Muslims an underdog that is under threat? Even if they are that is no reason to link arms and march with the MAB.

    36. Katy — on 4th February, 2007 at 3:07 pm  

      Anas, I suppose that’s right. “The enemy of the enemy is my friend” and all that. I’ve never liked that way of thinking. I think it’s a bit short-sighted from both points of view: if you want to introduce sharia law, then what can possibly appeal to you in communism? - and vice versa.

    37. Sunny — on 4th February, 2007 at 3:39 pm  

      I nearly joined the socialists at uni… I went to their first meeting and they blamed the entire conflict in the balkans on class. Basically it was one big class conspiracy and nothing to do with ethnic or religious difference. I just walked out. And now they’ve adopted another mantra - tha America is to blame for everything in the universe and parrot that relentlessly. The SWP are a bunch of sheep.

    38. Jagdeep — on 4th February, 2007 at 3:43 pm  

      I guess for some of them it might be that they’re trying to stand side by side with a group of people who they currently see as underdogs, or losers in the struggle against the excesses of Western Capitalism/Imperialism

      Oh the self flaggelating victimhood! The self pity! The comfort of self righteous self assignation of the status of holy and eternally raped victim! Oh the attractiveness of self appointed paranoiac victimhood! The self pity, the hysteria, the laziness, the narsiccism!

      And that’s what it is all about folks — Muslim self pity and victimhood is the biggest example of narcissism since narcissus himself looked in the water and saw his reflection in the water.

      Oh Anas you poor little persecuted victimhood puppy dog. Come here and let me stroke your head, you victimhood puppy.

    39. Jagdeep — on 4th February, 2007 at 3:48 pm  

      And therein lies the problem. But no one has yet had the clarity or the courage to say so

      I don’t think it’s that Sid. Dr Denial Nassem is a major figure in Respect and is very very very good friends with Salma Yaqoob. They have a clear ideological agenda and that is what motivates their public statements. They are far right Islamists. I doubt that Mirpuri Pakistanis, if you take them away from the fear of speaking out, have sympathy for the nutters.

      By the way, I really hope that Khalid Mahmood MP has good security these days.

    40. ZinZin — on 4th February, 2007 at 3:50 pm  

      Jagdeep read his blog he is a very talented boy. How else can you descibe a man who in writing about Lily Allen manages to crowbar I/P into it.

    41. Jagdeep — on 4th February, 2007 at 3:53 pm  

      ZinZin, I’ve never read Anas’s blog in my life.

    42. Sunny — on 4th February, 2007 at 4:04 pm  

      Muslim self pity and victimhood is the biggest example

      I don’t know, I think these days the Telegraph / Daily Mail readers are rapidly building themselves up to be the biggest whingers / victims - talking about how the world is conspiring to end their way of life when they constitute such a powerful group.

    43. El Cid — on 4th February, 2007 at 4:10 pm  

      I might have agreed with that — before 7/7 and 11-M

    44. Sid — on 4th February, 2007 at 4:16 pm  

      I doubt that Mirpuri Pakistanis, if you take them away from the fear of speaking out, have sympathy for the nutters.

      When the IRA were committing terrorist attacks on the UK, detonating bombs in Central London by way of regularity, no one called it Roman Catholic, or indeed, Christian Terrorism. Not because it was a nebulous term but because all Roman Catholics were not Northern Irish republicans.

      Is there any reason why we create propagate this incorrect nomenclature when it comes to “Islamic” terrorism? Who benefits from this?

      Most of the angst and anti-Western feeling that gets couched in “Islamic” termininology comes from the Pakistani community. And within the Pakistani communities, most of this violence is fermenting in the ghettoised Mirpuri communities. Naseem and Co don’t have a handle on this and we’re deluding ourselves if we think that they are representative of the nutters we saw on the Channel 4 Dispatches show.

      We’ve yet to see the USA take the Saudis to task for funding the large majority of Muslim terrorism today. Iran didn’t fund the al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. It was Saudi Arabia, USA’s client state and protectorate in the Middle East. So the USA certainly benefits from this nebulous term because less attention is directed to how far the Saudis and US interests are tied, and how much Saudi money gete remitted to Pakistan, Bangladesh and SOuth Asia in general, in order to fund Sunni-Islamist politics.

      I just think it would benefit everyone if we were to direct our attention to the actual causes rather than use woolly, nebulous terms like “Muslims”, “Christains” and “Jews” when talking about movements and phenomena in the UK today.

    45. Jagdeep — on 4th February, 2007 at 4:20 pm  

      The SWP are a bunch of sheep

      Well, the SWP are now called RESPECT (Yo! Respect!) and their chief delusional spokespeople are Dr Denial Naseem and Salma Yaqoob. A suicide bomb could go off in the Bull Ring and they would both be on TV demanding that the emergency services stop persecuting Muslims by treating the dead and wounded, and the TV cameras to stop interviewing people because it gives a bad image, and still deny that there is a problem of radicalism in their midst.

      But hey, when you are nothing but a bunch of Islamists pumped full of radical conspiracy theorising yourselves, what do you expect?

    46. Katy — on 4th February, 2007 at 4:25 pm  

      Sounds like the making of an interesting post, Sid?

    47. Jagdeep — on 4th February, 2007 at 4:28 pm  

      Most of the angst and anti-Western feeling that gets couched in “Islamic” termininology comes from the Pakistani community. And within the Pakistani communities, most of this violence is fermenting in the ghettoised Mirpuri communities.

      Sid, I read a book called ‘A Satanic Affair’ by Malise Ruthven, all about the Rushdie affair, it was written in the mid 1990′s, and I read it a couple of years ago. Bought it for 10p at one of those library sales. It’s an excellent book. Anyway, he goes into the nature of Pakistani identity, and posits a fundamental insecurity amongst Pakistanis in Britain for various reasons, including the need to assert their difference from Hindus and Sikhs in Britain, and that is why the exaggerated obsession with Ummah comes into things. More Arab than the Arab lapdog kind of mentality. Also, it enables them to assert themselves as different from everyone else.

      I agree with you about the Saudi thing. I said before that this country should unilaterally stop all funding for religious institutions or causes in the UK from any country that does not have a reciprocal openness to British religious groups in their nation. So, no synagogue funded by Jewish groups from Golders Green in Riyadh, means no mosques in Manchester or anywhere else in the UK with Saudi money. Strict liability — full stop.

    48. El Cid — on 4th February, 2007 at 4:35 pm  

      I just think it would benefit everyone if we were to direct our attention to the actual causes rather than use woolly, nebulous terms like “Muslims”, “Christians” and “Jews” when talking about movements and phenomena in the UK today.

      Hey, I don’t disagree with that. But what do you suggest in practice. I’m all ears. But how should we describe the alleged Brum plot and the local community’s reaction? Substitute Pakistani or Mirpuri for Muslim? (This is not a strawman argumentation technique but an honest question). And can/should commentators and journos really tell the story by ignoring the wider global context?

    49. Jagdeep — on 4th February, 2007 at 4:38 pm  

      It’s all bandwagon jumping Sid. The RESPECT rabble (Yo! Respect!) are obviously not part of the the scene we saw in the Dispatches documentary, but they are exacerbating things because they have their own agenda. Both in terms of the background denial and paranoia they contribute to, and in terms of making things worse between Muslims and everyone else.

    50. Leon — on 4th February, 2007 at 4:42 pm  

      Sounds like the making of an interesting post, Sid?

      Was thinking the same…

    51. El Cid — on 4th February, 2007 at 4:47 pm  

      Who knows, it could finally prompt Kulvinder to deliver that post on small nation nationalism he’s been promising

    52. ZinZin — on 4th February, 2007 at 5:09 pm  

      “When the IRA were committing terrorist attacks on the UK, detonating bombs in Central London by way of regularity, no one called it Roman Catholic, or indeed, Christian Terrorism. Not because it was a nebulous term but because all Roman Catholics were not Northern Irish republicans.”

      Sid the IRA wanted a united Ireland that was their motivations for their bombing campaign. The fact that they were catholic is a non-sequiter they were not trying to bring back papism and destroy the CofE. Islamist terrorists are motivated by their faith and a desire to restore the caliphate.

    53. Sid — on 4th February, 2007 at 5:15 pm  

      Anyway, he goes into the nature of Pakistani identity, and posits a fundamental insecurity amongst Pakistanis in Britain for various reasons, including the need to assert their difference from Hindus and Sikhs in Britain, and that is why the exaggerated obsession with Ummah comes into things.

      I think this RESPECT obsession is misdirected. They’re a manifestion of a deep-rooted Muslim-only characteristic that has been around since the beginning. Last seen in the separatist politics of the Muslim League of Indian politics and the breakaway of Pakistan under Jinnah. T’was ever thus.

      RESPECT are solationist, victimhood cretins, but they are certainly not bloodthirsty, streetwise, vicious thugs and terrorist types. At least they’re playing the democracy game by the book.

      The terrorist types on the other hand have a far more clearcut idea of themselves which has nothing to do with RESPECT, Salma Yaqoob etc. They’re supremacist, racist nutters who have encapsulated their ideology in Islamist revolutionary discourse of Qutb and al-Banna. But mostly, they’re thugs who don’t know their Maududi from their elbow

    54. Katy — on 4th February, 2007 at 5:19 pm  

      Oh, I don’t think that’s right, ZZ. The Unionists were C of E and the Nationalists were Catholic. Right from the 16th Century onwards the opposing sides were sharply divided along religious lines. Bringing back Papism and creating a Catholic Irish state was exactly what the Nationalists wanted to do.

    55. El Cid — on 4th February, 2007 at 5:25 pm  

      Hmmm. Not sure ’bout that Kate — although Rev Paisely might have thought so. I thought it was mainly about getting the British out and defending the rights of the minority Catholic population.

    56. Jagdeep — on 4th February, 2007 at 5:26 pm  

      Thanks Sid. Seems to me the RESPECT crew are utilising this as part of their agenda, and are making it difficult to separate the two. Don’t they realise the damage they are causing with their rhetoric? I mean, seriously, they are deeply deeply craven, trying to milk it all with conspiracy theories, turning it into a massive ‘us versus them’ scenario, comparing Britian to Nazi Germany.

      They are riding the tiger and that is very very dangerous.

    57. Sid — on 4th February, 2007 at 5:41 pm  

      Yes, but the real toxic nastiness is festering in the Kashmiri Mirpuri communities in Leeds, Dewsbury and Birmingham. Links to Saudi Arabia, a rich ally of the West abound. Cash remittances from Riyadh to London and Islamabad are the source of funding.

      Sorry to be so resolutely precise - but its either that or carry on with the lazy usage of woolly language that blames the entire Muslim population of Britain.

    58. El Cid — on 4th February, 2007 at 5:54 pm  

      Putting aside just for a minute the grotesque position being taken up by RESPECT/Hard Left, what about the denial and resentment being shown (seemingly) by muslims in Brum and how should this be described/portrayed?

      Sid, if you were editor of a newspaper or head of TV news, what would have been your take on the alleged kiidnapping ting and its aftermath? What kind of headlines would we have seen? What kind of bulletin?

      C’mon man — give it a go. See what you come up with.

    59. El Cid — on 4th February, 2007 at 5:56 pm  

      although #57 is pretty clear

    60. Katy — on 4th February, 2007 at 8:32 pm  

      I probably don’t know enough about the Troubles to comment, and because of that I’m wholly inequipped to take sides, so please don’t think I was. The closest I ever came to them was being woken up by the bomb at Staples Corner. But I always thought that religion was a strong factor, albeit perhaps a secondary one (land struggle first, religious conflict tagging along behind). If Northern Ireland had gone back to the Irish, it would have been a Catholic state, presumably? I’m not necessarily saying they’d have trampled all over the Protestants, mind you.

    61. ZinZin — on 4th February, 2007 at 8:45 pm  

      Katy lets stay away from Irish politics if only for our own good.

    62. Manuel — on 4th February, 2007 at 9:09 pm  

      Fat Spanish waiter?
      You think that’s funny Zin?
      You think his Spanishness is fair game?

    63. Not Saussure — on 4th February, 2007 at 9:39 pm  

      Sunny — may I suggest you include the word ‘allegedly’ in your summary of what the prosecution apparently have to say about the BNP members who’re awaiting trial under the Explosive Substances Act?

      People are innocent of any offence until either they admit their guilt or a jury finds them guilty. That’s as true of BNP members as it is of anyone else; I realise John Reid sometimes forgets this principle (and even wishes it were not so) but that’s no excuse for the rest of us so to do.

    64. Katy — on 4th February, 2007 at 9:54 pm  

      He’s already been convicted, NS. He’s not awaiting trial. If his conviction is overturned it will be on a legal technicality in relation to timing. The fact that he committed the offence is not in doubt. As a matter of public record, Sunny would actually be quite wrong to use the word “allegedly”.

    65. Not Saussure — on 5th February, 2007 at 12:37 am  

      I don’t think anyone’s yet been convicted of the alleged offences involving chemical weapons and rocket launchers, have they, Katy? It’s that I was unhappy about.

    66. Trash The Fash — on 5th February, 2007 at 2:46 pm  

      To all those decrying the SWP and other “hard-left” / reactionary socialist types, could I suggest you take a serious look at anarchy as a political doctrine, or if you want a specific kind to take a look at, try anarchist-communism.

      Socially minded without the nasty authoritarianism, no leaders, based on mutual aid and cooperation, creating a free and equal society for all, and nowadays putting the Earth at the core of all that, so quite “green” too.

      Wikipedia is a good starting point:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

    67. El Cid — on 5th February, 2007 at 8:26 pm  

      I’m not happy with the headline on your blog ZinZin. I tried to leave a message on your blog, but it wouldn’t allow me. I also gave you a chance to mollify me.

      Whatever your anger towards Benitez, he’s Spanishness has nothing to do with it. The waiter ref merely serves to underline its racist value.

      What if I referred to a Fat Indian snake charmer or cornershop owner, or a pasty faced Scottish dwarf drunk. My mum was a waitress and my dad was a waiter. Professions can often characterise certain immigrant groups — e.g Polish plumbers, West Indian bus conductors — but it can turn derogatory when it becomes a popular caricature, as in Fawlty Towers. This is the second time you’ve had a go at Spain.

      You sir are a racist cunt.

    68. ZinZin — on 5th February, 2007 at 9:19 pm  

      I have modified my blog and in future all can leave comments.

    69. Bert Preast — on 5th February, 2007 at 10:15 pm  

      “Socially minded without the nasty authoritarianism”

      That’ll be just dandy after a few more millenia evolution. Doubt we’ll make it though.

    70. Clairwil — on 6th February, 2007 at 12:37 am  

      ‘pasty faced Scottish dwarf drunk’

      Pah! I’m 5 8″ in my bare feet and I’m not drunk!
      ;)

    71. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 6th February, 2007 at 10:15 am  

      > Oh whoops I forgot, only if they’re brown.

      Nice chip you got there Sunny, mind it doesn’t give you a bad back.

      TFI

    72. steve r — on 7th February, 2007 at 4:50 pm  

      “When the IRA were committing terrorist attacks on the UK, detonating bombs in Central London by way of regularity, no one called it Roman Catholic, or indeed, Christian Terrorism. Not because it was a nebulous term but because all Roman Catholics were not Northern Irish republicans”

      The IRA is a secular nationalist organization. It has been largely nominally or “culturally” Catholic for many years. More leftist-Marxist in character than Catholic in any sense.

    73. lithcol — on 11th February, 2007 at 12:46 am  

      The BNP acheives its success because there is a lack of attention to those who feel disenfranchised in modern Britain.

      Respect is an insignificant anachronistic left fascist party, relying on support from Islamists and the hard left.

      Ignore the buggers at your peril. Although small they cause an awfull lot of mischief.

      They should both be confronted and shown up for what they are.

      As of course should the platitudes of the main parties.

    74. Bert Preast — on 13th February, 2007 at 11:34 am  

      The ex-BNP candidate for Colne, Robert Cottage, has pleaded guilty to possession of explosives at Manchester crown court.

    75. Bert Preast — on 13th February, 2007 at 1:13 pm  

      The dentist is denying the charges, and Cottage’s line is that he was stockpiling explosives in expectation of an impending civil war. Seems he’s pleading guilty on this basis rather than admitting to planning terrorist attacks.

    76. Joe Chapman — on 14th February, 2007 at 1:03 pm  

      Actually, Cottage’s main defense appears to be that he had the explosives to protect his property from attacks!

      How does that work?

      Anyway, The BNP have a long and rather dodgy history which includes plenty of terrorist acts. It was, after all, founded by a man, John Tyndall, who believed in implementing Hitler’s “Final Solution” and gassing people for being gay.

      For more info regarding the history of The BNP and British Nationalism/fascism here’s a site a set up to collate some information:

      http://www.thebnp.org/

    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.