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

  • No freedom of speech for Palestinians

    by Sunny
    29th June, 2011 at 8:17 pm    

    Sorry, was someone from the Libdems claiming that their coalition government cherished freedom of speech? Bollocks.

    The home secretary, Theresa May, has ordered “a full investigation” after a leading Palestinian activist in Israel entered Britain despite a travel ban.

    Sheikh Raed Salah, leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel, was detained at 11pm on Tuesday and taken to Paddington Green police station in west London.

    Sarah Colborne, director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in London, said she was appalled by the decision to detain Salah. “This is a legitimate organisation which Israel has never moved to ban. Raed Salah regularly speaks at venues across Israel, where he has considerable support amongst the Palestinian citizens of Israel, who make up a fifth of the population.” He had been elected mayor of his home town, Um al-Fahm, three times and never been convicted of anti-semitism in Israel.

    It doesn’t really matter does it? This govt will allow in people like Geert Wilders, who regularly espouse racist garbage against Muslims, but those rights don’t extend to Muslims (I’m in favour of both sets of racists being allowed in).

    He’s also a politician from Israel. So the govt will allow in Israel ministers like Avigdor “fascist” Lieberman, but not Muslim politicians from Israel. The usual suspects who screamed censorship when Geert Wilders was banned in 2009, will no doubt be celebrating this too.

                  Post to

    Filed in: Current affairs,Middle East

    25 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. sunny hundal

      Blogged: : No freedom of speech for Palestinians

    2. Claire Fowler

      Blogged: : No freedom of speech for Palestinians

    3. Greg Morelli

      Blogged: : No freedom of speech for Palestinians

    4. phil dodd

      Blogged: : No freedom of speech for Palestinians

    5. smileandsubvert

      No freedom of speech for Palestinians

    6. Joanne Bell

      @sunny_hundal Then why shill for blood-libelling Raed Salah? That is not 'anti-Israel Govt' politics,that's hate speech

    1. meatpie — on 29th June, 2011 at 8:58 pm  

      Works both ways sunny. Beard boy Corbyn no doubt wanted Wilders to be banned ,but welcomed the politically correct bigot Saleh in.
      The brit left love the exotics of those crazy but spiritual ‘others’ basically Muslims esiaclly of the middle east.. How else can you explain all those whiteys creaming there trot pants over these nutters ala Jody Macintrye,Galloway,Ben ‘Jews’ White,The Rev Sizer. Its Like a more harder version of Georgie harrison meeting that oddball guru and Madonna pretending to be a Hindu for 5 seconds.

    2. Sunny — on 29th June, 2011 at 9:01 pm  

      . Beard boy Corbyn no doubt wanted Wilders to be banned

      Where’s your proof? He’s a lot more pro-free speech than many assume.

      Your frothing aside - I want free speech for bigots too. If you don’t, then say so instead of trying to deflect attention.

    3. Er — on 29th June, 2011 at 9:26 pm  

      Wilders was banned. The courts overturned it.

      I don’t think Wilders called Bin Laden a “martyr” or his killers “Satanic”. Salah’s political party did.

    4. meatpie — on 29th June, 2011 at 10:38 pm  

      I would not ban wilders or this other nobody. But the sudden changes of attitude to certain controversial people is. The trendies monomaniacal obsession with Israel other any other subject and the embarrassing benevolence for Islam,blinds them in to giving certain controversial people more benefits of the doubt.

    5. damon — on 30th June, 2011 at 1:09 am  

      It might be good to have the Harry’s Place allegations about him analysed here in the way that Guramit Singh was recently put under the spotlight. Did he really say that that Jews in New York were tipped off about 9/11? That Bin Laden was a martyr, and that he propogates the line that Israel is out to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque?
      That kind of thing is damaging. I myself have heard the Al-Aqsa story being promoted by an imam in Dublin. People end up believing that nonsense. Newsnight said a thousand people turned up to the meeting in Leicester.

    6. Sunny — on 30th June, 2011 at 1:54 am  

      Wilders was banned. The courts overturned it.

      Exactly. And the same should happen here.

    7. meatpie — on 30th June, 2011 at 8:36 am  

      If there is accusations of anti-semitism it will get the Ken Loach treatment. That its understandable he holds anti semantic views. Just like if a black lad mugged me its understandable i hold less than honorable views on blacks,but loach and people like Ben ‘Jews’ White would not say that of course. Benevolence only ever happens to those elected few.

    8. meatpie — on 30th June, 2011 at 9:14 am  

      Looking around the net,seen a few quotes of oddness from this nobody. Its OK though, its the right and understandable form of bigotry,so let sleeping dogs rest

    9. jamal — on 30th June, 2011 at 10:41 am  

      the hypocrisy is staggering.

      when it comes to hate speech against muslims its no problem you get green light, freedom of speech all the way!

      damon you seem to have an issue of any muslim having a voice, should we seal our lips with tape?

    10. damon — on 30th June, 2011 at 12:41 pm  

      Jamal, if you want to make the case for Sheikh Raed Salah please do so. Even if it’s just from the free speech angle. But please don’t use the ”any muslim having a voice” line. As that lines people up in (tribal) groups based on their religion, nationality or ethnicity. There was inter-communal rioting in Belfast last week, and a Northern Ireland forum I also read was full of talk about ”Catholic this” and ”Protestant that”.

      This was the most interesting thing I’ve read about the Israeli Sheikh.

      Jerusalem’s troublesome sheikh
      Ra’ed Salah is mobilising opposition to the undermining of the Islamic presence in the city. His actions play to a wider audience.

      I think that the government should really have to justify why they banned this guy. That they don’t like to go into detail about specific cases is quite annoying. Just saying that someone’s presence is “not conducive to the public good” is not really satisfactory.
      But there’s a big ‘but’ IMO. How does he measure up on the Geert Wilders scale? Is he on a par? Not half as bad? If Geert Wilders was travelling around the country drawing audiences, there would be UAF protesters outside for sure, but for Islamists there seems to be no consensus with how to deal with them.

      In my opinion, his message, and the propogating of the ”Al-Aqsa under threat” strategy is “not conducive to the public good”, because vunerable communities can fall for it and become negatively politicised. But on the other hand, that’s where freedom of speech comes in. I have seen the negativity of this overly focuing on Palestine amongst Dublin’s muslim community, but it’s impossible to do anything about it. But it does work against the wider society IMO, as it breeds resentment and a sense of victimhood. And when you have hundreds of people turning up in Leicester to hear this Sheikh, what good can come from it?

      If you don’t want him banned, what should be done about people who will only bring discord?

    11. Sarah AB — on 1st July, 2011 at 7:24 am  

      @damon - agree with much of what you say. I’m also not sure whether it’s right he should have been banned - or at least think that’s a fair thing to discuss - what REALLY bothers me is the fact Labour Party MPs were prepared to share a platform with him, and responded so inadequately to the issue of his antisemitism. Some of the Guardian’s reporting/comment is another irk.

    12. Zoe B — on 1st July, 2011 at 11:18 am  

      Nobody should be banned from saying anything as long as it does not incite racism or violence.

      I am profoundly against Salah’s views and his support for Hamas but I am all for him saying whatever he wants against Israel, Jews, Christians or indeed dogs and cats.

      What is disturbing to me though is the support for Mr Salah in this country, both from public and certain MSM. Over a 1,000 people turned up in Leicester to hear him speak – all presumably of their free will and without fear of intimidation from public, Geert Wilders supporters, BNP, Jews or frothing at the mouth supporters of Israel.

      Now imagine a similar Geert Wilders speaking tour in Britain (we can only imagine for I can guarantee it can never happen)? He would need police escort everywhere (he already is under police protection) and his attendees would be put off by intimidation from jeering Hamas supporters following Wilders everywhere he goes.

      Thanks to Pickled Politics, Guardian and media outlets like it, there is a growing support for Hamas in this country. It definitely spells disaster for Israel (for which these outlets would, I presume not shed a tear), but is all this support of an organisation that uses summary executions and torture on its own people really good role models for youths of this country?

      Supporters of Mr Salah seem to think it is.

    13. jamal — on 1st July, 2011 at 11:33 am  


      give it a rest you have an issue with any muslim who makes a political point, you automatically insinuate any muslim making a speech in a mosque will lead to violence or terror funny you don’t back it up with factual evidence only insinuations. Familiar record being played again and again in your posts.

    14. damon — on 1st July, 2011 at 12:33 pm  

      Jamal. I don’t insinuate that, but probably am suggesting that winding people up with tales like the Al-Aqsa story and all the woes that befall muslims at the hands of ‘the unbelievers’, can lead to an outbreak of mopery, self pity and victimhood.
      We wouldn’t give the BNP’s wretched ”rights for whites” campaign the time of day, and I think equal skeptism should be given to all grievance mongers.

      That’s not to say though that Israel does not behave appallingly and I’m sure they just love to smear any activists who bring attention to the underhand things they do in east Jerusalem etc.
      And Britain needs to show why it bans such people and is not just doing Israel’s bidding. Is he anti-semitic? I haven’t seen proof of that, but a lot of those Islamists are by default much of the time.

    15. Random Guy — on 1st July, 2011 at 4:16 pm  

      Funny you should mention grievance mongers there Damon. You seem to be missing the point that most of the Israeli politicians are the biggest ones out there with their diatribes about being constantly under threat, always getting the blame, only trying to protect themselves (“so we must resort to apartheid and land-appropriation-through-settling a.k.a. grabbing”) etc.

      Pfft, the grievance mongers you refer to would need to go to a grievance-monging university to reach that level.

    16. vimothy — on 1st July, 2011 at 5:38 pm  

      No freedom of speech for Palestinians isn’t quite true. I mean, have you never read the Guardian?

    17. meatpie — on 1st July, 2011 at 6:06 pm  

      Guardian a cesspit of PC anti-semtism under the clever cover of care for the Palestinians.I bet Ben’Jews’ White and co most have thought it was a gift from the allah that the situation in Palestine could give them a outlet for jew-hate. At least the bonehaeds of the NF/hard right are honest about the pure hate,the guardian and Ben ‘jews’ white of this world cover it in piety and western concern with a dab of condescension towards Islam.

    18. Ben — on 2nd July, 2011 at 3:43 am  

      The previous UK Government banned Israeli politician Moshe Feiglin from entering Britain, because, like Salah, he had said some unkind things about his neighbours. I don’t recall Sunny complaining about that ban. Funnily enough Feiglin wasn’t even planning to visit the UK, and his name was added to the list of unwanted visitors purely for adornment and to balance it a little, since almost all of the other names on it were Moslem-sounding.

    19. joe90 — on 4th July, 2011 at 10:45 pm  


      pity they didn’t ban that war criminal Binyamin Netanyahu, he wouldn’t know what peace meant even if it slapped him in the face!

    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.