Wednesday, 29 June 2011

Thursday, 26 May 2011

One-Way Race Card

"Are you as fed up as I am with critics of Israel's belligerence being smeared as anti-Semites?"

I don't know Mehdi, are you as fed up as I am with critics of mass immigration/ extremist mosques/ Muslim extremists/ the Qu'ran/ of Hamas/ of Multi-Culturalism/ of Forced Marriages/ of Islamic attitudes towards gays/ the Burqa/ and generally any opinion a Muslim holds, being smeared as racist?

Thursday, 12 May 2011

A Progressive What?!

Apparently the No to AV success does not rule out the possibility that there is a progressive majority in Britain! I'd agree it doesn't rule this out, plain fact devoid of utter delusion provides us with this painfully obvious analysis. While the Labour party has increasingly come to represent trendy University Class causes on issues like feminism and race far more than traditional class issues, the majority of its vote still originates from the working class. Despite having little to do with class anymore, the Labour Party presents a clear alternative to the Liberal Democrats and has consistently acquired more votes on a clearly non-progressive platform. What's more, the support base of the Liberal Democrats appears now shattered, with so-called 'progressives' who were voting for the LD's having little difficulty in transferring over to Labour. Further still since Labour's final defeat in 2010, a rise in the philosophy of 'Blue Labour' under Maurice Glassman has arisen in attempt to win back the voters that they lost to the BNP, hardly something that most 'progressives' are likely to slip into doing. If the majority of the country were progressive, why do all polls show consistently high concerns with immigration and dissatisfaction over multiculturalism? Do these idiots know what most polls show your average working class voter's views are on capital punishment? Or gay marriage? Seeing cretins like Mehdi Hasan (I know, I know, I shouldn't be surprised at new levels of stupidity from this man) refer to this so-called 'progressive majority' that Labour backbenchers apparently blocked (see here: shows just how completely and utterly out of touch these Ivory Tower liberals are that so dominant our discourse and media and not our population.

You too Toynbee

Who's Side Are You On?

Since bin Laden's death there have been many on the American left that have criticised the Republican right for offering little to no support to Obama for finally getting the man that evaded George Bush for so long. There is a lot of truth in this. But there is another issue that the American and European left are also not willing to acknowledge. In the aftermath of bin Laden's death there were some brief celebrations in the streets in America devoid of any hint of racism, discrimination or God forbid 'Islamophobia', which have been exaggerated beyond all measure to give the liberals a means of diverting the story to another masochistic attack on America and the west in general. Amusingly, a part of this 'anti-celebratory' narrative, has been the idea that bin Laden's death is not very significant due to the enormous and entrenched network of terrorism that exists without him. This does slightly contradict the narrative though that Terrorism is an exaggerated if not outright non-existent threat cooked up by hawkish neocons in the White House, and that the war in Afghanistan is essentially a war about nothing. The American right should make their mind up as to whether they are going to offer praise to Obama for getting bin Laden (which they should have instantly decided in the positive) and the broader Western and American left should make up it's damn mind about whether it supports the United States' efforts in the War on Terror and simply disagrees with the means, or if it believes that such a thing does not exist in the first place. Clearly it now appears to be deciding that there is a threat. About time.

Saturday, 7 May 2011


On the latest edition of Bill Maher's show Real Time in the US, he referred to the Bush doctrine as the assertion, that states that harboured terrorists would be legitimate targets for intervention. With 'gay free zones', rallies for Hezbollah and Hamas, honour killings and the exporting of terrorists around the globe, one can't help but wonder with the latest revelations from Wikileaks about al-Qaeda's recruitment from London, how long it will be before we require Liberal Interventionism in London itself.

Monday, 2 May 2011

The Death of bin Laden

The instant that Osama bin Laden's death had been made public, a wave of pre-emptive videos and articles flushed their way onto the internet to mock those silly Yanks again who had been seen in the street celebrating the death of their most wanted man. This boring generation can produce so little beyond inanely attacking the status quo that they'll even do it before that status quo has had time to wake up and read the news and process itself. In fact the death of bin Laden plays quite nicely into the hands of those who think that they know better than everyone else about the 'real' motives behind the War on Terror and how we 'really' should be fighting it. Not only does the sight of patriotism and celebration provide the ultimate fish in a barrel to produce a trendy 'intellectual' attack on such silly behaviour, it also allows the idiots to juxtapose this jubilation with a solemn message about the 'futile' wars abroad remaining without change. Because you see these people know better. 

They know that even in spite of the images broadcast across the world of Afghans attacking UN workers and other innocents that played no role in the, and I hesitate to call it this, 'provocation' only a few weeks ago. In spite of the fact that our main 'ally' in the region Pakistan which guzzles up huge quantities of aid from the West in the spirit of fighting terrorism had allowed bin Laden's presence to go unnoticed, not in a cave somewhere on their border, but only 60 miles from their capital in a mansion. They just know that in fact Afghan society is developed enough to be self-sufficient and share a border with nuclear Pakistan, without posing a threat to the West. They just know that Obama is no different to Bush, sucked into these wars by the irresistible Military Industrial Complex instead of any legitimate concerns of national security. And they certainly know a lot better than to celebrate or appreciate the significance of adding the man that provoked the War on Terror to the enormous list of terrorists and jihadists that have been killed, combined with the destruction of much of al-Qaeda's infrastructure and ability to commit acts of terror.

Osama bin Laden's death provides a very powerful symbol. One that people can rally around, or hopefully one that works as the last straw on the camel's back. Those that declare war on America found out after 2001 that they no longer had a safe haven to plan attacks against the West in Afghanistan, and as bin Laden's latest inclusion in the list shows, they increasingly do not have a safe place to hide in Pakistan. As much as I hope that the news of bin Laden's death turns the tide in the War on Terror, I also hope that this symbol of progress does more to extinguish this unimaginative, nihilistic, relativistic, unread and frankly stupid generation that has done so much to fight against this effort that brought this latest success about.

Thursday, 21 April 2011

Selective Naivety

One of the things that I have noticed since the Wikileaks scandal emerged is how quick the left, as well as the right, are to display small-government instincts and a Machiavellian skepticism to human affairs. It seems that what may broadly be described as 'the right' are quick to notice the corruption, bureaucracy, unscrupulous activity and unforeseen consequences of 'big government' at home on domestic issues, but will often turn a blind eye or see such occurrences as inevitable in regards to foreign policy. And similarly the left which increasingly in America expects the government to take responsibility for so many important facets of American life displays that exact same scepticism and fear when it relates to the government's trustworthiness and reliability in foreign affairs. 

It's strange that according to liberals humanity can always be expected, with wide-eyed utopianism to simply 'work things out' and enjoy the benefit of the doubt, on issues of mass immigration, crime and government control of our lives and yet all that naivety is thrown out of the door as soon as it comes to foreign policy.

One day they'll learn. 

Friday, 1 April 2011

Fool Me Once...

The disaster that became known as the Iraq War can largely be put down to poor planning rather than poor intentions. The war against Gaddafi could soon be thought of in the same terms if intentions aren't quickly decided upon and planning quickly implemented.

My own view on Libya was that whatever the political views of the rebels there was no justice in allowing them to be bombed by a vicious dictator. This meant that for ethical reasons alone it made sense to enforce a No Fly Zone. There still remains however many on the 'isolationist right' who cannot accept the realities of a globalised world and the implications this has for Britain. It is not the case that only by intervening we create enemies as the Lockerbie Bombing should have made clearer to people like Peter Hitchens. While we do not have the financial ability to intervene in all unstable nations whose geographical and economic ties make them part of our geo-political strategy, we can set a precedent and set a strong message to others by setting an example and intervening in just one. The same idiots like Ken Livingstone on Question Time who ask why we don't invade Saudi Arabia and Bahrain clearly would not support us if we invaded the long list of dictatorships that they provide for us, and should be quite capable of understanding that stopping Gaddafi should at least make the nearby dictatorships think twice.

It is quite clear that we cannot tolerate a madman behaving as he did on the borders of Europe, but in order for any intervention to be effective; objectives and strategy will have to be very quickly established. My initial support was for a No Fly Zone that would simply stop the bombing of civilians. The mission appears to be quickly slipping from a neutral enforcement of a conduct of war to taking the side of the rebels and the intention of full regime change. This at first glance would appear to be a mistake. We do not know anything about the rebels other than that they oppose the idea of being bombed by their own leader. While they are all united by what they do not want at the moment that offers no clues as to what they will be like once Gaddafi is removed and as the funding of the Mujahdeen during the Soviet Invasion of Aghanistan showed, the support will not necessarily be reciprocated once they are in charge. While there are undoubtedly many in Libya who hate Gaddafi and would welcome his removal there appears to be many more that also support his reign that were overlooked in Cameron's rush to be doing something. The intervention in 'Muslim' lands that resulted in regime change with many left resentful fits perfectly into the leftie's 'Blowback' thesis and could potentially become another entry in the long list of 'Muslim grievances', meaning that any intervention should be carefully thought out.

Of course there is a flip-side to this. What if in fact many of the rebels oppose Islamism and many of Gaddafi's funding of terror and could instead be a bulwark against Islamism? More importantly what could be the consequences and lasting impression of those rebels if the West had stood back and done nothing? There is certainly a reasonable case for war to be made but it must be thought out and careful. In all fairness to Cameron and Obama this situation was quickly forced on them rather than the other way around and they were slow enough to act to begin with and as such we can forgive a slight delay in a fully formed plan. But the sudden flip-flopping from Cameron on foreign policy since coming in to office and the lack of a clear directive in the war suggests there are many reasons to be concerned at the moment.

Anarchists, Hypocrites and the rest of the Left

I've put off commenting on the recent protests in London out of sheer irritation and disbelief at the events that have transpired. Where to start? Perhaps with the staggering hypocrisy that has been on display?
March For The Alternative: [Blank]

- For starters, what in the hell are 'anarchists' doing attacking a decrease in the size of the state?

- At what point did we stop being a democracy? Did the millions of absurdly over-taxed members of the Middle Class take to the streets during New Labour's years of reckless spending? More importantly would they have been allowed to get away with signs like 'Kill Welfare Layabouts' as similar signs were excused about the bankers?

- Why are the far-left not held to the same standards as the far-right? Why is it that on the issue of Palestine, so-called 'moderates' of Labour are allowed to share platforms with the SWP and many of the genuinely anti-Semitic Islamists that they invite to speak? We can all imagine what would happen if a Countryside Alliance March allowed BNP banners to spread around, but why is that standard not applied to the SWP in these marches?

I especially find it irritating that so many associated with this march that feel they have the right to demand their way, claim to speak for a majority of the population. This is particularly galling when the same day a poll was taken that suggested that some 28% of the population felt that the cuts were about right and 29% said they were not severe enough. What's more despite calling themselves a 'March For Alternative', absolutely no alternative was presented other than deny the deficit, tax more and increase the spending. It is also particularly infuriating the heavy association that the Labour party has with these marches. Not only does Labour get off scot free for its years of irresponsible spending and lack of foresight. It's years of deregulation and sucking up to the super-rich. But it is allowed to pose as a supporter of an 'alternative' when Labour has still not published what their plans for cuts would be having initially admitted that cuts would be necessary. Just as Labour managed to co-opt support against the implementation of the Browne Report that they fucking commissioned. This of course, all swirls together with one of the most ridiculous speeches ever given by Ed Milliband comparing a quick stroll through London with movements ranging from the Civil Rights Movement in America to even the uprisings taking place in the Middle-East!

Has anyone actually noticed that the Coalition is not even actually implementing any cuts but merely reducing the rate of increase in expenditure which will and is continuing to rise? Another idiotic cry that was doing the rounds was 'Tax The Rich'. So that after already bleeding out the Middle-Class for the already horrendously bloated and unsustainable Public Sector (which in the case of tuition fees the little dears will also tear apart London if they are asked to pay back even a small amount of), we should totally ignore the jobs, products and services that the big businesses supply (which is their leverage in exchange for playing lesser taxes) and take their hard-earned money until they pack their bags and take all of their revenue away with them. At what point did socialism become about coercing others for your living instead of earning it? Even if the self-defeating and unjust notion of 'taxing the rich' was put into place, the current rate of expansion and spending is still unsustainable and still revolves around writing a cheque that our children in the future will have to pay.

Some of you may remember Jody Mcintyre the wheelchair activist from the last round of cuts (who remains a cunt, whatever his disability) who I happen to know from friends who were there, in an introduction to a recent visit from Noam Chomsky at Cardiff University called for the overthrow of the British state in line with the Arab Spring as a response to the Coalition. You couldn't make it up.

They'll pay for ours though!
The last time I checked, even the EDL had not created this much damage or physically harmed this many members of the police that earn less in a year than many bankers earn in a day. In many ways despite the thousands of peaceful protesters (who were equally pathetic in actually presenting an alternative if not as equally deplorable) it is nice to see people like Sadiq Khan so quick to place the 'Guilt by [made up] Association' card get lumped together with the minority of violent yobs. The same applies to the utterly vapid Laurie Pennie. The truth is, the cuts at the moment do not go anywhere near far enough. Labour do not have the right to be considered morally legitimate proponents of 'alternatives'. Taxing others to pay for your living is unjust. And taxing future generations to pay for your luxury now is a disgrace.

Thursday, 31 March 2011

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

I have two brief points I would like to make about the return of 'Draw Mohammed Day'. Firstly, I remember watching with great amusement and irritation the first DMD last year and some of the reactions the idea received from members of the atheist 'community' on Youtube when juxtaposed with the reactions to the Ground Zero Mosque. Legally these were both open and shut cases. Both caused a great deal of offence, and in neither case should the law protect against offence. I found it interesting however, at the number of atheists who were to later emphatically jump to the defence of the building of the Ground Zero Mosque - i.e. to defend the right of (some) Muslims to offend (some) members of the West, who could not bring themselves to apply the same standard to DMD and the act of (some) members of the West offending (some) Muslims. Other than a fringe group of protesters in New York there was never really a serious possibility of the building being stopped and regardless of that small number of stereotypical fat Christian Americans that the atheist community so gleefully took the piss out of that protested in New York, this was nothing compared to the overwhelming response of the 'Muslim' world to DMD which in some cases went as far to respond with 'Everybody Draw Holocaust Day'. To repeat there really was little debate to be had over the legality of the Ground Zero Mosque so any atheist that may defend themselves by claiming they were merely defending the 'right' of the Muslims to build the mosque should shut the fuck up. If you are going to defend the right of (some) Muslims to offend (some) members of the Western World, and to truly treat them like equals, you should apply the same standards when it goes the other way and not pussyfoot around the topic as so many did.

The second point I would like to make is merely over the point of DMD this second time around. If the aim of DMD is to express 'our' right to free speech, then by all means DMD is a relevant and legitimate response to many of the Islamic thugs that have censored and bullied so many critics of Islam on the continent. If however, DMD is about 'them' and making Islam 'grow a sense of humour' as I have heard repeated, then it is a completely stupid idea. Repeatedly offending the Muslim world will not suddenly make them lighten up on this issue. A bad joke does not become funny because someone keeps repeating it to you. There is also no 'moderate' interpretation of the cartoons. Yes there is a difference in response- some Muslims could be violent, others simply ignore it, but either way it is a part of Islam to not depict the prophet so no matter how secular a Muslim may be they are still going to be offended by the cartoon. If DMD is in fact supposed to be about the latter objective, then it will not only fail completely, but likely alienate the moderates and provide ample propaganda for the not so moderates.

Friday, 11 March 2011

Blood On Who's Hands?

It was pretty obvious to most people that as far as the humanitarian argument for the war in Iraq applied, action and inaction would both lead to the loss of lives of innocent civilians. It seems apt here to include a quote I have always liked from David Aaronovitch:

"But just as there are armchair warriors, who run none of the risks that they recommend for others, so there are armchair pacifists whose commitment isn't tested by the threat to family or friends. Just other peoples' families and friends."*
*Taken from David Aaronovitch's article 'At the eleventh hour' which can be read here:

One of the arguments I'm starting to hear a lot from the anti-war movement now that they are witnessing the grass-roots rebellions taking place in the Middle-East is that the removal of dictators must take place internally. Well with the news recently that the coastal city of Bin Jawad was lost to Gaddafi loyalists and the appalling scenes we have been witnessing of unarmed protesters being killed in the streets, I would now like to ask the anti-war movement how their plan of internal rebellion is going? Let's not just focus on Libya where the rebellions have had the biggest effect, why don't we also look at places like Bahrain where protests were quickly and quietly put down with every-day civilians completely powerless to fight against the state without outside support. Even in Egypt the removal of Mubarak has been quickly replaced with a military takeover of government with very dubious figures still in power. It took two years for well over 8 million people to attend elections in Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam (even with the most reactionary forces of the Middle-East trying to stop them). While there are reasons to be positive, can we say with certainty the same will happen in Egypt?

Whatever the pragmatic arguments that related to the war in Iraq (of which there were many) the moral depravity of many of those opposed to the war (most conspicuously of the George Galloway variety) are now being exposed for what they really were. Why is it exactly that so many on the left are spitting blood at the possibility of simply a no-fly zone? Not a military invasion or an occupation but simply drawing up plans that if a murdering tyrant appears to be re-taking the country through the genocide of innocents, then we will simply set up a perimeter at no benefit to ourselves that will at least stop him from bombing his own people? How vacuous the term 'imperialism' has become.

How far can the left sink?
I see that the disgrace of a man John Rees was on the Moral Maze this week to discuss this issue that I have not got round to yet which will no doubt have my blood boiling. I remember watching with bemusement as his so-called 'anti-war' side moved to being pro-war for the other side, even when those 'freedom fighters' spent most of their time attacking innocent Iraqi civilians instead of targeting the 'occupying imperialists'. When I see them rearing their ugly head on the Libya debate stubbornly refusing any support for the Libyan oppressed, I wonder what is the point in calling yourself anti-war if the war in Libya has already fucking started?

Saturday, 5 March 2011

Anti-Christian or Anti-Gay?

It is surprising to me that a lot of the reaction to the case of Mr and Mrs Johns has been in sympathy with the side supporting 'anti-gay' views and against the 'pc' decision of the courts, even on the BBC's website. There are a lot of things that I could not say are a 'good' thing to a child. Like liberalism for instance. Or even Christianity. As someone who does not believe in either of those things, unless I was willing to lie to the child in question then I would not say that those were good things.

What a lot of people seem to be missing including apparently many gay people like David Starkey that was on Question Time, was not so much that the couple may have had views that did not conform to the state sanctioned doctrine of diversity, but that the couple may have had views that directly contravened their role as foster parents. That view not being that homosexuality is not a "good" thing, but that they would refuse to be neutral on this issue if the child brought it up. As I see it, there is a perfectly legitimate view not that the parents may pass on anti-gay attitudes to the children, but that the children themselves may turn out to be gay or have gay friends of which the parents would actively interfere and tell them was unacceptable.

While there may not be much of a fuss to make over the issue of the fact that the couple may mention that they do not approve of homosexuality in the nicest way possible, there very well may be an issue if the child itself turns out to be gay and has been told either at the time or had it implanted in him that to be gay is unacceptable. It seems pretty clear to me, that as often as the state can and does get these kinds of issues wrong this was one of those times when the state was attempting to discriminate not against the potential fosters' views, but the harmful effects of those views. If the couple really cared about the children, would it be really asking for that much for them not to mention their views on such an unrelated topic or at the very least agree to do it in a way that was decidedly neutral and not harmful. The fact that the couple seems to have angrily asserted their hurt and their irritation instead of emphasising that this issue would not have been a problem even if the child was gay, is I believe fairly telling even as someone who usually groans louder than anyone at these types of cases.


While I do not agree with the often heard Muslim 'grievance' that there is a conscious and deliberate 'Anti-Muslim Agenda' amongst the higher echelons of British society (which oddly seems to include those governments that allow such huge numbers of Muslims to move here, against the wishes of their electorate) including amongst our newspapers, I do agree that there is a bias towards sensationalism and shock in general.

Either way, Anjem Choudary has to be one of the most shamefully attention-seeking media whores that we have seen in a long time and our irresponsible media douses far too much fuel on an otherwise very small flame. That does not mean that the connections between his organisation and many alleged 'martyrs' sent to Afghanistan and elsewhere should not be looked at, but about ten people burning a poppy or this idiot visiting the US to babble some nonsense at the cousins, should not be front page news.

UKIP Finish Second, For Now..

Less than a week after the Populus survey revealed that 48% of the British public (including a large number of minorities) would vote for a 'far-right' party under certain circumstances, UKIP come second in the Barnsley by-elections beating not just the Liberal Democrats but also (which has gone curiously unmentioned) the Conservatives themselves. I make this connection between this report and UKIP, not because I believe them to be 'far-right', merely because it is clear that the polls were referring to immigration.

Isn't it interesting that around the time that this has been released it is revealed that our net immigration last year was raised to an eye-watering half a million. As I see it there are two fundamental conclusions to take from this poll. Firstly, that there is yet more concrete proof that the Multi-Culti pipe dream has not materialised and is not appreciated by the majority of the population it was forced upon (only 12% would concede that immigration had benefited them locally). Secondly and most importantly the race-relations industry that developed around the time of mass immigration that has played the dual role of attempting to stop legitimate prejudice of individuals on the grounds of their race, while also playing a cover to the ideology of mass immigration and multiculturalism has been proved completely wrong. This poll clearly demonstrates that even though a huge number of the British public are very unhappy with the transformation taking place in their local and wider community, they have still refused to vote for a far-right party that would stop this because they do not wish to vote for a party that may be racist or associated with violence.

The liberal reaction to this poll has been fairly predictable. They could not care less that their policies are not wanted by the majority of the population they force it on, and cannot understand any reason beyond white supremacism that people may not want to see the community they grew up with transform before their eyes, even when many of those that expressed such views where black and asian. While many minorities spoke against immigration for economic reasons, there were even many that considered it a matter of identity as they themselves considered themselves assimilated and a part of British identity that they saw as under threat. Yet further proof that the race-relations industry has got it all wrong.

Friday, 4 March 2011

Real Free Speech

The US Supreme Court once again defended the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to continue it's hateful behaviour, even at the funerals of dead soldiers after the family of Lance Corporal Matthew Synder sued the Church for emotional dystress.

Compare this with the overwhelming response to the Danish cartoons.

What do you think hurts more? Some cartoons drawn in a different country, or your dead son attacked at his funeral?

Wednesday, 2 March 2011

Shaking Hands With Gaddafi

Was it wrong for Tony Blair to shake hands with Colonel Gadaffi, the man that is now piling the bodies of his citizens in the streets of Libya? Before I answer that I would like to question the default premise that most people jump into this question with. It really cannot be emphasised enough that this notion of a foreign policy that is not based on anything other than a ruthless pursuit of one's economic interests and an indifferent participation in the balance of power is an incredibly new idea (even in the west) that is nothing like as universally practiced as is commonly assumed. We are a very small country with a proportionately very small amount of influence in the world today and should not treat benign statesmanship in the international arena on our part as automatically influential, if not in some cases potentially destabilising and harmful.

First of all it is important to note that the regimes that exist in the Middle-East did not appear out of a vacuum. While I would never go as far to say that all regimes receive the unanimous support of the people they rule, it is equally naive to assume that where we able to wave a wand and remove these tyrants, burgeoning democracies would flourish in their place. If the war in Iraq proved anything, it is that there are more systemic barriers to democracy than the man at the top. Most people would now oppose military intervention to remove dictators as a result of these lessons. When we consider the status quo in the Middle-East in those terms people appreciate that as unpleasant as the dictators are, they serve a purpose to which there are no easy or quick-fix solutions. What's more, many of the same people who opposed the 'illegal' American overthrow of Iraq, also hated the 'legal' UN sanctions and no-fly zones. If you cannot militarily threaten a regime, and cannot even impose sanctions on it you are often left with the choice of simply leaving the dictators completely to their own devices, which many people on the phone-ins this week seem to consider a bizarrely more moral choice.

This takes us to Libya. All week long, I have heard uninformed members of the public decry Tony Blair for dealing with Gaddafi when he was Prime Minister. Presumably however, these same people would not have supported Blair overthrowing Gaddafi in an Iraqi style invasion. Are these people really suggesting that the most moral thing to do would be to leave Gaddafi to himself entirely unchecked? If they appreciate that whichever path they criticise, Gaddafi remains in power, this automatically shifts the focus to one of damage limitation. The arms trade is a natural part of international relations and there is no room for doubt that were we to refuse to sell arms with regimes that we did not approve of, we would change absolutely nothing in the region other than shifting the influence of the region to even less trustworthy forces while unnecessarily shooting ourselves in the foot economically. Do people really think that we are acting in the best interests of the people by cutting our influence out of the picture, and pushing Gadaffi to trade with statesmen like Putin who would have imposed very little conditions on the terms of usage for those weapons in question. As it happens in the case of Libya, Tony Blair achieved a stunning success in putting an end to Gadaffi's nuclear weapon's programme. Had he taken the advice of the legions of Captain Hindsights that are phoning into 5 Live this week, Gadaffi would have still controlled and murdered his own people as intervention was off the table, but now he may very well have unstable nuclear components within his arsenal. The same man that has said he will fight his people to the "last bullet". That definitely sounds like the most sensible thing to do.

Whenever people are successfully deterred by these arguments they often jump onto the topic of Saudi Arabia and accuse us of a double-standard. This is an utterly puerile accusation. To start with, our 'standards' are not a universal push for democracy they are a blend of our own interests with as much democracy and internationalism that can be pushed as possible. Many people are deterred from criticising Blair when they hear about the nuclear concessions. Because we have not so far acheived anything comparable in Saudi Arabia this suddenly means that the most 'moral' thing to do again is to abandon the region to the more powerful despots that trade arms in the world. Even if we cannot force concessions at this moment in time, is it still not better at least having a foot in the door for possible future influence? Even if there is no guarantee of future influence is it still not better to at least sell arms with laws and conditions attached that would not be found elsewhere. Even if there were no laws, no concessions present or future, and we were denied military or any other intervention, what possible difference does it make if the regime will exist nonetheless to at least satisfy our interests economically once all other options have been extinguished to put principle first? During the Cold War there were times when one could legitimately argue in certain examples in Latin America, that the US did prioritise stability over principle and therefore could be accused of a double standard. In today's terms however, it should be perfectly obvious that while it is reasonable to expect the US to covertly and even overtly support aspects of the Iranian revolutionary movement it is totally unreasonable to expect the same policy towards China. It is clear in today's examples that are being argued it is circumstance that is dictating priorities and not ideology. It is therefore a frivolous accusation to describe such policy as 'hypocritical', without first establishing an alternative to simply leaving dictators alone or at least providing evidence of a solution that may produce democracy that has been ignored in favour of our material interests. Without military intervention I am not sure if such a policy existed for Blair, and I am absolutely certain one does not currently exist in regards to Saudi Arabia. That is not hypocrisy, that is seeing the world as it is and making the best of it that we can.

Sunday, 27 February 2011

Muslim Freezone Posters

Find the idea of that acceptable? Imagine how gays feel in parts of the UK.

Friday, 25 February 2011

Where Are The Neocons Now?

"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."*

*Source: David Ignatius's article 'Beirut's Berlin Wall' in the Washington Post quoting Walid Jumblatt  -

Since the extraordinary events started taking place across the Middle-East both camps that arose after 9/11 that were either for or against foreign intervention have risen up proudly proclaiming that their side has been vindicated. The 'Neocons' are claiming that the policy in Iraq was the first forceful push of the Democratic Dominos that we see now and the isolationists (also known as the liberal-left), have claimed that that this proves that they were right all along and that it was perfectly possible for the people of the Middle-East to rise up without the need for aggressive intervention. The truth is, it is very hard to tell whether these events have taken place because of, or in spite of the Iraq War. It is my understanding that, most of the Muslim world tends to view the Iraq War in the typical 'War For Oil/ Israel' vein and would have been put off by the chaos that ensued post-2004, although the quote above suggests that there are some alternative narratives that are floating about.

These events have produced a chorus of the typical cliches we hear from the left on these issues including many that are trying to re-write history and pretend that they had no problem with the morality of intervention merely the practicality of one, despite the huge strain of liberal thought that became as realpolitik and isolationist as the Paleoconservatives and in many cases went as far as actively supporting the insurgency. The confusing and vacuous discourse that grew out of those years opposing the overthrow of a murderous tyrant have left them in a bit of a muddle. We hear lefties criticising Tony Blair for having done deals with Gaddafi despite his effort's stopping Gaddafi's programme for nuclear weapons (and imagine where we would be if that had failed). We also hear them criticising the Americans for not having done enough to ferment democracy in Egypt. So the Americans that were utterly 'stupid' to think that they could democratise the Middle-East in 2003 are being told off for full blown intervention in Iraq, warned against light intervention in Libya, but will also be condemned if they don't do much at all as in Egypt. Is it any wonder that the Americans are so well known for completely ignoring world opinion?

Whatever will come of these uprisings there is cause for great hope and cause for great worry. Whatever emerges from the instability and toppling of these regimes relies first and foremost on military might. Will the civilian population of Libya organise and arm themselves effectively enough to fight off the members of the military that stay loyal to Gaddafi, or will in fact most of the army defect against the former regime? With the left's new religion of isolationism they will not be receiving any support from us so as the death toll increases daily, we have to hope that the Libyan spirit prevails. There is another mistake however that a lot of people are making while analysing the situation in the Middle-East. While it is fairly clear in many of these countries what the general population do not want, it is not entirely clear what they do want. Europe was not a democracy with a separation of Church and State from the outset. It took many, many years and far more bloodshed than is currently being spilled in the ME for that to come around. It is clear that the human response to oppression has kicked in and the people have made it clear that they do not want to be governed by dictators. Ethnography is important here. Political institutions do not spring out of a vacuum, but evolve over time, and despite the promising signs that we are witnessing in the Middle-East there is nothing in the Middle-East's history to suggest that these regimes will suddenly become, pluralistic, free-speech loving, Israeli tolerating and Islamist condemning nations by the end of the year.

For the time being we see people united by a singular goal of removing their dictators but were a democratic state to emerge then over the next few months political factions would rapidly emerge dividing the people that currently march together. There is nothing particularly wrong with factionalism either, as long as there are institutions to satisfactorily deal with those differences in an open and peaceful manner. This was one of the benefits of Operation Iraqi Freedom, because the Americans were able to create a blueprint that could (and has) been unilaterally applied with all of the different factions of Iraqi society participating and working out their differences. We cannot safely assume that the anarchy that will result in the event of a successful overthrow of the state will not descend into civil war and the complete breakdown of society. To make sure this does not happen not only must there be a political evolution, we must also witness a religious revolution. Islam has still not gone through the enlightenment process that Christianity and Judaism has gone through in the West. There was a time even in Europe when Catholics and Protestants were not equal before the law and living harmoniously, with the Middle-East in such an infantile stage of its democratisation if that is in fact what it is going through, there are far more reasons to be more wary in this unpredictable time than positive. The two hopes of countering these difficulties are the birth of social networking and the possibility of a UN lead intervention.

This situation has been made all the more worse by the moral coward that is currently sitting in the White House who is apparently unable to see beyond his Stimulus Package and Healthcare Bill. So what are the Neocons up to at this time? Are 'they' (referring to the American right) as my housemate proclaimed only worried about what's going on at home first? Well the 'progressive' President that was supposed to be the man of change seems quite unmoved by the possibility of change in the Middle East. The Neocons in contrast, to take the heir to the movement Bill Kristol as an example on his website the 'Weekly Standard' is demanding that the President act in the interests of a foreign democratic movement that is not Christian. Bill rightly points out in a recent blog post how absurd it is that Obama made the extra effort to offer his condolences to the people of New Zealand due to their recent Earthquake disaster but has been almost entirely mute on the issue of the Middle-East. Who are the selfish isolationists now? More importantly before this chance for real change slips by us, where are the Neocons when you need them?

Thursday, 24 February 2011

Mehdi Hasan and Forced Marriages

As mentioned in the previous post the poor people of Britain were recently subjected to the embarrassment that is Mehdi Hasan appearing on Question Time to lecture us and interrupt others on many important issues. If you haven't seen it, here are the highlights of Douglas Murray that appeared on the show with (unfortunately) plenty of Hasan included in it: (Part 2 in the video response).

In particular, other than throwing in a few ad hominems to satisfy myself about what an arsehole the man is I would like to zero in on Mehdi's reply to Douglas' point about forced marriages. The exact quote of Hasan is the following:

"...and to talk like Douglas, about forced marriages, sorry, how many people have forced marriages in this country and show me which cultural group defends forced marriages and which government defends forced marriages I've yet to come across a single one"

To break this down bit by bit. Firstly the part where he says "sorry, how many people have forced marriages in this country" as anyone that watches the the link that I have provided can verify for themselves was spoken in a particularly disbelieving and snide tone as if Douglas was inflating the issue. Well to address the 'how many' part of the question head on, here is a recent article from Newsbeat ( which shows that in 2010 there were nearly 2000 cases of Forced Marriage in that year alone. Of course these are only the cases that were actually reported, in order to deal with this problem a 'Forced Marriage Unit' has been created that has to chase up links all the way to Pakistan to try and rescue the girls that are put through this traumatic experience, meaning that there may be plenty of cases that go tragically unreported.

Now to address the the second part of what Mehdi said. Hasan responded by asking for examples of a cultural group that defends forced marriages or which member of government defends them. It may well be true that no such group can be found, the only problem is that it is totally unrelated to what Douglas had actually said. To address the government related aspect of that sentence first;

Douglas' point was not that the government publicly defended forced marriages but that Multicultural policies and ideologies had made it harder to criticise and publicly address this issue for fear of being called a racist. Hilariously only moments after Douglas had suggested this was the case, Mehdi proved him completely correct by partnering with Jacqui Smith to refer to the EDL, BNP and French National Front merely for raising these issues. As for a more concrete example let's take the case of Tulay Goren, who twice requested help from the police, a plea that was ignored before she was murdered by her father for refusing to take part in a forced marriage he wished to sell her into. Does anyone really think that, the same treatment would be afforded to a white non-Muslim victim who came to the police asking for help because she feared for her life? According to Hasan who spat "rubbish" as Douglas made this point, this is either the uniform policy of the police in the UK or far more obviously this was treated as a cultural issue rather than a criminal issue. For more on this and other issues see this article (, which has been made even more relevant with the recent rape gangs and the defence through cries of racism that the perpetrator's enjoyed. Anyone that has studied this area will know, this is but one of many many examples where the police have been shackled when dealing with 'minority' communities due to a misplaced 'cultural sensitivity'. This problem is not at all limited to just forced marriages.

As for the final point of Hasan's outburst "show me which cultural group defends forced marriages", this is made marginally more tricky to deal with, by Hasan's deliberately misleading statement. If by 'cultural group' he means every single member of a certain ethnic identity in this country, you clearly would not find a public consensus on forced marriage or probably any controversial issue at all from any group. That being said, this does not divert away from the fact that the problem of forced marriages is largely an 'underground' or secretive problem that is not publicly proclaimed, and while it may not have the support of all members of the Pakistani communty in Britain (where the problem largely stems), that does not change the fact that there is a serious wider cultural problem within many of these communities.  The video at the bottom of this post contains Mehdi's specific comments on this issue followed by a recent Newsbeat piece on forced marriages that involved an interview with a victim of the practice. In the segment we are told that one of the difficulties in uncovering these practices in finding people willing to report to the police against the family in question which is extremely hard to do in these communities, because of a wider problem of cultural attitudes in this area which encourage complicity in these acts.

In this interview this poor girl says that more needs to be done to spread awareness about the problem of forced marriages, I wonder how she feels listening to Mehdi snidely imply that there isn't too serious a problem of forced marriages or any of the other nearly 2000 girls a year that go through this barbaric practice. Part of the way through the show Mehdi also argues with Douglas that a few hundred EDL protesters may not seem like much to him but are more frightening if you are a member of the community that they are targeting and I actually sympathise with Hasan on that point (even though Douglas only said they shouldn't affect Cameron's plans for a speech, not that they were not a threat). Sections of the EDL have behaved thuggishly in the past and people have a right to fear them, but I would apply the same argument to those that are being targeted by Muslim gangs for rape, girls that are being forcibly married against their will and innocent civilians being blown up on a bus. These are not problems with the Muslim community as a whole but have become a far disproportionately bigger problem as a result of white skinned, non-Muslim liberals who provide a cloak to such heinous actions through the identity politics, political correctness and other acts of misguided stupidity that come under the banner of Multiculturalism. This is a cloak that on this episode of Question Time, Mehdi Hasan was more than happy to thicken. Perhaps if Hasan did not spend every Question Time behaving and interrupting like a petulant teenager he might have understood Douglas better. Then again I'm non-Muslim "cattle" and therefore a person of "no intelligence" so what do I know (

How To Avoid Debating An Issue

I've been unable to post for a week or two and so there are a few issues I would like to backtrack on. I'm going to do a more fuller post on it in a second, but a few weeks ago we had the misfortune of watching Mehdi Hasan on Question Time who made use of a particularly nefarious verbal device I've seen deployed quite a few times since David Cameron's speech in Munich. This tactic allows one to dismiss the entire message of Cameron's speech without actually addressing any of the content of what was said, any of the arguments used or any damn thing from the speech itself. Instead of actually calling David Cameron a racist or actually contesting something he said, this involves referring to the fact that some far-right groups may have agreed with some of what the speech contained.

The obvious implication of this, is that if Nick Griffin agrees with something or part of something it is automatically wrong and racist to even imply such a thing in the first place. This is very similar to the 'Reductio ad Hitlerum' we hear everyday in the YouTube comments section by 10 year olds. By this logic anyone that is a vegetarian or a lover of animals is automatically a racist, because Hitler was those things. While I appreciate that Question Time has a very 'soundbitey' format that does not allow a lot of time to develop one's arguments, this truly is the lowest and most juvenile form of argument. Right up Mehdi Hasan's street you may think as the petulant little teenager continues to interrupt, belittle and pull stupid faces while other people are speaking, every time that he is invited onto the show.

Let's take his logic and apply it to some of the things he has said on Question Time shall we? I remember when I saw the ghastly man on his first QT appearance and he was belittling the Lib Dems for joining in a coalition with the Conservatives and criticising their cuts has been a running them of his appearances in public media. Well. Who else do we know that opposes the Coalition's cuts? I know! The Communist Party of Britain is certainly not a fan of rolling back the state. Does anyone, including Hasan and his large selection of New Statesman 'groupies' (all certified Islamophiles), really think it would be relevant or fair of me or anyone else to mention this after Hasan has criticised the cuts and by extension accuse him of being a communist because they vaguely share his views?

Let's go one step further. Now when he isn't whining that the non-Muslims of Britain don't essentially bow down five times a day and worship the almighty Allah and agree with everything that Muslims say and believe, he's complaining that people too often associate Islam and Muslims with terrorism. But wait! By quickly googling Hasan's name and the word Israel, I find a piece written by him dated 28 December 2010 criticising the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Who else do we know that does not like Israel's policy towards Gaza? That's right, Hamas! And we all know that if Hamas are agreeing with some of what you are saying, you know you've got a problem, right Mehdi?

Wednesday, 23 February 2011

Criticising Israel

When it comes to the Middle East in today's media driven culture the debates often split into two camps. The 'Zionists' on the one side and the 'Islamic camp' on the other. One side I agree a lot with, one side I agree with virtually none of. Unfortunately it is becoming increasingly common on both sides to play the victim and cry racism instead of actually addressing the relevant topics that are being raised. The Muslim community in the UK has in recent times been able to co-opt the term 'Islamaphobia' to silence all forms of criticism of Islam or Muslims whether reasonable and rational or hateful and stupid. Unfortunately however, it is becoming increasingly common to hear the Israeli side call critics of their policy in Gaza for instance as Anti-Semitic, not only when those protests come from sex-deprived Islamists but even Jews in the West that disagree with Israeli policy.

I should point out before I start that the following people; Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Mehdi Hasan, Tariq Ramadan and Asghar Bukhari are all people that I cannot stand who continually make use of the 'race card' and 'Islamaphobia' card and so I do actually quite enjoy sometimes seeing them taste some of their own medicine when they are called racists for their commentary on Israel.

Any form of race card or Ad Hominem is a means of censoring and silencing what a person is saying by not actually addressing the content of what they are saying. Now I accept that it can at times be difficult to have a rational discussion with a dribbling racist from the EDL that is in the process of smashing an asian shopkeeper's windows to pieces. But even in the most extreme circumstances, violence and outrage over sensitive issues like immigration are created precisely because people feel like they are denied a voice and a say in the policy in question and ignoring what a protester is saying and labelling them a racist is likely to fuel that anger even further, not extinguish it. The most controversial aspects for Israeli apologists; for example the building of the separation wall and the occupation of Gaza, I actually find the most obviously justified and easiest policies to defend. I would far rather discuss with someone, why they think those actions are unjustified and attempt to convince them that the opposite is true instead of sending that anger underneath and amplifying it by labelling them a racist for having an opposing opinion. Censorship on this scale remind me of the quote from Kennedy:

"Those who make peaceful protest impossible will make violent protest inevitable" 

If one truly believes in the convictions of their arguments when it comes to Israeli policy (as I do), they should rely on them and not resort to name-calling. I was reminded of this issue when watching a recent episode of Michael Coren someone who I am quite fond of. The discussion related to a group known as 'Queers Against Israeli Apartheid'. Now, I'm not entirely sure why this or any issue of foreign policy should be a specifically 'gay' issue, but on the Coren show the protesters were chastised for supporting a place in the Middle-East where gays are murdered against the only place in the Middle-East where gays are allowed to marry. Now to be clear, I completely disagree with the so-called 'Apartheid' rallies and would happily debate with someone why that is, but once again on this show instead of actually discussing the issues that were raised, the show was drawn as it always is into discussing completely unrelated points of Israel and expecting the listener to therefore ignore the policies they are supposed to be protesting. In other words, without saying a single word about the so-called 'Apartheid' in question, they mentioned that it was only in Israel that gays were tolerated and allowed to exist. Now I do think that is a good thing and something the 'Queer Alliance' should take into account but it also totally irrelevant to what they were protesting. Using this logic, if Stalin had allowed Gay Marriage (which he didn't) then gays would not have had a leg to stand on to criticise the millions that perished under his regime. Alternatively, are the people that make this argument really suggesting that if the Palestinian territories suddenly stopped killing homosexuals, that suddenly Israeli policy that was just yesterday would become unjust today? The more I think about it, the less and less I hear from commentators about why I justify Israeli actions (such as what happened when Israel initially pulled out of Gaza and why it had to re-occupy the city) when the topic is raised and the more I hear about vague unrelated good points to attempt to distract people from an actual discussion.

Of course I do not want to exaggerate this issue. While you will often hear accusations of anti-Semitism in the debates on Israel, I remember in my last year of University seeing a poster for a talk from Jenny 'Jihad' Tonge called 'Persecuted for Criticising Israel!' Which had a face who's mouth was being covered up, implying that her free speech was literally being stopped by a hostile environment to criticism of Israel. Now while I will concede that the debate can slide into name-calling at times, it is utterly ridiculous for this woman to suggest that she is persecuted, when every bloody time the seals on Question Time clap in unison for her before she has even got one of her misinformed sentences on Israel out of her mouth. Not to mention that she is able to go around the country giving lectures on the topic with virtually no resistance. It reminds me of the 'brave' resistors who used to call George Bush a terrorist and treat that heroic stance from their living room as if it was a statement that could get them killed.

If I'm being honest I used to think the cries of 'Islamaphobia' and the hostility to criticism of Islam was solely a cultural issue associated with newly arrived immigrant communities that were not used to free criticism against their beliefs. I remember however, during the Pope's last visit to the UK that there were many born and bred British Catholics who ignored every word spoken about Paedophilia, Rape and Coverup relating to the Catholic Church and decried the protests and reaction to his visit as entirely the result of 'persecution' and 'anti-Catholic' sentiment. It seems this is a problem that all religions and points of view can face, and this is why I find it so particularly frustrating when my allies on this issue resort to such unnecessary name-calling as not only does it imply that their arguments are too weak to be deployed but it encourages an elevation of anger and resistance to the issue that could otherwise be extinguished by just educating people on it.

Monday, 21 February 2011

What if they were White?

This man is a fellow atheist that posts videos on youtube. Like most fellow atheists on youtube, I cannot stand him. I could write for months in a single post on why I often do not associate with the rest of the atheist community that make themselves public through sites like Youtube, but I will keep it short on this issue. In a similar vein to Richard Dawkins, most atheists on Youtube spend a lot of their time decrying people speaking 'irrationally' on topics they are wholly ignorant about, namely; evolution and related religious topics. Most of these same atheists however who are filled to the brink with Bible quotes also spend a lot of their time speaking irrationally on topics they are wholly ignorant about, namely: politics. Two topics that exemplify this particularly well are the abortion and gay marriage debates. These are topics often covered by European atheists despite these two issues rarely appearing in their national discourse, essentially because they have made little effort to properly educate themselves on political topics and therefore most of their discourse is influenced by lazily watching a few videos on Youtube which usually contain a heavily North American bias. Hence, many of their videos relate entirely to a country they do not live in and on topics they are not particularly knowledgeable about. The problem is however, that after watching a few religiously based arguments on these topics, these clever and enlightened atheists think that by knowing that the religious elements of these arguments are wrong, therefore all other related arguments must be wrong and by extension most aspects of the Conservative tradition in any context, because it is often infused with religious justification is therefore entirely wrong. What you often get as a result are incredibly conformist 'independent' thinkers that have all courageously and independently addressed the religious issues they faced in life, while unanimously and blindly buying into the liberal consensus often without much understanding of any of the intellectual traditions and justifications of what actually forms such views. As such we get fairly quick and crappy videos like the above one on complicated issues, with a veneer of research sprayed over them with a few links in the description bar that were acquired through 20 minutes of googling instead of any meaningful or genuine research.

A final quick example I'd like to give of this phenomena is of a user called DarkMatter2525 who I actually find fairly funny. A recent video he made was of a caricature of 'Jesus Neocon' which attempted to display the hypocrisy of the religious values espoused by the religious right in America and the political values carried out under the Bush Administration. On top of the fact that he clearly does not genuinely have much knowledge of the etymology of the term Neoconservatism and what the intellectual movement has entailed, despite claiming to only have views that are 'evidence-based' and 'rational' he made a video a few months ago where he made reference to Jesus Neocon securing the oilfields of the Middle-East in a clear reference to the 'War For Oil' Conspiracy Myth surrounding the Iraq War. Had his opinions genuinely been evidence based and not based on simple hearsay and prejudice he would have known that Iraq's oil is publicly owned and contracts were sold in a free and open market in 2009 with very little going to American contracts thus completely disproving all of the conspiracies that the uninformed little idiot had clearly bought into.

Anyway! The above video is a follow up to a video that was based on David Cameron's speech on Multiculturalism, of which I am pretty sure he did not actually watch the speech in question or at least not all of it, as most of his 20+ minute video was based on a very vague reference to what Cameron had actually said. Regardless, the above video follows a trend of the Youtube atheist community of cleverly rising above most of Western Society's 'prejudice' and 'phobia' towards Muslims and Islam and providing a continuous narrative of rejecting the religion but embracing the people in regards to the introduction of Islam into Western societies. Entirely on their political terms of course. The above video runs an often repeated theme that Muslims are unfairly treated or focused on in our society.

This narrative runs under the basis that the gutter press of the UK in this case can often make outrageous claims about Muslims or Muslim organisations that often turn out to be false. This narrative ignores the fact that there are hundreds of other disadvantaged groups that are not necessarily minorities that are also repeatedly misrepresented and unfairly treated by the media (take single mothers or disabled people on benefits as two obvious examples that come to mind). It also fundamentally ignores the fact that the media is just one aspect of society and using the media as evidence that our society allows loose and discriminatory language about Muslims is so palpably untrue in every other aspect of our culture it renders it such an incredibly irrelevant point. Under the last government, the Labour party were at such pains to not appear anti-Islamic that Gordon Brown stopped calling Islamist terrorism by its name but suggested that we start calling it 'UnIslamic Activity'. Truthfully I could and am about to give hundreds of other examples like this that render the occasional headlines by the Daily Express utterly void, but I won't overstep the crux of the post which is as follows; the point of the above video is that Muslims are treated differently because they are Muslim in our society. I completely agree, we do hold Muslims and their organisations to completely different standards to all other aspects of society. I would posit what the alternative scenarios would be in the following cases if the perpetrators were not Muslim but white men:

  1. The same year that attacks by members of the white community killed over 50 fellow citizens in co-ordinated attacks that targeted Muslims, members of the white community held up placards openly and explicitly calling for the murder of Muslims and other minorities clearly breaking the law over incitement to hatred and the calls for an end to democracy. 
When the same thing happened when it was Muslims that committed these acts the 'institutionally racist' and 'Islamaphobic' police, arrested virtually none of the perpetrators for fear of accusations of racism but, when a similar thing happened again in Luton with protests over returning soldiers again, no arrests were made but the police were quite happy to arrest the white members of the public that launched counter demonstrations in response. 

     2.  Private meetings between mainstream members of the white community (not members of the BNP or EDL) are infiltrated by journalists who uncover quotes such as the following. On Muslims: 'You cannot accept the rule of Muslims. We have to rule ourselves and rule others'. On Women: 'God has created all women even those with PhD's as deficient. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal one of a man'. Makes references to bombing Indian businesses and 'killing Jews physically'. Said that it was acceptable to marry girls before puberty. Saying that women must be covered up and if they refuse to be beaten. States that homosexuals should be thrown off of a mountain. 

Now we are all well aware that if a white member of society even unintentionally uses the wrong word to describe a minority, even if it is in a sentence praising the individual in question, they will be forever demonised and forced to apologise. Nick Griffin rightly received a lot of flack for saying on Question Time that gay couples kissing in public was 'creepy', surely therefore he would be verbally crucified for saying that gays should be thrown off of cliffs? As was the case when it was members of the Muslim community making these comments, not a single charge of incitement of racial or other hatred was brought against those who made such statements, but charges and public condemnation was heaped on those who had simply reported on the statements that had been made. It was also deemed acceptable that saying that gays should be thrown off cliffs and that women should be beaten could somehow be an acceptable statement if one merely heard the full 'context'. As far as I'm concerned the only words preceding statements that legitimise beating a woman or killing minorities that could make such statements acceptable is if they were sentences saying 'the following is not acceptable do not do it'.

     3.  White skinned hate-mongers that preach the murder of Jews and violent war on other minorities attempt to enter the UK and indoctrinate fellow white members of society across University campuses.

We don't even need to remotely speculate on this issue at all. Geert Welders who publicly defends Jews and Homosexuals was denied the right to enter the UK because he wished to simply stop immigration into his country. Representatives from Hamas and Hezbollah repeatedly and continuously under the Labour government, and many to this day are allowed unhindered (a right not even attributed to the Pastor Terry Jones who simply threatened to burn a book - stupid for sure but not the same as actually inciting the murder of Jews) to enter the country and preach to members of the Muslim community in the UK. On that note would a 'white organisation' similar to the East London Mosque, still receive public tax payers money and public congratulation if it invited a White supremacist similar to Anwar al-Awlaki to speak at one of their events through satellite because he was banned from appearing in the UK in person?

    4.  If white skin-heads perhaps from the BNP formed gangs that almost solely targeted Muslim girls for abduction, grooming and rape because they were Muslims and therefore were not considered as precious as girls from their own ethnicity. What do we think the response would have been?

This was the case recently in reverse, whereby Muslim gangs had repeatedly targeted mainly white young girls for grooming and rape with the explicitly stated motive being that they were not considered as worthy as women from their own community. Not only was there very little condemnation of these motives, but every excuse under the sun was presented to whitewash the nature and reasons for these attacks. Dianne Abbott mentioned that the area in question happened to be a mostly Muslim area hence the reason that the majority of attackers happened to be Muslim. Not only did this fly in the face of the fact that it was not idle speculation that suggested the fact that these were intentionally created Muslim gangs that were intentionally attacking non-Muslim white girls as was revealed in the court cases and even from members of the Muslim community themselves, but it overlooked the slightly obvious point that were it the case that the ethnicity of the attackers was purely down to the minority majority demographics of the area, then why on earth were all of the victims not from that ethnicity?! What's more a character by the name of Mohammed Shafiq that I would like to compliment and offer my praises to but unfortunately can't, quite plainly admitted on a recent episode of Newsnight with Douglas Murray that members of the Muslim community that were not involved in the attacks had actively pressured the police and other groups to not release information relating to these attacks in order to protect their community. Further he chastised Douglas for bringing this point up, asking why he was bringing up old facts, as if the years of silence that had produced years of young girls abandoned and raped was 'old news' and just irrelevant now (see: I will simply leave it up to the imagination of the reader of what the response would be, if white rapist gangs had singled out and attacked the minority Muslim females of their community which accounted for almost all of their victims, admitted in court the reason they attacked them was down to a sense of superiority, and then other white members of the community had actively pressured and stopped this information being released, and then downplayed it's significance after it had finally come out.

It's hard to think of a single mainstream Muslim organisation in Britain that hasn't been linked to the worst stereotypes of the Islamic faith. The Muslim Council of Britain most prominently which refused to attend Holocaust Memorial Day recently and went too far even for the Labour Party when one of its members signed the Istanbul Declaration, essentially advocating terrorism. While we very rarely hear about these groups on the previously mentioned YouTuber's channel, it's interesting that a complicated group like the EDL which contains minorities within it that have attacked innocent asian families going about their day to day life but for the most part is full of law abiding citizens that have non-violently protested and given speeches is instantly condemned and any racist remark by any individual of that organisation is used as evidence of the views and sins of the majority, while the video maker makes every effort to overlook individual cases such as those mentioned from the MCB and screams that we should not generalise about Muslims. I have many other points I could continue on but feel it would be a waste of time. This was a lazy video attempting to make a cheap 'thought-provoking' point on a subject the maker is entirely ignorant of, before I've even addressed the errors of the actual content of the video. I would strongly emphasise that as terrible as the actions of many of the examples of Muslims I highlighted in the above examples are, I am not implying that all Muslims behave this way, and that the government's response should be geared towards the community as a whole on this basis. In fact I often find that the largest source of suspicion towards Muslims is precisely because the government elevates these extremists and refuses to deal with them while idiots like the above video-maker entirely ignore these issues and brushs anyone as a racist that raises them, leaving people incredibly frustrated and confused on the issue of their Islamic communities that would otherwise not exist if we treated these communities and their extremists in the same way as we treat ours. By condemning the extremists and elevating the moderates and more mainstream members of the Muslim community, perceptions of Islam would change overnight. While it is true that everyday Muslims are not doing enough to make it clear that everytime the BBC invite Salma Yaqoob on she does not represent them and the broader Muslim community, or the same thing when the government hires Azzam Tamimi for advice on Islamic terrorism. This notwithstanding, the real people that should take the blame for this are the recent governments for their irresponsible approach to these problems and idiots like the original video maker that provide a smokescreen for these policies that are making things worse.

Friday, 18 February 2011

David Cameron Steps Up

The rest of this blog will probably make it clear on how I feel about Multiculturalism as a good in and of itself, this post will instead address the problem of Multiculturalism in relation to the problem of Islamism and Islamic terrorism in light of David Cameron's recent speech on the topic in Munich.

For the most part I think that his speech was wrong. The crux of his speech about Multiculturalism in relation to Islamic terrorism was that by not creating a shared national identity, it meant that vulnerable Muslims lacked both a loyalty to the country that could potentially become a target in a terrorist attack but also left a vacuum for potentially extreme ideologies and identities to creep in. While I do think there is some relevance in discussing Multiculturalism in the context of Islamic extremism, I think MC largely creates a problem in addressing rather than causing Islamic terrorism.

For starters the ring leader of the 7/7 attacks, Mohammad Sidique Khan was himself fairly well integrated with a decent education and a firm grasp on the English language. While it is true that 'Multicultural' practices may have emphasised his 'Muslim' identity and overly focused on potential 'Islamic grievances' as well as creating a degree of separation between himself and the non-Muslim nation he was supposed to be a part of, for all the silly identities that are encouraged under Multiculturalism, that of an Islamist terrorist willing to carry out attacks on his fellow citizens is not one of them and we should not suspend the moral consequences of agency just because the criminal has brown skin.

I personally would have made the connection between MC and terrorism in a different way. For example, the notion of turning Muslims into a unanimous 'bloc' that can be communicated through self-assigned Muslim 'leaders' particularly leaders of mosques, has disenfranchised many ordinary Muslims and funnelled their identity and perceived values through some of the most reactionary and extreme figures that have been chosen to speak for Muslims. This extreme, and misguided application of identity politics has also often led to the marginalisation of 'moderate' Muslims that can do the most to communicate with the Islamic community and argue against for instance the patriarchal practices of burkas within some communities and the elevation of 'soft' Islamists that preach all the extremism of the worst aspects of Islam without actually blowing themselves up. This lazy, almost racist means of dealing with the Islamic community by pouring money into the loudest Muslim organisations to tackle extremism with an almost total censorship of any criticism of that community from any external source, going as far as the near criminalisation of such criticism in the case of the producers of the 'Undercover Mosque' has certainly created a situation for extremists to prosper quite comfortably and even be defended if they are found out by external examination.

Cameron only barely touched on the last point with an unrelated though very serious comment on ceasing to tolerate the intolerable within Muslim communities when it came to issues of attitudes to gays for instance. As a conservative PM his entire mantra of Multiculturalism, while deserving of praise for rejecting outright moral relativism, came again from the fairly pitiful direction of an opposition to extremist aspects of Multiculturalism, implying that it was quite alright to continue the transformation of our nation through mass immigration into something totally unrecognisable as long as the end product was not 'extreme'. He deserves praise for at least attempting a dialogue a million times better than anything the previous party did in office, and has received a lot of unjust criticism for the timing of his speech coinciding with an EDL demonstration (as if he could have magically predicted this occurring when he was initially invited to Munich) but for true conservatives this speech was very far off what we needed to see in both words, and especially in action.