Tuesday, July 26, 2011

The Guardian reports that Melanie Phillips is outraged at the post by Sunny Hundal at Liberal Conspiracy which noted that her writings were cited by the Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik in his now notorious 2083 manifesto. “There are only two references to me or my work in its 1500 pages”, an indignant Phillips complains.

In reality, an entire article by Phillips is reproduced by Breivik. It takes up nearly three pages of his document. Now, bearing in mind that Breivik justified his massacre of young Labour Party members on the grounds that their party’s immigration policies and support for multiculturalism had opened the door to the “Islamisation” of Norway, what do you suppose was the subject of the article by Phillips that so impressed Breivik?

Well, it was from the 28 October 2009 edition of the Daily Mail and was entitled “The outrageous truth slips out: Labour cynically plotted to transform the entire make-up of Britain without telling us”. Phillips ranted that the then Labour government had pursued “a deliberate policy of mass immigration” which “amounted to nothing less than an attempt to change the very make-up of this country”. Labour had “engaged upon a deliberate and secret policy of national cultural sabotage”.

Quoting the claim by former Labour speechwriter Andrew Neather that the government’s “driving political purpose” was to “make the UK truly multicultural”, Phillips continued:

It was therefore a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country. It was done to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions. It was done to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another “multicultural” identity in its place. 

Labour’s aim, in short, was to “destroy Britain’s identity and transform it into a multicultural society where British attributes would have no greater status than any other country’s”. The government had “secretly plotted to flood the country with immigrants to change its very character and identity”.

You can understand why Breivik was so keen on Phillips’s article can’t you? It fed directly into the paranoid fantasies of the “counter-jihad” movement, of which Breivik is a part, that social democratic governments have engaged in a conspiracy to destroy their countries’ national identity through a programme of mass immigration and support for multiculturalism.

But Phillips denies any responsibility. She demands: “Is Hundal suggesting that my writing provoked the mass murder of some 93 Norwegians? Doubtless with one eye on the law of libel, he piously avers: ‘There is no suggestion that his actions were inspired by Melanie Phillips, nor am I making that claim’.”

Personally, I think Sunny was being far too soft on Phillips. Certainly there is no suggestion that Phillips advocates political violence and the killing of innocent people (except in the case of Israeli state terrorism, of course). But Phillips has certainly made a far from negligible contribution to whipping up the atmosphere of fear and hatred towards migrants and Muslims that provided the conditions for the atrocities in Norway.

You can imagine how different Phillips’s attitude would be if an antisemitic journalist had written endless pieces about the supposed Jewish threat to national identity and had accused European governments of conspiring to allow Jews to take over their countries, without however proposing any violent response to this. If a terrorist inspired by such views had reacted by killing those he held responsible for the “Judaification” of the nation, would Phillips assert that it was unfair to blame the journalist for the violence? Of course she wouldn’t. She would say, quite rightly, that “non-violent” antisemitic propaganda had helped to provoke the murders.

But Phillips asks us to believe that her own hate-filled tirades about migrants and Muslims are entirely without consequences.

Islamophobia Watch thinks Sunny Hundall was too soft on Phillips for her apparent responsibility for the Norway attacks and did not proclaim that she’s got blood on her hands!

The thing is as defenders of immigration and multiculuralism all this seems incredibly unhelpful to us! If we want to preserve freedom of movement and diversity we need to debate with those that criticise and attack these things no matter how ill informed their views are.

But this is just trying to shut down debate by smearing those who disagree with immigration and multiculturalism as guilty of fanning the flames of right-wing extremists who would go as far to kill people!

Mel Phillips is indeed bigoted and ill informed but let’s not elevate her to having such power and influence she can contribute to a madman killing innocent people!

Monday, November 22, 2010

ENGAGE takes up tonight’s Panorama programme British Schools, Islamic Rules.

Hmm. If Panorama was exposing how children in British schools are being exposed to BNP fascist anti-Muslim propoganda the Islamophobiawatchers would, quite rightly of course, celebrate it as a fantastic expose of racism, fascism and Islamophobia in British schools.

But exposing hatred towards non-Muslims in British schools from Muslims is apparently a “witchunt” and racist, Islamophobic etc etc.

Engage points out how the right-wing tabloids like The Daily Mail and The Daily Star are exploiting the programme for their own anti-Muslim ends.

Usual guilt by dissassociation form the Islamophobiawatchers. Because the right-wing racist anti-Muslim tabloid press scaremongers about Islamic extremism and bigotry from Muslims anyone who points out and criticises bigotry when spoken by Muslims must be sympathisers to the tabloids racist anti-Muslim agenda.

Of course!

For more on John Ware, see here.

Sunday, September 19, 2010

“A Mail on Sunday investigation – which will alarm anyone concerned about animal cruelty – has revealed that schools, hospitals, pubs and famous sporting venues such as Ascot and Twickenham are controversially serving up meat slaughtered in accordance with strict Islamic law to unwitting members of the public….

“Animal welfare campaigners have long called for a ban on the traditional Islamic way of preparing meat – which involves killing animals by drawing a knife across their throats, without stunning them first – saying it is cruel and causes unnecessary pain….

“The extent of halal meat consumption, even in areas of Britain with a very small Muslim population, was revealed as the Pope, on his first visit to Britain, expressed fears that the country was not doing enough to preserve traditional Christian values and customs.”

Yes it’s another piece of “Islamification of Britain” scaremongering in the Mail on Sunday, who adopt the pretence that they’re motivated not by hostility towards Muslims but by concern for animal rights, just as they frame their campaign against “sharia courts” in terms of a defence of women’s rights.

The fact that non-Muslims have for decades eaten halal meat in “Indian” restaurants (many of which are of course run by Muslims of Bangladeshi origin) without it ever becoming an issue for them is completely ignored.

And anyone who believes that opposition to ritual slaughter in the name of animal rights is necessarily progressive should check out the biography of Arnold Leese, to whom the present-day BNP can trace its organisational and ideological roots.

As for the Mail‘s sensitivity towards unnecessary suffering on the part of poor dumb animals, if the paper ever registered support for a ban on foxes being torn apart by packs of hounds it certainly passed us by.

Islamophobia Watch superbly highlights hysterial tabloid nonscence but then goes and spoils it by attempting to lump anyone who is against ritul slaughter with racists.

“And anyone who believes that opposition to ritual slaughter in the name of animal rights is necessarily progressive should check out the biography of Arnold Leese, to whom the present-day BNP can trace its organisational and ideological roots.”

Erm so does that mean animal rights activists who protest against ritual slaughter are BNP sympathisers or fascists?

“Yes it’s another piece of “Islamification of Britain” scaremongering in the Mail on Sunday, who adopt the pretence that they’re motivated not by hostility towards Muslims but by concern for animal rights, just as they frame their campaign against “sharia courts” in terms of a defence of women’s rights.”

Very true but the Islamophobiawatchers paint anyone who is against sharia courts as hostile to Muslims.

Because right-wing racists oppose sharia law they say, anyone who opposes sharia law is on the side of right-wing racists!

So presuambly if the BNP is against Islamic ritualistic slaughter of animals anyone who is against ritualistic slaughter of animals is on the side of the BNP.

 

 

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

“The decision by the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, to ban the group Islam4UK will achieve little. As with some previous bans on extremist organisations, the group will simply reorganise under a new name, as it already has on at least one occasion. Worse, though, the Home Secretary appears to have fallen into the trap set him by the group’s notorious but media-savvy leader, Anjem Choudary.

“Mr Choudary has proven himself adept at grabbing publicity for what is apparently an almost entirely paper organisation. His announcement earlier this month that it planned to hold a protest march in Wootton Basset against the war in Afghanistan appears to have had no basis in fact: no application to hold a demonstration was ever made. This did not prevent much of the media from covering it at length, however; now the Home Secretary has simply given Choudary new victim status.

“There are real terrorist organisations that deserve to be banned. But Mr Choudary is telling the truth when he denies that his is a terrorist group: rather, it is a benefit claimants’ exercise in macho fantasy and a prop for his own ego. Most people find Choudary’s views repellent but he should be allowed to express them, if only to remind us just how silly and narcissistic is this armchair warrior from Welling. He will be delighted that Mr Johnson has instead taken the bait as intended.”

Evening Standard, 12 January 2010

This is a sensible piece with which we can broadly agree. But it has to be said that, when it comes to giving Choudary and his tiny group of idiots publicity that is out of all proportion to their significance, the Standard itself has been one of the worst offenders.

We have been treated to such articles as “The Pope must die, says Muslim“, “I want to see flag of Allah flying over Downing St“, “Islamist group march for ‘full sharia law in Britain’“, “Next 9/11 in Britain warn banned Muslim militants” and “Islamist sect banned as security threat ‘is recruiting teenagers’“, not to mention “Wootton Bassett on parade as Islamic hate row grows“.

Before it starts lecturing others about falling for Choudary’s publicity-generating stunts, the Standard might perhaps consider reviewing its own editorial policy.

Yes , the Evening Standard and other right-wing newspapers give far too much publicity to nutters like Choudary as well as talking up the threat of Islamic extremism.

But the leftist Islamophobiawatchers give far too much publicity to paranoid Islamic extremism watchers whilst talking up the threat of rampent racist Islamophobia!

Students who dressed up as prisoners from Guantanamo Bay and “blacked-up” their faces for a Christmas party have been accused of racism.

The students, part of the rugby team from the London School of Economics (LSE), were in costume for the annual “carol” last Friday, an “all-day drinking” event organised by the university’s Athletics Union. They wore orange jumpsuits, with some painting their faces brown and drawing on beards.

At around 1pm, outside the Student Union bar, in full public view, they proceeded to imitate Muslim prayer while other team members dressed as American soldiers shouted orders at them. It took place just as Muslim students were leaving the nearby Old Building after Friday prayer.

West End Extra, 17 December 2009

See also London Student, 11 December 2009

Thoughtless, stupid and yes probably racist!

But Islamophobia Watch portrays this as yet more example of how Britain is rampent with Islamophobia anti-Muslim racism.

A bunch of students acting like idiots does not prove that Britain is an anti-Islam Muslim hating fascist hell hole!

Peter Tatchell is given space at Comment is Free to promote the “Universal Children’s Day and International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women” demonstration on Saturday – which, despite its grandiose title, is just another stupid stunt by One Law for All, a front organisation for Mariam Namazie and the Worker Communist Party of Iran.

Tatchell writes plaintively that “the turn out in Hyde Park will probably be quite small” – which, based on previous experience, is a realistic prediction. The explanation is that anyone with a shred of political judgement baulks at stirring up Islamophobia in co-operation with a bunch of sectarian nutters like the WPI. For Tatchell, however, the problem is that leftists and liberals “get squeamish when it comes to challenging human rights abuses committed in the name of Islam”.

The WPI appeals to its supporters to “Show your opposition to Sharia law and all religious-based tribunals in Britain, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and elsewhere” (emphasis added), and Tatchell himself claims that he and other supporters of Saturday’s demonstration “reject all religious laws and courts, including those inspired by Judaist and Christian fundamentalism”. Why, then, do Tatchell and the WPI concentrate exclusively on attacking Islamic religious tribunals? We never hear a peep from them about the Beth Din courts that operate within the Orthodox Jewish community, even though their rules on divorce are considerably more discriminatory against women than those of Sharia tribunals.

The reason of course is that Tatchell is less interested in women’s rights than in generating some publicity for himself by stoking the fires of anti-Muslim bigotry

“Tatchell is less interested in women’s rights than in generating some publicity for himself by stoking the fires of anti-Muslim bigotry.”

That is quite plainly bollox!

Tatchell over eggs the threat of Islamic fundamentalism but he is hardly an insighter of hatred agaisnt Muslims!

“Why, then, do Tatchell and the WPI concentrate exclusively on attacking Islamic religious tribunals? We never hear a peep from them about the Beth Din courts that operate within the Orthodox Jewish community, even though their rules on divorce are considerably more discriminatory against women than those of Sharia tribunals.”

Yeah and if they did criticise Beth Din courts the socialist Islamophobiawatchers would probably accuse them of being “anti semetic”.