Harry’s Place

Not one critical comment about Richard Barnbrook’s post then?

Not one critical comment about Richard Barnbrook’s post then?

That’s the thing about Harry’s Place. You can never figure out how they feel about BNP.

Sheesh.

The Guardian ran a more detailed article on the subject last week:

Platform for free speech … or hate?

Though it does not tackle its own, er, questionable choice of bloggers.

Thats the thing if you’re the first post Irie.
Nobody has posted before you.
See how it works?

It is a sad day indeed when a BNP member is given a platform in the Telegraph, a mainstream paper. With the growth of fascist electoral success in Italy we should be very worried.

Your article rightly observes that the Guardian gives regular editorial space to representatives of what many regard as the Islamic far right, such as Azzam Tamimi and Anas al Tikriti.

By giving platforms to Islamic bigots the liberal left have created the political climate in which the BNP has been able to claim a platform in the press and a seat in the London Assembly. But two wrongs don’t make a right. The Telegraph should have not platformed Barnbrook as a matter of principle.

Are you so cerebrally underpowered that you consider this post to be supportive of the odious Barnbrook and the fascist BNP?

That was directed towards The Irie, who still hasn’t posted anything critical of Barnbrooks’ blog.

Fascist!

The hypocrisy occured to me too, but I expect it would never occur to people at the Guardian that the two are remotely comparable.

There is a point, though, that the BNP seem to be using the open policy of the My Telegraph blogs as a way of blogging to a larger and more diverse audience than they would get via the BNP website. Barnbrook is not the only one (his blogs are here). Another BNP activist, Carlos Cortiglia, has a blog here. There is another BNP blogger here. I imagine if you looked further more would pop up.

Obviously the fact that the Guardian has a tighter editorial control over who gets to write on CiF means they have more responsibility for what appears there. For instance, they would not give a CiF slot to Richard Barnbrook (I’m guessing here, but I think I’m on solid ground), whereas Ismail Haniyeh, Azzam Tamimi or Sa’ad al-Faqih, all of whom have had articles published in the Guardian, could start a blog on MyTelegraph if they wanted. However, now that the Telegraph knows that the BNP are using their website, with the Daily Telegraph name at the top, to promote their party, is their responsibility for what appears there any less than if they exercised similar control to CiF over who gets to write?

I take the opposite view Suffolk Booy (as a wet-arsed anti-censorship liberal) - both the Telegraph and The Guardian should continue to let these people put up their views for debate in what is clearly a ‘comment’ section of their online publications. But the journalists in the ‘news’ section of the Guardian need to get off their high horses and accept there’s no difference between fascists with white skin and fascists with brown skin.

I don’t accept that letting someone create a blog on your site is the same kind of ‘giving them a platform’ as, say, letting them address your University’s debating union. And there is a difference between Barnbrook using a facility available to all Telegraph readers with legally-held views, and the Guardian actively going out to solicit, and presumably pay for, the views of right wing nutters.

And yes TheIrie, I’d like to think that the kind of people who mix it in HP circles really DON’T need to spell out their take on the BNP.

Suffolk Booy,

A distinction should be drawn between created a platform for all readers and actively soliciting editorials from the far right. So far as I can see, The Telegraph have yet to solicit a regular column from Nick Griffin.

That said, I’m not sure that The Telegraph can use My Telegraph in the same way that Google use blogspot.com. Brands stand for a certain set of values, and the potential exists that others may use user-generated content to smear The Telegraph.

I’ve just read the longer Guardian piece that Thermaland links to, and it makes the same point about BNP supporters congregating at My Telegraph.

The complacency about Comment Is Free is breathtaking though.

The Guardian’s own Comment Is Free can attract opinion unlikely to be published in the paper. The difference is largely that the article which spawns the debate is always written by a “commissioned” blogger. Here, in new media parlance, the journalists act as “gatekeepers” initiating the story and moderating the discussion. My Telegraph, however, unlocks the gate and hands over the key.

No, most journalists write their article and then disappear, not taking part in the comments thread and leaving it up to the readers to complain - just like at My Telegraph.

Neil - the BNP write an article on the Telegraph website entitled “Blame the immigrants”, and your response is to say look at the Guardian - they publish articles by Muslims - just as bad. Of course, as a good disciple of David you cover yourself by calling them supporters of the Muslims Brotherhood - an organisation I suspect you, like David, are entirely ignorant about.

The way Cif and the torygraph blogs (which do seem to attract rather a lot of…can’t say nutters….”service users”) work is not the same. And I’m not particularly inclined to condemn either of them out of hand.

I note this in the Graun article linked to by thermaland:

My Telegraph is also inhabited by some very unsavoury characters, including a minority of active members of the far right, anti-abortionists, europhobes and members of an anti-feminist “men’s movement”.

Being an anti-abortionist or “europhobe” (presumably meaning anti-EU) or anti-feminist is “unsavoury”? Or morally equivalent to being “an active member of the far right”

In whose world exactly?

Ah, liberal illiberalism and intolerance. Don’t ya love it?

I imagine that, just as the internet (in a web 1.0 sense) has become more regulated over the years than it used to be, so will this kind of interactive user-generated content - - in a sense the conventions are still establishing themselves.

I do think that the visual appearance of the telegraph’s “blogs” does appear to associate the authors’ work with the newspaper to a (far) greater extent than is the case with cif, which is largely semi-autonomous from the Graun, and has always been clearly promoted as such: it is, and always has been clear that cif neither has nor is intended to have the editorial line of the Guardian. However, and despite the prominent Telegraph logo at the top of their blog pages, I also think it’s fairly clear that they aren’t in any sense endorsing the opinions of those who publish articles below it, any more than blogger or wordpress, typepad, etc, would be.

Although I don’t really object to the principal of either Tamimi publishing stuff at CiF, or Barnbrook at “my telegraph” (the very nature of a blog means that such pieces by definition generate a response and discussion), I very much imagine that at some point concern about “brand identity” (or upsetting advertisers) is bound to kick in.

When that comes about, I wouldn’t regret that such authors no longer appeared to have the superficial endorsement of reputable organs of the press (if the Torygraph still is one: it’s gone downhill so much of late), either.

It is almost always better to allow open debate than to suppress it.

TheIrie, surely you know your insistence that the Muslim Brotherhood represents all Muslims makes you an Islamophobe?

When did I say that, fool?

TheIrie,

must you ALWAYS act the arse?

if you took the trouble to even read the threads at HP you’d see that many, many people are opposed to the Far Right, and have openly challenged them on the streets, whilst you on the other hand have done what precisely?

Nothing

so fuck off and stop being a professional arse

Well Neil wrote about “Muslim Brotherhood supporters” and you swapped it for “Muslims”. They aren’t synonymous and those who insist they are tend to have an essentialist view of what Muslims are and think.

btw love the BA Baracas “fool” thing. Nice.

Dave Rich,
Do you realise the Guardian couldn’t pay Saad Al Fagih because his accounts are all frozen following his exposure as an Al Queda funder.
Instead they offered to pay a charity of his choice.

I always assumed as much. Which charity though?

Irie,

I note you continue to imply that this post is some sort of bigoted reaction by myself to give cover for the racist views of Barnbrook and to bash Muslims. You also seem to be making large assumptions about my views of the BNP.

Firstly, I am not criticising The Guardian for noting they publish articles by Muslims, I am criticising The Guardian for publishing articles by Muslim Brotherhood supporters and HAMAS representatives. There is a world of difference, although you seek to elide it in order to impute racist and bigoted opinions where none exist.

As for my knowledge of the Muslim Brotherhood, I consider myself knowledgeable and fairly widely read about their history, probably more so than yourself (since you seem to think that Muslim Brotherhood is code for Muslim).

In short, fuck off.

He never got back to them after they offered, so they never paid anybody.

Neil - In your post, you assert that Faisal Bodi, Anas Altikriti, Ismail Patel and Soumaya Ghannoushi are equivalent to the BNP. I’d like some evidence for this, other than the meaningless statement (which anyway is not proven) that they support the Muslim Brotherhood (which basically means nothing in the real world). Otherwise, yes, I assume you are a bigot.

Neil - the BNP write an article on the Telegraph website entitled “Blame the immigrants”, and your response is to say look at the Guardian - they publish articles by Muslims - just as bad

To which the only response can be - are you stupid, or disingenuous, or both?

The implication of your comment is that Neil is trying to divert attention away from Barmbrook’s article.

In reality (as any sane reader of this post will realise) he is objecting to the hypocrisy of one newspaper criticising another for hosting far-right opinion, while simultaneously hosting far-right opinion itself.

That is not because he thinks far-right opinion should be defended, but because he thinks it is equally objectionable, whoever is spouting it, and whoever is publishing it.

Understand?

Well, you can assume I’m a bigot all you want Irie, but I know you are intellectually challenged.

If you look at old newspapers its striking that letters editors used to allow anonymous and psuedonymous letters. They don’t do that these, and for good reason. It’s one of the ways that letters editors keep the standard of debate up and keep the green ink brigade away.

Come the web and the free for all newspapers decided they had to have a piece of that free for all; and in so doing opened their doors to the green ink brigade.

It smacks of a lack of confidence of their own role and ability to produce a quality product. (The Torygraph’s descent into sub Daily Mail trash and the Graun’s into pious hangwringing is another symptom of this).

Not that there aren’t ways to let the readers have more say and interact (sorry) with the writers, but neither has really thought through the implications of what they’re doing.

Oh, and TheIrie, I can’t find any way to interpret your comments about “Muslims” but that you believe all Muslims are an undifferentiated mass who think in the same way. You might want to be more careful before imputing BNP-style views to others.

I doubt he will.

He thinks I’m a bigot because I think HAMAS are right wing sectarians.

I have now read the Barnbrook piece. It is poorly written, populist trash that talks of using the army to get weapons off the streets.

At one point he says - it IS the imigrants, but doesn’t actually explain what IT is that the immigrants have done. I guess he is referring to knife crime.

In a way I think the intellectual paucity of his piece is enough rope for him to hang himself, but I still oppose giving him a platform, and I feel the same way about Azzam Tamimi.

I’m an American who barely know what the BNP is. 99% of what I know about them I’ve read at HP. My impression is that they are very, very bad people. My impression of The Irie — again, formed exclusively by reading HP — is that he is a nincompoop.

“That is not because he thinks far-right opinion should be defended, but because he thinks it is equally objectionable, whoever is spouting it, and whoever is publishing it.” - Yes, I know that, but its nonsense. I’ve seen no evidence at all that the people listed are fascists. There is no equivalence between these people and the BNP, other than the lazy and ignorant slur that they support the Muslim Brotherhood and therefore must be Islamo-fascists presumably.

@ Neil, I agree with your point about the difference between passive publication and actually soliciting a piece. Good point!

@ Simon

We will have to agree to differ. I respect that it is a hard call but I think mainstream media outlets should avoid giving platforms to any group whose founding political animus is one of hatred - and that is the real substance at the heart of the BNP, IMO

“Not one critical comment about Richard Barnbrook’s post then?”

Bit too quick off the mark then weren’t you? Anyway isn’t the point of this post a free speech one, rather than about the content of Barnbrooks blog, or anyone elses?

Still piling the stupid on stupid I see.

Don’t stop. It’s amusing.

Neil - OK, four names is too many. Can you demonstrate by means of a link or otherwise in what respect Soumaya Ghannoushi is in any sense equivalent to the BNP. Is she racist? Does she support terrorism? Or is it just because she is a practising religious Muslim?

I’ve seen no evidence at all that the people listed are fascists.

I pity the fool that clicks on those links with his eyes closed.

dirigible - I assume you read Soumaya’s article then? Care to tell me what is wrong with it?

Can you demonstrate by means of a link or otherwise in what respect Soumaya Ghannoushi is in any sense equivalent to the BNP.

Both are existent entities. Tada!

Failing that, find out about IslamExpo. HP covered it IIRC.

If MyTelegraph is a blog hosting service that’s open to everyone then I see nothing wrong in principle with Richard Barnbrook having a blog there, any more than if he had a blog on Livejournal or Blogspot. But those are both sites with millions of users, where the presence of one racist among all the other users isn’t going to lend itself to accusations of providing a platform for the far right. If the Telegraph is going to host blogs under a name that directly associates the newspaper with the blog content then I think it could do with exercising more discretion about what kind of stuff it allows.

ThIrie - Yes, I read it. Including the author profile.

… and?

I guess it is beneath Neil to actually substantiate his assertions.

The title of the Ghannoushi article is bad enough : “Religious hatred is no more than a variety of racism”.

What garbage. Why should religion be given special protection from strong dislike than that offered to other ideologies such as Nazism eg. Such talk is the kind of nonsense that tries to protect religious lunacies from criticism. Just as pernicious as the BNP as far as I can see.

Here -

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=9424

Here -

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/soumaya_ghannoushi_/2007/11/fallacy_of_the_palestinian_sta.html

Nasty stuff that gives a good indication of her politics.

Why not ask the Jews from Arab countries what they think about that MMN?

What are you burbling on about exactly TheIrie ? Are you comparing how Muslims are treated in the UK to how Jews are treated in Arab countries ? If so which ones ?

“Nasty stuff that gives a good indication of her politics.” I don’t care about her politics. I’m asking for evidence that she is a fascist or terrorist supporter, as in Neil’s assertion. Specifically, on what criteria should she be barred from writing on the Guardian’s website?

“Are you comparing how Muslims are treated in the UK to how Jews are treated in Arab countries?” - no, I’m simply defending the principle that “Religious hatred is no more than a variety of racism”, which I agree with, and anyway, what has this opinion got to do with whether or not someone is a fascist?

Surely the point about the far right is that they are rather good at hiding their far right tendencies. Let’s take a hypothetical individual - let’s call him Richard Barnbrack for the sake of argument - and let’s say that he belongs to an organisation - let’s call it the Brutish Nasty Party. Now, the the Brutish Nasty Party denies being a far-right organisation and, after years of practice, is getting rather good at disguising the fact that many of its members are violent, thuggish, anti-Semitic, Hitler-worshipping individuals.

One way it disguises its far-right nature is to put individuals like this hypothetical Barnbrack in high-profile positions. They know he’ll be careful not to let anything too unpleasant slip out and will be careful not to do anything too embarrassing in public.

That way, when people challenge the Brutish Nasty Party, its more cunning supporters - and naive and gullible idiots - point to the likes of said Barnbrack and challenge those making the accusations that he’s a fascist. It’s hard to do, of course, which is the whole point of the exercise.

They will then try to argue that because you can’t prove Barnbrack is a fascist, the Brutish Nasty Party can’t be fascists (and if you make that accusation you’re just against the Brutish people). But you’d have to be very naive, very stupid or very dishonest to do that.

“Religious hatred is no more than a variety of racism”,

Only someone who knows (or moreover, cares) very little about religion could make such a statement.

Irie,

Where did I say Ghannoushi was a supporter of terrorists then?

“Of course, as a good disciple of David you cover yourself by calling them supporters of the Muslims Brotherhood - an organisation I suspect you, like David, are entirely ignorant about.” (Al-Irie)

And this is when Al-Irie finally came out of the closet as an Islamist.

It was too strange that he always appeared to defend “Muslims” (Islamists, actually), Palestinians, Finkelstein, etc, etc…

don’t care about her politics. I’m asking for evidence that she is a fascist

Err… slight contradiction there…

I’m asking for evidence that she is a fascist or terrorist supporter, as in Neil’s assertion

Neil asserted no such thing. The words he used were ‘far-right sectarians’. But nice attempt to shift the terms of the debate.

Specifically, on what criteria should she be barred from writing on the Guardian’s website?</I.

As far as I am aware, Neil doesn’t think she should be barred.

I inferred that, but I’ll withdraw it if you like, and stick to the charge that you explicitly made that she is a far right sectarian, and equivalent to the BNP, and the Guardian are hypocritical for publishing her writing while condemning the telegraph. Will you deign to provide a shred of evidence for this serious charge?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/05/religion.uk

She’s a fucking Islamist, Irie, I don’t why can’t get this into your thick skull.

BTW lets not forget that for Al-Irie, Jews from Arab countries only went out for a picnic. They were never expelled. And if they were, he blamed that on Israel.

I, for one, am sickened at this blog’s racist attitude towards Richard Barnbrook, who you target for no other reason that he is a white person who is proud of his identity. You are attacking him merely because his party opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq, on the grounds that it was a conspiracy by Jews.

Again and again you try to smear Barnbrook. Barnbrook is not in favour of attacking black people - I challenge you to find one article he has written where he advocates violence.

You try to smear Barnbrook by pointing out that he is active in the BNP. Even if some BNP supporters might think that black people ought to be attacked, you should realise that the BNP is a diverse movement, consisting of many different strands of opinon. From what I have read, Barnbrook is at the liberal and progressive end. Isn’t Barnbrook precisely the sort of person who we ought to be reaching out to if we are to build bridges of understanding with the alienated white community?

Obviously, what I have written is complete rubbish.

But if TheIrie can get away with this sort of crap, why not give it a go? TheIrie knows that Ghannoushi is the daughter of the leader of the Tunisian Muslim Brotherhood. He has read a sufficient number of articles on HP which set out in detail the Muslim Brotherhood’s policies, including gender and religious apartheid, and terrorism against civilians. He knows that she is on the committee of the British Muslim Initiative, which is a Muslim Brotherhood franchise, all of whose members are MB.

But yet, he defends these scum. He wouldn’t defend Barnbrook though, even though precisely the same argument can be made about him as the BNP as Neil makes about the MB.

Why does TheIrie do this? Because he is a disgusting racist who conflates Muslims with the MB, in a way he’d never do with white Christians and the BNP.

Will you deign to provide a shred of evidence for this serious charge?

Please see the post at the start of this thread.

Al-Irie is a tipical antisemite. The nerve he has to bring Jews from Arab countries to this thread. He cared bollocks about them in the other. He brought a ridiculous website that asserted that they were never expelled, 800.000 of them just went out of their own accord or scared by the Zionists. Al-Irie is no better than the neonazis.

DavidT
I, like you, have no time whatsover for the views of Soumaya Ghannoushi (and more or less agree

However, I fail to see that the identity, or history, or background of her father is of any relevance whatsoever to the debate. Unless we are doing the condemning unto the seventh generation thing. Which I hope we are not.

From Anna Akhmatova’s blessed loins sprung forth Lev Gumilev.
And Vyacheslav Chornovil’s son is Taras Chornovil, unfortunately.

Judge people by their deeds, not those of their relatives or their family backgrounds.

Thank you

David’s joined in - joy. First of all, Richard Barnbrook in the post cited has made an explicitly racist charge. No need to root around for material on him - I don’t question his nastiness. Now, the charge against Ghannoushi: her Dad is a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. So? For every article you find by the MB setting out gender and religious apartheid, I’ll find you a progressive, “moderate” MB article. Saying someone has some vague association the the MB tells you NOTHING. Get that into your dense skull David and David’s little followers. You have to judge people by what they themselves write and say. And it’s not hard to read what she has written, and whilst you may disagree with it, there is nothing to suggest she’s a fascist.

In fact, if you alienate people like Ghannoushi, who is in fact far far more moderate and sensible than people like David and Neil, who are basically fanatics, you are helping extremism. Most sane people, including the Guardian staff, realise this.

And, sorry Ven, but “what Ven said”.

In fact, if you alienate people like Ghannoushi, who is in fact far far more moderate and sensible than people like David and Neil

Hahahahahaharrgghhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!

I’ve given you three links on this thread which show you what a nasty piece of work she is, and this is what you come out with?

Enough.

Enough already.

I think there’s a big difference between the Telegraph hosting a racist blog and blogspot doing so. Blogspot does nothing other than host people’s blogs and when you read one you know it is just one person’s opinion, nothing more. The Telegraph (or Guardian for that matter) is a newspaper that people read for (a) news that is relatively trustworthy and (b) comment that is relatively informed. Carrying a blog by Richard Barnbrook on the Telegraph website means there is a relationship between the two that affects the image of both, however much these media organisations try to convince themselves (and us) otherwise.

Tell me how ANYTHING you’ve said in defence of Ghannoushi could not equally be said of Barnbrook?

@ DavidT

A wonderful satirical post by you, emulating precisely the moral relativist arguments for indulging Islamists.

Excellent. My favourite blogcomment of the week, thank you!

The Guardian has previously given over editorial space to Osama Bin Laden, as well as other unpleasant bearded murderers.

I don’t like, admire or respect the BNP but I find the hysteria they generate to be utterly bizarre. They are a minor group at best, even now at their all time peak of support their national support is well under 2%. Yet despite their triviality they are seen as so dangerous that simply allowing them a platform is seen as uniquely outrageous.

Neil and Mark - no-one has provided anything that suggests Ghannoushi’s ideas are fascist. As I said, you may disagree with them. I’m only interested in what makes them comparable with openly racist bilge from the BNP.

the BBC also give a platform to the ‘islamist far right’ …azzam tamini, abu izzadeen and those of that ilk are given plenty of room to peddle their invective…is the BBC wrong as well? or is it just the guardian?

TheIrie - some of the BNP are not complete racists who want to hang blacks from the nearest tree, some may be.

Some of the Muslim Brotherhood have unbelieveably extreme views, have you ever seen this ?

“In April 2006, after a court case in Egypt recognized the Bahá’í Faith, members of the clergy convinced the government to appeal the court decision. One member of parliament, Gamal Akl of the opposition Muslim Brotherhood, said the Bahá’ís were infidels who should be killed on the grounds that they had changed their religion.[39]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

No doubt some in the MB don’t think that, but is there any evidence you can quote that they have changed their official views from the above in Egypt ? I can’t.

In which case I can only say that the Egyptian MB are comparable and probably worse than the BNP. What do you think ?

Irie, you can judge Ghannoushi by what she says (and she has heaps of praise for the Muslim Brotherhood) and still see her as a far right sectarian.

I don’t deny I’m a fanatic.

I’m fanatically in favour of a pluralistic diverse non-racist democratic equitable society which favours freedom of religion and other forms of expression, and secures equal rights for those of difference race, gender and sexuality.

That’s what you consider a bigot.

Neil and Mark - no-one has provided anything that suggests Ghannoushi’s ideas are fascist

Again - the claim was that she (among others) is a far-right sectarian.

The links I provided (have you read them!?) show that she is an Islamist, who rejects a two-state solution. She is an unpleasant religious sectarian.

And somehow you think she is ‘far far more moderate and sensible than David and Neil’.

Frankly you’ve gone down the rabbit hole.

The Muslim Brotherhood rules over one territory in the whole globe: Gaza. Hamas is part of the MB.

Ask the Christians how is to be ruled by the MB. Ask the women too. Not so long ago, there were women without hijab at the University in Gaza. Not anymore. Ask them about acid thrown to their faces. That is the Muslim Brotherhood.

the BBC also give a platform to the ‘islamist far right’ …azzam tamini, abu izzadeen and those of that ilk are given plenty of room to peddle their invective…is the BBC wrong as well?

They are wrong in that they present these as representative of the wider Muslim community, much like Irie does, when they are only representative of a smaller extremist radical element.

I do think the BBC have improved somewhat in recent years in that respect.

MMN - As I’ve been trying to explain, there is no official MB line. They operate in different countries in forms totally unrecognisable from one-another - see the Foreign Affairs piece “The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood” for some informed background.

David - “Tell me how ANYTHING you’ve said in defence of Ghannoushi could not equally be said of Barnbrook?” Are you joking? Ok - Ghannoushi hasn’t written an article which is blatantly (or otherwise) racist, or in any other manner prejudiced or hateful. In the mean time, why don’t you provide some evidence of Ghannoushi’s hateful nature, that’s not related to the position of her Dad?

if readers hadn’t read TheIrie’s apologies and excuses for the David Irving supporter, Asghar Bukhari then they might be surprised at his current outbursts and lack of basic comprehension

but then again TheIrie, as a would-be academic, has considerable form

TheIrie has been the most articulate and vociferous apologist for Hamas, droning on for two+ years on how some of their leaders are quite moderate and don’t really hate Jews, despite what they say

more recently, TheIrie’s profound stupidity was shown again he remarked that antisemitism wasn’t “terribly complicated”, despite the fact that there are many hundreds of scholars and thousands of researchers trying to understand this complicated subject, when all they had to do was asked TheIrie and he would supply an answer?

So readers shouldn’t expect too much from TheIrie, except a peculiar mixture of childish naivete, a contempt for evidence, an impenetrable quality and a fair dollop of outlandish statements

Should any readers feel tempted to recommend a book or suitable literature to TheIrie, then he will shrink away like a vampire confronted with garlic, TheIrie values his impenetrable ignorance as if it were a cherished prize to be hold

Oh, and TheIrie seems to speed read or skim other’s comments, so don’t expect that he will either 1) read your views 2) accurately represent them 3) be able to respond with a cogent argument

He’s best ignored, like a truculent child

In the mean time, why don’t you provide some evidence of Ghannoushi’s hateful nature, that’s not related to the position of her Dad?

I have.

I have given you three links.

One of which demonstrates that she is a loon, the other that she is an Islamist, and the last that she is implacably opposed to a two-state solution (and by default the existence of the state of Israel).