Harry’s Place

Clear sighted and right on the money, as always. No wonder the Seamus Milnes of this world hate him with such a passion.

Seamus Milne is strongly drawn towards to authoritinarism and bigotry of the Muslim far right. Its very significant that his current target of hatred is Ed Hussein who has dared question the terrorist ambitions and the nazi style affiliations of the islamisits. Seamus Milne is very upset that a Muslim does not believe that blowing up commuters on tube trains is the way forward

Anyway…

Great stuff from Nick

I think there is a simple rule before anyone “engages” with any grouping…

Simply consider what they would do if they had power

There is no doubt in my mind that if the MAB had a grip on Britain the policies they would enact would go way beyond anything the BNP would dare consider

Seamus Milne is strongly drawn towards to authoritinarism and bigotry of the Muslim far right.

Well, that’s not strictly true.

He’s strongly drawn to anyone who doesn’t like the Great Satan. As Ed Hussain no longer thinks that America is the Great Satan, naturally he’s fallen out of favour in Milne-world.

In fact many people, and groups, loathe Seamus Milne, an appeaser of religious bigotry. Or rather we have a love-hate relation with hin: he hates us leftist secularists and we love it. Nick Cohen has attracted the ire of the left not for his views opposing Islamicism (though they tend to rather scatter-gun) but for his (wobbling) endorsement of the invasion of Iraq, and for telling us, who have spent years in the democratic labour movement, that we are all Gulags. Not to mention continuous tussles with ‘vanguards’, from the SWP onwards, and laughing-stock shysters like Galloway.

The idea that all the ‘far left’ automatically backs Islamicism has no serious basis: see, for example (and I know Nick Cohen debated them), the Hands off the People of Iran campaign: http://www.hopoi.org Or indeed Shiraz Socialist.

That off my chest, I agree that demos are deluded about ’shared values between the MAB/Islam Expo/Moslem Brotherhood and any kind of liberalism or democratic socialism. Obviously this is the kind of sympathic ‘understanding’ of the ‘Other’ you get from mutlicuturalists (verging close to the patronising). Just as the Islamophiles, from Bob Pitt to the Swoppies, think they can see come ‘real’ progressive content behind the religious message.

I’d have thought that the history of the Muslim Brotherhood was well known, as the Observer Magazine article last Sunday on this said:

“But in addition to the killings of political figures, terrorist attacks on the Jewish community in Cairo, and the attempted murder of Nasser, members of the Muslim Brotherhood took part in arson that destroyed some 750 buildings - mainly nightclubs, theatres, hotels and restaurants - in downtown Cairo in 1952, an attack that marked the end of the liberal, progressive, cosmopolitan direction that Egypt might have chosen. (The Muslim Brotherhood also created Hamas, which employs many of the same tactics now condemned by the Islamic Group.) And yet, unlike other radical movements, the Brotherhood has embraced political change as the only legitimate means to achieving an Islamic state. ‘We welcome these revisions, because we have called for many years to stop violence,’ Erian continued. ‘But these revisions are incomplete. They reject violence, but they don’t offer a new strategy for reform and change.’

He pointed out that radical Islamists have long condemned the Muslim Brotherhood because of its willingness to compromise with the government and even to run candidates for office. ‘Now they are under pressure, because if they accept democratic change by democratic means they will be asked, “What is the difference between you and the Muslim Brothers?”‘”

Here’s another explanation for the stand of DEMOS. The British islamophiles would run a mile in tight boots rather than accept that Fini’s Italian ‘post-fascists’ are demcorats. Yet they pander to the notion that the MB are somehow ‘post-Islamicists’ - as even this article, by someone who knows the background, seems to believe.

The MB have always - from their very inception - had a love-hate relationship with Arab nationalists. Nasser, in particular, initially sought to cultivate them - in the hope that they’d legitimate his regime religiously - before turning on them and unleashing the persecution that drove them to Saudi, where they were instrumental in the rise of takfiri jihadism.

My tentative guess, however, is that Demos wouldn’t go near the BNP.

decent telepathy working wonders again nick. and you wonder why the observer refuses to print barely coherent trash, based on your opinions as opposed to facts, like this.

nowhere does he explain where and how he and his colleagues are joining the battle

and the same could be said for your frequent claims to be part of ‘the greatest intellectual struggle of our times’, nick. repeating the same old tired material which wasn’t convincing in What’s Left isn’t actually doing anything aside from satisfying braindead HP readers who are happy to be told ad infintum that reading this repetitious website is the only thing stopping DEM MOOSLIMZ from taking over THE WORLD.

You know perfectly well that this is not the argument that Nick, or any other HP commentator, is making.

Yet you, and others like you, persist on suggesting that that it is.

It is easy to see why you do it. You can’t engage with the actual argument we’re making: because you can’t refute the points we do make. Instead, you take an argument we aren’t advancing, and bravely mock it. Well done.

Instead, you take an argument we aren’t advancing, and bravely mock it.

never seen that happen on here from ‘your side’ either. oh no. you’d never willingly misread, say, David Edgar, and then suggest Nick Cohen sue him using the libel laws which you are now so highly critical of, would you?

demonstrative - you really think its possible that Demos would ever consider going to a WhiteBritExpo to discuss the issues of the white working class with the BNP ?

Either you’re making a specious nonsensical point for the sake of argument or you’re completely deluded.

David Edgar, as you well know slyly accused Nick Cohen of racism. He said:

“Cohen is careful to point out that “Islamism has Islamic roots”, and, clearly, the group that he dubs the “far right” goes beyond the adherents of Jamaat-e-Islami. ”

What that little creep Edgar is suggesting - he doesn’t have the guts to do it directly - is that Nick Cohen is actually attacking Muslims generally as part of the “far right”, while trying to dress up that attack as a critique of Islamism.

In fact, Nick Cohen (and I, for that matter) say precisely the opposite. We point out that - empirically - it is primarily Muslims who are oppresed and murdered by Islamist groups.

You know that to be true. However, you - and Edgar - try to avoid dealing with that fact, by falsely implying that Nick Cohen is launching a general attack on Muslims.

This is precisely the argument which the Islamists make, when they want to deflect attention from their own vicious and nasty politics. But why would somebody on the European Left want to pull the same trick?

My guess is this. You’d want to try to imply, mendaciously, that your opponents are racists, because you want to provide cover for Islamist groups. Mostly, this sort of lying attack comes from groups like the various versions of RESPECT and STWC which constitute formal alliances with far right Islamist groups. You can only hope to distract attention from your own conduct by attacking us.

Are you Nick Edgar?

Are you Nick Edgar

are you David Cohen?

David Edgar, as you well know slyly accused Nick Cohen of racism.

no he didn’t. that is entirely your extrapolation, a willing misreading, and it’s the same kind of extrapolation that Nick makes again up there, and that you make again here. and what do you say directly under that:

You’d want to try to imply, mendaciously, that your opponents are racists

which - again - Harry’s place has never done, has it?

The crucial difference between the BNP and the Islamists is that one grouping does not advocate genocide

which - again - Harry’s place has never done, has it?

No, it hasn’t.

Keep trying.

What construction do you put on Edgar’s sentence?

It is very clear indeed. Edgar does two things.

First, he attributes to Nick Cohen, a view about the “Islamic roots” of Islamism. Why does he say that. Because he wants to insinuate that Nick Cohen is arguing that Islamism is not just a political movement, but is a function of the religion itself.

Secondly, he accuses Nick Cohen of describing a broad range of Muslims - not simply Jamaat - of belonging to the “far right”. The implication here is that Nick Cohen isn’t simply attacking the far right Islamist parties: but another group “beyond” those adherents. Edgar is basically saying that Nick Cohen regards ordinary Muslims, with no connection to Islamist parties, as being part of the “far right”.

Edgar also puts “far right” in scare quotes. He’s not prepared to say that these groups are “far right” at all.

Got another interpretation of that sentence? Or is Edgar simply making a series of random statements, with no point to them?

I suppose Peter’s article puts to bed the idea that Demos was only flaky when Madeleine Bunting ran it. Seemingly she was dismissed because her “vision for Demos is incompatible with that of the trustees“. Now, either:

(a) Her vision was truly bizarre, involving more than just giving credence to Muslim Brotherhood jamborees, or
(b) Demos have actually come around to Madeleine’s way of thinking.

P.

Edgar is basically saying that Nick Cohen regards ordinary Muslims, with no connection to Islamist parties, as being part of the “far right”.

but, again, no he’s not. he’s saying that Cohen believes Muslims outside of one specific party - which is named - are far right. would you disagree with that?

he attributes to Nick Cohen, a view about the “Islamic roots” of Islamism. Why does he say that.

Because Nick Cohen has noted it? this is stuff Nick Cohen has written. it’s not made up or extrapolated. Cohen has noted that Islamism has ‘Islamic roots’.

Edgar also puts “far right” in scare quotes. He’s not prepared to say that these groups are “far right” at all.

the ’scare quotes’ are in fact inverted commas, used because Nick Cohen has labelled an unstable and unspecified block of British Muslims - going beyond the far right parties - as ‘far right’, not just the political party named. As such, if Edgar does not want to join Cohen in smearing an unspecified amount of the British Muslim population as similarly ‘far right’ (ie if he does not want to join Cohen, as opposed to expose cohen’s smears of the British Muslim community), he uses Cohen’s own words - and for that one uses inverted commas.

not too hard is it?

The Guardian has put one article on HP up on their recommend list. Anyone guess which one? Here’s a hint: it has something to do with IslamExpo (but I guess no one told them Nick Cohen would be writing - best article I have seen from him for a long time too).

As for MBunting, the mind boggles really. Perhaps they found her, ummm, a bit lightweight?

Clivex, which group ‘advocates’ genocide is less important than the fact that the Islamist leader of Sudan is accused by the ICC of carrying out genocide.

One point I’d add: there seems incredibly litttle awareness in the UK of what Islamicist groups actually did during the (not wholly finished) Algerian Civil War. From the GIA, the GSPC, to Al-Qeada in Maghreb, they have carried out some of the most horrific murders of intellectuals, secularists, leftists, feminists, trade unionists, that one can imagine. Not to mention mass terror in the countryside, towns, and cities against anyone and everything not of their liking. Naturally the Algerian state and army have drenched their hands in blood as well. But the relevant point in looking at this from Britain is that in general nobody here (all political and religious spectrums) has shown much interest in these killings. Still, the dead number in hundreds of thousands. Of little interest apparently.

I noticed that Victoria Brit. who claims she backed the most repressive Algerian state ‘eradicateurs’ is now cosy with some Islamicists - protesting against the US’s Guantamano Bay camp etc. Out of the same mix of wishful thinking: believing that they are in some sense ‘objectively’ anti-imperialist and fighting injustice. Bunting and DEMOS have got some of that, but mainly seem to wallow in the self-indulgence of liberal multi-culturalists who have never had to confront something like the Algerian battle.

Mind you, I wouldn’t want to have to face that kind of choice either.

Come on ‘demonstrative’ just admit it: Islamist violence gives you, Uncle Seamus, and your fellow travellers a twitching little hard-on.

Don’t be daft

“he’s saying that Cohen believes Muslims outside of one specific party - which is named - are far right. would you disagree with that?”

Of course there are Muslims involved in far right politics who are not members of Jamaat. Some are members of Hizb ut Tahrir, Al Muhajiroun, the Muslim Brotherhood, and some are active in the IHRC. So what? This isn’t a startling revelation, or a controversial one.

What Edgar clearly meant was “Cohen isn’t just describing members of specific far right Islamist parties as fascists: he’s making that accusation generally about Muslims”

Again, the suggestion that Islamism has Islamic roots isn’t something that Nick Cohen has ‘discovered’. It is precisely the argument that Islamist groups make themselves. It isn’t a controversial one.
Yet Edgar treats it as if it is a remarkable point to make. Why does Edgar highlight it?

It is absolutely clear, isn’t it, that he’s trying to suggest that Nick Cohen believes that the problem is Islam and Muslims: not the supposedly far right Islamist parties.

You do in fact understand the point that Edgar is making, because you’re making it yourself:

“As such, if Edgar does not want to join Cohen in smearing an unspecified amount of the British Muslim population as similarly ‘far right’ (ie if he does not want to join Cohen, as opposed to expose cohen’s smears of the British Muslim community)”

But, of course, Cohen isn’t smearing the British Muslim population. Edgar, the dishonest luvvy tosser that he is, is falsely implying precisely that. As are you.

Go on. Get out your copy of What’s Left. Find the part of it where Nick Cohen says:

“I’m not just talking about Islamist groups here, you know. I think all Muslims are fascists and suicide bombers in waiting. It isn’t the political doctrine of Islamism that’s the issue. It is Muslims and their religion”.

You won’t find it, because he doesn’t say it.

And you know he doesn’t say it.

Which is why you, and Edgar, have to invent this desperate lie.

For the record. Here’s the passage in What’s Left Edgar must be referring to

With commendable frankness, the Islamists described how they were against every aspect of post-Enlightenment modernity. Yussuf al-Ayyeri, one of Osama bin Laden’s closest associates, who went under the nom de guerre Abu Muhammad, explained that all history was a ‘perpetual war between belief and unbelief’. By ‘belief’, he meant his version of Islam, which ‘annuls all other religions and creeds’ and must destroy them or be destroyed. The past century had seen repeated assaults on the faithful, he explained. The first form of unbelief to attack was ‘modernism’, which led to the emergence in the lands of Islam of states based on ethnic identities and territorial dimensions rather than religious faith. The second was nationalism, which, imported from Europe, divided Muslims into Arabs, Persians, Turks and others. The third form of unbelief was socialism.
None of the above is to deny that Islamism has Islamic roots. Many careful scholars have written about its links to and departures from mainstream Muslim traditions. But this book is about the rich world’s liberal-left and how it can come to pander to its enemies and betray its friends. Looking at how Islamism continued the fascist traditions of the counter-Enlightenment shows why it should have been easy to oppose. Many in 2001 found opposition easy, but a part of the Left wiggled and waffled as it made excuses for the extreme right.

I’m afaid Edgar twisted it and had to twist it because an accurate account of my views wouldn’t have suited his case. When he was young incidentally, Edgar was an anti-fascist playwright. Now he can’t even give an honest account of critiques of Islamo-fascism.

‘It is absolutely clear, isn’t it…’

No. Honestly, it absolutely isn’t. I’m sure you have your reasons for believing this interpretation, but it’s convolutions are astounding (and incredibly tetchy and defensive). Shame Nick didn’t follow your advice and try to convince a court he was being defamed. Be very interesting to see what the result would have been.

DavidT Vs Demonstrative (maybe, but not very coherent)

Stopped on points. The only thing ‘demonstrative’ is demonstrating is that he/she hasn’t really got a clue what he/she is talking about. A weird jumble of false accusations and sixth form cliches.

Go back to CiF where your sort of nonsense has a (rapidly dwindling thankfully) audience. The folk here a bit more savvy.

Back on topic, a spot on post from Nick Cohen. Uncomfortable reading for many, but the truth often is.

No. Honestly, it absolutely isn’t

So, seriously, you think that all Edgar is saying is:

- Nick Cohen points out that Islamism has some connection to Islam

- Nick Cohen doesn’t think every Islamist in the world is a member of Jamaat-e-Islami

Because if that’s all he’s saying, it is a very uncontroversial point to make: one with which nobody would disagree.

If that’s the case, why does Edgar make these points at all. Presumably, Edgar himself accepts that this is so.

The truth of the matter, JC, is that what Edgar means is that Nick Cohen is smearing British Muslims in general, as part of the far right. That is certainly what “demonstrative” thinks he is saying.

But Nick Cohen is not saying that at all, is he.

And how good is Edgar at identifying the far right?

Not very: as he is active in the STWC, and speaks on platforms, alongside Azzam “Kaboom” Tamimi.

Hello latest troll who we must apparently feed!
“My tentative guess, however, is that Demos wouldn’t go near the BNP.”

decent telepathy working wonders again nick. and you wonder why the observer refuses to print barely coherent trash, based on your opinions as opposed to facts, like this.

Away from hypotheticals, don’t you think it means something that Demos did take part in IslamExpo but haven’t taken part in any BNP organised political event? Or have they?

The real problem, I suspect, is that telling people like Demos not to walk towards a microphone offered to them is like trying to convince your doggy that this bone is not ethically sourced…

the ’scare quotes’ are in fact inverted commas

That “objection” is in fact a collection of words.

‘The idea that all the ‘far left’ automatically backs Islamicism has no serious basis: see, for example (and I know Nick Cohen debated them), the Hands off the People of Iran campaign: http://www.hopoi.org Or indeed Shiraz Socialist.’

A minor quibble - I wouldn’t describe the Shiraz Socialist or HOPI folks as ‘far left’. They are strongly socialist, but humane with it, and not totalitarian-minded scum like real ‘far left’ groups. But other than that I’ve no real disagreement with you, Andrew.

Thermaland,

nice analogy.

I really get the feeling now that the Edgars and Milnes (and demonstratives), after a good couple of years, are now losing, and being seen to lose, the intellectual battle: see for example the battering Milne got in the comments on his IslamExpo CiF piece, which I don’t think would have been the case a year ago. It’s enough to make you feel positively optimistic. {strides off with a spring in his step}

For readers who don’t know Demos, it is a caricature New Labour think tank. Respected and respectable, its faults are the faults of conventional wisdom.

Blimey, to be condemned in such broad terms. I do like Nick Cohen’s Orwell act - he likes to see himself as forever the dissident. Romantic, isn’t it?

Of course, in a previous incarnation, Nick Cohen was a dissident against New Labour. Previously, that sentence would have omitted one word, thus:

“For readers who don’t know Demos, it is a New Labour think tank.”

Now it’s a caricature New Labour think tank.

I am not sure on what basis think tanks become “caricatures” according to Cohen, but Demos was very close to New Labour around ten years ago, when Mulgan went to work at No. 10. Times change though.

As for think tanks, does the Euston Group still live and breathe? I am waiting for the next installment of blurry You Tube videos.

Only at Harry’s Place would Nick Cohen be taken seriously.

How’s Hasan Butt, Nick?

Yes, and Dean Godson is a bit right-wing!

Fascinating Benji.

Any more pearls of wisdom?

Nick Cohen and Harry’s Place did a massive disservice to themselves in supporting the Iraq war. Everything you say about the Muslim Brotherhood and the insidiousness of Islamist groupings in British society is bang on the money. But that you supported the war makes me want to puke. Shame really.

Suzi wants to puke because a genocidal fascist dictator was overthrown. Rather revealing….of Suzi….

Personally I’d like to hear a bit more from ‘me’.

Once he’s finished having a wank at his Madrid train bomb footage.

Poor Suzy. Who was it you felt most upset at losing? Bet it was Uday!

The final possibility is that Mr Harrington and all those like him are not confronting radical Islam or offering it tea, sympathy and engagement but negotiating with it. If so, Demos needs to say what is on the table. Women’s rights? The Jews, the gays, the apostates, the free thinkers, the secularists, the liberals, the democrats? The Muslim Brotherhood is a subtle and skilled organisation as well as a repellent one. No one deals with it without paying a price.

Good point.

I’d have to say, though, that that is what our economic and political elites are up to.

Auctioning off our hard-won freedoms to purchase temporary social peace and to shore-up energy supplies and the bottom line.

The current form of capitalism is slowly consuming us.

One point I’d add: there seems incredibly litttle awareness in the UK of what Islamicist groups actually did during the (not wholly finished) Algerian Civil War. From the GIA, the GSPC, to Al-Qeada in Maghreb, they have carried out some of the most horrific murders of intellectuals, secularists, leftists, feminists, trade unionists, that one can imagine. Not to mention mass terror in the countryside, towns, and cities against anyone and everything not of their liking.

That’s quite correct.

However, I don’t think such facts will disuade leftists.

In my opinion, they may even draw sustenance from such events.

Why?

Because most leftists, especially those of the Madeline Bunting and Milne type, have embarked on a protracted form of suicide.

Deep down, their sense of moral anomie is pushing them to end it, and so the flirtation with ideologies, individuals and groups that would, were they were ever to gain power, kill them all is deemed attractive and desirable.

They remind me of those desperate gay men who continually flirt with and bring home ‘roughtrade’, until an instance of such strangles them and kills them.

I like the current and quite accurate Wikipedia entry on Seamus Milne

His political stance is of the far-left, particularly of the kind associated with George Galloway. His latest pet projects include being a vocal supporter of organisations including but not restricted to: Hamas, Hizbullah, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

But that you supported the war makes me want to puke. Shame really.

The fact you’d rather have the genocidal (200,000 gassed) Saddam in power against the wishes of the Iraqi people (76%) makes me want to puke. Shame really.

‘They remind me of those desperate gay men who continually flirt with and bring home ‘roughtrade’, until an instance of such strangles them and kills them’.

Bloody hell. Glad John P is keeping the far left sexual compulsion theme going.

Remember though, I made these connections first.

Can anyone here confirm or deny the suggestion, made on the former Archbishop’s website I believe, that the artist formerly known as Rowan has been formerly ordained as a Zaydiyah cleric, and is at this very moment on ziyarah to the The Unimpeachable One’s shrine in Karak?

If the rumours do turn out to be true, I’d like to be the first to welcome Zayd bin Dafydd into the glorious Brotherhood of Dhu’l-Fiqaar, may his path to ‘aql be resplendant with the bloodied entrails of Yazid bin Shaytaan. Our colleague Ali bin Hussayn Kahin, also known as Nick Cohen, should support Bin Dafydd’s timely reversion rather than denying the atrocities committed in Damaam over the weekend.

Nick and David T - You are completely and utterly brilliant. You know, the message might even get through eventually…..

How’s the Guardian internship going then, Benji?

I’ve got a genuine question / concern that I need to air here.

I work for a trade union organisation. We note with concern the large disparities in terms of employment, income and health between, specifically, the Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities in the UK and most other ethnic groups (however they are defined, albeit not alway unproblematically).

We believe (and have anecdotal evidence) that this exclusion is reflected in the workplace too, with concentrations of Pakistani and Bangladeshi workers concentrated in low paid, low skilled and highly exploitative workplaces. Often employed by Bangladeshi and Pakistani bosses, it also has to be said.

As part of a growing emphasis within the movement to target union organising among ‘vulnerable workers’, its an objective of ours to work with groups within the Muslim community to both drive up awareness of trade unionism and get employment rights advice out to excluded groups of workers.

We’ve seen links being established, for example, between the TUC and MCB on this agenda. Also, we were recently invited to participate at IslamExpo. We took the opportunity and held an employment rights advice drop in centre on one of the days at IslamExpo.

Are we wrong to engage with these organisations in order to improve access to low paid and exploited workers in the Bangla and Pakistani communities? How do we ensure that we’re not being hoodwinked by the likes of Jamaat or MB?

Isn’t it a case that constructive engagement on a narrow remit (e.g. workplace organisation and employment rights) with those that you don’t necessarily share an agenda with in order to meet a productive and progressive aim is actually not only justified but desirable?

It appears that Nick Cohen believes that the dominant concensus is something other then the bilge he writes. I don’t see it myself. It reminds me very much of ’silent majority’ rhetoric. Nick Cohen’s views ARE the mainstream.

Very unfortunately.

How many people for example publicly reject the idea that there is a ‘crisis of multi-culturalism’ (as opposed to a failure to be multi-cultural). Not many. I’d like to be introduced to some establishment multi-culturalists so I could line up with them. Any suggestions?

You’re lined up with Azzam Tamimi John, and for a while now.
Stick to the racists you know.

This is the one and only post I’m going to contribute to this string of inanities. First of all it’s good to know that the main price we seem to have to pay for ‘dealing with the MB’ is the wrath of the commentariat and the hysterical blog-postings of people whose world seems to not extend far beyond their computer screen (I mean whoever put up that ‘genocidal’ ranting post–please, get a life; get a grip. You’re going to faint. Is this the most excitement you’ve had in a while? do you need a quiet moment, or for your Mommy to come pick you up? have you learnt too many big words for one week?). Second, we’re a research organisation–that’s what we do. Research. We’re interested in the links between violent and non-violent Islamism. We know they exist and we also know that they’re hugely problematic. How do you suggest we carry out this research without talking to anyone involved? Shall we all sit back and rant and rave, and disappear up our own ideological assumptions or shall we have a go at a real fight? no, not as you suggest by promoting one brand of extremism against another, but by investigating, by looking for allies, by looking for people who we might influence, who might be a weak link in a chain about which we harbour few illusions. By talking, bluntly, to all those people who were in the big hall at IslamExpo. I realise it’s far more comfortable to preach to, er, the converted as it were, but we thought it would be interesting to engage with people who might disagree and find out what they think. So, what’s interesting here is that doing this places you beyond the pale of the so called Liberal intelligentsia. Demos is carrying out research on this–despite the affirmations on various sites, none of it is clear cut; It is a fast-evolving and extremely fluid set of ideological and tactical relationships and for all sorts of reasons (community safety and cohesion, operational and security imperatives, issues of fairness, justice and human rights) they’re worth investigating. And when we were asked to participate, we insisted on a large, public platform to debate Demos’ research on Islamism in exchange for agreeing to organise a single session in a two-day long academic/specialist seminar. That’s not about pandering, or appeasement, it’s about gathering the material we need to be effective in combating extremism.

crisis of multi-culturalism - rise in communitarian politics, including massively increased votes for BNP, including in areas where they don’t even bother to campaign.

failure to be multi-cultural - a Muslim Brotherhood Caliphate would indeed be a paradise for us dhimmis.

Nick Cohen is a brilliant writer. Have now learned a lot about Demos, none of it edifying.

Catherine,
Did you research where the money from Islam Expo goes, and whether Hamas are involved?

Well said, Catherine, and thank you for taking the time to respond to the hysterical and self-referential accusations on this site. I hope the engagement was a productive one.

Well, Tim, the amusing part is that johng’s SWP are now considered to be Islamophobes by the Respect Respect bunch, what with Lindsey German’s comments that Muslim extremists have gone to join that party. It’s amazing how truly pathetic the SWP are at the business of politics; first Lindsey alienates true progressives by veering right with her now infamous remark about gay rights being a shibboleth, then veers sharply left, insinuating RR is chockful of Muslim extremists and Galloway is a homophobe, in the process alienating everyone apart from hard-core SWPers. She doesn’t seem to realise that in the era of the Internet, blogs and search engines, everyone now has a long memory.

P.

This is the one and only post I’m going to contribute to this string of inanities.

Yes, how good of you to show up and post a comment that fails to address a single one of Nick Cohen’s points.

Stringer Bell, you raise an important dilemma. Personally I think there is a case for constructive engagement, but of course it’s important not to be duped into allying yourself with the enemies of progressive ideals. It’s a difficult line to hold, because even people who hold retrogressive views can be the victims of injustice. My suggestion is to carry on doing your work in an open minded but alert way and not to believe too much of what you read on Harry’s Place. Look to other sources and trust your own instincts.

Is that the real Catherine Fieschi? I ask because if so, that’s an incredibly poor response, dealing with none of Nick Cohen’s points. Instead it does the Milne/Bunting trick of selectively choosing the worst remarks made by your opponents and categorising all your opponents in that manner? (I mean, “Mommy to come pick you up”? That’s just embarrassingly juvenile.)

Her point about research is a strawman; noone here argued that Demos shouldn’t involved itself in research. The argument was about taking part in public debates stacked to give credence to a particular political party’s point of view - in this case, debates which pit Islamists vs. non-Muslims. How exacrly is a public debate “research”? If Demos want to hear the views of non-violent Islamists, there are many ways to do this that don’t involve going to jamborees organized by them and taking part in debates on their terms.

P.

@Catherine Fieschi: “….(I mean whoever put up that ‘genocidal’ ranting post–please, get a life; get a grip. You’re going to faint. Is this the most excitement you’ve had in a while? do you need a quiet moment, or for your Mommy to come pick you up? have you learnt too many big words for one week?…”

Is this REALLY the language of the respected director of the respected think tank Demos?

I’m utterly amazed at how infantile it is.

I’m utterly amazed at how infantile it is.

I’m glad I’m not the only one suffering from vicarious embarrassment re-reading it.

P.

Her first point is that

it’s good to know that the main price we seem to have to pay for ‘dealing with the MB’ is the wrath of the commentariat and the hysterical blog-postings of people whose world seems to not extend far beyond their computer screen

Well, no, that’s not the main price, as Nick Cohen has pointed out to you. If you had actually engaged with his argument.

The second point is an extended straw man, as Paul M points out.

She comes across as incredibly sanctimonious and patronising.

Great piece by Nick Cohen, very good indeed.

My only issue is the semantic one about use of the terms Left and Right, but on the substantive points he’s absolutely spot-on.

Paul.
The sad thing about JohnG is that he was all over the web defending Tamimi despite his racism and anti semitism, even though he himself didn’t join Respect.
Of course when the split came, Tamimi endorsed Galloway in the london Elections, refused to touch any of the Left List and German made her extremists have gone off with Galloway comment.
Thus JohnG is left with a record of pandering to anti semitism and racism, all for nothing.

Well, if the leader of Demos can only respond with things like “get a life” and to pretend that active, credence-giving engagement is the same as “research”, then it’s no wonder it’s in such a muddle, with such a dearth of intelligence at the helm. The left really is screwed.

Dr. Fieschi wrote:

“…but by investigating, by looking for allies, by looking for people who we might influence, who might be a weak link in a chain about which we harbour few illusions.

I confess that I’m not too familiar with the Demos’ methodology, but they hardly come over as a Think Tank or of being able to engage with the stronger arguments in the article?

Dr. Fieschi commits an elementary fault by firstly insulting her interlocutors then next taking up a condescending attitude, it’s hard to see that such an organisation, if Peter Harrington and Dr. Fieschi are prime examples, would have any chance of influencing extreme Islamists let alone building “allies”.

But it could well be that Demos has been subcontracted by HMG or similar to strike up relationships and network with these extreme Islamists, no matter the cost?

I can’t help feeling that Demos seriously underestimate the ideological and religious commitment of many of these extreme Islamists, as has been demonstrated it is Islamists that tend to win people over, with their utopian view of the world, and not the other way around.

How extraordinary for someone like Ms Fieschi, who wishes to demonstrate that she, at least has a life, to choose for her one and only contribution, to “engage” on the most puerile, lowest denominator of all the possible mode