Harry’s Place

We have a zero-tolerance policy on antisemitic postings or any other form of hate speech

LOL. Complete disconnect from reality.

Juan Cole called. Said this is all a misinterpretation.

What an absolute fucking shower. I never read that cesspit anyway. Full of all sorts of people who think they’re terribly clever-clever, when all they’re doing is recycling standard liberal boilerplate, occasionally with an added spicy dash of conspiricism or anti-semitism.

Glad you got her sacked. Congrats. But what you say is true - we all know that some on the left are becoming increasingly inured to noticing racism of this sort. A problem.

So is this creep banned completely? Or just “above the line”?

Without wishing to rush to the defence of the Guardian, Matt Seaton’s explanation is that the department that decides who posts on CiF is completely separate from the comment moderation department.

If that explanation (plausible or not) is accepted, then it is a little harder to argue that people on the Guardian are inured to racism. Her racist comments were deleted, and her 2 articles written for CiF don’t seem to contain any (overt) wingnuttery. One was about an Iranian filmmaker, the other about drugs in Afghanistan - certainly nothing that would ring any alarm bells.

Or am I missing something?

Here’s something about Tehrankid77 I just found while googling:

“Soraya Tehrani is a pseudonym. The author is an Iranian woman currently working as an accountant for a children’s charity in London. She comments on Cif using the name tehrankid77.”

I wonder which charity she works for, and whether they’d continue to want someone who is so full of hatred and racism?

>It just won’t have registered with them that a good chunk of her postings are filled with bile about of Jewish world domination.

Really?

I think this is a little nieve.

There are many at the Guardian who agree with her, or they would not have hired her.

Do you think tht you know what she’s written, but they don’t.

Come on.. wake up.. stop making excuses!

I competely accept Matt’s explanation. Tehrankid77 evidently just didn’t strike anybody as a racist.

That may be because they never read her most racist posts because they’d been deleted. Or it may have just been that her racism didn’t registed with whoever found her an exciting “voice”.

That’s not how she appeared to me. Tehrankid77 struck me as a hysterical near illiterate racist lunatic.

But perhaps I’m just more tuned in to this sort of stuff.

David -

I competely accept Matt’s explanation. Tehrankid77 evidently just didn’t strike anybody as a racist.

That may be because they never read her most racist posts because they’d been deleted. Or it may have just been that her racism didn’t registed with whoever found her an exciting “voice”.

That doesn’t quite follow. Surely, if you completely accept his explanation, then only the former option is valid?

As he argues

If we had been aware of Tehrankid77’s record of posting, we would never have accepted her as a contributor

Or it may have just been that her racism didn’t registed with whoever found her an exciting “voice”.

Indeed. I’d wager the staff at the Guardian considers Iranians to be a victim of the US and associates. Therefore this woman couldn’t possibly be a racist - she’s Iranian (victim).

I wonder which charity she works for, and whether they’d continue to want someone who is so full of hatred and racism

Maybe the reason she posts under a pseudonym, is because she doesnt want to “aggravate” her employer

I wonder if that rings familiar with someone?

Without wishing to rush to the defence of the Guardian, Matt Seaton’s explanation is that the department that decides who posts on CiF is completely separate from the comment moderation department.

Having worked for a multimedia arm of a major British telecommunications company, I’d just like to say, hahahahahahahahaha!

That said, credit where credit’s due. My hope is that this indicates a similar sea-change to that which I hope Bunglawala’s latest comments indicate. There would appear to still be a realization of where the pale extend to, even if the dividing fence is low and sometimes obscured by vegetation. As David says:

Or it may have just been that her racism didn’t registed with whoever found her an exciting “voice”.

Did this same individual find her “fascinating”?

Kudos to Matt. He realised that a mistake had been made , he realises that the vetting procedure needs improving and his approach is to be welcomed.

I know the following to be true. In 2006 the BBC Messageboards were moderated by an outside company. I have it in a letter frm the BBC.

Is CiF moderated by an outside company? Is this why the two departments were physically separated? Doesn’t this mean that there could be some rogue Moderators who either don’t understand antisemitism - or ignore it?

I also know for a fact that the Moderation of the BBC messageboards was supposed to be to the BBC Editorial standard. I don’t believe that this was enforced because the moderation was by this outside company. A test ought to be, if Editorial standards are the measure, “Would the BBC/Guardian publish this in their paper or website as a news commentary?”

The antisemitism at CiF has grown to the point where its so commonplace that the milder stuff (according to judgement) is left there because of the volume. “Surely, so many people can’t be wrong?” must be some criteria used to let things pass. They become anaesthetised towards it.

Oh, and congratulations to David Toube for finally getting someone sacked from the Guardian, but after miserably failing in his attempts to oust Seamus Milne, Neil Clark, Neil Clarks wife et al, he has had stoop to getting a lowly blogger the sack.

Well done David, what a big man.

“Well done David, what a big man”

Abou Diaby, whoever you are, I very much doubt you’ve ever been on the receiving end of racism, though I strongly suspect you given more than your fair share of it.

Both my suggestions are possible.

Tehrankid77, as you can see, writes in what to a sensible person, would appear to be a semi coherent hateful scrawl. Her comments are delivered in a style which, in the days of pen and ink, was known as “green ink”.

Now, when I see somebody write like that, my expectation is that they’re a nutter. This is precisely the sort of style that I associate with those who ramble on about plots and conspiracies.

I suspect that it was this style which caught the eye of her commissioners at the Guardian.

My guess is that they read her pieces, and thought “here’s the authentic voice of the true Persian: passionate, inspired, committed”, rather than “uh oh - a nutter!”.

That person might well never have seen the “SUPER-masters in Tel Aviv” warblings. But even if they’d never seen a deleted post, all the warning signs should have been there.

The Guardian has done this before, incidentally: with the Muslim Brotherhood activist, Faisal Bodi. He had previously written commissioned articles for the print edition of the Guardian, about women’s refuges, where he described Sharia as a “sharp sword” and continued:

Take women’s refuges. Not without cause do we view them with suspicion and mistrust. Refuges tear apart our families. Once a girl has walked in through their door, they do their best to stop her ever returning home. That is at odds with the Islamic impulse to maintain the integrity of the family. Instead of being a kneejerk response, we want refuges to be last resorts, where victims can turn after all efforts to resolve the dispute have been exhausted.

Because they are founded on the assumption that religion is responsible for women’s misery, some refuges are inherently Islamophobic. One refuge in the Midlands is currently the subject of an industrial tribunal because it sacked a Muslim worker who had distributed religious literature. Muslim refuge workers report the preponderance of homosexuality among residents and staff.

The thing is, there is a certain tendency among white liberals (and, of course, Islamists, and Islamophobes as well) to read a piece like that which, from a Christian, Jew or athiest, they’d find repellent , but take it as par for the course for a person they’d regard as a real, authentic Muslim. It is noble savagery.

Nevertheless, they also missed the warning signs with Faisal Bodi, and had him back as a CiF blogger.

What finally caused his sacking was that he made the mistake of calling Sunny a “coconut”. That’s right, a racist comment at a “brown person”, they finally recognised as the mark of a bigot and a loon.

Abou Diaby,

Please re-read the post, David T didn’t get anyone “sacked”, instead the Guardian stopped commissioning articles from a vicious racist

now of course, if you feel that the Guardian should be publishing anti-Jewish racism then probably nothing that anyone writes here will change your mind on the matter, but that’s a different subject

It’s been unfairly said that Zuzana Clark is the daughter of what Neil would have called a quisling. Had she been an Iraqi.

This is not fair. She is the daughter of a high ranking party official.

Milne, however, is a semi-competent former editor of a Stalinist rag which supported the imvasion which installed ZC’s father, as well as Czechoslovakia in 1968 and, whilst Milne was there, Afghanistan..

And, leave Tilda Swinton alone. Just leave her alone.

Actually, it has happened three times. “We rock the boat” etc.

I might add this to the post.

David T

I hope you’ll meditate on what you have written and consider the bigotry displayed in your own comments section. There are many people who have disregarded Harrys Place because of it.

David — will you be moderating the bigots in your comments thread more carefully now? I know for a fact that there are many people who stay away from Harry’s Place because of the bigots and racist loons who frequent your fireside chats. What say you?

Matt Seaton said

If we had been aware of Tehrankid77’s record of posting, we would never have accepted her as a contributor

David, you then said

I competely accept Matt’s explanation

Before later writing

Now, when I see somebody write like that, my expectation is that they’re a nutter. This is precisely the sort of style that I associate with those who ramble on about plots and conspiracies. I suspect that it was this style which caught the eye of her commissioners at the Guardian.

This really doesn’t make sense.

You accept Seaton’s explanation (which is that the commissioners were unaware of her postings) and yet, simultaneously, you are arguing that it is those same postings that caught the eye of the commissioners.

Eh?

Actually, scotch that.

I’ve just re-read what you wrote, and seen that you argue it is her style, and not her postings, that caught they eye of the commissioners.

Apologies.

Mark, I’d say David is attempting to maintain a sense of professional decorum with Matt Seaton and CiF. I can appreciate this. Beyond the standard I/P and America-related threads, it can actually offer some good comment-based coverage.

I don’t loose sight of the fact that I/P and America-related threads are mired in the overspill from seething cesspits of political filth. As a even a partially-moderated forum, CiF bears a fair amount of responsibility for this. As I hope they will now take more seriously.

Note, David said, “But perhaps I’m just more tuned in to this sort of stuff”.

No but seriously. I think that if you look for this sort of stuff, it becomes easier to spot.

If you didn’t know about (say) the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or general conspiracy theorising, you’d treat the views of Holocaust Deniers, racial “biologists”, Jewish Power theorists, and all sorts of nuttiness, as just some neutral presentation of a possible theory.

What should give the game away is that (a) these people are usually nutters and malcontents (b) and they show it in the way they write.

Yes, they do miss the warning signs. Some of the warning signs are apparent to those who take a close interest in the ins and outs of extreme politics. But not everybody train-spots about this sort of thing. So I think failing to miss this sort of stuff is, quite possibly, just an innocent error.

What isn’t an innocent error, however, is the failure to pick up on the tone of the discussion. A sensible person can pick up on the rantings of a nutter. They just have a particular style. That’s why fascist parties never really manage to rebrand. The bile just can’t be buttoned up.

You only miss that sort of thing if, for example, you think it natural from the sort of people you’re dealing with. That’s what I think we’re seeing here. Tehrankid77, Faisal Bodi, and Dipazier Aslam all acted like nutters. But whoever commissioned them thought: “ah - passionate, angry, committed - that’s a genuine Muslim.

Or, alternatively, if you share the perspective of these late posters.

Getting it done while the media’s temporarily distracted from bashing Brown by covering the US bailout bill shows the sort of political nous that’s been severely lacking recently. Wonder if it was Peter’s idea?

I recall being systematically censored on CiF during a thread about oligarchs in Russia as one poster was pushing the National Bolshevik line that Jews had been behind both, whilst these claims remained. Ferkin’ morons.

But whoever commissioned them thought: “ah - passionate, angry, committed - that’s a genuine Muslim.

Sadly, for those who aren’t, that’s how they’re seen. They need a friendly dictator to rule them.

Okay, have we determined why Benji was sacked?

CiF is possibly the best exercise of freedom of speech next to Guido. In both cases, really nasty people (including me) are allowed to tell it like they see it. If a rabid anti-Semite wishes to express a pornographic opinion, we as adults should take what we can from it to get a better view of the real world and be better able to cope with it. Turning your back on all the hate in the world is ultimately futile. Only by facing, and then understanding evil can humanity hope to contain it. If I, who am slightly to the right of Genghis Khan, can understand this, all you be-cardiganed sandal-footed Lefties with inately superior intellects should see it too. One does not defeat evil by pretending it doesn’t exist. Pause a minute, and reflect on the phrase. “The light shone in the Darkness, and the Darkness knew it not”

This is a tendency common to certain white liberals, Islamists, and out and out Islamophobes. They read a piece that, coming from a Christian, Jew, athiest - even Hindu or Sikh - they’d find repellent. However, if it comes from a Muslim, they treat it as the mark of authenticity.

No kidding?

Beyond the standard I/P and America-related threads, it can actually offer some good comment-based coverage.
Their ill judgment does extend into other class war related areas, such as the ghastly post by Tanya Gold on smashing Oxbridge the other day, linked to in a post on HP, and commented on by norm.

It is pretty cool that David T busted CiF’s ass. They’ve had it coming for a while. I’d like to see a more broadly circulated mia culpa though. An email to a relatively obscure blogger doesn’t cut it.

Good lord. What a dreadful article from that Gold woman. Pathetic. One wonders if she is trying to excuse her “low 2:2″. I had loads of fun, and I didn’t even go to a proper college (it was founded in the nineteenth century - very infradig). She went to Merton - no excuse.

“Tehrankid77, Faisal Bodi, and Dipazier Aslam all acted like nutters.”

Really? I thought they were terribly sassy. You should add it to the article - it’s a pattern of behaviour!

To be fair to the Guardian, and in particular to certain staff there, CiF has significantly improved its moderation in recent months.

Nevertheless, as CiF is Guardian not Socialist Worker, the onus should be on them to proactively edit their product - rather than upon concerned individuals and monitoring groups needing to waste time and expense upon finding and flagging up dodgy content.

Tehrankid77 evidently just didn’t strike anybody as a racist.
… it may have just been that her racism didn’t registed with whoever found her an exciting “voice”.

That’s a tautology: she didn’t strike them as racist = her racism didn’t register. That’s not an explanation, only a statement of an identity.
The reason WHY she didn’t strike them as racist is that this rag is full of people who spout racism but will not admit that they can be racist - after all, they are good and honourable people, they say so themselves so it must be true; and furthermore, a non-white ‘can’t be racist’ by definition.
That doesn’t mean that they are not racist.

OT: Depth perception unecessary for women, apparently.

That’s a tautology: she didn’t strike them as racist = her racism didn’t register.

No, that’s a fallacy. A tautology may be “a prejudiced racist”.

I don’t know if anyone else cringed at this antisemitic rantette by Barbara Ellen in last Sunday’s Observer. It makes me anxious not to buy anything from the Guardian stable again, Matt Seaton or not.

Criticised for not also playing Palestine, and for costing more to protect than President Bush, McCartney could only blather pompously about ‘helping the peace process in my own small way [blahhh] talking to Palestinians and Israelis, [drone] finding out for myself what the situation is’. Oh the agonising stupidity and arrogance of the man! What next - an appearance in bin Laden’s next cave video. ‘Come on, Osama, pull up a tasselled cushion and let al-Qaeda give peace a chance!’

At first, I thought, this isn’t McCartney’s fault. Such is the Fab Four’s influence that, just like the Queen smells fresh paint everywhere she goes, all Macca hears is Beatles worship: ‘We love you Paul, your music heals us’ and all that suck-up. Hence the possibility that McCartney genuinely believes that the Israel-Palestine conflict can be helped with a quick burst of ‘Yesterday’ and a cheeky thumbs-up.

Then a dark thought occurred. Was Tel Aviv just more evidence that McCartney is the most pussy-whipped music icon ever? A former Beatle who lets his birds boss him around and tell him what to do.

Think about it. It was lovely Linda who turned Paul on to vegetarianism. Then there was all that rolling about with seals with Heather. Now he has a Jewish girlfriend, the glamorous Nancy Shevell, he’s suddenly playing concerts in Israel and ‘finding out for myself what the situation is’.

Suspicious? I think so. Let us pray that I’m wrong.

It’s the world Jewish conspiracy writ small.

Blimey, you have spent a lot of time discussing CiF, for someone who apparently doesn’t read it!

Rather, it is a publication that believes that the essential Muslim is an angry, hateful ranter.

This is not true of HP, of course, who regularly discusses moderate Islam, rather than just the nasty stuff, and has many moderate Muslim writers contributing. Ho ho.

Here’s another one of tehrankid’s pearls, this one a comment on her own recent thread, where she respond to another poster’s comment:

• tehrankid77
Sep 12 08, 12:50pm
.~Ironclaws…
Have you mustered up the courage to comment on your nations holocaust denial conferences yet?
check the following link for yourself and perhaps you can answer some of Ahmadinejaad’s reasonable questions… He does NOT deny the holocaust….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykd-syzZ4ZY

Yeah, she seems to think that Ahmadinejad has “reasonable questions” about the Holocaust…

I heard the word coconut being used in letters to Q-News on at least two occasions (I can’t remember having heard it used in an article). I wrote letters pointing out the racist nature of the term, but never had them printed. As a white convert to Islam, I found it particularly offensive that “white on the inside” implied insincerity, i.e. a Muslim was brown, the enemy was white. I suspect that the term is common among Asians, but I recall seeing a black character on Brookside called Mick saying something like “nobody’s going to call me a coconut”, pointing out that it meant brown on the outside, white on the inside.

(The opposite is a cappuccino, meaning white at the top and brown below, meaning someone with a superficial liberal stance who turns conservative once you get to know them, or marry them.)

I have checked the comment threads in CiF today; there are no slews of antisemitism and racism that is suggested takes place.

I think its natural that HP and its commenters would not like the liberal left views expressed there - whether they be expressed over the US financial crisis or any other matter. But that is a separate matter.

There is nostalgic element here; some still see the Guardian as “their paper” even though they have grown away from leftism. But the Guardian has a job to do, a brand to protect, a function to perform.

Conservatives, neocons, Decents, naturally gravitate to the Times or the Telegraph, the Spectator, or other online publications more to their liking; there is no utility in fussing over the Guardian when you are going to consistently disagree with the political views expressed there - unless, of course, you are paid by them to do that.

I think its natural that HP and its commenters would not like the liberal left views expressed there

You think the default position of the liberal left is anti semitism?

you guys sure love censorship.

David T, Congrats for the Islamofascist ’scalp’…but fuck-it…you are quite the anorak!

Mark,

No. I think the reality is that most commenters here do not like a whole gamut of liberal left views, so they are not going to like the Guardian anyway. Its a mismatch. As regards antisemitism and racism, well, I have checked the comments at CiF today, and I have not found any yet.

As regards Davis T’s comments on stereotyping Muslims and only talking about the extreme elements, surely folk can detect the irony there?

Think about it. It was lovely Linda who turned Paul on to vegetarianism.

Just leave her alone….OK! Linda Mc Cartney on tambourines was the real talent behind ‘Wings’.

quisquis

Oh deeply shocking! To surmise that McCartney may be influenced by his girlfriend? My God! Whatever next? It’s an antisemitic conspiracy!

Racist and anti-semitic viewpoints should be expressed and argued against. Of course in a free society it is for the publications to decide ultimately what to print. But where you have a national newspaper I think they should reflect the opinions of their readership. The problem with something like a blog is of course that a small minority can post so much as to appear as a large minority or even a majority .

I think one should realise of course that what I would call illegitimate racism will overlap with legitimate genetics i.e. racists will make use of facts form genetic science. Similarly anti semites will make use of legitimate public policy arguments e.g. that it is not in our interests to sacrifice blood or treasure in defence of Israelis.

It’s better, so far as is practical, to have free debate and have these matters aired.

I think another benefit of free debate is that the victims of racism and anti-semitism are forced to address issues within their own communities e.g. Jewish exclusivity or absent fathers in the African-Caribbean community which will just get ignored if we try to stifle debate.

I must say I have changed my view on this. Some years ago, I was all for stifling debate, but several examples of Police forces using “hate laws” to try and stifle legitimate debate over bogus asylum seekers and the like have caused me to revise my opinion.

I now see the absolute necessity of defending free speech, even when it involves unpleasant views being expressed.

I agree with McCartney’s decision to visit Israel.
However, suggesting he might be influenced by his Jewish girlfriend in the decision is not antisemitic. I mean, blimey, so what if he was?

David T highlights the racist remarks of a blogger to the Guardian, to which they agree and sack the said blogger, and you claim he did this because he doesn’t like the liberal left?

Why do you believe anti semitism is the default position of the liberal left?

As regards antisemitism and racism, well, I have checked the comments at CiF today, and I have not found any yet.

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Speaking of moonbats…

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2911

Does McCartney still believe we should “Give Ireland Back to the Irish”?

That one doesn’t normally figure in his set these days!

But then do Jefferson Starship/Airplane still do “Motherf*ckers Up Against the Wall”?

Mark

My comments were more general, not specifically aimed at David T, although I don’t think the Guardian could be described as his natural paper of choice. I do not believe antisemitism is the default position of the liberal left as I have said. The vast majority of comments at CiF are not antisemitic or racist.

Why would you make that point in response to David T successfully highlighting racism? Did you not read the post?

When did David T claim that the vast majority of comments are racist?

You think David T harping back to a time when racist commentators didn’t slip through the net is outdated and a sign of shifting to the right?

Benjamin, I now understand why they call you a troll.

Speaking of moonbats…

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2911

No need to worry, alex.

These are fringe idiots who are already a laughing stock in the lawmaking body. Not unlike George Galloway.

Mark

Of course its good when a racist is barred. However, David then made generalisations that are somewhat ironic to say the least. Moreover, some commenters clearly think CiF is more full of antisemitism that it actually is; the vast majority of comments are not antisemitic or racist. I also dispute quisquis comments regarding Barbara Ellen in the Observer.

Moreover, some commenters clearly think CiF is more full of antisemitism that it actually is

Maybe “above the line” preference has something to do with it. CiF not only tolerated racist shit, they gave it a platform. Cardinal sin.

Yusuf Smith The opposite is a cappuccino, meaning white at the top and brown below, meaning someone with a superficial liberal stance who turns conservative once you get to know them, or marry them.

Hi Yusuf. What would I care about her politics if she has money.

David T. Thank you for your efforts. I am banned from CI(F). (I see it as a mark of excellence). No explanation was given. I assume that it may have something to do with the way I write CI(F).. But I also castigate the looney left there as well.

Unacceptable the way Matt explained things. CI(F) has access to all TeheranKid’s postings going back 2 years now and if they didn’t know, it is because they didn’t want to know. Her article about the drugs from Afghanistan was anti western and that was all they wanted to know. It was also very badly researched and contained incorrect FACTS. Many posters pointed this out. Not unusual on CI(F).

CI(F) is a cesspool.

It will remain so until The Guardian gets rid of Georgina Henry who is a malevolent influence there and Milne who is an apologist for ‘freedom fighting’.

Matt Seaton ’seems’ very personable but, improvement is coming by small drips. Not too significant. A few obvious anti semitic posters have disappeared but who knows if they just tired of their own vitriol or if CI(F) has realised what they are and ‘cancelled’ them.

Like Hasbara Buster.

The only positive thing that I can say about CI(F) is that it rediscovered my Zionism for me. Reading the posts gave me a ‘mind jerk’ and forced me to respond to the completely unfair, biased and bigoted attacks on Israel and Jews.

Reading other posts there. I am not alone and CI(F), Seth Freedman and the great Richard Silverstien in particular, can be proud of that at least.

Clap.

Benjamin Moreover, some commenters clearly think CiF is more full of antisemitism that it actually is; the vast majority of comments are not antisemitic or racist./b

It’s who they are.

Also banned by CiF.
Seems that the overwhelming anti israel anti american and sometimes anti semitic comments would be far less overhwhelming if CiF didn’t ban many of those posting contrary comments.
Wasn’t quite sure why i’d been banned, my contributions seeming generous, reasonable, in comparison to those that i was responding to.
Interesting to note how many others here have been banned; leaving no doubt in my mind that CiF want their overall ‘tone’ to be exactly what it is.
For the Guardian and CiF, this is both ideology and business; they are protecting their franchise, ugly as it is, by banning/censoring much of the opposition on CiF, and by choosing extreme moslems as columnists, though feigning ignorance of these writers’ extremism.
Scumbags.

David T - well done

And Matt Seaton acted promptly and correctly