Harry’s Place

I think you need to keep things in perspective David.
Salma is concerned about the denigration of women….

In Computer Games.

Coun Salma Yaqoob (Respect, Sparkbrook) said: “I am concerned about the denigration of women and levels of violence in computer games as a whole

http://www.birminghammail.net/2008/10/21/muslims-relief-as-game-shelved-97319-22079882/

If the women segregated themselves, then that is their choice, although not one I would agree with. It would be more worrying if segregation was forced; however, after a time, I suppose these things could become de facto rules.

“If the women segregated themselves, then that is their choice…”

Yes, but it’d be a choice based on the fact that they believe idiotic things. So it’d be an idiotic choice.

I wonder how many computer games Salma has played and to which ones in particular she is referring to?

So, the question is: did RESPECT itself segregate it, as David T’s headline suggests, or was it voluntary?

Benjamin,
You think they chose to sit at the back rather than the front?
I wonder if that was discussed.

Yet again David T gets put in his place over at Socialist Unity!

There is very little an org. can do if a group of women ask for seperate seating

Well it could refuse on the basis that as a left-wing organisation it is committed to equal rights between the sexes.

How was the segregation organised, by which I mean was there a sign as they came in saying “Men at the front, women at the back”, or were the seats set up normally and the audience members chose for themselves?

Tim

I don’t know. I was wondering whether it was voluntary act, at least one in accordance with their own custom, rather than a regulation enforced by RESPECT itself, which is what David’s headline suggests.

“So, the question is: did RESPECT itself segregate it, as David T’s headline suggests, or was it voluntary?”

It seems to me that this whole business of women being treated as second-class citizens shouldn’t focus on RESPECT but on religion, and Islam in particular. It’s odd that that doesn’t get a mention in David’s article.

What would have happened if a man sat at the back in the women’s bit and had a can of lager with him?

“The point being that by so doing more women are involved, who otherwise wouldn’t have come to the meetings, and would have been excluded by the sectarian secularism of those who prefer to reject women’s choices to be involved on their own terms, and insist that Muslim woomen should only take part in politics on terms acceptable to white atheists.”

As fine an example of someone trying to wrestle themselves from underneath a pile of nonsense as one might wish to read. But given the girations required of one by becoming aligned with Stop the War (sic) or RESPECT in the first place, minor.

Note: You cannot be a little bit of a sex worker.

Here is again in English:

“Without separating women from men a vital tenet of Islam – that women are divinely ordained by the Prophet in the Qu’ran to be inferior to men – would be violated and the devout women could not consent to turn up (but not of course speak) – at meetings so organised along lines acceptable to the kuffar, thereby effectively excluded in order to fulfil a goal of false equality, itself a fiction of western secular modernist thought.”

Next week: Marxism made simple for the busy Moslem woman.

Well, you’ve obviously not been to enough meetings David, the SWP and their various front groups STW, Respect (at the time) have been holding segregated meetings for muslims for at least 5 years. I suppose it is only natural that the Respect rump would carry this on. After all how can you defeat sexism except by erm pandering to sexism.

2 things equally worrying as women ‘choosing’ to be second class members of the meeting. Salma’s stupid idea that the US is to blame for the state of pakistani politics, and having to remove your shoes to attend.

On the main point, at least Andy Newman is honest enough to admit that the reason for segregating the meeting is that is the only way to hold such big things within the muslim community. He’s wrong, but at least that is the reason and not the crap of Ger Francis and others that women choose to be treated like shit, or the blustering of Ian Dudley Donovan that your anti-imperialist credentials have to be checked before you can dare to criticise Respect.

That the whole bunch of them are up for election to the respect national council (along with 55 other so-called socialists) should be enough proof that sexism will continue to be official Respect policy for the coming period.

It’s odd that that doesn’t get a mention in David’s article.

It’s implicit in the article and, more pertinantly, is something that is always being discussed on HP, so I don’t see the point in rehashing the arguments.

The issue is why is Respect, an apparent left-wing organisation, going along with it?

… depressing :-(

Martin,
Do women have the option of sitting at the front in these meetings?

The meeting was in a Mosque. I presume that might be the reason the sexes were segregated. Aren’t there separate entrances and areas for men and women in mosques ?

What would have happened if a man sat at the back in the women’s bit and had a can of lager with him?

And a bacon sandwich….

“The issue is why is Respect, an apparent left-wing organisation, going along with it?”

Er, because of their fawning ‘respect’ for members of a particular religion?

RESPECT isn’t left-wing. It revolves around very orthodox Islam and this strain of Islam isn’t left-wing.

“The meeting was in a Mosque. I presume that might be the reason the sexes were segregated. Aren’t there separate entrances and areas for men and women in mosques ?”

It is only a requirement in the prayer room so that men and women can think about prayer and not look at each other’s butts when prostrate. I don’t think non-prayer areas have this requirement. A mosque in Leicester recently allowed a guide dog into the mosque, provided it didn’t go into the prayer area.

“And a bacon sandwich….”

And a copy of Razzle.

As for Galloway’s comment about the Taliban. I don’t regard it as suggesting open support. It’s true, of course, generally, that folk do resist occupation, although in the Taliban’s case its a more complicated picture. They are a beastly group, but so are others (to varying degrees) that have had (or still have) tacit or open US backing.

There are some basic realities of the Afghanistan situation that do not favour the Americans. They are bound to repeat past mistakes - this I assume. US defeat there is pretty much inevitable; an intelligent reading of Afghan history indicates that strongly. Afghans can never be bought, they can only be hired for a while.

There’s an old German church in Fredericksburg Texas. It has separate entrances for men and women. The local hillbillies think it’s pretty damn funny as an example of their ancestors’ backwardness.

“As for Galloway’s comment about the Taliban. I don’t regard it as suggesting open support. It’s true, of course, generally, that folk do resist occupation, although in the Taliban’s case its a more complicated picture. They are a beastly group, but so are others (to varying degrees) that have had (or still have) tacit or open US backing”

Your ’storm in a teacup’ attitude Benjamin, has sunk to new levels here…

“Afghans can never be bought, they can only be hired for a while.”

How many of the Taliban are Afghan? And what proportion is Pakistani, Arab, etc?

This strain of Islam is left-wing, thats why these two groups make perfect bedfellows. Both groups are anti-capitalist, authoritarian, anti-American.

If men and women have to be separated, why dont the men offer to sit at the back?

“There’s an old German church in Fredericksburg Texas. It has separate entrances for men and women. The local hillbillies think it’s pretty damn funny as an example of their ancestors’ backwardness.”

In the mid-seventies my primary school still had the separate entrances for ‘Boys’ and ‘Girls’ - they weren’t used as such but the signs were kept up as a reminder of the school’s Victorian heritage.

Tim,

At the respect meeting in leeds, SWP women marshalled people into their seats, anyone had the option to sit where they wanted, -at the risk of destroying the meeting I guess. It was all a long time ago and the SWP now deny it happened.

We’ve had a couple of big public debates between AWL and extreme Islamist groups, before one their hacks started turfing women out of their seats and moving them to opposite side of the hall. AWL quickly put a stop to it and we told people to sit whereever they wanted, interestingly the women from the Islamist group chose to sit completely intermingled with not only the men from their group but also the awl men and women.

“If men and women have to be separated, why dont the men offer to sit at the back?”
Or men on one side and women on the other?

Benjamin is correct, in that any organization or meeting can arrange itself as its members or frequenters please.

Does anybody know whether the Jewish Bundists segregated the sexes at meetings? I assume that their socialist principles vitiated that. How different things are today. But in a multicultural society, socialism can also be multicultural. Even socialism that was once Troskyite.

As the Bundists were Jewish nationalist, so Respect is quasi- Ummahist, in that George, certainly, identifies uniquely with the suffering of the Ummah, Islam and Muslims as the new quasi-proletariat, less miserables de la terre. Curious.

I organised a few meetings at college which were attended by Muslim women wearing hijab. They did not segregate themselves. I think the women at this meeting with instructed or intimidated into sitting at the back by men at the mosque.

Respect what?

Certainly this RESPECT meeting does highlight some strains between the socialist feminist perspective, and those of faith in the mosque.

However, I guess it would be difficult to enforce desegregation in this situation over the objections of the women themselves. Clearly a decision was made to hold the meeting in a mosque, which doesn’t seem a particularly untoward development in itself.

“I think the women at this meeting with instructed or intimidated into sitting at the back by men at the mosque.”

But the whole religion, the whole attitude of men in this religion, is, when it comes to women, about instruction and intimidation. They were intimidated and instructed before they even stepped foot in the room. The fact that they were segregated in this room, in this particular meeting by this particular organisation, is a mere spot against the bigger picture, the bigger problem.

I think the women at this meeting with instructed or intimidated into sitting at the back by men at the mosque.

If that is the case, that would be of concern. I think a reliable account of the meeting would be useful, although I doubt that would be forthcoming.

“Clearly a decision was made to hold the meeting in a mosque, which doesn’t seem a particularly untoward development in itself.”

Can all political parties hold meetings in mosques? It seems like a worrying development when religion and politics co-mingle in this way.

Benjamin -

“Something is happening, Reg, something is actually happening!!!”

There are those that hold that segregation of the sexes in religious ritual is acceptable, that might or might not be the case, but here we are talking about about an apparent ‘mainstream’ political body, on the left no less, that seems to have no problem with segregation based on gender.

How can Respect now have the audacity to call itself a political party of the left?

This is another fine example how Gorgeous George spits in the eye of political activism and political history and lays down to be taken in the ass by his fanatical mates.

Respect, more like disrespect.

Segregation and desegregation are incompatible

Desegregation is easy to “enforce”. All you need to do is to be a black person and sit in a “whites only” area, or a woman and sit in a “men only” area.

Of course, segregationists might then respond by attacking you. But at least you’ll have made your point.

Looking at this photograph, curiously, there seems to be no woman who opposes segregation sitting in the men’s section at the front.

Either this means that every woman who attended the meeting was content that men sit at the front, or that women who oppose gender apartheid did not attend.

Which was it?

Dan

Not necessarily. I wouldn’t necessarily object to political meeting being held in churches, for example, if there was demand. These places are just where some folk congregate.

Zkharya: I was just about to pose a similar question- except to put it on the same footing as the Respect practice: Never mind the Bund, does anyone know whether any of the non Jewish socialist groups, in the past century which met, say, in the East End, had separate seating to cater for Orthodox Jews in the area?

Further to my above comment - things change so often one cant keep track. Is Galloway still with Disrespect?

RESPECT should probably change its name to DISGRACE

I’ll email David Rosenberg

I’d be very surprised if socialist groups have ever held gender or race segregated meetings.

“I wouldn’t necessarily object to political meeting being held in churches, for example, if there was demand. These places are just where some folk congregate.”

It would be very odd for a political party to hold a meeting in a church, although hiring a church-owned room somewhere may be acceptable. What worries me is that the mosque has decided to endorse a political party, which makes the mosque a political place and as such politically exclusive - reminiscent of the problems in Finsbury Park mosque.

The plan is that Birmingham Central Mosque will have an MP, come the general election.

The Bundists wouldn’t have dreamed of segregating sexes.

Non-Jewish socialist groups would have taken lead from Jewish socialists/anarchist/communists in East End - segregation would have been anathema to them.

Salma Yaqoob is of course a persona non grata here, but she is clearly an example of Muslim woman not at the back of the room, who clearly believes women should see advancement. So do you see the cup half empty, or half full? Its clearly not a good thing that such a meeting is segregated, but hopefully they won’t be in the future. If more women attend these meetings, perhaps there will be pressure for changes there.

I say that we need more information and a reliable account of the meeting… I say, I say I saaaaaay… blab balabnla, otherwise blablabla.
It is odd… bla blab la

PLEASE DON’T PLAY BENJAMINS’S MACKIE GAME - DO AN AARONOVITCH ON HIM.

Oh, I’d favour women playing a role in public life over women being segregated in the back of the room.

However, it does depend what the women do, in public life, doesn’t it.

The Christian fundamentalist “Surrendered Wife” ideal certainly involves women playing a role in public life. However, that role is not a particularly progressive one.

Likewise, here is a picture of another woman playing a prominent role in the public life of her society. I don’t think that she is doing anything particularly progressive.

Similarly, Yvonne Ridley - who praised the jihadist mass murderer Zarkawi at the height of the anti-Shiite terror in Iraq - and Salma Yaqoob - who cut her teeth campaigining for the freedom of Abu Hamza’s jihadist offspring in Yemen - are not the sort of role models that I’d particularly support.

Well it could refuse on the basis that as a left-wing organisation it is committed to equal rights between the sexes.

Yup, and sod what people actually want - we are terribly important lefty know-it-all, we certainly know better than the prols, and WE will tell you what you are supposed to want.
Classic.

If Salma supports segregation and the second class status of women then is it an advance that her career progresses ahead of, say a Muslim woman who opposes segregation?

Or as has happened so many times with Respect, they just pander to the most conservative elements within the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities who can deliver a vote.

Its clearly not a good thing that such a meeting is segregated

There is no ‘clearly’ about it - that’s simply your personal position, but that doesn’t mean it has to be theirs.

And now, Benjamin plattitude no. 13:

but hopefully they won’t be in the future

Men are on the whole taller than women - surely therefore women should be at the front, so they can see without men’s heads blocking the way?

“Yup, and sod what people actually want - we are terribly important lefty know-it-all, we certainly know better than the prols, and WE will tell you what you are supposed to want.
Classic.”

It is a political party. It can have opinions on issues like gender’s segregation (actually, it should have the opposite opinion to RESPECT). And if you don’t like it, you should go towards the tories, or the fundamentalists.

Nobody is forcing you to be in the meeting of a left-wing party if you don’t agree with its opinions. What “the people actually want” is amazingly varied and no guide for a party with principles (which RESPECT isn’t).

I think that the mere mention of “left-wing” produces a instinctive reaction in your mind.

If I was a woman and George Galloway was at the front I’d sit at the back as well.

Men are on the whole taller than women - surely therefore women should be at the front, so they can see without men’s heads blocking the way?

Back in the old days, I guess they used to pass children over their heads to the back of the crowd.

The Bundists also came on my mind when I read this. I was imagining the smile of renewed confidence of a Jewish woman from the guetto when told that she is equal to any of the men in the room, and that she won’t be segregated with them.

That was left.

This is pandering to right-wing reactionnaires.

This is pandering to right-wing reactionnaires.

There’s nothing right-wing nor reactionary about gender segregation.

Girl Power!

This was a ploy used throughout rural Yugoslavia in communist times. The women attended People’s Front meetings, so “breaking from traditional patterns towards active involvement with local politics” to please the communists. What that actually involved was to sit at the back and shut up, so pleasing their menfolk.

2# Respect is not even remotely a socialist organisation its leader supports aspects of New Labour and admires war leader Winston S Churchill and his part in humanity’s deadliest war, causing tens of millions of deaths. The deadliest and most destructive war in human history. The civilian toll was around 47 million, including 20 million deaths due to war-related famine and disease.

Comment by Jim — 21 October, 2008 @ 10:20 am

Hahaha fucking nutty socialists - so anti-war they’re against Britain fighting fascist takeovers. ‘Peace’ at any cost! The fascists are misunderstood, and we need to look at the root causes such as poverty at any rate…

Apart from the question, why is a political meeting held in a religious place in the first place (a very unpolitical and inconsiderate and stupid thing to do); one of the comments was really telling:

“For two young white kids aged 8 and 9 who attended with their father it was a bit of adventure… they never asked me why all the women sat at the back… they seemed to accept far more easily than many white socialists the cultural framework within which the event was held.”

Holding up the ideal of children as both innocent and more “naturally tolerant” is naive and dangerous (and unfair on the children, too). Ideally, these children will grow up into adults who do NOT blindly accept, but who *question* things. That’s what maturity is about. Children *need* to accept things, they’re only just learning. They don’t question because they are not fully political yet, not because they have an innate goodness, virtue and tolerance. Simply not to question why some humans seem unequal, it’s self-involved and not concerned. And quite right too. They are 8 and 9, they don’t need to be (yet). But their not asking or caring is NOT a virtue and should NOT be implied to be some sort of example. And the parent/ father whoever he was, should have used this as a learning experience for them: see this shit? See how there’s this thought that women aren’t good enough to sit with men, see how this shows how secondary they are? Well, when you grow up, try and fight against this thinking, ok? That’s what children need. Not a pat on the back for being children. (And no, i am NOT having a go at the children. only at the naive commentator’s sentimental bull)

Another soft shoe shuffle by the far left towards theocracy.

I meet a lot of young female Muslims through work and I believe that in the future a lot of them are going to view Respect and SWP as sell-outs who colluded in the roll-back of women’s rights.

“George spoke of the other silent MP Roger Godsiff”

LOL then ROFL then PMSL

“they seemed to accept far more easily than many white socialists the cultural framework within which the event was held.”

A cultural framework where “white atheists” (thanks Andy) and feminists are forced to choose between submitting to the exclusion, deliberate acts of desegregation, or the other form of exclusion which is walking away.

“And the parent/ father whoever he was, should have used this as a learning experience for them: see this shit? See how there’s this thought that women aren’t good enough to sit with men, see how this shows how secondary they are? Well, when you grow up, try and fight against this thinking, ok? That’s what children need. Not a pat on the back for being children.”

This is precisely what you should say to children.

But frankly, children usually work this out for themselves.

I certainly did, when I was a kid.

Though I have to say, I’ve been atr a number of Labour Party meetings in Tower Hamlets where muslim women have sat at the back - in a block together. No-one requested it, it wasn’t organised, it just happened. Now of course, Birmingham Respect have a track record of actually having the women in a seprate room - that is disgraceful.

If only a Respect spokesman had been around to brief these kids

http://www.homevideos.com/freezeframes3/mockingbird195.jpeg

he could contextualise it all for them

Sonja: quite so. Is there a word in the language for attributing to children precocious sentiments, akin to anthropomorphising?

I took my son at about the same age to a large political gathering on the campus of Wits University SA under the old regime. A government minister who addressed the crowd was subjected to rowdy heckling by the students. My son was shocked and disoriented, as he had never before witnessed an adult in a suit being subjected to such treatment by younger people.

“Though I have to say, I’ve been atr a number of Labour Party meetings in Tower Hamlets where muslim women have sat at the back - in a block together. No-one requested it, it wasn’t organised, it just happened.”

Yes, it just magically happened - one of those unexplainable quirks. It was nothing at all to do with the stupid religion they belong to.

I took my son to a public meeting at which Galloway was speaking. I heckled him and we were thrown out.

My explanation to him was that Galloway was a fascist, and this is what fascists do.

However, I don’t think that I have ever seen a political meeting - far less, a political meeting of a supposedly Left wing political party - in which the audience has been gender segregated.

This is no longer a political meeting. The Islamist sexual segregation is all about territory and about making islamic ‘values’ the dominant values on that territory

This was an islamic assembly, the politcal elements are mere window dressing.

And Islam conditions women to the point where rational choices become impossible.

In an interview on French T.V. three years back, two young French sisters who had converted to Islam, but who were raised by an secular atheist parents ( the father a Jew, the mother a Catholic) stated the following when asked about the wisdom of sharia; “there is nothing wrong with stoning a women to death, just so long as she agress to be lapidated”.

These two sisters were converted at 14 and 15 by islamist ‘friends’ at school and certainly appeared to be quite intelligent, but yet could probably be manipulated, if needed, into killing their own bloody parents.

… depressing :-(

You haven’t see ‘depressing’ yet. When confronted with more and more of these of demands to islamise the public space our chivalrous leaders will argue that islamic ‘values’ trump gender equality, and that for anyone to argue otherwise amounts to bigotry, racism and ‘islamophobia’.

The enlightened secular West hoisted up on its own human rights petard by dark-age clerical fascists.

I am also incesned at western feminists who’ve yet to react to this.

Hijabed Muslimas who mimic and ape feminist rhetoric for no other reason than to push the Kaliphate’s misogyny are self-hating scab feminists; they are to women’s rights what scab labourers are to striking unionised workers.

They are female step’nfetch blacks who quote MLK, all the while insisiting it be the will of god they sit at the back of the bus and use the ‘coloured’ restroom.

And if separate-but-equal was a vaild argument…andI’ve heard this oft times from starry-eyed Muslimas, then why aren’t the sexes merely segregated by an aisle so that some of both are sitting at the front and at the back?

Why are the women even permitted there at all? They should be at home doing whatever it is pregnant cattle do all day. Beat them and send them back home.

David T: this is what fascists do: Haha. Now that was educational.

Ms Pacman totally empowered Women, didn’t it?

I think that the mere mention of “left-wing” produces a instinctive reaction in your mind

Using ‘think’ very loosely …
It does no such thing. I object to coercion, e.g. to religious coercion by right-wing organisations - and left-wing ones.
You have no idea what goes on in my mind.

As for Galloway’s comment about the Taliban. I don’t regard it as suggesting open support

Plattitude no. 17.

here we are talking about about an apparent ‘mainstream’ political body

Mainstream? Hmm …

I hope none of the ladies were menstruating. Ladies aren’t allowed in mosques on ‘certain days’.

Either this means that every woman who attended the meeting was content that men sit at the front, or that women who oppose gender apartheid did not attend.

Or they were too scared to sit at the front?

I had to lissten to that foul mouthed Ozy criminal Feminist, endlessly interiviewed on the BBC, for 30 years.

Along comes a disgusting, medival sexist religion which says blokes can whack their wives whenever it pleases them, and this feminist, and all her feminist friends run for cover.

One minute they’re screaming from the rooftops for equal rights, the next they’re in the kitchen cooking and have nothing to say.

I was shocked, but not suprised.

A few months back the Guardian ignored a particularly disgusting Middle Eastern attack on women, but had headline articles about equal pay.

I.E. Beat your woman, rape her, force her to cook and clean for you and threaten her if she complains - but if she gets a job, she better have equal pay!

Maybe this is one of the reasons why nobody votes for RESPECT, and why the party is moribund.

Trrrrrr….: uhm yes and no. If a woman gets a job, she BETTER have equal pay, yes: absolutely. And absolutely not: beat, rape and enslave your woman. Just because SOME women bottle it, or stop being activist, doesn’t mean ALL women, or ALL feminists bottle it. And you might also allow a human (such as your “foul-mouthed Ozy” of course also is) to take a break. Perhaps 30 years of trying and shouting your throat sore is enough. Silence/ rest is not the same as acquiescence. I’m a feminist. I’m against gender segregation and I say so. I don’t accept that religion has a right to gender segregation - and certainly not in a political setting. Religion (if you must have it) should be a private thing, OUT with it from the social, the political spheres. I understand the intricacies involved in this, I understand here’s a dilemma, I know that at its base is the immature human’s need for religion and the possibly well-meaning ideal of tolerance (of said immaturity, ie religion). I know that anything that sounds potentially patronising (i.e. you are stupid if you think you are chosing your secondary status, woman, that YOU want to sit at the back of the bus etc, you cannot chose your own enslavement, etc etc ETCETERA) is going to alienate. And I too sometimes get tired. Don’t make out that feminists only care about pay. That’s bullshit and reductionist.

I agree with Selma Yacoob about the inherent violence in a lot of computer games, but what’s she going to do about it? It’s not just a question of Western games, last year we went to Tunisa and there was a blood-thirsty arcade game in the hotel featuring Saracens and Crusaders. The chess board for sale in the tourist trinket shop also had chessmen as Saracens and Crusaders. Repetitive or what?

Talking of computer games, a report I read in the paper (I forget which one) said that the game withdrawn by Sony (LittleBig Planet) in case it gave offence to Muslims for quoting from the Koran was quoting lines from the Koran calling for Muslims to kill kufr. I don’t know whether Muslims would have been offended, but IF IT IS TRUE, I most certainly am.

The question the ritual purity laws of any religion should form no part of this argument.

DavidT: I appreciate why you are saying that, but all I can answer is the line from the Internataionale, ‘Away with all your superstitions…’. For the record, I have nothing against kosher or hallal methods of slaughter.

Maybe this is one of the reasons why nobody votes for RESPECT, and why the party is moribund.

Blimey. I thought it was a potent threat to civilisation.

The lines in question were:

‘Every soul shall have the taste of death’ and ‘All that is on earth will perish’. Which don’t immediately seem to refer to killing non-muslims, but I guess fanatics can make anything mean anything.

It does raise the question of what you are allowed to use lines from the Koran in, and who decides this.

“DavidT: I appreciate why you are saying that, but all I can answer is the line from the Internataionale, ‘Away with all your superstitions…’. For the record, I have nothing against kosher or hallal methods of slaughter.”

Well, my thinking is this.

There are some aspects of religious practice which - though odd or even distasteful - are improperly used to bate members of cultural minorities.

Take, for example, winding up Muslims over Mohammed’s sexual intercourse with a 9 year old girl.

There are some contexts within which discussion of this business is appropriate: for example, where you’re talking about age of consent laws in countries which have reverted to a dark ages legal system, and lowered the marriage age to 9.

However, just saying “nyah nyah nyah, Mohammed was a nonce” is just baiting muslims.

Likewise, if women are actually being excluded from political meetings because they’re menstruating, then that’s a proper manner of concern. However, just saying “oh, you operate ritual purity laws, you silly sods” isn’t really germane to anything under discussion.

‘Blimey. I thought it was a potent threat to civilisation.’

And you have delusions of adequacy as well. I can’t help you with either of these. Maybe you need anti-depressants. Or perhaps you can do us all a favour and fucking top yourself.

I see that Salma Yakult carries on the long tradition of condemning things without a clue what she’s talking about. Little Big Planet is neither violent nor sexist. It’s lovely.

As I’m sure everyone knows, this fuss is about a couple of lines included in an already existing piece of music that was plonked in the soundtrack. This is a classic “offence” issue, in that what’s offensive is “mixing the koran with music” which is only an issue for a certain set of muslims. So we’re back to the MoToons where “we” assume the cartoons are offensive because they’re mocking, but “they” are offended by the depiction of teh prophet per se.

Of course, many computer games also feature depictions of PEOPLE. Come to think of it, I’m sure I’ve seen some giant statues of Buddha in a game somewhere…. aiiiieeee bomb them bomb them!!!!!

As to why the meeting was held in a mosque, that is certainly where community meetings are held by Cape Town’s Muslims. Islam is not a religion. Any Muslim will tell you it is a way of life, and as Iran’s revolution, for example, demonstrates, that includes politics.

My view is that if the backward gents that characterise radical Islam don’t like mixed meetings they should not try to associate with leftwing organisations that cannot possibly entertain their very convenient “code”. Except RESPECT, possibly.

Been away from the computer most of the day - just a couple of comments on questions raised. Jewish socialists/communists in the East End as far as I know, like the Bundists in Eastern Europe, made no concessions to clericalism but sought to win support from the community (religious and secular) by taking a consistent stand on bread and butter issues - fighting antisemitism, unionising workplaces, fighting for better housing conditions etc.

And when the CP sought to widen its support base among Jewish workers in the 1930s in the same geographical area as Respect has been working, it didn’t go to the most reactionary religious leaders but approached the grassroots, through the trade unions and organisations like the Workers Circle. Now it is true that the Bengali community in the East end has not got the same level of involvement in trade unions (a failing of TUs and the left) but the principle of allying with the grassroots rather than clerics should still be guiding Respect. And it isn’t. Not surprising when the likes of Galloway and Ridley are still running the show. I hope the Respect Grassroots will find a way of dumping them and reorienting itself towards filing the massive vacuum left by that complete shower that is “new labour”.

In Eastern Europe the Bund often clashed with the rabbis because in disputes between workers and bosses, the rabbis, representing backward conservative views would almost invariably support the bosses.

In inter-war Poland the Bund boycotted the offical communal structure - the kehilla - for many years because it did not allow women to vote. The Bund also had a women’s section - Yiddishe arbeter froyen - ‘Jewish women workers’ - dedicated to unionising women workers, many of who were working in very low-paid work as domestic cleaners, and many women rose to prominent positions within the Bund.

very interesting, David R, any chance you could write a small pamphlet explaining that to the Respect leadership?

such good Bund notions are a bit radical and might appear too revolutionary for the Respect boss’s, but they could still learn some lessons from The Bund?

Thanks, David.

But, just to add, the society in which the Bund appeared was almost as far from ‘multi-cultural’, in the sense that is usually meant, as it is possible to get.

It seems to me that a socialism can evolve that fits or accomodates a multi-cultural society such as ours. Couldn’t this just be an evolution of Marx’ not insisting that Jews convert to Christianity, so RESPECT does not demand Muslims abandon Islam?

i.e. which I know is superficially the opposite to Marx’ assuming that Jews would abandon Judaism to be true socialists, but one does not have to abandon one’s faith to assimilate to the degree that German or Russian Jews had to to get far in their host societies.

Assuming RESPECT or even SWP operate on a quasi-evangelical basis, surely they ‘take you as you are’, are ‘all things to all men’ (never a truer word of George?), at least if one is Muslim. The important thing is to mobilise/enfranchise the, in this case, largely Muslim quasi-proletariate under class.

Or, of course, just get their vote, as any political party seeks to do.

But, superficially, at least, it does look different to the progress of Jewish politics in the UK. But perhaps it isn’t.

More attempts by David T to associate opposition to the war with support for Islamic fundementalism, with unsavoury imputations about Muslims with the same views as the rest of us (Harry’s Protacals?). More ludicrous Islamophobia actually designed to suggest that practicing muslims should not be allowed in left wing meetings. And very oddly (or perhaps not) Martin Ohr, who, as far as I know still claims to be a socialist, trying to suggest that it is ’silly’ to suggest that the state of Pakistan has anything to do with the US (presumably this belief is yet another example of Islamist conspiricy). Do you know anything about the history of Pakistan Martin? Do you know anything about the Cold War and the relationship between dictatorship and foreign policy in that country? Trying to sound reasonable on HP is a dangerous game Martin. Then again bomb, bomb, bomb Iran eh Martin?

Modenrity, I’m not that keen to transfer contexts so easily but I do think in terms of principles that Respect could learn from the Bund.

On Zkharya’s point - in the 1930s, the Bund operated in a more multicultural context than you might imagine. The big cities in Poland in which it operated were home to significant minorities of Ukraniuans, Germans, Lithuanians - indeed the Bund worked where possible in harmony with left organsiations among these communities as well as among the Polish majority population. Interestingly, Bundist writings of the time describe the Jewish communities and these other communities (in Yiddish) as “etnishe minderhaytn” (ethnic minorities).

The mid to late 30s were the high point of cooperation between the Bund and the left wing of the Polish Socialist Party (PPS), although an unfulfilled demand by the time the Nazis invaded, in keeping with the Bund’s anti-nationalist approach, was that the Polish Socialist Party become a Socialist Party of Poland (ie where majorities and minorities have exactly the same status).

A 21st century socialism has to be about socialism with cultural diversity and not about assimilation, but diversity means acknowledging cultures as equals and seeing diversity within cultures too. It does not mean priveleging or fawning over religious leaders whether from majority or minority communities.

was just reading SU blog, and noticed this:

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2990#comment-99408

“132. He’s being more then tedious Andy, and its something more then trolling. I’ve never quite understood why your so tolerant of someone with his track record.

Comment by johng — 21 October, 2008 @ 9:21 pm”

are you suggesting that David T’s comments should be deleted from SU blog? or that he is banned from posting again on SU blog, which is it?

More attempts by David T to associate opposition to the war with support for Islamic fundementalism, with unsavoury imputations about Muslims with the same views as the rest of us (Harry’s Protacals?). More ludicrous Islamophobia actually designed to suggest that practicing muslims should not be allowed in left wing meetings.

Christ almighty, that’s not an argument, it’s just a fucking massive explosion of non-sequiturs.

Do you know anything about the history of Pakistan Martin?

Do you know anything about the history of Pakistan, John?

I think George does.

In the official report of the meeting at the Respect site, George starts by telling his audience that he has always loved Pakistan. Even before it was two countries.

Why do you think that he would say that to an audience of Jamaati supporters from Pakistan?

How well do you think it would go down with Bangladeshis?

Come on JohnG. You don’t have to cover for Galloway any more.

David T of the pro-war website Harry’s Place has got himself all charged up about the fact that the Muslim women sat at the back of a mosque in Birmingham, when the Respect Party held a meeting there.

Now, to evaluate his point, one ought to consider what David T and his fellow cheerleaders of Western colonial warfare would have done in similar circumstances.

Possibly they would never consider holding a public meeting in a Birmingham mosque, and even if they did, possibly no Muslim women would turn up. Who knows?

But, given that David T seems to be well-connected (even if only because he is short of cash) to the Islamic Dawa Party of Iraq, it’s not beyond the imagination to consider such a thing. So let’s do what the American philosophers call a ‘thought experiment’.

Now, imagine that on the day of the HP public meeting at the mosque, arranged with the help of some cash from the Islamic Dawa Party, scores of women in headscarves turn up- eager to hear David T lecture them on the civilising benefits of modern military action. And, of course, in the traditional way, they take the seats at the back.

What would David T do? Would he order them out of their seats, and instruct them to sit at the front?

Or perhaps he would just call in an airstrike.

George drew his speech to a close with an emotional account of how the grieving mother and father of a Soldier killed in Afghanistan had approached him recently at the end of public meeting. He explained their anger and confusion how they blamed the Taliban, and with pride how their son had died with a “picture of the Queen in his breast pocket”. George said how difficult it was to tell them that the “Queen didn’t have a picture of their son,

There are 130 thousand soldiers in the British Army. How big would her breasts have to be?

didn’t attend his funeral”

She appears at passing-out parades and Remembrance ceremonies. How many has he appeared at, or funerals attended?

and they should blame the the government that sent their son to his death not the people of Afghanistan who have a right to resist the occupation of the country.

Dunno if this has been said, but what a piece of muck. I don’t care if he ain’t antisemitic, he is still muck.

Here is the face of the oppressors. Here is what happens to them.

Sir Alec Macpherson, arise! And so good of you to stand up for our noble Queen. After all, she leads by example, sending her own grandchildren off to war along with the rest of the cannon-fodder.

But thankfully for our defence budget, the plebeians among them don’t get allocated a helicopter whenever they need to impress the WAGs.

Noah, the sound you just heard was my breaking wind. I will, however, defend pretty much anyone against GG.

Sir Alec Macpherson, arise! And so good of you to stand up for our noble Queen

Alec wasn’t really doing that though, was he?

He was pointing out that Galloway is a hypocritical chump.

His opinion of the Queen is neither here nor there.

Is johng on crack? His messages are getting more and more hysterical and his spelling worse and worse: “Protacals”?, “fundementalism”, “conspiricy”.

Where did you learn English, at Berlitz?

And, of course, in the traditional way, they take the seats at the back.

You have struck the crucial note - did these women walk to the back of free accord, or were they told t, by man or note?

And what is so wrong for a left-wing organisation to stand up and say that they don’t agree with the segregation of sexes?

Alec Macpherson:

“the sound you just heard was my breaking wind”

Fortunate that the electronic media does not also carry the smell.

Herman:

“And what is so wrong for a left-wing organisation to stand up and say that they don’t agree with the segregation of sexes?”

Nothing. But what would a right-wing & pro-war organisation- take for example Harry’s Place- have done in similar circumstances?

Herman,

best ignore Noah Tucker, he’s Zin’s bro and stand-in

Tucker’s trying to paint a picture of everyone at HP as swivel-eye neo-con zombies, or the bastard offspring of Dick Cheney, etc

whereas there is a fair spread across the political spectrum, from those of us on the Left to liberals, Labour and even a few Tories I suspect, even a few other assorted radicals

But Tucker’s methodology has ever thing to do with avoiding the issue of segregated meetings, and their implications.

If you wonder about Tucker’s other views, they are essentially refried Stalinism:

http://www.socialistunity.com/?cat=25

“The behaviour of Harry’s Place in instigating the ‘Jenna Delich affair’ is disgusting. A medieval witch-burning by cynical pro-war ‘modernists’.

Noah Tucker
Co-editor, 21stcenturysocialism.com”

Mark T:

“His opinion of the Queen is neither here nor there.”

Really? Alec Macpherson posted his profound views on our noble Queen, including his rather idiosyncratic speculation on the size of the her breasts, right here on Harry’s Place. And he followed that up by announcing that he had ‘broken wind’.

He, at least, is a consistent proponent of the ideology of Western superiority and modern warfare.

So please, Mr T, do not diss the values of the civilization for which you fight.

Now, imagine that on the day of the HP public meeting at the mosque, arranged with the help of some cash from the Islamic Dawa Party, scores of women in headscarves turn up- eager to hear David T lecture them on the civilising benefits of modern military action. And, of course, in the traditional way, they take the seats at the back.

What would David T do? Would he order them out of their seats, and instruct them to sit at the front?

Or perhaps he would just call in an airstrike.

-lets say that a fellow who wanted to attend the same meeting turned up late. Would it be ok for him to sit in the back with the women?

Oniad:

“lets say that a fellow who wanted to attend the same meeting turned up late. Would it be ok for him to sit in the back with the women?”

Well, that’s where I’d sit! But if the delightful Sir Alec Macpherson (with his propensity to break wind) took a seat nearby, I’d probably move to the front.

modernity:

“everyone at HP… swivel-eye neo-con zombies”

Hmmm. Well, if this brief experience of your blog is anything to go by, you have correctly completed your self-assessment form.

noah

I think your being disingenuous - you and I both know that the “traditional way” (your words) would preclude you from doing so if your male. Similarly, if the only free seat for a woman that arrived late was at the front with the men the “traditional way” wouldn’t allow her either.

I thought that in the 21st C we are way beyond gender segregation based on primitive notions of “tradition” or religious culture - evidently (and unfortunately) I am wrong.

Its a shame that you seem to think that our sisters should be subjugated and/or even treated differently based on these primitive and backwards notions.

Oniad:

“I think your being disingenuous - you and I both know that the “traditional way” (your words) would preclude you from doing so if your male.”

Well, why would I be bound by the ‘traditional way’ in terms of where I decide to sit at a political meeting- even if it’s in a mosque? Obviously, I would take my shoes off at the door, that’s only polite. But I’d sit where I wanted, vacant chairs permitting.

And politely- and also realistically- I would not try to insist that the other people at the meeting get up and re-arrange themselves, even if their sex-based seating conventions were ‘primitive and backwards’.

And I suspect that in such a situation you, and David T, and even the most swivel-eyed zombies among your neo-con confederates, would behave with equal politeness and realism.

Here’s a further thought for you.

Given that we are at war- to the modernising tunes of this website (among other patriotic cheerleaders) - let me ask you, Oniad, how your (& my) official representatives behave when they attend a political meeting in a mosque in Afghanistan. Do they insist that the women sit at the front? Are there any women there at all?

And at the funerals of those killed by ‘collateral damage’. Do our representatives turn up to mourn?

You talk about ‘our sisters’ when they are victims of outdated culture. When people are killed by the military products of our advanced modern culture, are they not also your sisters… and some of them not also also your brothers?

noah
Its interesting that you bring up Afghanistan - as to the women - well, there is a better chance that they’ll get some secondary education now than there was under the Taliban. Btw, is that the sort of thing you hold out for our sisters? The Taliban say you can’t be a doctor because you have a vagina? The Taliban say you cant be a doctor because a 1300+ year old text says women have different roles than men because Mohammed said so? You support those sort of enlightened views?

As to culture - I’m unapologetic for claiming our modern culture is better than a primitive faith-based culture with medieval ontology/reasoning and punishments. I can tell you now, I’d much rather be living in the west, where I can have freedom of speech, sexual orientation, gender rights, human rights, freedom of faith, economic liberty, cultural diversity etc than living in some archaic 18th C medieval, mono cultural, repressive, dogmatic, oppressive religious backwater in the Islamic world ruled by some beardy-wierdy who tells me that a book written 1300 years ago defines my life and aspirations.

Incidentally, if I was stuck in that sort of hell-hole, I would be mightily pissed off with the fools in the west who argue that I should be left like that because they want to respect my “culture” and faith because they should know better based on the far better quality of life they experience daily.

Hey Calvin and Noah, when I was in charge of Afghanistan you two were gung-ho for women’s rights in that country and loud in your support for adopting ‘administrative and military measures’ against any Islamic fundamentalists who disagreed with the post-Islamic administration. What’s changed lads? I’m confused.

A late thought but perhaps worth making all the same, is that a political meeting where everyone agrees with the platform is better described as a rally. It is more than simply a nice distinction. It points to a settled purpose.

Whatever the cause, I do not think I wish to belong nor could I follow any cause which enshrines a public and visual segregation of gender, orientation or race as part of its orthodoxy, and it would not therefore carry any weight of argument with me whether all elements within the cause agree to it or not. This unaniminity may well be freely given but is already someway down the mental pathway towards totalitarianism. It may be culturally derived but no less disgraceful for so being. Describing anything as cultural does not lend respectability to it.

But given RESPECT and the Stop The War Coalition both support the war aims of the Taleban (inadvertently, but succinctly, so well expressed this week by the murderers of aid worker Gayle Williams), where exactly the women who attend their rallies sit is of lesser significance. It is what they are sitting for that concerns me more.

I don’t really care what ideas of ritual purity people have, it’s their choice, but I do however to them claiming it is cosialist and progressive when it is counter-revolutionary and retrogressive. Reading the Socialist Unity blog and the comments from the fellow travellers posted on heree, they are totally miseducated. And lied to. The women murdered in Afghanistan was not a missionary, there are not thousands being killed by Co-alition troops, the bombmules are killing hundreds. I would have a lot more respect for their cause if they did something productive like raising money for a hospital. I was friendly years ago with a woman who worked for the British-Vietnamese Hospital Fund. This was during the Vietnamese War. If Muslims want to be seen as helping their compatriots, perhaps they should do something useful.

Incidentally, it’s not just political freedoms that are greater in the West, it is amenties such as hot and cold running water, roads, postal systems, food supply. Which is exactly why there is immigration from East to West.

Just read an article on the Socialist Worker website re the situation fo the internal refugees in Afghanistan. Pretty shocking. One would have more regard for the Afghan Government and the Taleban if they jprovided food and shelter for teh people, but no doubt they blame it all on the West and hold out the begging bowl.

“The behaviour of Harry’s Place in instigating the ‘Jenna Delich affair’ is disgusting. A medieval witch-burning by cynical pro-war ‘modernists’.

Noah Tucker
Co-editor, 21stcenturysocialism.com”

If thats true (and I cant be arsed to follow the link) then ‘Noah’ is quite obviously an idiot.

Paul, it should very much focus on RESPECT because it so readily buys into this lunacy. What might have happened had it not agreed? Fewer Muslim attendees, therefore RESPECT sells itself to the highest bidder. Not unlike any other political party really, including that RESPECT’s message is tailored to the “segregationalists’” agenda.

And I don’t altogether agree that religion is at the basis of this. The systematic social denigration of Muslim women is what drives it to the extent that the women themselves scarcely realise that anything is amiss.

I would have a lot more respect for their cause if they did something productive like raising money for a hospital. I was friendly years ago with a woman who worked for the British-Vietnamese Hospital Fund. This was during the Vietnamese War. If Muslims want to be seen as helping their compatriots, perhaps they should do something useful.

Helping their compatriots? And doing away with a fabricated grievance against the West? I wouldn’t hold my breath.
If they did that, there wouldn’t be refugee camps in Gaza and Jenin. In fact, there wouldn’t have been any by 1954.

And I suspect that in such a situation you, and David T, and even the most swivel-eyed zombies among your neo-con confederates…

Idiot doesn’t begin to describe this loser.

Idiot doesn’t begin to describe this loser

That’s a very unkind way to describe David T.

Question: if the women sit at the back, of their own free choice, and I attend the same meeting with my wife and we elect to sit together at the front, what happens?

Is my wife asked to move to back of the hall? If so, can I ask to join her as we have no wish to be separated? Would we be asked to leave the meeting for causing problems?

David T.

There are some aspects of religious practice which - though odd or even distasteful - are improperly used to bate members of cultural minorities. Take, for example, winding up Muslims over Mohammed’s sexual intercourse with a 9 year old girl.

Why would it be improper to ‘wind up Muslims over Mohammed’s sexual intercourse with a 9 year old girl’????

I wouldn’t pick on someone passing me in the street but if I was in a discussion with a Muslim on the ‘Joys of Sharia’, the Prophet’s pedophilia seems a permissible subject.

Brehzhnev:

“What’s changed lads? I’m confused.”

Well, this cunning stunt certainly changed things a bit:

http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html

ClaptheHammer: “..Why would it be improper to ‘wind up Muslims over Mohammed’s sexual intercourse with a 9 year old girl’????..”

Given that “Undercover Mosque” showed one divorced from reality imam endorsing that very thing NOW, it’s certainly not improper to take to task this particular alleged “virtue” of following in the prophet’s way.

Unfortunately we have no control over what might take place in Iran or Afghanistan concerning the infringement of the human rights of 9 year old girls, but we certainly have control here…

I think…..

Brzezinsky.

Great link about Jimmy.

I will keep it for display on CI(F) when some poster refers to Carter’s ‘high moral’ standards. What a hoot.

Mitnaged.

Yup. It is just the kind of subject to be used to make a Muslim debater ‘question his faith’. Not one from Afghanistan. But from Bradford. Certainly.

Most certainly yes.

Do take a crash course in reading comprehension, Zin.

Well, mitnaged, the price of freedom etc … Unfortunately, we are misruled by cowards, idiots, crooks and lunatics who don’t appreciate that freedom.

“Trying to sound reasonable on HP is a dangerous game Martin. Then again bomb, bomb, bomb Iran eh Martin?”

How is “trying to sound reasonable on HP…dangerous”, John?

There is, in fact, a fair diversity of views on HP. Yes, a lot of Jews frequent HP and, unsurprisingly, express opinions in support of Israel and against those they perceive to be her enemies. It is ridiculous that you express surprise, shock, horror etc that this occurs. But that is hardly a reason to consistently effectively describe HP as an incarnation of evil, a “sewer” etc, simply because one’s life is so empty one needs to find foil against which to contrast one’s pale light.

It is ridiculous that you should consider it a virtue that SWP and RESPECT make themselves commodious to mainstream Muslims and Muslim thought, but constantly harangue HP because it is a place where fairly mainstream Jews find it a fairly comfortable place to congregate and discuss.

Maybe you should ask yourself why you are, in fact, so consistently drawn to such a place in the first place.

johng: “More ludicrous Islamophobia actually designed to suggest that practicing muslims should not be allowed in left wing meetings. And very oddly (or perhaps not) Martin Ohr, who, as far as I know still claims to be a socialist, trying to suggest that it is ’silly’ to suggest that the state of Pakistan has anything to do with the US (presumably this belief is yet another example of Islamist conspiricy). Do you know anything about the history of Pakistan Martin? Do you know anything about the Cold War and the relationship between dictatorship and foreign policy in that country? Trying to sound reasonable on HP is a dangerous game Martin. Then again bomb, bomb, bomb Iran eh Martin”

Not sure what you are talking about with regards to Iran John. I don’t support bombing it, I never have done, I’ve never even hinted that I do, anywhere, ever.

I do think it is ludicrous for you to agree with Salma Yaqoob’s analysis of Pakistan. Except you don’t agree with it do you? For someone like you to claim to be a fellow marxist, blaming the US is surely far to easy compared with looking at class conflict.

I’ve got plenty of disagreements with most of the people who post on here, and a lot more in common politically with you; so it’s surprising that you think that women should be forced to sit at the back in order to attend meetings- except again you don’t believe that do you. You know that the swp had to make accommodations to the worst possible elements of stalinism and reformism when you were all still in respect together, in order to keep the show on the road, and that you had to pretend to agree with them. Those days are long gone now. You’re free to say whatever you want, when you encounter sexist crap you can fight against it, rather than keeping your mouth shut in order to build a rotten coalition.

Criticise HP for the things it is wrong on, not the things it gets right.

Folks, it seems to me that the meeting was in a mosque. The congregants set in the manner to which they were accustomed, and it would violate inclucivist, multi-cultural socialist principles they sit different.

David Rosenberg would know, but I wonder if ever, on occasion, a Bundist group might have met in a synagogue and accomodated itself to orthodox sensibilities for the sake of the peace of Israel.

In any case, I do not see the big deal, and, if it was simply that, a meeting in a mosque, it could be construed as racist or discriminatory to make one of it. I am not sure this sort of thing does HP any favours.