Harry's Place

“Will formal exclusion orders be made against the Hezbollah propagandist Ibrahim Mousawi and Bilal Phillips and Yahya Ibrahim, the hate preachers who are banned from Australia and the United States but who will tour British universities next month?”

No – because “muslim community leaders” promise to get the vote out for Labour in marginal consituences and in return a Labour government full of solicitors and QCs rip up article 10 of the HRA 1998.

Excellent post – very important to highlight the constant stream of hypocrisy coming from the MCB.

Wilders is not a hate preacher.

He is arguing for consistent application of the anti-hate laws in the Netherlands. He doesn’t see why the Koran should be exempt.

I’m not sure myself why religion is exempt. I suppose one might make allowance that one should not have retrospective application, but if so that would allow lots of Nazi hate material.

Let him in. We need to have this debate. I don’t agree with Wilders on banning the Quran. Or on re-patriating Muslims! I do agree with him that the issue of the violent verses against Jews and non-Muslims in the Quran needs to be debated if Europe is ever to have a successful civil society that includes substantial numbers of Muslims.

That’s all he’s really campaigning for – recognition that parts of the Quran (a good part of it, actually) demonises the non-Muslim other and that this is a big issue we need to talk about and find a solution to – not ignore it.

This is not to essentialise Muslims, many of whom may disagree with these verses but choose to look the other way.

What we need is some kind of agreement on toleration of other faiths by Muslims, similar to that in Norway, where the Lutheran Church and leading Islamic clerics agreed to end the Muslim view on apostasy to allow Norwegians to convert to whichever religion they choose.

That was a start – a kind of ’social contract’.

In response to MCB,

, but the film that will be screened tomorrow by Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox is nothing less than a cheap and tacky attempt to whip up hysteria against Muslims.

I think you will find that 9/11, 7/7/, Beslan. Madrid etc, etc hasn’t exactly been the best publicity.

Mr Wilders’ xenophobic and repugnant views have been identified by a Dutch court,

He hasn’t been found guilty of anything.

and are now confirmed by his official exclusion to the United Kingdom.

After Lord Ahmed threatened 10,000 Muslim March against Parliament.

It is now time to ask why Peers of Realm who promote such demagogues without any censure are allowed to be regarded as mainstream, responsible leaders in our community.

Admittedly, not as brilliant and fragrant as Dr Bari and Iqbal Sacranie.

The Muslim Council of Britain on the denial of a visa to Yusuf Al Qaradawi

May I exercise my right to freely express my view on the well respected Islamic scholar Qaradawi through the tolerant offices of HP. I happen to think that Qaradawi is an antisemitic, misogynistic, homophobic piece of shit. I would be pleased if you would convey my good wishes.

Dutch blogs say GW is on the ‘plane

1) You call for Muslim preachers to be banned yet want Wilders to be let in so are being deeply hypocritical

2) Qardawis statement (translated incidentally by the far right MEMRI) was made recently well after the MCB statement and his ban from the UK. Thats more than a little dishonest.

3) Qardawi has like Wilders been denied entry to the UK.

4) Qardawi has made many positive statements too. Wilders is a relentless bigot who hasnt. Big difference.

You seem to be equating someone who says something you dont like once or twice with someone who continually spews hatred such as Wilders.

The key word in the MCB press release is “relentless”. Qardawi is not a relentless preacher of hate. The fact you use one quote from Qardwi is illustrative of this.

‘I’m not sure myself why religion is exempt.’

Possibly because theology and doctrine does not define the totality of a religion.

There is also hermeneutics – the way texts are interpreted, and more importantly, lived.

There are many benign and positive aspects to the Islamic faith. The Quran isn’t one of them (without extensive hermeneutics of the type practiced by the traditional ulema).

We can expect nothing else but hypocrisy from the MCB – its a necessary manifestation of the conflict between their own ideology and their role as ‘the moderate voice’ of British Muslims.

On matter of free speech, I have changed my position completely – I can’t believe that any govt should be trusted with deciding who we can or cannot hear. Far better we let everyone come and speak – BNP, Nation of Islam, Wilders, Qaradawi – and then if necessary arrest and prosecute them for inciting hatred.

I hear that the Dutch ambassador will meet him when his plane arrives. The Dutch ambassador has complained to the Home Office about Wilders’ ban so presumably will assist him.

‘4) Qardawi has made many positive statements too. Wilders is a relentless bigot who hasnt. Big difference.’

Wilders has constantly said that his argument is not with Muslims whom he respects as human beings (unlike Quardawi and Jews) but with ideology.

He has constantly said that he does not ‘essentialise’ Muslims, just the Quran.

The good news is that this has been all over the airwaves all day.

Had the bloke just quietly come over barely anyone would have been any the wiser.

Of course nothing will be angering the likes of the MCB and some of the (particularly low grade) trolls this site is attracting more than the fact that the hubub around this story has meant literally hundreds of thousands of people (my brother and dad included) who have first Googled and then watched the film. They would never have bothered under normal circumstances.

Happy days!

MattG

The hyposrisy of the MCB is just contemptible. But none of these people should be banned.

Does anyone really think in the age of the internet that banning people from crossing our borders makes any difference at all to their ability to broadcast their ideas?

Within a liberal tolerant society, the way to oppose the ideas of racists and fascists is to debate, argue and parody.

Sohaib Saeed on Qaradawi:

“The scholarly figure widely considered to be the world’s chief proponent of moderate Islam is Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Egyptian-born Islamic jurist who heads the European Council for Fatwa and Research. Mr Qaradawi’s rulings are recognised by Muslims around the world as reflecting the balanced nature of Islamic law and its relevance to modern life. This is the recurrent theme of his programmes on Arab television channels, as well as the popular Islam Online website, for which he acts as patron.”
.

Qaradawi on the punishment of gay men and women:

.
“The same punishment as any sexual pervert – the same as the fornicator. The schools of thought disagree about the punishment: Some say both should be punished the same way. Some say we should throw them from a high place, like God did with the people of Sodom. Some say we should burn them, and so on. There is disagreement. The important thing is to treat this act as a crime.”

.
Qaradawi on freedom of belief:

“One of the freedoms that Islam does not accept is the freedom of belief that expands from the realm of the individual to that of the group and in doing so and threatens the social fabric and its foundations.”

“For Muslim society to preserve its existence, it must struggle against freedom of belief from every source and in all forms, and it must not let it spread like wildfire in a field of thorns. This is what Abu Bakr and the companions did when they fought the people who followed the false prophets. There is no escape from struggling against and restricting the individual’s freedom of belief so that it will not worsen and its sparks scatter, becoming group problem. Thus, the Muslim sages agreed that the punishment for the murtadd is execution.”

Grow up HPhypocryte.

Matt G
“The good news is that this has been all over the airwaves all day.
Had the bloke just quietly come over barely anyone would have been any the wiser.
Of course nothing will be angering the likes of the MCB and some of the (particularly low grade) trolls this site is attracting more than the fact that the hubub around this story has meant literally hundreds of thousands of people (my brother and dad included) who have first Googled and then watched the film. They would never have bothered under normal circumstances.”

Not sure what this has to do with the MCB since it was the Home Secretary’s decision to ban him. Unless you subscribe to the far right BNP notion that Muslims control Governemnt policy.. oh wait this IS HP!

Still nice to see how many HPers hold a candle for Wilders.

Graham Mackenzie Spence
“Grow up HPhypocryte.”

Says someone who uses the far right MEMRI as a resource!

Is Lord Ahmed still going to raise a brigade of angry, bearded nutjobs? I mean the Lords are still having a showing of Fitna. Or was that seditious threat just because he wanted to ‘protest’ (just like how Mr. Wilders has to live under police protection in case of a spontaneous protest, the likes of which Mr. van Gogh mysteriously died from) Mr. Wilder’s presence.

By the way, I know it probably shouldn’t, but it never ceases to amaze me how someone like Wilders who holds a mirror up to the intolerance and extremism inherent in Islam can himself be labelled as a bigot and an extremist.

Also, I’d recommend that the Lords have a screening of ‘Islam: What the West Needs to Know’ and invite Robert Spencer, Walid Shoebat, Bat Ye’or to debate. It’s much better than Fitna (albeit longer) and the Islamist appeasers won’t be able to use their ironic arguments against them like they have with Wilders.

I find the film hugely offensive… because it’s so bad. The same was true of Theo Van Gogh’s. Huge pile of crap, though maybe there’s some kind of weird Dutch art “Jan Cremer” tradition in being provocative for its own sake…?

“Says someone who uses the far right MEMRI as a resource!”

Hypocrite, you’re a complete numbskull!

MEMRI just translates and rebroadcasts! If the material is far right, that’s the fault of the material.

It’s particularly relevant to this debate because many of the people who want to ban Qaradawi from the UK keep republishing his ideas – as GMS has just done with your criticism.

We know the depth of Qaradawi’s racism because MEMRI broadens his platform to broadcast his ideas.

No platform is not the answer.

HP Hypocrite

What was wrong with the translation?

I’d like to see HPHypocritie’s translations from the arabic so that we can all compare and contrast them with those provided by MEMRI.

I think we should get Wilders and Qaradawi on prime time live debate.

I suspect HPhypocryte is a 47 year old grandfather who is thinking about doing Middle East History 101…

I suspect HPhypocryte is a 47 year old grandfather who is thinking about doing Middle East History 101…

Not so fast, he’s still stuck on the finer points of Janet & John

Also, I’d like to see evidence of any statements made by Wilders that encourage people to hurt, maim or kill others. Something along the same lines of “I will shoot Allah’s enemies, the Jews”.

Tevya
“Hypocrite, you’re a complete numbskull!
MEMRI just translates and rebroadcasts! If the material is far right, that’s the fault of the material.”

Likewise people who quote negative selections from the Talmud or negative sayings of Jewish leaders

Thats exactly what Wilder and MEMRI do. They cherry pick and distort in order to demonise.

Graham Mackenzie Spence

MEMRIs translations are not accurate
For one thing they cut clips , take comments out of context, fade out mid sentence or mid monologue to give the intended meaning they want. They choose the worst possible word as the translation.

They are all about demonising Arabs and Muslims much as anti-semitic media used to quote Jews to demonise them
The idea that an organisation run by the Israeli militray is an accurate recorder of Arab media is believable only to Israeli groupies
like HP

http://www.mentalmayhem.net/mental_mayhem/2007/05/memri_lost_in_t.html

Professor Halim Barakat of Georgetown University cited MEMRI’s translations of his own articles as an example of such distortion[28]: “Every time I wrote Zionism, MEMRI replaced the word by Jew or Judaism. They want to give the impression that I’m not criticizing Israeli policy, but that what I’m saying is anti-Semitic.”[29]

Brian Whitaker, the Middle East editor for the Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom, has been one of the most outspoken critics of MEMRI, writing: “My problem with Memri is that it poses as a research institute when it’s basically a propaganda operation,”[5] and that “the stories selected by Memri for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel.”[4] Whitaker has also complained that “MEMRI’s website does not mention you [Carmon] or your work for Israeli intelligence. Nor does it mention MEMRI’s co-founder, Meyrav Wurmser, and her extreme brand of Zionism…. Given your political background, it’s legitimate to ask whether MEMRI is a trustworthy vehicle.”[5]
Leila Hudson writes in the journal Middle East Policy, “MEMRI simultaneously highlights stories emphasizing the most extreme stereotypes of clashing Arab and Islamic civilization, which would not otherwise come to light. In effect, it amplifies the noise that most effectively distracts from the projects of engagement and negotiation. This is compounded by the interlinked series of websites, blogs and forums on the right wing of the think-tank periphery. Like the Israeli disinformation site Debka.com, MEMRI produces and amplifies noise, while buttressing the weak ‘clash of civilizations’ theory with selective extremist writing.”[17]
Political scientist Norman Finkelstein has stated that MEMRI “uses the same sort of propaganda techniques as the Nazis.” “They take things out of context in order to do personal and political harm to people they don’t like.” He believes that “it’s a reliable assumption that anything MEMRI translates from the Middle East is going to be unreliable.” [18]

[edit] Selectivity
Ibrahim Hooper, a director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, stated in the Washington Times that “MEMRI’s intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible.”[4]
Laila Lalami has written that, “There are three general observations that can be made about MEMRI’s work. One is that it consistently picks the most violent, hateful rubbish it can find, translates it and distributes it in e-mail newsletters to media and members of Congress in Washington. The second is that MEMRI does not translate comparable articles published in Israel, although the country is not only a part of the Middle East but an active party to some of its most searing conflicts. For instance, when the right-wing Israeli politician Effi Eitam referred to Israel’s Palestinian citizens as a “cancer,” MEMRI did not pick up this story. The third is that this organization is now the main source of media articles on the region of Islam, a far greater and far more diverse whole than the individual countries it lists.”[19]
Ken Livingstone, former British MP and former Mayor of London, has accused MEMRI of “outright distortion”.[20][21] Journalist Rima Barakat wrote of the January 2005 Greater London Authority report that: “A study was commissioned to investigate the ‘Islamic conspiracy dossier.’ This dossier was compiled to defame a renowned Muslim scholar and was presented to British officials in an attempt to prevent a renowned Muslim scholar, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, from entering Britain to participate in a London conference. The report found that “nearly all the distortions came from material produced by the MEMRI.”[22]
Scholar Juan Cole said “On more than one occasion I have seen, say, a bigotted Arabic article translated by MEMRI and when I went to the source on the Web, found that it was on the same op-ed page with other, moderate articles arguing for tolerance. These latter were not translated.”[23]

Sebai said of the victims “there is no term in Islamic jurisprudence called civilians. Dr Karmi is here sitting with us, and he’s very familiar with the jurisprudence. There are fighters and non-fighters. Islam is against the killing of innocents. The innocent man cannot be killed according to Islam.” The Memri translation read: “The term civilians does not exist in Islamic religious law. Dr Karmi is sitting here, and I am sitting here, and I’m familiar with religious law. There is no such term as civilians in the modern western sense. People are either of dar al-harb or not” [33]

MEMRIS outright lies
http://www.factsontheground.co.uk/2007/05/14/memri-and-its-mickey-mouse-translation/

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/arabicuf.html

Worst account of ME history ever?

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=16790

He’s landed but will he get in?

HPhypocryte is a prime example of the problem.

He/she seems to think that having unpleasant views is the same as having unpleasant views and calling for the followers of that ideology to violence.

The UK courts have already drawn the lines on this matter.

On the 7th of February 2006, the Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri was found guilty by an Old Bailey jury of using his sermons to incite murder and race hate, and was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment. In November the same year BNP leader Nick Griffin was found not guilty of inciting racial hatred for calling Islam a “wicked and vicious faith”.

In his summing up of the Griffin case, the Mr. Justice Jones:

“We live in a democratic society which jealously protects the rights of its citizens to freedom of expression, to free speech. That does not mean it is limited to speaking only the acceptable, popular or politically correct things. It extends to the unpopular, to those which many people may find unacceptable, unpalatable and sensitive.”

In sentencing, Mr. Justice Hughes told Hamza:

“You are entitled to your views and in this country you are entitled to express them, but only up to the point where you incite murder or use language calculated to incite racial hatred.”

The prime difference between these cases was that while Griffin’s words caused offence, there was no incitement to violence. In Hamza’s case there was both offence and incitement to violence and in reaching their decisions the juries drew clear lines regarding the limits of free speech within the UK.

The Wilders – Qaradaw argument is the same. Wilders, however unpleasant has never claimed that people who leave democracy should be killed. Qaradawi has stated that those who leave Islam should be.

Wilders is an out-and-out scumbag, but it is an afront to democracy that he isn’t being allowed to enter the country.

And I am not in the least surprised that our New Labour Overlords (and their supporters) and their Liberal Democrat Foolish Shadows show not a concern for freedom-of-speech.

Political Correctness Gone Mad.

“You’re offended? So fucking what” really needs to the approach. Hypersensitivity and self-obsession, aggressive taking of offence, or, as here, worrying that people will do so, is the road to technologically advanced socialist dictatorship. A truly terrifying prospect.

Alex Ross:

The members of the Edinburgh branch of Socialist Worker are usually to be found in the back of Robbie’s Bar on Leith Walk where they have been planning the revolution since 1978.

Interestingly, not one of them has ever had a proper job.

The highlight of their activism in recent years was to get Kaboom Tamimi to make a personal appearance at a Palestine jolly a couple of weeks ago.

Alex – Worst account of ME history ever?

Yes, I think it’s great – living comedy!

Eg, what part, if any, of the following sentence is true?!

“Jews have been an important part of life in Jerusalem, Cairo, Damascus, Beirut, Rabat and Baghdad and other Arab cities since the beginning of recorded history.”

Egyptian recorded history goes back over 5,000 years. The Arabs arrived there about 1,300 years ago, conquered it, and banned the national language, culture and religion.

And isn’t Damascus meant to be an ironic reference to the 1840 Damascus blood libel?

Mr Spence you will find your statement is more representative of you and your BNP thugs and not Sociallist Workers…

I think the text originally read:

“Jews have been important scapegoats in Jerusalem, Cairo, Damascus, Beirut, Rabat and Baghdad and other Arab cities since the beginning of recorded history. It is always useful to have someone to blame.”

B.P.

I have never had any connection to the BNP, or their thugs.

B.P.
Are you suggesting that the BNP would invite Tamimi to a protest? Maybe for a kicking yeah

I just read a report on a blog that Geert Wilders has been refused entry to the UK.

The sound you hear in the background in the first nail being driven into the lid of the coffin for the corpse of the UK.

http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/090212-wilders-british

Here it is.

Do we think BP is Bob Pitt?

Has Qaradawi’s spin doctor from the Musselburgh Popular Front aka Islamophobia Watch chosen to visit us today?

Much to my shame, I was once a member of Edinburgh Socialist Workers Party. I put it down to youthful ignorance.

When someone at a meeting started complaining that gun control in the wake of the Dunblane massacre would mean that the workers could no longer arm themselves, it suddenly clicked that they were all mental.

I have never had any connection to the BNP, or their thugs.

Mr Spence, BP is unable to articulate a single coherent argument, and so is forced to ’speak’ in labels.

Says someone who uses the far right MEMRI as a resource!

I’d no idea a translation could adopt a political viewpoint.

Translations are neither ‘left’ nor ‘right’; they are merely accurate or inaccurate, with the former applying in the case of those done by MEMRI.

GMS – “Musselburgh Popular Front”? Very funny, citizen Bob. Freedom for Tooting!

Dutch reports say he’ll be on the 16:000 flight back

The caption reads:

“Geert Wilders on plane at Heathrow
(centre right)”

Tevya:

I think we are showing our ages…

Wilders landed on schedule, was met and welcomed by the Dutch Ambassador, and promptly detained by immigration officials, and told he will be sent back within the hour.

I wonder how they propose to get him on the plane?

“I wonder how they propose to get him on the plane?”

Hopefully, how immigration officials get asylum seekers back on the plane: beat him up.

Dan the fascist showing his true colours…

GMS – ha ha! Remember this?

The Glorious Day, which Wolfie had always been plotting, came at the end of the third series, in an episode of the same name, in which the Tooting Popular Front ‘liberate’ a Scorpion tank and use it to invade the Houses of Parliament, only to find the place empty due to the Parliamentary recess. This episode also came as a joy to all those who loathe garden gnomes. After stealing the Scorpion tank from a firing range, Smith hides it in a friend’s garage. Whilst away, one of the family, curious as to the purpose of this huge vehicle parked amongst the garden tools, climbs down inside and accidentally steps on the fire button. The result is that their neat garden is raked with high-calibre heavy-machine-gun fire, and the spectacular, slow motion annihilation of the 30 or so garden gnomes scattered about it.

Thought your earlier description of the Leith SWP sounded like Irving Welsh and friends btw – somewhere between Filth and Porno

It is quite telling the as soon as Mr Welsh made his millions, he was out of Leith and on the next plane to Amsterdam leaving the SWP boys and girls to plan their own route out. Most are still there. Including Mr Truman.

Who says trainspotting wasn’t autobiographical?

Hopefully, how immigration officials get asylum seekers back on the plane: beat him up.

Jesus, asylum seekers are never sent back, let alone beaten up.

Of course you could beat him up so that the next time you’re in the Netherlands, Dan, the Dutch can beat you up.

You’re may be an adolescent in a man’s body, but could you nonetheless cough up a condemnation of the Islamist thugs that have forced Wilders into hiding?

Yeah, let’s beat up a democratically elected politician and take yet another step towards completely delegitimising our entire political systeme.

Wilders isn’t the fascist, Dan.

You are.

HP Hippo “Says someone who uses the far right MEMRI as a resource!”

MEMRI just translate other people’s hate speech, nothing added, nothing taken away. If you disagree with them, talk to the people who say it.

What Maven said, with smoked turkey kabanos and bells on-hoo meveen!

“I wonder how they propose to get him on the plane?”

Hopefully, how immigration officials get asylum seekers back on the plane: beat him up.

Given that there are no asylum seekers in Britain or have ever claimed asylum here, I find that hard to believe. You mean ‘economic migrants’ who commit a crime (unlike Wilders) by entering the country illegally. Were they really seeking asylum, then they would do so in the first safe country that they arrive in.

I hope your brains aren’t as soft as your logic?

it never ceases to amaze me how someone like Wilders who holds a mirror up to the intolerance and extremism inherent in Islam can himself be labelled as a bigot and an extremist.

It’s rather like the prosecution of Mark Steyn in Canada last year, where his book quoted a statement by a European imam that claimed Muslims were “breeding like mosquitos”. Yet it was Steyn, for accurately quoting the imam and not suppressing it, who was accused of promoting intolerance by the kangeroo court of the Ontario human rights mafia.

Of course, HP posters completely ignored that case because they couldn’t afford to be seen supporting Steyn, not if they wanted to avoid being treated as pariahs by their fellow Lefties. Principles are something you stick on a blog masthead and then ignore at your convenience, you understand.

What its well-wishers are asking is: will the SWP support a No Platform for Fascists Campaign against Hezbollah propagandist Ibrahim Mousawi and Bilal Phillips and Yahya Ibrahim when they tour British Universities.

I ask in my official capacity as Secretary of the Friends of the Socialist Workers Party).

LUckily, we now have the benefit of HPhypocrite’s gold standard for exclusion. Its the brilliant relentlessness test:
“You seem to be equating someone who says something you dont like once or twice with someone who continually spews hatred such as Wilders.

The key word in the MCB press release is “relentless”.

So if someone were to say “once or twice” “Kill all Muslims”, no problem.
I trust you can produce a comprehensive wordcount of what proportion of Moshe Feiglin’s speech output is hateful.

Is “Israel Shamir,” Lord Ahmed’s honoured guest in parliament, relentless enough for you?

Who says trainspotting wasn’t autobiographical?

I don’t. It’s pretty clear from the drugs passages that Irving himself has never imbibed much more than a strong cup of coffee. They owe far more to the literary tradition of self-pity and gross exaggeration than they do to any gritty and frank observation of reality.

The Govt is not on our side & neither are the other main political parties of this country. I wonder how much longer the British people will put up with this?

Those who run this country, or aspire to run this country, are trying to square the circle. They think they can appease violent Islamists who have nothing but contempt for the values of this country & they think they can keep the vast majority of Muslims in this country – whom Home Office polls have shown are largely sympathetic to the aims of the jihadists – under control.

They’re fooling themselves if they believe that. Sooner or later a breaking point is going to be reached. Not by Muslims, who by their hostility & sullen refusal to condemn terrorist attacks, have made their attitude perfectly clear to the rest of us, but by the majority of non-Muslims who can see that the authorities are not on their side.

When you ban Geert Wilders, who hasn’t threatened or killed anyone, yet allow Muslim preachers of hate, most of whom are wanted by overseas authorities in connection with bombings & killings, into the country, what kind of message does that send to the country?

Will the Conservative party deal any more robustly with Muslims than Labour has? Would the Conservatives have allowed Wilders in? I strongly doubt it. They seem terrified to take a position on anything to do with Muslims lest the media accuse them of racism. And behind everything is the implied threat of Muslim riots, thousands strong, so quaintly articulated recently, not by some mouthy street thug with a ‘Behead the Infidels’ sign, but a Muslim peer. Yet one more example of how Labour has tried to bribe a perceived threat with knighthoods & honours, only to find that the leopard hadn’t changed its spots at all.

And Cameron is an unconvincing leader if ever there was one & the Lib Dems are, as ever, beyond the pale for most.

I’ve never believed cynics who argued that the public gave up on politicians long ago. No matter how low ones opinion of MP’s there wa always a sense that if push came to shove, the party – any party – would always be on your side.

I don’t think most feel that now.

Something fundamental has changed & that’s why I wonder if something of a ‘minor’ civil disturbance may be on the way.

Suleyman V:”Given that there are no asylum seekers in Britain or have ever claimed asylum here.”

What are you drivelling about? Are you the kind of person who goes around proclaiming that the word asylum seeker must be inextricably linked with the word bogus?

What are you drivelling about? Are you the kind of person who goes around proclaiming that the word asylum seeker must be inextricably linked with the word bogus

I’m not aware of any directly neighbouring countries to the UK that have conditions that would necessitate people to seek asylum in the UK.

What I *am* aware of is that approximately 98% of so-called “asylum-seekers” manage to traverse approximately twenty safe and prosperous (more so than the UK) countries in order to claim “asylum” in the United Kingdom. Under those circumstances the term “bogus” is the *least* strong that could be used.

Under international law, asylum seekers must make their claim to asylum in the first and nearest safe country. I have never heard of French or Irish asylum seekers and I am unclear as to how we found ourself contiguous with Somalia, Iraq or Afghanistan…

On the BBC “Have your say” page there are exactly nine comments about Wilders yet it’s the biggest story of the day. They’re not suppressing them are they?

Sophia from Bradford, UK said:

It was a very wise decision to ban the MP as his views only incite Muslims to cause trouble in response to the atrocious claims by Wilders. It is cruel and unjust to link the Islamic holy book which incidentally is identical to the old testament of the Bible and the first five chapters of the Torah, to terrorist measures.

Good grief!

I think ‘Sophia’ is perhaps ‘Safiya’.

Brilliant post!

I am unclear as to how we found ourself contiguous with Somalia, Iraq or Afghanistan…
You seem to think asylum seekers have to walk to their country of refuge. It is actually feasible to get on a Heathrow bound plane directly from many countries.

Sophia must’ve had to take an apirin (Muslims are alowed to take aspirin right? They’re not an insidious Zionist conspiracy to control the Ummah through pain eradication or anything?) and taken a lie down after that bit of mental gymnastics. I’m getting over 10.8 Megamorissettes on my irony scale. This sucker is nearly off the chart.

“Will exclusion orders be made against the Hezbollah propagandist Ibrahim Mousawi and Bilal Phillips and Yahya Ibrahim, the hate preachers – one banned from Australia and one from the United States – who will tour British universities next month?” – David T.

No.

“What we need is some kind of agreement on toleration of other faiths by Muslims, similar to that in Norway, where the Lutheran Church and leading Islamic clerics agreed to end the Muslim view on apostasy to allow Norwegians to convert to whichever religion they choose.
That was a start – a kind of ’social contract’.” – devorgilla.

The Lutheran Church of Norway agrees not to kill people who leave or convert? Sounds very one sided.

Reasons to be cheerful. Millions now know that there is a film entitled ‘Fitna’ who would otherwise never have heard of it. Many will watch it. (Memo to MCB (sic) Shoot, foot, in the, and oneself.)

I know nothing about Mr Wilders other than what I have read here. I imagine such views are widely shared around Europe and events such as today’s will increase sympathy for this kind of personality. (Memo to MCB (sic) Boost, BNP, given to, free.)

A truly wretched episode. I hope they all lose, and quickly.

Maven: “Qaradawi is an antisemitic, misogynistic, homophobic piece of shit. I would be pleased if you would convey my good wishes.”

Crude, vulgar, and absolutely to the point. Well said.

At last the BBC seems to have caught up with this possibly being an important story – 48hours at least after it broke.

So the argument is that anyone who says that Muslims can be a bit violent must be kept out of the country, on the grounds that it might incite Muslims to be a bit violent?

You couldn’t make it up, could you. There are few reasons to look forward to the coming Tory government, but one is that we’ll see the MCB and their allies trying to do business with a government who will get far more votes by telling them to fuck off than they do from pandering.

Actually, the same’s true for Labour: if the communitarian inner-city Muslims all voted Tory there’s almost no impact on Labour, while the effect of distancing the MCB would be worth a lot of votes in marginal seats, but Labour party themselves are too busy playing NUS circa 1983 right-on anti-racism to notice.

And of course, when it comes to sucking up to horrible anti-democratic regimes, your typical Labour Party member never met an anti-democratic despot he couldn’t find an excuse for.

Ami:

There may indeed be direct flights between the capitals of the countries you list and Heathrow, but that still doesn’t make Britain the nearest safe haven available to to an “asylum seeker”. Asylum is about seeking safety in the most immediate way, not looking for the best social safetynet to fall into.

It’s rather like the prosecution of Mark Steyn in Canada last year, where his book quoted a statement by a European imam that claimed Muslims were “breeding like mosquitos”. Yet it was Steyn, for accurately quoting the imam and not suppressing it, who was accused of promoting intolerance by the kangeroo court of the Ontario human rights mafia.

There are many similarities between Wilders and Steyn. I saw the video with the exchange between Mr Steyn and the three “sock-puppets” wherein he asked them if they’d done anything at all to censor the imam whose words they found so offensive ( but only when spoken by a non-muslim).

All three, who’d been condemning the quote as ‘islamophobic racism’ for over a year just stared at the floor and stammered.

One could only conclude that they whole-heartedly agreed with the Imam’s statement and his outline of the jihadist strategy of demographic conquest.

It was only when that strategy was exposed to non-muslims via Steyn’s book that the statements suddenly became “islamophobic”.

And yet, News outlets recently reported that the UK’S muslim population is increasing at 10 times the rate of the non-Muslim portion, so I guess those news outlets are racist as well.

I also loved the chauvinistic, hate-tinged refusal offered up by the sock-puppets when Steyn offered to take them all out to dinner.

Like Steyn, Wilders is a bigot merely for exposing and quoting from both an ideology and individuals who represent a mortal danger.

Radical Islam is at war with us and our gov’ts, instead of resisting, have set themselves up as collaboraters.

Don’t forget in the Panorama expose, Abdul Bari headed the mosque that invited the preacher from Saudi Arabia who said that Jews were pigs and monkeys and Hindus were human excrement. Biggest hypocrites on planet Earth.

‘The Lutheran Church of Norway agrees not to kill people who leave or convert? Sounds very one sided.’

No, you misunderstand. They have extracted out of the Muslims an agreement that they (Christians) can evangelise amongst Muslims without penalty to the converts (from Islam to Christianity) as well as of course, vice versa.

They have come to a common agreement about freedom of religious conscience in Norway.

Thus they have gone a long way to neutralising the violent xenophobic verses of the Quran that Wilders wants banned.

It’s a more pragmatic solution.

Banning the Muslim apostasy law is a key tactic in establishing religious freedom.

This may be Baron Ahmed’s last chance to make a big noise.
He’s up for sentencing on the 25th after being found guilty of dangerous driving.
If the judge hands out strongly, for penalty and repentance, he just might end up with a six-month sentence

It is actually feasible to get on a Heathrow bound plane directly from many countries.

Better still, hijack one and bring your friends (provided they’re sufficiently hirsute of course)…

Something fundamental has changed & that’s why I wonder if something of a ‘minor’ civil disturbance may be on the way.

Funny you said that because the sentiment on this side of the pond ( Canada) is similar.

After years of endless needling, harassement and sharia-creep by Québec Province’s various Muslim Brotherhood front groups, the Gov’t set up a travelling commission to expore the issue of “reasonable Accommdations”. Thousands of briefs were presented, people spoke of the intimidation they’d been exposed to, of the endless and unreasonable demands of islamists for this, that and the other thing, and those whole process lasted months.

The two heads of the commission were old leftwing beatniks.

Their conclusion?

Well, basically they felt that the probleme was all in our heads, and that those complaining were merely the victims of skewed perceptions.

I conlcuded, based on their conclusions, that their LSD was still active.

The utter contempt shown for ordinary Quebecers of all linguistic backgrounds was a wakeup call.

For the first time people could see that ‘their’ gov’t was actively working against them.

It’s rather like the prosecution of Mark Steyn in Canada last year

I love Mark Steyn. Not for his writing, which bores me, or his now-rarer Radio 4 appearances, which were self-indulgent. But because he some years ago, with his “fan of the stage musical” hat on, fronted a charity performance of some Sondheim odds and ends by, inter alia, Warwick University Choir, at the Warwick Arts Centre. Excruciating does not begin to cover the event, which demonstrated that St. Stephen’s music is a lot more complex than snobby classical musicians think and you can’t just sight read it relying on your `superior’ skillz.

Mr Steyn managed to keep a straight face for the entire evening, as the already thin audience thinned down to just those fascinated by watching a train wreck, in the horrified manner of the audience at Kane’s wife’s opera performances. I think a lesser man would have pleaded previously undiagnosed bubonic plague and made an exit, but the show must (must it?) go on. And, by Christ, so it did. And did. And did. Had the orchestra struck up `Jazz Odyssey’ I think we’d have cheered.

So he may be a sort of Woolworth’s Malcolm Muggeridge, but he’s a pro, and a tough man, and for that we should praise him.

“No, you misunderstand. They have extracted out of the Muslims an agreement that they (Christians) can evangelise amongst Muslims without penalty (sic) to the converts (from Islam to Christianity) as well as of course, vice versa.
They have come to a common agreement about freedom of religious conscience in Norway.” – devorgilla.

Thank you, but I did not misunderstand. Was this ‘agreement’ that Moslems in Norway could not be killed by other Moslems (only in Norway?) if they chose to ‘leave’ Islam behind? I presume (shrewdly perhaps) no one planning to leave the Lutheran Church of Norway was under any such similar threat?

Does Norway have a Statue against murder? Was it in force at the time of this historic ‘agreement’?

‘Thank you, but I did not misunderstand. Was this ‘agreement’ that Moslems in Norway could not be killed by other Moslems (only in Norway?) if they chose to ‘leave’ Islam behind?’

You know perfectly well that no-one can be killed for such a reason in Norway. What was important was the theological agreement.

That was a shift – and there is a record, a precedent. A first.

“You know perfectly well that no-one can be killed for such a reason in Norway. What was important was the theological agreement.
That was a shift – and there is a record, a precedent. A first.” – devorgilla.

That Moslems in Norway would abide by Norwegian law? This is a ‘theological agreement’?

Larkers, stop playing stupid. The Muslims have theologically reviewed their position on apostasy by dialogue with the Lutheran Church.

This is more than happens in this country where clerics aren’t even challenged over it when Muslims who convert are targeted by their communities and the liberal-left and the police just look the other way and the Church of England…, well, we have Rowan Williams.

Asylum is about seeking safety in the most immediate way: Gee whizz what have I missed: I have just reread the 3 thick tomes on my desk on the subject, not to mention the 1951 UN convention, the 1967 Protocol, and all the UK legislation, and I just cannot seem to find that bit. Could you help me out here?

Says someone who uses the far right MEMRI as a resource!

Memri translates you prick, it is not an opinion or editorial resource and does not pretend to be.

(Muslims are alowed to take aspirin right? They’re not an insidious Zionist conspiracy to control the Ummah through pain eradication or anything?)

Well, I just bought a bottle of generic famotidine tablets at the chain pharmacy. “Made in Israel”.

Muslims are in trouble.

There are many benign and positive aspects to the Islamic faith.

Was there really any need for this straining-to-be-oh-so-politically-correct platitude?

Didn’t you really mean: “There are lots and lots of peaceful and decent Muslims out there — and I oh so desperately want the rest of us all to believe that they are peaceful and decent because of Islam”?

The Quran isn’t one of them (without extensive hermeneutics of the type practiced by the traditional ulema).

I couldn’t parse this at all, never mind the suggestion that there is such a beast as Islam without the Quran. More wishful thinking?

“This is more than happens in this country where clerics aren’t even challenged over it when Muslims who convert are targeted by their communities and the liberal-left and the police just look the other way and the Church of England…, well, we have Rowan Williams.” – devorgilla.

No. We have the Common Law. For example, several people who murdered their (female) relatives because their ‘faith’ told them they must, now reside at Her Majesty’s Pleasure.

If the churches wish to come to an accommodation with Islamists over such matters I for one would make plain my objection. To sin is one thing; to break the Law is another quite different matter, something I was taught at me CoE primary school.

I regard the process whereby modernist open and pluralistic societies accommodate Islam with abhorrence and far from being a positive step, regard it as being of a deeply retrograde significance.

The last defence of the Islamist apologist scoundrel, HPHypocrite, and utterly transparent in its motives, is to resort to the “lost in translation” argument when one examines translations of Arabic which demonstrate less savoury characteristics of Islam.

If MEMRI cuts clips, takes comments out of context, then it surely does no worse nor different than the BBC and the other media. The coverage of Cast Lead is a case in point, where there was no contextualisation at all.

And again if MEMRI is at fault, then those at the receiving end of it should not complain when they themselves are often not above bending the truth to suit their own nefarious purposes.

Brian Whittaker is an Arabist who has his own axe to grind with MEMRI, (I remember reading his very lame attempt at defence of Farfur the Rabbit on Palestinian TV on, you guessed it, Cesspit is Free) and is therefore hardly an objective commentator on it and neither is Norman Finkelstein, given his biases.

In short, it’s a case of the biter bit if these biased individuals are to be believed, isn’t it HPHypocrite? Islamists can dish it out but they can’t take it.