Harry's Place

“Salmond and the rest of his party are turning a blind eye to Saeed’s views.” – Tom Harris.
I doubt it. Salmond is an astute reactionary. He has masterly calculated that rather than risk challenging the Union he will simply annoy the English into breaking it up. Any stick will do.

How many S.N.P. supporters are worried about gay rights or domestic violence do you suppose?

The sickening irony is the badly considered, naive, erroneous, tree-hugging, Lefty, multi-culti nonsense that underlies such things happening is, ideologically, supposed to be opposed to what Islamism is: extreme right, oppressive towards women, Jew hating, intensely patriarchal, misogynist, supremacist, intolerant, and a few more things reminiscent of the Aryan project.

Hardly suprising really we have 4,000 UK Muslims under terrorist survillance, when in many respects it is impossible to name, shame and condemn these people living as they do under the protective umbrella of the above on the one hand, and within a wider community that barely acknwoedges them and feels sympathetic on the other hand – just as the Irish used to feel about the IRA.

Oh come on. All the Leftist parties have been playing pat-a-cake with the Islamists. The SNP just beat the Labour Party to it. But then on the other hand I suppose the SNP hasn’t put Saeed into the House of Lords as Labour has done with Lord Ahmad. So all things are relative.

The truth is, for those people who hate the English, especially the English middle and uppoer classes, the Islamists are natural allies as they share that hatred. Which is why Saeed can survive in the SNP. There is no reason to think others like him don’t in Labour either.

So to summarize the SND is running an Islamist candidate who among other things, approves of the Holocaust, hopes for another one (I remember the article), favors terrorism, is in favor of domestic violence and abusive marriages and supports killing gays – because they believe this will bring in votes from Muslims…

So which is more disturbing, that Scots (and presumably other Brits) are so craven and without morals that they would allow him in their party

Or that they may be right, and that the most sociopathic views possible will bring in the votes of British Muslims?

Suddenly I have no desire to ever see Scotland or England.

“There is a huge difference between Islam and Islamism. Islamism, the view that Islam is a political as well as a religious movement”….is how Islam started, with Mohammed himself, who felt entitled to massacre the Banu Qurayza tribe for “political” reasons.

No one is suggesting all Muslims are terrorists – no one – but equally, this and related issues are not properly dealt with by pussyfooting around the historic and ideological heart of this religion, exemplified by Mohammed himself.

Of course there is a difference between Islamists and “ordinary” Muslims. But it is not unproblematic: the former do it, the latter deny it and where it comes from. There is no honest debate about this – none – in the Muslim world. All we see is nonsense like ‘they’re not true Muslims’, contrary to the facts and how they are reasoned out.

Every time a judge sends a Muslim terrorist to prison saying he corrupted his religion etc (as they do), the problem remains unaddressed and other Muslims will read the Koran, see the bits about kill the unbelievers etc, see that Mohammed did it, and think the judge doesn’t know what he is talking about – as indeed he doesn.t

Welcome to the Dark Side, Tom.

Tom,
Thanks for the post.

I suspect Salmond is well aware of how Saeeds views will play in that particular constituency – or rather he thinks they will in a particular way – so it is rather a soft racism of low expectations from Alex. A great shame all round.

Of course there is a difference between Islamists and “ordinary” Muslims.

If there was a clearcut difference between the two then the author wouldn’t be writing that the SNP finds this “a small price to pay to win some votes” because there would be no votes to be won by running a monster like this.

Clearly the SNP believes that Islamist monster = Muslim. The polls will tell.

…rather a soft racism of low expectations from Alex.

Hardly. If Muslims really will vote for Saeed, they are not “Muslims” they are Islamists. Just as if you support another holocaust you are not merely right wing you are a Nazi.

Addendum: Of course there is a difference between Islamists and “ordinary” Muslims. But it is not unproblematic: the former do it, the latter deny it and where it comes from……and often “sympathise” with what it represents – just as the Irish used to sympathise with the IRA, which allowed them to breed in their community.

So far, shouting about foreign policy has distracted from this issue of Muslims acknowledging, taking responsibility for, and dealing with the terrorists breeding IN THEIR COMMUNITY.

Personally, I think that teh Left needs to advertise the politics of these people much more, and not even mention the word ‘Islam’ or any of its cognates. Just take up the political demands. How many Lefties will admit that they think that beheading dissenters is a good thing or that a man can cast off his wife by reciting a centuries old formula (a magic spell)?

This neatly illustrates the deeply negative effect of Multiculturalism.

Communities large enough to decide parliamentary seats have been convinced that only ’someone like them’ can represent their interests in an open democracy.

Shameful.

Are anti fascists, bigots?

This neatly illustrates the deeply negative effect of Multiculturalism.

Communities large enough to decide parliamentary seats have been convinced that only ’someone like them’ can represent their interests in an open democracy.

It’s shameful.

I’m sure glad they’re throwing that old Austrian Nazi in the slammer.

There is no place for Islamism or for that matter Islam within socialist thought/policy – those on the left who pander to Islamists are embracing a fascist, misogynist, homophobic, anti-democratic and antisemitic ideology. What makes collaboration worse is that the Islamists are completely open and proud re their ideology.

Most on the left justified their collaboration with Islamists through their twisted anti-imperialism (they lust for dead Americans) and happily ditched principles of anti-fascism and solidarity.

Salmond’s collaboration seems yet more base, he’s sacrificing principles for electoral gain. He should be ashamed.

Josh Scholar

your forgetting the crucial part of the electoral equation as So much for subtltey said ‘and they hate the English’.

Historians will no doubt remark on how Islamism became a free floating political force and communalist politics of the most catastrophic Indian were introduced into British politics by the divisions whithin Scottish labour party politics.

George Galloway of course has led this vanguard leaving Scotland to create an Islamist block in England (largely now in London and the Midlands and Northern English cities).

The Islamist block has now returned to Scotland.

Its really quite mind boggling, I cant imagine that Catalunya or Basque country or Quebec would have done such a thing.

It is far too simplistic to reduce this phenomenon to multiculturalism, as this is very much a product of party political mechanisms, devolved power to Scotland and the prescence of a large muslim urban political constituency.

Our American readers might not understand the degree of anti-English sentiment north of the Border, not least because they will not have encountered a corresponding anti-Scottish sentiment from the rest of Britain.

Sadly though its there and the completely unscrupulous nature of Alex Salmond and the basest exploitation of an anti-English sentiment will be the motor that drives this nasty emergence of communalism and ethnic division.

The potential for this emergence of a religious and ethnic communalism to destabilise the baely suppressed religious sectarianism of Scotland should not be underestimated.

Scotland seems quite a fragile polity at the moment and i fear there are hard times ahead for it as the SNP, so ironically, seek to divide to rule.

Is SNP Scotland the new Venezuela?

Or is it just that the attack on Glasgow airport followed the usual pattern.

1. terrorists bomb airport (or tube etc)
2. Local Islamists are sincerely outraged, “Stop bombing our parade you idiot terrorists!”
3. Islamists are then proclaimed as heroes by politicians for their oh so heroic and morally maginficent denunciation of attempted mass murder.

Where is the Scottish Hazel McBlears?

How many S.N.P. supporters are worried about gay rights or domestic violence do you suppose?

Quite a few, I’d wager. Not directly related, but here and here and here is reactionary Scottish Christianity on the first subject.

I find the juxtapositioning of M(a)c with a name to indicate Scottishness. Take that back, you Sassenach cnut.

In doing so, the nationalists have become the first “mainstream” party in the United Kingdom to endorse an Islamist candidate.

I dunno, the Labour party seem to have an ‘Islamist’ who is a minister – Shahid Malik, rather ironically Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Ministry of Justice!

This is the fellow that, together with other ‘prominent British Muslims’ including the rather dodgy MCB, back in 2006 signed and published the infamous ‘Do what we say or else’ open Letter to Tony Blair. A thinly veiled threat of Muslim violence if they didn’t get their way on foreign policy.

And guess who’s to blame, according to one commenter on the SNP Tactical Voting blog?

“I suspect the Qiillanm Findation is sitting ther with files on what Osama Saed and the host of other bright and talabted scots asion in SNP ranks. Labours very own M15, paid for with papa Sarwar millions with a few sunbs from his london pals and no doubt some PPP and even MOSAD money slipped in soemwhere along the line”

http://snptacticalvoting.blogspot.com/2009/04/osama-saeed-little-bit-more.html

….not to forget of course that very dodgy ‘man of conviction’ – Lord Ahmed.

The Labour Party have certainly promoted Islamist fellow travelers – Lord Ahmed springs to mind, they have also played footsie with Muslim Council of Britain turning a blind eye to the anti-democratic character of the organisation and the Islamist tendencies of their spokespeople.

The Scottish Hazel McBlears, if she ever raises her head, will be shot down.

A couple of days ago David T featured Osama’s latest wheeze: to con a couple of paranoiacs going by the name of ‘academics’ at Strathclyde University Department of Geography and Sociology, by name of Miller and Dinan, into being partners in supervising a PhD on ‘mapping’ the government’s responses to Islamic extremism, a project which had received generous ESRC funding.

Osama will be the third supervisor.

One of the key areas it will look at is the divergence in response between the Foreign Office (where Mockbul Ali reigns) and the Communities department (where Hazel Blears has been putting up a fight).

The aim of this bogus piece of research is plain – to neutralise the new-found awareness of Islamism that the Labour party has found.

I think it is only fair to point out Tom that Labour has only recently latched on to the dangers of Islamism – that Islamists are not suitable partners in the war against terror. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution. This has been part of a learning curve for all non-Muslims and really not a party political issue.

Jack McConnell when he was FM also coseyed up to Saeed and the Islamists that ran IslamExpo.

What Labour must do is de-instantiate all the Islamist cronies it has so far given the leg up to like Lord Ahmed who should be stripped of his peerage – or at least monitored as critically as you are intent on critiquing Saeed, and made to answer for his views.

They should also deselect Sarwar jnr. in the interests of community relations or at least see that his campaign is secular, progressive and mainstream.

From what I’ve heard Anas Sarwar plans to occupy the same Islamist territory that Saeed is bent on flagging up – the Muslim sense of special grievance. This would be a disaster in Glasgow Central because what kind of choice are the white non-Muslim electorate going to be faced with? Choice of two dodgy Pakistani candidates going on about how hard done by Muslims are when they are less than 3% of the population? How is that going to wear?

>>>A thinly veiled threat of Muslim violence if they didn’t get their way on foreign policy.

Indeed. But never mind foreign policy. What concerns me is Muslim behavioural attitudes here, and the fact that 4,000 of them are under terrorist surveillance in their community. Shouting about foreign policy, which in any case is substantially bugger all to do with British Muslims in the way they get inflammed about it (so called Ummah nonsense), has so far acted as a smokescreen.

Its very limited what other people can do about this, its very obvious what Muslims could do, but don’t: invite the police for chats, hold conferences, write articles, appear on TV, have local meetings, lots of things to promote debate and exposure and condemnation of the terrorism in THEIR COMMUNITY.

I see no alternative: the longer Muslim hostilities continue, the more terrorists breed and perpetrate their crimes, the more hate preachers we see, hate literature in mosques etc, the more pressure will apply to the entire Muslim community for this problem.

Why don’t they do it? A few reasons, but one of which I think is no ‘ordinary’ Muslim likes seeing the Koran and the example of Mohammed linked to violence and murder. And since terrorists and Islamists do that, for legitimate intellectual reasons, ‘ordinary’ Muslims dodge and deny the issue; which means the issue remains and the terrorists and Islamists carry on.

Ahmed was appointed in 1999, in a more naive age. Subsequently, it’s become clear what he is, but it’s a struggle to remove anyone from that Place. We all make mistakes.

McMoonface is doing what he’s doing now, and being permitted, with all the foreknowledge that we have on Ahmed. That’s unforgivable.

Tea, the thing that must be stopped is all this multicutural pandering to religion. The white community needs to be far less credulous of what Islam requires. We need to re-assert the secular bargain that involves religion (any religion) staying out of the work-place, out of public space.

People of faith are entitled to their faith but it must be a private matter. Pray at home, in your own time. Bring your own sandwiches in to work, don’t expect a halal canteen. Don’t wear face masks or disguises in public contexts where you have a responsibility to others not of your faith. Take your holidays during Ramadan if you want to observe it; don’t come in to work half starved and dehydrated for an entire month.

Alec, I agree it could be difficult to get Ahmed out but failing that the move must be to challenge him repeatedly on his views and activities. For instance a couple of years ago he was at a major Islamist shindig in Istanbul on ‘Islamophobia’ – about how to go about making criticism of Islam in the west a crime.

We all need to get beaned up on the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamism, and why it is diametrically opposed to our liberal democratic system which it means to destroy.

The biggest threat isn’t ignorant ordinary decent Muslims just bumbling along in life the best they can, it’s Stupid White People pandering to Islamism and not seeing how radically different it is from western liberal democracy and classical Islam.

We need to stop being so easily conned.

Saeed…subscribes to the fundamental principle of Islamists throughout the world: the re-establishment of a worldwide caliphate.

A link would have been helpful. Here it is.

There will be a desire to field a Muslim candidate in a constituency with a high proportion of Muslim voters in the (post) industrial belt. I doubt there’s anything more to it than that. The SNP don’t really have any centre-left principles so they were, for example, quite happy to field the Christian fundamentalist Mason in Glasgow East. They have also attempted to ingratiate themselves to Catholic voters in various ways with which you’ll be familiar.

Perhaps Saeed’s views on separate state-funded Islamic schools

Yeah, well, it’s a bit of a problem for the Scottish Labour party isn’t it? The English on this site are perhaps unaware of the party’s fairly uniform support for the maintainance of separate state-funded Catholic schools. (Some people who appear regularly on these threads imagine Labour as some sort of anti-clerical outfit. Only a Glaswegian would know how funny that is, eh Tom?) Given this is so, what possible objection could there be for separate Muslims schools other than one based on a consistent secularist approach in education?

Btw, this post was shit.

He’s been a candidate for the SNP before so I don’t know why this is causing such controversy now.

Tom – you make a very Christocentric division between Islam and Islamism. Islam, which after all has its own law, is inherently political. Politics (and war) was how it was spread – as an ideological system (that was largely) imposed.

Islamists simply believe in the reimposition (some by fair means, other foul) of that system. It is not fair to say they are not proper Muslims – like saying a Christian fundementalist is not a proper Christian.

Disregarding their legitimacy (as has been pointed out) is not helpful because people can see it is false – the Prophet would certainly get where they were coming from. Better to take on their ideas, and particularly their practicality, than discount their credentials. Put it to Saeed – are you a homophobe? Do you support domestic violence against women? Etc.

Shuggy

Indeed. it is good that you remind us south of the border of the strength of the present sectarian divisions in Scotland, and the stregth of their existing traction on political party politics 9especially that of Labour).

But how to push for a principled secularism in a country that only ’solved’ its religious wars by an unprincipled sectarianism and an entry into the Union which rather papered over the cracks?

Surely the danger, the nigh certainty in fact, is that demands for Muslim religious entitlement according to that same unprincipled fudge over sectarian divisions will destabilise the situation inflaming sectarian divisions, most strongly in Glasgow and the post-industrial belt?

The future development of a new three way sectarian religious infighting and ethnic communalism married to anti-Unionism is surely the best way to completely mess up Scottish society and create unbridgeable social and political divisions?

Well it’s nice to have the opportunity to tell a member of the governing party direct that you have been the worst offenders in importing the problem of “Islamism” into the UK by allowing (and continuing to allow by vairous routes) unscreened mass Muslim migration into this country. Not least because your party has been the principle beneficiary of Muslim votes in inner city constituencies. You further compound the error by allowing one of the worst welfare systems in the world to fund Islamists in their extremism and by pandering to demands for special treatment at work, at school, at swimming pools etc.

Furthermore Saeed – despite the implication in your article – is completely correct that Qaradawi is an “eminent scholar” within Islam, and very much bang in the middle in terms of Islamic belief – not at all “extreme” in terms of Islamic teaching.

But according to the Government Islam is a religion of peace, as Hazel Blears was telling us very recently, so YOU explain the discrepancy. It’s not for us to puzzle out. Most people here understand where the problem lies. And it doesn’t lie with Mr. Saeed who is simply expressing the faith of his fathers as conventionally understood by Muslim scholars.

Tom Harris’ party supported the massacre in Gaza – or at least absolutely nothing to stop it.

If that is the mark of a “socially liberal, progressive, democratic party” then you can keep it.

Tom Harris looks like a typical piece of Blairite careerist shit. His party faces electoral meltdown, having presided over the worst economic disaster to hit Britain since the 1930s.

Attacking filthy foreigners with funny accents must come as a welcome diversion for this socially liberal, progressive democrat.

It serves a vitally important cause – Tom Harris’ seat in Westminster, with all the attendant perks and expenses.

This socially liberal, progressive democrat voted for the bombing of Iraq and to spend taxpayers money on a new generation of weapons of mass destruction. He also voted for ID cards and socially illiberal restrictions on individual liberty.

In short, he is just the kind of humbug you’d expect to find posting on Harry’s Place.

“The SNP don’t really have any centre-left principles so they were, for example, quite happy to field the Christian fundamentalist Mason in Glasgow East. They have also attempted to ingratiate themselves to Catholic voters in various ways with which you’ll be familiar.” – Shuggy.

Shuggy is on to an important point here which people who have not lived in Scotland, or know very much of what life is like there, would miss.

Entrenched in the Scottish political landscape more deeply and for considerably longer than Islam are the consequences of the religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It really means something to be a Catholic or a Protestant north of the Border. It is mentioned in connection with every significant figure in Scottish public life sooner or later.

However, I am certain Salmond is here trying to annoy the English (a similar sublimated wish is, I believe, what lies behind much of Galloway’s present career). That is Salmond’s primary concern. By choosing an avowedly Islamist candidate to fight a seat on the Nationalist ticket – the quicker to break up the Union by pushing the English electorate into making or demanding a break. He is evenso conceited enough to think he can manage the Celtic Islamists. But once out of the bottle this genii will become something of a headache closer to Edinburgh than London. However, guess who will pay for the clean up?

You can find out more about this socially liberal, progressive democrat’s reactionary and toadying voting record here:

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?id=uk.org.publicwhip/member/1990#divisions

Linda, what massacre in Gaza?

Tom Harris is also on record as saying that the bombing of civilians is not a war crime – at least not when it is Israel bombing filthy Arabs.

He supported the use of Prestwick airport in the shipment of bombs and missiles to Israel.

He is a complete scumbag and an apologist for genocide.

Next post please…

Linda is trolling yet again about a “massacre in Gaza”.

“Tom Harris is also on record as saying that the bombing of civilians is not a war crime”

And he is entirely correct. It is only the DELIBERATE bombing of civilians that may be a war crime.

“‘What massacre?”

Well of course, you wouldn’t consider it as such, as they were only filthy Arabs being killed.

Subhumans – terrorists and their human shields who stand in the way of the Zionist project and therefore must be eliminated.

Ah yes Someone, when Israel drops bombs on crowded slums, the deaths are just “accidental”.

Nothing and no-one is allowed to stand in the way of the Herrenvolk, er, I mean, God’s Chosen People.

Linda,

You can find out more about what a progressive totalitarian midset reactionary is by looking at this voting record.

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=George_Galloway&mpc=Bethnal_Green_%26amp%3B_Bow

Seeings Mr Saeed’s extremist views are well known, and seeings his constituency counts many Muslims, then what would his possible election say about the oft-touted line of most Muslims being moderate?

Mr Saeed’s candidacy is a litmust test in that sense, isn’t it?

Attacking filthy foreigners with funny accents must come as a welcome diversion for this socially liberal, progressive democrat.

Mr Saeed isn’t a foreigner and scottish accents are no funnier than german ones.

The info provided by Mr Harris on O. Saeed’s extremist views are accurate and well documented, and that is the only reason the spotlight is directed at the guy.

His views and not his ‘race’ are the issue.

“filthy Arabs”? You utter racist.

Linda proves yet again that he lives in the sewers, with this:

“Nothing and no-one is allowed to stand in the way of the Herrenvolk”

When Linda starts comparing Jews to Nazis, you know that he is one disgusting anti-Semite.

I missed his reference to “genocide” earlier. Look up “genocide”, you ignorant fool, and then describe the one in Gaza.

Nobody here has been talking about “filthy” Arabs. It is only you with your filthy anti-Semitic mind who regards JEWS as “filthy”.

Thirded, after Shuggy and Larkers, regarding sectarianism in Scotland (or at any rate more particularly the most densely populated bit thereof).

Serious question: what proportion of MSPs and MPs from the SNP are Catholic?

Of course Barad, Linda would not be refering to the massacre of Fatah members in Gaza by Hamas.

Has Joe 90 changed his name to Ronstadt?

Ah yes Someone, when Israel drops bombs on crowded slums, the deaths are just “accidental”.

And when a bunch of illiterate, bearded fanatics, without so much as a smigen of provocation, decide to rain deadly missles down on innocent Israeli civilians, it’s referred to as “resistance”.

Israel’s action in both Lebanon and Gaza are legitimate defense operations mounted in response to unprovoked aggressions and murder

I read just this morning that Hamas has prevented 1000s of Gazans from leaving the strip to seek urgent mdeical aid over the past few months.

Hamas now realises the falling ill is a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card, because few if any of the Gazans allowed out for medical treatment have ever returned.

He supported the use of Prestwick airport in the shipment of bombs and missiles to Israel.

An MP who understands what’s going on in the Mideast. All the more reason to vote for him.

Post a little less, please, Linda.

He’s been a candidate for the SNP before so I don’t know why this is causing such controversy now.

Andrew Adams has already explained that someone, that is Carol Churchill, should have at least one go at producing racist or sectarian guff before the baliffs are called in. The S.N.P. have, therefore, had their chance with Saeed.

Shuggy, I agree that tandem state support for Roman Catholic and non-R.C. schools is a lot less than optimal – and it took me some time to realize such things didn’t happen across Britain, or even Scotland – but this should not detract from concerns about placing another section of the pupil-population into the hands of certain socially conservative or plain reactionary nutters.

Now, can remarks about Israel be pruned?

Can I point out that the usual disruption is going on here.

Whenever a negative Osama Saeed story pops up, some of the SIF, SPSC, SSP tubes arrive saying ‘gaza genocide gaza genocide gaza genocide’

and everyone gets off point.

The SNP has made a pact with the Muslim Brotherhood. An MP and a couple of MSPs at the next election in return for half a million quid, Muslim schools to be run by Saeed, Saeed & Saeed and their cousin Humza Yousaf.

The problems highlighted by mettaculture are what concern me and have concerned Tom Gallagher. Excellent post metta. The impact on social cohesion north of the border will be toxic. Saeed is politicising Islam but he is not in line with other of Quardawi’s viewpoints; on women for instance, he is progressive. On hadd punishments, he is not. On Jews? Who knows, but he hates Israel. And I suspect he buys into the Zionist plot.

We can argue til the cows come home about Islam’s true teachings and the difference between Islam and Islamism, but the dividing line is not the theology but the emphasis and practice that each individual Muslim wants to place on the more avowedly political aspects of their faith. For most their faith simply means prayer.

Most want a quiet life and to get along with their neighbours. How many Christians want to press Old Testament literalism? Religion is a complex subject and not just a matter of texts.

John P,

Don’t forget this also.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3651783,00.html

Hamas stealing humanitarian aid and selling it for profit to Gaza citizens.

>>> decide to rain deadly missles down on innocent Israeli civilians

You must be joking. While it is true that Hamas idiotically and pathetically fired their useless missiles into Israel, these rockets are hardly deadly and they were hardly “rained” down on Israel.

Between June and December 2008 there were no rockets fired but the Israelis did not fulfil their side of the ceasefire agreement, which was to lift the genocidal siege and stop killing Palestinians. Once the truce was over the Israelis launched a murderous assault that had clearly been planned well in advance.

In short, the firing of rockets was just an excuse for Israel’s aggression, providing a feeble excuse for professional liars like Mark Regev, who was granted all the air time he wanted to push his propaganda.

Please, can the constant gardeners in this thread take Joe99’s advice and start pruning?

>>> When Linda starts comparing Jews to Nazis, you know that he is one disgusting anti-Semite.

I was highlighting the ideological similarities between Israel and Nazi Germany, which don’t stop there.

The Nazi idea of creating Lebensraum by driving out “subhuman” slavic inhabitants is echoed on a smaller scale by Israel in driving Palestinians off the best land in the West Bank to make way for the Chosen People.

In the long run this will backfire, but in the meantime it is creating untold misery.

>>> Please, can the constant gardeners in this thread take Joe99’s advice and start pruning?

Ah yes, please don’t expose the poor dears to “what they don’t want to hear”.

I think a permanent ban for Ronstadt is more appropriate than pruning.

>>> I think a permanent ban for Ronstadt is more appropriate than pruning.

Of course you do. Because I constantly remind shits like you of your stinking hypocrisy.

for once I’d agree, Far Right loons like KRonstadt are a pain, particularly when they come out with their stock “God’s Chosen People.” arguments, which are really nauseating and apolitical

if you must trim then keep those Jew hating cranks at bay, for a while at least.

>>> Now, can remarks about Israel be pruned?

Israel is above criticism here, just like on the BBC.

Even when it massacres the innocent.

the difference between Islam and Islamism.

It’s the spelling!

What’s nauseating is when people like you resort to the stock “everyone who criticizes Israel is an anti-semite” argument.

Unfortunately it is always the first resort, never the last.

Of course you do. Because I constantly remind shits like you of your stinking hypocrisy.

No, it’s because you’re a hugely unpleasant, nasty person whose presence makes this site much less enjoyable a place to visit, so I’d like you to go, either voluntarily or by means of a ban.

Between June and December 2008 there were no rockets fired but the Israelis did not fulfil their side of the ceasefire agreement, which was to lift the genocidal siege and stop killing Palestinians.

But Egypt’s border with Gaza is sealed tight, and yet Hamas didn’t fire rockets into Cairo.

Which pretty much puts the kybosh to your claim Hamas was only helplessly “reacting” to Israeli intransigence and “resisting” Israeli aggression.

I miss Benji. He often was the voice of reason around here.

So, no, I am not in general in favour of bans.

Wardy the fanatical militaristic ziocon. Lol.

The problem with Linda’s arguments, as presented here, is, first that they are deluded and extremist, although they are that.

(I am hardly a great apologist for Israel, and in fact find many of the apologia presented for Israel, or some of her actions, in the comments threads here, and sometimes in published posts, misguided, and, sometimes even disgusting and warped- but it doesn’t take a great deal of intellect or basic observations, to note that, for all its faults, Israel is really not very much like Nazi Germany at all, to say the least);

second, that they distract from the argument at point, which is about something else entirely, and third, and most importantly, that they are utterly dull and tedious, and far from beauty and truth.

Dishwater when one longs for sweet rainfall, in fact.

K Rondstadt said:”Tom Harris’ party supported the massacre in Gaza – or at least absolutely nothing to stop it.”

I have been following lots of different reports on Operation Cast Lead and I can’t find any evidence of a massacre in Gaza anywhere. May I respectfully suggest that eating magic mushrooms whilst reading the Guardian middle east news is not compatable with reality.

re K Ronstadt

Anyone who compares Israel with Nazi Germany is either a provocative jerk,
or so ignorant that they shouldn’t be allowed in a grown up conversation.

Martin

I miss Benji. He often was the voice of reason around here.

I’d agree with that second sentence if you took out the word “often” and replaced it was “occasionally, either by a miracle or on the principle of the stopped clock being right twice a day, or something”

Wardy the fanatical militaristic ziocon. Lol.

A somewhat tipsy Julie Burchill once me if I was a Zionist. I mumbled something along the lines of “well, not really, I mean it depends on whether…”. However the correct answer is no, I’m not.

Free speech for Linda! She maybe a lunatic but I defend her right to offend with nasty, Jew-baiting/virulently anti-Israeli nonsense.

I notice Linda avoids dealing with the fact that Hamas used the war against Israel as a pretext to crack down on Fatah opposition in Gaza. How interesting that as soon as the war started, suddendly Fatah members and leaders in Gaza are having their hands broken by Hamas milita, dozens or so were executed in Hamas prison cells for being ‘collaborators’

Is Linda Galloway undercover? This might explain the support and apology for Hamas.

I very much doubt it Barad. Galloway might be full of shit, but he at least has the gift of oratory and rhetoric. This guy would bore a crowd to sleep.

Barad,

But there are limits. I am sure that KRonstadt could pedal his nonsense on PrisonPlanet or Rense without being noticed.

The problem is, that such anti-Jewish filth emanating from KRonstadt’s gob tends to sidetrack otherwise worthwhile discussions.

HP is not obliged to provide a platform for deranged anti-Jewish racists, like KRonstadt. He can start a blog for free and rant there, if he wants.

I read recently that Egypt was enforcing a blockade of its own on Gaza. If this is true, should we consider such a blockade genocidal? Or should we ignore it? Those of us who are keen to speak, write and think in terms of the hypocritical piety that is political correctness need to know.

I miss Benji. He often was the voice of reason around here.

Strangely enough I used to get called “the voice of reason” occasionally. My favourite time was when I got called it by this bloke, who then went on to make what seems to be his only ever blog post to make the point that after he had called me the voice of reason I had said something he considered unreasonable in my very next cyber-utterance.

http://www.matthewturner.co.uk/Blog/2005/07/harrys-place-voice-of-reason.html

I am a hugely unpleasant, nasty person whose presence makes this site much less enjoyable a place to visit.

Mod,

I understand your position. I just worry that banning people is a very slippery slope. Also-and I cannot explain why-I am more amused than offended by Linda’s nonsense. Maybe it is just the way she expresses hereself but to me she hardly seems convinced of her own opinions. I find Hasbara Buster far more aggressive and unpleasant to read, for example.

B.

Linda gets uncomfortable when the nature of Islam is being discussed. Linda hijacks the thread with a woeful whine for palestine.

On Topic. Why the concern for Scotland selling out to Islam for votes when Britain has been selling out to Islam for votes for many years?

Ban, smban, just prune the posts for the moment!

Barad, fair enough, maybe you’re right. I think HB is less of a problem because his conspicuous form of Jew baiting is well known and generally ignored.

Calling the SNP “Tartan Tories” would be an insult to proper Tories, of whom there are quite a lot in Scotland.

The entirely soi-dissant Scottish “Government” wants to banish volunteers from the hospitals there, and instead have visitors’ the tea and sandwiches provided commercially. By just the sorts of companies that give money to the SNP.

Where the fantasy comes from the SNP is a left-wing, or at least a centrist, party comes from, I honestly cannot imagine.

There is a very simple way of dealing with K Ronstadt.

Don’t read his/her posts. Keep to the subject if you are commenting on a thread.

“Calling the SNP “Tartan Tories” would be an insult to proper Tories, of whom there are quite a lot in Scotland.” – David Lindsay.

Where are they? They clearly do not vote. Forty years ago a majority of Scottish seats were held by Conservatives.

“What’s nauseating is when people like you resort to the stock “everyone who criticizes Israel is an anti-semite” argument.”

Ah, Linda lying again, which is all he does about Israel, when it comes right down to it.

NOBODY (except anti-Semites) uses the “everyone who criticizes Israel is an anti-semite” argument.

But what can you expect from somone who compares Israel to the Nazis. He is literally, utterly and terminally barking.

Barad,
Maybe. Sometimes I feel the same as you about her, sometimes not. There is no question that HB is an order of magnitude (or six) more unpleasant. He is the one whose filth is the worst here.
And what about Gert? He is beginning to give Linda a good run for her money. His angle seems to be “Jews are European colonisers who should bugger off back to whence they came”.

Well here are Geert Wilders’ proposals for policies to contain and preferably roll back this objectionable ideology (my comments in brackets):

1. Stop cultural relativism. We need an article in our constitutions that lays down that we have a Jewish-Christian and humanism culture.

[Not sure I would use those exact words but I think I would make clear we are not part of a Shariah culture. I suppose my own formulation would be something like: "Our constitution draws on the traditions of the Greek love of knowledge, the Roman genius for order, the Christian gospel of love, the spirit of the renaissance and enlightenment and the movements for democracy and freedom that have liberated people from the bond of ignorance and oppression. The imposition of totalitarian systems of law, including Shariah, is prohibited absolutely."]

2. Stop pretending that Islam is a religion. Islam is a totalitarian ideology. In other words, the right to religious freedom should not apply to Islam.

[The more one thinks about it, the more one sees that this makes sense. As long as it is treated as a bona fide religion, it can keep advancing under the radar. ]

3. Stop mass immigration by people from Muslim countries. We have to end Al-Hijra.

[This is absolutely vital. Any Muslim migration to Europe should be heavily screened to ensure we are allowing people in who sincerely oppose Shariah. Being ambivalent towards it is not good enough.]

4. Encourage voluntary repatriation.

[I am not sure this is highly relevant myself, but certainly that shoudl be the public response to anyone not happy with democracy, human rights and gender/religious equality.]

5. Expel criminal foreigners and criminals with dual nationality, after denationalization, and send them back to their Arab countries. Likewise, expel all those who incite to a ‘violent jihad’.

[Well this should certainly be the rule for all immigrants.]

6. We need an European First Amendment to strengthen free speech.

[I agree]

7. Have every member of a non-Western minority sign a legally binding contract of assimilation.

[I certainly think this should be required of immigrants.]

8. We need a binding pledge of allegiance in all Western countries.

[Yes. I don't think that is at all unreasonable although many people don't like this return to the test concept.]

9. Stop the building of new mosques. As long as no churches or synagogues are allowed to be build in countries like Saudi-Arabia we will not allow one more new mosque in our western countries. Close all mosques where incitement to violence is taking place. Close all Islamic schools, for they are fascist institutions and young children should not be educated an ideology of hate and violence.

[These are all pretty sensible proposals, although I think I might look to control the syllabus and hours of attendance of Saturday schools rather than close them down.]

10. Get rid of the current weak leaders. We have the privilege of living in a democracy. Let’s use that privilege and exchange cowards for heroes. We need more Churchills and less Chamberlains.

[Well, yes. We need people who defend our democracy - not Archbishops, High Court Judges and Government Ministers who advocate introducing Shariah law into our system. ]

But how to push for a principled secularism in a country that only ’solved’ its religious wars by an unprincipled sectarianism and an entry into the Union which rather papered over the cracks?

You’re conflating two related but distinct historical issues here and collapsing more than a couple of hundred years of history in the process: the conditions under which Scotland entered the Union are one thing, sectarianism in Scottish society as a by-product of 19th century immigration another. Principled secularism is nigh on impossible against this background although some of us still think it’s worth arguing the case. But given the context, and to be more specific to the points raised in the post, I don’t see how it is possible for Labour to complain about the advocacy of religiously segregated schooling on the part of the SNP given their history on the issue, particularly in the West of Scotland.

7. Have every member of a non-Western minority sign a legally binding contract of assimilation.

[I certainly think this should be required of immigrants.]

How would you police that? Have Assimilation police knock on the door of every ‘non-western minority’ to check they have assimilated enough, and if not, then what? Send them to assimilation school or prison? Fine them? Remove their children from their care to be fostered by an assimilative foster family?

Good ideas, eh.

“In short, the firing of rockets was just an excuse for Israel’s aggression”

Hamas shouldn’t fire rockets then, if Israel reacts agressively. What a silly thing to say – like saying kicking a much bigger person in the shins is just an excuse for them to break your jaw.

>>> When Linda starts comparing Jews to Nazis, you know that he is one disgusting anti-Semite.

For goodness sake. Talking utter crap, making fictitious claims of equivalence, just doesn’t help; this is not a point scoring game.

>>>In the long run this will backfire, but in the meantime it is creating untold misery.

In the long run Muslims will have to stop hating Israel and until they do Palestinians will continue to suffer.

Tom Harris’ party supported the massacre in Gaza – or at least absolutely nothing to stop it.

There was a massacre in Gaza??? Haven’t seen a thing in the news. Was it recently? Any clues?

For the benefit of Linda and everyone else who buys the Guardian/Independent originated story about who broke the Gaza ceasefire. the answer is the Palestinians on June 24th 2008, 5 days after the ceasefire was originally brokered http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7470530.stm

OK?

BTW – I enjoy Linda’s rants. They make me feel a little more human knowing that I’m not her and they are a great laugh!

Ambi –

Well if the migrant was found to have broken the agreement, then if they had dual citizenship their UK citizenship would be revoked in line with the agreement. I would want substantial bonds to back up the agreement – financial bonds from the individual and supporting individuals. Those bonds would be called in should the agreement be broken.

The Immigration Service would supervise the scheme. Costs would be covered by migrants paying fees and by surrendered bonds.

Either you are serious about your country’s democracy and security or you’re not. You’re not.

then if they had dual citizenship their UK citizenship would be revoked

Yes, field, as readers must know by now, you believe in second class citizenship.

How nice.

Field – were all those points really in Geert Wilders manifesto? While accepting the difficulty of policing parts of it, I should imagine any candidate fielding it in some parts of the UK would get a very warm reception.

The BIG problems in tackling Islam (besides it accounting for a significant vote in around 30 constituencies) is that Islam has positioned itself a religion rather than a political ideology in the UK where religious belief is generally regarded a personal matter. This enables even its militant adherents to shelter behind the Racial and Religious Discrimination Laws, although there are promising signs in Hazel Blears attitude to Daud Abdullah.

This (positioning itslef a religion) also enables useful idiots like the Archbishop of Canterbury to say we should accomodate Islam by implementing elements of shariah law (eg for marital and property disputes) in UK law while protecting the equal rights of Moslem women. That he does not see the complete incompatibility of the two postion is breathtaking and indicates he should get out more. At least ex Archbish Carey pipes up to shout him down along with several leading Bishops, whenever he does this.

And secondly, of course the extreme do left realise that Islam is a political ideology which accords second class rights to women as second class citizens, but it is a “problem” they are happy to gloss over in favour of bashing capitalism and supporting the enemies of capitalism. My ex (the sociologist academic) always used to mock the left wing brethren among his fellow academics, who were happy to exploit the women in their orbit in a sexist manner.

“Yes, field, as readers must know by now, you believe in second class citizenship”

Ah, the vultures circling over field’s head … but he is very much alive, and hurling baseless insults at him prove nothing. There is nothing “second class” in requiring immigrants – immigration is a privilege, not a right – to prove that they are going to accept the ethos and mores of their new country.

“I was highlighting the ideological similarities between Israel and Nazi Germany”

As I was saying: you are one disgusting anti-Semite.

immigration is a privilege, not a right – to prove that they are going to accept the ethos and mores of their new country

Versus loss of citizenship, once granted, as proposed by field, based on dual citizenship alone as a criterion, with this as the context:

7. Have every member of a non-Western minority sign a legally binding contract of assimilation.

How stupid can someone be?

Test Acts, anyone?

Mrs. Ben – Yes those were all Wilders’ points (my comments were in brackets).

I do think it would be useful for the Anti-Shariah movement to simply refuse to accept that Islam is a religion as generally understood. Once you make that important step a lot of other things become clear.

Habibi –

I don’t myself agree with Wilders if he means this should be applied generally to existing citizens. I think that would be discriminatory and in any case very difficult to work. However, I think it is reasonable to apply tests where people breaking immigration agreements, commit serious crimes or offend against society’s core values.

Shuggy, as I recall, when a certain two-faced git who supports hanging and opposed repealing Clause 28 came out in opposition to the 42 Detention, you did not raise similar concerns of duplicity. From little acorns, and all that, and if some glimmer of understanding of what’s being cooked-up up here can be displayed, that should surely be welcomed.

Sure, objections can be expressed about Labour’s involvement with R.C. skools and the associated vote, but do you not think you may be discarding the infant human with the ablution fluid?

Now, I’ll break my earlier vow, and respond to Linda.

I was highlighting the ideological similarities between Israel and Nazi Germany

Yes, they both have a preoccupation with Jews. What’s your point?

Either you are serious about your country’s democracy and security or you’re not. You’re not.

Ah yes field of course, only you are serious about democracy and security. Well done, you got the trump card there, stunning stuff.

Just for the record, is everyone who asks you questions about your qualifications of Geert Wilders bullet-points also unserious about democracy and security, or only me?

Or was it just a hysterical, thuggish, pompous and clunking piece of cretin-speak rhetoric designed to put you on the supposed higher ground, and make me the rock-throwing limp wristed enemy of democracy and security who seeks to persecute you (and send Britain to the dogs), by simply asking a question? Let us know.

Now, you really don’t have to be so hysterical and knee-jerk and, frankly, small-minded. My enquiry has brought a further qualification from you. You have not only clarified your own thoughts, but given relief to all those ‘non-western’ British people who would be subject to assimilation interrogation to have their citizenship and identity as British called into question, a nasty piece of racist consideration that even you baulked at. This is progress. Well done. You should thank me for that opportunity.

Now I am off to bed, where I shall scheme sedition and plot the further debasement of democracy and security, by doing subversive and anti-democratic things like asking field a question about his support for a sub-clause from a bullet point agenda of Geert Wilders.

Good stuff from Gert Wilders. Im a big fan of his. Very courageous fellow.

We have to confront Islam, because its very difficult to distinguish between Islam and Islamism. You have to think of the practical aspects of implementing an effective policy.

This confrontation will force Muslims to make a choice, liberalism or Islamism. Many will choose the later, better to figure that out now than later, when they vote in shariah.

Alec, on another thread Linda has pretty much come out and said Jews=Nazis. In my opinion, this means that Linda is as bad as HB and should be banned.

“Or was it just a hysterical, thuggish, pompous and clunking piece of cretin-speak rhetoric designed to put you on the supposed higher ground, and make me the rock-throwing limp wristed enemy of democracy and security who seeks to persecute you (and send Britain to the dogs), by simply asking a question? Let us know.”

Oh, yes: people who disagree with you are thugs and cretins, right?

Ambi –

I don’t mind you having a different view to me.

But that is my belief: if you are serious about protecting your democracy and your security you will take a serious look at Wilders’ proposals.

As I said I don’t agree with everything Wilders says, so it is hardly earth-shattering when I illustrate how i don’t agree with him. ,

But I believe he has a right to be heard and we have a duty to listen to him seriously, not least because he is a man whose life could be take away at any moment for having spoken his mind.

Totally out-of-the-box pushing-the-envelope way of dealing with Ronstadt.

Use your scroll against the troll.

Ignore him.

I always do.

But KB, is it also blue skies and clear blue water and cutting edge?

Going forward, Someone, we seem to be on the same page.

And singing from the same hymn book.

“Going forward” is one I did think of just as I’d hit Return, having discussed the awfulness of this phrase only a few hours earlier with colleagues. Rats.

Someone

There is nothing “second class” in requiring immigrants – immigration is a privilege, not a right – to prove that they are going to accept the ethos and mores of their new country.

Ah!

Not easy to formulate the ‘ethos and mores of their new country’. I think I know what you mean. Probably free speech, homosexuality, misogyny, freedom of religion, (within limits of course), superiority of civil law over religious law etc etc etc.

Respect for the Royal family?

Fox hunting?

Animal slaughter???

Muslim community must protect the Islamic values in terms of the parameters of halal and haram, the values of marriage, hayaa, the prohibition of relations outside of marriage and the prohibition of homosexuality. British Establishment is trying its best to anglicanise Islam.

Muslim parents would like to send their children to state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. There is no place for a non-Muslim child or a teacher in a Muslim school.

Bilingual Muslim children need to learn and be well versed in Standard English to follow the National Curriculum and go for higher studies and research to serve humanity. At the same time, they need to learn and be well versed in Arabic, Urdu and other community languages to keep in touch with their cultural roots and enjoy the beauty of their literature and poetry. A Muslim is a citizen of this tiny global village. He/she does not want to become notoriously monolingual Brit.

There are hundreds of state and church schools where Muslim pupils are in majority. In my opinion, all such schools may be designated as Muslim community schools.
Iftikhar Ahmad
http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk