Harry's Place

Where are the media links? Video? All that needs to be done is to give Choudary more airtime/google links etc. He sinks his own ship.

Choudary is a pointless provocation artist. Such people should be ignored 95% of the time and given a good hard kicking the other 5%. They don’t operate in the US because that’s exactly what they’d get, with no police protection.

Is this really a press-release from a serious organisation? It’s crazy, rambling and repetitive. And why did Douglas Murray turn up to what was clearly going to be stitch-up by Al-Muhajiroun if he was only going to complain about it afterwards?

If he really thinks that Anjem and friends were going to offer him a free and fair platform, that only shows how little he knows about how these nutjobs operate.

Read it again, Hugo you’re not paying attention.

I hate to do a shameless plug (but I’m going to anyway): we’ve got a eye-witness account of what happened over at the Spittoon!

Sia – the security industry authority was set up to keep thugs and psychos out of security industry jobs. Seems clear to me we need to get al-Muhajiroun banned again pronto and the licences of any security guards who are members of al-Muhajiroun revoked.
Any complaints of illegal behaviour by sia licenced security guards should go to the sia.

I can confirm that I was at the meeting and can confirm what Eye Witness above has said

I will add the following:

I was with a man and a woman and was disgusted that they wished to separate the sexes. (Men downstairs and woman upstairs). As there was no way passed the thugs downstairs, I went with the woman and man upstairs and sat down. I was approached by a woman and was told that I could not sit there. I insisted that I could. A number of al-Muhajiroun male thugs came upstairs (clearly there was no prohibiting them from coming upstairs) who also told me that I was not allowed to sit there. I insisted I could. Nowhere on the advertising flyer for the event did it say that there was to be segregation of the sexes and I would not have turned up to such an event. Indeed, it would not have been reasonable to leave the woman that was with me alone and I would not have done so.

The thugs were getting very agitated and continued insisting we leave. By this time someone from the South Place Ethical Society who run Conway Hall where the event was held was on the platform at the front and cancelled the meeting because they would not accept a segregation policy.

I was not aware until I was aware from the CSC above that in the room were convicted terrorists. Had I known so, I may not have been so brave, but as it was, a number of woman who had turned up independently came and congratulated me after for the stand that I had taken.

The al-Muhajiroun thugs walked out of Conway Hall shouting “Allah o Akhbar” and continued their own meeting on the pavement outside.

“CSC Director Douglas Murray was asked by a student society to counter Choudary’s views at a debate they were organising at a neutral venue… It soon became clear that the student society was, if not a front group for al-Muhajiroun, then at least Islamist-sympathisers hijacked by the extremist group.”

Hmm. Given that the only reference that I could find for the Global Issues Society, the “student society” who organised the event, was on Ummah.com, for a “Concept of God: Islam vs Christianity” debate at Queen Mary College, featuring a lecturer from the now-defunct Shariah Institute, perhaps the CSC should have been a bit more cautious?

According to her blog, Maryam Namazie was pencilled in to debate Choudhary on the same subject, at the same venue. I guess she has more important things on her plate at the moment.

I was surprised to have my way into the hall barred by large men in long robes and heavy beards and brusquely told to go upstairs, as there was nothing to indicate this would be the case at this meeting. Another woman objected, saying she couldn’t accept this state of affairs at a public meeting, and this was a public venue. The men snapped that this was a private venue. The other woman demanded to speak to management and went in search of a manager. When she came back, I asked her where she was from, as she had a mediterranean appearance and an accent. Palestinian, was the reply, and you? she inquired. British, Jewish, I said- we smiled, allies for the evening. Then the fracas broke out. When the police arrived, the thug who had been assaulting my friend dropped his aggressive demeanour and became all mildness and reason, and denied even laying a finger on my friend. How anyone could lie so brazenly in the face of multiple witnesses amazed me.

When the meeting was closed, as described, Choudary continued his harangue to a crowd outside, which greeted his wisdom with many cries of Allah Akbar. I was heartened to hear some people, not known to me, challenge him. Choudary referred to the discussion taking place- This is not a discussion , it is a monologue, someone called. Choudary declaimed that the greatest evils in the world has been carried out by Christians and other non Muslims, like the Christian Hitler. A young man with a German accent countered with: What about the Grand Mufti, who met and so admired Hitler he aspired to carry out his programme himself. Choudary muttered in embarrassment that “we have nothing to do with the Mufti.” A secular woman commented that it was ironic that we were now all crowded together, touching against each other in a mixed sex huddle, and no one was objecting. One of the bearded men said: This is different, it is in public. I said there was no difference, and this showed it was not a religious principle but a political act, an appropriation of territory. which had taken place inside.

When we had put our case to the sentinels at the door that this was against the rules of the building, against the rules of the country, they thrust back with: These are our Rules. What struck me was the granite certainty with which they conveyed the message: These are the Only Rules. There are no other rules. These are the Only Rules and we will enforce them where and how we choose.

It sounds to me that people walked right into a trap with their eyes wide open. You don’t go to a debate where one side says, “on yeah.. trust us.” Both sides organize it together otherwise it’s going to be seen either a sham or a charlie foxtrot. Now if aM had said that “this guy” was going to be the moderator, and “these guys” were going to do the security and then said.. oops, we had a last minute change of plan, that’s different and still inexcusable. But it seems like aM played Murray and Co, like a bunch of suckers.

“Allah o Akhbar”

Interesting that you chose the same (conspicuous) transliteration as Reza, our resident (until today) ‘Iranian’ ‘apostate’. Interesting.

Was any of this published in the large circulation national newspapers?

Did they have any representatives at the meeting with cameras and recording equipment??

Would have been a great opportunity to demonstrate the freedom and liberty inspired by Islam. (sneeze).

I was immediately grabbed by about three Al Muhajiroun thugs who dragged me out of the hall. …. The police arrived, and took a statement from me. However, the men who I could identify had run away.

You have to respect a religion that inspires it’s followers to assault the innocent then flee the law.

So many in authority in the middle east wear face masks, have you noticed that? The “police” in that video from Iran, all of the militias in Palestine.

These thugs running reminded me of that. All those authority figures wouldn’t have to cover their faces if they weren’t guilty, if they didn’t have to fear reprisals for their own brutality.

I’d slip an invite to the BNP for the next debate. That’s what Andy deserves.

Sexual segregation in our land, demanded by the least desirable of immigrants.
British people who submit to this humiliation are cowards.

They should have walked out.

I wish we had the courage of the Americans or the Israelis, in which case these
provocative hate fests would not be organized.

There were quite a few press people with cameras there. Yet I see in the Telegraph report they are using a library photo of Choudhury.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5563508/Police-called-to-maintain-order-at-Al-Muhajiroun-meeting.html

buzz is the only one so far to report this:
“Choudary, who remained on stage during the scuffles and Enders’ announcement, then grabbed the microphone. He led chants and said in reference to the row over segregation: “Jews and Christians will never make peace with you until you either become like them or adopt their ways.”

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/278052.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/islamist-group-has-to-abandon-relaunch-debate-1707890.html

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23709001-details/Clashes+as+Muslim+extremists+attempt+to+segregate+women/article.do

Guardian carries the buzz report, and has an actual (peaceful) photo of the gathering outside.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jun/18/islamist-al-muhajiroun-meeting-chaos

I wonder who the extremists really are.

I was there and would have preferred the debate to have gone ahead rather than having it stopped on the spurious grounds of infringing the rule of non-segregation.

If only someone had the presence of mind to ask those who were against and for segregation to raise their hands as well as those who didn’t care, and resolved the matter by a democratic vote, even if it meant that the segregationists would have had the day, since they were in the majority.

Not being an extremist trying to make a point, I was actually happy where I was.

Not being an extremist trying to make a point, I was actually happy where I was.

Well bully for you, Andromeda. So anyone not happy where they are, or who objects to the erosion of our hard gained equal rights is an extremist.

I like these comments to the ES report:
Why hasn’t he been charged with inciting racial hatred? Why weren’t the anti-fascist brigade there, eggs at the ready, to turn Choudary into an omelette? His views are no different from those of Nick Griffin however the anti-fascist brigade seem to ignore these preachers of hate.

- Adam, Harrow, UK

Where are all the unite against fascism and anti racist student rent a mobs? I thought they were fighting a war against extremism and bigotry?

- Lb, London

Likewise, if the BNP wanted to exclude non-Whites, they could have a vote on that.

You make me sick

Andromeda
18 June 2009, 10:20 am

I wonder who the extremists really are.

———-

That is easy for anyone sane to work out. You, judging from your website and your argument above, seem to be an extreme dogmatist with your vote-on-everything obsession.

Josh Scholar
18 June 2009, 5:34 am

I was immediately grabbed by about three Al Muhajiroun thugs who dragged me out of the hall. …. The police arrived, and took a statement from me. However, the men who I could identify had run away.

You have to respect a religion that inspires it’s followers to assault the innocent then flee the law.

———

It’s not any law that will be recognised beyond bare pragmatism. To these people it’s jahiliyya – pre-Islamic ignorance.

Itinerary

6pm – Meet and greet with tea and orange squash.

7pm – Halftime interval where audience members throw rocks at promiscuous women.

8pm – The losers of the debate to face public execution.

Andromeda,

I felt a stand had to be made. The debate was supposedly on Shariah law vs British law. I should remind you that we live under British (or more precisely for the sticklers, English and Welsh) law. The attempt at segregation was to try and enforce Shariah law on the meeting. Someone had to make a stand and I was pleased that I had done so. As I said some women from the gallery came up to me after and congratulated me for what I had done.

It was not me wrecking the debate, it was the al-Muhajiroun thugs who did so by trying to enforce a discriminatory practice on the meeting.

The South Place Ethical Society were correct to cancel the meeting. How ethical is it to insist that in a public meeting woman must be relegated to second class status by sitting upstairs?

“In the past an Al Muhajiroun female would give a Muhajiroun male 1p before she jumped into his car – apparently this was ok according to Bakri. Becasue the female had paid a fee to the male his car was no longer considered as private space and so Islamically it was allowed for her to be in it alone with the him…”

I don’t object to that sort of thing, to be honest. If people can come up with silly ways to get round mad rules, while maintaining religious requirements, why not?

I guess to the likes of Andromeda equality between sexes is a mere “shibboleth” eh?

It was not me wrecking the debate, it was the al-Muhajiroun thugs who did so by trying to enforce a discriminatory practice on the meeting.

5p Andromeda (or TheIrie) will come back and call you a “racist!”

” Someone had to make a stand and I was pleased that I had done so. As I said some women from the gallery came up to me after and congratulated me for what I had done.

It was not me wrecking the debate, it was the al-Muhajiroun thugs who did so by trying to enforce a discriminatory practice on the meeting. ”

Yep.

Well done, ADEW!

I wish to make clear, I only did this as the meeting was in a public place and there was no advance notice that there was to be segregation. Had the meeting been in a Mosque or it was made clear in advance that there was to be segregation, then in the first place I would have been unlikely to attend, but in the second, if I had done so (unlikely), I would not have taken that stand.

I entered the building with a woman who was, like me, unaware that there was to be segregation. I am not the sort of person to abandon the person I came with.

There are so many press stories about Islamism in the UK now that it is difficult to separate out those that are of substantial public interest.

This is.

In this instance Islamists made use of a civic institution, a public space (with a strong history of debate and democratic culture) and sought to enforce Saudi style sharia on non-Muslim British citizens and used physical force to do so.

Given the tendency for Islamic communities to congregate in areas and for militants to then declare places such as West Ham “a Muslim area”, this has hugely serious implications.

The UK authorities should stop appeasing these fascists and confront them forcefully, or the British people may take the law into their own hands, as happened in Luton, with vigilante violence and racism the result.

I am increasingly of the view that this has the potential to lead to civil war.

I agree with those who protested the gender segregation of this meeting.

Equality between genders is a line in the sand that I don’t feel should be crossed even in the face of attacks from clerical fascist extremists.

The South Place Ethical Society was right to cancel the meeting when the Al Muj thugs refused to de segregate the audience as it went against their own policy. The SPES is not an organisation that can remotely be considered as racist or discriminatory (just in case the disgusting leftie apologists try to use this line) after all it was for years the venue for SM Pride amongst other organisations who found it difficult to hire other venues because of discrimination.

It took centuries for Western society to recognise that men and women are equal and it saddens me immensely that women in some minority communities are having those hard won rights taken from them by clerical fascists.

Yet again I am unsurprised but angered by the lack of response from groups on the Left who should be standing up for gender equality but who are instead cowardly cheering on those who want to import into the UK the societal structures that make women’s lives a misery in much of the Muslim world.

Freedom to be seen as an equal irrespective of a persons gender, race or sexual orientation was dearly bought and are under attack from the appeasers of clerical fascism who have been cowed by fear of being called racists into accepting what should be considered as unacceptable.

Andromeda

Were you in the upstairs ‘female room’, or the downstairs ‘male’ room when you were sitting contentedly wanting a show of hands?

Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1193869/Muslim-clashes-segregation-men-women-forces-cancellation-meeting.html

Opposition leaders called on ministers to act swiftly to implement a ban.

However, the Home Office said a ban could only be implemented if there was evidence that a group was involved with terrorism.

A spokesman said: ‘Proscription is a tough but necessary power to tackle terrorism.

‘Decisions on proscription must be proportionate and based on evidence that a group is concerned in terrorism as defined in the Terrorism Act 2000.

‘Organisations which cause us concern, including those which might change their name to avoid the consequences of proscription, are kept under constant review.

‘As and when new material comes to light, it is considered and the organisation reassessed as part of that process.’
Shadow security minister Baroness Pauline-Neville Jones said the ban would be a test as to whether the Government was serious about proscribing organisations which espouse extremism.

The government just aren’t serious are they? They don’t get it and the sooner they clear off the better. If they do nothing then +10,000 votes to BNP. If they start to crack down and continue to do so at local level then -20,000 to the BNP.

The govt. has no credibility to attack people who voted BNP when they refuse to address the causes. I believe a 5Live program recently that asked people why they voted BNP came with teh majority answer that they actually hated the racism of teh BNP but made a protest vote about the changing character of their local environs.

“it is difficult to separate out those that are of substantial public interest. This is.”
Apparently this is the most read article on the ES site at the moment.

One of many points Andromeda misses is that there is a place to vote to overturn laws which are already in force, and that is the ballot box. There is already a law against discrimination in public places, not to mention the rules of the building itself. So any vote would have attempted to contravene the law of the land, and also incite a breach of the contract of hire of the room.

I am not sure Choudary is correct when he is quoted as saying he had not broken any laws. He may have in mind terrorism and public disorder laws, but what about discrimination? Mettaculture?

And all credit to this brave and principled South Place Ethical Society. I have not heard of them till now, but they could teach the Quakers of Friends’ House a thing or two about ethics.

I was there and would have preferred the debate to have gone ahead rather than having it stopped on the spurious grounds of infringing the rule of non-segregation.

What a stupid statement. Spurious, eh? That’s how hard-won equality is eroded by cowards submitting to fascist bullies.

I have just looked them up on wikipedia and am ashamed I did not know they are “the oldest surviving freethought organisation in the world, and is the only remaining Ethical Society in the United Kingdom. It now advocates secular humanism.” and a member of International Humanist and Ethical Union, the NGO whose representative David Littman I have heard speak at UNHRC Geneva.

Following al-Muhajiroun’s announcement earlier this month that they planned to relaunch, the CSC revealed that one in seven Islamist-related convictions in the last decade have had links with the extremist group: 15% of all those convicted in the UK of terrorism-related offences were either members of, or have known links to, the organisation.

Could this be the reason why the group isn’t banned? These are obviously from the more stupid end of the terrorist fraternity, and giving them a group to belong to makes it easier to keep tabs on them. Judging by the photos in the newspapers, the police must now have plenty of nice photos from different angles of the members. Maybe the police could set up an almuhajiroun.org.uk domain so they know which emails to intercept, and an almuhajiroun catalogue for them to order their Israeli and US flags to burn, or so they can try to order Stinger missiles or nitrate fertiliser.

@Gaffer

“Allah o Akhbar”
Interesting that you chose the same (conspicuous) transliteration as Reza, our resident (until today) ‘Iranian’ ‘apostate’. Interesting.

I’m confused. What’s you’re point?

“Al Muhajiroun: Extremists and Thugs”

Really! Whatever next?

Of course they’re extremists. But ban them? Why? They’re not a threat to our way of life. They have no credibility, even among “the vast majority of moderate Muslims”.

We should keep a careful eye on them. And take away their welfare benefits.

But as long as they don’t openly advocate violence or break the law then let them be.

As for “the vast majority of moderate Muslims” and their MCB representatives? Now there’s a group we should certainly be worried about being a threat to our way of life.

There is a post about this now on CIF. I was not aware of how the organisers were perceiving the objectors and this bit concerns me a little:

“I texted my friend asking what was going on to which he replied, “ex-Muslims apparently”

To listen to their protestations to the press and police, one would think that they were innocent victims of an assault orchestrated by extremist non-Muslim elements who had hijacked the event.”

I wish it to be known I am not now nor have I ever been a Muslim. I have enough sins of my own without being mistakenly on a blacklist for apostates.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jun/18/al-muhajiroun-islamist-relaunch?showallcomments=true

The CSC carries itself as some sort of brains trust on the threat from Britain’s Islamist extremists and then professes itself surprised at the fact this event was being managed the way it was.

This isn’t the first time Murray has pulled out of a speaking event. Last year he withdrew from the MB-backed IslamExpo as well.

Douglas, it’s time to take the stabilisers off. If you really want to debate Islamists of any persuasion you have to go all in. Suck up the nasty bits and make your arguments. Otherwise you should stay out of it. As a self-appointed authority on Al Muhajiroun you should know their position on the freedom of speech, you should know their position on segregation of men and women. You should also know that they have a thuggish tendency. This is old news.

Unfortunately what you did last night was turn the spotlight on Al Maj AND hand them a victory. They were crowing last night, as anyone who was there will testify. Another event, to go with Luton, in the re-birth of their organisation. Well done

umm, just one thing Franz:It was not any of Douglas Murray’s doing which closed the meeting. By the time Murray arrived (he was held up in traffic) the proprietors of the building had closed the meeting and sent everyone outside.

A middle aged woman… Fair enough, I suppose, but the event was billed as a 6pm start so he must have been seriously held up in traffic. Bottom line is if you’re going to take on Al Maj you’ve got to get it right. The more the media cover them…the happier they are.

Yet again I am unsurprised but angered by the lack of response from groups on the Left who should be standing up for gender equality but who are instead cowardly cheering on those who want to import into the UK the societal structures that make women’s lives a misery in much of the Muslim world.

Or, as in the case of Y. Ridley, they actually embrace and ‘celebrate’ those structures.

I realised years ago that The Left is only concerned with those inequalities created by Whites, Christianity and western civilisation.

Or Israel.

Darfur, Iran, gassed Kurds and the various religious and ethnic minorities, not to mention women, oppressed by Islam/Arabs hardly merit a single mention.

Tip of the hat to ‘A Different Eye Witness’ and ‘A Middle Aged Women’ for demonstrating such courage.

Maybe the Home Office should compile a “red list” of groups whose leaders support terrorism or whose members have convictions for supporting terrorism or engaging in it. These groups do not need to be banned by law, just listed.

Then individuals could decide if they wanted to join. They would of course be aware that they were under constant scrutiny by police and the security services. And organisations could refuse to allow them to meet on their premises.

They were crowing last night, as anyone who was there will testify

And so what? Hamas are crowing about their recent great victory in Gaza. That’s what these people do. You see, it’s called living in a parallel universe. Reality somehow fails to impinge.

No educational establishment should be allowed to stage segregated events, regardless of whether the criterion is race, gender, orientation, or religion. The college should have put a stop to this event, or thrown the guys out who were interfering with the free association of people at the venue.

“the event was billed as a 6pm start”: No Franz, it was billed for 6.30. By 6.30 it was all over.

Anjem Choudary, I challenge you to another debate, this time at a venue of my choosing. Bring all your followers. Total gender segregation is assured.

Ok? The venue is the Blue Oyster Bar……

ha ha ha

I’m surprised you haven’t hard of the South Place Ethical Society before now, Amie. It used to be a very popular venue for left-wing meetings. One of the most violent street disorders of the twentieth century took place outsid eit in 1975. The National Front had hired a hall for a meeting, no doubt with the intention of compromising the management committee; it was at the height of the ‘no platform for fascists’ policy. A counter-demonstration was organised by Liberation or the Movement for Colonial Freedom. It all got rather heated, and by the evening one demonstrator, Kevin Gately, was dead. I was at a student conference at UCL and I remember Nick Mullen (many years later arrested for being in the IRA) storming into the conference with blood streaming from a head wound, demanding that the conference be abandoned and the delegates join the fray.
That was on the 15th June 1974, and I noticed that there were a couple of articles marking the ‘anniversary’ this year.

It was a trumped-up reason to stop the meeting, and an opportunity was missed to have these Muslims explain to us how and why their version of Sharia is so perfect and beautiful, and for Douglas Murray and anyone else to challenge their version.

If they were hiring and paying for the hall, it behoves those who wished to attend what was after all a free meeting to abide by their rules.

To do otherwise would have been an abuse of hospitality.

If invited to someone’s house and asked to remove my shoes before crossing the threshold, I would do so without hesitation and with good grace, even if it were my custom to sleep in my boots in my own home.

It is after all only good manners.

Andromeda:”it behoves those who wished to attend what was after all a free meeting to abide by their rules.
To do otherwise would have been an abuse of hospitality.”
On the contrary, it behoved those who ran the meeting to abide by the rules of the proprietors of the hall. To do otherwise was a breach of their contract with the proprietors. As the proprietor made clear, they had hired the hall on false pretences, which constitutes an abuse of hospitality to say the least.
Moreover, as a free meeting, it is a public meeting and therefore subject to the laws of this country, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex.

If I went to a mosque where the segregation rules prevailed, I might not agree with them, but having chosen voluntarily to visit the mosque I would certainly abide by the rules of the mosque.

The meeting was never advertised as segregated, and many of the people who attended, were dismayed at this abuse of a public venue, and the Palestinian woman I mentioned was the first person to take action by demanding to speak to management to say firmly she was not prepared to accept these rules.

Your attitude only confirms my impression of the frame of mind of the people running the meeting that they, like you, do not recognise any rules other than the ones they wish to impose on the public sphere.

There have been many recent civilised, scholarly debates on whether there is a place for sharia law in the British legal system, where there has been ample opportunity to explore the positions you describe, but they were not conducted under these rules.

If and when the BNP is running in a by-election, they could do no better than to slip a few bob covertly to the Islamofascists to lay on a number of *camera time* events of this kind in the constituency just before the poll.

Andromeda: Quote

“An Iranian friend of mine living in this country said she preferred Ahmadinejad. In fact, I have a sneaking admiration for him myself, particularly when he addressed the British with his Xmas message on Channel 4.

That is not the sort of thing Moussavi would have been capable of.

The way he dealt with the crying blubbing marines caught in Iranian waters was a triumph of showmanship.

If I were Iranian I’d vote for him.

My friend also said that Moussavi seemed ill, old and weak and that he wouldn’t have lasted long. That would be no good as Iran needs a strong leader.

I do wish the West would butt out of everyone else’s affairs. It always gets things wrong and makes things worse. Nobody listens to us now anyway, and just goes and does the opposite.”

http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/5763/102/#jreactions

Hmmm… interesting.

ermintrude: Well spotted. No need to engage with Andromeda any further, now you have exposed the measure of shallow thinking of this commenter. Interesting how the wish that the West butt out of everyone else’s affairs, is not reciprocated with an inclination to “butt out of” imposing rules on the West while inhabiting “the West”.

Shallow thinking? Or, something more sinister?

(By the ay, I notice I contradicted myself in the post about Red Lion Square. The riot was on 15th June 1974.).

Sue R: All those events you describe occurred when I was living in South Africa, before there was television there, so they were happening in a far way country of which we knew little;)

In fact, I became aware of the illustrious history of the Square around 10 years ago when my son led a demo there which involved a pantomime horse and our border collie with balloons on his collar. It was just that I didn’t know the history and role of the Ethical Society.

The 1998 balloon demo might seem incongruous after the previous history, and was for what I regarded as an eccentrically obscure cause, as I dismissively told my son, after the “life and death” demos we in our student days in SA were involved in..
It was the launch of the Campaign for Unmetered telecommunications (CUT) to break the monopoly of BT which was preventing unlimited access to the internet and the introduction of broadband.

He explained to this uncomprehending and sceptical parent that this broadband thing was going to be vital for democracy.
CUT grew to become the most influential lobby group whose evidence before a Parliamentary commission led to why were are able to have this discussion right here.

Their role was acknowledged in the industry:

2.. CUT has been a major driving force behind the adoption of unmetered access in Britain.”

Our view of this organisation has not changed one jot since then. Indeed, its stature as a lobby group has grown as affordable, unmetered telecoms is now widely avaiable inthe UK.

Above all, CUT showed just how much of a difference ordinary people can make if they remain committed and organised.

Every single person who uses unmetered Net access in the UK is indebted to CUT. Make no mistake, CUT took on BT and won.

CUT – El Reg salutes you.”

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/11/cut_calls_time_on_unmetered/

I thought to myself when reading about Bea Campbell that if anyone should have been awarded MBEs, it is the whole CUT committee.

You can see a report and pictures of the demo in the Square here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/72186.stm

Sorry, I got carried away there; but what with Red Lion square, and the Iran twitter phenomenon bearing out the words of my son the prophet (no, he is just a naughty boy) has got me overemotional.

Middle Aged Woman, I do not defend or attack segregation, I merely said I wished that the meeting had gone ahead, since I had taken the trouble of journeying to Conway Square to attend it.

As for Ermintude’s citation of a comment I made about Iran and Ahmadinejad, could the connection between that and my preference that the Sharia v UK Law debate had gone ahead be explained to me, please?

Andromeda. I also travelled to Conway Hall/Red Lion Square to hear the debate. However, how could I and the male members of my party take seats in the main hall whilst our female colleagues and friends were made to sit upstairs? We politely informed the al-Muhajiroun bouncers that we would not be abiding by the segregation and they promptly became aggressive and even violent. The event had to be cancelled because of their thuggish behaviour, nothing else.

To Yet Another Eyewitness,

To pretend that the women in your group were in some sort of physical danger if they had to sit upstairs is ridiculous, and you know it.

I did not see any violence being perpetrated, only the Muslims surrounding you and asking you to abide by their rules.

You wanted to make a point and you made it, but to the detriment of free speech.

Anyway, you will no doubt all want to vote on it so please come and do so at

http://www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=135
Vote: Should the Sharia for UK debate have been stopped?

Middle Aged Woman, I do not defend or attack segregation, I merely said I wished that the meeting had gone ahead, since I had taken the trouble of journeying to Conway Square to attend it.

What utter stupidity.

So you’d have had no trouble attending a debate at which Blacks were segregated from Whites, and you’d respect such an odious situation out of a sense of “good manners”? Well you’re in the UK where it is considered “good manners” to not accept gender segregation

We should confront, attack and denounce all types of segregation whenever we encounter it, whether we use good manners or bad.

But in order to do so, Andromeda, you’ll first have to pry your nose off the pages of the Koran.

John P: don’t bother, Andromeda is not arguing in good faith. S/he persistently ignores the point that the vote had already been taken- by the voters of this country to enforce legislation banning discrimination in a public place, and that it was the proprietors of the venue who stopped the meeting as it breached their rules, after it had already being brought to their attention, by amongst others the Palestinian woman, before the fracas broke out.

Neither Andromeda, nor the thugs, get it, or even try to get it, how important it is to the South Place Ethical society to uphold their own principles, going back generations. Andromeda cannot even begin to teach them any lessons about free speech. S/he should be silent, read and learn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Place_Ethical_Society

Agreed Middle Aged women.

Anyone who refuses to even ‘judge’ let alone challenge gender or racial segregation is an immoral idiot.

I have much admiration for those in the audience who challenged the thugs right then and there. They acted very bravely in choosing to confront the radicals.

The islamist thugs will be very reluctant to try this stunt again.

I would like to concur 100% with the poster referring to herself as “middle aged woman” in relation to the points she makes about Andromeda’s comments.

I did not attend the meeting to break up the debate or stop free speech, I went to listen to the debate and there was no reason why I should not have been able to do so seated next to the female with whom I walked into Conway Hall.

Andromeda is wrong to compare it to be invited into someone’s house as the “house” in this instance was Conway Hall run by the South Place Ethical Society. This organisation does not have a segregation policy. On the contrary to what Andromeda has said, it was wrong for al-Muhajiroun to walk into Conway Hall and demand segregation.

Andromeda assumes that the men wanted to stay with the women because they would have been in ‘physical danger’. How very odd. Maybe they wanted to stay with the women because they were friends.

It is interesting to note that John P has now fessed up to the main purpose of confronting these people, ie “winning” the confrontation through stopping the meeting.

If the objective was to stop the meeting, you certainly succeeded.

Can Andromeda explain how he/she understood John P to be confessing that the main purpose of the confrontation was to stop the meeting going ahead. I have read John P’s piece and nothing in it implies that. Perhaps Andromeda is showing his/her own prejudices.

Andromeda,

I do not believe that John P was at the meeting and I certainly never took any direction from him in advance of attending. The main reason why I took my stand was a matter of principle. We live in Britain and at the moment we have British (or if you want English and Welsh) law.

May I ask you, what you have thought if instead of separating woman, a meeting was held and the organisers said that only white people could sit downstairs and all non white’s would have to sit upstairs? Would you have found that acceptable and meekly gone along with it or would you think it was correct to make a stand? Is it only sexist policies that you pander to or do you also pander to racist ones?

As I understand it, John P lives in Canada, so was not involved. The meeting was stopped by the organisers when they found out they had been deceived and their long standing values and principles not to mention the contract, had been breached.

Sue R: yes that is a good point about Andromeda’s perception of the role of men vis a vis women: who can only be imagined as protector/husband. We women and men envisaged exchanging ideas and arguments with each other as friends do, as the debate proceeded.
Men and women: engaged in intellectual discourse together.

It is interesting to note that John P has now fessed up to the main purpose of confronting these people, ie “winning” the confrontation through stopping the meeting.

If the objective was to stop the meeting, you certainly succeeded.

Yes the long arm of my justice can reach right across the Atlantic.

Were it that I were similarly membered!

The purpose of this debate was twofold:

1) By inviting Mr Murray ‘Andy’ figured he’d gain legitimacy and prestige in the eyes of both the public and his followers.

Didn’t happen.

2) It aimed to set an odious precedent by forcing upon non-muslims the disgusting Islamist practice of gender-segregation.

Didn’t happen.

And when ‘Andromeda’ comes to my house he’ll be sitting, all second-class, on the back porch.

‘Cuz that’s where segregationist islamists belong.

In answer to Sue R’s question, John P’s assertion that “Anyone who refuses to even ‘judge’ let alone challenge gender or racial segregation is an immoral idiot” speaks volumes for his overwhelming sense of moral superiority.

He was clearly pleased that the meeting was stopped because the Muslims would not agree to give in to the minority demand for mixed seating. This suggests to me that he was more interested in imposing his own rules on them and in stopping the meeting if they did not do as he wished, than in listening to the debate.

res ipsa loquitur.

Andromeda argues:

the meeting was stopped because the Muslims would not agree to give in to the minority demand for mixed seating.

This is an inversion of the truth. The meeting was stopped because al-Muhajiroun would not accept the rules of Conway House, where the meeting was held, of no segregation.

In response to A Different Eye Witness, I am aware that failure of the Muslims to observe the rule of enforced mixed groups was ostensibly the reason why it was stopped. However, if no trouble had been made by the fanatics who wanted to make a point of this, then the debate would have taken place, which is what most would have wanted.

Andromeda,

If “most would have wanted” white people seated downstairs and non white people seated upstairs, would that make it morally acceptable?

We are going round and round in circles again and again. As I have said before, if you wanted to hear the debate then you would have accepted the segregation rules, because doing so meant that the meeting could go ahead.

If you turned up with the primary intention of making a scene and scoring a point, then you would wish to disrupt and stop the meeting by making a fuss about the seating arrangements.

I fall into the former category and you, A Different View, fall into the latter category.

To answer your question, ADV, if it was a BNP meeting and I as a “racial foreigner” was compelled to sit upstairs or downstairs or in front or behind, I would accede to their conditions provided I got a good seat in the sense of being able to see or hear the proceedings, if my primary intention was to attend the meeting and hear what they had to say.

If it was not my primary intention to hear what they had to say, then I would adopt the same tactics that closed the meeting down.

Adromeda,

Please do not twist what I have said. It was not me making a fuss about seating arrangements! The seating arrangements of Conway Hall is that anyone can sit anywhere. Al-Muhajiroun put thugs on the door to prevent that. It was them making a fuss, not me.

Now I am done with you and your distortions of the truth. I have nothing more to say to you.

I think it is perfectly clear what side of the sharia law or British law, Andromeda is on. We don’t need a debate. And yes, actions do speak louder than words. (res ipsa loquitur).

To pretend that the women in your group were in some sort of physical danger if they had to sit upstairs is ridiculous, and you know it.

You need to learn to read (but then, you are an A-d groupie, so this is hardly surprising; how can one admire this antisemitic thug … it speaks volumes about you). Nobody said the women were in some sort of physical danger if they had to sit upstairs. The physical danger came from the “security people” who resorted to violence against peaceful visitors making a complaint.

From Andromeda’s link:

Called ‘direct’ or ‘pure’ democracy, it empowers the population to voice its opinion on specific policy issues, allowing “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” to be expressed.

No comment needed, I think.

To a Different Eye Witness:

I was sitting in the main hall downstairs and watched you insisting on invading the women’s section upstairs.

Some of the women who had been sitting there – among others – were pleading with you to leave.

The men around me were complaining that you were ‘ignorant’ and rude and I can only agree. You are extremely bad mannered.

(Others were joking that you were probably a transvestite!)

What is this PC preoccupation with non-segregation anyway? What does it matter?

The bulk of people at that meeting wanted a segregated environment and only a handful of troublemakers, like yourself, refused to go along with it.

My female companion sat upstairs, I sat downstairs. What was the big deal?

We were both sitting near the front so we could ask questions afterwards if we wished.

I have attended segregated meetings with Choudary speaking in the past and found them extremely stimulating.

The contrast between the real men at that meeting and the camp little queer in charge of the hall – closing the meeting down because it was ‘segwegated’ – could not be clearer.

Muslims and Islam are strong. The pussy-whipped PC British are weak.

“We don’t need a debate” says Sue R. That sounds rather ominously totalitarian.

What is an “A-d” groupie, “Me”? I have been accused of many things, but this one’s new to me.

I witnessed no physical violence. At the most you were surrounded by protesting Muslims but then you brought that on yourself by your anti-segregationist fanaticism.

I am still trying to puzzle out why you have a problem with direct democracy and why you say “no more comment is needed”.

Perhaps your reasoning goes something like this:

Direct democracy is evil because I am evil because I wanted to the debate to go ahead, which was an evil thing to want??!

My word, the standard of debate is getting better and better with each post.

Muslims and Islam are strong. The pussy-whipped PC British are weak

That’s why the brave Al Muhajiroun bouncers ran away when the police came to arrest them.