Lenin’s Tomb
Yeah... it was a "Muslim-bashing rally" in which the biggest cheer went to... a practicing Muslim!
Were you actually there, or is this another one of your reports in which you have "sources" present?
You really are a lying little Stalinist hack, aren't you Lenin?
I went along as an observer and heard Peter Tatchell pleaing with the police to stop being afraid of upsetting the Muslim community and not to let them get away with being 'above the law'. As if! Has he not heard of Woodhill, Belmarsh, or Guantanamo? Is he not aware that Asians are stopped and searched by police most frequently (a recent 300% rise to be precise)? Or that the government were battling to have the right to hold terrorists (govt translation - Muslim men) for 90 days with no evidence of wrongdoing?
He sounded like a reactionary journalist from the pages of the Daily Mail or the Sun - I was literally shocked to hear him talk in that way.
Is Tatchell always this much of a divisive, irritating arsehole?
Dave - so Hari was there! Right, well, the first thing is that I was there as you can see from the pics (I don't have a paid photographer). The second thing is that the only Muslim to speak was Maryam Namazie, who is not a practising Muslim, but an outright Islamophobe who presents her case under the guise of 'secularism'. She's a raving lunatic.
Collins - yeah, well, Tatchell has been sounding like that for a few years now. Check out the stories about him on Islamophobia Watch.
Incidentally, Dave - don't you know a Nazi when you see one? There were quite a few in the crowd, and they didn't dress down that much for the occasion. Luckily for you (as I recall) you're not black. The Nazis like to go for a drink and beat up some 'wogs' when they've had a good day out.
If you had really been there, you would know that there was a Muslim called Ali from Iraq who was given the mic, explained in a speech of at least five minutes that he was a practicing Muslim who had been hailed by Saddam, and supported free speech even when it offended him. he receuived by far the biggest cheers, strange behaviour for an "anti-Muslim rally" filled with invisible Nazis.
This is another one of those situations where you will be pressed into admitting you weren't actually there, isn't it Lenin? Why not just come clean now and admit your "sources" were yet again peddling bullshit?
Dave - it's always good to have an Uncle Tom present, so I don't doubt he got good cheers. But as I left at 3.15pm (it was getting boring) I must have missed that.
This guy wasn't a member of the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq was he?
And were you one of the guys who proudly help up those racist caricatures of Muhammad?
Oh, I see, any Muslims who support free speech, even including things offensive to them, are "Uncle Toms"?
And it's march that cheers Muslims that was racist, not you, the privileged white boy using terms from a patronising and racist book to attack democratic Muslims?
At the risk of using a religious metaphor from a 'faith' just as dumb as the others, get the mote out of your own eye...
And yes, I held the silly cariactures of the propeht Mohammed. I don't like them, i think they are foolish crap, but I unlike you I don't think they should be banned because some parts of a religious groups want it to be.
I think your account of the march is foolish and dishonest crap too, and I would hold it up in any public square if somebody tried to ban it. Soem people are like that. You wouldn't understand.
hey Lenin, more protests in the US on the anti-immigration bill happened today. 20k in Phoenix, AZ. organisers expecting SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND in LA today.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/
ne...ionrallies.html
On Friday, the efforts to crack down on illegal immigration spurred thousands of people to the streets. They are expected to culminate in a “National Day of Action” April 10 organized by labor, immigration, civil rights and religious groups.
In Los Angeles, more than 2,700 students from at least eight Los Angeles high schools and middle schools streamed out of classrooms in protest and visited other campuses, imploring students to join them.
http://www.latimes.com/la-
032406...0,3335069.story
^ more on the walkouts those were friday mostly
http://cbs2.com/topstories/
local..._084102644.html
One last point. You have repeatedly defended Noam Chomsky from the charge of supporting holocaust denial over the Faurisson affair. (He's an actual Nazi, rather than the invisible Nazis you suggest were cheering Muslims).
You point out rightly he defended Faurisson's right to speech, not his views, and it's stupid to attack Chomsky for it. So why exactly is this situation any different? Can you explain please?
Coudl you also point out to your readers that johann defends free speech for Islamic fundamentalists like abu hamza who believe he should be killed by having a wall collapse don him. Quite how this fits with his attending an 'anti-Muslim' march is odd. Perhaps he's just a gay 'Uncle Tom'? Perhaps every minority should follow your little script?
Speech doesn't exist in a vacuum, Dave. Islamophobia is a massive social phenomenon, and Jyllands-Posten would not have been able to put up those cartoons without the backing of mass Islamophobia. Note that it didn't print similar anti-Christian cartoons.
Faurisson is (well, claims to be) an intellectual arguing in the world of ideas. No massive anti-Holocaust movement is backing him up.
...Chomsky is wrong on that case anyway
no freedom of speech for nazis - end of.
but Dave your either completely naive or a right-winger wanker if you can't see that the cartoons and this whole affair is to do with racism not 'freedom of speech' wake up and smell the coffee
Dave is naive rather than right-wing, but it's not much better. You should have seen the masturbatory fervour of those arseholes grappling for the Muhammad cartoons. So what if Dave thinks he's defending free speech: this pathetic rally was designed to appease racism. So fuck him and fuck Johann too for supporting it and being purblind about the patently obvious. "Invisible Nazis" - he must be living in a cocooon.
of course there's nazis present - they've been advertising this little racist gathering on their website. they've also been welcomed onto the march for free expression blog which organised this whole revolting affair.
and 'dave' is a shitty little troll who has recently emerged from harry's place (unsurprisingly - there's usually flies round shit)
Well, Islamophobia Watch links to a BNP blog which proves its presence:
http://www.islamophobia-watch.co...n-wash-
out.html
'bnp and me' sounds like a children's pop-up book by dr goebbels
It's either that or it's a desperate cry for help.
Btw, I think Dave is actually a Johann Hari acolyte. I met him once and he was very complimentary in a creepily humble kind of way (he's looking for a Master in the Lacanian sense), but this was before I said some nasty things about His Lardiness. Then I became a Liar, a Fucking Liar, and now a Lying Little Stalinist Hack.
At any rate, Dave was against the war and is probably behind some of the more leftward drift of Johann's recent work. I bet you anything.
Dave, if you're reading, can you persuade Johann to call for Bolivian workers to have a revolution? Seriously, this is important. Independent readers love to be flattered that they are revolutionaries, and the Bolivians need some support from Whitey. Whaddya say? Just ask him to put: "If Evo Morales doesn't expropriate the rich like he's fucking johns, then I'm afraid he shall have his head in a basket, and I personally will kick it around London Fields like a soccer ball."
Tatchell said "I will be joining the thousands in Trafalgar Square".hehehe..
I guess the Islamophobia problem in the UK is not as bad as Islamophobiawatch makes out.
If this rally had been held in Bradford and it had said Stop Muslims Taking Your Houses and Jobs, it would have been bigger. The thing about these petit-bourgeois fucks is that they couldn't generate a mass movement if their lives really did depend upon it. Unfortunately, the imperialists rely upon passive anti-Muslim racism while the fascists are perfectly willing and able to galvanise active versions of the same, to give it expression on the streets in terms of meetings, protests and violence.
Don't misunderesimate these bastards.
I feel a bit concerned by the idea that the pathetic turnout at this thing is supposed to mean something. It seems to me that the only meaning is that it's really funny how (crypto-)islamophobic columnists etc tried to build this rally and talk up its significance and even come down from their ivory towers to attend it for it to be derisory. The meaning it does not have is that there is not much islampophobia around. On the contrary, islamophobia is so strong, that its not necessary to punch it home by attending anti-muslim rallies.
300, you have to laugh.
Mark - I broadly agree with you, but the important thing about this is that it shows you can't be a liberal and be an open Islamophobe. If you want a serious populist rally against Muslims, you drop the liberal pretense and say its about the darkies and their designs on Our Wimmin and Kids. The other thing is that even if you do hold it with secularism in mind and have some connections with liberal columnists who overestimate their own political importance (Lindsey German could get a bigger and more enthusiastic audience than Messrs Hari and Cohen), you'll still have to make up most of the numbers with recruits from the libertarian and far right.
Pity Dave didn't see me in retrospect. I'd have totally snogged him. I'm a total slag, I am.
Serious question, Dave: was 'Ali' an Outrage member by the name of Ali Hili who has been spreading false rumours about an death-to-gays fatwa by Ayatollah Sistani?
I have a short question about your definition of Islamophobia, Lenin.
If Islamophobia is racist, And therefore Muslims constitute a race, why is that secular Iranian communists do not apparently form part of this race?
Oh fucking hell: how many times do I have to say it? Race is a fiction, and racism is the pernicious cause which that fiction seeks underpins. There is no such thing as race, no one is a race. Africans are not a race, black people are not a race, Arabs are not a race, the Jews are not a race, the Irish are not a race, the Uzbeks are not a race, the Muslims are not a race, the Indo-Europeans are not a race...
Is that clear enough? There is not a coherent biological entity that corresponds with the notion of race. Yet there are a large number of people who think there is such a thing as race and many of them believe that some races shouldn't exist. These people believe that Mohammedans are a race, a lineage, a human family low down in the polygenic hierarchy. And this is absolutely part of the history of imperial oppression. Look at this:
http://www.islamophobia-
watch.co...iginalSize=true
and, erm, do secular Iranian communists come under the category of people who believe that Mohammedans are a race, a lineage, a human family low down in the polygenic hierarchy?
Ah, secular Iranian communists. My favourite kind of Iranian. If only we could somehow bomb the other fuckers and leave the secular Iranian communists in peace, I'd be a happy man. Alas, collateral damage is a fact of secular Iranian communist life.
Jack Ray - I don't claim to speak for lenin. But, I imagine he'd want to know just which secular Iranian communists saying what before he gave an answer.
Keeping in mind that that would be useful knowledge, I have a question for you. Do you think that it might be appropriate for secular Iranian communists to take a different approach to the 'mad mullahs' than secular Western faux-leftists? That racism is a matter of context, not intrinsic to linguistic phenomena? Or are you of the type that want either to make Black people stop using the word 'nigger' or to be able to use it themselves (usually it's not clear which)?
Great post, 300?!?! I knew Tachell was nuts when he claimed Malcolm X was a homosexual. The man should do stand up comedy.
Don't tar Stalin's name with this Islamotrot.
I have been having some dialogs with Maryam Namazie. She is a communist originally from Iran. Maryam did work in Sudan, working with Ethiopean refugees. Her party has divisions in Iraq and Iran.
She is for coalition withdrawal from Iraq, and is against intervention in Iran.
To be against Islamism, doesn't mean you are supporting imperialism. I supported the Soviet Union when they were in Afghanistan.
As communists we have (you included) have fought political Islam, long before the neocons.
I don't care what you say about the rightists. I think an Iranian female communist, should be talked of respectfully.
I read your blog regularly, and have actually been influenced by it on certain issues.
Respectfully? Why? She's an idiot, and her blog is packed with moralising cant. She's an hysterical Islam-basher, and she uses the bullshit about Political Islam as a cover for that. This rally was a defense of racists who published Muslim-bashing cartoons, and there's no getting round that.
Incidentally, this sentence:
To be against Islamism, doesn't mean you are supporting imperialism. I supported the Soviet Union when they were in Afghanistan.
defies satire. You don't remember how the SU got into Afghanistan do you? Nothing to do with tanks and and an invading army?
Wrong Jim. He's taking the lying hypocriticl bimbo to task.
Ignore Jim/Tim. I wouldn't go round calling her a bimbo, though... that risks sinking a criticism of her idiotic politics into an argument about misogynistic language.
Isn't this more wothy of comment
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/...&
archived=False
Lenin - you haven't replied to Dave's question on your support for Chomsky in the Faurisson affair. How does it differ, and try not to sound condescending.
I profoundly disagree with Chomsky's defense of Faurisson and have said so. I didn't say that Chomsky was right to do what he did, so Dave has (predictably) got his facts wrong. The only defense I have made of Chomsky is that he has been seriously misrepresented, which he has been.
I know Muslims who initially thought this was a good chance to show their disdain for the violent reaction to the cartoons, despite their dislike of the cartoons. But they were repelled by the anti-Muslim sentiments of some of those involved. The discussions on the internet by those pledging their support for the march revolved around the perception that Islam was an enemy to be defeated, not a positive affirmation of free thinking. It was reactionary, not principled. In many cases, the arguments put forward by the march's supporters were little different from the Islamic extremists they claim to oppose.
This entire cartoon debate has the effect of polarising opinion, alienating ordinary Muslims who have a more sophisticated view of the world than the Islam-v-West clash of civilisations. In fact, British Muslims along with the world's leading Islamic authorities have overwhelmingly rejected violence and intimidation. Some leading imams even oppose a boycott of Danish goods, stressing the need for dialogue instead of confrontation.
Last week, Bahrain hosted a conference of leading Sunni figures to determine a strategy to defend Muhammad from attacks and the educate Muslims in "their rights while avoiding negative practices ... The ulema attending the conference will underline that Sharia (Islamic law) bans such practices." http://www.dailystar.com.lb/
arti...rticle_id=23158
How much clearer do the marchers for free expression want Muslims to state that they do not advocate violence as a way to defend Muhammad from ridicule? They have one agenda and that is the religious cleansing of Britain.
By "they" - I meant the marchers, not the Muslims
What's intersting about the Reuters article re: Akkari is that it does not give even a taste of the quote in question, in context or out. This looks familiar.
To be against Islamism, doesn't mean you are supporting imperialism. I supported the Soviet Union when they were in Afghanistan.
Proves what I've often said - the pro-war left are the descendents of those who supported Russian imperialism in the '70s and '80s. It's a short step from a tankie (or a hardcore Maoist) to a neocon - only the name of the progressive superpower has changed.
It's revolution from above!
It’s striking that these people supposedly committed simply to the principle of free speech should choose to exhibit the cartoons at the rally. To choose to display the cartoons goes beyond saying ‘I support the right of others to cause gross offence”, and instead involves intentionally causing offence. It’s as if you attended a protest organised to defend Fourisson’s right to free speech armed with banners bearing anti-Semitic slogans and denials of the holocaust. It’s the most obvious thing in the world that this protest used the abstract principle to press home the particular grievance – even the slowest mind can surely grasp this.
H. Blackrose :
Most of the supporters of the Soviet aid to the Afghan revolution are active in the antiwar movement (eg the Communist Party of Britain). Many of the US neocons started out as Trots. Several of the most prominent intellectuals of the pro-war left in Britain (Norm Geras, SIAW, Demokratiya, Martin Shaw, Alan Johnstone) still are Trots.
Posted by Collins:
I went along as an observer and heard Peter Tatchell pleaing with the police to stop being afraid of upsetting the Muslim community and not to let them get away with being 'above the law'. As if! Has he not heard of Woodhill, Belmarsh, or Guantanamo?
Yes, I have heard of Belmarsh. For instance, I read how one of the Muslim terror suspects detained there has his own private multi-gym, and (in the Daily Mirror, confirmed by the detainees' lawyers) that the men have each been given a £1000 laptop computer. This is especially interesting as I'm in the process of buying a perfectly serviceable new laptop for £250.
Is he not aware that Asians are stopped and searched by police most frequently (a recent 300% rise to be precise)?
Those figures have been pretty firmly demolished by Kenan Malik in an article in Prospect magazine. Here are the relevant quotes:
A total of 21,577 had been stopped and searched under the terror laws. The vast majority of these - 14,429 - were in fact white. Yet when I interviewed Iqbal Sacranie, general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britainhe insisted that '95-98 per cent of those stopped and searched under the anti-terror laws are Muslim'. The real figure is actually 15 per cent. But however many times I showed him the true statistics he refused to budge. I am sure he was sincere in his belief. But there is no basis for his claim that virtually all those stopped and searched were Muslim - the figures appear to have been simply plucked out of the sky.
There is disproportion in the treatment of Asians. Asians make up about 5 per cent of the population, but 15 per cent of those stopped under the Terrorism Act. Could this be because of anti-Muslim prejudice? Perhaps. It's more likely, however, to be the result of majority of anti-terror sweeps taking place in areas - near Heathrow Airport, for instance - where there happen to be higher numbers of Asians. Almost two thirds of terrorism stop and search operations took place in London, where Asians form 11 per cent of the population.
The claims of Islamophobia become even less credible if we look at all stop and searches. Stop and searches under the Terrorism Act form only a tiny proportion of the 900,000 stop and searches that took place last year. If there was widespread Islamophobia within the police force we should expect to find Asians in disproportionate numbers in the overall figures. We don't. Asians are stopped and searched roughly in proportion to their population once age structure is taken into account.
All these figures are in the public domain and easily available. Yet not a single reputable journalist challenged the claim that Asians were being disproportionately stopped and searched. So pervasive is the acceptance of Islamophobia, that no-one even bothers to check if it is true.
As it happens, there is evidence that stop and search is used in a racist way. But the victims are not Asian. They’re black. Blacks form 3 per cent of the population – but 14 per cent of those stopped and searched. You’re five times more likely to be stopped and searched if you’re black than if you’re Asian - not that you’d know from all the hoo-hah about Islamophobia. One of the consequences of the exaggeration of anti-Muslim prejudice is to hide the real discrimination.
The whole article is available here.(Maybe you can supply me with some figures that suggest this has dramatically changed since January 2005, but it seems unlikely the picture would have changed that drastically).
Or that the government were battling to have the right to hold terrorists (govt translation - Muslim men) for 90 days with no evidence of wrongdoing?
Again, there's a bit of hyperbole there. Firstly, even the government's rejected proposals involved a judge having to review the case every week or so. So the idea that someone could be held for that time on 'no evidence' seems unlikely, unless you believe that our judges are all part of a vast conspiracy against Muslims.
What's intersting about the Reuters article re: Akkari is that it does not give even a taste of the quote in question, in context or out. This looks familiar.
Posted by Grit
What context is needed? I am told by a Dane on another blog site who saw the video that Akkari didn't look like he was joking. That's context enough for me.
Btw I think the comments about the Home Office and 'Behzti' may relate to Fiona McTaggart MP, who I believe is a minister there, and on the radio at the time expressed some kind of understanding for the protestors who vandalised the Birmingham Rep's building. I haven't looked it up and can't remember her exact words.
Yes, I have heard of Belmarsh. For instance, I read how one of the Muslim terror suspects detained there has his own private multi-gym, and (in the Daily Mirror, confirmed by the detainees' lawyers) that the men have each been given a £1000 laptop computer.
Lopakhin speaks like a member of the BNP. and if it looks like shit and smells like shit...
Now I've made at least two comments which were apparently so annoying to one of my favourite authors that he felt the need to step in to give me a slapping. I'm crushed (although not as crushed as I was at the end of "Engine City").
But I will say that I can't see any difference between "Soviet aid to the Afghan revolution" in 1979 and "American aid to Iraqi democracy" in 2003.
"Don't tar Stalin's name with this Islamotrot.
anarchostalinist"
Best comment ever.
Ken
I understand where you're coming from, but this Trot -> neo-con line isn't at all helpful, including for comrades from the CPB. For every Gormless Geras (never a Trot, as far as I know) there's a John Reid, who was a member of the Party (though that is, mutatis mutandis, not a reflection on those who still are).
Len
I had to leave earlier that you. Did Cohen bother to turn up to the demonstration he'd advertised in his column?
Just a few points.
One, your failure to answer any of my points is very revealing, lenin. You simply scream "racist". I could call you a homophobe for attacking Peter Tatchell, and it would make as much sense. It's a dodge, a way of avoiding the point.
Two, you are obsessed with a tiny number of invisible Nazis who mysteriously and inexplicably cheered Muslim asylum seekers. The BNP were present (along with me and, I presume, you) at the anti-war rally. What does it mean? Nothing.
Three, you are accusing the Muslims who spoke of being part of the "pro-war left". In fact, the Muslims who spoke and got the best responses both described Bush as a "terrorist" and made their opposition to the war very clear.
Your post is very dishonest and quite depressing, but worse, your descent into the actually racist game of calling any Muslim who follows a cause you don't believe in (like free speech) an "Uncle Tom" is a new low. I thought more of you than this.
I thought more of you than this.
No you didn't, Dave, don't lie. Your entire purpose is to make fear and hatred of Muslims look respectable and progressive.
Anarchostalinist seems to be a rather proleptic kind of fellow, seeing as how his one blog post is dated dec 2007. Perhaps there's a joke I'm not getting.
As for the turnout figures, 300 is pretty pathetic, especially when weighed against the 2-3% of the population of the entire country who got onto coaches and turned out in Feb 2003. Nick Cohen must be regretting his sad support the other week.
And furthermore and vaguely contradictoraly on the figures, surely there are more than 300 skinheads in London who could be bothered? What where they all doing? Watching Association Rules Football?
P.S. Sorry for the typos - pissed again.
"invisible Nazis"
eek!
"the Muslims who spoke and got the best responses both described Bush as a "terrorist" and made their opposition to the war very clear."
Lenin is actually right in saying that the Iranian woman who spoke at the rally is not a Muslim. There are plenty of Iranians who are not Muslim and among them are atheists. The Worker Communist Party of Iran is hardcore Marxist and hates religion, particularly the religious state currently in power in Iran. As such, it has no problems with the cartoons.
H.Blackrose
"But I will say that I can't see any difference between "Soviet aid to the Afghan revolution" in 1979 and "American aid to Iraqi democracy" in 2003."
1, The Iraqi government did not ask for the USUK invasion.
2, Iraq was not under attack by imperialist sponsered and equiped religious reactionaries
3, The Soviets fought against the reimposition if Sharia law.
For starters.
The observation that venal ex-Stalinists move easily into the camp of imperialism is hardly news, but when 'trots' take this low road, it is invariably involves ditching principled soviet-defensism first.
Ragged trousered pessimist, I have read your blog, complete with incitements to violence and gloating over dead anarchists, and feel that you are borderline certifiable. But thanks for the comment anyway.
Jossah - how about adding this to the list:
4. The Soviets didn't proceed to hold an election for the Afghan government, in which some 11m Afghans voted, signed off as legitimate by international observers.
Dave:
1) I have answered your points, and I have not screamed 'racist' at you.
2) The BNP may have sent a few people to the antiwar rally (I seriously doubt it), but then the antiwar rally was not set up to defend racists and it did not include far right wankers on the platform.
3) I didn't accuse Muslims who spoke of being part of the pro-war left. One actual religious Muslim spoke, and I described him as an Uncle Tom, a sell-out, which is exactly what he is for attending this Muslim-bashing ceremony. Anyone with an open eye could see that almost every placard was about Islam; almost every single speech invoked an imaginary threat to free expression from Muslims. The whole rally was a defense of the right of racists to publish racist material, (which is why the BNP were so keen on it). I can't imagine that a similar rally of solidarity would be set up to defend the purveyors of antisemitic material especially if they happened to be a major European newspaper with a history of support for the far right.
Your disavowal is painful and embarrassing, and I hope you're blushing with shame.
Anyone with an open eye could see that almost every placard was about Islam
From the Samizdat photos:
"There is nothing more sacred than freedom"
"Blasphemy is a victimless crime"
"Freedom above all"
"Freedom of speech!"
"no apology for free speech"
"stop toonophobia"
[Jefferson quote]
"freedom of expression - means exactly what it says on the label" [mohammed cartoons]
[blair nazi placard]
"carlsberg don't do freedom of speech rallies..."
"freedom of speech protects minorities"
"all religion is anti-human"
[danish flag] - "londoners stand with you"
"free to offend - please don't behead me"
i.e. some placards referring to Islam, but to say "almost every placard" appears from my limited perspective to be incorrect. [I wasn't there]
almost every single speech invoked an imaginary threat to free expression from Muslims.
Some Muslims are against free expression w.r.t their belief system. I'm thinking of those (few) who recently carried placards saying:
"free speech go to hell"
"Behead the one who insults the prophet"
"kill those who insult islam"
So I'd speculate that this isn't an imaginary threat. Limited to a small minority of Muslim extremists, yes, but a "real" threat nonetheless. [Again from my limited perspective]
I don't think I have ever read such a downright dishonest and biased piece of reporting in my life. You have fundamentally misrepresented pretty much everything that happened on the day. It is quite clear that you went along with your own idea of what the March (all jackbooted BNP types) would be like and looked for evidence of it. Finding nothing of the sort, you have now resorted to outright lies to justify your own preconceived ideas. What happened to forming an opinion based on the facts and what actually happened? No, you have utterly reversed the direction of casuality and simply tried to find things that reinforce your own preconceived ideas. When these things don't present themselves, you have no choice but to lie.
This report is a disgrace.
I think that Ken MacLeod was merely pointing out the sad fact that many former "Trots" are now rabid pro-imperialism types.
Many are also rabid NuLab types (cf Milburn, Byers,Gus MacDonald etc).
That said, clearly "Doctor John" Reid - and David Moronovitch etc - is also rabidly pro-imperialism, and a former "Tankie."
I must admit it made me smile when Reid recently bigged up his decision to send more troops to "assist Afghanistan's democracy". I reckon he imagined himself in a Soviet Grand Marshal's uniform, with waaay too many medal ribbons.
The Morning Star, and indeed, its withering offshoot, the CPB, is strongly anti-war and the War On Terror. It has also consistently stuck up for Muslims (to the chagrin of some readers, if the letters page is owt to go by).
I think Ken was merely pointing out that to devise some kind of spurious formula (Tankies=neocons=Trots=neocons) is stupid, inaccurate, reductionist and unhelpful.
In the Fall Revolution books, there is even a moment when a character points out that "half the world is run by ex-Trots!"
One of the things I most like about MacLeod's books is his refusal to categorise people as "goodies" or "baddies" as per their politicial position. Even Volkov has his admirable qualities.
Anyway, back to slagging off that fat fuck Johann Hari! Always makes me chuckle!
'publicansdecoy' - alright, find me one thing in the report that is inaccurate. I'll give you ten seconds, starting from now: go!
dmatr - well, I was there, and you'd have to be wilfully purblind not to notice it. There was even a tacit acknowledgment that it was about Islam when Tatchell tried unfurling a banner saying "Love Muslims; Hate Religious Tyranny" (he didn't unfurl "Love Jews; Hate Religious Tyranny"). Far more appropriate would have been "Love the Sinner; Hate the Sin". And what was the purpose of the rally - the starting point was the organisers' desire to defend Jyllands-Posten for publishing Muslim-baiting material. As I say, I somehow doubt a similar march will be convoked to defend a major European newspaper with a history of support for the far right if it publishes antisemitic cartoons.
Publicansdecoy, it would be nice if you coudl construct some kind of a "case" to back up your criticisms, perhaps with "evidence" why Lenin's report is such a "disgrace"?
Otherwise you just come across as a tossbucket.
"Publicans decoy" is wholly right. You have been exposed once again as stating outright lies.
Lenin, you are doing exactly what the right-wingers who attack Chomsky do when condemning his defence of Faurisson's right to free speech, and you know it.
Somebody else says, "Your entire purpose is to make fear and hatred of Muslims look respectable and progressive". How many times can this be said - free speech protects Muslims as well! The person I was with (amongst others), Johann Hari, has written defending Abu hamza's right to free speech as well as David Irvine's!
Somebody talks about "imaginary Muslim threats to free speech." Did you miss the incitement to religious hatred legislation, proposed by some self-appointed Muslim community leaders but also bravely opposed by many Muslims too? What was that then?
Lenin, you can savage Muslim asylum seekers who defend free speech as "Uncle Toms", you can invent imaginary banners and imaginary Nazis, but really, you are the intellectual equivalent of David Horowitz calling Chomsky a "neo-Nazi" for what he said about Faurisson.
Generally, I think it is people who resort to leaving comments saying 'tossbucket', instead of engaging on points, who come across as looking more foolish.
Lenin underreports the numbers who attended. He deliberately chooses a photograph taken from a distance to make the demo appear smaller. Risdon never "begged" people to bring the Motoons. Describing Namazie as an "hysterical Islamophobe" is hideously wide of the mark. He claims that "the bulk of those present appeared to be right-wing libertarians and ageing middle class 'secularists'". How an earth can he tell somebody's political opinion from how they look? The majority of people I saw appeared younger than 40. I saw no "stern, offended faces" when Tatchell referred to gay rights. Quite the opposite in fact.
I'm not even halfway through Lenin's report and frankly I'm tired of going through it already. the whole thing is a tissue of lies which serves only to illustrate the prejudices of its author, rather than provide a report of the actual events on the day.
Lenin, you are a liar. And I'm guessing here but I feel quite confident, an idiot. :)
He deliberately chooses a photograph taken from a distance to make the demo appear smaller.
Yeah! And he deliberately used one of those special Muslim cameras that squish things together to make them look really tiny when actually they're really big! It's Just Not Fair!
"Generally, I think it is people who resort to leaving comments saying 'tossbucket', instead of engaging on points, who come across as looking more foolish."
Oh piss off you prissy arsehole. By your own posturing you have clearly earned the epithet...tossbucket.
It was clearly your refusal to "engage on points" that aroused my ire in the first place. And your latest post is no better, substituting smears and supposition for detail - and even admitting that you haven't read the entire report anyway "and frankly I'm tired of going through it already."
Your claim to be arguing some kind of case is disingenuous and easily seen through, as is your wearisome sneering at good, old-fashioned, British Swearing.
Now Fuck Off.
That's right. I disagree with Lenin. That means I *must* hate Muslims. Why, there's no other explanation, is there?
I won't be insulted by someone who calls him or herself a 'fridgemonkey'. Outside - now!
Dave - this was not about free speech in general, however, it was about defending the rights of racists to incite hatred against some of the most oppressed minorities in Europe. And I've already answered your point about the Chomsky-Faurisson case.
'pub etc' - I cited the numbers given by the Beeb. I'm not making it up, the police said 190, the organisers said 600 and I suggested that the Beeb had it right to a generous fault with about 300. Six hundred is definitely an overstatement. Risdon did request that people bring the racist caricatures, and I linked to the report quoting him doing so. Namazie is a hysterical Islamophobe, and I don't give a fuck what her excuse is, what she is saying is demeaning and insulting to Muslims and particularly to Muslim women. No wonder the WCPI is going nowhere with fuckwits like her on board. As for impressions about people there, I can only infer from the kinds of things they were cheering. A lot of people got very pissed off when Tatchell tried to put a left gloss on it, and one guy remonstrated quite noisily. I had a very good view of the crowd, such as it was, and I had an opportunity to gauge the reactions.
You should be ashamed of associating yourself with this racist rally.
I don't mind fucking swearing, but simply wading into a discussion swearing at people from the outset makes one look like a bit of a cunt. That was my point. I love swearing! But if it's all you can use, you look pathetic.
Of course I read through all of Lenin's article originally. I couldn't be bothered going through each point individually in my first reply though, as I felt it would take far too long. Lenin challeneged me to do so, however, so I did. It got far too boring though, frankly. I could have disputed far more than I did. It wouldn't matter though, you clearly wouldn't have actually listened to what I said. Were you at the March yourself, Dan C?
No. Risdon initially said the cartoons would be welcome. Upon further reflection he came to the (in my opinion correct) conclusion that it wouldn't be great to bring them, as he specifically wanted to AVOID the MFE being conflated with the BNP, and so asked people to reconsider.
pubs - if there's one thing you don't sound like, it's "bored".
Risdon initially said the cartoons would be welcome
Yes, because those who circulated the racist cartoons could then compare themselves to Spartacus. Jeeeesus Chrrrrist.
Anyway, as you know, they made quite a hero out of some one for producing the cartoons and waving them around. I've never seen such a frantic grapple as when Namazie handed out those filthy racist caricatures into the crowd. They loved it.
I haven't heard anything quite so delusional and hysterical from somebody on the left for quite some time!
My god lenin, you have really surpassed yourelf this time.
When did you convert to Islam, by the way? I'm sure your socialist friends would love to know.
Still! Check out these luvverly t-shirts (see text highlighted in blue):
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=ca...uk&ct=clnk&
cd=2
Of course, the post has been removed:
http://marchforfreeexpression.bl...t-be-
quick.html
So, let's get this straight. Risdon is perfectly happy to advertise racist material and even encourage others to bring racist material to a demonstration: until he's called on his racism. Well, what a dick.
filthy racist caricatures
I know it's only a minor point, but you do realise racism is discrimination on the basis of ... race? Not belief systems? If you do think it's an appropriate label for such a discrimnation, then you are guilty, seeing as you called everyone who went to a Freedom of Speech rally a Nazi!
My god, what twat you are! How long is your beard now btw?
When did you convert to Islam, by the way? I'm sure your socialist friends would love to know.
Very interesting, 'j0nz'. If I don't support your little pogrom, I must be traitor and a convert. It's just one small step to "When Did You Join the Jewish Conspiracy, Untermenschen?"
I know it's only a minor point, but you do realise racism is discrimination on the basis of ... race? Not belief systems?
Okay, let's take it one step at a time:
1) What do you suppose 'race' is?
2) Are Jewish people a 'race'?
3) Are the Irish a 'race'?
4) Are Arabs a 'race'?
5) Are Africans a 'race'?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Lenin, it's just you come across as more reactionary Muslim, than well a Muslim!
Do you not see that? I understand your a lefty, and you would like nothing more than the violent overthrow of the current government, but do you really have to go all reactionary Muslim? Ok There was an alliance 'against the war', but are you really so myopic?
You're one step away from being like that Yvonne Ridley. Are you sure your not a closet convert?
Before you answer those questions, consider the following:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?h...sh+racism&
meta=
http://www.google.co.uk/search?h...sh+racism&
meta=
http://www.google.co.uk/search?h...nG=Search&
meta=
http://www.google.co.uk/search?h...an+racism&
meta=
Lenin, it's just you come across as more reactionary Muslim, than well a Muslim!
Interesting. Next, I'll be "Even More Juden than der Juden". Go ahead and find me one thing I've said that is actually reactionary. Not in your imagination, but in a demonstrable way that most people without your debilities would understand.
Hey j0nz, just checked your website and it turns out that it's you that has the beard, albeit in an over-sculpted Brazilian wax/Craig David stylee. You also have an enormously fat head.
Good day.
Oh god, was that you with that stupid sign, 'j0nz'. I saw you. I knew it had to be an illiterate, non-sequitur monger and all round cock.
'Course I didn't go on the demo, pubs. I don't attend pathetic, racist demonstrations - unless I'm being paid to - on account of not being an asinine tossbucket.
I therefore rely on the rigorous and accurate reportage of people such as Cde Lenin.
Glad to hear you like "fucking swearing" by the way, you odious shitstick.
Oh - and J0nz, or whatever your stupid name is - accusing people of being "hysterical" before wittering on in a deranged manner about imagined beard length and imagined conversions to Islam is just too funny, in a boring sort of way.
This is not a rhetorical question.
Lenin, please explain the difference between calling Chomsky "a neo-Nazi" (as Horowitz does) for defending Faurisson's right to free speech, and you calling the people who attended this march "racist" for defending the cartoonists' right to free speech.
Thanks guys!
There's so much love on the left. I was only joking. Christ. You complain about the hatred on the right. I haven't encountered so much brainless vitriol in a long time.
I came here to essentially take the piss. But I didn't expect it to get so personal so quickly! Oh well.
Lenin, please explain the difference between calling Chomsky "a neo-Nazi" (as Horowitz does) for defending Faurisson's right to free speech, and you calling the people who attended this march "racist" for defending the cartoonists' right to free speech.
Dave, I don't believe I've called you a racist. I wouldn't describe everyone at the demonstration as a racist. The demonstration itself, in its intent and effect, was racist. In the same fashion, if someone decided to hold a rally for 'free expression' in defense of some antisemitic pictures and Chomsky attended on the basis of his Voltairean principles, I'd be extremely pissed off about it, but I would not consider him a neo-Nazi.
The most worrying thing about modern racism against Muslims is that there are large numbers of people who can take it to quite extraordinary extremes simply by covering it up as a secularist critique. Sam Harris' ignorant post-9/11 Muslim-baiting is an instance in kind.
'j0nz' - I really wouldn't use the word 'brainless' if I were you. For one thing it has too many syllables for you, and for another the irony redounds to your enormous cost.
Don't you find Harry's Place punters are that little bit less sure of themselves when they come here to post and aren't surrounded by their braying acolytes?
"Freedom to wave around offensive material in the company of lots of other people with exactly the same views".
j0nz: "I haven't encountered so much brainless vitriol in a long time"
At least since Saturday afternoon, anyway.
"But I didn't expect it to get so personal so quickly!"
Well stop being so fucking ugly then. Actually it occurs to me now that you look a little like David Aaronovitch, what with the etch-a-sketch chin upholstelry and grotequely swollen face. What a happy coincidence!
So farewell then, J0nz. He turned up to "take the piss" and then got upset when people took the piss out of him. Then he went off in a sulk.
Would that I had his lofty maturity and rational political agenda. Would that I also shared his not-at-all-hypocritical disdain for "brainless vitriol".
Sadly as a lefty I'm condemned to be full of Hate for all the hateful wankers who are ruining millions of lives - and the world - and the people who go online and infest left-wing blogs in their desperation to support them.
Still, personally insulting one or two of 'em from time to time certainly helps keep me blood pressure down.
pubs=wankshaft. See, I did it again! Boy, it felt gooood.
Dan, you're just succumbing to The Politics of Envy. You'll be joining the jihadis next.
It's great fun to see all of you unkept and rather dim student-types thinking you're being 'right on' and 'anti-racist' by snuggling up with facists who would quite happily slit your throats. What a bunch of clowns.
It's great fun to see all of you unkept and rather dim student-types thinking you're being 'right on' and 'anti-racist' by snuggling up with facists who would quite happily slit your throats. What a bunch of clowns.
Okay, there has to be a prize for the unimaginative, dimwitted cliches, non-sequitur and balls-aching ineptitude of that comment. In the tradition of George Galloway's new talk show, I Christen you Norman Of The Day. How does it feel to be an idiot, sir?
Oh wait, better run: the Muslims are coming!
http://www.leffa-arviot.com/arvo...f_arabia/
01.jpg
The really tragic thing about the whole mess is that at the current time of increasing supression of civil liberties, there really is a need for a movement to "defend free speech".
I'd be very inclined to have supported saturdays rally if the organisers had made it clear that defending free speech was entirely the purpose of the event, and that the biggest threat to free speech was the current government and not a few idiots overreacting to a stupid juvenille cartoon. Instead the rally was clearly being used by some of its supporters as an excuse to bash muslims, and thus the proper response should have been to stay away and organise a real defence of free speech.
Lenin: Great comeback! I'm so offended!
Perhaps some of you buttock-achingly dense idiots could point out - preferably with some kind of supporting evidence - what marked this out as a Muslim-bashing march?
Well Dan C, you've battered me into the ground with your debating prowess there. Please, I can't take anymore.
Harry's Place has a lot of stuff that I don't agree with, but coming here and seeing the attitude both from the blog maintainer and to anyone who dares to disagree, HP looks far stronger.
Paul, what's to come back from? What makes you think I'm actually interested in 'offending' you? I have already answered your question several times over, and if you haven't got it by now, you aren't going to.
pubs - turn off the mock heroics, please. One doesn't require a great deal of "daring" to disagree with something one reads on a blog and to express that. You aren't being oppressed simply because your pompous tone invited a bit of mockery.
I didn't claim I was. Arguing on blogs inevitably involves mockery and insults. Is it really pomopous to hope for a bit of civilised debate as well? If so, I'm happy to be pompous.
The fact that the demo was organised in response to the cartoon fiasco, instead of in response to the govts proposed legislation, counts as the first clue. The second clue is that the march was sponsered by several right wing organistions hostile to the prescence of muslims in the uk. The third clue was provided by the BNP sympathisers posting their support in the comments of the original blog (and in fairness deleted soon after). The fourth clue was the initial intention of the organisers to sell T-shirts with slogans like "Islam is a blast". The final clue was when David Duff announced his intention to turn up...
In fairness to the original 2 who started the idea, they probably were fairly well intentioned, but quickly had their idea hijacked by the right wing.
pubs - Yes, well, that would be nice, but it's a bit difficult to start on a genteel note when you're being inundated by people who think it's intelligent and actually rather witty to describe someone as a convert to Islam or whatever. On the other hand, if you want me to address something you've said or are going to say in a civilised fashion, I'm happy to give it a go. What's eating you?
You can't blame Lenny for his attention-seeking histrionics. He's a unremarkable middle-class white student from Ballymena, the whitest place in the British Isles, nay, Europe. (I mean, they still think Catholics are black there.) Can you imagine how much self-loathing he has? Hence his constant repetition about only he understands the "brown-skinned" mind, derived from repeated listenings to ska albums. Even he admits his non-de-plume stems from some half-assed attempt to stir up controversy without actually have to use originality or wit. At least if he ripped off his hero Bill Hick's material, his constant stream of abuse might actually be funny.
P.
Planeshift - good summary, and I think your first point is especially important, because it frames the entire argument for these people. Even those involved who suppose themselves to be benign or anti-racist surely can't have missed the fact that they were being invited to believe throughout the whole show that Islam was the biggest threat to free speech in this country, and that it was a bigger threat than in the 1930s.
No, this wasn't inspired by Voltairean principles but by a pathological desire to engage in Muslim-baiting.
Paul M - yours is a curious intervention. I haven't actually requested any attention, much less yours specifically. I actually have never willingly addressed you. I don't frequent your blog or HP Sauce or even Duffer's laff-factory. I simply don't require your attention or encourage it.
The other curious thing is this business about me being a white middle class student from Ballymena. Now, while I have never been middle class, I have certainly lived in Ballymena before, and I do study part-time in the evenings which makes me a student, and I think I've had white skin for most of my life too. On the other hand, I've never listened to Ska, nor used the phrase "brown mind". I don't think such a thing exists - it's an interesting invention on your part, however. Relevance of your quasi-biographical inquest? Zero. The sole value of this stream of word-association gibberish on your part is that it expresses the utterly asinine defensiveness of a certain kind of reactionary who would otherwise have problems expressing himself with anything beyond grunts and hand gestures.
By the way, self-loathing is not a predicate I usually accrue from anyone. And I can categorically assure you that I could never possibly find myself as contemptible as I find you.
Planeshift,
The rally in was not a good-idea that got hijacked by the right-wing. It was DELIBERATELY set up not to defend free-speech (whatever that is without a specfic context), but to defend the right of fight-wing newspapers to publish openly racist cartoons.
So no concessions to anyone who went on this rally. They really should have known better.
> HP looks far stronger.
Nonsense.
HP has an ever-increasing bunker mentality, and while its organisers may have some kind of residual (centre) left attitude, increasingly, this is disappearing under a tide of nit-picking and misplaced triumphalism designed purely to feed the lie that "those nasty Muslims are taking over". These days, they they only resort to mentioning any kind of socialist politics when it can be used as a stick to beat Muslims with.
Meanwhile the comments boxes attract unabashed far-right hypercapitalists, Islamophobes, unreconstructed Tories, pseudo-intellectual white van men, contrarian smartarses and every flavour of reactionary short of the BNP.
They have a morbid fascination with George Galloway and Noam Chomsky, although anyone in the media who represents a position further to the left than their own will be savaged - John Pilger, Robert Fisk and even George Monbiot, despite most of his writing actually being about corporate power and the environment.
Lenin talks about trade unionism - HP rants hysterically about Evil Muslims.
Lenin talks about the environment - HP rants hysterically about Evil Muslims.
Lenin talks about anti-capitalist protest - HP rants hysterically about Evil Muslims.
You get the point.
I genuinely believe that people will look back at this decade's polite, dinner-party Islamophobia and compare it with Oswald Mosley, John "Protestant Action" Cormack and other hideous bigots that were tolerated by the majority.
Blimey, one minute Lenin gets criticised for 'converting to Islam' - the next he's being told his big problem is being white and a proddy. Make up your mind, everyone.
> I've never listened to Ska
Not even 2-Tone? You're missing out ;-)
McGazz - excellent post.
You see, that's what pubs and Paul M and all the sniffy "oh don't be so ruuuuude" brigade fail to appreciate - people like McGazz come here to comment at length and intelligently upon the still longer and still, er, intelligenter posts by Cde. Lenin.
I, on the other hand, come here to read the posts, laugh at the paucity of wit and wisdom on the right and occasionally gratuitously insult people who thoroughly deserve it.
This is because I have a day job, which involves writing seriously about news and politics. I come to the Tomb to learn - and vent spleen for the good of my health.
Of course the other thing (!) that pubs, Paul M etc fail to understand is that THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME HERE.
I exercised my own right to "choice" last year and quit visiting HP after a few days.
The atmosphere is so toxic there it's like taking a deep breath on Jupiter - if Jupiter was inhabited by morons, racists and nutters.
Slightly off-topic, McGazz might care to recall the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939, which made the Nazi invasion of Poland possible. In the end, when the chips were down, it wasn't actually the right that allied with Hitler, it was the left. That's where self-righteous meretricious posturing gets you if you're not careful, lefties, and you're doing it now with the head-choppers and mosque-bombers. And all you can do when anyone points it out is get stuck in to the personal abuse...
and you're doing it now with the head-choppers and mosque-bombers
Anyne who characterises muslims in this way is seriously sick. Perhaps we should all be characterised as child killers as a result of "our" armies' actions in Iraq.
You might like to recall, Charlie, that it was the Right, in the form of the capitalists and the Conservatives, who helped Hitler rise to power, crush the left (Socialists and Communists) and "made the Nazi invasion of Poland possible."
History looks a lot different when you peer through the correct end of the periscope, Charleyboy. If anyone is "posturing" it is you, turning up here uninvited with your specious GCSE-level historical arguments.
If this rally had been held in Bradford and it had said Stop Muslims Taking Your Houses and Jobs, it would have been bigger.
Lovely, anti-working class comment by "socialist" Lenin there, in case anyone missed it.
In the end, when the chips were down, it wasn't actually the right that allied with Hitler, it was the left.
By exactly the same logic one could argue that in the end, when the chips were down, it wasn't actually the right that defeated Hitler, it was the left.
If this rally had been held in Bradford and it had said Stop Muslims Taking Your Houses and Jobs, it would have been bigger.
Lovely, anti-working class comment by "socialist" Lenin there, in case anyone missed it.
"Anti-working class"? You're the one implying that it's workers who are more likely to turn up to racist rallies.
(You're making the typically stupid mistake of assuming northern towns are inhabited solely by salt of the earth working class types: far from it. The BNP have recorded some of their best results in the nicer, leafier areas across Yorkshire - Oakworth, for example. It's the petit-bourgeois "aspirational" elements you have to watch out for.)
You're right, we don't have to come here. This is the first time I've commented on this blog, although I've looked at it from time to time before. I saw nothing that really interested me then, so didn't bother coming back. I read plenty of opinion and thought that I can't stand elsewhere as it is. The only reason I'm here on this post is because it is specifically about the MFE, which I was at and which I have been working hard to promote over the past month. I felt Lenin's post was a grossly unfair representation of what happened that day, coloured only by his own wish to denounce the whole event from the off. It is quite clear that he did not go along simply to observe what happened, he was heavily biased against the MFE and sought only to corroborate that view. This post was all but written as soon as the march was announced. This reverse causality in opinionising happens a lot, and we're probably all guilty of it from time to time, but I felt this post was a particularly horrific example. I, along with many others who were at the MFE, feel that Lenin's post is a fundamental misrepresentation of the events of the day. You were not there, Dan C, so why do you choose only to listen to one man's report and discard the views of hundreds of others who attended? I suspect it is because, like Lenin, you formed your opinion long ago, and now will only listen to those who back them up.
You can return to swearing at me/denouncing me as racist/covering your ears and shouting LALALALAALALa I AM NOT LISTENING TO YOUUUU again now. I doubt I'll be posting on any other stuff from Lenin anytime soon, so you can continue to surround yourself only with those with whom you won't disagree.
Johann Hari seems to have eaten a pie to many.
pubs:
I've actually read/listened to several accounts of your grubby little demo as wel as Lenin's, and seriously doubt that there were enough people there for your lone wibblings to constitute "the views of hundreds of others who attended".
Or do you have multiple personality disorder?
As for: "I doubt I'll be posting on any other stuff from Lenin anytime soon"
Good riddance. You are a colossal waste of time, blood and essential minerals.
"McGazz might care to recall the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939, which made the Nazi invasion of Poland possible. In the end, when the chips were down, it wasn't actually the right that allied with Hitler, it was the left. "
This comment has already been ripped to shreads, but I'm wondering - what does Stalin's pact with Hitler have to do with my comment - which was about the acceptability of religious bigotry among the British working and middle classes.
I said: "The people who post on Harry's Place are exactly the kind of people who supported the anti-semite Mosley and the Scottish anti-Catholic movement in the 1930s"
He said: "Ah, but Stalin made a pact with Hitler"
That would surely win gold at the non-sequitur olympics. I wonder if that technique works elsewhere:
Energy Company: "Dear Mr McGazz. You haven't paid your gas bill".
McGazz: "Ah, but the Tories supported the 1715 Jacobite rising".
Lenin, you may not have called me personally a racist, but you have accused me of attended a racist demonstration. You are splitting hairs.
You have systematically misrepresented this demo in so many ways that I am beginning to seriously doubt your claims that you were present. If you think all the banners were about Islam, sorry, you weren't there.
And please do not call anybody else a racist when you use blatantly racist imagery - comparing them to black house-slaves - to describe Muslims who dare to protest for free speech.
pubs - I think you're missing the point here: of course I had an opinion about the rally before I got there! I knew what the purpose behind it was, because I had read the MFE blog and I knew who would be there and what had spurred it to action.
And again, stop pretending that you're being repressed, put down and so on. No one has responded to you by calling you a racist (yet) or shouting la la la at you. It's just that when I asked you to point out some inaccuracies, you couldn't provide any examples that stuck. If you had, I would have edited the post. Instead what you did was to complain about my use of one reported figure from the BBC, as well as my reported evaluations, as if I was lying about the impressions I formed on the day. And then you explain that you're tired of it already, or bored, or whatever. That sort of conduct doesn't invite confidence in the idea that you have genuine (rather than contrived) problems with anything I've written.
I have not claimed I was being repressed. Where are you getting that from? My own comments are only evaluations as well, of course. I merely challenged your own. Of course you're going to say that I made nothing stick. For the record, I equally think that none of the things you have said about the rally stick, because I think the evaluations you refer to had been made long before this weekend and nothing whatsoever could have happened on Saturday to change them. Oh well.
Lenin, you may not have called me personally a racist, but you have accused me of attended a racist demonstration. You are splitting hairs.
No, there's an important difference, and it's the difference between you being a malicious racist and you being a sap.
You have systematically misrepresented this demo in so many ways that I am beginning to seriously doubt your claims that you were present
You haven't found a single misrepresentation yet.
you think all the banners were about Islam, sorry, you weren't there.
I didn't say they were all about Islam. But certainly the ones about the Muhammad Cartoons and the Tatchell banner and the one's about Abdul Rahman and the ones saying Infidel Bloggers (white guys pretending to be subversive), and so on were about Islam. The whole thing, as the organiser admits, was galvanised by the 'Muhammad cartoons' controversy.
And please do not call anybody else a racist when you use blatantly racist imagery - comparing them to black house-slaves - to describe Muslims who dare to protest for free speech.
Don't make me insult you, Dave. Are you going to tell me that Malcolm X was a racist? It isn't racist imagery at all. Whoever 'Ali' is, and I assume it's the Outrage member that has been spreading disinformation about Sistani, he is providing a cover for Islamophobes and racists, and he ought to be ashamed. If the BNP fields a Muslim candidate, he too will be a sell-out. Think about it. No, think for a bit longer.
pubs - once again you're missing the point. You claimed to have found serious inaccuracies in my post. But you didn't. And yes, pretending that you're being shouted down and called a racist and so on does rather sound like a plea for pity. You've been treated here in precisely the manner that your general tone demands, no worse and no better.
I simply have no idea where this "plea for pity" stuff is coming from? Why on earth would I want your pity?!
I came here to express my utter disdain for what I maintain is a report that at best is distortion of the facts (taking a picture of the demo from far away, in order to make it appear smaller than it was) and at worst is outright lies ("hysterical islamophobe"). You have said your piece and I have said mine, so let's leave it at that. People can read both sides of the argument and there are plenty who can see past your own prejudices.
Dan C -
1) it's a blog, you don't need an invitation. Not entirely surprised you need to be told that.
2) Stalin made a pact with Hitler and all the posturing self-righteous lefties in the UK supported him, to the extent of literally attempting to sabotage the 'imperialist' war-effort while the pact was in force. It wasn't the Mosleyite bigots you referred to who were the problem in that case, it was actually the left - although, as I said, this is off-topic.
3)Bryanc - I mentioned the head-choppers and mosque-bombers of the Iraqi resistance you lefties so avidly support and all you can say is "Anyne who characterises muslims in this way is seriously sick". Thus completely misrepresenting my point while simultaneously demonstrating the truth of my claim that all you chaps can ever do when someone disagrees with them is reach for the personal abuse. Honesty really isn't your strong point, is it?
Bryanc - I mentioned the head-choppers and mosque-bombers of the Iraqi resistance
No you didn't - the word resistance was not mentioned at all. Accusations were made by you that we were "doing it now with the head-choppers and mosque bombers". The discussion so far was all about demonising muslims versus freedom of speech. Your post was a very obvious insult to muslims in general.
Lenin mate u seem to have pissed off the Harry pricks. You're the traget of a few posts there. U have this knack of getting under their skins. Its actually very funny. What really annoys them is how u kinda linked the far right to their little picnic in the square. Even Peter Tatchell's at it
http://
commentisfree.guardian.co...twing_lies.html
..........and I remember when Peter Tatchell was defended for his open sexuality and his "outing" campaign (however mistaken) by the far-left.
All the "liberal" and far-right scum he now "allies" with in the name of "free-speech" were demonising him then.
For any "lefty" that was on the "free-speech" rally, answer these 2 basic questions.
1. Why did only 300 people turn up?
2. Why weren't the trade unions there?
He 's a bit of a lying minger, that Peter Tatchell.
On the Guardian blog he writes -
"In January, I challenged Sir Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain when he denounced homosexuality as immoral, harmful and diseased. But I did not seek to ban him, nor did I support calls for his prosecution. I defended Sir Iqbal's right to free speech."
Yet Islamophobia Watch note -
"Odd then, that Tatchell argued for banning the Muslim Council of Britain from the Unite Against Fascism conference last month."
More at Islamophobia Watch
Not a lying minger at all, really. Can't you see that arguing that Mr Sacranie shouldn't be jailed for his opinions is compatible with lobbying against those same opinions?
are you going to tell me that Malcolm X was a racist? It isn't racist imagery at all.
Posted by Lenin
Isn't there a difference, though, between a black man such as Malcolm X using that phrase and a white person doing so? Just as there is widely thought to be for other offensive racial epithets. It's not a term I could ever see myself, as a white man, using.
Malcolm X was a homosexual. Atleast thats what Tachell would have us believe.
Are you going to tell me that Malcolm X was a racist? It isn't racist imagery at all.
Malcolm X was black. It's just as unacceptable for a white men to call non-whites "Uncle Toms" as it is to call them "n*ggers", all protests that this is what black men call each other and it's not racist coming from them notwithstanding.
P.
Aw shit. But what happens if the phrase "Uncle Tom" isn't used in reference to a black man then?
Aw shit. But what happens if the phrase "Uncle Tom" isn't used in reference to a black man then?
I've never seen any dictionary reference to the term that used it for any other reference, so I haven't a clue what you mean.
P.
"I've never seen any dictionary reference to the term that used it for any other reference, so I haven't a clue what you mean"
Damn, man. For a second there I thought you were the go-to guy for questions about racism.
According to his autobiography Malcolm did pretend to be gay to avoid being drafted into the US army.
Esther posts:
Jyllands-Posten would not have been able to put up those cartoons without the backing of mass Islamophobia. Note that it didn't print similar anti-Christian cartoons.
Did you really mean to advertise that you have no idea at all what you are talking about? That you had no idea of the reason that the cartoons were commissioned? That they were commissioned to test freedom of expression, that was considerd under threat due to fear of muslim intimidation? That people would not illustrate a children's book teaching about he life of Mohammed because they feared extremists from muslim groups who think images of Mohhamed should not be drawn, and that religious extremists had killed a politician and a film-maker in the Netherlands?
So when exactly have Christian extremists threatened with death anyone who criticises their religion, or who makes images they consider to insult their religion? How many people who have made films Christians have disliked have been murdered? What would be the meaning of cartoons of Christ?
Clearly if you are that ill-informed your comments can't make a lot of sense!
Interesting to think that Lenin considers a pro-free-speech rally to be anti-muslim. Does that say something about Lenin's opinion of muslims? Most I have known have nothing against freedom of speech, and even if they would argue agains the publication would never have demanded cartoons be banned, let alone made threats. Seems Lenin has a far more bigotted idea of Islam than others here have.
Damn, man. For a second there I thought you were the go-to guy for questions about racism.
Chuckle chuckle chuckle... very good...
...in any case, any Muslim at speaking at this rally was an Uncle Tom, and no mistake. The only way various apologists for a racist gathering can disguise the appalling forelock-tugging on display is by pretending that even daring to suggest such a thing as an "Uncle Tom" exists is - ahahahahaha - "racist". They seem to think this is clever.
You, and the SWP, really are racist scum, aren't you? You deserve all the shit that you are going to get over this.: "Uncle Tom"? You don't even begin to know the shit you have opened up by using that phrase...you middle-class wanker!
Oh say, Jim, maybe you'll know what happens if the phrase "Uncle Tom" isn't used in reference to a black man.
"you middle-class wanker!"
pot calling the kettle black or something like that.
Why are the HP morons around here dodging over the central fact - that all their arguments talk about Islam as if it were the same kind of threat to bourgeois democracy as fascism was in the 1930s. Do they really believe that, and if so, why?
Also, you'd think that they would realise what had happened from their own experience, as HP turned from the "pro-war Left" blog to the "anti-Muslim left" blog. How can they deny the very close link between Islamophobia and the drive of Bush/Blair etc. to plunder Muslim countries?
According to his autobiography Malcolm did pretend to be gay to avoid being drafted into the US army.
I'm not sure I remember that bit. I remember the bit where he happily announced that he wanted to join the Army so he could "kill up white folks". That seemed to work even better than the queer thing.
So when exactly have Christian extremists threatened with death anyone who criticises their religion
I'm actually amazed that the moron is using this argument. The answer is all the fuckin' time. The Rev. Pat Robertson called for the assassination of the President of Venezuela last year, just for starters. Want me to go on?
I repeat: the cretin who insults he name "Lenin" is a racist piece of scum: the only excuse he has in insulting that brave woman is that he is an ignoranous who doesn't really understand what the term "Uncle Tom" means. That is his *ONLY* excuse! Other than that he is a RACIST PIECE OF SHIT!
Don't hold back, Jimbo. Tell us how you really feel. And how much you've drunk.
Alright then, since none of yez'll take the bait...
So let me get this straight:
If a non-black person draws a stereotyped cartoon of a black man and suggests that black men are dangerous and violent, then it's racist because the black man is a race.
But if a non-Muslim draws a stereotyped cartoon of a Muslim, suggesting that Muslims are dangerous and violent, then it's not racist because a Muslim is not a race.
We good so far?
So if a non-white uses the term "Uncle Tom" about a black man, it's racist, for the same reasons as above.
But if a non-Muslim uses the term "Uncle Tom" about a Muslim, then that's fucking racist too?
Well, which is it to be, you fucking knuckleheads?! Are Muslims a "race" or not?
Robertson didnt call for Chavez' assassination because he'd criticised his religion - Chavez is a Christian himself, albeit of a different denomination - but for other (no more excusable) reasons.
Robertson didnt call for Chavez' assassination because he'd criticised his religion
Robertson said that Venezuela was a base for "Muslim terrorists" to attack the US. Leaving aside the fact that this is obviously stupid, the fact remains that Robertson used his religious authority to attempt to get an enemy killed. Just like old Khomenei did to Rushdie.
Pubs writes on his blog:
"With two days to go before the March for Free Expression, the organisers have blinked, and called on those attending not to display the Motoons, lest they offend and put off any Muslims who might otherwise support the March. Presumably they have no problem if you want to attend and display defamatory cartoons of, say, Jesus. Suffice to say, I find this decision entirely contrary to the original stated principles of the MFE. I see no reason for an exception to be made to avoid offending Muslims, or anyone else. I have no intention of attending on Saturday anymore, and feel hugely let down by this turn of events."
Ah yes, the orginal stated principle: Liberate vilification such that the vilified represenent an attack on your right to condemn them. In other words, if we don't get to malign muslims what's the point of marching for free speech? If we can't bring the force of our hatred to bear upon its object, if we can't symbolize our struggle as such, if the rally's real activity (islamphobes out to play kicka muslim cos' we can) disappears, then free speech and secularism are exhausted languages. Why rally publicly under the auspices of free speech if it no longer serves to disguise/legitimate our hatred of muslims...better, if we can't be matyrs to Islamic fascism how can we be authentic racists fighting them on the beaches? But, as we all know, it ended happily for pubs, and someone did bring the cartoons and the right-wing; all is well with free-speech and islamophobia.
I've read Malcolm's autobiography, he pretended to be mentally unstable, not gay to avoid military service. Tachell is full of horse manure.
There was a recent biography by Bruce Perry which said he'd had homosexual experiences, so Tatchell isnt alone on this.
Yep, that post I made was a mistake. I can hold my hands up and admit that I changed my mind soon after, and I'm glad I did. You could have quoted the post I made shortly after where I admitted my mistake, but like so many other people on this blog, you chose only to pick the evidence that suits you, and brush the rest under the carpet.
The only people who are saying that the MFE was anti-Muslim or racist are the smearists from the far left.
The whole cartoon fiasco was blown out of all proportion by the media anyway, most muslims may have found it offensive, but were equally prepared to get on with their lives.
Thus spake Lenin from his tomb: "Don't make me insult you, Dave. Are you going to tell me that Malcolm X was a racist? It isn't racist imagery at all. Whoever 'Ali' is, and I assume it's the Outrage member that has been spreading disinformation about Sistani, he is providing a cover for Islamophobes and racists, and he ought to be ashamed. If the BNP fields a Muslim candidate, he too will be a sell-out. Think about it. No, think for a bit longer."
1) Malcom X was a racist, he admitted as much and then said he'd changed his ways.
2) Sistani is an Islamofascist who supports terrorism. I don't know why gotten into you to defend this nasty piece of work -- what next, you'll be doing a Horst Mahler on us?
3) Islamophobe? If you say that being afraid of sharia and the resulting abuses of human rights in islamic countries is nothing to be afraid of, well, perhaps you should seriously wonder what part of you is left that is 'left'.
All in all, you seem to have a problem with women and muslims, whenever they do not fit your schemata. Then you are very quick to label them 'hysterially' or 'Uncle Toms'. I can follow your train of thought, but I think, perhaps you should change the fuel and engine of the lokomotive that drives it to something less polluting.
Thought you might like to see how the tomb's fame has spread to Ireland.
Good to see the response from the SWP.
God, Idiotmedia makes me sick
British SWP Support The Islamofascists
author by pat cpublication date Tue Mar 28, 2006 09:36Report this post to the editors
This is yet another example of the British SWPs Misogyny and Homophobia. The Leninology SWP reporters hatred of Peter Tatchell and Maryam Namazie of the OWFI (he describes her as being in menacing black and white) is literally palpable. He mocks the fact that Tatchell has received death threats from islamofascists.
Now the SWP are opposed to Free Speech and support the right of ISlamofascists to censor the media. If the Catholic church wanted to have cartoons banned would the SWP be supporting them?
Read the truth about the Islamofascists. Read about the work of the The Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq (OWFI):
"The recent controversy over some caricatures of Mohammed gave the Islamists an opportunity to wage a hysterical protest internationally. In many cases, this took a violent form and was clearly aimed at silencing those who dared to even portray Mohammed.In these demonstrations - across the world and in London, the very heart of Europe - many of the banners on show were emblazoned with shameful slogans. These included - “Those who insult Islam must be beheaded” and “Freedom go to hell” plus various other fatwa’s and threats against cartoonists and others who have the temerity to “insult” Islam.
This is not the first time these forces have attacked people’s rights in the Middle East and Europe. Many writers, singers, even barbers and doctors have been targeted in the last 30 years let alone the enslavement of women in the Middle East under the pretext of the defence of the ‘honour’ of Islam. The furore over these caricatures is simply an excuse to stage another worldwide campaign to attack the right of freedom of expression. They want to turn Europe into yet another battlefield for their foul ideas. "
At a People Before Profit Meeting to celebrate International Womens Day the following appeal by the OWFI was supported unanimously by the attendance (including all Irish SWP members present):
"The war and the occupation of Iraq by the US and UK have opened the way for reactionary forces in Iraqi society to impose a constitution based on Islamic Sharia and other forms of religious-tribal law. We the undersigned organizations and individuals condemn the introduction of religious law. We demand freedom and equality for Iraqi women and support their Struggle for a democratic, secular and egalitarian constitution."
Do the independent members of PB4P support this attack by the British SWP on the OWFI? Do the Irish SWP support the attack on the OWFI? Do they think that death threats against Peter Tatchell are a joking matter?
A few links
author by Against Prejudice - swppublication date Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:03Report this post to the editors
Hi Pat
Your usual hysterical nonsense and deliberate innaccuracies cannot hide your islamophobic agenda.
Here is an article from the last issue of the britsih swp's magagazine written by a lebanese socialist and gay rights activist, The article is called
Gay Rights: Who are the Real Enemies of Liberation?
and the link is
http://
www.socialistreview.org.u...ticlenu...=9662
on what the swp thinks of Islam in general try Chris Harman's long and detailed article 'the prophet and the proletariat' at
http://www.marxists.de/religion/...arman/
index.htm
The Irish SWP's atemant on the racist cartoons beloved of Pat is here
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74125
Articles on SWP's opposition to the attack on muslim women and the banning of the hijab here
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk...?
article_id=569
Related Link: http://www.swp.ie
Best thing about the above discussion is how quickly things degenerate from a 'I hate all religions' argument, to an argument concerned to mantain that Islamic extremists are worst then Christian extremists (implication?).
For what its worth the racialisation of Islam has four key moments. First of all an early period when Islamic Empires and Christendom were on a level par (some people argue that it was only really with the industrial revolution in the late 18th century that the relationship became asymmetrical) and there was theologically motivated fear and xenophobia. Secondly during the period of Absolutism when land was a key resource to be fought over and Islamic Empires were seen as both a threat and an opportunity. Thirdly as Capitalism developes and an obsession emerges with arguing that Islamic Empires uniquely won't give concessions to European capitalists because of something essential about their nature (and wars are fought against these backward people), fourthly during the period of colonialism when rebellions against colonial rule were seen as inspired by these backward fanatics who for some strange reason rejected western progress. A massively historically dense and dispersed set of prejudices emerge on this basis (and are taken up almost unchanged by the Zionist movement which adds a kind of macabre post-script to this development). Fourthly all these prejudices are mobilised and combined with European anti-immigrant hysteria. Then comes 9.11 and the result is lots of liberal people think, 'huh, after all the bigotry was true' and begin writing 'brave' and 'courageous' articles to this effect. At some point Harry sets up Harry's Place.
And thats the story so far.
Speaking of HP, I made the mistake of popping over to see if these great friends of trade unionists have anything to say about today's pensions strike. The silence on this question, needless to say, is deafening.
Instead there's a truly disgusting post with photos of an Asian guy snapped at the MFE march, with an unsubstantiated allegation that he complained about racist cartoons, all urging readers to discover Who He Is. They really should rename themselves Muzzie Watch.
Well, the organiser of MFE is complaining that some 'Islamic extremists' or something followed the march. There's even a picture of them somewhere: four young kids pissing themselves at the sight of the crowd.
There were two incidents as far as I know. One incident was where a group of Islamofascists turned up, thinking it was a sensible idea to wear militant scarves around their heads in central London only a few feet from a tube station. The police made it clear they were not welcome and they apparently left, no doubt happy in the knowledge they had done their bit to improve community relations in the capital.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aut...57594090374080/
The second incident was after the march where a different group followed the guy from drunken blogging, and a few others, into a pub and attempted to tear up their posters and shouted abuse at them.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogg...00/
followed.jpg
It could possibly have been a racially motivated incident, who knows. Anyhow, they were chased off and the police suddenly arrived to calm things down.
One incident was where a group of Islamofascists turned up, thinking it was a sensible idea to wear militant scarves around their heads in central London only a few feet from a tube station.
Interesting language... despite knowing nothing about them, you assume they are "Islamofascists", whatever that is. Then, you introduce the topic of "militant scarves" "only a few feet from a tube station". Not only "Islamofascists" in your imagination, but terrorists also, folks who might pose a threat by sheer virtue of their being Muslim and near an entrance to a tube station.
It could possibly have been a racially motivated incident
The warped imagination of Whitey, in which white people attending a rally in solidarity with Danish racists are themselves the victims of racism.
That's the classic thought of a white supremacist.
I quite like the sound of "militant scarves", especially with matching accessories, eg "radical handbags" and "revolutionary gloves".
Interesting language... despite knowing nothing about them, you assume they are "Islamofascists"
Obviously you didn't see the first picture before you posted. Apology accepted.
If someone was wearing a BNP sign how would you know they were BNP? That's how ridiculous your argument is. Further up this thread you even claim to have seen BNP members in the crowd without identifying anything in particular about them. Your hypocrisy is mind blowingly silly, isn't it?
Then, you introduce the topic of "militant scarves" "only a few feet from a tube station". Not only "Islamofascists" in your imagination, but terrorists also, folks who might pose a threat by sheer virtue of their being Muslim and near an entrance to a tube station.
What is this? Some sort of absurd reductionism? They were wearing militant jihadi scarves that are worn in jihadi battle type situations, with classic long Islamic fundamentalist beards, at a rally which was about the right to speak out against religion. They were clearly trying to be deliberately provocative - that's why the police told them to clear off and stop trying to start trouble. Now, I'm not sure what the law is on disguising yourself in central London - obviously it's a daft thing to do given there are armed police about, especially if you are wearing an Islamist disguise in this time of heightened threat from Islamic terror - but nevertheless its just not a nice thing to do to London's Muslim population in any event. Think of all the alarmed Saturday shoppers who will have seen these clowns dressed up as terrorists. Not good.
The second incident was a group of slightly younger lads who cowardly followed a small group of people from the rally who went to different pub to the rest of us, probably with the intention of trying to chin one of them but didn't have the guts when it came to it. Nasty stuff. I have no idea if racism was involved, but I wouldn't rule it out. If a white group of lads had followed some Asians after an anti cartoon rally, and behaved in the same way, there's only one thing you and I would be saying about it.
classic long Islamic fundamentalist beards
hahahaha please tell me you're a pisstake
Bat, why do you believe the police quickly surrounded them and told them to clear off?
I reckon they had an Islamofundi counter demo arranged but these guys were the only mugs who turned up. Bad luck, fellows! The rest of them probably had better sense than wanting to be put on a terrorist watch list.
Lastly, what to do we have here? It just so happens this man is wearing the exactly the same head scarf. I wonder what it symbolises?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/42.../uk/
4210566.stm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aut...57594090374080/
Bat, why do you believe the police quickly surrounded them and told them to clear off?
Because the police are racist.
Ever considered joining up, btw? They're looking for recruits and your unintentionally hilarious bigotry would fit the "bill" perfectly.
Lenin, your wittering simply confirms the old adage to expect nothing but shit from an arsehole
Nice one, Titus. You're a truly shining wit (spoonerism).
I suppose you'll now show Lenin what genuinely intelligent, insightful writing is all about?
Lastly, what to do we have here? It just so happens this man is wearing the exactly the same head scarf. I wonder what it symbolises?
It's a kaffiyeh, a traditional Arab headdress, you miserable fucking ignorant bigot. You would know that if you had ever talked a single Arab or Muslim person in your entire life. Or even if you had, say, watched "Lawrence of Arabia." Christ, what rock do you people live under?
Also, you support a rally for "free speech," but you think anyone with a kaffiyeh and long beard should be treated as a terrorist by the police? That's a... curious take on civil liberties.
And 'M' is in the Socialist Party...if he's the same dude who took the pics can things really be that bad in the SP?!
Lenin, you say I didn't prove you lied about the march. Here's three pieces of proof.
You said it was stuffed with BNP members, who you can recognise on sight as they mysteriously cheer Muslim asylum seekers. You lied. There may have been a few stray fascists, but there were certainly far fewer than at the big anti-war demo that you and I both attended alongside the BNP and millions of others. (And don't tell me this rally was 'organised' by the BNP or one of its front organisations, that is a blatant lie and you know it).
Secondly, you said all the signs were about Islam. A blatant lie, indeed a lie so huge I doubt you were even present.
Thirdly, you said no Muslims spoke. In fact, two Muslims spoke - a quarter of all speakers - and one ex-Muslim spoke as well. They all got the biggest cheers, particularly when they defended the right to asylum, mysteriously for an 'anti-Muslim rally'.
Let's be generous. let's assume the latter is not a lie, but just a sign of extreme sloppiness.
I'm off now, I'll leave you to hurl racist smears at women who dare to reject the headscarf and embrace atheism and free speech. Perhaps you could just call them house-n***ers and be done with it?
Obviously, he means freedom of speech for people who want to oppose Jews. Jews themselves have no rights because they support totalitarian movements and are opposed to the values of the Free West, which are shared by every single one of us, from Bush and Blair downwards.
It's obviously incumbent on all of us who support the values of free markets and vaguely Christian-flavoured Euro-American culture to join together to oppose the threat posed by that group over there refusing to assimilate.
... oh, sorry. I meant Muslims, not Jews. Which makes the above rant perfectly politically correct for the Harry's Place crowd, right?
Dave
I'm still waiting for a reply to my 2 questions posted above that all you free-speecher lefties have yetto answer, so I ask again.
1. Why did only 300 people turn up?
2. Why weren't the trade unions there?
You said it was stuffed with BNP members, who you can recognise on sight as they mysteriously cheer Muslim asylum seekers.
The BNP openly admits sending members: http://www.islamophobia-
watch.co...expression.html
And who is misrepresenting demos here? You say:
There may have been a few stray fascists, but there were certainly far fewer than at the big anti-war demo that you and I both attended alongside the BNP and millions of others.
Weren't there some two million people at that demo? Even if there was a contingent of Nazis there, how can you compare that to the presence of 40 Nazi sympathizers at a small rally of 300-400? Nazis were a substanial part of your turnout.
And I certainly hope you didn't knowingly "march alongside" the BNP at that demo. If I knew that Nazis were coming to an anti-war demo, I would immediately organize people to confront them and kick them out. Did any members of the BNP front Civil Liberty identify themselves at your rally? If so, did you tell them to leave? Did any speakers look into the crowd, which was about 10% Nazi, and denounce the people who came to spread hate?
Of course not, because the very concept of the rally is bigoted. If you looked at that cartoon incident and concluded that the main threat to freedom was from extremist Muslims and the politicians who appease them, then you agree with the BNP's best recruiting point at the moment. I'm sure you sincerely dislike the BNP, but on the main political issue of the day, you're on the same side. You have to be in denial about their support for your rally, because otherwise you have to openly declare whether you think they're right -- that Muslims pose a major threat to our way of life that must be confronted on the streets.
H. Blackrose is right -- if I organized a rally in response to the "Jewish threat to our freedoms," and a few dozen neo-Nazis joined me, no liberals would have a hard time seeing through it. Even if I had signs quoting Voltaire, even if I had a token sign about Christinity. It's only when the target is Muslims that the decent left becomes so (to use Lenin's favorite word) purblind.
H Blackrose - I don't oppose Muslims, but I do oppose Islam, as I do all religions. I even oppose Judaism, although I don't oppose Jews.
Dylan, has any of the organisers of the march said it was against 'The Muslim threat to our freedoms'?
Dylan, has any of the organisers of the march said it was against 'The Muslim threat to our freedoms'?
I even oppose Judaism
Really? Do you think that Judaism is one of the major sources of world terrorism? Do you think that "radical rabbis" should be run out of Britain, and that "Jewish militants" should be watched by the police? Do you think that Jewish states (well, there is only one) should be rigorously "pressured", even up to being bombed, to conform to the world community's ideas on human rights?
If not, then you clearly think Islam is worse than Judaism, and my point stands.
H. Blackrose
You've summed this up really well. Not a single speaker that I heard mentioned the failure of the British media to break a state directive against naming an MI6 officer involved in the abduction of 28 Pakistani immigrants in Greece. No one mentioned the extention of the German ban on displaying symbols of what used to be the PKK. This was directed against the people in Britain who have least power to restrict anyone's individual freedoms, people who direct no listening posts, order no police forces, control no mass media, run no state bureaucracy, make no executive decisions and are among those on the receiving end of all of this.
Dave
If you're the same Dave who spread falsehoods about Mata Hari's performance at the George Galloway/Oona King meeting in East London in the run-up to the election last year, then you can't expect anyone to take you seriously.
Hey, I can do it with other religions too:
Do you think that Christianity is one of the major sources of world terrorism? Do you think that "radical pastors" should be run out of Britain, and that "Christian militants" should be watched by the police? Do you think that Christian states should be rigorously "pressured", even up to being bombed, to conform to the world community's ideas on human rights?
If not, then you clearly think Islam is worse than Christianity, and my point stands.
The problem above, of course, is that "Christian states" are exactly those which have declared themselves the "world community".
Dylan, has any of the organisers of the march said it was against 'The Muslim threat to our freedoms'?
It was called after the Muslim response to the Danish cartoons. The message is clearly "defend free speech against Islam." Since the outrage was widespread among Muslims, not just the so-called "extremists," you can't help but conflate the extremists/terrorists/Islamofascists with Muslims as a whole, and imply that defending Muslim communities runs the risk of being in bed with the head-choppers etc etc etc.
The primary issue here is: Who's the real enemy? Should we work with Islamists to oppose racism, or work with racists to oppose Islamism? Come on, even if a few members of an oppressed, marginalized community think that it should be illegal to criticize their religion, is that the same as the domination of church in pre-Enlightenment Europe? Are leftists who defend Muslims really just useful idiots for the head-choppers who want to enslave our women?
You people talk exactly like white Americans who call Al Sharpton a "reverse racist." You're not fucking oppressed, come off it.
dylan, stop being a gibbering idiot. Several Muslims spoke at the rally - a practicing Muslim got the biggest cheer of the event. Asylum seekers and gay rights were also defended by various speakers. The only person who is hooking up with the BNP is you by joining in with their typical black ops propaganda about being apart of protests they were patently not apart of, designed to hoodwink the public into thinking they have popular support. If there were any civil liberty people there - who of course were told in no uncertain terms they were not welcome beforehand - it would have been one bloke observing the event who kept his head down. The SWP weren't at the rally either but that didn't stop lenin turning up and doing exactly the same thing.
aaaaarrrrgggghhhhhh
Were the unions there?
Why only 300 for fkcs sake?
In which the largest cheer went to a...'good Muslim' (ie one who is so painfully deferential to those who see Islam as the root of all the political turbulence in the world, that no sensible person, Muslim or non-Muslim, would listen to anything they said).
"Did any speakers look into the crowd, which was about 10% Nazi, and denounce the people who came to spread hate?"
Yes. every single speaker - every one - condemned the BNP, to loud cheers. Where is your figure about 10 percent Nazi coming from? Ah, the BNP themselves. well, you take them at their word if you like. It's you who is repeating Nazi lines, not us.
Blackrose, you ascribe to people at the rally the view that "Muslims themselves have no rights because they support totalitarian movements and are opposed to the values of the Free West, which are shared by every single one of us, from Bush and Blair downwards."
Er, firstly, free speech DEFENDS MUSLIMS! That's why a quarter of the speakers were PRACTICING MUSLIMS! The people present have defended Muslim rights every step of the way. Peter Tatchell has done far more to oppose Guanatanomo and illegal detention of Muslims here than, say, Lenin, and I am pretty sure, you. It is you who is making the offensive assumption that Muslims are so irrational they do not want the most basic freedoms for themselves and their fellow citizens, not us.
Secondly, more than half of the speakers condemned Blair and Bush. Two of them called them "terrorists". All condemned Blair's plans to ban incitement to religious hatred as a betrayal of our values. They believe (like me) that Blair and Bush should be in jail.
So your summary of the views of the marchers is a flat-out lie.
Somebody else asks:
1. Why did only 300 people turn up?
2. Why weren't the trade unions there?
I don't know, you'll have to ask the people who didn't turn up where they were. I have attended demos against arms dealers with far fewer than 300 and no TU support; does that mean they weren't worthwhile?
Finally, it is grossly insulting (and a lie) to say the Muslims who spoke to say they are "so painfully deferential to those who see Islam as the root of all the political turbulence in the world, that no sensible person, Muslim or non-Muslim, would listen to anything they said."
They didn't say that, or anything like it. You're just making it up to fit your picture of them as "Uncle Toms". Privileged white boys using racist imagery to jeer at Muslim asylum seekers - don't you feel proud?
I note Lenin has not responded to my list of his lies. We can all infer that he accepts the charge, since there is no answer he can offer.
free speech DEFENDS MUSLIMS
The "speech" in this case are cartoons that deliberately and viciously denigrate Muslims as sexually repressed fanatical terrorists.
This is not "defending Muslims", it is an attack on them. And by defending the "rights" of those who make such attacks, you are colluding with them. And no amount of hysterical dissembling on your part can erase that ugly fact.
What's pitiful about Dave's approach is that all this left-liberal gloss probably did more to confuse and demoralise the rally's potential supporters than any amount of sneering on the Tomb. If the organisers had been more blunt, they'd have got more people there. Simple as that.
bat020, the rally was defending free speech for +everyone+, including radical Muslims. Several speakers made the point that although they find Iqbal Sacranie's claim that homosexuality is "diseased" despicable, they defend his right to say it completely and utterly.
Here is the poem read by the black poet Labi Siffre, cheered by everyone present:
it matters little that something is true, or not
till someone says you must live a certain way
because they believe something is true, or not
The Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw has said, "There is freedom of speech, we all respect that. But there is not any obligation to insult or to be gratuitously inflammatory. We have to be very careful about showing the proper respect.
Well, I say, not all beliefs are worthy of respect. Racist beliefs, homophobic beliefs, sexist beliefs, beliefs claiming the inferiority of the disabled, and claims to knowledge of the existence of a God, none of these are worthy of respect.
I reject the craven philosophies, “I am sincere ... so I must be right”
and “I am offended ... so you must stop”.
When someone says, “I know God exists and so, you must behave in a certain way: that is offensive, insulting, inflammatory and unworthy of respect. But I would not campaign to ban their right to proclaim their beliefs, no matter how offensive I judge those beliefs to be.
I stand here able to speak in this way because a lot of people, many of whom would not have approved of me, died, so that I could have the right of “freedom of expression”. I have a duty to defend that right they gave their lives for.
To begin with the lie, “I know god exists” makes you an extremist.
*
When anyone attacks, by insisting that their dishonest and offensive claims to knowledge of “god” be “precious and sacred” to me
i will oppose your vacuous regal prose,
and them, vigorously
*
Consider : it is impossible to blaspheme
without proof of god’s existence
Consider : if you apologise
when you have nothing
to apologise for
of what value are your apologies
when you do
have something to apologise for
Consider : Christianity, Islam, Sikhism,
Judaism, Hinduism, the worship of
the little green goblin from the planet absurdity
none of these is a country
none of these is an ethnicity
they are political philosophies
used to persuade or tell people
how they should live
to criticize, ridicule, lampoon
or insult them, or the belief in them,
is not racist
And finally, consider :
In an age when the most powerful man on the planet (armed with weapons of mass destruction) by his own admission believes he receives instruction directly from God
In an age when Christian believers in “Rapture” and Islamic believers in “the return of the hidden Imam” believe it right to speed us to salvation by promoting the chaos and destruction of the apocalypse
In such an age, not only do we have a right to challenge, criticize, caricature and satirize Muhammad, Jesus, Yahweh and other theistic concepts ... we have a duty to do so.
Shame on anybody who says the people cheering this are "racist", or defenders of george Bush.
Dave - your three "lies" have all been answered already, that's why I haven't wasted my time responding to them.
1) "You said it was stuffed with BNP members". I didn't. You are a liar.
2) "you said all the banners were about Islam". I didn't. You are a liar.
3) "you said no Muslims spoke". I said no practising Muslims spoke, but that was because I missed Ali, who you say is practising Muslim (and I, gracefully, take your word for it).
Other thing is, you have misrepresented the rally. I may have left at 3.15pm, but that covered more than half of the rally. In no way is it as you indicate, with half of the speakers calling Bush and Blair 'terrorists'. In fact, I watched from very close by as several hecklers started against Tatchell for denouncing racism. I got them on camera too. And at any rate, you are deliberately, specifically, missing the most obvious point about all of this: the rally was convoked in response to an imaginary threat to free speech from Muslims and in solidarity with the purveyors of racist filth. The organiser, Mr Risdon, does not even acknowledge that there was anything offensive about the racist images that you personally waved proudly above your head. You are also missing the point that these caricatures, these disgusting racist images, were not about 'satirising' Muhammad. They were about demonising Islam, and Muslims. A mere cursory glance at the damned things shows you exactly what they were about.
the rally was defending free speech for +everyone+, including radical Muslims
mmhmm, but WHY do you think such a struggle for free speech is necessary? because of the war on terror and the repressive legisation our governments are passing? nope, this "movement" of yours is in response to mass protests in the Muslim world against a plainly racist provocation. nothing you do can escape that central point. muslims respond to racism and imperialism -- you call a rally to defend us from them.
oh of course, you're against all other fundamentalism too. but what brought you out on the streets?
You said the right wing element was the bulk of the crowd though you knew this to be a lie.
"Right-wing element"=BNP in your mad little world, then? Of course the "right-wing element" were the bulk of the crowd - who else, but the terminally dense, would attend a rally for freedom for racists?
The cartoons were the final straw...
Hahahahahahahahaha!
Sorry, Meaders, but 'Pete' was deleted.
bat020, the rally was defending free speech for +everyone+, including radical Muslims.
[...]
Well, I say, not all beliefs are worthy of respect. Racist beliefs, homophobic beliefs, sexist beliefs, beliefs claiming the inferiority of the disabled, and claims to knowledge of the existence of a God, none of these are worthy of respect.
So, on one hand, the march was not anti-Islam. On the other hand, the guy defending the march most strongly is anti-Islam. Go figure.
These racist fucktards never spell out, by the way, exactly why Islam is supposed to be a threat to the extent that "criticism" of it is a duty of well-meaning liberals.
You are also missing the point that these caricatures, these disgusting racist images, were not about 'satirising' Muhammad. They were about demonising Islam, and Muslims.
Posted by Lenin
Lenin, I do hope you get the chance to read this quote from the leader of the Muslim Action Committee, Ismaeel-Haneef Hijazi:
Interestingly many Socialists are having issues about defending Muslims and have managed to find a neat way to justify their stance. They claim they are defending Muslims against the racism of the oppressor in this case, but on the other hand they would defend Salman Rushdie as he is an apostate from within the Muslim community and his poisonous book the Satanic Verses reflected his personal investigation of his religion. What is most problematic about the Socialist diagnosis of defending oppressed Muslims rights whilst simultaneously defending the right to attack their religion is that they have unwittingly placed themselves on the same page as Nick Griffin on this issue. Mr Griffin’s defence in court a few weeks ago and his party line is that he is not against Muslims but he is against Islam, which he describes as a monster.
For the Muslim Action Committee and the 700 or so Mosques and Islamic organizations Nationwide which we represent on this issue, this is not primarily a racist or even political issue but an attack on our faith. If this was merely a racist attack then the cartoonists would have contented themselves with caricatures of Muslims in general, there would be no need for a direct attack on our Prophet (peace be upon him).
The full quote, plus context, is available here on your favourite rival blog site.
Really? Do you think that Judaism is one of the major sources of world terrorism? Do you think that "radical rabbis" should be run out of Britain, and that "Jewish militants" should be watched by the police? Do you think that Jewish states (well, there is only one) should be rigorously "pressured", even up to being bombed, to conform to the world community's ideas on human rights?
I do believe that Israel should be rigorously pressured so to do, though bombing it is going a bit far, as well as completely unfeasible. I do hope that the American police and Israeli authorities are cooperating closely with the aim of keeping an eye on Jewish radicals who might turn out to be, say, another Baruch Goldstein, or who might want to bomb the Dome of the Rock in East Jerusalem. I do believe that Christians who, say, threaten to bomb abortion clinics in the States should be closely watched and indeed arrested, as indeed people like Eric Rudolph have been in the US.
Lopakhin
How many Christian terrorists have been arrested in the USA recently and how many Muslim "terrorist suspects"?
For fucks sake open your eyes.
Lopakhin - that's not my favourite rival blog site. I don't have a rival blog site, favourite or otherwise.
But on the quote from MAC - so what? I'm right, and they're wrong. They have weak politics, they don't understand how racism can take new forms, and they evidently haven't understood that for Nick Griffin, an attack on Islam is precisely the form in which his racism, as a neo-fascist, is currently expressed. It would be hard to find a more compelling instance, in fact, of this phenomena. Does it not occur to anyone that perhaps if one wanted to demonise the world's Muslims while formally disavowing the racism behind it, one attacks the faith?
The racialising gestures are almost identical in the case of Islamophobia to every other case of racism. It's curious that HP Sauce is now relying on the political analysis of MAC if not for its value judgments, certainly for its assessment of the relevant facts.
The miserable liars and racists of the "SWP" ("Socialist"? ; "Workers?) must now (as Alex Callinicos has already done), reassess their view of the "Satanic Verses"...they were wrong, ten, to defend freedom of speech..?
He knows what he's saying is absurd. The idea that all criticism of the most backward of the major world religions is off the table because the leader of the small and marginal political party, the BNP, has a few things to say about it too, is totally ridiculous. Who does he think he is trying to kid?
The irony is deep down he knows that people born of Muslim stock suffer most because of his stance. Cruel, racist stuff.
The miserable liars and racists of the "SWP" ("Socialist"? ; "Workers?) must now (as Alex Callinicos has already done), reassess their view of the "Satanic Verses"...they were wrong, ten, to defend freedom of speech..?
Fuck off Denham. I prefer you drunk; you're incomprehensible, but at least you don't lie quite so obviously.
the idea that all criticism of the most backward of the major world religions is off the table because the leader of the small and marginal political party, the BNP, has a few things to say about it too, is totally ridiculous.
Just as well he isn't saying that, then. Fucking moron.
Commenting by HaloScan
