Blaxploitation
I am indebted to the blogger drinking from home for this post, which comes via the pub philosopher. It refers to a piece on the Black Information Link (BLINK) website, written by Shirin Aguiar-Holloway. Ms Aguiar-Holloway is a lot more significant than she knows in the history of the Free Expression Rally. But more on that later.
Here's how the piece starts:
A sea of white facesEh?
by Shirin Aguiar-Holloway
30/3/2006
FREEDOM FOR WHO? That was the question being asked after an all-white 'Freedom March' took place in London.
Ms Aguiar-Holloway telephoned me twice in the run up to the rally. So I thought I'd return the compliment, and telephone her. I was put through without any problem, but she was audibly taken aback by the fact that I'd called her. I explained that I thought her article was the most racist thing I'd seen since that drunken night when a series of know-thy-enemy links led me to the website of White Aryan Resistance. And I said I'd like to ask her a couple of questions.
She said that she normally asked, rather than answered. No kidding? But I wanted to ask anyway. She told me there was someone in her organisation who fielded press questions. But then, I'm not a member of the press, so I persisted.
Question One:
Are you aware that the rally in London was a lot more racially diverse than the counter rally in Birmingham?Answer:
So, that's your first question?True. Was she going to answer it?
There's someone here to answer questions. I can't speak for BLINKI'm not asking you to. You wrote the piece.
[silence]So you're not going to answer the question?
No. What's the next question?Will you answer it?
She wouldn't. So I was put through to the person who does answer questions, Lester Holloway. Lester turns out to be the editor of BLINK. I asked him question one again, but he wouldn't answer. He did, though, offer me a right of reply. I am going to take that up, but will drag this out over two posts, so it can wait. There is even a reason for this.
Notwithstanding, I asked Lester my second question:
Does the validity of what someone has to say depend on the colour of their skin?Lester did answer this:
No.So why the emphasis on skin colour - to the exclusion of all else - in their article?
Lester wouldn't answer. OK, Last try:
Is "All white on the day" a racist caption? (It accompanies a photograph of the rally)And Lester did answer:
No, because it reflects the racial composition of the march.He added, apropos of the whole piece:
I deny it was racist.You will, perhaps, have noticed how much, during this conversation, we discussed the issue of free speech and the statement of principle. Nor did the BLINK piece. It was ONLY concerned with the racial composition of the rally. Oddly, they were less concerned with the racial composition of the Birmingham Rally, one of the most racially homogenous assemblies ever seen in this country. Even the clothes of the attendees were the same colour.
Why does this matter? After all, we can dismiss black bigots as readily as white ones.
Because I don't think the Holloways are bigots. I know that seems like a bizarre piece of self-delusion, but I have actually talked with them. They seemed like very nice, courteous, educated people who care very much about issues of race and equality, and might also care about freedom of expression. That's why Shirin was more important than she knows. She was one of three journalists (the others were from the BBC's Asian Network and Sunrise Radio) who made me ask people not to bring the cartoons to the rally. It had bugger all to do with MAC, who have just been using what they have perceived as my weakness to dig themselves into the most astonishing crater, for no very obvious reason.
It was instead these clever, cosmopolitan, accomplished young women for whom it just didn't compute that the cartoons might not be a hideous racist, BNP attack on Muslims in particular, and every other person with a better than average suntan in general.
Shirin, when she wrote the second piece, knew that I had asked people not to bring cartoons solely to help include Muslims who might have otherwise felt intimidated, because I had told her this on the telephone during our second conversation, but this knowledge failed to penetrate the carapace of her paranoia and her racist assumptions about white people. She knew that of nine speakers, only five were white, yet she still called that Rally "all-white". She knew that there were lots of people there who were not white, yet she still called the rally "all-white". She knew that the Birmingham Rally was entirely racially homogenous, but she drew no attention to that fact because the race in question was not white.
There can be no more pure and complete an example of racism. But I remain convinced that these two people are decent.
They are the type of people we need to get on board, somehow, sometime. Because Freedom of Speech and Expression have nothing at all to do with race or culture. They are universal. And the people the Holloways are tacitly supporting would remove these freedoms from them, as well as from us.
It is going to be a long haul, though.
posted by Voltaire @ 6:02 PM
132 Comments:
There can be no more pure and complete an example of racism.
Haven't you twigged yet that it is only whites who can be racist?
Voltaire, you are quite a dissembler, there were Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, Somalians, English and iraqis at our demo.
Also our demo on the 18th february was not intimidating, we had 50,000 people out there, mainly Muslims, but there were many non-Muslims around, none of whom seemed to be intimidated.
Oh and Peter, your letter, it wasn't a bargaining chip, it certainly was when you first called. Incidentally while you were being squeezed by the police, GLA and Sayyida was about to walk out.
You:
"If you agree to send a speaker from MAC, i'll tell people not to bring the cartoons"
Me:
"That's not good enough Peter, you should be doing that anyway".
An hour later, Peter calls again:
"I've told people not to bring the cartoons, i've posted it up, i thought i'd tell you as a courtesy"
Me:
"We're still having that talk about whether to send a speaker"
You:
"It wasn't a bargaining chip"
Anyways, no nothing to do with MAC at all.
Just for the record, both the police and the GLA approved the rally with the cartoons on display, and neither made any attempt to persuade us to ask people not to bring them.
This is the basis of the complaint to the Police Complaints Authority - that they should have been in a position to tell us that there would be legal action taken. Instead, they said that senior officers and their lawyers had read this blog and it was all OK.
For the rest, I gave up responding to Ismaeel's posts when MAC refused dialogue, and that remains my position until and unless they learn that dialogue is a two way street.
MAC refusing dialogue? Surely not! I mean these are the people who talk about 'civility' whilst campaigning against others rights of expression, aren't they?
PS anybody else see this?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
article/0,,17129-2112070,00.html
If only there were more like him.
Who has refused dialogue Voltaire? We welcome dialogue and debate, but we're not going to have it in a room where you're insulting our Prophet (PBUH). Why don't you invite some Priests to debate with you while you burn some crosses.
Did you not read our open letter- we will debate and dialogue with you about anything anywhere but keep your cartoons at home.
Comment moderation on the MAC blog has been turned on.
Can I see some pictures of the birmingham protest please?
hello?
http://slim2005.blogspot.com/2006/03/jyllands-posten-secular-fundamentalist.html
only ones i can find
many thanks Ismaeel. Any chance that you'll turn off the comment screening on your blog?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
On March 25th 2006, people gathered at Trafalgar in London to show out for there support for an open fourm on the freedom of Expression. Although this could have been seen as a jump of point for ones own politic, it was a brilliant day if a little tense at times. The rain did not dull our spirits nor did it slate out humour.
I heard some very cutting sac-religous comments which, while I do not agree with where 100% vaild. I was waiting for my sentiments to be reflected by a speaker but it seemed that it did not come. So here are my thoughts:
"I come to you today in the spirit of Oliver Cromwell. The founding member of our great Democracy and Goverment. He was a common man, a man of the land who took the power away from those who abused it. I cannot say that I aproved of his tactics ethier as a weight of blood followed this man but it was his vision and tatical mastery that lead him to victory over the Royalists.
And it was in 1657 that he rejected the Crown of England. This man who had fought tooth and nail against what the Crown stood for and suddenly was given the chance to rule as monarch and he refused. That is the spirit that is summed up in me today.
If the Crown where indeed apointed by God then it was on that day he could have became a greater instrument on world and future affairs but he used his free will to say no. God or no God.
Under Mr. Blair's law even saying the phrase "The Crown was appointed by God" has just made me guilty of the crime of incited-religous hatred. This is a forpar but the letter of the law can and will be dictates to us. This is why I request that either myself or Mr. Blair should be placed in the Tower until further notice because one of us is of ill thinking.
But even as I say these word I know in my heart of hearts that if I or any man, was to assume postion over Mr. Blair in the spirit of Cromwell and over throw him and him only, then we would be setting ourselves up to be lead by a dictator and it is this I also wish to speak against today, as Decocracy is very much at my heart and it is the only thing that will save us from ourselves."
yeah i've done it
I seen. Cheers.
It seems odd to conclude that people can't be intolerant (or can't be bigots) because they are nice.
Who hasn't met nice people with odd political opinions? What your account suggests is that those people are deeply committed to identity politics and political correctness, in the sense of being primarily concerned with a group’s or a person’s identity rather than their actions. They care about who speaks not about what is being said. It should not come as a surprise if they would also define rights according to ethnic identity.
To me, it seems improbable that people like this can become involved without compromising the basic message that freedom of speech should apply equally to all and that there is no right not to be offended.
rantingkraut.wordpress.com
>>Who has refused dialogue Voltaire? We welcome dialogue and debate, but we're not going to have it in a room where you're insulting our Prophet (PBUH). Why don't you invite some Priests to debate with you while you burn some crosses.
Sounds like a fascinating scenario. Cartoons which criticize those who abuse Islam and abuse the legacy of Muhammad to sanction murder (because that is what the cartoons are, not insults against Muhammad) in a room of burning crosses. Maybe it will be made into a movie at some stage? (I doubt it, because someone will of course protest outside the multiplex to get it taken off the reels).
> Oh and Peter, your letter, it
> wasn't a bargaining chip, it
> certainly was when you first
> called. Incidentally while you were
> being squeezed by the police, GLA
> and Sayyida was about to walk out.
Ismaeel, seeing as your tone has become more chirlish, I'd lower my acedemic standards and join you in the play ground.
-------------
Oh Ismaeel, your tone, it wasn't mature, it certainly was when first started. Incidentally while you were being squeezed by comments on your own blog, here and one toonaphobia.
You: "If you agree to be civil I will support free speech with an acceptable baseline of civility"
Us: "That's not good enough Ismeaal, you should support free speech anyway be doing that anyway".
An hour later, Ismaeel calls again:
You: "I've told people not to riot, i've spoken to militant political Islamic groups and cancelled the mob, i thought i'd tell you as a courtesy"
Me: "We're still having that talk about whether we can see the cartoons in private"
You: "It wasn't a bargaining chip, of course not"
Anyways, no nothing to do with Islamafascim at all.
------------
Is mimicry a valid form of expression? It makes people laugh at the target and the target feels small, insulted even. Do you wish to ban this mode of communication too?
I don't believe that your absolutist brand of Islam has wide support in the Muslim community, this is reflected in the photos of your recent march.
I think that is time for you to step down and use your money to reduce, not increase intercommunity tensions.
Open the Mosque, invite ordinary British people in, have a party, break out the hooka pipes, relax, run a creesh looking after kids from all backgrounds.
Embrace British culture, show some generosity to your fellow man (or women) in the street irrespective of their race, creed, colour or religion.
Cheers,
TFI
I have to say I don't think you can say that MAC refuse dialogue when their only condition is not to do it in a room where displayed are the Danish cartoons insulting the Prophet (SAW).
I also think that dialogue with MAC and as many others as possible does need to be encouraged. Did anyone watch HardTalk Extra last night with Amin Maalouf? Amazing chap.
He thinks the politics of identity, as opposed to ideology, will define the conflicts of the 21st Century. The reason he gave what that while you can discuss ideologies through debate and reasoned argument, and even arrive at conclusions and compromises, identity is about shouting out what you are and seeing who shouts the loudest.
He thinks the gulf between "the West" and the arab world is worse now than it was 100 years ago. He is sad to see the enormous rift that divides the two. He thinks there needs to be more mixing and a focus on ideology rather than identity.
That's why the journalists have been trying to get Peter to either expose MFE for having "white/BNP" identity, and why I think it was a jolly good move from Peter to take down the Danish flags from his poster downloads and ask people not bring the cartoons, then it doesn't become an identity battle.
When it's an ideology discussion all people can participate, the biggest task I think will be separating identity from ideology, which has been the source of the kind of racism associated with this campaign.
When I first came across this blog through a friend, I thought it had a white, danish, christian-if-religious-at-all identity, and that put me off participating because I didn't feel my identity - Muslim - was welcome.
When Peter made the decision to change that, I felt comfortable to participate in this forum. That's not saying to remove identity completely from the debate but to focus on ideology (a stand-off mocking any religion won't encourage a constructive debate, it's just a means of shouting an identity louder).
Anyone can participate in an ideological debate.
I don't know if we can combat these types of trends in our own little way in the UK, where others are starting to fail, I hope so.
Ismaeel, I know you don't know me other than on this blog but I'd just like to commend the work you've been doing to engage in debate and dialogue, even at the face of insult and abuse, forming the basis of an ideological discussion.
As for why Peter made the decision not to display the cartoons, you need to join me in accepting that it was finally his decision. I understand that MAC supporters will want to feel that this happened because of MAC but isn't it a far better thing that Peter spoke to others like the female journalists and Sayyida? This shows that there are many people outside MAC (potential supporters perhaps?) who would like to switch from shouting identities to more egalitarian discussions and debates on ideology.
I don't think Peter comes across as the kind of person who would respond to any warnings or threats. Look at the kind of pressure he was under from his own supporters who wanted him to reverse the decision on the cartoons. He's a - is this the right English expression - "stubborn git"
There were no warnings or threats from anyone, and the decision he took was definitely the right one. Why? Because he stepped away from what was going to be an "identity" rally :- (danishflags/cartoons=nonmuslim vs islamicflags/anti-cartoons=muslim)
This type of attempt to put ideology under identity is cursed, just like in Nazi Germany. And right up until a couple of days before the rally so was the MFE from this perspective.
Now journalists are confused they thought the what they now call "Danish Cartoon" protest was an all white affair, nothing to do with ideology just the far right shouting their identities.
If we're in the same room and we talk and we have a modicum of courtesy between us we can quickly move to discussions of ideology provided and this is a very important provision that - noone feels his/her IDENTITY is under attack. This is why I think the next step should be some kind of party or gathering where we aim to get as many different people together as possible.
That's my pennys worth for now!
Let's keep them confused!
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Well after much problems and ponderings of my beliefs that all people are created equal, im now resigned to the fact that a huge shift to the BNP is the only thing that will ever get any government in power to wake up to the feeling taking over in this country.
"Well after much problems and ponderings of my beliefs that all people are created equal, im now resigned to the fact that a huge shift to the BNP is the only thing that will ever get any government in power to wake up to the feeling taking over in this country."
I don't see it as much of a shift - Gordon Brown is proposing a British National day, and the politics of Labour have shifted towards Nationalism anyway.
The feeling taking over in this country = fear = paranoia of anything "other" = sickness
Maybe if you hate the place somuch maybe you should.. er I don't know leave?
‘Anonoymous’: I think those remarks on identity politics vs ideology are very helpful. I can see how some have ended up seeing this as a racist event, at least if they didn’t spend enough time on the blog to actually read the statements there.
Of course the opposite problem arose with non-Muslims: to many, the request not to bring the cartoons will have looked like giving in to Islamist identity politics. That is how I saw it, in particular because the request had been made so late. Well, it is always easier to judge with the benefit of hindsight, so Peter ended up being damned if he did and damned if he didn’t.
Keeping away from white supremacists and likewise from identity politics more generally is absolutely paramount. We should remember though that the same point needs to be made vis a vis ALL ethnic groups involved. Fine tuning the political marketing for a demographically wide appeal sounds like a good idea; compromising on contents does not.
rantingkraut.wordpress.com
" Maybe if you hate the place somuch maybe you should.. er I don't know leave?"
will-b - love England, but I laughed when I read your comment!
I am just really concerned about things like:-(1) the fact that we're not allowed to protest outside parliament anymore, (2) we can get arrested for any offense even a non custodial one, like dropping litter, (3) the fact our government spend 32m of our money on ID cards before they even became law, and (4) the fact they're in the third reading of the Regulatory and Legislative Reform Act - which would allow any Minister to change almost any law or Act of Parliament for almost any reason.
I know a lot of people, from all backgrounds, who are pondering leaving now because of these things - not to mention the tax on beer!
Now I -could- leave as well, but since I spend at least an hour a day and an afternoon in the weekend campaigning on the above 4 issues as a British citizen and resident, with your permission I'll stay?!
Of course I don't hate this country, it's what it's becoming, starting to become. I'm the type that sticks around as long as I can folks to do what I can. I hope that's Ok for the rest of you, even if it isn't for will-b?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hi Anonymous,
Glad to see that you are still posting. I think that your post hits the nail on the head, I will stand next to you defend and oppose all the things that you have just pointed out.
However I don't agree with you in protecting policital Islam from criticism and ridicule.
One thing that you said elsewhere that I did agree with is that Ismaeel and the MAC are far more open, intelligent, honest and helpful than the MCB.
Cheers,
TFL
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
"protecting policital Islam from criticism and ridicule."
The other religions don't ask for that. So I suppose Islam is weak, or can't face the truth, or sees itself as superior, or any combination of that.
will-b - love England, but I laughed when I read your comment!
I am just really concerned about things like:-(1) the fact that we're not allowed to protest outside parliament anymore, (2) we can get arrested for any offense even a non custodial one, like dropping litter, (3) the fact our government spend 32m of our money on ID cards before they even became law, and (4) the fact they're in the third reading of the Regulatory and Legislative Reform Act - which would allow any Minister to change almost any law or Act of Parliament for almost any reason.
I know a lot of people, from all backgrounds, who are pondering leaving now because of these things - not to mention the tax on beer!
Now I -could- leave as well, but since I spend at least an hour a day and an afternoon in the weekend campaigning on the above 4 issues as a British citizen and resident, with your permission I'll stay?!
Of course I don't hate this country, it's what it's becoming, starting to become. I'm the type that sticks around as long as I can folks to do what I can. I hope that's Ok for the rest of you, even if it isn't for will-b?
No harm to you but I hear people yap about how awful the country is I tend to think they don't like it. And my stance is if you don't like a place and its people you may as well leave.
Now to your points...
Firstly, I totally disagree with the fact we can't protest outside parliament anymore and I think it is a disgrace that such a law was passed.
Secondly, Again I disagree with that way of doing things, far too much power to the police is a very bad thing which can lead to a totalitarian police state which I and I’m sure you, don't want.
Thirdly, it is much more than just that the government spent 30+m on the ID cards project before the bill was passed; it is the fact that it was introduced in the first place.
And fourthly the horrible LRRB. Again like the above things I totally disagree with what is going on with it. However one of the reasons that it has got this far is because of the principle behind it, I was reading a letter to a friend of mine from his local MP and that’s what I got from the letter, that MP's voted for it because of the principle and in the hope that the Lords will stop the bill. I personally think they should have voted against it no matter what the principle was as you can't be relying on the Lords as the government can force it past the Lords with the parliament act.
Now to again address the suggestion I made to you. I consider the wrongs against freedom mentioned above lie at the feet of Labour and not with the British people. I got riled up by your 'country = fear = paranoia of anything "other" = sickness' comment suggesting that the country was sick. I totally disagree, I think it is the labour government who is truly sick and who should be being attacked not the people. Why was it that anything could be passed by them over the last 9 years? Because of Blair’s control, Blair's sick control over the party and over parliament because of the number of labour MP's and the weakness of the opposition, not the people.
Now from your last comment it is clear you don’t hate this country or its people. fine stay if you wish, in fact I hope you do stay and help us fight the injustices and wrongs against this country and its people enacted by a corrupt, power hungry Labour government.
will-b actually we're on completely the same page agree with all your comments - now what are we going to do about our corrupt government? Should we try and get all but the labour party together at a meeting and air our concerns, emphasise the universal human values that they should not be threatening ever? like our parliament? our Magna Carta? etc
Just saw the pics of the Birmingham (HAM !! for god's sake!).
It's rather good PR for secular people.
Oh, and before the day is over I wanted to ask this:
Is the Birmingham rally part of that long running project of Cristo (Romanian artist of some fame) to wrap up the female population on this planet?
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4399/1929/320/VS2.jpg
"However I don't agree with you in protecting policital Islam from criticism and ridicule."
Oh then you misunderstand me. I don't think any ruling doctrine should or can be protected from criticism or ridicule, that includes of course political Islam, as well the Labour Party - remembering the effigy of Blair that was also censored at the MFE.
But I don't see the cartoons as an attack on political Islam. I see them as an attack on Muslims, which is where we differ. That's not to say they are meant as an attack, but because of how they've come to be seen and the disintigration of the dialogue between Muslims and Non Muslims, their use by the BNP etc, they are now perceived by many Muslims as an attack on their identities as Muslim.
If, in the name of free progressive principles, Muslims are forced to (as many may see it) insult their Prophet (SAW), as the starting point many will be put off from participating and as their identities are alienated from the ideology of free expression fall pray to more backword ideologies of extremists.
Basically, I wouldn't want MFE to be usurped by any extremists.
That's not the same as saying I think anyone should be protected from criticism - not at all - I just feel that we should try to get as broad appeal as possible for the ideology that drives this campaign and identity assertion basically reduces our audience, something we can ill afford at this time.
"help us fight the injustices and wrongs against this country and its people enacted by a corrupt, power hungry Labour government."
Well said will-b, well said!
Well, anonymous, I take this for your joke of the day. It's the 1st of April.
will-b actually we're on completely the same page agree with all your comments - now what are we going to do about our corrupt government? Should we try and get all but the labour party together at a meeting and air our concerns, emphasise the universal human values that they should not be threatening ever? like our parliament? our Magna Carta? Etc
It is good to hear that we are in fact on the same page! I think we need to include all parties in this, if you exclude the Labour party they will brand you as some sort of nutter.
P.S. sorry for late responce, I was collecting all my comments on this blog. lol.
Thank you anonymous for your hear hear's. :D
Historians found out today M. had his first revelation on a first of april.
will b
You don't really believe this poser, do you?
Hey Luke!
I'm a poser
And it's April fool
I want you to be a poser, too
'Cos posers rule
Hey Luke!
C'mon man pose with me
Posing's way more fun
When there's two or three
Hey Luke!
Oh yeah he Luke's so cool
It's sunny - oh so dandy!
And the posers rule
Got an umbrella handy?
Cos he's no fool
Hey Luke!
Ya Look So Coooool
x
:-)
sorry just came out!
will-b
"It is good to hear that we are in fact on the same page! I think we need to include all parties in this, if you exclude the Labour party they will brand you as some sort of nutter."
You are probably right. Though if anyone has become a monolithic bloc... I think I have become a nutter, I mean what is there left that our government can rob from the people of this country? gas? electricity? tax?
All done. The only thing left that any citizen has that has any value at all is their identity now, their information, and I'm pretty upset that they're going to take that and use it and sell it and goodness knows but I don't trust them!
I think I really am a nutter. I'd never have imagined myself talking like this ten years ago. They say "Thatcher is back with a real dick this time."
http://eclectech.co.uk/londoncalling.php
until he says something contary to what has bee said above or I am shown other posts by him that contradict what he has said I have no option but to believe him
By the way... on the minimum benchmark of civility mentioned on the M.A.C. site Ismaeel has said this of it on two separate occasions...
'The minimum bench of civility is people signing up to the principles embodied in the Proclamation of Global Civility'
'Yeah we are actually going to change that, it's wrong and doesn't fit in with the campaign.'
so it either fits with the campaign and is a main part or they are removing it. which is it?
Free Speech (Islamist way) in France
http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=25&story_id=28926
Forgive me TFI and Voltaire, my earlier rant was definitly churlish.
MAC does not represent political Islam of any brand: we represent Islam- the complete way of life. People didn't come out in Birmingham because they were appreciative of the Peter's decision not to show the cartoons and didn't feel there was much to protest about. When they did, we had 50,000 in Trafalgar Square.
Sorry if that sounds churlish.
I think mimicary and satire is fine, but not when it just becomes abusive and insulting.
Taking up the earlier discussion, many here seem to think that the Danish cartoons weren't intentionally insulting, most Muslims do. I'm not going to reherese all the arguments again. Let's agree to disagree. From that point let me say this IF i accept that it was unintentional, it still doesn't stop the cartoons being insulting. Intention is something very important in Islamic law and english law, however both legal processes recognise that if you do certain things even unintentionally you still have to recieve a punishment or pay compensation.
Now before anyone gets excited, i'm not talking about applying Islamic law. However what you have to understand is that regardless of the cartoonists' intentions, the Muslim world has found the cartoons insulting. There is a big cultural difference and we have to accept this. Otherwise there is no difference to colonial attitudes. If i walk into a room and accidently knock someone's books out of the hands, i apologise and help them pick them up. I had no intention of knocking the books out of their hands, but i still know the right thing to do is apoligise and rectify the situation.
I seen that on Jihad/Dhimmi watch Luke. At least they haven't taken them down.
Oh and TFI, i embrace many aspects of British culture, though not all of it. No-one does, if that's your aim please go integrate the goths, punks and new age travellers while you're at it.
We do have many open days in our Mosques and do the things you are suggesting.
However we are entitled to campaign for a revival of civility just like any other citizens of this country are free to campaign for whatever they want to campaign for. Unless of course we're not allowed to, because we're Muslim and somehow we're not quite fully citizens because of that.
By the way... on the minimum benchmark of civility mentioned on the M.A.C. site Ismaeel has said this of it on two separate occasions...
'The minimum bench of civility is people signing up to the principles embodied in the Proclamation of Global Civility'
'Yeah we are actually going to change that, it's wrong and doesn't fit in with the campaign.'
so it either fits with the campaign and is a main part or they are removing it. which is it?
Will B come now, don't confuse things. I said that the aim stating "we demand a dialogue with the relevant authorities on setting a minimum benchmark of civility" needs to be changed because we are not trying to enforce things through law.
However we want to revive and establish a minimum benchmark within society on a voluntary self-regulating basis and those are the principles of the proclamation.
You can't compare a free speech issue with knocking some books out of someones hands. The long and short of it is that they don't NEED to say sorry or be punished as it didn't break any laws.
I'm not confusing anything, You said it. It is a black and white issue.
Anonymous.
"and the politics of Labour have shifted towards Nationalism anyway"
Im sorry.. you have said some thoughtfull things (if your one and the same annonymous as a couple of posts above the one i quote) but that is a truly wrong statement.
BNP Member
It's from Brown's suggestion that there should be a British National Day. I read something about that on the BBC.
"However we want to revive and establish a minimum benchmark within society on a voluntary self-regulating basis and those are the principles of the proclamation."
As long as you do not rationally explain what is racist in the cartoons, one by one, you cannot talk of benchmarks, unless your benchmarks are the ones we already know.
You seem simply to step back a bit for the moment, but your goal is obvious. You have stated it often enough (and cleared the characteristic statements on your side later on)
Ismaeel,
You say, "[t]aking up the earlier discussion, many here seem to think that the Danish cartoons weren't intentionally insulting, most Muslims do."
Please explain what is insulting about the one of Muhummed leading a donkey.
Indeed, you have been asked numerous times, by Luke, I think, to explain one by one what is insulting about each cartton.
I think no-one can have any complaint at all about many of the cartoons, the one with the orange with "pr stunt" dropping on the artist's head (with the artist holding a drawing of a beared stick figure!). What's wrong with the one of the boy at the blackboard, or the line up of religious figures? Please enlighten me why it's insulting to show a man standing with a cresent around his head (a good parody of a Christian halo!) What about the face with the green cresent moon around it - where's the insult there?
Do you object to those cartoons? If you do, you are not just requesting that people be civil, you are saying that no representation (however inncouous or mild) of Muhummed is permitted (for anyone in any context). This is fascist - can you see that?
I admit the other cartoons could be interpreted as barbed comments on Islam, but I don't think on Muslims. But this is not a reason to ban them - sometimes you just need to suck it up - I think this is one of those times for Muslims.
The way to stop people linking Islam with violence is to not be violent (you might not have, but many of your co-religionists have been). The way for people to realise that Islam is a religion of peace is to condemn the violence mongers, drive them out of your mosques and inform on them to the authorities. Muslims have the tools in their own hands, we wonder when they will be used.
"you might not have, but many of your co-religionists have been"
Pubsceptic
You say "The way to stop people linking Islam with violence is to not be violent (you might not have, but many of your co-religionists have been)."
Actually a very small percentage of co-religionists. What about the number of Christians that are violent? Or football supporters?
"The way for people to realise that Islam is a religion of peace is to condemn the violence mongers"
Done. See Sayyida's speech for example.
"Drive them out of your mosques and inform on them to the authorities."
Done. In so far as they can be identified. Though there are very few violence mongers among the people who visit mosques. There is a much higher percentage of violence among those who visit football stadiums.
"Muslims have the tools in their own hands, we wonder when they will be used."
Oh you patronising pathetic and dumb fool. We - the majority of us - are doing our best. Now you go out and promise me that there will never be a problem with football hooligans or sick idiots like Gary Glitter to go out and rape small children, or "Christians" who molest children in care homes, or white governments that wage illegal wars (AND AN ACTUAL PROVEN MAJORITY then votes them in again!)
So go - clean up your act - good luck! Wanker.
When was the last time all the football supporters joined arms and protested about the violence and hooliganism? Never! They must all be thugs then...
OK let's start with the "Western" answer to violence:-
Football hooliganism.
I noticed surprisingly few people at the MFE or associated with it have "done anything" about "their" football hooliganism!?
THAT's What's Doing The Most Damage in Britain Right Now. Not Muslim Protests. See:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/yorkslincs/series2/football_hooligans_rail_network_station_violence.shtml
"FOOTBALL HOOLIGANS ABUSE RAIL NETWORK
CONCERN | match day crowds are stretching police resources
Football hooligans are abusing Britain’s rail network by using it as the venue for violent match day fights.
Inside Out investigates how this is stretching police resources to the limit.
Football hooliganism is a menace that refuses to go away. It’s a vicious drama played out every Saturday in a town centre near you.
But forget public houses or stadium car parks, railway stations are the new hooligan hotspot.
Prearranged fights and ambushes at railway stations are now common currency.
The cost of policing
British Transport Police are battling to keep the problem under control.
Their resources are stretched every weekend by the hundreds of thugs from all over the country who use trains as their preferred method of exporting violence.
Officers are deployed in their hundreds in an attempt to prevent violence, intimidation and inconvenience to ordinary members of the public.
The cost of policing these fixtures is immense. In the North East area alone, British Transport Police will have overspent their football budget by around £400,000 by the time the football season ends.
This is money that they could have spent on other areas of policing.
Hooligan groups in the West (BBC):
"We also talk to players and hooligans in Italy about the growing influence of racist and far-right groups on the terraces that the hooligans control.
The Lazio hooligans: the Irriducibilli - now have their own merchandise, and businesses - organising all the stadium banners and meetings with the players - many of them international stars - and the club. "
So why not make the next rally about THAT - oh yeah the thugs that are doing a lot more damage to this country, and the reputation of Britain than any muslims.
-------------------------------
Interestly the term Hooligan was coined in the 1890s as an alternative to "street arab"! hehe
Oh and what have scout masters done to object to scout masters going mad in schools? Like the Dunblane killer.
http://century.guardian.co.uk/1990-1999/Story/0,6051,112749,00.html
So who wants to join me in a March to Condemn football hooliganism, cos you know what? we've gone around as hooligans killing people from other countries and teams but we've not once protested about this going on in the name of ENgland - not once.
Why?
Hi Anonymous
We haven't been properly introduced, which undoubtedly explains your appalling rudeness (hardly "Globally civil").
I salute those Muslims who are interested in fostering peaceful relations with their fellow global citizens.
Your points in detail:
"Actually a very small percentage of co-religionists. What about the number of Christians that are violent? Or football supporters?"
Or not so small, there are no figures, so we can't argue over the facts of the matter. I utterly condemn violence regardless of who performs it. Christians murdering abortion doctors (for example) are as appalling as Muslims murdering commuters in my book. Perhaps because I am not a football supporter, I can't understand why people get excited (to violence) over a game!
"Done. See Sayyida's speech for example."
If I read Sayyida's speech correctly, she says "the monster is not Islam... the monster is fear". But so many of the violent acts committed by (the small percentage of) Muslims are justified by reference to (Muslim) religious books and teaching - say it is not so! And I think the problem is worse, because a straightforward reading of these religious books and teachings permits and encourages these (violent) people. I think that's a problem that needs to be addressed.
"Done. In so far as they can be identified. Though there are very few violence mongers among the people who visit mosques. There is a much higher percentage of violence among those who visit football stadiums."
Excellent. I do not visit mosques, so I do not know. Thank you for reporting that this is the case.
"... We - the majority of us - are doing our best. Now you go out and promise me that there will never be a problem with football hooligans or sick idiots like Gary Glitter to go out and rape small children, or "Christians" who molest children in care homes, or white governments that wage illegal wars (AND AN ACTUAL PROVEN MAJORITY then votes them in again!)"
I'm not violent at football matches, nor abuse children, nor did I vote for Bliar. I am not in favour of the war in Iraq. I make these views plain to anyone who listens, as do the majority of my friends. I recognise that the majority of Muslims want to live in a peaceful secure country where they are able to raise their children and do their religious duty. I have no problem with that. But many of those same people want to control my behaviour, and the behaviour of others; hence the question I asked about the specific cartoons which I cannot see as offensive.
Perhaps you will now answer the question.
"Actually a very small percentage of co-religionists. What about the number of Christians that are violent? Or football supporters?"
Ah yes how could I forget the infamous Anglican suicide bombers or the Methodist kidnap squads.
Islam had the violent prophet, Christianity didn't. The crusades were an aberation - the jihad isn't. Deal with it.
Christianity had the violent prophet, Islam didn't. The jihad is an aberation - the crusades weren't.
Deal with it.
Oh and Emir you're conveniently burying your head in the sand about football hooligans aren't you?
They seem to be costing the police a lot more injury, time and taxpayer money than muslims.
Deal with THAT please
Plus please can we muslims have an apology about the Crusades. They were carnage. Not to mention the carnage inflicted on the poor indians who were quite literally murdered by savage English thugs and have never received an apology from this country...
Deal with THAT
Anonymous,
About the cartoons I assert are non-offensive?
Your reply is...
And Emir
Think about what the Indians had to go through before being given their independence and they have never received an apology for those murders.
Football hooligans, illegal wars waged by those who are voted in again by the majority.
Oh I see - all "aberations"
Pubskeptic...
Maybe the cartoons are non offensive - say for arguments sake - but if you take one look at the dregs of "supporters" they attract - like the group that wants to deport all Muslims from Europe, the BNP, IslamaNazi, and some of the totally ignorant comments on this blog a different picture emerges.
Annonymous wrote;
"Actually a very small percentage of (muslim) co-religionists. What about the number of Christians that are violent? "
The point is, they arnt violent in the name of christianity.
Sure, you can go off hunting and find one or two examples, but the point is entirly valid. The koran justified killing people in all sorts of circumstances, but jesus was quite the opposite.
Christianity is at root passive (which is why your allowed to be here in the first place) while islam is inherantly agressive, and indeed evil.
We all know that islam is at least agressive but if you need convincing, ask indians. Ask their daughters.
Frankly, anybody who claims islam is anything other than a vicious faith is a liar or ignorant of the facts.
List of islamic terror attacks;
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
(its very long)
http://www.faithfreedom.org/index.htm
"Faith Freedom International is a grassroots worldwide movement of ex-Muslims and all those who are concerned about the rise of the Islamic threat."
"Oh and Emir you're conveniently burying your head in the sand about football hooligans aren't you?"
I'm sorry, let me get this straight - you are comparing some thugs fighting at the weekend with the global rise of a facist ideaology (political islam) which thinks it is OK to kill people because they draw a cartoon or dare to criticize its warped view of the world.
Get a grip.
Anonymous,
Thank you for your answer. I'm glad that we agree that the cartoons I enumerated are non-offensive.
You claim that because rascists are using the cartoons to demonise Muslims, then they should be banned.
I do not agree. The ONLY reason that these cartoons are being used i this way is because of the complete over-reaction by some Muslims. If Muslims had ignored this non-insult, the cartoons could not be used by racists. Therefore, they are now a rod which have been made for Muslim backs, by Muslims!
The only way out of this is to say, "OK, have your cartoons, our Prophet is too amazing to us to be damaged by them!"
If you keep insisting that the carttons be banned, then that is just more ammunition for the far-right to say "Those Muslims are intolerant and ultra-sensitive - see how bad they are".
BNP Supporter -
Your claim is just false. The theology of Christianity (for at least 1500 years) is that without the correct beliefs you are going to Hell. Since Hell is worse than anything that can be imagined, then it is permissable to do ANYTHING to stop someone going to Hell. This line of reasoning justified the Inquisition and the Wars of religion since the Reformation.
To All -
I'm not meaning to come across as aggressive on my posts, I just put them to try to make us all think.
Shouting out our identities louder and louder is a waste of time. Dialogue about Ideology is useful.
Most Brits (Non-Muslims and Muslims alike) abhorr and condemn violence from thugs, football hooligans, so-called "jihadists" and protestors irrespective of the provocation if there is any.
And in ALL these cases the thugs are a minority that spoil it for the rest. So why are we shouting identities? History has shown us secularism in the form of Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, Blair and the non existant WMD, Christianity - where do I start? Islam - where do I start? Atheism - plenty of examples there too - atheist leaders forcing religious people to denounce their religions or leave the country/face massacre, the massacre of the Indians before their independence etc.
I don't want us to be enemies because I can see that everyone here actually condemns the same things, condemn them in the name of humanity.
We are being manipulated politically by these emotive divisions of identity. "Divide and Rule" is the current government's strategy. But on fundamental issues we all agree. We urgently need to move toward an ideology politic and discussion for the sake of humanity.
We need to work hard to undo the brainwashing, to dissolve presumptions about another person's identity and realise that the media always gives the most coverage to aggressive activities of the minority in any group.
So:- Football supporter not equal to hooligan. Christian not equal to crusader. Atheist not equal to Nazi. Jew not equal to Zionist. And Muslim not equal to terrorist.
And:- We are freedom fighters. We are the silent majority from all the categories above and others. And we will not allow an identity politic to confuse us or distract us from our focus. We will not allow the vocal well publicised aggressive minority to be used as an argument to take away our human rights and fundamental freedoms.
It stops now.
That's why I've engaged with the MFE as a Muslim (of the silent majority kind).
Pubsceptic:
"You claim that because rascists are using the cartoons to demonise Muslims, then they should be banned."
No I don't. Where have I said that?
"now a rod which have been made for Muslim backs, by Muslims!"
Correction: by SOME Muslims, not majority of the above.
Otherwise I agree which is why I'm NOT insisting on the cartons being banned. Neither as it happens is the MAC or Global Civility - that would involve a change in the law - and noone is calling for that.
Thats a good refutation pubskeptic.
All i can say is, does (or did) Jesus promote that line of thought?
Mohammed promoted marriage with 6 year old girls by 54 year old men, raping wives after slaughtering their husbands, and beheading people if they oppose him including writing poems critical of him, which i guess is the medieval version of cartoons, so you can see why we are where we are today because of islamic teachings with no stretch of the imagination at all.
BNP Member said...
"The point is, they arnt violent in the name of christianity."
Oh no of course they never are...
"The koran justified killing people in all sorts of circumstances, but jesus was quite the opposite."
Right. I won't labour the point but from both religious books people have pulled out passages to justify violence, as we all know. And both religion define it as a gross sin to go around killing people.
"Christianity is at root passive (which is why your allowed to be here in the first place)"
Very interesting perspective. I was BORN here. I'd be interested about what Voltaire has to say about that. Apparently, V, this BNP member thinks that it is the "passiveness of Christianity" that prevents me from being kicked off this website and out the country? You agree? What's the MFE position on that?
"while islam is inherantly agressive, and indeed evil."
Useful comment, not. I'll take that on board. Maybe "flog the wife and kids" ? to get the "influence of the devil" out of them ? Or flog myself? That not the Lutherian way of dealing with such things as the evil of my own religion?
"We all know that islam is at least agressive but if you need convincing, ask indians. Ask their daughters."
Like I said I suggest you ask Indians and their daughters how much they appreciated their independence massacres - Our (English) soldiers I recall...
"Anybody who claims islam is anything other than a vicious faith is a liar or ignorant of the facts."
Right then I am obviously ignorant of the facts...
"List of (non-)islamic terror attacks;"
Then BNP member lists a bunch of hate-mongering websites - well the BNP have long been an embarrassment to this country.
"Faith Freedom International is a grassroots worldwide movement of ex-Muslims and all those who are concerned about the rise of the Islamic threat."
Using an identity politic can have only one logical conclusion. The culling of 1.3Billion or however many there are self-confessed Muslims.
You loading your gun BNP member? It's going to take a lot of bullets?
Ive just finished my post to come up and write this at the top; I started of writing acrimoniously, but by the end i realised that its not you personally who is choosing to be bad, but i think you are very mistaken, so i changed my post acordingly.
**********************
You may notice that im not trying to kill you :)
I am trying to get you to see that your prophet was a violent phsycopath, and the more people that folow him the more physcopath wannabe's there will be. (allah akbar and all that)
Jesus said thou shalt not kill, while Mohammeds message was thou shall not kill a muslim. When the PM read out that "he who kills a single soul, it is as if he has killed the whole of mankind" quote from the koran on BBC primetime over and over was lying to us.
The quote is "He who kills a single soul that has not caused corruption in the land , it is as if he has killed the whole of mankind"
Remember, the PM had every PR guru to help him, and the best thing he could read out from the koran to convince us its non-violent to us? a lie. Because the koran IS violent as was mohammed.
About the English soldiers, if they did something wrong, our laws should have changed to stop them. Should the koran change? take out all the "apes and pigs" and beheading the infidel bits, the having the woman your right arm posseses bits, or is it just the English that should change to accomodate you and the millions like you coming here.
If something, anything, is wrong, it should change for the good of humanity. English, islam, christianity, French, whatever.
Here is what our greatest modern leader Churchill wrote about islam, and about what kept our Chri