Baroness Warsi criticises anti-Islamic Uk press.

[purdyamos]

Warsi is right but at the same time too many mainstream Muslims act according to stereotype holding extremist 911 conspiracy theories. Then there are the nutters, mainly young men who go on demos with fake bombs strapped to themselves screaming "how dare you caricature us as fanatics".

 

 

Interestingly, Warsi's made much the same point herself.

 

The worst thing about all issues Islamic is the rigid polarisation that has been allowed to occur. Far right (white) bigotry and attacks on muslims, mosques etc, is absolutely despicable. Bigotry and attacks on anyone is despicable. If only so many muslims weren't in such denial of the injustices, threats and outrages that happen within their own kind as well. It's all minimisation, denial and *surprise!* cries of racism instead of being open and honest about things in the middle ground.

 

I'm in no doubt that there's a strong degree of pandering to the lowest common denominator in the way much of the press pick their stories and write their copy. That in itself is stomach churning. But I'm also more than aware of real life tensions, of the encouragement of ethnic communities to separate and define themselves primarily by their difference, the turning of blind eyes to practices and attitudes that are divisive, oppressive or even illegal (be they cultural or religious - it doesn't actually matter to me) and the steady flow of extremely conservative or full on Wahhabist-sponsored material and influence. Even on here what would once have been considered extreme views have been unanimously pronounced 'moderate' by the board's muslims simply because lots of people agree with them.

 

Years ago two changes happened which I think were pernicious. One was the shift in definition of racism, from being about what someone was born as and couldn't change, to being about the opinions, beliefs and even ideological stance that a person chose. It is not racist to disagree with a set of ideas, and no set of ideas should be beyond question.

 

Secondly, there was for some time an entrenched belief among many liberals that any criticism of any aspect of anything that happened to pertain to a member of an ethnic minority was a racist act. This meant the creep and normalisation of fundamentalist attitudes, and extremist groups were naively viewed for years as noble community groups who were even at times collaborated with. Liberal values were not applied across the board and relativism became the standard. The left consistently befriended the sort of people who wanted gays put to death and thought that women's rights were anathema.

 

Someone who openly endorses Hizb Ut Tarir (for instance) can't label themselves a victim if someone challenges them on their views. Objecting to anti-Enlightenment or theocratic views is not racist. Speaking out against Islamism and commending progressive campaigners within Islamic communities is something that I and several on here have done over the years, but mysteriously that middle ground position is never given its due. Anyone who takes a seat at either end of the rigid polarisation is part of the problem, whichever category it happens to be.

 

The Daily Mail et al may be cynical hate rags, but that does not mean that there have not been some heavy issues needing attention. Baroness Warsi has had threats against herself for speaking her mind, and it wasn't from Daily Mail reading white people, but the adorable innocent victim kitten-cuddler faction inside her own faith.

[Mecky]

Warsi is right but at the same time too many mainstream Muslims act according to stereotype holding extremist 911 conspiracy theories. Then there are the nutters, mainly young men who go on demos with fake bombs strapped to themselves screaming "how dare you caricature us as fanatics".

 

Like I said, they are very good at playing the victim. "It's not us, it's them," sort of thing, "Not all muslims are the same," etc. I would have sympathy for these so called moderate muslims, if there is such a thing, if they continually denounced terrorism but they don't. When something bad happens, a statement is generally made through some official muslim body and I always get the feeling that such a statement is made under extreme pressure.

 

It must be pointed out that these thugs are being sheltered in muslim communities. I'd hate to think how many of these turkeys are still at loose in the UK, British or not. Their muslim community are not very good at identifying them are they?

[Mr Prime]

Purdyamos covers every angle better than I can. Good examples of those points are the acknowledgment of honour killings and female circumcision AKA murder and mutilation. Critics of the latter have been met with "how dare you criticise our cultural practices?" though such attitudes are not confined to muslims. An interesting issue came to light recently. A friend of mine works for a TV production company making a documentary about the recent rise in homophobic attacks in London. The investigators uncovered some ugly facts. In short Gangs of young muslim thugs in east London have been targetting gay bars or anyone they suspect of being gay and battering them. They have specifically warned gays to stay out of 'their territory'. In other words a UK citizen born here can get battered by a bunch of fanatics who may have been living here 5 minutes and who have nothing in common with 99% of the UK population. This trend was not disclosed in the final programme for fear of upsetting people. The liberal trend of seeing minorities only as victims results in minority neo fascist behaviour being covered up. Of course muslim thugs were not the only cause of attacks but in areas of east London where they are the dominant group the thugs feel confident enough to strut and 'own' streets that have existed for hundreds of years.

[PC Brigade]

When something bad happens, a statement is generally made through some official muslim body and I always get the feeling that such a statement is made under extreme pressure.

 

 

You assume that every muslim secretly approves of terrorist acts, even when they go out of their way to make it clear that they don't.

 

You sound like a racist bigot.

[Suffragette1]

Interestingly, Warsi's made much the same point herself.

 

The worst thing about all issues Islamic is the rigid polarisation that has been allowed to occur. Far right (white) bigotry and attacks on muslims, mosques etc, is absolutely despicable. Bigotry and attacks on anyone is despicable. If only so many muslims weren't in such denial of the injustices, threats and outrages that happen within their own kind as well. It's all minimisation, denial and *surprise!* cries of racism instead of being open and honest about things in the middle ground.

 

I'm in no doubt that there's a strong degree of pandering to the lowest common denominator in the way much of the press pick their stories and write their copy. That in itself is stomach churning. But I'm also more than aware of real life tensions, of the encouragement of ethnic communities to separate and define themselves primarily by their difference, the turning of blind eyes to practices and attitudes that are divisive, oppressive or even illegal (be they cultural or religious - it doesn't actually matter to me) and the steady flow of extremely conservative or full on Wahhabist-sponsored material and influence. Even on here what would once have been considered extreme views have been unanimously pronounced 'moderate' by the board's muslims simply because lots of people agree with them.

 

Years ago two changes happened which I think were pernicious. One was the shift in definition of racism, from being about what someone was born as and couldn't change, to being about the opinions, beliefs and even ideological stance that a person chose. It is not racist to disagree with a set of ideas, and no set of ideas should be beyond question.

 

Secondly, there was for some time an entrenched belief among many liberals that any criticism of any aspect of anything that happened to pertain to a member of an ethnic minority was a racist act. This meant the creep and normalisation of fundamentalist attitudes, and extremist groups were naively viewed for years as noble community groups who were even at times collaborated with. Liberal values were not applied across the board and relativism became the standard. The left consistently befriended the sort of people who wanted gays put to death and thought that women's rights were anathema.

 

Someone who openly endorses Hizb Ut Tarir (for instance) can't label themselves a victim if someone challenges them on their views. Objecting to anti-Enlightenment or theocratic views is not racist. Speaking out against Islamism and commending progressive campaigners within Islamic communities is something that I and several on here have done over the years, but mysteriously that middle ground position is never given its due. Anyone who takes a seat at either end of the rigid polarisation is part of the problem, whichever category it happens to be.

 

The Daily Mail et al may be cynical hate rags, but that does not mean that there have not been some heavy issues needing attention. Baroness Warsi has had threats against herself for speaking her mind, and it wasn't from Daily Mail reading white people, but the adorable innocent victim kitten-cuddler faction inside her own faith.

 

Beautifully put as always, Purdy and you've hit the nail on the head. The problem as we have seen, not only on here but in the broadsheets, is an instant shut down of any sensible debate as issues which do need seriously addressing are highjacked by people at both ends of the spectrum. Those who never show any interest in gay rights or sexual politics suddenly undergo some kind of Damascan conversion and jump onto the bandwagon crying 'homophobia' and 'misogyny' whereas a significant number of 'liberals' and champions of gay rights and feminism are suddenly silent or do a 180 degree turn.

 

I absolutely agree that it is not racist to disagree with an ideology, yet I can not imagine a thread on here entitled: 'Islam: mad as a box of frogs' yet there is one on scientology which has not been deleted or had the title amended.

 

There is a collective hypersensitivity around issues pertaining to aspects of Islam which fosters a culture of censorship, self and otherwise, which is extremely unhealthy and breeds further mistrust, tensions and resentments.

 

McEwan writes about this phenomenon here and we've witnessed the onslaught on Dawkins after his pronouncements on the burqa. Warsi herself, as you say, has expressed similar views and been slammed by some Muslims for doing so.

 

I also do not believe that the tensions set in post 9/11, the seeds were sown in the aftermath of the Rushdie debacle, 9/11 heightened an existing malaise.

[spindrift]

I would have sympathy for these so called moderate muslims, if there is such a thing, if they continually denounced terrorism but they don't.

 

This page focuses on condemnations of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and other terrorist incidents since then as well as of terrorism in general. It is not a complete listing of all condemnations written or spoken by Muslims but is intended to provide a representative sample.

 

It has often been claimed in the media that Muslims are "silent" and do not condemn terrorism. This page is intended to refute that claim. Muslims have not been silent. Not even close.

 

 

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

 

Condemnations of any terrorist acts have been loud and repeated.

 

When you claim muslims do not condemn terrorism you are, plainly, wrong.

[PC Brigade]

This page focuses on condemnations of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and other terrorist incidents since then as well as of terrorism in general. It is not a complete listing of all condemnations written or spoken by Muslims but is intended to provide a representative sample.

 

It has often been claimed in the media that Muslims are "silent" and do not condemn terrorism. This page is intended to refute that claim. Muslims have not been silent. Not even close.

 

 

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

 

Condemnations of any terrorist acts have been loud and repeated.

 

When you claim muslims do not condemn terrorism you are, plainly, wrong.

 

Excellent post. The problem is that for bigots like Mecky it makes no difference.

 

He's already stated that he thinks these condemnations are bogus.

 

Furthermore, these condemnations don't get widespread media coverage, because they don't fit the racist media view of 'muslim=terrorist'.

[Rexmeister]

Very much enjoyed reading this thread which, in the main, has avoided digressing into excess and irrelevance.

 

So, apologies if I take a different angle on all this by reacting against the very fact that, in 2010, we still have someone who is, can you believe it, a "baroness" in our Establishment!

 

It jars like a throwback to the Middle Ages doesn't it? Then, what I find even more irritating, is that this ludicrously privileged holder of an unelected position is able to dispense their pearls of wisdom to the rest of us.

 

(It's OK, I'm calming down now that I've got that out of my system.)

[Mecky]

Boo hoo hooo mummy mummy mummy ... I said something you don't like so you spat out the dummy.

 

Oh ... and remember what i said about pandering to the victim's cause.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Very much enjoyed reading this thread which, in the main, has avoided digressing into excess and irrelevance.

 

So, apologies if I take a different angle on all this by reacting against the very fact that, in 2010, we still have someone who is, can you believe it, a "baroness" in our Establishment!

 

It jars like a throwback to the Middle Ages doesn't it? Then, what I find even more irritating, is that this ludicrously privileged holder of an unelected position is able to dispense their pearls of wisdom to the rest of us.

 

(It's OK, I'm calming down now that I've got that out of my system.)

 

I'm perplexed. If you have a single-culture society, then presumably the goal of that society is homogenisation. People arrive and do their best to integrate. Such a society is bound to change over time, but it's still (largely) a single-culture.

 

The alternative appears to be to have a 'multi-culti' society. New people arrive, they are not encouraged to integrate but rather to set up their own enclaves, follow their own rules (and their own laws, if they really want to) and to live apart from the rest. - 'Separate but equal'.

 

England is proud to be a muti-cultural land. Surely peers - who as you note have been around since the middle ages - are an established culture in England, and have the same right to exist as do the cultures, of the 3rd world, those of Central Europe, the chav culture and the whole host of cultures which make up the country?

 

How can you claim to espouse multi-culturalism whilst attempting to deny one of the component cultures the right to continue to exist?

 

removes tongue from cheek ...