Imagine this scenario. A white atheist kills a Muslim couple in cold blood. The media speculates endlessly about the “factors” that drove him to kill them: apparently he had a parking dispute with them; they dressed and talked funny; he was lonely and maybe they did something to provoke him? When this actually happened a few weeks ago, called the Chapel Hill shootings, Muslims were rightly horrified at the coverage looked like it was justifying the murders of several innocent people. So what if he liked cats and was polite to people? Why was his wife given so much time on air to defend her husband?
Or take another example. Imagine you’re a white working class kid who lives in a town like Luton. You’ve heard stories of Pakistani-gangs grooming young white girls and that the police is barely doing anything about it. The gangs make your life hell and, on top of that, they go around harassing gays and soldiers and saying they hate this country. They want to shariah law in town, the gangs say. So you join the English Defence League because you see them as the only people standing up against them. Is he a racist? Or is he a boy driven to join extreme groups in response to events around him?
By now you’ll know what I’m getting at, though some people will no doubt claim these are false comparisons. They’re not.
There are usually two kinds of people who like to commentate on foreign policy matters: those who oppose any military ‘intervention’ in the affairs of other countries; and those who have no problems advocating military intervention and will always defend such action.
I happen to be in a third, lesser-known category of people who thinks military intervention in the affairs of other countries is a possible last resort providing:
I accept that this is too nuanced for many people, especially on Twitter… but ¯\_(?)_/¯
If you watch ISIS’s videos you are complicit in its terrorism, says Nesrine Malik at the Guardian.
Sorry, but this is ludicrous for various reasons. I have watched a fair amount of ISIS videos, unapologetically, and here are several reasons to do so.
The New York Times has published an extraordinary account of how the two terrorists who burst into Charlie Hebdo’s office became radicalised.
Here are a few thoughts from the article, and more generally, that I think have the potential to change how western security services deal with al-Qaeda inspired terrorism.
1) Al-Qaeda’s methods have changed to Mumbai style attacks.
Yesterday evening I was invited by the Guardian to debate the attacks on Charlie Hebdo and where we go from here. I wanted to make a series of coherent points in a mini-speech but it never happened, so I’m writing them out here… Each point is in a separate mini blog-post. A photo posted by […]
Late last year I was invited to speak at the LSE Islamic Society on Islamophobia and the media. Rather than preach to the converted, I decide to challenge my audience by making the case for more free speech, even if included insults to their Prophet.
Thanks for inviting me. I want to start with this picture. What I find funny is that Muslims and Sikhs are conflated so easily. They all look brown!
The other interesting point to note is how much things have changed. This was acceptable then [in the 1970s] in a way it isn’t now. At least, not about Asians so broadly…maybe Roma.
I found many more such drawings, and to me they do illustrate that Britain has changed a lot since the 70s when the National Front marched unafraid on the streets, and cartoons like these were printed without an eyebrow being raised.
The challenges now are different than the ones our parents faced.
Tuesday was a hard day to absorb the news. All year I’ve seen some really horrible videos, mostly by ISIS, showing men being shot in the back of their heads, throats slit or being buried in mass graves. But that day… maybe it was the pictures that came out of Peshawar, the Facebook updates from friends or just the nature of the massacre… I was nearly in tears. You can try but you can’t always remain emotionless in the face of such news.
I wanted to wait at least a couple of days to collect my thoughts and write something about the politics surrounding this issue.
If the general election in May 2015 is fought on who is best placed to deal with the deficit, then the Labour party will lose. Both Labour and the Tories know this. Miliband will focus on living standards, the NHS and inequality. So why a major speech on the deficit today, six months before an election? And why a pledge to cut spending and the debt?
Both the politics of what’s going on, and the numbers that underline it, are important.
The Labour leadership feel, quite rightly, that George Osborne wants to push public services off a cliff with unprecedented cuts. They lost the first fight on austerity, for reasons I outline here. But they recognise that if they don’t fight Osborne back this time, he will once away get away with having the media debate on his own terms.
Which is why Miliband’s speech is important today.
I oppose positive discrimination because white men have run the most successful positive discrimination scheme of all time
I was invited this week to speak at Cambridge University, with the topic title: “Does Britain need more positive discrimination?“. We would interpret this however we liked.
Below is roughly what I said.
In the 1940s, When Vera Rubin told her school physics professor that she’d been accepted into Vassar, an arts college near New York City, he said, “That’s great. As long as you stay away from science, it should be okay.”
Predictably, she didn’t. Rubin went on prove there was vastly more dark matter in the universe than previously thought, and overturned some basic laws of Newtonian physics.
And yet, she was turned down from the astronomy program at Princeton because they didn’t allow women. For years the scientific community ignored her work, only accepting it later after her male colleagues validated it. She didn’t get a Nobel prize for her work.
UKIP have unveiled this poster as a PR stunt for a by-election
The response by the usual UKIP-faithful has been that I should be more outraged about child sexual abuse than the poster.
Liberal Conspiracy is no longer a group blog. Read this post
» damon posted on What Jihadi John and CAGE said yesterday about how people are 'driven to terrorism'
» KB Player posted on What Jihadi John and CAGE said yesterday about how people are 'driven to terrorism'
» Gubulgaria posted on What Jihadi John and CAGE said yesterday about how people are 'driven to terrorism'
» Richard Horrocks posted on We badly screwed up in Libya, and it's time to admit that
» Mike Killingworth posted on We badly screwed up in Libya, and it's time to admit that
» junglecitizen posted on We badly screwed up in Libya, and it's time to admit that
» Egyptian pro-democracy blogger jailed | Dear Kitty. Some blog posted on We badly screwed up in Libya, and it's time to admit that
» Dr Paul posted on No, watching ISIS videos does NOT make you complicit in its terrorism
» Unliked posted on We badly screwed up in Libya, and it's time to admit that
» bj posted on We badly screwed up in Libya, and it's time to admit that
» What would Labour do in 2015
» Adam Bienkov
» Adam Ramsay
» Anthony Barnett
» Beau Bo D'Or
» Carl Packman
» Cath Elliott
» Chris Dillow
» Claude Carpentieri
» Daily Quail
» Dave Osler
» Dave Semple
» Don Paskini
» Duncan Weldon
» Ellie Mae
» Huma Munshi
» Jamie K
» Jennifer O'Mahony
» John B
» Kate Belgrave
» Laurie Penny
» Lee Griffin
» Left Outside
» Leo Barasi
» Mat GB
» Neil Robertson
» Owen Jones
» Padraig Reidy
» Paul Cotterill
» Paul Hilder
» Paul Sagar
» Robert Sharp
» Sarah Ditum
» Shiraz Socialist
» Soho Politico
» Sue Marsh
» Sunder Katwala
» Sunny Hundal
» Mango Culture
» Tim Fenton
» Unity (MoT)
» DHgate's cheap products
» U.S. Congresspersons top list
» Finnish casino directory
» Bestlacewigs.com: Online Fashion Shop for Lacewigs.
» ChinaWholesaleCentral.com: The collections of online shopping websites from china » SCM; - a free way to enhance your writing skills.
» Enjoy top quality writing assistance at www.sierra-arts.net;