Buy Protonix No Prescription Allopurinol Online Pharmacy Can Diflucan Affect Birth Control Pills Buy Generic Flonase No Prescription Meclizine Chewable 25 Mg

Police arrest Mona Eltahawy for defacing racist poster


2:44 am - September 26th 2012

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

New York city police arrested the activist and writer Mona Eltahawy last night for defacing racist posters on the New York subway.

The ad campaign is promoted by American blogger Pamela Geller – also behind the campaign to stop a Mosque being built near Ground Zero in NYC – and the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI).

The ad implies that Muslims are savages. It reads: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.”

Some New Yorkers have taken to plastering ‘racist’ over the ads.

But Mona Eltahawy took matters into her own hand.

She decided to spray-paint one of the posters, with a friend filming her.

A woman decides to protect the poster, and after some weaving by Mona and the woman, a police officer comes to the scene and arrests the activist.

They don’t explain why they are arresting her.

“This is non-violent protest, see this America!” she said as cops cuffed her. “I’m an Egyptian-American and I refuse hate,” reports The New York Post.

Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative also placed similarly racist ads in stations in New York suburbs.

Credit to Mona for taking a stand against the ads.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


You claim that these posters are “racist”. What race are they against?

The savages that murder Israelis?

The poster doesn’t mention Muslims.

Islam is not a race, it’s a political ideology, a death cult, and a good way to destroy societies. It is not a race.

Apparently, Mona believes that the word savages refers to Muslims. As I read it it refers to people that act as savages against civilized man not necessarily Muslims.

You claim that these posters are “racist”. What race are they against?

If calling a group of people ‘savages’ isn’t racist, I don’t know what is.

“If calling a group of people ‘savages’ isn’t racist, I don’t know what is.”

Really?

The Nazis were racists.
The Japanese during WWII were racists.

Violent, savage acts of jihad–committed around the world–are driven by ideology; not by race.

That’s brilliant.

Mona Eltahawy is cross because someone is exercising their democratic right to take direct action to protest against her direct action protest.

It may – just like our own UKWeCnutters – have escaped her notice that an offence is an offence, and you make yourself liable to arrest when you commit one, such as by spraying paint into someone’s face.

She protests about a poster referring to Jihadists as “savages”, while her own Twitter feed is currently filled with comments she makes about “racist and bigoted shits”.

I wonder who the real haters are?

Own backside, vanish up.

You couldn’t invent a better definition of sanctimonious hypocrite if you spent weeks thinking about it.

The Nazis were racists.

Right. Hitler was racist – so no one else even compares. Nice logic.

Mona Eltahawy is cross because someone is exercising their democratic right to take direct action to protest against her direct action protest.

And she’s exercising her right to spray-paint it.

She protests about a poster referring to Jihadists as “savages”, while her own Twitter feed is currently filled with comments she makes about “racist and bigoted shits”.

Might help if – in your mind – you can make a distinction between a person referring to an entire community as ‘savages’, and a person calling someone a racist for being a racist.

If you can’t make that distinction, I can’t help you. That’s probably why you didn’t get the point of this either.

“Apparently, Mona believes that the word savages refers to Muslims.”

Hardly an unreasonable conclusion given the source.

19,250? Why do I get the feeling that what is being counted is rather more broad than what should be counted as a ‘deadly Islamic attack’.

Then again the US does have about 12,996 murders a year, so I suppose the figure is more than possible.

I don’t have a huge problem with characterising the ads as racist – it’s debatable, I suppose. As Jimmy implies, I take it, knowing who is behind the ads makes a bigoted intention more likely. I have to say she came over as seriously annoying, and vandalising a legal (though offensive) ad is not a free speech issue, surely. I can’t summon up any outrage against the spray painting, but I can’t get all that outraged about her being arrested either.

I don’t understand what’s racist about it. Can you explain?

“And she’s exercising her right to spray-paint it.”

I wasn’t aware there was a right to vandalise.

Here’s one interesting piece Shrugged (is your first name Atlas?!)

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/109447/pamela-gellers-new-ad-is-actually-anti-israel

It’s not precisely an answer to your question maybe, so I’ll add that the poster seems to imply that all those who might be seen as opposed to Israel (in some sense) are savages, that Palestinians who have objections to Israel’s policies are all savages, potentially. Does it mean Israel per se or Israel’s current government?

Muslims might argue that to use ‘jihad’ as a synonym for purely violent struggle distorts that word’s meaning, promoting violent stereotypes of Islam/Muslims. And it’s more problematic when used in this particular inflammatory context. ‘Savage’ to me has racial connotations – it makes me think in terms of a whole people rather than just individuals in the way a word like ‘thugs’ or ‘bullies’ might.

Of course some acts against Israel could perfectly well be described as ‘savage’ – eg murder of Fogel family.

And as the author of the linked post says – you certainly don’t have to be anti-israel to dislike the ads.

I’m

I think they are racist, but done in a way that a racist could argue they are not.

15. Chaise Guevara

The first ad definitely comes off as racist. The second is only bigoted if the figure has been exaggerated or made up (which I bet it has, but can’t say for sure). Although I like the variation on the NF line “I’m not a racist, I’m a realist”. Way to look reasonable.

I applaud her objection to the first ad, but vandalism is against the law, and if she gets caught doing it it’s a fair cop. Shouting “this is non-violent protest” is irrelevant: there are crimes other than violence. If I go to protest at ASDA and steal a pack of beer while I’m there, it’d be pretty weak of me to whine that my theft was “non-violent”.

16. Chaise Guevara

@ 6 Sunny

“And she’s exercising her right to spray-paint it. ”

Could you point me to the “Every man has a right to vandalize other people’s shit” part of the US constitution?

“And she’s exercising her right to spray-paint it.”

Yes Sunny. Vandalism (defacement) is now a ‘right’.

I mean, sometimes, just, wtf comes over you?

13 @Sarah

Yes, my handle’s an allusion to Atlas.

Anyway, thanks for a considered response. I just don’t think that the term ‘racist’ should be thrown around lightly and something isn’t racist just because someone says it is.

There is no racial reference here. Israel is a country. Jihad is ‘holy war’, and I don’t see where it insults my (admittedly lapsed) muslim girlfriend.

IMHO the ad is unhelpful, clumsy, stupid and counter-productive. It’s no more than that, though.

Having second thoughts.

Are you sure this isn’t a new version of Balls of Steel, or an Improv Everywhere project?

“They don’t explain why they are arresting her.”

Perhaps not on the video (no sound) but im sure they do. Otherwise the arrest is invalid

21. Chaise Guevara

@ 18 Shrugged

“There is no racial reference here. Israel is a country. Jihad is ‘holy war’, and I don’t see where it insults my (admittedly lapsed) muslim girlfriend.”

Who are the savages? Given that they’re being juxtaposed to “Israel”, it seems pretty clear that the term is being used to refer to Muslims, Palestinians and possibly Arabs. Using the broader definition of racism, that’s 2–3 examples right there.

@21 _ Its the new form of implied racism that could be argued for or against.

Like when people say they hate muslims but it isnt racist because its a religion. When what they mean to say is they hate pakis

This is an easy one.

The people behind the poster have a right to express their view (though presumably Sunny would deny them this right).

Spray painting their poster obviously breaks the law. It is defacing someone else’s property.

Mona has the right to break the law if she chooses but in the knowledge that she must then accept the consequences.

The woman standing between her and the poster has a right to stand there. By continuing to spray paint and get some on the woman’s clothes etc, Mona breaks another law of common assault/breach of the peace (whatever it is in the US).

Mona has a right to know what she was being arrested for but not necessarily at the point when the handcuffs are going on.

Sorted, and I get the impression everyone was happy with the outcome.

PS I hope when they got her to the cells, they put a gag on her.

That woman’s voice is a crime against eardrums…..

25. Chaise Guevara

@ 22 Dave

“Its the new form of implied racism that could be argued for or against.

Like when people say they hate muslims but it isnt racist because its a religion. When what they mean to say is they hate pakis”

Precisely! If bigots are going to conflate the two ideas, I’m not going to pretend otherwise.

@ Chaise

Precisely! If bigots are going to conflate the two ideas, I’m not going to pretend otherwise.

But it’s NOT the bigots who are conflating the two ideas- you are.

I do not hate people from Pakistan, or anyone because of their skin colour, but I dislike the primitive authoritarianism enshrined in Islam and the consequences that flow from it.

If you want to call me a racist, conflate away…..

“If calling a group of people ‘savages’ isn’t racist, I don’t know what is.”

Racism is an irrational hatred of someone based soley on their race. RACE, not behaviour! You’re not responsible for your race so and shouldn’t be persecuted for it. Savagery refers to behaviour which you are responsible for.

And I think you’ve mischaracterised these posters. The ad doesn’t, as you say, imply Muslims are savages, but rather the savages are people who engage in violent jihad. You, on the other hand, by complaining that the poster refers to all Muslims, have just made a sweeping generalisation that all Muslims are violent jihadists

Seriously, anybody can see that these posters are idiotic and unhelpful. You’ve spoiled a very good opportunity to make that point without any controversey. So why did you have to say that the poster implies that Muslims are savages? It implies that some are; the ones who commit acts of violence, but not all. The same can be said for much of what the Israeli Defence Forces have done. If you saw a poster that issued a call to defeat the child rapists in the Catholic Church, would you say it was racist against Catholics, or characterises all Catholics as rapists.

28. Chaise Guevara

@ 26 Pagar

“But it’s NOT the bigots who are conflating the two ideas- you are.”

Except they ARE, I hear people do it all the time. I’ve known loads of bigots who hate Muslims and “Pakis” and treat them interchangeably.

Whereas I’m simply arguing that the meaning of the word is broadening from a linguistic perspective, and opining that I don’t see a problem with that as it reflects reality. Should it be necessary to distinguish between the two for clarity, I’m happy to do so. The clunky but serviceable “racial prejudice” and “religious prejudice” can be brought into play.

“I do not hate people from Pakistan, or anyone because of their skin colour, but I dislike the primitive authoritarianism enshrined in Islam and the consequences that flow from it.”

Seeing as that wouldn’t qualify as racism under any sensible definition, I don’t see how it’s relevant. What you’re describing isn’t a prejudiced position.

“If you want to call me a racist, conflate away…..”

It seems you’re the one conflating religious criticism and bigotry against religious individuals.

@ Chaise

Except they ARE, I hear people do it all the time. I’ve known loads of bigots who hate Muslims and “Pakis” and treat them interchangeably.

Obviously, some people will be in both camps.

But as you admit, above, there is no rational justification for a hatred of “pakis” whilst there is a perfectly legitimate case to be made about the tenets of Islam and the consequences of the actions of its adherents.

So for you to treat anti-Islamic rhetoric as racist is YOU making an individual judgement on the speaker based on a generality.

You know, like irrational racists do.

Incidentally, there is an equally good case to be made about the tenets of Judaism and their negative consequences.

30. Chaise Guevara

@ 29 pagar

“Obviously, some people will be in both camps.”

But that’s not the point. The point is that some people who are in both camps will treat the two camps – and their respective targets – as interchangeable.

“But as you admit, above, there is no rational justification for a hatred of “pakis” whilst there is a perfectly legitimate case to be made about the tenets of Islam and the consequences of the actions of its adherents.”

Of course.

“So for you to treat anti-Islamic rhetoric as racist is YOU making an individual judgement on the speaker based on a generality.”

I take it that’s the non-specific “you”, given that I just made it really sodding clear that I know the difference between objecting to Islam and hating Muslims?

“Incidentally, there is an equally good case to be made about the tenets of Judaism and their negative consequences.”

Well, perhaps.

31. Chaise Guevara

@ 27 Scott

“And I think you’ve mischaracterised these posters. The ad doesn’t, as you say, imply Muslims are savages, but rather the savages are people who engage in violent jihad.”

It does imply that. It doesn’t state it, but it implies it very strongly. The poster conflates savagery with Jihad (fair enough in this context), and then says “support Israel, defeat Jihad”. What does that mean? Why is all opposition of Israel being conflated into “Jihad”? It’s clearly an attempt to characterize Middle-Eastern Muslims as “savages”.

“The same can be said for much of what the Israeli Defence Forces have done.”

Indeed – so if the posters mean, as you claim, that “savages” = “begetters of violence”, shouldn’t they read “support savages, defeat savages”?

“If you saw a poster that issued a call to defeat the child rapists in the Catholic Church, would you say it was racist against Catholics, or characterises all Catholics as rapists.”

I would call it racist if it was put up by Protestant anti-Catholics and said “support Protestantism, defeat child rapists”. Which would be equivalent to this poster.

Look, I know it doesn’t come out and say “Muslims are savages ARRGH!”. Presumably because whoever created it has an IQ over 50. It’s doing that thing where it pushes a bigoted message without quite coming out and saying something so bigoted that it leaves no wriggle room.

Racists have enough nous to know that blatant racism is unacceptable, thus we see the BNP and EDL and other assorted hangers on focusing more on cultural artifacts such as religion instead. Occasionally they let the mask slip such as when EDL Sikh spokesman Guramit Singh was booed by the membership when he stood to address the crowd at one of their protests. Why was he booed when he’s a Sikh? Why do Sikh’s always seem to be on the receiving end of attacks aimed at Muslims?
Answers on a postcard to…

33. Raymond Terrific

I presumed the ‘savages’ are those people who wish to see Israel cease to exist due to their retarded unevolved nature and irrational religious views. People like Ahmedinejad and his ilk. A passionate hatred of jews is a feature of a few muslims, just as a passionate hatred of muslims is a feature of a few Americans – but in both cases probably more than we’d like to be seen admitting or would wish to be true.

Using words like savages is clearly meant to offend and inflame things but it gives blog commentors something to argue about on a wet wednesday. Like Lou Reed said “it’s hard to give a shit these days”…

Very much agree with CG – if there was no plausible deniability in a sense there would be no – or less of a – problem.

35. Scott Reilly

@31 Chaise Guevara

On your point about a poster that would read “support savages, defeat savages”, well stated and I agree completely. It’s a stupid, vague call to arms. Perhaps a better one would read “defeat violent jihad – support the Israeli peoples’ right to a country but not the belligerent actions if its government” or “defeat violent jihad by (insert detailed plan)”.

“Why is all opposition of Israel being conflated into “Jihad”? It’s clearly an attempt to characterize Middle-Eastern Muslims as “savages”.”

Does is conflate all opposition of Israel with Jihad? It seems to ask people to support Israel by defeating jihad and then calling the people who wage jihad savages. Where does it imply that all opposition is jihad?

“I would call it racist if it was put up by Protestant anti-Catholics and said “support Protestantism, defeat child rapists”. Which would be equivalent to this poster.”

Please explain this further. How on earth would this be racist? Racist towards which ethnicity? This would be a case of one group with a particular philosophy and set of beliefs attacking another group with a particular philosophy and set of beliefs. Offensive and intended to provoke it may well be, but race doesn’t enter into it. These are ideas that you are free to accept or reject. Would you say the same if you saw a poster that was paid for by evolutionary biologists that read “support evolutionary theory, defeat creationists”? Is this not the exact same thing; Biologists, staunchly anti-creationist and with a set of beliefs, issuing a call to action to defeat the creationists?

Isn’t anyone afraid that if we keep using the term racist as an umbrella term to describe any attack by one group against another for any reason whatsoever, that it will delegitimise the term and lessen the thrust it is supposed to have? Racism is supposed to refer to something really ugly and horrible; the hatred of someone else for something over which they have no control (their ethnicity), or the notion of superiority or inferiority of someone for the same reason.

36. Chaise Guevara

@ 35 Scott

“It’s a stupid, vague call to arms.”

Agreed. Maybe it’s foolish of me to expect it to be logical.

“Does is conflate all opposition of Israel with Jihad? It seems to ask people to support Israel by defeating jihad and then calling the people who wage jihad savages. Where does it imply that all opposition is jihad?”

Because it sets up this false dichotomy: Jihad vs Israel; savageness vs civilisation. A civilisation is a whole country or people, not the members of said nation that we happen to think are reasonable and decent. The impression I get is: “Israelis are civilised; our Muslim enemies are not”. And I don’t think the person who made that poster would exactly object to me getting that impression.

“Please explain this further. How on earth would this be racist? Racist towards which ethnicity?”

Apologies, I was on automatic there. I wouldn’t call it racist, I’d call it bigoted. There’s no ethnic distinctions between Protestants and Catholics.

Whereas I would call this poster racist, despite religion being far and away the main fault-line, because race is wrapped up in the issue. In fact, our Western demarcation of “race” and “religion” into separate fields might not be helpful here. What you’re basically looking at is hatred between two creeds, involving both race and religion.

“Isn’t anyone afraid that if we keep using the term racist as an umbrella term to describe any attack by one group against another for any reason whatsoever, that it will delegitimise the term and lessen the thrust it is supposed to have?”

I’m happy to call casual Muslim-bashers in the UK racist because they generally are. They tend not to distinguish too clearly between “Muslim” and “Paki”. Non-religious cultural tropes get rolled up into the issue. I’d say the same applies here. We shouldn’t call creationists racist for hating rationalists, but when race IS wrapped up in it we shouldn’t pretend that’s not the case. Otherwise we misrepresent the issue.

“Racism is supposed to refer to something really ugly and horrible; the hatred of someone else for something over which they have no control (their ethnicity), or the notion of superiority or inferiority of someone for the same reason.”

Religious bigotry is exactly the same except for the “having control” bit; does that make it any better?

Pagar @26 says

I dislike the primitive authoritarianism enshrined in Islam and the consequences that flow from it.

@ Chaise @28 says

that wouldn’t qualify as racism under any sensible definition

Pagar @29 says

to treat anti-Islamic rhetoric as racist is YOU making an individual judgement on the speaker based on a generality.

Chaise @ 36 says

I’m happy to call casual Muslim-bashers in the UK racist because they generally are.

See that word “generally”!!!

It clearly implies that not all are racist but it seems you are happy to label them so anyway.

Pagar says

“I am happy to call Muslims misogynistic homophobes, because they generally are”.

Except I wouldn’t do that, because I’m not a bigot.

Like Chaise.

38. Chaise Guevara

@ 37 pagar

Ooh, well done. Except not, because I made it clear I wasn’t talking about all of them. See that word “generally” again. Next time you try to derail a conversation because OMG you’ve thought of a really good insult!!!!111, try engaging your brain first.

So, again for the hard of thinking:
1) racism and religious bigotry seem to be drawn from the same well.
2) in my experience, most people in the UK who are bigoted against Muslims are bigoted against Middle Eastern/Indian-looking people too. In fact…
3) they often seem to have trouble understanding the difference.
4) Because of (3), a lot of racist abuse is religiously motivated, and vice versa.
5) At that point, “racism” as a term pretty much encapsulates “religious bigotry” unless there’s a reason to split them up for sake of clarity.

There’s a point to all this, by the way. It’s because it’s best to deal with reality, and in this case the reality is NOT that racism and religious bigotry are two unrelated things that someone guilty of both will always arrive at separately. Rather, they’re intertwined.

Next time, try asking for clarification before getting all excited at the opportunity to act like an arse.

Might have been more reasonable if they hadn’t confused Islamic with Islamist.

The Geller gang worded the poster that way so that their fellow racists could go all innocent whiney about “but that’s not what it says.”

You know damn well what it says.

I think the posters should stay up, but not without comment on them or next to them. We need to see that a group is trying to provoke violence and also that not everyone accepts it.

Might have been more reasonable if they hadn’t confused Islamic with Islamist.

Far as Pam Geller and others are concerned they’re the same thing.

42. Matt Wardman

Sunny: “They don’t explain why they are arresting her.”

Yes they do.

About 3:15-3:25 they explain that she had spray painted “this lady”.

The defence is “She refused to get out of the way”.

Wonder if Mona E would accept the same defence if a car ran over “nonviolent protesters” who refused to move?

There’s also a series of assaults in there, and the criminal damage to the poster and to Pamela Hall’s clothing.

Give the lady a Pennyred award for self-parody beyond the call of duty.

Of

43. just visiting

Chaise / Pagar

It’s interesting when I look back on LC just two or three years.

Back then posters were making ridiculous claims such as that Mohammed and Jesus were equally violent! And when people like me chipped in to question some of those wild statements, we were often immediately labelled as racist.

Wind the clock forward and it’s becoming realised here that Islam has a number of problems for anyone with liberal leanings.

So the debate is a little more detailed now.

But this theme is still an uncomfortable one here – as witnessed Chaise by your stickler for accuracy approach/obsession with what is or is not racist: rather than perhaps wanting to discuss what Jihad means across Islam: which would have been on-topic for a thread about that poster!

And the fact that Sunny posted the theme with the knee-jerk ‘racist poster’ in the title also doesn’t make for a calm, down to the details debate.

So whats’ your view on Jihad Chaise – how does islam explain it?

JV

PS Here’s a challenge – come Feb/Mar comes the time of year when the Uni Islam societies do their annual ‘Islamic awareness’ meetings round the country.

Are you guys up for going along to your nearest Uni, and seeing what it looks like from a Liberal perspective?

@Scott Reilly – I think it’s ok to set the bar higher, as you do – I suppose I (and others here) are maybe thinking more about resonances, context, implications and intentions – and you prefer to reserve the term racism for something still more clearly/objectively present.

45. Chaise Guevara

@Scott

Sarah makes a good point above. When I talk about how I use the word, I’m explaining my reasons – not saying that mine’s the correct version or anything like that.

46. Chaise Guevara

@ 43 JV

“But this theme is still an uncomfortable one here – as witnessed Chaise by your stickler for accuracy approach/obsession with what is or is not racist”

My stickler? Dude, it’s been the whole topic of the thread. At least chew everyone else out while you’re at it.

Oh, and I’m not so much obsessed with racism as I am unhealthily focused on linguistics in general.

“rather than perhaps wanting to discuss what Jihad means across Islam: which would have been on-topic for a thread about that poster!”

Sigh: whataboutery. If you’re annoyed that the thread isn’t discussing what you want to discuss, don’t snark at everyone else, just throw your preferred ball in the air and see if anyone wants to bat. I’m up for talking about this one insofar as my limited knowledge allows.

“And the fact that Sunny posted the theme with the knee-jerk ‘racist poster’ in the title also doesn’t make for a calm, down to the details debate.”

Yeah, agreed.

“So whats’ your view on Jihad Chaise – how does islam explain it?”

See above: I’m not expert. I can tell you that “jihad” within Islam doesn’t mean “violence” or “holy war” or anything like that, although it can involve those things. I believe, from my vaguely curious atheist’s stance, that it means something like “struggle”. So it can mean a person’s internal fight to remain pious, for example. Sort of like how we use “battle” both literally and metaphorically.

If you mean “how does Islam explain the shit done in its name?”, then I don’t know. I suspect the answers you get would depend on the Muslim you asked, same as if you asked a Christian similar questions. Personally, I’d rather ask a historian, anthropologist or psychologist. I’d like real attempts at answers, not theodicy.

So Mona Eltahawy too supports jihad i.e. terrorism. And She’s affronted by it being referred to as ‘savage’.

Has she really thought this one through?

@ Sunny

“She protests about a poster referring to Jihadists as “savages”, while her own Twitter feed is currently filled with comments she makes about “racist and bigoted shits”.

‘Might help if – in your mind – you can make a distinction between a person referring to an entire community as ‘savages’'”

Ah yes, the jihadist ‘community’. Poor things.

You did read the poster, did you? Jihadists ARE savages.

@ Chaise Guevara

Why is all opposition of Israel being conflated into “Jihad”?

It’s not. It’s calling jihadism against Israel savage, that’s all. Read it again.

49. Chaise Guevara

@ 48 Lamia

“It’s not. It’s calling jihadism against Israel savage, that’s all. Read it again.”

Read it five times already. You’re sorta late to the party, we’ve been through this one.

50. So Much For Subtlety

I am interested to follow along with the arguments here. Especially the discussion of whether criticising Islam is racist. Islam being an ideology and all.

Can I take it that everyone who thinks most if not all criticism of Islam is racist will also agree that most if not all criticism of Zionism is also racism? I mean we all know what they *really* mean don’t we?

@35

Racism is supposed to refer to something really ugly and horrible; the hatred of someone else for something over which they have no control (their ethnicity), or the notion of superiority or inferiority of someone for the same reason.

Actually racism is a system of oppression and social hierarchy in that it is race prejudice plus power.

@ Cylux.

“Actually racism is a system of oppression and social hierarchy in that it is race prejudice plus power.”

No it’s not.

That is a convenient ideological rewriting of it by well-placed indivudals who conveniently also decide who is the power group in any (and all) contexts. It has been spouted especailly by the same people who like to imply that ‘zionists’ are invariably more ppowerful than those who are their enemies, so that it’s impossible to be racist against Jews – because they’re ‘zionists’ and thus more powerful – after all, they supposedly control the media, the banks, the USA etc.

It has also been use by the likes of professional racialists such as the Guardian’s Joseph Harker, who has stated barefacedly that all white people are racists but he can’t be racist because he’s black. Well Joseph Harker, as a writer for a national newspaper has more power in terms of influence and income, than most people of any colour in the country, but we are supposed to believe his race trumps all that and makes him a downtrodden victim. It’s bollocks.

Racism is prejudice against others on account of their race. That’s all. Being a member of one race doesn’t automatically make you a victim or a person of privilege, even if as a general rule across groups it has some validity.

What you are in effect regurgitating is the false ideological algebra that racism = racism plus power, and with the aforementioned dubious alloting of ‘power’ to individuals on account of their racial identity. Most white people in this country don’t have anything like the power of most of the race hustlers in this country. There are all sorts of factors that go into creating realtive individual power, and race is only one of them.

Sunny is in reality more ‘powerful’ than anyone else on here. And that is fact despite the parallel fact that as a member of an ethnic minority, he would, all other things being the same, be at a disadvantage. The probabilities are against him, but the actual facts are for him. And that’s not criticism of Sunny, mere fact of how things actually are. Skin colour is not an automatic and invariable guarantee of power or relative lack of power. it’s a fair indicator of likelihood, but probablities only take us to the doorstep of how individual instances turn out.

In our society there are powerful and powerless: whites, blacks, Asians, Jews, Muslims, gays, straight people, women, men, etc, etc. There is no foolproof formula or fixed hierarchy for all, even if there are undoubted trends and weighted probabilities. But racism is race prejudice. Full stop.

One may as well be claiming that homophobia is ‘prejudice against homosexuals plus power’, or that ‘misogyny is hatred of women plus power’. But I doubt if anyone would, and no ‘theorist’/snake oil salesman has yet been bold/cynical enough to claim that – or if they have, not enough people have yet been daft enough to swallow it.

Seriously. You are a thoughtful commenter, Cylux. Repeating someone else’s daft, self-interested and plainly illogical platitudes isn’t worthy of that.

And as someone who has worked with hand AND brain, I would suggest treating any self-styled ‘workshop’ that doesn’t involve actual as opose to metaphorical overalls, tools, wood or metal etc., with a degree of scepticism, if not amused contempt. It’s a pretentious term when used in that way, and the only material it seems to produce is hot air.

To add:

Few here would dispute that the BNP are, by and large, racists. Yet plenty of BNP members are economically and socially less powerful than a certain amount of the people they hate and agitate against.

Now are you, Cylux, going to give such people a pass as ‘not-racist-because-not-as-powerful-as-some-of-their-targets’?

I doubt it. I would hope not. I can’t believe that you would.

That doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t identify and organise priorities when it comes to combatting racism. It doesn’t even necessarily mean that one assumes that all racists are equally monstrous and beyond redemption – or indeed even that all racists are full-time racists.

But it does mean not giving some racism a pass as ‘not racism’ on account of some spurious retro-allocation of ‘power’ points.

WTF is Islamorealism? And ofcoursethe fking figures are made up – they’re from Fox News and the inbred Jesus Camp far-right morons trolling on this article.

People also know how corrupt and racist American coppers are compared to here – any one arguing otherwise is just some far-right fruitcakes belonging to Pamela “Loon” Gellar’s bog standard blog.

Well done Att,

you can go and lie down now.

@just visiting – I have no problem with criticising Islamist speakers at universities. I read the Student Rights blog on that topic. But some Muslims will see ‘jihad’ as ‘inner struggle’ and see the assumption that it is violent as tendentious.

SMFS – yes, certainly there is a significant intersection between antizionism and antisemitism. I don’t think criticism of Islam is ‘racist’ – the poster is doing a bit more than that though. Criticism of Islam may be bigoted – it often refuses to acknowledge that Muslims interpret their religion in very different ways and focuses on all the worst instances.

Lamia –

Most white people in this country don’t have anything like the power of most of the race hustlers in this country. There are all sorts of factors that go into creating realtive individual power, and race is only one of them.

From my link In a white supremacy system, all whites [except the ruling class] are oppressed by that system, but they are also oppressors of all people of color. It is not a personal attribute, but a part of the structure of white privilege. this is historically true. In the deep south and apartheid South Africa white supremacism helped suppress the power of white workers – black labour, because of their social status, was cheap and pliant – which immediately put white workers at a disadvantage because despite their ‘higher’ status they were still in competition with black workers for jobs (to compound things there were ‘jobs for blacks’ and ‘jobs for whites’ to further ensure the divide.)
Despite this many of the white working class were willing to accept this racial class system that dragged down their wages, reduced their bargaining power and gave them untold ‘unemployment opportunities’, because while they might not have a bean to their name relative to their ruling class peers, at least they weren’t a nigger. Fast forward to today and while many great advances have been made by the very race ‘hustlers’ you condemn we’re still far from being clear of past crimes.

As for your comparisons:

homophobia is prejudice against homosexuals plus power

It is – pink triangles and corrective therapy and the kill gays bill, not to mention anti LGB laws that already call for execution – aspects of homophobia that could only have manifested with the full backing of power and the consent of society.

or that ‘misogyny is hatred of women plus power’

The patriarchy hurts men too, it just hurts women more, to quote the old saw.

Would they allow a poster saying “Support civlised people in their fight against savages – support Palestine”?

@mystic

Who is the ‘they’ you refer to? There’s nothing to stop anyone buying some advertising space and saying exactly that. Your suggestion sounds tame compared with much of the US political advertising that I see…

@shrugged, fair enough – although i would say that the fewer such adverts that appear, the better.

@ Cylux,

thanks for your reply.

“As for your comparisons:

homophobia is prejudice against homosexuals plus power

It is – pink triangles and corrective therapy and the kill gays bill, not to mention anti LGB laws that already call for execution – aspects of homophobia that could only have manifested with the full backing of power and the consent of society.”

Please go back and read that again. You have just logically contradicted yourself.

You first assert that ‘power’ must be present in order for ‘prejudice against homosexuals’ to amount to ‘homophobia’.

You then give examples of what you call ‘aspects of homophobia that could only have manifested with the full backing of power and the consent of society.”‘

Using your ‘plus power’ definition, that second reference to ‘homophobia is nonsense, because you have in effect just defined

‘pink triangles and corrective therapy and the kill gays bill’ as “aspects of prejudice-against-homosexuals-plus-power, plus, er, power.”

Homophobia is prejudice against homosexuals. That’s all. Power may be present but no power is necessary. Obviously homophobia plus power is more dangerous than homophobia without attendant power, but people don’t get off the hook for their prejudice by saying, ‘I’m powerless and you’re powerful’.

And by race hustlers I mean not reformers and fighters for equal rights, but the likes of Joseph Harker, a racist convneiently hiding behind the same excuse you have been misguidedly echoing: namely that a black person by definition can’t be racist against a white person. That’s a very convenient licensing of behaviour in some people that is condemned when coming from others. It’s a self-serving argument which presupposes a simplistic and socially, economically and geographically fixed system of power relations that is contradicted by reality. And again, it leaves power conveniently undefined, which is especially convenient when talking about instances when there is not in fact actual discrimination in law.

“From my link In a white supremacy system”

But we don’t live in ‘a white supremacy system’ like Apartheid South Africa. That is why that page of self-serving definitions is of little value when talking about racism in, say, the UK today.

Ordinary working class white people living in Coventry don’t have ‘power’ over black people living in, say, Tottenham, unless you redefine ‘power’ to mean ‘something invisible and unidentifiable but bad that all white people are always holding over all black people’.

That is a separate matter from whether such white people can be racist against black people. Of course they can. And vice versa.

The ‘prejudice plus power’ snake oil has no logical bearing on addressing racism in white people, and everything to do with licensing the racism of black people like Joseph Harker and those in academia’s race racket. It must be wonderful to get paid to say self-righteously to students or readers: “You are a racist, while I can never be one.”

Who’s more ‘powerful’: a heterosexual black man or a white lesbian? Is this true for ALL heterosexual black men and all white lesbians? Is there a rankings table of power and oppression available? Is it regionally-weighted? And if so, who wrote it?

That is the main problem with the ‘plus power’ redefinition of racism, homophobia, sexism etc as often NOT those things. It allows bigots off the hook, and it depends on leaving ‘power’ to mean whatever those who use the phrase to want it to mean, and to be identified according to their personal biases.

64. Chaise Guevara

@ Lamia

Hell, saying “I can’t be racist cos I’m black” is pretty much racist in itself.

Fair enough for the woman spraying over the poster.
It is clearly antagonistic towards muslim people.
It has ”needle” deliberately put into the way it juxtaposes the sentences.

I wouldn’t read anything into the police arresting her, that’s what police do, so she sounds a bit silly in the end. They just take away ”trouble makers” and she was causing trouble in their eyes. It will always be like this with police. Everywhere in the world.

What people might support being defaced or not might be an interesting side issue. BNP or EDL posters would get defaced and removed by many people without a second’s thought. Even if they were legal and paid for.

And those same people might do nothing when a poster advertising something ”almost” as repugnant was advertised. The Al-Quds day rally in London for example. How many people here would tear a poster that was advertising that?

And I just saw a big advertising notice outside the Irish community centre in Leeds that the Wolfe Tones (band) will be playing there in November.
A group who praise the IRA and have songs about the ”hero Republican hunger strikers”.
Playing in England. With a board outside the centre that can be read by the passing traffic on the dual carriageway.
Who would protest about that?
Not many people I think, but if it was a venue advertising a ‘Skrewdriver’ concert there would be an almighty row about it.

@1.

“Islam is not a race, it’s a political ideology, a death cult, and a good way to destroy societies”.

Christianity is the biggest death cult of all. What other religion buries its dead in the same location as weddings and namings (Christenings) are held? What other religion celebrates the death of another as Christianity does (the Blood of Christ and all that)?

Christianity, like all religions is an ideology. Islam is not unique in that regard.

She should be ashamed of herself, if you have no better use of your time than attacking a poster which calls to defend a great democratic country to their medieval-minded backward neighbour-countries where your muslim friends dream of nothing else than the jihad. Fuck that! How dare she commit such an act in the city where those dirty ragheads tried to impress the western world with attacks in 2001, it illustrates just how ignorant and mindfucked stupid islamist she is. The world would be better off with her oppressed, circumcized and in a burka, not allowed to leave the house and be the slave together with other 5 wives of her sexual obsessed husband who forces her to have one baby every year. Choose freedom and stop supporting the SCUM of the earth, there MUSLIM JIHADDIST friends. Or choose Islam and Jihad and live in the sand hut as discribed above.

68. Chaise Guevara

Dutch calling other people ignorant. Most. Irony. EVA.

You know what is irony? To defend freedom of speach for a people whose leaders, both religious and political, don’t practice that in their sand countries, especially not for women. Very happy that in Holland we’re working on closing our borders to this backward religion and closing down all mosques and just getting rid of all those hate-preaching imams and ayatollahs and whatever more which have flooded the country since the left wing labour party openened our county up to those awful bunch

70. Chaise Guevara

@ 69 Dutch

So, you in favour of freedom of speech or not? Because it sounds like you think it’s good when the Muslims are oppressing it, but bad when the UK and Netherlands are supporting it.

@63

Please go back and read that again. You have just logically contradicted yourself.

You first assert that ‘power’ must be present in order for ‘prejudice against homosexuals’ to amount to ‘homophobia’.

You then give examples of what you call ‘aspects of homophobia that could only have manifested with the full backing of power and the consent of society.”‘

Using your ‘plus power’ definition, that second reference to ‘homophobia is nonsense, because you have in effect just defined

‘pink triangles and corrective therapy and the kill gays bill’ as “aspects of prejudice-against-homosexuals-plus-power, plus, er, power.”

I was rushing to comment before going to the dentist, so I didn’t quite fully proof-read my comment you can mentally substitute ‘prejudice-against-homosexuals’ in place of homophobia. Dangers of shorthand.

Homophobia is prejudice against homosexuals. That’s all.

So homophobia is now mere prejudice and not a structural matter?
Homophobia is not just a set of social attitudes (though it is these as well) it’s also the structure of oppression which produced them. An awful lot of the justifications for suppressing gay people were/are based on self-propagating mechanisms – for example ‘pro-family’ politics roughly translates into anti-gay policies. The implication being that gay people are anti-family – and the reason for this is that gay people often found themselves cast out from their family (because being gay they would obviously try to destroy it)and left to fend for themselves, which generally resulted in them being somewhat antipathetic toward their family and forming their own alternate social groupings instead. Which of course provides the evidence that gay people are ‘anti-family’. Currently ‘pro-family’ appears to have begun morphing into ‘pro-marriage’ in the continued struggle toward equality. Homophobia is as much a lived experience as racism, am I to condemn the men who still hold a criminal record for being openly gay a few decades ago for perhaps not being too keen on straight people, on only wanting to mix with their own kind because of what was done to them personally? Should I stridently lecture them on their heterophobia because they’re just as bad as everyone who thought them going into the clink for their ‘perversion’ was the right thing that should happen to the likes of them?
Prejudice and that’s it right?

From my link In a white supremacy system”

But we don’t live in ‘a white supremacy system’ like Apartheid South Africa.

I don’t think I actually said we did, I was drawing your attention to that passage because it outright states that in a ‘white supremacy system’ the majority of ‘whites’ still have a shit time of it too, but that they have it better than people of colour. Dial it away with legal protections and years of anti-racist struggle, and you’d expect things to be more rosy but still with persistent problems.

Who’s more ‘powerful’: a heterosexual black man or a white lesbian? Is this true for ALL heterosexual black men and all white lesbians? Is there a rankings table of power and oppression available? Is it regionally-weighted? And if so, who wrote it?

This is missing the wood for the trees, isolated individuals tell us little about the state of society. I also find it odd that you consider it some sort of game of persecuted top trumps, I mean why not go Black lesbian? Chances are she gets the unbridled joy of putting up with daily racism, homophobia and misogyny.

@70

I’m absolutely in favour of freedom of speech but do not in any way tolerate an ideology which represses it, like Islam does. Therefore freedom of speech, in my opinion, is limited for those who do not practice it themselves. Consequently Islam should not be given a platform to thrive in countries who are in favour of freedom of speech as this ideology opposes to the fundamental rights of a particular state. Therefore I do not understand why somebody would agitate in the name of freedom of speech FOR the Islam, as this ideology represses any form of it itself, this is contradictory.

73. Chaise Guevara

@ 72 Dutch

Huh. OK, you’ve risen a bit in my opinion. Your initial rant made me think you were a troll, but that last response suggests quite strongly that you’ve got a brain. Wasn’t expecting that, and fair play to you.

All that aside, I disagree with you on free speech. If we start limiting the opinions allowable under free speech, we don’t have free speech. What we have is a party where only people deemed acceptable are allowed in. And that’s pretty much how every single horrific regime from the last 100 years got started. One minute we’re silencing obvious cunts; the next, we’re banning people with a genuine grievance and labelling them “undesireables”.

Let the dickheads speak. It’ll help us to identify them as dickheads.

Incidentally, none of this is contradictory. I believe in freedom of speech. This includes freedom of speech for those who don’t like freedom of speech, which includes Islamist idiots. It’s not contradictory, it’s consistent. You’re right to call it ironic, though.

74. Chaise Guevara

@ Cylux

Would you hate me forever if I said you’re overthinking this? Because you’re absolutely right about the social basis of prejudice. Frighteningly right. But that’s not what Lamia’s arguing about. Lamia is just saying that judging people based on their demographic is, in fact, prejudice. And that’s absolutely true.

Seriously, I think you might be at cross-purposes here.

@73 Chaise–love your name, hate your use of a female body part as an insult. Hate it, hate it, hate it. Free speech gives you the right to be a misogynist creep, but it doesn’t force you to.

76. Richard Carey

@ Cylux / Lamia,

Cylux gave a definition of racism as ‘prejudice plus power’. I don’t know why Lamia is so passionate to refute it. Lamia’s argument seems to be – and I admit I skimmed some of it – racism = racial prejudice. However, this rather negates the point of the word, if we’ve already got the definition covered. I believe what Cylux said was the definition used in the 1980s, and it was used in juxtaposition to prejudice.

@ 73 Chaise

it’s that bit of the Venn diagram where our positions coincide!

He did use the word ‘dickhead’ too.

78. Chaise Guevara

@ 75 Chigrid

In my experience, the majority of the body-part-based swearwords relate to male body parts. English just uses genitalia as insults for some reason. As Sarah implies, if “cunt” makes me a misogynist then “dickhead” makes me a misandrist, and that doesn’t make a lot of sense, aside from the fact that it simply isn’t true. Don’t read something into it that isn’t there.

73/Chaise: However in practice all non-horrific regimes (both of them?) in the last 100 years have also placed restrictions on speech:
– against defamation
– against inciting crime / conspiracy to commit crime
– against claims in advertising considered to be false and/or unsupported
– against particular mechanisms of delivering that speech (e.g. megaphones at 2am)
– against delivering that speech to particular recipients (e.g. harassment, stalking, etc.)
– against revealing (true) information others wish to be confidential (e.g. medical records)

Now, sure, I will certainly agree that the state’s (any state, really) implementation of those restrictions is at best not ideal – but I think a society which had no restrictions at all on any of those would be horrific in its own way. I don’t think you can draw a clean line between any of those and the “expression of opinions” which “freedom of speech” tries to protect.

@ Cyclux,

With respect, you are so far off beam that I think there has been a major misunderstanding on your part.

“So homophobia is now mere prejudice and not a structural matter?”

Prejudice is not ‘mere’ so far as I am concerned. Homophobia can be structural, but it doesn’t have to be. And it doesn’t have to be in order to be serious and damaging.

“Homophobia is not just a set of social attitudes (though it is these as well) it’s also the structure of oppression which produced them.”

I agree with that. That is a different definition from the one that homophobia = “prejudice plus power”. There can be attendant power, but there need not be for it to be homophobia and as such a serious matter in itself.

with this,

” I also find it odd that you consider it some sort of game of persecuted top trumps,”

and this:

“am I to condemn the men who still hold a criminal record for being openly gay a few decades ago for perhaps not being too keen on straight people, on only wanting to mix with their own kind because of what was done to them personally? Should I stridently lecture them on their heterophobia”

I’m afraid you’ve shown you have completely misunderstood my argument. What I’m asking you to do is to explain how,
on if you make ‘power’ (still conveniently, vaguely undefined) this prerequisite of something being racism, homophobia, misogyny etc., you can make useful evaluations or can even speak truthfully about cases where, for instance, one minority group is oppressing another.

There is no need to go back to people criminalised decades ago, instead you could ask gay people right now how they feel about homophobia in the form of, say, dance hall and rap lyrics, or in Gay Free Zone posters quoting bits of the Koran. Well personally I don’t like it much at all, and I don’t like at all the way that an unstated but clearly implied ‘prejudice plus power’ excuse has been used to play down and such cases as not really homophobia even or not really important and in general a bit of an misrepresent such instances.

Thus in this Guardian article, gay people get half the blame for being attacked by Muslim youths:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/24/gay-hate-tower-hamlets

The article depicts the gay population there as wealthy (a like Jews, presumably) and thus powerful and thus not so badly the victims that they might appear. Likewise those apparently subjecting them to homophobia are not really doing so. It’s because they are ‘powerless’.

Now I have a real problem with that, because it amounts to whitewashing some bigotry for ideological reasons. And whenever it involves homophobia from an ethnic minority, the left invariably finds ways to talk it down, to talk around it, to minimise it. The ‘power’ excuse is the basis of this, because in defining ‘power’ it constantly moves the goalposts.

I know plenty well the from personal experience what it’s like to be on the claiming receiving end of homophobia – violent, verbal, of legal etc. The fact that you thought I was making some sneer about ‘heterophobia’ is amazing to me.

To reiterate: by saying ‘power’ is not a necessary condition of homophobia, racism, sexism, etc, I am not minimising those; in fact, quite the contrary.

81. Chaise Guevara

@ 79 cim

Sure. There’s grey areas here like anywhere else. But libel law, false advertising law et al aren’t major ways in which fascist states maintain their power. Oppression of political expression is.

Chaise/81: But [they] aren’t major ways in which fascist states maintain their power

“Defamation of the leader” being illegal, said defamation being defined by the leader, seems like a pretty stereotypical dictatorship to me. Advertising laws could be applied to political advertising (heh, think back on all the people here wanting the ASA to somehow intervene on the claims being made in the AV referendum – it’d be a pretty popular move, at first…)

I think you could use those six categories above to give an extremely restricted state – the sixth alone can ban a lot of journalism, if applied moderately broadly – without having any restrictions on political speech per se at all, and with all the laws looking reasonable on paper (selective enforcement and judicial interpretation do the rest). Sure, most dictators have no need to be that subtle.

I think the problem with a general principle in favour of freedom of speech is that it’s like a general principle in favour of freedom of other dangerous things (weapons, cars, crowds of people, factories, etc.)

83. Richard Carey

@ 82 cim,

“I think the problem with a general principle in favour of freedom of speech is that it’s like a general principle in favour of freedom of other dangerous things (weapons, cars, crowds of people, factories, etc.)”

When people talk about freedom, they generally mean freedom of individuals. When people talk about restricting freedom, they generally mean giving freedom to some individuals, i.e. those in power, to take away the freedoms of others.

Whatever dangers are inherent in a general principle of freedom are worth having. There is an in-built limitation on individual freedom, as it cannot be used to infringe the same freedom in someone else. This is found in Herbert Spencer’s ‘Law of Equal Liberty’, amongst other places.

Regarding the list given by Chaise,

“against defamation”

This is a restriction of free speech, and it would be better IMO to remove it. Then the onus would be on the accuser to prove a charge, rather than on the accused to sue and clear his name.

“against inciting crime / conspiracy to commit crime”

Conspiracy is not a free speech issue. The laws against incitement very often are, especially as the meaning has been subtly shifted from incitement, as previously understood, to provocative statements.

“against claims in advertising considered to be false and/or unsupported”

This is not really a free speech issue, but more to do with fraud. However, there has been an increasing tendency to treat adults as incapable of judging for themselves, which is worrying.

“against particular mechanisms of delivering that speech (e.g. megaphones at 2am)”

This is not a free speech issue, any more than the Guardian declining to publish a letter is a free speech issue.

“against delivering that speech to particular recipients (e.g. harassment, stalking, etc.)”

Not sure about this.

“against revealing (true) information others wish to be confidential (e.g. medical records)”

This is not a free speech issue. It is about breach of contract and theft of information.

82/Richard Carey: There is an in-built limitation on individual freedom, as it cannot be used to infringe the same freedom in someone else

That, as a general principle, I fully accept. I just happen to draw the lines regarding what counts as an infringement of another’s freedom in different places.

[Defamation] is a restriction of free speech, and it would be better IMO to remove it. Then the onus would be on the accuser to prove a charge, rather than on the accused to sue and clear his name.

While not in any way defending the UK’s current defamation laws, why would removing them entirely put the onus on the accuser to prove the charge, when there are no consequences for failing to do so. (Especially in cases where the defamation laws don’t currently work and should, when someone powerful defames someone relatively powerless, and the person being defamed my have no effective way to reply)

Conspiracy is not a free speech issue

So the criminalisation of a conversation between two adults, heard by no-one else, that neither of the adults involved has any problem with, is not a free speech issue? Why not? (see also: entrapment)

[Methods] is not a free speech issue, any more than the Guardian declining to publish a letter is a free speech issue.

But the government passing a law stating that the Guardian may not publish letters from you would be. Obviously no-one is obliged to provide another person with a platform for their speech, but the original meaning of “freedom of the press” was, as I understand it, about ensuring that everyone was entitled to their own platform. If the government can restrict use of megaphones at night, can it also restrict them during the day? What about shouting without amplification tools? What about speaking at a normal volume? Again, I don’t see why this isn’t a free speech issue – the uncontroversial edge of a free speech grey area in itself.

[Confidential information] is not a free speech issue. It is about breach of contract and theft of information.

Well, except that for accountability and good journalism it is sometimes necessary to reveal confidential information to the public. (Medical records, probably not. Commercially sensitive information, often.)

Our own newspapers are experts in arguing that personally sensitive information (like medical information) is in the public interest to release, considerably more successfully than I think they should be.

Lamia,

In fact, history affords us a lot of instances of ethnic violence where the common factor is a disempowered or unsuccessful majority and an empowered or successful minority. Think: Tutsis and Hutus.

truth be told sums it up, in the first comment.

@ vimothy

“In fact, history affords us a lot of instances of ethnic violence where the common factor is a disempowered or unsuccessful majority and an empowered or successful minority. Think: Tutsis and Hutus.”

I agree absolutely, although I am am not quite sure what your point is there. The example you give suggests to me that being ’empowered’/’powerful’ and ‘disempowered’/’powerless’ are not nearly such simple and fixed matters as the likes of Joseph Harker would have us believe. Individuals and even groups can have above-average power in some respects and below-average in others.

Something else that has occurred to me is that if one extends Harker’s ‘I can’t be racist, while all white people ARE racist’ gets shown up most obviously as an intellectually fraudulent one if one considers homophobia. It is false to say I cannot be heterophobic. I’m not – I don’t hink – but I could be. And while in general it would be fairly hard for me to make someone suffer from expressing or deploying heterophobia, it’s not impossible at all. Likewise think it would be absurd to say all heterosexual people are by definition homophobic. Many are but many simply aren’t in the least bit. Plus there are degrees of homophobia and it’s possible to be homophobic and it not have particular expression or any ‘power’ effect on gay people. The same can apply to all kinds of prejudice.

That is what my main issue with the definition used by Cylux has been: that one can’t simply say ‘power’ and not identify, quantify and qualify it and how it works. And while I completely support identifying how societal structures entrench and allow bigotry to breed and manifest itself, that shouldn’t be used as a reason not to address that bigotry as it is lived and as it harms people mostly boils down to individuals treating other individuals unfairly and unkindly – and that indeed it’s possible for anyone to be on the receiving end of bigotry and for it to be very unpleasant. No one is by definition immune to suffering it or exmplifying it. And no one is devoid of power in this respect, according to varying situations.

The problem with the ‘prejudice plus power’ argument, in my view, is that far from fighting all bigotry, it actually licenses some of it. To come back to where I started, it’s precsiely how Joseph Harker gets to make sneering, hateful statments while claiming at the same time that it is his victims who are the bigots.

I have known gay people with shitty attitudes to straight people. Now by and large that couldn’t manifest itself in, say the harmful use of power over straight people, but it’s not impossible and it’s not right or defensible in any case. And I am making a big distinction between feeling a wariness about aspects of straight society and ranting about ‘breeders’ etc. I don’t expect Jospeh Harker to have a wonderfully positive automatic attitude to white people. I do expect, when he makes racist sneers at them, and at the same time claims he can’t be a racist, for him to be replied to by people saying, “Actually, you can be a racist, and you are being one, so stop being such a hypocritical dick.”

We don’t lessen the amount of bigotry in society effectively by exempting some of it from being defined as such by slectively waving the word ‘power’ around when it suits.

That’s not aimed at you personally Vimothy, sorry to go on at such length, I’m just trying to clarify my position.

88. Richard Carey

@ 84 cim,

Firstly, I would say that I’m talking about the criminal law, and what it should or shouldn’t prohibit, and not about whether something is morally right or wrong. This is just to clarify, I’m not implying any misunderstanding on your part.

“That, as a general principle, I fully accept. I just happen to draw the lines regarding what counts as an infringement of another’s freedom in different places.”

Would you accept that it is better that these lines are clearly understood? Otherwise, the law becomes more random. It inevitably will be somewhat random, as people view things differently, and no two situations are the same, but a clear understanding would minimise this.

I would base the lines on property rights, based on and derived from one’s individual sovereignty. I recognise that there are some poorly-marked borders between individuals, so there will always be disputes, but this does not invalidate the principle of individual freedom. A good example of this is noise from neighbours or neighbouring businesses. When a dispute arises, those tasked with resolving it must do so in the most just manner they can, which, as far as I’m concerned, should take into account the ‘home-steading’ principle, which roughly translates as ‘first come, first served’. In other words, if you move next door to a bell tower, you can’t complain of the noise, whereas if someone builds a bell tower next to your house, you can.

“why would removing them entirely put the onus on the accuser to prove the charge, when there are no consequences for failing to do so.”

You answer your own question! BECAUSE there are no consequences for failing to do so. Therefore, the only credence upon which an accusation will rest, is the evidence that supports it, rather than (now) the absence of the victim taking legal action at a potentially-ruinous cost. Regarding the property rights involved, no one owns their own reputation. I can’t demand that you respect me as a great thinker, pillar of society or anything. The current law treats reputation as it is property, and this is wrong IMO.

“So the criminalisation of a conversation between two adults, heard by no-one else, that neither of the adults involved has any problem with, is not a free speech issue? Why not? (see also: entrapment)”

I don’t know how such a conversation could ever come to light! The crime involved in such cases is the act that was being conspired in, for example; murder. The act of murder is a crime, therefore so is attempting murder or conspiring to commit murder. I don’t see how this is anything to do with free speech. Would you say that walking into a bank and shouting “everybody down or I shoot! This is a robbery” was a free speech issue? Or telling someone that their donation was going to the orphanage, and then spending the money on hookers and class As?

Entrapment is something of a tangent. Not sure the connection.

“Obviously no-one is obliged to provide another person with a platform for their speech, but the original meaning of “freedom of the press” was, as I understand it, about ensuring that everyone was entitled to their own platform.”

Yes, as long as you interpret the second part of this sentence with reference to the first. In other words, there should be no laws to stop you setting up a newspaper. It certainly doesn’t mean the government has a obligation to provide you with a printing press.

“If the government can restrict use of megaphones at night, can it also restrict them during the day? What about shouting without amplification tools? What about speaking at a normal volume?”

It really depends where this happens, and whose property is involved. The status of ‘public space’ is problematic. All that we can hope for is a fair application of the general rule of ‘equal rights’. Yes, people have a right to make political demonstrations in Trafalgar Square, but other people also have an equal right to use that public space.

“Well, except that for accountability and good journalism it is sometimes necessary to reveal confidential information to the public.”

I think the problem will largely disappear, and whistle-blowers and investigative journalists will be better protected, if we abolish the current libel laws, as I mentioned above.

89. just visiting

Chaise

Always good to debate with you : I can tell you that “jihad” within Islam doesn’t mean “violence” or “holy war” or anything like that, although it can involve those things.

I’d be fascinated to hear your evidence for this – can you quote some respected Islamic sholars saying this?

You certainly are taking a stand in opposition to Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis, who wrote: “The overwhelming majority of early authorities, citing the relevant passages in the Qu’ran, the commentaries, and the traditions of the Prophet, discuss jihad in military terms.”

That is what my main issue with the definition used by Cylux has been: that one can’t simply say ‘power’ and not identify, quantify and qualify it and how it works.

I did provide an example of what is meant by ‘power’, you dismissed the structural part as not being important. Yet homophobia or racism doesn’t arise in a vacuum, forming uncompelled in the minds of isolated individuals upon clapping eyes on two girls holding hands or someone with a higher melanin count, it’s instilled and reinforced and spread by the very structural mechanisms you dismiss as not being important. Yes, an individual motivated by prejudice can cause someone harm, but what ultimately makes that worse than being motived by anger? The damage done is the same isn’t it? Why the need for hate crime laws, discrimination laws or equal protections then?

I’m asking you to do is to explain how,
on if you make ‘power’ this prerequisite of something being racism, homophobia, misogyny etc., you can make useful evaluations or can even speak truthfully about cases where, for instance, one minority group is oppressing another.

This needs some clarification, what exactly are you speaking of, sex and sexuality are pretty much universal “Blacks vs Women” or “Asians vs LGBTs” are false dichotomies because there are obviously black women and Asian lgbts. “Blacks vs Asians” however is at least a sensible starting point, and would require looking at what overt and covert mechanisms each grouping deploys to prevent the other from getting ahead. Indeed if we make it “Arabs vs Blacks” we can actually use the recent example of the liberation of Libya – there was a general underlying resentment toward black people in Libya because it was widely believed that they were being imported in from Africa by Gaddafi to do their jobs on the cheap (sound familiar?), this metastasized into a belief that they actually were Gaddafi’s men and during and after the revolt black men in Libya frequently found themselves classified as ‘African mercenaries’ and were often rounded up and imprisoned, in quite a few cases killed. It’s a fairly clear cut case of racism – and it’s clear cut because we take into account all the structural societal factors, otherwise it becomes some revolutionaries killing mercenaries.

Thus in this Guardian article, gay people get half the blame for being attacked by Muslim youths:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/24/gay-hate-tower-hamlets

The article depicts the gay population there as wealthy (a like Jews, presumably) and thus powerful and thus not so badly the victims that they might appear. Likewise those apparently subjecting them to homophobia are not really doing so. It’s because they are ‘powerless’.

Actually he claims the gay part of the wealthy incomers are targeted because they’re perceived to be the most vulnerable part of it. Which is quite different from ‘depicting the gay population as wealthy’. He also nods to the structural reinforcement their religion provides. If anything he squarely lays the blame onto toxic masculinity, which is reaction to the gains of feminism and gay rights.

Anyway, returning to the original subject that started this exchange, the word “racism” and “racist” grew up as part of the African-American civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 1960s (it may possibly be further back) and it continued to be used by people challenging racism in the US/UK in the 70s and 80s and the South African struggle against Apartheid. The redefinition of the word “racism” to simply mean an individual negative attitude to someone of a different ethnic group because they belong to a different ethnic group is quite recent. Richard Carey also alluded to this @76.

91. Chaise Guevara

@ 89 JV

“Always good to debate with you”

Likewise, mate.

“I’d be fascinated to hear your evidence for this – can you quote some respected Islamic sholars saying this?”

Annoyingly, my primary source is a good old-fashioned paper-and-ink book. But Wikipedia to the rescue! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

“Religious struggle” is the best English translation I can come up with.

“You certainly are taking a stand in opposition to Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis, who wrote: “The overwhelming majority of early authorities, citing the relevant passages in the Qu’ran, the commentaries, and the traditions of the Prophet, discuss jihad in military terms.””

Actually, I’m not. I’m not saying anything about whether militaristic/violent uses of the word are more common. At a guess I’d say they were less common pre-9/11 and more common now, but really I don’t know. The point is simply that you can’t assume that any Muslim engaged in a jihad is a militant.

Incidentally, the word seems to have been standardized as violent in the West for decades now – and as it happens, the word “crusade” has much the same effect in the Middle East. I’m currently re-reading Dune, and that uses “jihad” to mean “fanatical religious war” in a rather offhanded way. But then Dune is clever and learned and involves a desert tribe who follow the Zensunni religion, so perhaps I shouldn’t use it as a general yardstick.

92. Chaise Guevara

Lamia’s absolutely owning this thread, by the way.

Lamia,

I agree absolutely, although I am am not quite sure what your point is there.

Just an observation that I thought was germane to the argument that you are making: many instances of ethnic violence occur when the minority victims of racism have power and a majority does not, which causes the resentment that eventually results in violence. If you think that racism is prejudice + power, then this phenomenon is invisible to you.

An interesting question is: why do people deliberately define racism to exclude one of the most historically significant examples of it?

94. So Much For Subtlety

91. Chaise Guevara

Incidentally, the word seems to have been standardized as violent in the West for decades now – and as it happens, the word “crusade” has much the same effect in the Middle East. I’m currently re-reading Dune, and that uses “jihad” to mean “fanatical religious war” in a rather offhanded way. But then Dune is clever and learned and involves a desert tribe who follow the Zensunni religion, so perhaps I shouldn’t use it as a general yardstick.

Probably because Dune won an award way back when – 1969 I seem to remember. Which means it is old enough to predate the politically correct historical revisionism that asserts Jihad means anything other than what it does. A lot like Crusade in fact except without the shrieks of liberals claiming Crusade does not mean what it does.

Sure, the odd Sufi referred to the lesser jihad being an internal struggle, in the same way that not all Crusades involve killing people. But the mainstream meaning was and is obvious. It is just the usual PC crowd who claim otherwise.

And in other news – the New York Subway Authority has banned any advert that might offend anyone likely to commit violence. While Piss Christ remains on display. Just to keep you posted on the growing power of our, or their in this case, new de facto official religion.

And in other news – the New York Subway Authority has banned any advert that might offend anyone likely to commit violence. While Piss Christ remains on display. Just to keep you posted on the growing power of our, or their in this case, new de facto official religion.

“The authority said it believed the new guidelines adhered to the court’s ruling and would withstand any potential First Amendment challenge. Under the new policy, the authority will continue to allow so-called viewpoint ads, but each will be required to include a disclaimer noting that the ad does not imply the authority’s endorsement of its views.”

So not quite banned.

96. Chaise Guevara

@ 94 SMFS

“Probably because Dune won an award way back when – 1969 I seem to remember. Which means it is old enough to predate the politically correct historical revisionism that asserts Jihad means anything other than what it does. A lot like Crusade in fact except without the shrieks of liberals claiming Crusade does not mean what it does.”

Eh, probably more because Frank Herbert was a pretty awesome dude who cared more about his story than about thin-skinned arseholes whining at him.

“Sure, the odd Sufi referred to the lesser jihad being an internal struggle, in the same way that not all Crusades involve killing people. But the mainstream meaning was and is obvious. It is just the usual PC crowd who claim otherwise.”

Refer. Present tense. But, once again, I’m not making any claims as to which meaning is more common. I don’t have facts and figures for that, and I kinda doubt you do either. Ditto “crusade”, by the way.

“And in other news – the New York Subway Authority has banned any advert that might offend anyone likely to commit violence. While Piss Christ remains on display. Just to keep you posted on the growing power of our, or their in this case, new de facto official religion.”

Source? It’s not outside of the realm of believability, but TBH you’re not exactly the most reliable of witnesses.

97. just visiting

Chaise

> The point is simply that you can’t assume that any Muslim engaged in a jihad is a militant.

True Chaise – but kind of not the point of my question about what you think of Jihad in Islam.

> At a guess I’d say they were less common pre-9/11 and more common now, but really I don’t know.

You don’t know? But are willing to guess?

This is becoming a theme here Chaise.

On the theme of Islam you’re willing to take part in the debate and yet keep stressing your lack of knowledge:

You’ve been chipping in on Islam for a long time now – isn’t it time you did some research to back up your views?

So that you don’t have to say ‘I don’t know’ so often…

98. So Much For Subtlety

95. Cylux

So not quite banned.

No, still banned. They will allow other “viewpoint” ads, just not ones that offend Muslims. It is their effort to get around the First Amendment. As they say. Geller had to sue them to get these put up in the first place. So they know they have legal issues.

96. Chaise Guevara

Eh, probably more because Frank Herbert was a pretty awesome dude who cared more about his story than about thin-skinned arseholes whining at him.

Actually I expect that Herbert was somewhat PC and very worried about thin-skinned arseholes. He just predated most of them.

Refer. Present tense.

Really? Where? When?

But, once again, I’m not making any claims as to which meaning is more common. I don’t have facts and figures for that, and I kinda doubt you do either. Ditto “crusade”, by the way.

Yes but at least I know where to get them and in the past I have bothered. That’s the difference between being a leftists and not. Not means you do not believe you have all the answers because you have read Marcuse.

Source? It’s not outside of the realm of believability, but TBH you’re not exactly the most reliable of witnesses.

I am sorry you’re feeling butthurt. Don’t take it so bad. Some times you win, some time, often, you don’t.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/nyregion/mta-amends-rules-after-pro-israel-ads-draw-controversy.html

http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/28/new-york-subway-bans-ads-in-wake-of-spra

Our new de facto official religion continues to impose new blasphemy laws on us – and I note the film maker remains in solitary confinement. On some bogus parole violation.

99. Chaise Guevara

@ JV

“True Chaise – but kind of not the point of my question about what you think of Jihad in Islam.”

What was the point, then?

“You don’t know? But are willing to guess?

This is becoming a theme here Chaise.

On the theme of Islam you’re willing to take part in the debate and yet keep stressing your lack of knowledge:

You’ve been chipping in on Islam for a long time now – isn’t it time you did some research to back up your views?

So that you don’t have to say ‘I don’t know’ so often…”

Ah, condescension. Every time I start getting the impression that you’re all right, you turn around and act like a humongous arse.

What research, exactly, do you expect me to do to find out this information? Interview every Muslim in the world? Hire YouGov to do a global survey?

I’m using what knowledge I have, which in this area seems to be a little better than yours – I don’t see any research on your side, either. Whereas I provided a source for a sourceable claim.

So yeah, looks like you’re run out of arguments and have had to fall back on being petulant. Have fun with that.

100. Chaise Guevara

@98 SMFS

“Actually I expect that Herbert was somewhat PC and very worried about thin-skinned arseholes. He just predated most of them.”

Well, possibly.

“Really? Where? When?”

Type “jihad” into Wikipedia.

“Yes but at least I know where to get them and in the past I have bothered.”

Hah! You know where to get this data, but have decided not to reveal it! Very convincing.

“That’s the difference between being a leftists and not. Not means you do not believe you have all the answers because you have read Marcuse.”

You’re just babbling now.

“I am sorry you’re feeling butthurt. Don’t take it so bad. Some times you win, some time, often, you don’t.”

Proof, if it were needed, that SMFS is an ignorant fantasist: he thinks asking for sources is “losing”. The way to win a debate, in the nightmarish fantasy world of SMFS, is to pick a belief and stick with it, regardless of evidence!

“http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/nyregion/mta-amends-rules-after-pro-israel-ads-draw-controversy.html

http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/28/new-york-subway-bans-ads-in-wake-of-spra

Well done. We’ll make a rationalist of you yet. I notice this only happened three days ago. Not much time for them to investigate whether it applies to other posters. Although I wouldn’t be stunned if there were a double standard.

“Our new de facto official religion continues to impose new blasphemy laws on us”

I absolutely love this. You accuse me, baselessly, of not fact-checking (without even bothering to check Wiki-fucking-pedia first), yet you’re still trumpeting your utterly insane and patently false claims as if they were fact.

“and I note the film maker remains in solitary confinement. On some bogus parole violation.”

Bogus how?

101. So Much For Subtlety

100. Chaise Guevara

Type “jihad” into Wikipedia.

Oh great. This is your idea of research? Fine.

According to the authoritative Dictionary of Islam jihad is defined as: “A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad … enjoined especially for the purpose of advancing Islam and repelling evil from Muslims.”[1] The prominent British-American orientalist Bernard Lewis argues that in the hadiths and the classical manuals of Islamic law jihad has a military meaning in the large majority of cases.[5]

First paragraph. The Dictionary of Islam is even described as authoritative. And this from a PC-ridden sh!thole like Wikipedia.

Hah! You know where to get this data, but have decided not to reveal it! Very convincing.

No. I just can’t be arsed. Rise to a sufficient level of annoyance and I might. We are nowhere near the level of grown up discussion that would make it worth my time.

Proof, if it were needed, that SMFS is an ignorant fantasist: he thinks asking for sources is “losing”. The way to win a debate, in the nightmarish fantasy world of SMFS, is to pick a belief and stick with it, regardless of evidence!

Flailing wildly now Chaise.

Well done. We’ll make a rationalist of you yet. I notice this only happened three days ago. Not much time for them to investigate whether it applies to other posters. Although I wouldn’t be stunned if there were a double standard.

So you are conceding I am right. You know, we would save a lot of time if you accepted the inevitable result as a default position.

I absolutely love this. You accuse me, baselessly, of not fact-checking (without even bothering to check Wiki-fucking-pedia first), yet you’re still trumpeting your utterly insane and patently false claims as if they were fact.

No, I accused you of not knowing anything. Which was and is true. Wikipedia is doing an excellent job of agreeing with me – and no, I do not regard anything it says as particularly authoritative so it doesn’t matter if it does or not. And the facts remain – even you concede that the New York Transit Authority is likely to apply their new rules to things Muslims object to and nothing else. That is, New York has a new de facto official religion.

Bogus how?

Because although parole violators should be jailed, they almost never are for this level of violation. There is something else here – he dared mess with Obama’s foreign policy so maybe that is the reason.

102. Chaise Guevara

@ SMFS

“Oh great. This is your idea of research? Fine.

[…]

First paragraph. The Dictionary of Islam is even described as authoritative. And this from a PC-ridden sh!thole like Wikipedia.”

It appears that your idea of research is quote-mining. The not-very-long introduction goes on to list three meanings used for the term. Only one requires violence. See, this habit of ignoring anything that doesn’t fit your preconceptions is why you’re not a rationalist.

“No. I just can’t be arsed. Rise to a sufficient level of annoyance and I might. We are nowhere near the level of grown up discussion that would make it worth my time.”

I’m actually, honestly grinning, and grinning isn’t a habit of mine. You’ve got the time to debate the point, but lack the time to provide this data that backs you up! That’s a very specific kind of “can’t be arsed”.

“Flailing wildly now Chaise.”

Nah, it’s a pretty good indication of your mindset. Reality is subordinate to dogma. Factual analysis is subordinate to “winning”. I’m happy to be proved wrong, because then I’ll no longer be wrong. Well, I admit it tends to rankle at the time, especially if one’s interlocutor is a card-carrying bell-end, but it’s a net gain.

“So you are conceding I am right.”

Yes, you managed to get a fact correct. I’ll get teacher to give you a star. I notice you ignored the meat of my response, though. Wonder why.

Incidentally, I love how you’re trying to get some kind of victory out of being factually correct on a point that I never said was untrue. And STILL demonstrating your “asking for sources is WEAKNESS!” mindset. Keep digging.

“You know, we would save a lot of time if you accepted the inevitable result as a default position.”

Yes, because everything you say always turns out to be absolutely fucking correct and not, for example, the paranoid rantings of a demented grumpy person.

“No, I accused you of not knowing anything. Which was and is true. Wikipedia is doing an excellent job of agreeing with me – and no, I do not regard anything it says as particularly authoritative so it doesn’t matter if it does or not.”

Oh, SMFS. If only you understood that quote-mining something doesn’t mean it agrees with you.

“And the facts remain – even you concede that the New York Transit Authority is likely to apply their new rules to things Muslims object to and nothing else. That is, New York has a new de facto official religion.”

Wait. Is all this just down to you not knowing what “de facto” means? Or, for that matter, having the false impression that the NY Transit Authority reigns all of New York with an iron fist?

“Because although parole violators should be jailed, they almost never are for this level of violation. There is something else here – he dared mess with Obama’s foreign policy so maybe that is the reason.”

He hasn’t been jailed, he’s been remanded in custody. It seems logical to me that an alleged parole violator would be remanded because (if the accusation is true) they’ve shown that they won’t respect the rules that allow them to walk around free. If you have facts and figures showing that this isn’t usual practice, show them to me – like I said before, finding out I’m wrong is a good thing.

I will agree that the timing of this is a trifle convenient.

103. So Much For Subtlety

102. Chaise Guevara

It appears that your idea of research is quote-mining. The not-very-long introduction goes on to list three meanings used for the term. Only one requires violence. See, this habit of ignoring anything that doesn’t fit your preconceptions is why you’re not a rationalist.

Go back and read what I said before you started your beclowning. I have never denied there are other meanings. I simply said what the main one was. You know, the one that Wikipedia starts with.

I’m actually, honestly grinning, and grinning isn’t a habit of mine.

Yes. I know. I know.

I notice you ignored the meat of my response, though. Wonder why.

Because there is no meat there.

Incidentally, I love how you’re trying to get some kind of victory out of being factually correct on a point that I never said was untrue. And STILL demonstrating your “asking for sources is WEAKNESS!” mindset. Keep digging.

I could care less about being right.

Yes, because everything you say always turns out to be absolutely fucking correct and not, for example, the paranoid rantings of a demented grumpy person.

Good to see we are in agreement. Although, in fairness, the category of absolutely f*cking correct and the paranoid ranting of a demented grumpy person are not mutually exclusive.

Wait. Is all this just down to you not knowing what “de facto” means? Or, for that matter, having the false impression that the NY Transit Authority reigns all of New York with an iron fist?

I dunno. What do you think I don’t understand about the phrase de facto?

He hasn’t been jailed, he’s been remanded in custody.

Yes, I am sure that in any other circumstance you would make this purile distinction.

104. Chaise Guevara

@ 103 SMFS

“Go back and read what I said before you started your beclowning. I have never denied there are other meanings. I simply said what the main one was. You know, the one that Wikipedia starts with.”

I think you should have gone back and read what you said before typing that. You said that it might have had other meanings, past tense. I said present tense. You reacted with incredulity.

“Because there is no meat there.”

Ah. So I’ve made a bad argument, but you’re unable to overcome it?

“I could care less about being right.”

Good for you, although it calls into question why you’re scrabbling to find things to call victories.

“Good to see we are in agreement. Although, in fairness, the category of absolutely f*cking correct and the paranoid ranting of a demented grumpy person are not mutually exclusive.”

That’s true enough. But it is a bit weird to get annoyed with me for not taking your claims on trust.

“I dunno. What do you think I don’t understand about the phrase de facto?”

That it doesn’t mean “metaphorically”. It means something more like “for all intents and purposes”. One local authority making an understandable but bad decision to ban anti-Muslim ads but not Christian ones – and note we don’t actually yet know if that’s the case – does not a de facto Muslim country make.

“Yes, I am sure that in any other circumstance you would make this purile distinction.”

See, if what you quoted and responded to had been my whole comment on the matter, then I would have been being puerile. But it wasn’t. I went on to explain why the distinction was important, but you once again skipped over the bit you didn’t want to answer.

105. just visiting

Chaise 99

>…you turn around and act like a humongous arse.

Chaise, always a sign that you’re uncomfortable staying on theme, when you start the insults.

> What research, exactly, do you expect me to do to find out this information? Interview every Muslim in the world? Hire YouGov to do a global survey?

Sarcasm ? How does this help a rational reasoned debate?

> I’m using what knowledge I have, which in this area seems to be a little better than yours

So I’ll ask again Chaise – please share that knowledge.

So far you’ve not got close to giving a rational basis for your statement:

> I can tell you that “jihad” within Islam doesn’t mean “violence” or “holy war” or anything like that, although it can involve those things.

106. Chaise Guevara

@ 105 JV

“Chaise, always a sign that you’re uncomfortable staying on theme, when you start the insults.”

Nice try. If you insult other people, don’t act all mature when they insult you back. I’m not the one who decided to drag this down to playground level.

“Sarcasm ? How does this help a rational reasoned debate?”

It’s not sarcasm. Perhaps you could try answering the question.

“So I’ll ask again Chaise – please share that knowledge.”

Already have, with a link and everything. Post 91. I’m not going to repeat myself to someone who isn’t prepared to engage in a civil conversation.

“So far you’ve not got close to giving a rational basis for your statement:

> I can tell you that “jihad” within Islam doesn’t mean “violence” or “holy war” or anything like that, although it can involve those things.”

Except, you know, I provided a source. Not my fault if you ignore things you don’t like.

So, what we have here is you insulting other posters then acting the victim when they respond in kind, ignoring direct questions, and demanding answers that have already been given and sourced. There’s a name for that kind of behaviour, JV.

If you want to get back to addressing this like an adult, cool. If it’s just more of the above I won’t waste my time.

I agree. Being anti-islamic is not racist per se as Islam is a religion not a race. However, if you play that game you must not flinch when Israel is described as a murderous illegal state (in its current form), acting way beyond its 1948 mandate to exist. Arguably, another bunch of savages then. But this isn’t racist either, by the same definition above. (In this case Israel is a state not a race.) You can’t have it both ways.

108. just visiting

Chaise

Let’s leave the emotion out.

So far we have your viewpoint unfolding thus:

> I can tell you that “jihad” within Islam doesn’t mean “violence” or “holy war” or anything like that, although it can involve those things.”

> Annoyingly, my primary source is a good old-fashioned paper-and-ink book.

Whose title and author you have not shared here.

> But Wikipedia to the rescue! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

Quoting Wikipedia is not enough – which of the specific sources /Islamic Scholars on that wiki page are your reference points?

> “Religious struggle” is the best English translation I can come up with.

But the question is about sources for your view of what Islam thinks Jihad means.

So saying things like ‘the best I can come up with’ is no good unless you show your sources.

109. Chaise Guevara

@ 108 jv

I’m happy to step back on the emotiveness, but if you have problems with the source given, in future say what they are instead of pretending that I never gave you a source in the first place.

In the intro of the Wikipedia article alone, most of the citations back me up (remember I make no claims over which usage is more common, only that multiple usages exist), but especially 7, 10, 11, 12.

The book was Holy War by Karen Armstrong: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Holy-War-Crusades-Impact-Todays/dp/0385721404. I didn’t cite it as I thought it unreasonable to demand you go to Waterstones to see whether I was right.

Despite Pamela Geller and her apologists’ disingenuous claims to the contrary, including Geller’s cowardly use of the word “Jihad” instead of what she really means, Geller’s ads are indeed racist.

The reason ? Because Geller is actually quoting an explicitly racist diatribe by her idol Ayn Rand. Full details here: http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/08/pamela-geller-of-atlasshrugs-bus-ads-inspired-by-ayn-rands-racist-views-of-arabs-and-muslims/. Ayn Rand’s original quote (also available here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_america_at_war_israeli_arab_conflict) was as follows:

“The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it’s the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. WHEN YOU HAVE CIVILIZED MEN FIGHTING SAVAGES, YOU SUPPORT THE CIVILIZED MEN, no matter who they are.”

Ayn Rand was referring to the entire Arab population, including the millions of Christian Arabs.

So, Ayn Rand was indeed being racist, Pamela Geller stupidly decided to use that quote, and anyone attempting to defend either Rand or Geller in this situation clearly isn’t exactly the most intelligent person in the world either.

In fact, considering that Ayn Rand’s quote explicitly refers specifically to race, not religion, Pamela Geller’s stupid decision to use it speaks volumes about the real motivations for her own agenda too. Ms Geller’s fake “non-racist” mask has slipped off once again.

111. just visiting

Thanks Chaise

Karen Armstrong doesn’t really fit the bill – as I’d explicitly asked for sources within Islam describing what they say Jihad is.

> In the intro of the Wikipedia article alone, most of the citations back me up (remember I make no claims over which usage is more common, only that multiple usages exist).

How does saying that multiple usages exist have any bearing on your stated position that: “I can tell you that “jihad” within Islam doesn’t mean “violence” or “holy war” or anything like that…”

That claim is so confident and concrete.

But even the first of the Wiki sources you quote doesn’t agree with it:

Many modern writers claim that the main meaning of Jihad is the internal spiritual struggle, and this is accepted by many Muslims.

However there are so many references to Jihad as a military struggle in Islamic writings that it is incorrect to claim that the interpretation of Jihad as holy war is wrong.

112. Chaise Guevara

@ 110 JV

“Karen Armstrong doesn’t really fit the bill – as I’d explicitly asked for sources within Islam describing what they say Jihad is.”

The book itself has cross-references along these lines. I did say that I didn’t use the book as a source because it would be unreasonable to expect you to go out and buy it. “Spend £8.99 and you’ll see I’m right!” is not a convincing line of argument, hence me not using it.

“How does saying that multiple usages exist have any bearing on your stated position that: “I can tell you that “jihad” within Islam doesn’t mean “violence” or “holy war” or anything like that…””

You cut me off mid-sentence there, just before the bit where I said that I wasn’t denying that “jihad” includes violence. Don’t quote-mine the person you’re talking to, it doesn’t work.

If the question here is “Was ‘jihad’ first coined as a non-violent term but came to be used to refer to violence, or vice versa?”, I neither know nor care. That’s an academic question that has no bearing on what either of us care about in this discussion, and I’m speaking as someone who loves etymology.

113. just visiting

Chaise

> I can tell you that “jihad” within Islam doesn’t mean “violence” or “holy war” or anything like that…

> I wasn’t denying that “jihad” includes violence.

This is still not clear – you’ve made a claim about what Islam believes Jihad is.

But still after all this time not actually named here on LC an islamic source or scholar who says what you claim.

Anybody still following this thread is likely to be coming to the conclusion that your benign view of what Islam thinks of jihad is based not on sources you’ve read but rather that that your worldview is not comfortable with an Islam that has violent Jihad central within it.

It is striking how direct you were in making the statement and how tangential in supporting it:

> I can tell you that “jihad” within Islam doesn’t mean “violence” or “holy war” or anything like that…

Your tone there was rather pedagogic and patronising: ‘I can tell you that’ ….

114. Chaise Guevara

@ 113 JV

“This is still not clear – you’ve made a claim about what Islam believes Jihad is.”

No I didn’t, because that doesn’t really make sense as a statement. Islam is a religion, it doesn’t “believe” anything. Its adherents have beliefs.

When I said “within Islam” it was because I’m aware “jihad” tends to be treated as just meaning “(literal) holy war” by Westerners. So “among Muslims” if you prefer.

“But still after all this time not actually named here on LC an islamic source or scholar who says what you claim.”

Actually, quite a while ago now I pointed you to a wealth of sources, including Islamic ones. If you want to ignore them, that’s up to you. There’s certainly no point feeding you more sources, because you’ll ignore them too: good money after bad.

“Anybody still following this thread is likely to be coming to the conclusion that your benign view of what Islam thinks of jihad is based not on sources you’ve read but rather that that your worldview is not comfortable with an Islam that has violent Jihad central within it.”

Not if they’re reading the whole thread, rather than just your duplicitous comments. Aside from the fact that I’ve named and provided my sources, I never said that Islam doesn’t “have violent Jihad central within it”. Although again I’m not sure what that actually means. That over 50% of Muslims primarily see jihad as violent, perhaps? That would be demonstrable in principle, although probably not in practice. “Central” is a bit of a weasel word here: sounds meaningful but isn’t.

“It is striking how direct you were in making the statement and how tangential in supporting it:

> I can tell you that “jihad” within Islam doesn’t mean “violence” or “holy war” or anything like that…”

It’s getting harder and harder to treat you courteously here, because I JUST REPLIED to this quote-mining attack of yours, and instead of dealing with my reply you’re just parroting it. Which rather suggests that you’re here to proselytise rather than discuss.

“Your tone there was rather pedagogic and patronising: ‘I can tell you that’ ….”

Well, that’s text-based communication for you. Emphasis would be on “can” in the above; it’s sorta equivalent to saying “But here’s what I do know from my admittedly non-expert position”.

Anyhoo, considering the way you’re behaving at the moment (spamming the same quote-mining attempt and ignoring the response to it), it’s pretty weak for you to belatedly try to wring an insult out of a very neutral turn of phrase I used 8 million posts ago.

115. just visiting

Chaise

> quite a while ago now I pointed you to a wealth of sources, including Islamic ones.

Chaise – looking back over the thread, the evidence doesn’t support that statement

Point out to me any I’ve missed, but this is all I see:

91:
> Annoyingly, my primary source is a good old-fashioned paper-and-ink book.

Karen Amstrong we’ve discounted as she’s not an Islamic source

91:
> But Wikipedia to the rescue! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

This is the sole URL you’ve provided to date.

> In the intro of the Wikipedia article alone, most of the citations back me up (remember I make no claims over which usage is more common, only that multiple usages exist), but especially 7, 10, 11, 12.

I responded to that by saying even the first one (7) doesn’t support your claim.

You haven’t responded to my comment on (97) – why did that comment not deserve a response from you/

———————————-
I’m sorry Chaise – but you of all people know that anyone making bold claims on LC has got to be ready to support them with care and detail.

So far you’ve not even put a name to an islamic scholar, and quoted their words here!

So here’s your chance, to lay out the best calm and rational case you can, showing reputable Islamic sources that support your very bold statement:

> I can tell you that “jihad” within Islam doesn’t mean “violence” or “holy war” or anything like that…”

116. Chaise Guevara

@ 115 JV

“I responded to that by saying even the first one (7) doesn’t support your claim.”

I responded to that saying that it DID support my claim, and that you’d misrepresented my claims. True to form, you’ve evaded that response.

“You haven’t responded to my comment on (97) – why did that comment not deserve a response from you”

You’re getting very weird now. I responded to 97 at 99, and you responded to that. Once again, there’s no point lying about what’s been said in the thread, because all anyone has to do to find out that you’re lying is to scroll up and check.

“I’m sorry Chaise – but you of all people know that anyone making bold claims on LC has got to be ready to support them with care and detail.

So far you’ve not even put a name to an islamic scholar, and quoted their words here!”

So what? I’ve pointed you to sources, you’ve thrashed around desperately, pretending not to see them, or reinventing what I’m saying so you can prove me “wrong” (see above, see below). You have no interest in truth, and reject it the moment it threatens your worldview. There’s no point me trawling for more sources, because you’ll do the same with those as you have with what I’ve already provided you.

“So here’s your chance, to lay out the best calm and rational case you can, showing reputable Islamic sources that support your very bold statement:

I can tell you that “jihad” within Islam doesn’t mean “violence” or “holy war” or anything like that…””

THAT IS A SENTENCE CUT IN HALF TO MISREPRESENT WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID. I’ve now said this three times. You keep ignoring it in favour of spamming the same shit over and over again. So, which is it: are you completely dishonest, or just unable to read?

This time, grow a pair and actually respond to what I’ve said. If you seriously spam the same quote-mined claim for the fourth time, I’m writing you off. This is getting really sad.

117. just visiting

You protest about shortening your sentence – OK, here it is in full:
‘I can tell you that “jihad” within Islam doesn’t mean “violence” or “holy war” or anything like that, although it can involve those things. ‘

So far here you’ve not named a single Islamic scholar nor quoted their words to support your claim.

So here’s a willing audience – tell us how you support your bold claim.

118. Chaise Guevara

@ 117 Just Visiting

Honesty on the fourth attempt. Well done.

This source mentions jihad being used in both violent and peaceful senses by Muslims. There’s a reference at the top to Arafat using it non-violently. No doubt you’ll say he isn’t a “scholar”, so there’s some scholars under the subtitle Jihad as Non-Warfare in Modern Times: http://www.meforum.org/357/what-does-jihad-mean

Here’s another one: http://www.quranicstudies.com/jihad/the-meaning-of-jihad/

And another: http://www.muslim.org/islam/jihad.htm

Chaise Guevara,

I very strongly recommend that you read the following informative article in full: http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/afdi-sioa-roll-out-another-anti-muslim-ad/0019401

As the article mentions, even Pamela Geller’s closest ally, the fanatically anti-Muslim propagandist Robert Spencer (who presents himself as a “scholar of Islam”) has publicly admitted that the word “jihad” certainly doesn’t necessarily mean “violence” or holy war”.

Quote:

Robert Spencer: “This page [explaining Spencer’s decision for choosing the name “Jihad Watch”] has been linked to the front page of the Jihad Watch website since October 2003, and all that time it has said this: “Jihad (Arabic for ‘struggle’) is a central duty of every Muslim. Muslim theologians have spoken of many things as jihads: [for example] the struggle within the soul…..I discuss the various meanings of jihad, including that of spiritual struggle, in my 2003 book Onward Muslim Soldiers and many times elsewhere. On hundreds of radio shows over the years I have explained, as part of my basic explanation of the word, that “jihad” in Arabic has as many connotations and shades of meaning as “struggle” does in English — as I explained in this 2008 interview: “The word means ‘struggle,’ and has as many connotations as the English word ‘struggle’ does. The Islamic Republic of Iran has a Department of Agricultural Jihad, which has to do with the struggle to increase crop yields.””

120. Chaise Guevara

Thanks Jai.

JV, please read Jai’s contribution as well.

121. the a&e charge nurse

[118] don’t you get it – theisms always have one group or another at each other’s throats (from the westbank to the subways of NYC).

It is extremely tedious when people seek to perpetuate untenable belief systems – why can’t they just grow up, then maybe we can all move on?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_LA47fuWc8&feature=related

122. Chaise Guevara

@ 121 a&e

Huh? We’re discussing the use of a particular word by people in a particular religion. It’s a trifle weird to accuse me of “not getting” another issue entirely on that basis.

123. the a&e charge nurse

Sorry, Chaise my comment wasn’t aimed at you.

I object to conflict driven by religious ideology.

In some respect I am still surprised that entire swathes of the population still buy into it – none of it is any different from the crazed ramblings of an ex-coventry goalkeeper.

No sane person gets too hung up on words used by ‘reptilians’ or ‘the illuminati’ – in time we should treat all religious formulations with exactly the same distain -especially when used to intimidate or harm people.

124. Chaise Guevara

@ 123 a&e

“Sorry, Chaise my comment wasn’t aimed at you.”

No problemo.

“I object to conflict driven by religious ideology.

In some respect I am still surprised that entire swathes of the population still buy into it – none of it is any different from the crazed ramblings of an ex-coventry goalkeeper.”

I feel much the same way. I suppose you mix a dash of wishful thinking with a swig of innate irrationality, mix it using the hand that rocks the cradle, and… presto! Religion!

“No sane person gets too hung up on words used by ‘reptilians’ or ‘the illuminati’ – in time we should treat all religious formulations with exactly the same distain -especially when used to intimidate or harm people.”

Agreed. Also quasi-religious stuff like horoscopes and the healing power of crystals.

125. just visiting

Chaise

So … you want me to read Jai’s source – but it’s clear you’ve not bothered to read it yourself!

If you’d read his page, you’d see that Robert Spencer’s is view diametrically opposed to yours !
He writes:

… the primary and foremost meaning of jihad in Islamic law does indeed involve violence.

If you’re happy to take Spencer as a source: this is very relevant to this thread regards criticising Islam and the racist word:


Q) Do you hate Muslims?
Spencer: Of course not.

Islam is not a monolith, and never have I said or written anything that characterizes all Muslims as terrorist or given to violence. To call attention to the roots and goals of jihad violence within Islamic texts and teachings, and to show how jihadists use those texts and teachings, says nothing at all about what any given Muslim believes or how he acts. Any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude is welcome to join in our anti-jihadist efforts…

Q) Are you deliberately ignoring more liberal schools of thought in Islam?
Spencer: Certainly not. Any Muslim individual or group who works for genuine reform of the Islamic doctrines, theological tenets and laws that Islamic jihadists use to justify violence, is to be commended. But this reform must be undertaken honestly and thoroughly, confronting the texts of the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira that are used to justify violence against unbelievers, and decisively rejecting Qur’anic literalism. Not all self-proclaimed moderates are truly moderate: many deny that these elements of Islam exist at all — hardly a promising platform for reform. It is important to make proper distinctions and speak honestly about the roots of the terrorist threat.

Anyway Chaise – back to you – you have still failed to name a single Islamic scholar or quote their words where they support your bold statement that:

> ‘I can tell you that “jihad” within Islam doesn’t mean “violence” or “holy war” or anything like that, although it can involve those things. ‘

126. Chaise Guevara

@ 125 JV

“If you’d read his page, you’d see that Robert Spencer’s is view diametrically opposed to yours !”

OK, this is like the sixth time you’ve lied about what my view is, even though I’ve corrected you every single time. My patience is at an end, so I’m done here.

127. Chaise Guevara

Oh, I’ll pause for a second to point out that I was 100% right in saying that, if I did provide the sources you asked for, you’d ignore them as you did the previous ones. Apparently I’m psychic. I’ll leave you to your lies now.

Chaise Guevara,

FYI: Firstly, “Just Visiting” is misquoting the first sentence from the aforementioned JihadWatch article. JV has only quoted part of the sentence. The full quote is as follows:

“It marks the first time an Islamist supremacist has ever acknowledged that — at least sometimes — jihad has something to do with terrorism. These guys spend all their time denying that there is any connection between the two, but as soon as I use the word in another sense, suddenly they’re assuming what they’ve spent eleven years denying: that the primary and foremost meaning of jihad in Islamic law does indeed involve violence”.

As you can see, the full unedited quote demonstrates that Spencer was referring to what he claims are “Islamist supremacists'” interpretation of the primary and foremost meaning of jihad. As per the lengthy quote I provided in comment no. 119 — taken from that same JihadWatch webpage — Spencer himself directly contradicts that interpretation, and claims that he has publicly done so hundreds of times. Spencer even cites Muslim theologians to back up his assertion that “jihad” actually has numerous meanings and doesn’t necessarily mean “violence” or “holy war”.

As for the second extract “Just Visiting” has quoted, taken from the “About Robert Spencer” page of JihadWatch, you can draw your own conclusions about the honesty of Spencer’s statements there, for the following reasons: A professional journalist has comprehensively documented the fact that Spencer’s anti-Muslim propaganda is identical to the Third Reich-era Nazi Julius Streicher’s anti-Semitic propaganda.

Even Spencer’s disingenuous arguments in his own defence are identical to Streicher’s statements at the time. It is worth noting that, during the Nuremburg Trials after WW2, the United States still convicted Streicher of crimes against humanity, due to the fact that his obsessive writings incited people to actively persecute Jews and effectively laid the groundwork for the Holocaust.

Link: http://middleclassdub.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/islamophobia-and-antisemitism-same.html

Article:

1. Muslims/Jews have a religious duty to conquer the world.

“Islam understands its earthly mission to extend the law of Allah over the world by force.”

Robert Spencer.

“Do you not know that the God of the Old Testament orders the Jews to consume and enslave the peoples of the earth?”

Julius Streicher.

2. The Left enables Muslims/Jews.

“The principal organs of the Left…has consistently been warm and welcoming toward Islamic supremacism.”

Robert Spencer.

“The communists pave the way for him (the Jew).”

Julius Streicher.

3. Governments do nothing to stop Muslims/Jews.

“FDI* acts against the treason being committed by national, state, and local government officials…in their capitulation to the global jihad and Islamic supremacism.”

(Freedom Defense Initiative, Robert Spencer/Pamela Geller organisation).

“The government allows the Jew to do as he pleases. The people expect action to be taken.”

Julius Streicher.

4. Muslims/Jews cannot be trusted.

“When one is under pressure, one may lie in order to protect the religion, this is taught in the Qur’an.”

Robert Spencer.

“We may lie and cheat Gentiles. In the Talmud it says: It is permitted for Jews to cheat Gentiles.”

From The Toadstool, children’s book published by Julius Streicher.

5. Recognizing the true nature of Muslims/Jews can be difficult.

“There is no reliable way for American authorities to distinguish jihadists and potential jihadists from peaceful Muslims.”

Robert Spencer.

“Just as it is often hard to tell a toadstool from an edible mushroom, so too it is often very hard to recognize the Jew as a swindler and criminal.”

From The Toadstool, children’s book published by Julius Streicher.

6. The evidence against Muslims/Jews is in their holy books.

“What exactly is ‘hate speech’ about quoting Qur’an verses and then showing Muslim preachers using those verses to exhort people to commit acts of violence, as well as violent acts committed by Muslims inspired by those verses and others?”

Robert Spencer.

“In Der Stuermer no editorial appeared, written by me or written by anyone of my main co-workers, in which I did not include quotations from the ancient history of the Jews, from the Old Testament, or from Jewish historical works of recent times.”

Julius Streicher.

7. Islamic/Jewish texts encourage violence against non-believers.

“’And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter…’ — 2:191.”

Koranic verse quoted by Robert Spencer on Jihadwatch.org.

“’And when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally: men and women and children, even the animals.’ (Deuteronomy 7:2.).”

Biblical verse quoted by Julius Streicher in Der Stuermer.

8. Christianity is peaceful while Islam/Judaism is violent.

“There is no Muslim version of ‘love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you’ or ‘if anyone strikes you on the right cheek turn to him the other also’.”

Robert Spencer.

“The Jew is not being taught, like we are, such texts as, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,’ or ‘If you are smitten on the left cheek, offer then your right one.’”

Julius Streicher.

9. Muslims/Jews are uniquely violent.

“(Islam) is the only major world religion with a developed doctrine and tradition of warfare against unbelievers.”

Robert Spencer.

“No other people in the world has such prophecies. No other people would dare to say that it was chosen to murder and destroy the other peoples and steal their possessions.”

Julius Streicher.

10. Criticising Muslims/Jews is not incitement to violence against Muslims/Jews.

“There is nothing in anything that I have ever written that could be reasonably construed as an incitement to violence against anyone.”

Robert Spencer.

“Allow me to add that it is my conviction that the contents of Der Stuermer as such were not (incitement). During the whole 20 years, I never wrote in this connection, ‘Burn Jewish houses down; beat them to death.’ Never once did such an incitement appear in Der Stuermer.”

Julius Streicher.

129. just visiting

128. Jai

Oh dear, your credibility is blown entirely by first quoting from Spencer to make your own own point, and when called up on it you than make a claims like that:

> A professional journalist has comprehensively documented the fact that Spencer’s anti-Muslim propaganda is identical to the Third Reich-era Nazi Julius Streicher’s anti-Semitic propaganda.

Ha ha. Identical eh? Did the Nazis also quote at length from the Quran and Hadith?

No, I thought not.

130. just visiting

And Jai

You must realise how silly it makes you look, to quote from Spencer in one post – because you think you agree with his words – and then in your next post to discredit him like this:

> you can draw your own conclusions about the honesty of Spencer’s statements there…

You really can’t discredit your own sources and not look silly!

131. just visiting

Chaise

> I was 100% right in saying that, if I did provide the sources you asked for, you’d ignore them as you did the previous ones. Apparently I’m psychic. I’ll leave you to your lies now.

Chaise – so much emotion and vitriol.

Let’s look at the facts.

i) So far you have not named in this thread an islamic scholar, nor quoted their words.
ii) the only supporting URL you have given is to the Jihad page on Wiki.
iii) you named some links from that page – I picked up the first one – it was not from an islamic source but from the BBC, and that page had nothing to support your statement
iv) you asked me to follow up the reference that Jai gives – I did and it showed that nothing Spencer says fits with your bold statement.
(and you look silly having allied yourself with Jai who is clearly an unthinking Islamic-apologist who criticises their own sources and uses empty arguments, that can be found across the internet, including stupid parallels to the Nazis).
iv) several times I have asked you to name an Islamic scholar and quote his words: where they say what you are saying.

So Chaise the onus is on you – put up or shut up.

Name the scholars and quote their words where they support your very bold statement:

> > ‘I can tell you that “jihad” within Islam doesn’t mean “violence” or “holy war” or anything like that, although it can involve those things. ‘

Or else admit that you’ve no such Islamic sources and rephrase your statement.

to quote from Spencer in one post – because you think you agree with his words – and then in your next post to discredit him like this:

> you can draw your own conclusions about the honesty of Spencer’s statements there…

You really can’t discredit your own sources and not look silly!

Robert Spencer is not one of “my own sources” when it comes to facts about Islam and Muslims. Far from it.

I quoted Robert Spencer in 119 because he is the co-leader of SION/SIOA/ADFI alongside Pamela Geller and is actually one of the people involved in creating the anti-Muslim ads in New York. My point was that Spencer himself is on record as publicly contradicting his own ads hundreds of times, specifically the ads’ implication that “jihad” means anything negative.

Similarly, it’s pointless for people to defend those ads by insisting that “jihad” primarily means “violence” or “holy war” and challenging others to cite Islamic scholars who claim otherwise…..considering that Robert Spencer, one of the main people involved in creating those ads, has himself publicly contradicted that assertion and has cited Islamic scholars to back up his statements.

So, Robert Spencer has discredited his own ads along with the arguments that people are making to defend them.

133. just visiting

Jai

> Robert Spencer is not one of “my own sources”

Sorry, but when you chose to quote him because you believe his words fit your argument, he is your source!

Hence it’s rather ironic when you then undermine the crediblity of his words saying ‘you can draw your own conclusions about the honesty of Spencer’s statements there’!

Either you use X’s words in your argument because you claim they are reliable: or you say that his words are not reliable and so can’t be used in a rational discussion.

But you can’t have it both ways !

134. just visiting

And Jai

> it’s pointless for people to defend those ads by insisting that “jihad” primarily means “violence” or “holy war”

But Jai – neither Chaise nor I had insisted that!
On the contrary Chaise was being insistent on the other side of the debate about Jihad!

That’s why it’s quite in accordance with normal rational discussion for Chaise to be asked to quote from named Islamic scholars where they backup his bold claim that:

> ‘I can tell you that “jihad” within Islam doesn’t mean “violence” or “holy war” or anything like that, although it can involve those things.‘


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Sabia

    Here's the video that's flying around twitter of Mona spray painting poster
    http://t.co/OB3hjew5
    Boom! Class act

  2. Glyn

    Wow – amazing footage of @monaeltahawy defacing *that* poster from Geller & Co, New York http://t.co/u5psTPeq. I like Mona 🙂

  3. Assem ????

    Wow – amazing footage of @monaeltahawy defacing *that* poster from Geller & Co, New York http://t.co/u5psTPeq. I like Mona 🙂

  4. Bashayer Albogami

    New York city police arrested the activist and writer @Monaeltahawy for defacing racist posters on the New York subway http://t.co/5EvfyhAV

  5. sunny hundal

    Here's the video that's flying around twitter of Mona spray painting poster
    http://t.co/OB3hjew5
    Boom! Class act

  6. Sami Zazai

    Here's the video that's flying around twitter of Mona spray painting poster
    http://t.co/OB3hjew5
    Boom! Class act

  7. Lee Edwards

    COMM2940 students: Promotional work: good or bad for society? Activist arrested for defacing poster in NY @libcon http://t.co/ryKxqfwy

  8. Debby Weller

    Here's the video that's flying around twitter of Mona spray painting poster
    http://t.co/OB3hjew5
    Boom! Class act

  9. ????????? Jana Mills

    Video: NYC police arrest activist @monaeltahawy for defacing racist poster http://t.co/LQYqVWqT – you go Mona!

  10. The Astell Project

    Here's the video that's flying around twitter of Mona spray painting poster
    http://t.co/OB3hjew5
    Boom! Class act

  11. Sarah Brown

    No particular problem with @sunny_hundal's take on posters, but not sure Mona Eltahawy's approach so very creditable
    http://t.co/PkWgqPiE

  12. anywavewilldo

    Here's the video that's flying around twitter of Mona spray painting poster
    http://t.co/OB3hjew5
    Boom! Class act

  13. Alice Skidmore

    Here's the video that's flying around twitter of Mona spray painting poster
    http://t.co/OB3hjew5
    Boom! Class act

  14. Fi

    Mona Eltahawy arrested for defacing posters inciting racism http://t.co/zVT2kuQM #NewYork

  15. Abu Sultan

    Video: NYC police arrest activist @monaeltahawy for defacing racist poster http://t.co/LQYqVWqT – you go Mona!

  16. Philip

    I don't understand why so many Americans are proud to be American when they let this sort of thing go on… http://t.co/3RH2F1ge

  17. waterwynd

    Watch: Police arrest Mona Eltahawy for defacing #Bachmann Supporter's Racist poster in #NYC @sunny_hundal http://t.co/nYn8jzPc #liberal #ows

  18. Abu Sultan

    Watch: Police arrest @monaeltahawy for defacing racist poster in NY | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/eas25c2S via @libcon #MySubwayAd

  19. sunny hundal

    Last night writer and activist @monaeltahawy was arrested for defacing racist posters in New York http://t.co/LQYqVWqT

  20. Aylesbury SP

    RT @sunny_hundal Last night writer and activist @monaeltahawy was arrested for defacing racist posters in New York http://t.co/U1hQ2gwA

  21. Bod

    Last night writer and activist @monaeltahawy was arrested for defacing racist posters in New York http://t.co/LQYqVWqT

  22. MerseyMal

    Last night writer and activist @monaeltahawy was arrested for defacing racist posters in New York http://t.co/LQYqVWqT

  23. Mark Sutherland

    Last night writer and activist @monaeltahawy was arrested for defacing racist posters in New York http://t.co/LQYqVWqT

  24. Ian stone

    Watch: Police arrest Mona Eltahawy for defacing racist poster in NY | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/3SJm3oW8 via @libcon

  25. Richard Doherty

    Last night writer and activist @monaeltahawy was arrested for defacing racist posters in New York http://t.co/LQYqVWqT

  26. Hayley Moseley

    RT @sunny_hundal: Last night writer and activist @monaeltahawy was arrested for defacing racist posters in New York http://t.co/Dn0xdWWU

  27. Fawzia K

    Go Ahead Mona we all support U=>http://t.co/yNYPuZ8k

  28. David Jackson

    Here's the video that's flying around twitter of Mona spray painting poster
    http://t.co/OB3hjew5
    Boom! Class act

  29. Nind

    Last night writer and activist @monaeltahawy was arrested for defacing racist posters in New York http://t.co/LQYqVWqT

  30. Hamish MacPherson

    “@sunny_hundal: Last night writer and activist @monaeltahawy..arrested for defacing racist posters in [NY] http://t.co/QLvz9y5j” #goosebumps

  31. Denise Marie

    Last night writer and activist @monaeltahawy was arrested for defacing racist posters in New York http://t.co/LQYqVWqT

  32. Doilum

    Last night writer and activist @monaeltahawy was arrested for defacing racist posters in New York http://t.co/LQYqVWqT

  33. Alia Waheed

    Last night writer and activist @monaeltahawy was arrested for defacing racist posters in New York http://t.co/LQYqVWqT

  34. Carl G

    Last night writer and activist @monaeltahawy was arrested for defacing racist posters in New York http://t.co/LQYqVWqT

  35. Daniel

    friend @monaeltahawy was arrested in NY yesterday for defacing subway poster depicting Muslims as "Savages". http://t.co/PMX1Ypuu #FreeMona

  36. Mike Yule

    Watch: Police arrest Mona Eltahawy for defacing racist poster in NY | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/wPj3QYQk via @libcon

  37. Stacy Boldrick

    Here's the video that's flying around twitter of Mona spray painting poster
    http://t.co/OB3hjew5
    Boom! Class act

  38. Padbrit

    Last night writer and activist @monaeltahawy was arrested for defacing racist posters in New York http://t.co/LQYqVWqT

  39. childchild

    friend @monaeltahawy was arrested in NY yesterday for defacing subway poster depicting Muslims as "Savages". http://t.co/PMX1Ypuu #FreeMona

  40. Claudia

    Watch: Police arrest Mona Eltahawy for defacing racist poster in NY | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/K8fsmb5x via @libcon

  41. Seph Brown

    Ignoring its original source, I really like the term "IslamoREALISM." We should definitely reclaim it: http://t.co/HIYzLPqK (via @LibCon)

  42. Abdallah Alnaggar

    Watch: Police arrest Mona Eltahawy for defacing racist poster in NY http://t.co/9ueTigA5 #FreeMona #USA #israel #Racism #terrorism #NY

  43. Ammar Ali Farishta

    Police arrest Mona Eltahawy for defacing racist poster | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/2kwOi58W via @libcon

  44. Alintisar

    Incredibly racist ads plastered around #NYC – woman gets arrested for protesting against them http://t.co/YalX8qHS #freemona

  45. Tom Mcnally

    Incredibly racist ads plastered around #NYC – woman gets arrested for protesting against them http://t.co/YalX8qHS #freemona

  46. La Voz de la Mujer

    http://t.co/1U2N1it3 http://t.co/GFJ8duLz

  47. Clash Between Oppression And Freedom In A New York City Subway Walkway « Anne's POWER SURGE Blog

    […] Watch: Police arrest Mona Eltahawy for defacing racist poster in NY (liberalconspiracy.org) […]

  48. BrokermanDaniel

    Police arrest Mona Eltahawy for defacing racist poster | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/MS1dUzzE via @libcon

  49. Watson-Rodrigues

    Really saddened to see @sunny_hundal conflating religion with race. Watch the video, Mona Eltahawy was violent

    http://t.co/Sk5dfsYT

  50. Free speech, civil disobedience and why we should abolish the libel laws | Libertarian Home

    […] the libel laws September 30, 2012By Richard CareyOver at Liberal Conspiracy, I was arguing on a thread concerning the arrest of Mona Eltahawy, who was in the process of defacing a poster in the New York subway. The poster was, according to […]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.