How the EDL has split self-styled ‘anti-jihadis’


2:50 pm - July 5th 2013

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

Last week two American ‘hate-bloggers’ were barred from entering the UK after intense lobbying from the anti-fascist group Hope Not Hate. There has been much criticism of the ban, though it follows in the heels of Muslim clerics such as Zakir Naik and Al-Qaradawi getting similar treatment.

But the decision to keep out Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer has also sparked off a deliciously acrimonious bout of arguments in the world of the self-styled ‘anti-jihadis’.

The duo were invited to speak at an English Defence League rally this month. The leader of the EDL was merely returning the favour after both bloggers raised money for Tommy Robinson when he was arrested for allegedly trying to enter the US on a fake passport.

As Pamela Geller put it then: “Robinson and Kevin Carroll are part of our international team”. This is true – the leading EDL thugs are part of the ‘Stop Islamization of Nations’ (SION) Presidents Council, a group co-founded by Geller and Spencer.

While many Americans who were earlier part of the ‘anti-jihadi’ network abandoned them for their growing links to the far-right, most notably Charles Johnson, many British friends of Geller and Spencer had remained quiet.

But the UK ban finally forced them to confront the uncomfortable issue. One such friend is the Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips, who could not bite her tongue for much longer. In a recent blog-post she lambasted the American duo (while condemning the govt for barring them):

I do not support the approach taken by either Geller or Spencer to the problem of Islamic extremism. Both have endorsed groups such as the EDL and others which at best do not deal with the thuggish elements in their ranks and at worst are truly racist or xenophobic. The result has been a serious blow to the credibility of these two writers, with particular damage being done to Spencer whose scholarship in itself is scrupulous.

The duo wasted no time in hitting back at Phillips.

Another admirer is the Henry Jackson Society’s senior associate Douglas Murray. A few years ago…

Spencer was invited to supper by Murray of the Centre for Social Cohesion when he visited England last autumn, only for the evening to break up before it had even started when a bunch of EDL skinheads turned up at the restaurant, invited along by a supporter of Spencer who was making a video about him and had been interviewing them, too.

Douglas Murray briefly blogged about the decision to ban Spencer and Geller but didn’t mention they were coming here to an EDL rally.

He said in a debate two years ago: “I happen to know Robert Spencer, and I respect him. He’s a very brilliant scholar and writer”. To be clear, I’ve not seen Murray write about or praise Pamela Geller.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

It’s amusing to hear both Phillips and Murray praise the credibility of Robert Spencer, since he works with a blogger who wrote about the “well known” claim that “Obama allegedly was involved with a crack whore in his youth”, that he was Malcolm X’s love-child, and that he is a Muslim (reportedly discussed at least 267 times). Clearly Robert Spencer chooses his friends carefully.

In fact it has been pointed out by several bloggers that both Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller have published negative stories about Muslims that were untrue.

A key member of their Stop Islamization of America group called for the burning of all US mosques and deporting all American Muslims immediately. I can’t establish if he is still part of it.

The latest incident also set off long-running arguments. In 2011 a report published by an anti-sharia group called One Law for All, headed by the Iranian activist Maryam Namazie, said that the far-right was attempting to “hijack opposition to Islamism for its own ends” – pointing to the BNP, EDL and Stop Islamisation of Europe/America. Irked by her criticism, Robert Spencer now regularly refers to Ms Namazie as “pro-fascism” simply because she dares to criticise Israel along with Hamas.

While all this infighting is fun to watch, there is also a serious point here. The vile generalisations and demonisation of Muslims peddled by the likes of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer is widely read and influences people. The anti-Islam terrorist Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 people in Norway on July 2011, repeatedly cited Melanie Phillips, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer in his manifesto.

But this is also about their hypocrisy. The likes of Melanie Phillips and Douglas Murray refuse to shun Robert Spencer despite his and Geller’s close associations with the racist and thuggish EDL. But they would be screaming from the top of their lungs if a political opponent had associated so closely with the likes of al-Muhajiroun.

    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


1. Richard Carey

@ Sunny,

“after intense lobbying from the anti-fascist group Hope Not Hate.”

Don’t do yourself down, Sunny, you played your part too.

So are you in favour of the banning Sunny or against it?

In two articles you haven’t said which for a Liberal Conspirator seems rather strange.

Hmm.

I’m embarrassed that the UK kept these clowns out; I would prefer that any idiot short of actual terror-plotters would be allowed in to be righteously humiliated, rather than pointlessly martyred.

Mel’s comment is actually, and uncharacteristically, measured and what we all think about idiots who happen to be on one’s own side.

I wonder how many of you who cry free speech in this case, kept silent while Scallywag was driven out of business by the Tories. I also wonder how many of you would whine about ‘free speech’ if some Islamist nutjob was banned from entering the UK. None, I’d wager. Double standards all the way.

Robert Spencer now regularly refers to Ms Namazie as “pro-fascism” simply because she dares to criticise Israel along with Hamas.

Silly Spencer, he forgot to put the word ‘objectively’ in front of ‘Pro-Fascist’.

buddyhell, care to name an “Islamist nutjob” who doesn’t support and advocate terrorism, before asking anyone whether they should be allowed into the UK?

@6

Point gloriously missed. Bravo.

8. Shatterface

The latest incident also set off long-running arguments. In 2011 a report published by an anti-sharia group called One Law for All, headed by the Iranian activist Maryam Namazie, said that the far-right was attempting to “hijack opposition to Islamism for its own ends”

The reason why they are able to hijack oposition to Islamism is that people like yourself are denying it’s a problem: in the last week this blog has had genuine terrorist attacks dismissed as ‘random murders’ and ‘workplace violence’ as if ideology played no part at all.

Good points Shatterface.

The hypocrisy of the far left, best illustrated by Galloway and the SWP, now seems to be infiltrating whatever middle of the road politics Sunny feels he’s occupying.

10. Richard Carey

@ 4 BH

“I wonder how many of you who cry free speech in this case…”

Even if your ad hom attack is correct and some of us are hypocrits, it doesn’t change the fact that free speech has been violated, which should bother the *real* (non-hypocrit) liberals.

I’d just like to refer to the last paragraph of Sunni’s post. He seems to fail to realise that many prominent figures associate with terror apologists far worse than Geller. George Galloway is a proud apologist for righteous violence, even indescriminate. Ken Livingstone is not much better, with his comments as well as his being happy to work for PressTV. Jeremy Corbyn was happy to positively support Raed Salah.

Some of these politicians, and others, have been happy to shake hands with the Hamas PM in the Gaza strip.

12. Matthew Blott

Interesting stuff although as usual Sunny Hundal equates the former football hooligans of the EDL who enjoy drinking and fighting with a bit of casual working class bigotry thrown in and Al Muhajiroun – a banned extremist organisation who want to create a worldwide caliphate with links to international terrorism.

13. dissident

I’m perplexed… If you’re anti the antijihad movement than are you pro jihad? Hmm… All in the name of equality?

Everyone says Brevik cited the counterjihadists… No dispute there… Do those very same people not look at the Jihadists who cite repeatedly the Quran & Hadiths which state clearly “subjugation” of the non Muslim & the desire/order to establish “supremacy” of the all encompassing ever encroaching system of life known as Islam? Also unlike the Old Testament theocratic way of life which has been abandoned, Islam & their propagators aka islamists wish to enforce their theocracy. Also unlike the Old Testament to an extent the Quran/Hadiths could be said to be a hate manual with silly superstitions against explicit modern day groups.

Islam is in IMO no better than any other political system be it communism or fascism as exhibited in 57 countries. So why the desire to commit suicide defending something that views you as worthless & has no reciprocation?

This is something the left have to work out… You don’t fight white supremacism (an outdated/outmoded suicidal belief system in itself) & all it’s associations etc by supporting Islamist totalitarian theocrats who are arabist & racist themselves… Why isn’t the Quran allowed to be taken in non Arabic?, why do they have to face Mecca? Why are the Sauds & than other southern Arabs considered “top dog”? Do the white western left really believe Arabs can’t be racist & ethnic exclusivist towards Asians & Africans peoples whom they originally enslaved?

Bye comrades…

Despite Murray’s equivocal role, shadow cabinet ministers are still happy HJS meetings at Westminster:
http://henryjacksonsociety.org/2013/06/26/in-scotlands-defence-an-assessment-of-snp-defence-strategy/

So, basically, Sunny complacently assumes that there would be an outcry were a columnist to associate, in any way, with the Iskamic equivalent of Geller. But he seems to forget that not mere commentators but actual MP’s and members of the House of Lords can and do associate with people worse than Geller without fearing any censure – at least from Sunny so far as I know.

And Al-Marijahoun/MDL/whatever, are NOT the equivalent of Geller, they are the equivalent of total Nazi’s. In fact, even chauvinistic Muslims and various types of “Islamist” Muslims are happy to condemn Anjem Choudry – he is even harder for someone to support than, say, Nick Griffin.

The real measure of hypocrisy is the normalcy in the UK of people like Zakir Naik, who has his own tv channel and whose material is/was readily distributed at mosques. The real measure is the lobby that are “all Hezbollah/Hamas now”. The real measure is the invitation of Jusuf Al Qaradawi by Ken Livingstone and that this is a non-issue – Livingstone can’t plead ignorance since he stuck to his guns. The real measure is the visits to Hamas leaders by prominent, friendly, mainstream politicians. The real measure is that tired old saw about Mehdi Hasan; the very fact that a lay preacher with conservative social values (who tends, also, to have the right wing habit of taking the sides in current affairs that one would EXPECT his particular religious identity group to take) is considered “left wing” is a measure of the fact that while 1 variation on the “Right” – the old fashioned British Right (and the Right of “allied” or “similar” countries) is subjected to great scrutiny and even some stigma – which is maybe a good thing, other variations of the “Right” (eg. “foreign” or implicitly anti-British ideologies) escape that scrutiny, that instinctive left-wing revulsion, entirely; which cannot be a good thing.

This affects even me. I remember with shame the time I asked sneering, searchung questions of an American Christian missionary, even though he was friendly and wanted a social conversation. Yet whenever I encounter a Muslim enthusiastic about introducing his religion, I am careful – as I should be – not to upset him. Or her. Which is fine on a personal level, but problematic on a national scale, if mainstream commentators also give barmy Islamic apologists a free pass.

That’s the measure of our national hypocrisy.

Shadow ministers, I should say.

Matthew Blott; that’s what I was trying to say.

18. dissident

I’ve noticed the Lefts hypocrisy mainly come from the middle to upperclasses aka the Bourgeois Bohemian Bolsheviks (Owen Jones,Sunny Hundal,Polly Toynbee,Glen Greenwald etc) & their arrogant supremacist snobbery & pathological hatred towards those they consider “culturally inferior” an extreme cultural cringe & an opportunistic “selling out” pseudo self hatred with an actual ponzi scheme(using the lower classes) self harming… Those characters & more are perfectly conscious of their behaviour but don’t give a damn because they arrogantly think if they keep on repeating the “equality,diversity & multicultural” mantra they can occupy the high ground whilst still feathering their own nest aka “the grass is greener on the otherside” at our expenses…

Rather a bit convoluted but who cares… I’m sure you get the gist of it…

@11 CBinTH, @12 MatthewBlott @13 dissident

Excellent posts and where is the Liberal Conspirator when a response is required?

Some good comments above, liking CBinTH, doesn’t leave much more to be said.

Ok then!
The EDL may have a few thugs, but then most groups do, but the UAF, the convenient boot boyz, who you see at EDL marches are like animals, almost frothing at the mouth with hate, but as they’re the “good guys” their violence & stopping the EDL’s freedom of speech is ok!!

Have a funny video.
Interview with the U A F
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G5UYg2zbEac#!

NSA have passed on this email:-

Tommyrobinson@edlthugs.co.uk

Hi Tommy

I find myself in a slight spot of bother, and I was wondering if you might be able to help.

I’ve gone on record as saying that the left should be campaigning against Muslim extremists as vigorously as we do against you guys (link here http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/left-should-mobilise-against-religious-extremism-well-far-right). This has proved to be inconvenient for various reasons, which I don’t want to develop at present. It would be a really big help though if I could prove that you are as bad, or even worse than the Al Qaeda/Taliban wannabes that have appeared in British society of late.

I know that suicide vests and even bombs aren’t really your thing. Low-level thuggery, like kicking Asian shop-keepers, shouting Paki! and having punch ups with the UAF are more your style, like the football hooligans that you are. But couldn’t you please leave a bomb, even a little one somewhere? You not leaving bombs is doing my credibility no good at all when I’m desperate to prove that you are equal in causing general mayhem as a jihadist.

I mean, even after the Woolwich incident, all you did was try and hold a rally and some sympathiser was arrested for walking near a mosque with bacon on his head. That really is not good enough. I don’t ask that you go the whole tube and bus route, or even being a home made nail bomb in the vicinity of Choudary and his mates (like here http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/10/six-would-be-terrorists-edl-jailed). But perhaps a dummy bomb planted near some Islamic centre?

If you can’t make a bomb, there are sites on the internet that can help you. I know a lot of your members can’t read, but I could help you out there.

I could also supply machetes for you to slash off the head of one of those hate preacher guys while simultaneously singing God Save the Queen, I promise this incident will not be dismissed as “random” and if one of you manages to mow down a bunch of Muslim colleagues (especially during Ramadan), I swear I will not wave this aside as “workplace violence.”

It’s a big ask I know. But my credibility is at stake. If you follow this link (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/left-should-mobilise-against-religious-extremism-well-far-right) (use the mouse in your right hand and click) you will see that I do say in relation to groups and societies that invite rabid xenophobes to address them that they “shouldn’t be banned – after all we must value free speech”. Ahha, I hear you growl. Worrabout your petition against Spencer and Geller who were coming to speak to us? – but you can see the difference, can’t you?

Kind regards

Sunny Hundal
Liberal Conspiracy

What evidence do you have of the EDL being racist exactly?
If anyone is ‘racist and thuggish as you put it,then it is quite clearly the UAF.

23. Just Visiting

Hey Sunny

there is Robert Spencer.

Then there are the Islamists.

No comparison – as this news today indicates:

“A British TV channel has been fined £105,000 after it aired a live lecture by an Islamic scholar who allegedly advocated killing people who insult the prophet Muhammad.


The Islamic scholar can be heard telling his audience: “I hail those who made this law [Pakistan’s blasphemy law] which states that one who insults the Prophet deserves to be killed – such a person should be eliminated.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jul/05/dm-digital-fined-ofcom

24. Just Visiting

this posting of Spencer’s is worth a read – it’s hard to write it off, as it’s mostly

“A conversation with a Leftist activist”

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/07/a-conversation-with-a-leftist-activist.html

Potter: Your attacks on Islam are belittling and hurtful to Muslims in the same ways that attacks on the bible, Catholicism, and Christianity are belittling to their believers.

Spencer: So you think that Christopher Hitchens’ attacks on Christianity are just as bad as my writings? Do you think there is any place for criticism of a religion, or do you think that religions should be off-limits to criticism? I am a Christian myself and don’t think that attacks on the Bible or the faith are in the least belittling as such — in fact, I welcome them. If one’s faith can’t withstand critics and criticism, then I am not sure it is worth holding.

Potter: I could very easily point out the correlation between violence against Homosexuals in America and Christianity, especially because it is supported by scripture.

Spencer: Could you really? Could you point me to a case where someone attacked a homosexual and quoted scripture to justify it? I can give you 1000 cases (and more) where Muslims killed someone and quoted Qur’an to justify it. Is it wrong to point out that they do that? Is it belittling? And if you come back and say, “No, but you tar all Muslims with responsibility and guilt for such instances,” I would ask you to provide even one example where I’ve actually done that.

25. Caweye Severn

@22.
Bitwise objects in computer applications can do what you’ve done i.e. point at others

26. Caweye Severn

@23.
You link to a post written by Robert Spencer. Do you really think that “it’s hard to write it off”

27. Just Visiting

Hi Caweye

It’s late on a Friday- can you help me out, and make your point a little more easy to grasp.

Thanks

Did someone post this on an EDL forum or something? Christ, I support you ‘anti-jihadist’ twats’ right to be twats, but could you please do it somewhere else? So much bigoted loonery.

(the Ugandan minister seeking execution for gays cited Leviticus in his speech, incidentally)

Note to all the people on here defending Spencer and Geller:

Even Mad Mel disagrees with you.

That should really tell you something.

[Apparently necessary caveats: I oppose the banning of aforementioned arseholes (NB by a Tory home secretary), and yes, I’ll happily condemn assorted Islamist psychos and hate-preachers.]

@10

“Even if your ad hom attack is correct and some of us are hypocrits, it doesn’t change the fact that free speech has been violated, which should bother the *real* (non-hypocrit) liberals”.

“Ad hom attack”? You’re being a little hysterical, dude.

I bet you wouldn’t have said the same thing when Louis Farrakhan was denied entry to the UK in 1986 and has been refused entry ever since.

Double standards. That isn’t an “ad hom”, my friend that’s an observation.

@18

Hysterical tosh. Grow up.

Did someone post this on an EDL forum or something? Christ, I support you ‘anti-jihadist’ twats’ right to be twats, but could you please do it somewhere else?

People, could you please have a different view to me somewhere else, is what you are asking? 😆

31what ob, said

34. Richard Carey

@ 29 BH,

‘“Ad hom attack”? You’re being a little hysterical, dude.’

This is also an ad hom attack. You obviously can’t help yourself. Besides, there’s nothing hysterical in the comment I made.

‘I bet you wouldn’t have said the same thing when Louis Farrakhan was denied entry to the UK in 1986’

How on earth do you deduce this? Back in the ’80s as a teenage Public Enemy fan, the chances are I would have been against the ban, as I am now. So you’ve lost your bet.

“That isn’t an “ad hom”, my friend that’s an observation.”

It is not an observation, it is an imputed assumption which happens to be false, attacking the person who you disagree with, rather than deal with the real point at issue.

People, could you please have a different view to me somewhere else, is what you are asking?

Short version: yes. If you’re going to talk bigoted Spencer-ish wank, why not go to Bigoted Right Wing Conspiracy rather than poisoning the well here (the ‘Liberal’ in the name being a clue)?

36. the a&e charge nurse

[27] yet, didn’t you have sleepless nights over Abu Qatada – fretting that his agenda to promote violence and uber intolerance might not continue unabashed at the tax payers expense?
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/02/19/sorry-but-abu-qatada-deserves-the-compo/

How many spanish commuters have been murdered by geller or spencer, eh?

35.
I followed the link that you provided and noted that you seem to be obsessed with taxpayers’ money at the expense of proper legal process.
Aren’t you pleased that no money will be spent on policing S & G as they go from one TV station to another picking up fees for appearances?

38. the a&e charge nurse

[36] a lot of things were said on that thread yet you choose to focus on a secondary issue (the money rather than the violence) but then again blinkered inattention to islamic extremism is simply par for the course amongst some liberals.

Yes I mentioned the millions spent on the case – I was just surprised that his mates on the islamic terror network did not stump up to help maintain the international promotion of jew, women and gay hating, but apparently they prefer the very people they despise to pay for that.

Still at least geller and spencer have been rebuffed while liberal apologist for islamic violence jump and down excitedly – now if only we could get people we don’t like arrested for the heinous crime of walking along a London street.

37.
You have obviously got a warped opinion. Do you think that someone who goes to an area that he has been warned to stay away from by the police shouldn’t be arrested if he walks to that area?
Do you think that someone who has had a Civil Court injunction warning them to stay away from the area where their partner lives should be able to ignore the order?
Do you think that people who persistently cause public nuisance in the centre of a city shouldn’t be banned from that city’s main streets?

I am not an apologist for any extremist group. I detest violence inflicted on people by hate peddlers of all kinds and that includes State sanctioned violence.

“The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today is my own government.” – Martin Luther King.

40. the a&e charge nurse

[38] ‘Do you think that someone who goes to an area that he has been warned to stay away from by the police shouldn’t be arrested if he walks to that area?’ – if the likes of Martin L King had followed the very course you are advocating (blind deference to authority) the civil rights movement would have been held back even longer.

Robinson may not be on every persons christmas card list but like any other citizen, he and his mate, no matter how obnoxious that mate might be, should have the right to walk along a London street, and should not be deterred from doing so because it might give offense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-IX69mjpcA

39.
There is a big difference between ‘blind deference to authority’ and accepting the fact that hate groups want to deny* the rights of others and as a consequence there are laws in place to try a prevent disorder in public places.

* The civil rights movement in the USA was founded to gain rights of equal citizenship and respect and dignity.

42. Shatterface

You have obviously got a warped opinion. Do you think that someone who goes to an area that he has been warned to stay away from by the police shouldn’t be arrested if he walks to that area?
Do you think that someone who has had a Civil Court injunction warning them to stay away from the area where their partner lives should be able to ignore the order?Do you think that people who persistently cause public nuisance in the centre of a city shouldn’t be banned from that city’s main streets?

Those really aren’t the same thing: the second and third are to prevent the banned person from (potentially) committing an offence while the first is to prevent other people committing a violent offence against the person who is being banned.

The police should not be arresting people because they are too fucking lazy, too fucking cowardly and/or too fucking corrupt to protect their right to walk down the street.

43. Shatterface

The civil rights movement in the USA was founded to gain rights of equal citizenship and respect and dignity.

And how far would the civil rights movement have got if their protests were dependent on the permission of the police?

The fact is that there are some people who bask in the reflected power of authority because it makes them feel stronger: doesn’t matter if its a rightwing government, a leftwing government, a theocracy, a tribal warlord or a village chieftain, if they can cheer on the winning side it compensates for their own personal inadequacies.

42.
The civil rights movement had the cause of justice and equal rights for all citizens of the USA.

45. the a&e charge nurse

[40] ‘There is a big difference between ‘blind deference to authority’ and accepting the fact that hate groups want to deny* the rights of others’ – yes, that’s the problem, groups wanting to deny the rights of others,especially if you are gay, jewish or femael.

Cartoon villains like our tommy and micky mouse organisations like the EDL do little but distract from the every day chauvenism and violence that have always been part and parcel of religious ideology.

34 John b, so a liberal is someone who doesn’t want to listen to a different point of view!!

44.
That is why laws have been enacted in the UK to prevent discrimination of the groups that you mention.
There are hate groups that want to take away the rights of individuals to be free to follow a religion.
There are ‘pro-life’ extremists who cheer whenever some doctors or nurses are murdered in the USA.

Don’t let extremists get their way.
Be pro-liberty and liberal but don’t go so extreme that you give rights to people who wish to do harm.

41.
Yes. The head of police is too lazy to put the lives of officers and civilians at risk.

48. Paul peter Smith

Ceiliog
You defend the notion that the police should prevent people being in places because the locals may be offended then quote MLK? Two words to quickly google – Rosa Parks.

47.
Where do I state that anyone was prevented from being somewhere “because the locals may be offended”?
I have a copy of David J. Garrow’s biography of Martin Luther King Jr. so I’m well aware of the Montgomery Bus Boycott and I cannot find any similarities with that historic event and the recent decisions of the Chief of the Metropolitan Police and the Home Secretary.

50. douglas clark

Sunny,

There is no ‘side’ to be had here. It is as reasonable to allow these people to come into our country and, almost certainly, be made fools of as it is to exclude them. You know I have no truck with their views.

You should trust your fellow Brits a bit more than you seem to here.

51. Paul peter Smith

Ceiliog
You excused police intervention on the grounds of ‘people being where they shouldn’t’ in post 38 and quoted MLK shortly after.
Just to be absolutely clear, I dont compare the harrassment of a football hooligan and a demagogue with the birth of the civil rights movement proper. Except where basic principles of actual freedom apply!

50.
I did not post an excuse and I did not state that the two were arrested “because the locals may be offended”.
http://twitpic.com/czezn4/full

53. Paul peter Smith

Ceiliog – thanks for the link
With respect… “Do you think some one who goes to an area that he has been warned to stay away from by the police, shouldn’t be arrested if he walks into that area?” Not neccessarily, see Rosa Parks example.
And I’m afraid that by generally supporting the spirit of the propaganda above you also condoned the arrest of the top thug and main mouthpiece of a minority.

53.
I do not see any similarity.
By all means debate as if it’s a matter of freedom and rights of reasonable people.
I have never compared Rosa Parks with a “top thug” and I have no wish to make a comparison.

55. Paul peter Smith

Ceiliog
I’m sorry if I confused you by cross-referencing two threads on the same site that you expressed strong opinions about. You didn’t compare Rosa Parks with anybody and neither did I. Except when it comes basic rights like true equality, assumed dignity and the freedom to complain in an insulting and ineffetive way.

56. Paul peter Smith

Ceiliog
And before you start, the ‘ complaining in an insulting and ineffective way’ refers to the EDL amd not Rosa Parks whose protest was defined by dignity AND effectiveness.

57. Richard Carey

Going back to the title of the post, let’s have a quick show of hands: which of you is not anti-jihadi? In other words, which of you actually supports holy war on the infidel, apostate and heretic? I would have thought most people were against this, given the number of atrocities committed in the name of jihad, such as the murder of 30 children in northern Nigeria the other day.

I bet all of you think that a terrible crime, and all of you know it was done in the name of jihad, seeking to impose sharia law. So why the cognitive dissonance when someone states this simple truth?

58. the a&e charge nurse

[57] So why the cognitive dissonance when someone states this simple truth? – there is a dissonance, at least Fisk thinks there is.

Fisk says, ‘but this was not the rubric followed in the Oxford case. For here – desperate to use the word “Muslim”, but clearly unable to do so for fear that those who safeguard our moral values (or who safeguard those values they find of use) will jump upon us for our presumed racism, fascism, Islamophobia and neo-Nazi tendencies – reporters plumped for a supposedly safer word. The criminals were members of an “Asian gang”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/we-british-go-out-of-our-way-to-avoid-using-the-word-muslim-8693702.html

People do not suddenly become racists, they are already so and fear being unmasked – the tolerance of religiously inspired lunacy by those who really should know better goes hand in hand with fear of their internal dialogue ever being subject to scrutiny.

the tolerance of religiously inspired lunacy by those who really should know better goes hand in hand with fear of their internal dialogue ever being subject to scrutiny.
—-

The world gets fucked up because a few little boys are scared of what mummy would think.

@34.

“This is also an ad hom attack. You obviously can’t help yourself. Besides, there’s nothing hysterical in the comment I made”.

Nope, you can’t simply cry “ad hominem” every time someone disagrees with you or exposes the weaknesses in your ‘argument’. Try again.

“How on earth do you deduce this? Back in the ’80s as a teenage Public Enemy fan, the chances are I would have been against the ban, as I am now. So you’ve lost your bet”.

You deliberately forget that this is the Internet. I only have your word that you were a “teenage” Public Enemy fan.

“It is not an observation, it is an imputed assumption which happens to be false, attacking the person who you disagree with, rather than deal with the real point at issue”.

No, it isn’t and what this tells me is that you’re incapable of robust debate and cry foul whenever it gets a little heated. Tough. Grow up.

I would have thought most people were against this, given the number of atrocities committed in the name of jihad

Well obviously I and virtually everyone here will be “anti-jihad” in this sense.

Similarly, Richard Carey, I imagine you count your self both a liberal and a democrat. But are you a Liberal Democrat?

Or, do you support fascism? No? So you’re an “Antifascist” then. You and Richard Seymour and the SWP. Nice bedfellows you’ve got there…

The point is that political labels generally carry baggage beyond the mere dictionary definition of their constituent words. (See also “pro-white”, “national socialist”, etc.)

So the reason I don’t count myself Anti-Jihad, in capitals if you like, is that that would imply that I share the political priorities of the likes of Spencer/Geller/Wilders/Phillips.

62. Shatterface

Don’t let extremists get their way.
Be pro-liberty and liberal but don’t go so extreme that you give rights to people who wish to do harm.

Actually, I do give rights to people who wish to do me harm: rights to free speech, to free association, to fair trials, to humane treatment if convicted, etc. The fact they might not extend those rights to me is irrelevant.

That’s not the same as giving someone the right to do me harm.

The right to walk the street unmolested by other members of the public or arbitrary detention by the police would fall within the first catagory of right.

62.
In which country or state do you have the authority to grant rights? If you are not the lawmaker in your country you appear to be following a general sense of what is considered fair. All societies have restrictions and some members of society have personal responsibilties, or powers, that include placing others in danger and protecting others from danger. You may think that it is acceptable to allow those with extreme views to go wherever they please and maybe the country that you have legal power over has a laws that are ultra-liberal.

I did not post the comment expecting it to be read as if it was to be taken literally on all occasions. Hey ho.

64. Paul peter Smith

Ceiliog
You raised a very interesting point, whether literal or not:
” in which country or state do you have the authority to grant rights?”
Genuine question – where do rights come from and why do you assume the ‘state’ is automatically the most reliable custodian of those right’s?

65. Just Visiting

Ceiliog

your writing is becoming less conprehensible.

> All societies have restrictions and some members of society have personal responsibilties, or powers, that include placing others in danger and protecting others from danger.

What on earth is that about?

> You may think that it is acceptable to allow those with extreme views to go wherever they please

This is Liberal Conspiracy. Yes it is acceptable (within the bounds that they do not incite violence).

> and maybe the country that you have legal power over has a laws that are ultra-liberal.

Your meaning is buried.
It’s not early on a Monday night – if you want your points to be heard and weighed up, it would be worth making them as straightforward as you can.

66. Just Visiting

It’s interesting just how far Robert Fisk has moved in the last few years: from his Independent article linked to above:

> the misogynistic, patriarchal world in which so many Muslims do indeed live – the treatment and equality of women within Islam is, I can assure you, a live subject in the Middle East –

64.
Indeed, there are many who have questioned the basic meaning of law.

65.
I was thinking of a chief of police.
What do you mean by “within the bounds that they do not incite violence”?
Do not expect any law or any statement about law to be irrefutable. Thou shalt not kill?

68. Just Visiting

Ceiliog

> I was thinking of a chief of police.

Ok, in the future, best to be clear and give that kind of helpful detail.

> What do you mean by “within the bounds that they do not incite violence”? Do not expect any law or any statement about law to be irrefutable. Thou shalt not kill?

Hey, I was trying to help you be clear about your 63 – don’t change tack and turn it into a side alley about the side issue in my words!

Back to 63 – if you want us to understand your argument – would you be able now to re-post it, with as much clarity as you can?

Look forward to understanding your views.

68.
I thought that is was fair of me to ask what you think is an incitement to violence.

70. Richard Carey

@ 60 buddy hell,

“Nope, you can’t simply cry “ad hominem” every time someone disagrees with you or exposes the weaknesses in your ‘argument’. Try again.”

I don’t. I reserve the term ‘ad hominem’ for times when it is appropriate. Your argument, such as it is, is to accuse those who oppose the ban on Spencer and Geller hypocrisy, without consideration of the validity of their stated view on the matter in hand. Insofar as this characterisation of your position @4 is correct, the term is fitting.

“You deliberately forget that this is the Internet. I only have your word that you were a “teenage” Public Enemy fan.”

Indeed so, but if you recall, the reason I mentioned it was because you were adamant that I would have supported the ban on Farrakhan back in the ’80s. If you know so little of me that you don’t know whether to believe my claim regarding PE, then you must surely concede the foolishness of asserting what you did regarding my view of the Farrakhan ban.

“you’re incapable of robust debate and cry foul whenever it gets a little heated. Tough. Grow up.”

I don’t think this minor dispute qualifies as ‘robust debate’, and I didn’t cry foul, but rather (@10) pointed out that accusations of double standards (your comment @4) whether true or not were irrelevant to the rights and wrongs of case.

71. Just Visiting

Ceiliog

> I thought that is was fair of me to ask what you think is an incitement to violence.

No, you’re jumping ahead before explaining what you meant in your 63.

Explain yourself there, before starting a new topic about the smallest thing I said in trying to unravel your 63!

Your call – either explain 63 in more clear language, or tell us that you no longer wish to say anything on it’s theme.

71.
I was responding to 62’s “I do give rights to people who wish to do me harm.”
Please explain what you think is an incitement to violence.

@70

“I don’t. I reserve the term ‘ad hominem’ for times when it is appropriate. Your argument, such as it is, is to accuse those who oppose the ban on Spencer and Geller hypocrisy, without consideration of the validity of their stated view on the matter in hand. Insofar as this characterisation of your position @4 is correct, the term is fitting”.

The thing is, those of you who cry ‘free speech’ play right into their hands. You just can’t see it. The EDL/BNP loves this. Do you honestly think they have something new to say? I don’t. It’s the same old rancid narrative about ‘indigenous people’. As for your constant charge of “ad hom”, you are rather indiscriminate in applying it.

“I don’t think this minor dispute qualifies as ‘robust debate’, and I didn’t cry foul, but rather (@10) pointed out that accusations of double standards (your comment @4) whether true or not were irrelevant to the rights and wrongs of case”.

Squirm, squirm, wriggle, wriggle. If you give fascists an inch, they’ll take a mile.

You should watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RuC5KDhhZYI

I don’t know if those advocates of free speech realise this, but free speech is not enshrined in statute. Why do you think it’s so easy to silence satirists in this country?

75. Richard Carey

@ 73 buddy hell,

I notice you make no effort to refute the ad hominem charge. Does this mean you accept that it was an accurate label?

“As for your constant charge of “ad hom”, you are rather indiscriminate in applying it. ”

I have no idea what this means. I don’t think I make such charges very often. I have been constant in this thread insofar as I have stood by my original charge, as I still do. If you are under the impression that I constantly accuse people of ad hom, then perhaps you can point to other instances. I don’t think it is the case.

Anyway, I don’t think you can seriously deny, nor have you tried to do so, that ad hominem applies to your statement @ 4. I don’t even know why you have kicked up such a fuss about it. It’s not as if I’ve accused you of necrophilia.

“The thing is, those of you who cry ‘free speech’ play right into their hands. You just can’t see it.”

The opposite is true. The ban on Geller and Spencer, which you support, is what allows Geller and Spencer to claim their right to free speech has been attacked … because it has.

“The EDL/BNP loves this. Do you honestly think they have something new to say? I don’t.”

It is absolutely irrelevant whether they have anything new to say, unless you are arguing that originality should have a privileged position within a system of free speech denial. This is certainly not my view. In any case, I doubt either of us are saying anything original.

“Squirm, squirm, wriggle, wriggle.”

So this is ‘robust debate’ is it?

hi,sunny…good to hear u defend the savages,either ur accounts are filled with petro dollars…or d newsmedia u working for….to be frank,,watever u have written here is utter crap…y dont u go to egypt or pakistan or syria or afghan and try for a pro jihad job there….pathetic moron..!!

how can anybody compare edl with al muhajiroun who writes this crap ohh the left


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy: How the EDL has split the self-styled ‘anti-jihadis’ on the Right | moonblogsfromsyb

    […] via Sunny Hundal Liberal Conspiracy http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/07/05/how-the-edl-has-split-the-self-styled-anti-jihadis-on-the-ri… […]

  2. “Propaganda, inflammatory, ignorant, absurd, offensive” TIMES PILE THE SMEAR WORDS AGAINST PAMELA GELLER | marxist

    […] How the EDL has split the self-styled ‘anti-jihadis’ on the Right (liberalconspiracy.org) […]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.