GITA SAHGAL AND AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
The row between Gita Sahgal and Amnestry International rumbles on. This is concerning Gita Sahgal’s suspension by Amnesty pursuant to a disciplinary case against her, the specific details of which I do not know, but which concerns her public repudiation of Amnesty International’s association with former Guantanamo prisoner, Moazzam Begg, in an article in the Sunday Times by Richard Kerbaj. Moazzam Begg is connected with the organisation Cage Prisoners
The Sunday Times article seems to have been a shoddy hatchet job by Kerbaj, for example although they contacted Mr Begg and asked his views, they misrepresented him. Mr Begg has announced that he is both referring the article to the Press Complaint Commission, and intending to start libel proceedings. The purpose of the article seems to have been to damage the relationship between Cage Prisoners and human rights organisations, like Amnesty.
This is from Mr Begg’s letter to the Sunday Times:
“I told you clearly that if you wanted to know my (and Cageprisoners’) views about Awlaki to refer to the article that is on our website: http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=30886 in which you could have quoted, had you wished, the following:
“Cageprisoners never has and never will support the ideology of killing innocent civilians, whether by suicide bombers or B52s, whether that’s authorised by Awlaki or by Obama. Neither will we be forced into determining a person’s guilt outside a recognised court of law.” This article also deals with any concerns about the recent Christmas day plot - something you asked us about.
“When asked specifically about the Taliban I told you my view: that I have advocated for engagement and dialogue with the Taliban well before our own government took the official position of doing the same - only last week - although, I did not say, like the government, we should be giving them lots of money in order to do so.
“I also clearly told you, though you deliberately chose to ignore, that I had actually witnessed what I believe were human rights abuses under the Taliban and have detailed them in my book, from which you conveniently and selectively quote. I added that the US administration had perpetrated severe human rights abuses against me for years but that didn’t mean I opposed dialogue with them. I even told you that Cageprisoners and I have initiated pioneering steps in that regard by organising tours all around the UK with former US guards from Guantanamo and men who were once imprisoned there. Cagreprisoners is the only organisation to have done so. (One of these soldiers, upon in response to your article sent this message to me: They are attacking you and your causes…don’t forget you have real support by some of us ex-Soldiers who have seen the light… I expect he too will be accused by your likes of being brainwashed by me). Instead, you simply say, without qualification, ‘He defended his support for the Taliban….’
“Had you - and Ms Sahgal no doubt - done your homework properly you’d have discovered also that I was involved in the building of, setting up and running of a school for girls in Kabul during the time of the Taliban, but of course, that wouldn’t have sat well with the agenda and nature of your heavily biased and poorly researched article.
Gita Sahgal herself says:
The issue is not about Moazzam Begg’s freedom of opinion, nor about his right to propound his views: he already exercises these rights fully as he should. The issue is a fundamental one about the importance of the human rights movement maintaining an objective distance from groups and ideas that are committed to systematic discrimination and fundamentally undermine the universality of human rights. I have raised this issue because of my firm belief in human rights for all.
…
I have now been suspended for trying to do my job and staying faithful to Amnesty’s mission to protect and defend human rights universally and impartially.
This is a little disingenuous, she has been suspended not for raising concerns internally within her organisation, but after she collaborated wth a Sunday Times article that brought Amnesty International into public disrepute.
But her defence of “human rights for all” is also disingenuous, because different claims for rights sometimes overlap and contradict one another. So her view effectivey amounts to an endorsement of Western liberalism as being a superior set of values which if necessary must be allowed to overrule the rights of others.
On the narrow issue of opposing all prejudice, Gita Saghal has failed: in her radio interview above Gita Saghal says that she feels “profoundly unsafe” even talking to Asim Qureshi and Moazzam Begg, a statement that is deeply prejudicial, and in fact gives credibility to the idea that it was correct to detain Moazzam Begg, if he is that dangerous.
But there is a greater problem, as was recenty pointed out by the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, that in modern Britain the concept of “tolerance” has become “a negative virtue – a means of diminishment and marginalisation”. That is, the language of tolerance is actually used in a very intollerant way to silence and marginalise those with inconvenient religious views. As Dr Sentamu puts it:
“Tolerance has become a restricting quality – a grudging ‘putting up - with’ rather that a positive means of building a caring, peaceful society. The problem with this is that it does not give us the means of voicing and dealing constructively with differences.
“We give people private space but do not encourage public discussion and debate on key areas which are seen as ‘difficult’ such as religion, immigration, the optimum funding for public services. In consequence, these areas of difference are thrust into the margins where they do not go away but instead, tend to fester.”
Dr Sentamu made an excellent speech in the House of Lords on the Equalities Bill:
Churches and other religious organisations cannot draw the same clear-cut distinction between who we are and what we do; between what we believe and how we conduct ourselves; between work life and private life. Successive legislation over the past 35 years has always recognised the principle that religious organisations need the freedom to impose requirements in relation to belief and conduct that go beyond what a secular employer should be able to require. Noble Lords may believe that Roman Catholics should allow priests to be married; they may think that the Church of England should hurry up and allow women to become bishops; they may feel that many churches and other religious organisations are wrong on matters of sexual ethics. But if religious freedom means anything, it must mean that those are matters for the churches and other religious organisations to determine in accordance with their own convictions. They are not matters for the law to impose. Start down that road and you will put law and conscience into inevitable collision, and that way lies ruin. As Edmund Burke said:”Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny”.
This makes the indispensible point that for religious people, their ethical and moral viewpoint is part of who they are, becasue it derives from a code of values which they believe comes from an authority higher than man made laws. What we cannot do as atheists is assume that the evolution of moral and ethical viewpoints within our own society can be regarded as a superior standard that other people must comply with. Nor can these values be simply private questions of belief, as they have practical consequences for how people organise child rearing, probate, divorce, etc.
Gita Saghal says that Amnesty International is compromised becasue it has associated with Moazzam Begg, seemingly on the basis that Mr Begg is a Muslim who has views that Ms Saghal disagrees with.
She is wrong at every level:
i) Amnesty International has no formal relationship with Cage Prisoners, they merely have overlappiong concerns over the Guantanamo prisoners, and other parts of the extra-legal network of American prisons around the world.
ii) In defending the right of free expression, it is also necessary to associate with people we disagree with, as the decents continually remind us,: “if liberty means anything , it means telling people what they do not want to hear”.
iii) Human rights also has to include parity of esteem for people with religious views that are out of step with Western liberalism; and a recognition that we need to negotiate space for religious practice in our society, including in areas of morality and ethics where religious teaching contradicts the mainstream consensus.
It is certainly worth listening to Gita Sahgal’s interview, where she libelously and falsely claims that Mr Begg believes in executing apostates; and also criticises Cage Prisoners for campaigning on behalf of Guantanamo prisoners who may have been associated with attacks on civilians. As it happens, Gita Sahgal’s criticism here would also apply to Amnesty International.
The usual suspects are vociferously banging on about this. But I suspect Nick Cohen and co have their own motives. Here’s a challenge for them: go off and found your own human rights organisation. Long term, I doubt AI will be damaged by this.
Comment by Benjamin — 10 February, 2010 @ 12:17 pm
It is hardly surprising that Gita Saghal feels ‘unsafe’ talking to Moazzam Begg. That is because he states in his autobiography he is a Salafi Muslim - someone who believes in the original 7th century way of Islam. That is hardly conducive to the type of lifestyle Ms Saghal currently leads, or that Amnesty International advocates when it discusses human rights.
Amnnesty International were correct to support Begg and the other Briton’s held in Guantanmo, and to oppose the Americans policy of rendition (kidnap). Due process was lacking.
That is entirely different to getting into bed with those individuals and campaigning with them AFTER their release. Take a look at the Cage Prisoners website, the group of which Begg is Director, and those they support in the UK:
http://www.cageprisoners.com/prisoners.php?location=UK
Is Abu Hamza a priosner of conscience? Would be shoe bomber Bajat, or Omar Khayam convicted for planning to blow up a London nightclub?
Amnesty should not touch Cage Prisoners with a barge pole. Ms Saghal should be supported in her stance.
Comment by Paul Stott — 10 February, 2010 @ 12:21 pm
Gita Sahgal’s accusations are based on a fundamental point of principle, which is this: It is correct for Amnesty to hold human rights positions on fair trial, torture, diplomatic assurances and work against renditions and the closure of Guantanamo Bay. However, these positions should also require us to hold salafi-jihadi groups and other religious absolutists accountable. Human rights abuses of torture, for example, should not be used to justify, legitimise and finally partner with proponents of violent jihad such as Moazzam Begg.
We understand why we are ethically obliged to take a human rights position against illegal detention, torture and renditions. What we don’t understand, and conspicuously absent in the statement issued by AI, is how in doing so Amnesty International justifies partnering with supporters of Jihadi terrorism.
Perhaps Andy Newman can answer that question, which was studiously ignored by Amnesty in its statement.
Comment by Faisal — 10 February, 2010 @ 12:23 pm
Paul
#2
So it is reasonable to say that a woman is not safe in the presence of a man just because he is a Salafi Muslim????
at least you are hanging your bigotry out in the open so that we can all see it.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 12:24 pm
#3
It is a “when did you stop beating your wife” question.
Firstly, Amnesty are not formally linked wth Cage Prisioners, except in the fevered imagination of the Decents
secondly, neither cage prisoners nor Moazzam Begg are advocates of jihadi terrorism.
as they say:
“Cageprisoners never has and never will support the ideology of killing innocent civilians, whether by suicide bombers or B52s, whether that’s authorised by Awlaki or by Obama. Neither will we be forced into determining a person’s guilt outside a recognised court of law.””
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 12:29 pm
Andy - It is perfectly natural to feel unsafe, or uncomfortable in the presence of someone who considers you to be inferior, and believes you should be treated differently.
Would you expect my fiance, born in Sierral Leone, to sit with Nick Griffin and not feel uncomfortable or scared? Why should Ms Saghal not feel wary of a Salafist, who in the words of his own autobiography has visited jihadi training camps in Bosnia and Afghanistan, and attempted to gain entry to Chechnya at the height of the violence there?
Finally I do wish you would drop this tired, cliched leftist shit of smearing anyone who disagrees with you as racist. It is exactly what has served to isolate the left from the broader working class (of all colours) over the past generation, and simply illustrates your weakness in debate.
Comment by Paul Stott — 10 February, 2010 @ 12:32 pm
The parallel is this.
I am strongly in favour of freedom of expression. I think that it is a fundamental right. I think, in particular, that laws that criminalise Holocaust Denial are an absolute disgrace, and should be repealed.
As a consequence of that view, I think that it was wrong that David Irving was imprisoned. I have said so.
Now, would I send David Irving out on a speaking tour, to talk about his experiences in prison? About how not being allowed to speak him mind affected him? Would I put up a video of Irving reading his own poetry?
No, I don’t think I would. You can better promote the principle of freedom of expression without Irving’s direct involvement.
Comment by David T — 10 February, 2010 @ 12:33 pm
,em>Firstly, Amnesty are not formally linked wth Cage Prisioners, except in the fevered imagination of the Decents secondly, neither cage prisoners nor Moazzam Begg are advocates of jihadi terrorism.
This very statement already suggest that you consider association with Moazzam Begg and CagePrisoners to be problematic.
It also confirms that you have not even read Amensty’s own statement. So let me copt this in:
“Tomorrow, Moazzam Begg will speaking alongside Amnesty International, speaking specifically on behalf of those detainees in need of protection in a third country.
So I will ask Andy Newman the question again:
We understand AI takes a human rights position against illegal detention, torture and renditions. But in doing so, how does Amnesty International justifies partnering with supporters of Jihadi terrorism?
Comment by Faisal — 10 February, 2010 @ 12:35 pm
Andy - if Gita feels not safe in the presence of a Salafi Mulsim that is her privilege. Perhaps its because she feels as an Salafi Mulsim he is highly likely to have anti female views such as wanting to bring in Sharia law which the majority of feminists reject. You obviously couldn’t care less for such important fact based perceptions.
Imagine if a black female was on the same platform as a KKK Grand Wizard, perhaps you’d understand then.
You are a disgrace to Left Wing politics.
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 10 February, 2010 @ 12:36 pm
#8
No
the relationship is neither problematip nor improper.
I have spoken alonmgside Liberal Democrats on various occassions, and even Tories on the platfrms of public meetings. This does not give me a formal association with either the Lib Dems or Tories.
i have shared platforms with Labour MPs who voted for the war on Iraq, even though their hands are stained with the blood of innocents. These advocates of B52 mass murder sadly need to be worked with over issues where we have a common interest, even though I find their support for state terrorism appalling.
Amnesty simply do not have a formal link wth cage prisners, they have overlapping concerns, that is normlal in human rights advocacy or any other form of campaigning.
Cage Prisoners has made a statement clearly stating that they do not advocate the killing of covilians, whetehr by terrorist bom or from a B52; as sch they are not advocates of jihai terrorism.
They do however campaign to try to ensure that those accused of terrorism (including those justifiably accused) are treated according to the law, and not assumed guilty until they have been found guilty by a fair trial in a properly constituted court of law.
That is, there is a legitimate overlap between Amnesty’s remit and Cage prisoners.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 12:38 pm
If that is the case, Andy Newman, perhaps you could explain why Amnesty robustly justifies its partnership with Cageprisoners in this statement:
http://amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18613
And perhaps you could have a go at answering why supporting human rights means partnering with advocates of violent jihadism and Anwar al-Awlaki?
Comment by Faisal — 10 February, 2010 @ 12:43 pm
But in doing so, how does Amnesty International justifies partnering with supporters of Jihadi terrorism?
I’m not entirely sure where I stand on this one yet but this needs pulling up. Who are the supporters of Jihadi terrorism? Cageprisoners explicitly reject acts of terrorism.
Comment by boilermaker — 10 February, 2010 @ 12:45 pm
If “Cageprisoners explicitly reject acts of terrorism”
Why are they diligently showcasing the views of Anwar al-Awlaki in this interview of the Jihadist cleric by Moazzam Begg himself:
http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=22926
Comment by Faisal — 10 February, 2010 @ 12:48 pm
#11
Faisal
you are just Trolling here.
Amnesty nternational simply do not have a partnership with cage Prisoners, as the statement that YOU links to makes cear.
They are sharing a platform with Begg at meeetings organised by a thirs party, nd international affiliates of ASmnesty are elewhere hosting the tour.
This simply does not constitute a formal partneership with Cage Prisoners.
I bleve that Amnesty are correct in their behaviourand their actions over this affair
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 12:50 pm
What really concerns me about this is that Gita Sahgal has not given any she doesn’t give any rebuttal evidence, rather it is based on a general statement regarding Cage Prisoners and Moazzam Begg ‘actively promoting Islamic Right ideas and individuals’. I am still unclear what precisely Cage Prisoners has done wrong. And just finally, in order to fight for human rights you need to fight for all human rights something which I think Gita Sahgal has contradicted herself.
Human rights aren’t something you can pick and choose, create an approach that leads to a hierarchy of deserving/undeserving campaigning. And also how the right-wing press and the ‘Decents’ has jumped on this concerns me a great deal.
And the BBC programme you link to she doesn’t include any further evidence of Moazzam alleged crimes.If I am accused of something then I want to see the evidence so at least I can make my case. I haven’t seen it and it is becoming more and more like a witch hunt against Moazzam Begg.
And what saddens me deeply is that I have been a supporter of WAF since the first conference in ‘89, have heard Gita speak and cannot understand why she went to the right-wing press based on assertions and now shrounded further by the pro-war ‘left’…
And if Begg is so objectionable and oppressive in his ideas then why has he organised a tour with former Gitmo US guards? It seems to me a great thing to do, something Amnesty would/should support and actively engage in. This seems to me someone who is trying to create dialogue than stifle it.
My own take on the situation http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/amnesty-and-gita-sahgal/
Comment by HarpyMarx — 10 February, 2010 @ 12:51 pm
“you are just Trolling here.”
I run the Spittoon blog and have no interest trolling. If in engaging with you, the first retort to my arguments from you is that I am “trolling”, then that says more about your weak grasp of the issue than anything I’ve said so far.
Comment by Faisal — 10 February, 2010 @ 12:55 pm
“you are just Trolling here.”
Looks like I am being added to the Spam filter.
I run the Spittoon blog and have no interest trolling. If in engaging with you, the first retort to my arguments from you is that I am “trolling”, then that says more about your weak grasp of the issue than anything I’ve said so far.
Comment by Faisal — 10 February, 2010 @ 12:55 pm
My comments are being added to the spam filter!
Comment by Faisal — 10 February, 2010 @ 12:56 pm
#15
“cannot understand why she went to the right-wing press based on assertions and now shrounded further by the pro-war ‘left’…”
this is part of the pattern described by Jin Haritaworn, Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem in the book “out of place” published in 2008 contained a chapter Gay Imperialism: Gender and Sexuality Discourse in the ‘War on Terror’ - whereby they describe how a layer of feminists have been co-opted into an implicitly pro-war aganda.
This is why Gita Sghal has become an unlikely pin-up girl for the pro-war Decents and for islamophobes
I discussed this before here: http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4866
Patriarchy and homophobia have been externalized to a threat from the dark peoples of Muslim lands. As Haritaworn et al describe it:
There is dark humour that in the debate around the discriminatory ‘Muslim Test’ of nationality in Germany in 2006 (which asks questions exclusively to applicants whose prior nationality was with a country considered ‘Muslim’) it was proposed to ask applicants what they think of locking up one’s daughter. But this was aimed at Turks, not Austrians.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 12:57 pm
Andy, the other thing that deeply worries me about all this is that Gita uses the term ‘Islamic Right’.. Who/what is that? It seems to have become a catch-all all encompassing term to use to attack someone.
Comment by HarpyMarx — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:03 pm
Cracking, absolutely cracking
So, we now have a far Left that:
- defends Jihadists.
- attacks South Asian antiracist feminists.
- thinks that the police oughtn’t to interfere in “domestics”, when violent men are beating up their partners.
- defends China through thick and thin.
- supports Ahmadinejad’s suppression of the pro-democracy movement.
- attacks as “racists” anybody who disagrees with them.
That’s fine. I am quite happy for the extreme Left to paint itself into its own loopy corner.
My only concern is to ensure that the genuinely progressive and anti-racist Left doesn’t get sucked into the same black hole that you’ve fallen into, Andy.
Comment by David T — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:03 pm
#13
Cage prisoners answer that themseves very eloquently:
There is a pattern here, whereby you are setting up loyalty tests for Muslims whereby it is not sufficient to oppose terror, they are also regarded as “terrorist” if they objct t Westrn human rights abuses cmmitted in the name of combatting terror.
As you imply that every Saafi Muslim represents a danger to women.
Does every evangelic Christan represent a danger to gays?
Would it be reasonable for a gay man to say they were profoundly afraid to talk with a conservative vicar?
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:07 pm
What is the evidence that Begg is a supporter of the Taliban? I’ve seen him speak and he nowhere even implied any support for the Taleban.
Comment by johng — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:11 pm
I am bemused by the claim that Amnesty have no formal relationship with Cage Prisoners. Some would say walking down Downing Street with Cage Prisoners Director Moazzam Begg at a joint event is an example of ….. a formal campaigning relationship.
Last October I attended the Norwich Amnesty groups Protect the Human meeting - where Moazzam Begg spoke, a Cage Prisoners video was shown, and stall space given to them by Norwich Amnesty.
The CP literature was very different to that which I saw them distribute at Islam Expo in 2008, or that on their website. No calls to write to Abu Hamza or Andrew Rowe in prison here - this was a white, middle class audience made up of Amnesty supporters from Norwich’s Golden Triangle. Put simply Cage say and do one thing when useful idiots are around, another entirely with majority Muslim audiences.
Nor was Begg particularly honest about why he was abducted, on the Americans behalf, in Pakistan, following his sojourn in Afghanistan. In Norwich he claimed this was because of a British intelligence file about his charitable activities in Bosnia in the early 1990s. Possibly. But it is far more likely to have been the fact that he had attended Jihadi training camps in Bosnia and Afghanistan, and tried to enter Chechnya during the jihadi conflict there that led to his capture.
Perhaps Amnesty’s response to Ms Saghal is motivated by the fact they have been made to look idiots by Begg and his mates?
Comment by Paul Stott — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:11 pm
“you are just Trolling here.”
This is pretty bad. Looks like I am being added to the Spam filter.
I run the Spittoon blog and have no interest trolling. If in engaging with you, the first retort to my arguments from you is that I am “trolling”, then that says more about your weak grasp of the issue than anything I’ve said so far.
Comment by Faisal — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:12 pm
“My only concern is to ensure that the genuinely progressive and anti-racist Left doesn’t get sucked into the same black hole that you’ve fallen into, Andy.”
You should join the EDL, their placards beautifully articulate your/their position.
Comment by Marko — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:12 pm
#18
David T
“thinks that the police oughtn’t to interfere in “domestics”, when violent men are beating up their partners. “
when did I do that?
“supports Ahmadinejad’s suppression of the pro-democracy movement.”
I didn’t do that either
you are simply lying egregiously on both counts.
It is clearly a weakness on your part that you feel the need to manufucture false positions and attribute them to your opponents.
It is not of course true the other things you say in that comment, but those two remarks are completely uunrelated t anything I have ever said.
you on the other hand davis made an anti-Sernmitic libe here when you calimed a T-shitr advertised here with Arabic text on it was calling fgr Jews t be killd.
Are you so incapable of arguing nthe substantive points that you have t resort to this schoolboy stuff?
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:12 pm
PS Comment 18 was directed at comment 14
Comment by Marko — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:13 pm
“What is the evidence that Begg is a supporter of the Taliban? I’ve seen him speak and he nowhere even implied any support for the Taleban.”
JohnG, the decents don’t let little things like evidence get in the way of their Islamophobic agenda.
Comment by SteveH — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:15 pm
Nor was Begg particularly honest about why he was abducted
I would have thought the knowledge of why he was abducted would lie with the kidnappers.
Comment by yoghurt currantsy german — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:16 pm
“As you imply that every Saafi Muslim represents a danger to women.”
Well, Salafi Muslims have the worst record of denying rights to women in the entire Muslim world. But obviously that is far less important to than supporting jihadists.
Are you suggesting that the Taliban should be supported because of torture trumps women’s rights?
Comment by Faisal — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:16 pm
“In defending the right of free expression, it is also necessary to associate with people we disagree with, as the decents continually remind us,: “if liberty means anything , it means telling people what they do not want to hear”.”
Andy
There are a large number of carefully argued and calm points by Faisal.
You have now removed them and blocked him from commenting.
So, in order to defend Begg, you are preventing a British/South Asian man, who is trying to explain to you and your readers why it is necessary to be alert against the Islamist far right.
You are betraying this country, and minority groups in this country in particular.
Comment by David T — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:17 pm
At #21:
I have no idea what a ‘decent’ is, and doubt, as a life long Anarchist I count as one.
That Begg has certainly supported the Taleban is clear enough to anyone who takes the trouble to read his autobiography:
MB: ‘I wanted to live in an Islamic state – one that was free from the corruption and despotism of the rest of the Muslim world’.
American: - ‘So you chose the Taliban?’
MB: ‘I chose Afghanistan. I admit I have made mistakes – but had it not been for 9/11, I think I would still be living happily in Afghanistan’
American: - ‘Probably as a member of Al Qaeda or the Taliban’
MB: ‘I knew you wouldn’t understand. The Taliban were better than anything Afghanistan has had in the past twenty-five years. You weren’t in Afghanistan – not before nor during the Taliban. Child sex, rape, looting, robbery, murder and opium production only ended when they took control. ‘
American - ‘And in came amputations, floggings and executions..….’ (p.214).
Comment by Paul Stott — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:19 pm
#16
“What is the evidence that Begg is a supporter of the Taliban? ”
That is easy one JOhn.
He is a Muslim.
In the eyes of the decents, that is all the evidence they need.
This is of course all pro-ar talk, because the logic of their political position is to alow for no engagement with Muslims who are genuinely concerned about islamophobia, the human rights abuses, and the war in Afghanistan.
The Decents seek to marginalise them (including the implication that all Saafi Muslims are so dangerous to women, thet there shouodl be no enggem,ent with them) to the extent that all emocratic and peaceful avenues of engagement are closed. Were it to be successsful this stretegy woul marginalise those Muslims advocating political engagement not terrorism, and strengthen the hands of the Jihadis.
i’i, it would pose a stark choice of either complete political demobilisation or jihadi terrorism as the only availble options.
This would then mean that there could be no question of political engagement with any Muslims, who would just be seen as a “security problem”, except for those “good Muslims” who renounce all criticism of the war on terror, and actively denounce Islam themselves. i think the only test that would be suffiecent fot these Decents would be for Muslims to raise money for Israel.
T
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:21 pm
#15
I agree, this is what is thoroughly concerning me about the whole thing, all-encompassing terms like ‘Islamic Right’ thrown in the mix without any explanation by what is meant or evidence instead used as a convenient stick to beat someone with. But hey, as someone stated what is evidence when it comes to the pro-imperialist ‘left’….and I am deeply disappointed and saddened by Gita Sahgal who, like I said before, admired and respected.
She has let the right-wing press and decents manipulate her views. She should know what they are capable of.
Comment by HarpyMarx — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:22 pm
#33
” The Taliban were better than anything Afghanistan has had in the past twenty-five years. You weren’t in Afghanistan – not before nor during the Taliban. Child sex, rape, looting, robbery, murder and opium production only ended when they took control. ‘”
That is a reasonable point of view, that does not imply support for the Taiban, merely correctly points out that the taliban were an improvment (from human rights, womens’s rights and social stablity points of view, as well as economc stablity) on anarchy of the warring warlords that immediately preceded them. I would disagree slightly with his “25 years” estimate, but better than anything since the fall of Najibullah.
The terrible restrictions on womens’ rights, for example, predated the taliban by several years.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:30 pm
‘Racist’ doesn’t even begin to describe Taube and his disciples, a pathological hatred of all Muslims is more like it.
The campaign to witch-hunt former Guantanamo prisoners is an absolute disgrace to everyone associated with it.
It is ironic that the reptiles should be here spreading their poison on the day when we have official, in writing, confirmation from the highest level that torture was used against those held at Gitmo.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:32 pm
Women’s rights are a shibboleth.
Comment by Dustin the Turkey — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:33 pm
David
I don’t beleive that I have ever personally promoted boycott or disinvestmnt from Israel, for reasons partly connected to my employment, but also becasue am not thoroughly convinced by the argument for a boycott.
Nor have I ever acted in a way critical of my employers.
Please do not imply that I have.
I have deleted you cmments obvioulsy
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:33 pm
On this right/left categorisation, I came across this description of Moazzam Begg from the Cordoba Foundation (Arches Quarterly Vol 2 Edition 1)
“He has never fitted one dogma neatly - conservative when it came to family values, leftist when it came to issues of equality”
If anything that reminds me of the categorisation the Rev Ian Paisly intended for the DUP when he formed it - that it should be on the right on social and constitutional issues, and the left on economic issues.
But then again ’socialists’ would not work with the Rev Paisley would they, or make excuses for him?
Comment by Paul Stott — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:34 pm
But then again ’socialists’ would not work with the Rev Paisley would they, or make excuses for him?
I’d have thought that, if there was a particular single-issue campaign on which the DUP took the same position as ’socialists’, that it would not be beyond the pale to appear on a platform with a DUP spokesperson on that particular issue.
Comment by boilermaker — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:38 pm
#40
“’socialists’ would not work with the Rev Paisley would they, or make excuses for him?”
errrr, haven’t socialists in Sinn Fein actually supported coalition governmetn with the DUP !!!corrct thing to do for moving the peace process forward under the terms of the GFA
Doesn’t the actual article that you are commenting on by me favourable refer to Dr JOhn Sentamu?
I have exactly the same attitude to Christians as I do to Muslims
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:38 pm
At 36#
You can also chew on Begg’s cheerleading of the Taliban here:
“When I went to Afghanistan, I believed the Taliban had made some modest progress - in social justice and in upholding pure, old style Islamic values forgotten in many Islamic countries. After September 11 that life was destroyed” (p.381 of his autobiography).
Just read that quote again and think - this is a man Amnesty International is promoting.
Comment by Paul Stott — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:39 pm
Look, the rule I try to stick to is that we don’t use our employment against each other - will you delete what you said about my professional obligations as a lawyer?
Comment by David T — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:40 pm
It is wholly ethical to protest anti-Muslim bigotry. As a Muslim myself, I welcome it.
Unfortunately Andy Newman, and the far-Left in general, is more interested in lazily blurring the lines between Islam and Islamism and championing hardcore Islamists whilst demonising Muslims who stand against clerical fascism and jihadists.
The people who insist there is no difference between Islamists and the Muslim mainstream are either propagandists from the far-right (EDL, BNP etc), the far-left (SWP) and Islamist of the Jamaat/MB stripe.
Comment by Faisal — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:40 pm
But when he was there, he reported human rights abuses by the Taliban.
He was no cheer leader, buit someone who advoatd critical engagement.
That is exactly what shoudl have been done by Western governments with the Taliban, weaning them away from repressive positions through aid and development incentives.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
Can I also ask you to delete any comment which implies that I, or my co-bloggers, hate Muslims or are hostile to Islam.
These are very defamatory, untrue, and unfair.
I have a real objection to suing for defamation - but I don’t think it is fair for people to abuse my principled position to abuse me in this manner.
Could you agree to do that?
Comment by David T — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
#44 OK.
But you should stop lying.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:43 pm
David T: how old are you now? 3,4?
Comment by Question — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:44 pm
More “teasing” than “lying” Andy.
Comment by David T — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:45 pm
#47
David
I think that this is a genuine difference of opinion between us, whereby the distinction you make between political islamism and all Muslims is so finely nuanced as to be largely invisible.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:45 pm
#44
What hypocrisy, David. You and the people on your blog excel in trawling through the background’s and employment details of people whose politics you disagree with to use as ammunition.
Comment by John — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:47 pm
“But her (Gita Sahgal’s) defence of “human rights for all” is … disingenuous, because .. her view effectively amounts to an endorsement of Western liberalism as being a superior set of values which if necessary must be allowed to overrule the rights of others.”
What a crock!
Andy! How dare you gratuitously question Ms. Sahgal’s defence of human rights when spent she has spent all her working life in that field.
Comment by Hugh — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:50 pm
Rabbi Yehuda Levin, spokesman for the Rabbinical Alliance of America issued the following statement:
“When Americans are suffering economically and millions need jobs, it’s shocking that the Administration is focused on its ultra-liberal militantly homosexualist agenda forcing the highlighting of homosexuals and homosexuality on an unwilling military. This is the equivalent of the spiritual rape of our military to satisfy the most extreme and selfish cadre of President Obama’s kooky coalition.
We agree with Eileen Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness that this will hurt the cohesiveness of the military, cause many to leave the army, and dramatically lower the number of recruits, perhaps leading to the reinstatement of a compulsory draft.
“Thirteen months before 9/11, on the day New York City passed homosexual domestic partnership regulations, I joined a group of Rabbis at a City Hall prayer service, pleading with God not to visit disaster on the city of N.Y. We have seen the underground earthquake, tsunami, Katrina, and now Haiti. All this is in sync with a two thousand year old teaching in the Talmud that the practice of homosexuality is a spiritual cause of earthquakes. Once a disaster is unleashed, innocents are also victims just like in Chernobyl.
“We plead with saner heads in Congress and the Pentagon to stop sodomization of our military and our society. Enough is enough.”
Comment by Question — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:52 pm
#43
You have to admire the Chutzph
Paul Sttot was apparently editor of Class War, a newspaper that glorified violence against the British police, and regularly included photos of injured coppers, implicitly encouraging assautls on the polie as a form of political voilence.
Now he is all up in arms about other people allegedly supporting terrorism!
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:56 pm
“I think that this is a genuine difference of opinion between us, whereby the distinction you make between political islamism and all Muslims is so finely nuanced as to be largely invisible.”
No, I am very very clear that I am talking about (primarily) the following political parties:
- Jamaat e Islami
- Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood
- Hizb ut Tahrir / Al Muhajiroun
- The Islamic Republic of Iran and Khomeinists
- various Al Qaeda and salafi-jihadi aligned theoreticians, who I name.
My co-contributors make the same distinction.
I am an atheist, but I am generally well disposed towards religion, which I think is an excellent human creation, and one of the towering achievements of world civilisation, at its best. I include Islam within the forms of religion I admire.
There are certainly those - Begg is among them - who have a particular Salafi view of Islam. That, combined with his theology/politics - which is aligned with that of such theoreticians as Awlaki (but not attacks on “innocent civilians”) and Azzam - means that to him, opposition to (a) an Islamic state, governed by religious principles and (b) military jihad, within its proper limits, IS opposition to Islam.
Now, I can respect that. I accept that from the view of Begg or Qureshi, these principles are so fundamental that to oppose them is to attack the foundations of his belief.
But what about you? You don’t buy into this theology or politics? So, what’s your excuse?
I think that you have either convinced yourself that I am lying and actually I secretly hate all brown skinned people but have managed to come up with a fiendish lie to hide the fact. Or, alternatively, that when Begg talks about the legitimacy of jihad in Afghanistan, he is actually talking about anti-imperialism, and creating a true socialist state. Or he might do, one day, once he has seen the light.
The thing is, Begg isn’t going to become a Communist. He has his own belief system. He doesn’t think it is mistaken. He isn’t about to “come over” to your side.
Comment by David T — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:57 pm
“But then again ’socialists’ would not work with the Rev Paisley would they, or make excuses for him?”
In addition to Andy’s point that there is no particular reason why socialist couldn’t work with the good Rev around quite a few issues (and in terms of making excuses, I have the impression that quite a few socialists are in complete agreement with Paisley’s criticisms of the Catholic church), there is the additional point that Amnesty make no claim to be socialists in the first place, they exist to defend those unjustly imprisoned, regardless of ideological categories.
Comment by dateless wonder — 10 February, 2010 @ 1:58 pm
#55 - Andy - Try and play the ball please, not the man.
If you can’t see that there is a world of difference between supporting community uprisings and/or industrial struggles such as the miners strike or the poll tax riots, and people cheering on the torturers of the Taliban, things have come to a pretty pass.
Comment by Paul Stott — 10 February, 2010 @ 2:01 pm
“I think that this is a genuine difference of opinion between us, whereby the distinction you make between political islamism and all Muslims is so finely nuanced as to be largely invisible.”
No Andy, it is you who makes no distinction between political Islamists and all Muslims. That is wholly apparent. This is why you are here propagandising for Moazzam Begg and Anwar al-Awlaki nder the pretext, or rather the barefaced lie, that you do so in support of oppressed Muslims.
Comment by Faisal — 10 February, 2010 @ 2:12 pm
#58
So Paul##
#
You admit that at least in the past you have actualy advocated terrorism? although you pretify it with the novel excuse of “community uprising”
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 2:17 pm
#59
Well actually no, i haven’t propagandised either for Moazzam Begg nor for Anwar al-Awlaki.
I think this is the first time that either of them have been mentioned on this blog (although we may previoulsy have advertsied meetings where Begg was one of several speakers,. I don’t know)
the question under discussion is not Begg, but whether it is reasonable to say that Amnesty International are compromised by the loose association whereby they will share platforms with Begg, and link to the Cage Prisoners website, along with the myriad other websites they link to.
My contention is that this is not a reasonable claim by Gita Sahgal, and as a former Guantanamo prisner it is entirely reasonable that Amnesty shoudl work with him over areas of mutuakl interest, whatever his vierws on other matters.
Where this has led to is a number of tranparently false accusations being made against Begg on this thread that I have responded to..
I have not endorsed Beggs political outlok anymore than Amnesty have.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 2:23 pm
No I don’t advocate terrorism - I have and do advocate working class community struggle. At its height, that leads to uprisings.
The term is hardly novel Andy, indeed the political current your were once a member of used to talk about the term all the time when addressing Brixton 81 or Toxteth or wherever. I know your politics have drifted in recent years, but surely not that far?
Now I’ve got your attention, how about addressing my points on Begg and Amnesty?
Comment by Paul Stott — 10 February, 2010 @ 2:23 pm
so why did you regularly show pictures in your paper of injured coppers?
Imagine if a Jihadi webisite had regaular pictires of injured policemen, what the respsonse would be.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 2:30 pm
#62 “Now I’ve got your attention, how about addressing my points on Begg and Amnesty?”
I did at #46 above.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 2:31 pm
“I have not endorsed Beggs political outlok anymore than Amnesty have.”
That is clearly and plainly not true. And you only need to read Amnesty’s statement regarding its position on Cageprisoners to see that it more than a “loose association” and is adamantly sticking to partnering with CP.
http://amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18613
In fact, it has been Gita Sahgal who has been arguing that AI ought to maintain an objective distance from groups and ideas that are committed to systematic discrimination and fundamentally undermine the universality of human rights.
It appears you have got the positions of Amnesty and Sahgal completely mixed up. And that is because you’re motivation is to support Cageprisoners, because for some reason, you have identified CP to be the underdogs merely because they are “Muslims” regardless of what they actually stand for.
Comment by Faisal — 10 February, 2010 @ 2:38 pm
there is a transcript of the BBC intrview here:
http://earwicga.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/gita-sahgal-talks-again-to-the-bbc-about-her-unease-with-moazzam-begg-with-transcript/
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 2:40 pm
# 63 Andy - In my understanding Jihadis have little interest in killing police officers. Killing or attempting to kill civilians is more their thing - people on buses, in night clubs, on the tube or tourists going on holiday. The sort of would be murderers Cage Prisoners ask to write to in prison. Do you support of condemn that?
Class War published pictures of policemen who had been injured on picket lines or in inner-city riots as a counterpose to leftist complaints about police brutality or police racism. Whatever our faults, we wanted to show that the working class, in all its mongrel glory, could fight back against the state and win. We did not want to be victims, and wanted to cheerlead the resistance that was occurring all around us. It all looks a bit 1980s now (when was the last time our class won a riot?) but we gave it a good go.
Those politics may even come again.
Those leftie complaints and victimhood are of course still with us. In the case of your political current, the victims are now the likes of Cage Prisoners, to be defended at all times, and at all costs, and without any reference to the political or religious beliefs of the actors concerned. And if anyone critiques your view?
You call them racist.
What a comedy!
Comment by Paul Stott — 10 February, 2010 @ 2:43 pm
Come off it, Paul Stott.
As Wikipedia says: “The paper [Class War] also featured pictures of injured policemen, “Hospitalised Copper” appeared on page three of every edition”
All in the cause of “supporting community uprisings and/or industrial struggles”, huh? Was there a community uprising every week?
Also from Wiki, apparently you marched through Kensington “bearing banners and placards with slogans such as “Behold your future executioners!”"
As the future did not arrive, we have no way of knowing how many people you would have decapitated, hung or shot.
But anyway, back to Taliban.
Comment by Calvin — 10 February, 2010 @ 2:45 pm
Andy I have just read your post at #46:
“But when he was there, he reported human rights abuses by the Taliban. He was no cheer leader, buit someone who advoatd critical engagement. That is exactly what shoudl have been done by Western governments with the Taliban, weaning them away from repressive positions through aid and development incentives.”
1. Where did Begg report human rights abuses by the Taliban - and to whom?
2. Rather than advocating critical engagement (which he does now) what we see from Begg’s memoirs is that at the time he admired the Taliban.
3. You claim the Taliban could be weaned away from repressive positions. The positions they adopted in power were based on their interpretation of the Qu’ran. How could aid and development offers convice them their study of the Qu’ran was incorrect?
4. What do you think Begg and cage Prisoners would make of aid being dependent on such an approach?
Comment by Paul Stott — 10 February, 2010 @ 2:53 pm
#68 Calvin - Class War was bimonthly at its peak, and is bi-annually now. Don’t believe everything you read on Wikipedia.
Anarchists have not killed anyone in Britian since 1911. If only some other political ideologies - from Ulster Unionism to Islamic fundamentalism - could say the same.
Comment by Paul Stott — 10 February, 2010 @ 2:59 pm
Paul, but you don’t dispute that you actively promoted violent attacks on individual police officers and rich people and published the pics in your paper, even if only six times a year?
Comment by Calvin — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:02 pm
So did you or did you not glorify the hospitalising of coppers?
which seems to me much more direct advocacy of terrorism than anything Moazzam Begg has ever done.
And yet if you had been banged up in Guantanamo bay, I would have campaigned for your relase, even though I fnd you smug anarchism repugnant, and Amnesty International may well have shared platfrms with you, without that being any endorsement of Class War’s politics. And they woud be correct to do so.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:04 pm
#71 - You have read in my earlier posts exactly what Class War promoted and why.
Now - answer my points on Cage Prisoners please.
Comment by Paul Stott — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:04 pm
No Paul, this is relevent.
You are a self confessed advocate of what many other people would regard as terrorism.
So it is entirely germane - for example Faisal and David T have been arguing the same as you on this thread, are they now associated with you in the same way that Amnesty are associated with Begg?
Both David T and Faisal have comnted here since your connection with advocating terrorism was first mentioned on this threrad, but they haven’t disassociated themseves from you, they have continued to bang on about Begg instead. Does this mean that they condone your advocacy of political violence, just becasue it suits their wider political agenda to have allies against Moazamm Begg?
I think we shoudl be told.
Indeed harry’s Place recently provided a link to your personal blog in an article discussing Ms Sahgal’s susension. Does this mean that Harrys Place are associated with advocacy of beating up coppers!
I have not seen any condemnation on harry’s Place of the “hospitalised copper” feature in Class War, yet therer they are linking t the blog f the man who used to edit that publication.
That is a clear “partnership” between harry’s Place and terrorism.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:12 pm
Andy - I think you need to be very careful here, as the word hypocrite is looming very large over your head. Did the SWP support miners pickets fighting back against the police? They liked to say they did.
Did the SWP support people in the inner-cities fighting back against the police? They liked to say they did.
Yet you accuse me of advocating terrorism, because Class War glorifed such actions with photos. Get a grip. Are you going to condemn yourself as a terrorist next?
Do you really see the content of Class War’s newspaper as something ‘far more terrorist’ than travelling to three different Jihadi training camps, praising the Taliban, and publishing a website asking people to support Abu Hamza and a man who wanted to blow up a London nightclub?
I know all those years of Anarchists chiding you for Krondstadt hurt, but I did not think it had taken your marbles away…..
Comment by Paul Stott — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:13 pm
Paul, correct me if I’m wrong but I distinctly remember Class War running photos of “rich bastards” being randomly attacked in the street by your supporters. Or are you going to tell me they were just collateral damage in these bi-monthly community uprisings of yours?
Comment by Calvin — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:18 pm
This is all very troubling Andy Newman, not least because you have still failed to answer this one simple question:
We understand AI takes a human rights position against illegal detention, torture and renditions. But in doing so, how does Amnesty International justifies partnering with supporters of Jihadi terrorism?
Comment by Faisal — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:18 pm
Andy, Calvin, etc.
I used to think Class War was “quite funny” and I went to see Joe Strummer of blessed memory play a benefit gig for them.
But then, you know, I was an adolescent idiot then. I once refused “on principle” to cooperate with two police officers who came round to warn me that the lads who claimed to be “collecting money for charity” (and to whom I had given 50p) were in fact spending it on sweeties. But would I grass them up to “the filth”. No I would not!
And then, you know, my testicles dropped and my voice broke.
Now, when is the same thing going to happen, politically speaking, to you?
Comment by David T — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:18 pm
Paul
the SWP did not glorify violence against the police. They bdid refuse to condemn people who fought the police, that is very different.
But that is neither here nor there, we are dealing with you politics now, where you say there is a continuity between you support for “community” uprisings now and then.
This puts you clearly in the camp of advocating low level terrorism.
This therefore throws light on the whole isue of political association, given that Harry’s Place provided a link t your blog over the issue of ms Sahgal’s suspension. Are they now in partnership with you? Do they condone beating up coppers?
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:18 pm
Before the discussion of the case of the ins and outs of Sahgal and Begg, there is another issue, and one which concerns all who work for someone, study somewhere or have other relationships with some organisation, company, etc.
Amnesty International have done what just about any employer would do in circumstances where someone who works for them, publicly criticises them - they have suspended Sahgal and will probably sack her.
If you work for a council, say in a library, and find yourself in a local paper after taking part of a Vox Pop in the street with a journalist from the local paper who reports your criticism of the cleanliness of the streets, you could well find yourself disciplined by the council for criticising your employer.
If you watch the usual news story when a large factory is closing and the TV reporter asks a worker driving out, through his car window, ‘What s/he thinks?’, they will usually (sensibly) say ‘I can’t talk to you.’ They may well want to say ‘I think my employer is bastard sacking us’ but they know that could me the end of the job tomorrow if they do.
The reason (and possibly the only reason) why Saghal should be supported is that she is just the latest victim of this Victorian concept that we should all tug our forelocks and not speak disrespectfully of the master when out of school.
Trade unionists should campaign vigorously for a complete right to make whatever comments we wish about employers and where we are being educated etc (students have been kicked out of college for criticising it) as well as a complete right to continue to use places we criticise (near where I am, it was reported that a woman who criticised the temperature in a swimming pool was henceforce barred from using it, because of her comments).I was once sacked for not criticising my employer but for criticising someone from an organisation that funded it!
There is limited protection to criticise your employer under the Public Interest Disclosure Act (the ‘Whistleblower Act’), say if you are a safety inspector and you go public about your employer running a dangerous factory – and this, only in theory.
But many people lose their jobs each year through this draconian ability of employers to curtail free speech and enforce this feudalistic relationship.
Amnesty International would be better (not worse), if it allowed employees to openly say what they thought (however good or ill their comments may be) and so Saghal should be fully supported.
Their attitude is the sort of intolerant practice, when exemplified by a dictatorial regime clamping down on the local media that they campaign against! Hypocrites.
Comment by Southpawpunch — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:19 pm
I always thought “Class War” was a comic. Why’s it being discussed seriously here?
Comment by Charles Dexter Ward — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:19 pm
#76 - The article you recall Calvin was a picture of someone hitting a yuppie with a shit filled durex.
Purile perhaps, but not exactly the same as supporting someone blowing up London nightclubs. Now - your views on Cage Prisoners please?
Comment by Paul Stott — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:20 pm
#77
Faial
This is trolling for a number of reasons.
One: you have made the same point more than once despite the fact that it has been answered already.
two: your question is a “when did you stop beating your wife” one.
Amnesty are not partnered with cage prisoners
Cage prisoners are not advocates of Jihadi terrorism
so your question is unanswerable.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:20 pm
But Paul Stott is talking sense here, if Andy can keep away from focussing on irrelevancies as a distraction from the main point.
Comment by Charles Dexter Ward — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:21 pm
The shit-filled condom photos were a wind-up from Chumbawumba which CW fell for!
Comment by Charles Dexter Ward — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:22 pm
David T
How can you justify providing a link to Paul Stott’s blog when he makes this defence of violence against the police?
Are you in partnership with him?
Don’t you think that Harry’s Place is brought int disrepute by associating with advcates of “community rebellion” of this sort?
or is it one rule for the goose, another for the gander?
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:25 pm
“Anarchists have not killed anyone in Britian since 1911″
Given the amount of bloodthirsty streetfighting rhetoric and threats of violence contained in your publication alone, that is actually a pretty pathetic record isn’t it?
And given you are urging Andy to have a sense of proportion, can you stop your own bizarre equation of Ulster Unionism with the Taliban? Whatever you think of Lady Sylvia Hermon, she is not exactly Mullah Omar.
Comment by dateless wonder — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:29 pm
#82
“Purile perhaps, but not exactly the same as supporting someone blowing up London nightclubs. Now - your views on Cage Prisoners please?”
Cage Prisoners are an organisation who do not support or condone terrorism, to the best of my knowledge, but who campign to ensure that those accused of terrorism by the state receive a far trial with due process in a coutry of law, and are not assumed guilty until a court finds them guilty.
Inevitably this will also mean highlighting sometimes the cases of people arrested who are subsequenty found guilty, because even the guilty have the right to a fair trial.
Cage Prisoners have not campaigned for the release nor in political support of people after they have been properly convicted in a court of law.
This is actually a safeguard for all of us, the guilty and the innocent alike.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:30 pm
#83 Andy if anyone is wrong here, it is you.
1. Amnensty are partners with Cage Prisoners. They are campaigning with them - what else was Kate Allen doing with Moazzam begg at Downing Street last month? They have Begg touring as one of their speakers, with Cage Prisoners stalls.
2. Cage Prisoners condemn attacks on civilians, but at the same time support people in prison convicted for - attacks on civilians!
#81 - Class War is being discussed here as a distractor flare because Andy Newman and others know they are in a spot over Begg and Cage Prisoners.
Previously the method used here to avoid discussing my points has been to call me a racist and to accuse me of being part of a group advocating rape.
Today the method is to accuse me of supporting terrorism. No doubt tommorow it will be something else.
This is the last century left personified - all smears and righteous determination, but save for a rather peverse liberalism - no content or principle whatsoever. And you wonder why a generation of young socialists have turned towards anarchist groups rather than the dying Trots of the SWP or the JeI inspired Respect!
Comment by Paul Stott — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:31 pm
It’s not a rhetorical question Andy. It is very easily answerable but patently not by yourself nor by those of your politics who would maintain that the human rights of the victims of torture and renditions trumps the human rights of women and sexual minorities.
I have by now come to expect to see the hard-left fail to uphold the universality of human rights as a body of ethics and support jihadists over mainstream Muslims. However what I find most depressing about this incident is that Amnesty’s failure has allowed the hard-left to jump to its defence and take on the appearance of put-upon liberals - which they clearly are not.
Comment by Faisal — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:36 pm
More disingenuous bullshit from Newman. The equalities legislation doesn’t go far enough: why should the public pay for sectarian education against their will? Why should we tolerate tax-exempt religions in the public arena? Why should teachers and cleaners in ‘faith schools’ face the sack because of their sexuality?
Presumbly because Newman’s hoooked up eletorally with a bunch of Islamist dickheads…having given up on working people as a path to power.
Pathetic.
Comment by Avocado Da Vinci — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:36 pm
#88 Andy - “Cage Prisoners have not campaigned for the release nor in political support of people after they have been properly convicted in a court of law.”
Take a look at this page on the Cage website, which contains people convicted of some of the worst crimes alleged in the UK in recent years:
http://www.cageprisoners.com/prisoners.php?location=UK
These are not people accused of throwing stones at cops, or hitting someone on a picket line, but people convicted of inciting racial hatred, plotting to blow up airliners or conspiring to kill people dancing in night clubs.
Over to you Andy.
Comment by Paul Stott — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:37 pm
“Amnesty are partners with Cage Prisoners. They are campaigning with them ”
When I was campaigning against the closure of Devizes and Malmesbury hositals I worked very closely wth James Gray and Michael Ancram, both Tory MPs, including presenting a petition to them at parliament.
Did this means I was in “partnership” with the conservative party? Or were we simply both collaborating on an issue where we had mutual interst.
f Amnesty say they have no partnership with Cage risoners, then I have no reason to disbelieve them
“Previously the method used here to avoid discussing my points has been to call me a racist and to accuse me of being part of a group advocating rape. Today the method is to accuse me of supporting terrorism. No doubt tommorow it will be something else. ”
Yes, you are a very unsavoury character and yet Harry’s Place linked to your blog. Are Harry’s Place in “partnership” with you?
“Cage Prisoners condemn attacks on civilians, but at the same time support people in prison convicted for - attacks on civilians! ”
what support do they offer for those convicted of terrorism? Everything I have seen on their website concerns cases which had not at that time come to trial.
Of course it may under certain circumstances e correct to campaign for humane treatment of people convicted of inhumane acts.
But it is not use discussing generalities. Can you provide evidence of support for people after their convictions?
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:38 pm
Is there much a problem these days with anarchists attacking police officers?
If so, you can be most certain that Harry’s Place will be at the forefront of those fighting those who promote such wickedness.
Paul - if you do have any posts encouraging people either to attack police officers, or to laugh at police officers who have been attacked, please send them to me. I will want to condemn them roundly.
Comment by David T — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:40 pm
#92
what this shows is campaigning for people who had been arrested, highlighting mistreatement at the hands of the police, or inhumane traeatment in prison, or deficiences of the legal process.
that is entirely consistent with being a genuine human rights organisation.
their pictures and stories remain there after conviction in the few cases where there has been a convition, but what you have utterly faled to do is demonstrate any support for their violent crimes, or any statements in support of them after their convictions.
Even people who have committed repugnant crimes deserve a presumption of innnocence, and t be treated with respect and dignity.
It is quite correct for cage Prisoners to take up the issue that prevailing islamophobia means that innocent and guilty alike are abused and mistreated. Only by demanding the presumption of innnocence can fair trials be assured: inevitably that means yourself assuming innocence until a court of law has decided otherwise..
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:43 pm
#94
So not only are you “in partnership” with someone who has advocated terrorsm, but you think the whole thing is a bit of a larf.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:45 pm
#90
“have by now come to expect to see the hard-left fail to uphold the universality of human rights as a body of ethics”
It is well established that I have no truck with the idea of “universl” human rights, hich I regard as a highly problematic concept.
Rather than flog that dead horse, I refer you to my previous argument
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4844
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 3:52 pm
Yes, which is consistent with supporting the advocates of Anwar al-Awlaki, diminish the rights of Afghani women and then pretend to speak on behalf of Muslims like myself. Shame on you.
Comment by Faisal — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:00 pm
Well if you have a problem with Universal Human Rights, you’re not alone. So do the jihadists.
Aha! Now I understand.
But seriously…
- CP don’t appear in the least concerned about the plight of, for example, Muslim shoplifters. Only if they’re accused of wanting to blow something really big and spectacular up, in order to establish a nightmarish totalitarian theocratic state do they get CP’s support.
- And they continue to support them, even when they’re convicted. Why do you think that is?
(a) They don’t believe that they were wrongly convicted
(b) They don’t believe that the glorious struggle to establish God’s word as the sole authority over the earth is a crime.
Comment by David T — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:01 pm
I think people are missing teh point here….
Since 9/11 we have seen the imprisonment of islamists in muslim countries…
Some of these guys are deeply unpleasent and hold views that any socialist would find abhorrent…
however they (islamists) need defending as everyone has a right to a fair trial/trial by jury
AI has tried to get invloved in this - which is reasonable and laudable…
however the method they have chosen, i.e. cageprisoners, is wrong…
this doesn’t make AI wrong in theory but wrong in practice as Cageprisoners are a deeply unpleasent bunch of chaps….
a perfect AI poster boy would have been majid nawas
for decents though, including faissal (who should know better) and david t, this is not about human rights per se…it is about marginalising NGOs who have been critical of the war on terror…
decents like faisal who as a muslim should be ashamed of himself…over 3.5 million people have had to flee the fighting in the swat valley cos of fighting between taliban and the pakistani army…we see no analysis, no sympathy with these refugees- just calls for more war…decents are the biggest hypocrites…
where the War on terror goes wrong. i.e. somalia we see no discussion, no debate, no sympathy…nothing, not even a word of regret
i accept jihadi violence is a serious problem, their is a way foward though…
Andy if you’re got time read through this article by ed husain…its quite remarkable in that it shows how bankrupt neo-muscular liberalism has become in combatting militant islam…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/01/muslim-profiling-recipe-insecurity
“The strongest weapons available to our enemies are ideas of religious supremacy and perennial confrontation, backed with logistical networks, and repressive political conditions that help strengthen their narrative and network. Unless we in the west can combat their ideas with better ideas, puncture the alluring narrative of victimhood politics, question their self-assured martyrdom, and end perceptions of incessant enmity with non-Muslims then we will be confined to dealing with symptoms of terrorist attacks rather than healing the underlying causes. Nearly a decade after 9/11, when compared with military budgets, where is investment in these soft-power, counter radicalisation projects? The silence says it all”
Comment by saeed — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:04 pm
#99
“CP don’t appear in the least concerned about the plight of, for example, Muslim shoplifters”
ahh, but the same issues don’t arise. There are no shoplifters in Guantanamo bay, there are no special rendition flight, and people being help in extra-legal status; and there is no popular presumption that all Muslims are terrorists, which does exist - although I am not accusing anyone here of thinking that.
But I am no advocate fr Cage risoners, there may e a number of areas where they might do better, that is not the question.
the question is whether or not Amnesty can reasonably associate with cage Prisoners, and I think that the evidence is clear that they are correct to do s.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:06 pm
I think people are missing teh point here….
Since 9/11 we have seen the imprisonment of islamists in muslim countries…
Some of these guys are deeply unpleasent and hold views that any socialist would find abhorrent…
however they (islamists) need defending as everyone has a right to a fair trial/trial by jury
AI has tried to get invloved in this - which is reasonable and laudable…
however the method they have chosen, i.e. cageprisoners, is wrong…
this doesn’t make AI wrong in theory but wrong in practice as Cageprisoners are a deeply unpleasent bunch of chaps….
a perfect AI poster boy would have been majid nawas
for decents though, including faissal (who should know better) and david t, this is not about human rights per se…it is about marginalising NGOs who have been critical of the war on terror…
decents, like faisal who is a muslim and should be ashamed of himself, have no qualms over the human rights abuses caused by the War on terror. For example over 3.5 million people have had to flee the fighting in the swat valley cos of fighting between taliban and the pakistani army…we see no analysis, no sympathy with these refugees- just calls for more war…decents are the biggest hypocrites…
where the War on terror goes wrong. i.e. somalia we see no discussion, no debate, no sympathy…nothing, not even a word of regret
i accept jihadi violence is a serious problem, their is a way foward though…
Andy if you’re got time read through this article by ed husain…its quite remarkable in that it shows how bankrupt neo-muscular liberalism has become in combatting militant islam…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/01/muslim-profiling-recipe-insecurity
“The strongest weapons available to our enemies are ideas of religious supremacy and perennial confrontation, backed with logistical networks, and repressive political conditions that help strengthen their narrative and network. Unless we in the west can combat their ideas with better ideas, puncture the alluring narrative of victimhood politics, question their self-assured martyrdom, and end perceptions of incessant enmity with non-Muslims then we will be confined to dealing with symptoms of terrorist attacks rather than healing the underlying causes. Nearly a decade after 9/11, when compared with military budgets, where is investment in these soft-power, counter radicalisation projects? The silence says it all”
Comment by saeed — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:07 pm
#96 Andy - Cage are giving the prison address of Abu Hamza - convicted over 4 years ago of inciting racial hatred.
They give the address of Omar Khayam, convicted nearly three years ago of plotting to blow up a nightclub. Then there is Sajid Badat, a would be shoe bomber or Andrew Rowe, convicted of smuggling guns into Britain. I could go on.
To this day their details are on their website. Why?
At Islam Expo in summer 2008 they distributed the prison addresses of these guys for people to write to. Why?
And that’s before we even get onto their long term support for the US/Yemeni jihadist al-Awlaki.
Do you think the type of society he wants to create in Yemen is one that would respect due process, women’s rights and an efficient legal process? Trades Unions? Socialist Blogs? George Galloway’s womanising?
All this would be logical if CP just said they were a jihadist prisoners support group. Instead they structure much of their activities within the framework of 20th century western liberal principles of human rights and equality, thus ensuring healthy sums of money from the Rowntree Trust, and support from gullible white leftists in Amnesty or on this blog.
And anyone who criticises this, as Gita Saghal and others have, is smeared as either a war monger or a racist.
Comment by Paul Stott — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:09 pm
sorry about the double post…
just wanted to reiterate how come decents have now just started tio rage about human rights…
when israel bombed gaza where was the outrage…
when ethiopia invaded somalia with tacit US supoort where was the outrage from decents…
don’t get drawn in to debating with this people andy they pick and choose who they want to defend…
they will defend ayaan hersi ali but not Nagaad…
Comment by saeed — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:12 pm
Andy, Calvin
Isn’t there a very simple answer to all this.
1. You are part of coalitions (Galloway, Livingstone) which has decided that jihadists are your friends and allies. Therefore, you must do all you can to defend them.
2. The reason that you are in such a coalition is that, bad though privately you might admit they are, you’ve decided that (a) the USA and (b) liberal democracy is much much much worse.
If we can just agree that, then we can move on.
Comment by David T — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:13 pm
#103
“Cage are giving the prison address of Abu Hamza - convicted over 4 years ago of inciting racial hatred. ”
well Abu Hamza is currenry appealing against his extraditin to the USA, on quite reasonable grounds, although worng in my view.
Personally I have no more problem with Abu Hamza being extradited than I do with Gary McKinnon being extradited, but many people on here have argueed in support of Gary MacKinnon in ther past, and so i can understand that some others may oppose Abu Hamza’s exradition on similar human rights grounds.
I see nothing more sinister in campaigning on Aby Hamza’s behalf over extradition than campgaigning for Gary McKinnon, both are essentialy making the same argument that in the context of the war on terror neither can expct a far trial in the USA.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:16 pm
“decents like faisal who as a muslim should be ashamed of himself…over 3.5 million people have had to flee the fighting in the swat valley cos of fighting between taliban and the pakistani army…we see no analysis, no sympathy with these refugees- just calls for more war…decents are the biggest hypocrites…”
Saeed, I am not a “decent” whatever that it is.
Why should I be ashamed of myself? How do you know that I have “no analysis, no sympathy” for the plight of the Pakistani refugees? How have you come to these appalling assumptions?
Comment by Faisal — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:18 pm
Paul Stott is surely wrong (above) - I haven’t seen any suggestion that Gita Saghal is either a warmonger or a racist - presumably because she isn’t either. Suggesting David T is a warmonger hardly would seem like a smear. I think your arguments are a bit slippery here Paul.
Mind you, slipperay arguments are being used a lot - this “Partner with” argument seems especially flexible. I mean, by that logic, shouldn’t the Spittoon be ashamed to “Partner with” Harry’s place and David T, a website that advocated keeping Guantanamo open “with reforms” as an alternative to “shooting” “terrorists”. And as David T argued the Red Cross were blowing up their own ambulances in Palestine to embarrass the Israeli army, wouldn’t he be someone you should avoid “partnering with”
Comment by Ann On — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:20 pm
Ann On, shouldn’t you be ashamed to be associating with Andy Newman who only last July suggested that the China was completely justified in stamping out any expression of Muslim Uighur ethnic identity?
Comment by Faisal — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:26 pm
well I said they were justified in their attempts “to restore order, and prevent racial tensions from further developing.”
So you have put a somewhat dishonest spin on that.
Clearly China has no intention of staning out with Uighur identity of Islam.
the uighur people are an officially designated ethnic minority within the Peoples’ republic with protected status, and the Islamic religion nowadays receives a lot of state support.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:30 pm
Andy I don’t know why you raised the question of the Equalities Bill again in this context, but since you have…
I note that you uncritically quote Dr Sentamu inferred claimed that the Equalities Bill would intervene or “hurry up” the question of women Bishops or that somehow force the Catholic Church to except gay priests. This is not true. Amendment 99A did neither of these things. Rather it sort to clarify the existing opt-out of sexual orientation equalities legislation that exists for Religious groups.
Currently the wording is so vague that that it would allow any religious organisation to discriminate against LGBT people for jobs that have no real religious content at all – such as cleaner in religious school. What the clause sort to do was to clarify and remove opt-out to non-religious vocations such as cleaning, teacher, administrator or social worker.
Don’t you think that is a good thing Andy Newman? or do you think it is ok for a teacher to be sacked because they are gay?
Comment by Richard Farnos — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:30 pm
#111
I support the continuation of the religious exemptions in the Equalities Bill, along the lines laid down by the Church of England.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:32 pm
Why should Ann On be ashamed?
I assume we all know who Ann On is (but it isn’t right to mention it, of course!)
Ann On’s take on “Islamophobia” is entirely determined by his position on “imperialism”.
So, as Uighurs aren’t fighting “imperialism”, but rather a Peoples’ Republic, smashing them can’t be Islamophobia.
Comment by David T — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:33 pm
Andy, you also warned of the “pseudo-history” of the Mulsim Uighurs, in case they made claims of persecution by the PRC.
“We need to be very cautious of Uyghur nationalist organisations mythologizing a fictitious pseudo-history of themselves as an oppressed nation.”
Waiting to see how you’ll try to claim that that is my dishonest spinning!
Comment by Faisal — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:35 pm
PS Richard Farnos - how odd to see you actually standing up for gay rights against religious nutters, for a change!
Are you a Christianophobe?
Comment by David T — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:36 pm
“the uighur people are an officially designated ethnic minority within the Peoples’ republic with protected status, and the Islamic religion nowadays receives a lot of state support.”
Translation
“Oooh Anna Chen u are so luvvly coo gosh!!!”
Comment by David T — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:37 pm
#114
Well the Uighurs have never been an historic nation, they were a stateless nomadic people within the Midde Kingdom, but they now mytholigise that they did have a state that was forcibly incorporated into the PRC. This simply isn’t true.
East Turkistan, which they refer to, was never a nation state in the modern sense, and its brief flickering existance was merely as a warlord controlled territory that briefly exploited support from Stalin to have quasi-independence during the civil war. Even then it was not a uighur national state - it was in many ways simlar to the territiory controlled by Genera Dostum in modern Northern Adfghanistan in recent years.
The uighur’s are now clssified as a national minority wthin the PRC, and Xinajiang is an autonomus republic, both of which statuses give certain advantages. Now there i a certain aspect of Han chauvinism in China tat is highly regretable, but many UIghur rise to high acheivement within the PRC and CPC structures.
China is certainly NOT Islamophobic, and Islam reeceves a great deal of state encouragement, and Hui Muslims are among the most loyal citizens, many of whom are Turkic.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:44 pm
#116
well a lot of people are broadly sympathetic to the people’s reublic who don’t know Anna.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:46 pm
Of course, we can’t verify any of this, because the PRC is a totalitarian regime with no democracy, and no respect for human rights, which tortures and executes political dissidents and then suppresses reporting of this fact.
Comment by David T — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:49 pm
well a lot of people are broadly sympathetic to the people’s reublic who don’t know Anna.
Yes, indeed.
But I am right in thinking, Andy, that you are more than a little goo golly gosh coo sweet on her!!
Comment by David T — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:50 pm
(and no shame in that - she’s a handsome woman!)
Comment by David T — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:51 pm
Wel David #119
China may have many faults, but it is not the dark side of the moon.
there are western jouranlists there, there are Chinese people in the diaspora in regular contact with China, and there is a robust intelectual class in China, who not only publish critical stuff in the RC itself, but have also been known to publish in Hong Kong and taiwan to avoid state censorship over cintentious issues.
So a great deal is known about China which is not just government propaganda.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:54 pm
#120
no you are not correct there
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:54 pm
Well acording to Faisal I am only “associating” with Andy, not “partnering ” with him. As it happens I don’t agree with Andy on the Uighurs, . You haven’t answered the point , though : Surely it is reasonable to raise you and your partners stands on humanitarian organisations like the Red Cross, or your “partners” desire to keep Guantanamo going. Or your ongoing “partnership” with Douglas Murray, the man who linked Islam to aids ?
(Incidentally, where the comments above really by David T, they were very creepy)
Comment by Ann On — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:54 pm
“Well the Uighurs have never been an historic nation”
And nor have the Palestinians, but I think we would both agree that they are entitled to self-determination anyhow. The Chinese domination of the minority peoples of the Republic is imperialistic as far as those peoples are concerned. Surely anti-imperialists prefer the view of the oppresed above those of the oppressor? The Uighars are part of the PRC because they have been foreced to be through superior Chinese military might.
Comment by John Meredith — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:55 pm
“So a great deal is known about China which is not just government propaganda.”
That is true. But what we don’t know is who the Chinese people would like to govern them. An important detail, we usually think.
Comment by John Meredith — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:56 pm
Andy Newman is entitle to raise questions about Gita’s the details of the dispute with Amenesty. I happen to think she is right and Harpy is well off beam. At least Andy does not descend to abuse (unlike many anti-Gita people).
Have you actually read Begg’s - ghost written and therefore sanitised - book? It is clearly pro-ultra-Islamist totalitarian Caliphate.
But more serious is Andy Newman’s relativism about morals.”. So her view effectively amounts to an endorsement of Western liberalism as being a superior set of values which if necessary must be allowed to overrule the rights of others.”
Which, to put it politely, means that no-one has the right to say they are right. It’s also pretty abject Stanly Fish liberalism in its own right.
For more on this point: http://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/gita-saghal-anti-imperialists-reply-by-bullying/
Comment by Andrew Coates — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:56 pm
“Well the Uighurs have never been an historic nation, they were a stateless nomadic people”
Well by that logic, Newman and friends are all in favour of persecution of the Balouchis, the Kurds and the Pashtuns.
Comment by Faisal — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:57 pm
“The Uighars are part of the PRC because they have been foreced to be through superior Chinese military might.”
really, when did that happen? have you been sniffing glue again?
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:58 pm
“Well by that logic, Newman and friends are all in favour of persecution of the Balouchis, the Kurds and the Pashtuns.”
And the Palestinians, of course. In fact it is a constant trope of the more spittle-flecked anti-Palestinian commenters that they have never had a state and should therefore just shut up and take what they are given.
Comment by John Meredith — 10 February, 2010 @ 4:59 pm
“really, when did that happen? have you been sniffing glue again?2
There are literally dozens of histories of China relating its long-time battles, compromises and truces with the peoples it dominated Andy, all of them will give you the story of the Uighurs fairly accurately.
But we needn’t bicker about it, China could just offer a vote and ask the Uighurs if they want to be part of the empire or not.
Comment by John Meredith — 10 February, 2010 @ 5:02 pm
It really is a reprehensible line of argument by Andy “Anti-Islamophobia” Newman.
Comment by Faisal — 10 February, 2010 @ 5:02 pm
“But we needn’t bicker about it, China could just offer a vote and ask the Uighurs if they want to be part of the empire or not.”
hahahahahahahahahahaha
Oh come now. Voting is not the measure of a TRUE democracy, like the PRC!!
Comment by David T — 10 February, 2010 @ 5:04 pm
David T, you bang on about liberal democracy, yet the torture, kidnappings and illegal detentions, which are part and parcel of the ‘war on terror’, have done more to undermine that concept than anything Moazzam Begg may have said, even on your interpretation.
That’s the scandal. That’s what Amnesty International is correctly highlighting. And that’s what Harry’s Place wish to divert people’s attention from, with their petty stories puffed out of all proportion, their character assassinations, and your own personal specialism - the six degrees of seperation.
Comment by Calvin — 10 February, 2010 @ 5:09 pm
“That’s the scandal. That’s what Amnesty International is correctly highlighting. ”
But that is a daft false dichotomy. Amnesty can easily highlight abuses against human rights without cuddling up to people who are seeking to abuse human rights themselves.
Comment by John Meredith — 10 February, 2010 @ 5:11 pm
#135 is the core point.
“But that is a daft false dichotomy. Amnesty can easily highlight abuses against human rights without cuddling up to people who are seeking to abuse human rights themselves.”
Amnesty, and socialists of whatever stripe should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Comment by Paul Stott — 10 February, 2010 @ 5:16 pm
“Amnesty can easily highlight abuses against human rights without cuddling up to people who are seeking to abuse human rights themselves.”
And that’s the fundamental point that Andy Newman has consistently failed to address. Even going as far as calling me a “troll” for introducing it into this discussion!
Comment by Faisal — 10 February, 2010 @ 5:16 pm
“David T, you bang on about liberal democracy, yet the torture, kidnappings and illegal detentions, which are part and parcel of the ‘war on terror’, have done more to undermine that concept than anything Moazzam Begg may have said, even on your interpretation.”
Well, I’m opposed to that. That’s why I support Amnesty
But then, I’m also opposed to salafi jihadist politics, Jamaat-e-Islami, Hamas/MB, HuT ect ect ect, because I think they’d visit the sort of inhuman treatment that was practiced on occasion under Bush - and much much worse - on every member of the populations that they aspire to govern.
But this isn’t about torture, is it?
Because we now know what was done to Binyamin Mohammed - he was told that he would ‘disappear’, questioned in shackles, and suffered sleep deprivation
At the same time as we rightly deplore this sort of inhuman treatment…
… you cheerlead for the Cuban Monarchy, which does this sort of thing and worse to its own political prisoners (i.e. “counterrevolutionary librarians”)
… Andy tells us how wonderful China is, despite just a teensy bit of the occasional Han chauvinism.
Comment by David T — 10 February, 2010 @ 5:20 pm
“where the comments above really by David T, they were very creepy”
That would be a pretty good indication they came from David T, wouldn’t it?
Comment by lone nut — 10 February, 2010 @ 5:29 pm
I’m asuming that this sudden burst of zionist activity on the blog preludes an Israeli attack on some poor civilian population somewhere, probably Lebanon. Personally I think AI’s work with Begg is exemplary.
Comment by David Ellis — 10 February, 2010 @ 5:40 pm
Zionist activity? Gosh! Where is it? Please show us. (And why am I not suprised that the ‘zionist sniffer’ is impressed by Begg?)
Comment by John Meredith — 10 February, 2010 @ 5:42 pm
Well there’s one thing this thread has achieved and that’s a donation I’ve just sent to Cage Prisoners.
You can do the same on their website;
http://www.cageprisoners.com/
I also realised that I didn’t have a copy of Moazzam Begg’s book ‘Enemy Combatant: The Terrifying True Story of a Briton in Guantanamo’ so I bought a copy of that also.
So it’s quids in for Moazzam and Cage Prisoners, nice one.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 10 February, 2010 @ 5:58 pm
#112 Andy – I am no clearer. No one has sort to abolish the religious exemptions in the Equalities Bill, only clarify them. And give Dr Sentamu disingenuous interruption I have no idea what “lines laid down by the Church of England” are – please enlighten me.
#115 David T – calling people “religious nutters” really does not help LGBT cause. Not that you really care.
Comment by Richard Farnos — 10 February, 2010 @ 6:02 pm
Yeah. They are religious nutters though, aren’t they.
Comment by David T — 10 February, 2010 @ 6:03 pm
Eddie Truman, why stop at Cageprisoners and Begg. There’s always Anwar al-Awlaki’s 35-disk DVD set on the Exegesis on Jihad that your bookshelves are crying out for. And don’t forget the coffers of Jamaat-e-Islami front IFE and the Muslim Brotherhood front, Cordoba Foundation, are wide open to receive your contributions as well.
Comment by Faisal — 10 February, 2010 @ 6:07 pm
Eddie - Good work.
Its nice to see someone on this site reading some primary sources.
It might mean the next time a Brit is arrested abroad in dubious circumstances and claims to have only been there to get off heroin/open a girls school/deliver night vision equipment for charitable workers (delete as appropriate) you can compare it it what his compatriots have written before.
Comment by Paul Stott — 10 February, 2010 @ 6:11 pm
I’m asuming that this sudden burst of zionist activity on the blog preludes an Israeli attack on some poor civilian population somewhere, probably Lebanon.
Indeed, David. The Israeli government orders Zionists worldwide to increase their activity on Socialist Unity whenever they are planning to attack civilian populations. And that includes such notorious Zionists as Faisal.
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=5253#comment-179794
Comment by Gene — 10 February, 2010 @ 6:15 pm
Is it wise of David T to be throwing around insults like “nutters” ? I see his website picked up Socialist Unity’s discussion of this issue in a posting by Brett - so the man who thinks Guantanamo should be kept open (or “terrorists” should be “shot”) is the man complaining about “a disappointing response on Socialist Unity to the debate around Amnesty International parading around Mozzam Begg as if he were a human rights defender”. Still, I suppose someone who thought the Red Cross blew up their own ambulances to embarrass the Israeli army has a high tolerance for odd views.
Comment by Ann On — 10 February, 2010 @ 6:23 pm
But jihadis tell us all the time that they want to die fighting for god!
Why do you want to stand in their way? Are you some sort of Islamophobe?
Comment by David T — 10 February, 2010 @ 6:25 pm
Good news about the donation Eddie, keep up the fight against the demonising of Muslims by EDL types and fuckwits like David T. As someone who grew up in a predominantly Muslim neighbourhood in Attercliffe, Sheffield, I am in a good position to see that the malicious generalisations spread about Muslims bears little resemblance to reality.
Funny also to note how before 9/11 and the War on terror only hardened NF supporters were a concern to our neighbourhood, now it’s not only the hard right but elements of the left too!
Comment by Marko — 10 February, 2010 @ 6:26 pm
I grew up in a predominantly Muslim neighbourhood myself. But most of my peers would rather die a painful, shameful death than hand their money over to Moazzam Begg and his hero, the terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki.
Comment by Faisal — 10 February, 2010 @ 6:28 pm
#144 David, I can remember when sexual prejudice was socially acceptable and among the stock of standard anti-gay jokes included the activities of young christians.
I don’t buy the idea that religious folk are inherently anti-gay or that or our oppression all stems from believers. That why I am challenging Andy – who seems to confuse the current wave of anti-gay prejudice in the leadership of many Christian Churches as somehow essential to Christianity.
Comment by Richard Farnos — 10 February, 2010 @ 6:29 pm
I kind of prefer due process , courts, that kind of thing to wildman Brett locking people up in Guantanamo (”with reforms”) or shooting them - you know, sort of Amnesty-ish points , David.
Comment by Ann On — 10 February, 2010 @ 6:29 pm
‘That is not all, oh no, that is not all’. David T is also a known liar who fakes translations from Viva Palestina t-Shirts to pretend that they are anti-Semitic. Gutter politics as usual from someone of very dubious political provenance.
David T - you also failed to explain why you deliberately lied about the T-shirt slogan. Why are you a liar?
Comment by Dirty Red Bandana — 10 February, 2010 @ 6:29 pm
Going right back to comment 38 (sorry) I’d like to know exactly what Dustin means by ‘women’s rights are a shibboleth’.
Comment by Sarah AB — 10 February, 2010 @ 6:31 pm
Good to see Gene of Harry’s Palce standing up for Amnesty - although what would they have made about your support for the assassination of Sheikh Yassin, or enthusiasm for the assassination of Arafat (When he was alive)?
Comment by Ann On — 10 February, 2010 @ 6:35 pm
“Going right back to comment 38 (sorry) I’d like to know exactly what Dustin means by ‘women’s rights are a shibboleth’.”
He is referrimng to the infamous statement by the SWP that while they sort of support gay rights they weren’t going to make them a ’shibboleth’. In other words, they were still going to ally themselves with people intent on killing gays. There seems to be a parallel now with womens rights. People like Andy (no longer with the SWP, of course) pay lip service to such rights but are quick to abandon them when they see political advantage in allying themselves with right wing extremists such as Begg.
Comment by John Meredith — 10 February, 2010 @ 6:39 pm
“Well the Uighurs have never been an historic nation, they were a stateless nomadic people within the Midde Kingdom, but they now mytholigise that they did have a state that was forcibly incorporated into the PRC. This simply isn’t true.
Just substitute ‘Palestinian’ for Uighur and Israel for PRC and you’ve got as firm a grasp of Mr Newman’s poltitics as you’ll ever need: Morally repugnant, opportunistic and intellectually below contempt. What a guy!
Comment by Anonymous — 10 February, 2010 @ 6:43 pm
Can I just say I admire Andy for actually having the patience to debate the racist scum flooding this blog every single time a post appears that might challenge their racist assumptions. Personally I think T and his scum hangers-on should simply be banned. They don’t actually ever contribute to the debate.
Comment by christian h. — 10 February, 2010 @ 7:00 pm
Thanks John Meredith - I now remember the gay rights quote - and should have made the connection.
Comment by Sarah AB — 10 February, 2010 @ 7:00 pm
Can I just add that I pointed out to Brett in a comment over at his Harry’s Place website - the one linking to this Socialist Unity post, that given his views about either keeping Guantanamo open (”With reforms”) or just “shooting” “terrorists”, he wasn’t neccessarily the best person to be having a go at Socialist Unity on the issue of Amnesty. Result ? (1) A badly spelt sweary diatribe from Brett (2) Instantly blocked from making comments - after all the fuss David T made about you blocking Faisal. I mean, fair enough its their website, they don’t have to give space to people who disagree - but they are real hypocrites, and I think you are patient for letting them vent their spleen on your digital dime.
Comment by Ann On — 10 February, 2010 @ 7:06 pm
“He is referrimng to the infamous statement by the SWP that while they sort of support gay rights they weren’t going to make them a ’shibboleth’. In other words, they were still going to ally themselves with people intent on killing gays.”
Why is John Meredith a lying twat? What motivates his utter dishonesty?
Comment by SteveH — 10 February, 2010 @ 7:39 pm
an efficient legal process? Trades Unions? Socialist Blogs? George Galloway’s womanising?
Sorry, why is an anarchist supporting an efficient legal process again? But then that question doesn’t have to be answered. The vast majority of the so-called anarchists I know are just liberal middle-class professionals playing dress-up on weekends. (No offence to the real anarchists who are in a minority in their own “community”.)
I am also amazed at the crapflood of this blog. The far right and the pro-imperial left are both distinguished by the attitude that “We need to kill, torture, demonise and exclude in the name of the glories of Western civilisation” - the only difference being that the two factions disagree on what those glories are. Of course the imperial apparatus can talk about defending traditional Christian values to one faction, and defending those poor oppressed wimmins and queers to the other faction. The imperial system can tell you anything it thinks you need to hear to win your support for killing, torture, demonisation and social exclusion.
Comment by Doloras — 10 February, 2010 @ 7:49 pm
#159
“Can I just say I admire Andy for actually having the patience to debate the racist scum flooding this blog every single time a post appears that might challenge their racist assumption”
Is Faisal ‘racist scum’ in your opinion as well? Because they both share the same opinion.
Is Gita Sahgal a ‘racist’ as well? Or is it just one of those sexy catchphrases like ‘Zionist’ ‘Fascist’ and ‘Nazi’ people of your ilk throw around like confetti?
Comment by Mick — 10 February, 2010 @ 7:55 pm
Is Faisal ‘racist scum’ in your opinion as well?
…
people of your ilk
The form of the imperial discourse of violence, exclusion and supremacism doesn’t matter so much as the content. As long as you are able to say “I pledge allegiance to the Big Other, and that gives me the right to conduct in hate speech/violence [delete as appropriate]”* it doesn’t matter if - say - you’re not white and you’re unloading your hatred and contempt on other people who aren’t white either. With groups who hate and fear X, there is nothing more popular than a member of X group who agrees with them on the perfidity of X - like the two or three black people propped up by the Teabagger movement in the US.
Comment by Doloras LaPicho — 10 February, 2010 @ 8:28 pm
@Doloras.
Fuck the Teabaggers. This is a serious issue.
To posit that this is a race issue is disgraceful. To posit that this is a ‘white mans’ fight is a cop out. Are Faisal and Gita Sahgal ‘haters’ in your opinion? Do they conduct ‘hate speech’? These people offer reasonable debate and they are painted as ‘racists’. It’s ludicrous whitewashing.
Comment by Mick — 10 February, 2010 @ 8:38 pm
‘As someone who grew up in a predominantly Muslim neighbourhood in Attercliffe, Sheffield, I am in a good position to see that the malicious generalisations spread about Muslims bears little resemblance to reality.’
Muslim: 7.9% (according to http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-profiles/sheffieldbrightsideandhillsborough)
Shoulda gone to specsavers (although all these asians look the same to you I suppose.)
Comment by Teflon — 10 February, 2010 @ 8:50 pm
#161 “after all the fuss David T made about you blocking Faisal”
and most amusing of all of course I hadn’t deleted him. all his comments are still here.
Sone of them were put in the moderation queue by the spam checker just becasue Faisal had not commented here before, and had made several comments in quick succession.
i than approved them
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 9:11 pm
#152
“That why I am challenging Andy – who seems to confuse the current wave of anti-gay prejudice in the leadership of many Christian Churches as somehow essential to Christianity.”
No - it is not essential to christianity, but many christians think that it is, and those Christians have as much right to be heard as other Christians who might be closer to my own socially liberal views.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 9:13 pm
#158 (and others of similar ilk)
No if you must make the analogy the Uighur are a closer analogy to the bedouin. A national liberation movement existed in Palestine before the creation of Israel, and Palestine was a defined political entity.
Where peoples coexist on the same land (as the han and Uighur have always done) in a pre-modern pre-industrial society, then to form a modern nation state aropund one of those nationalities but not the other will lead to oppression.
In Xinjiang, Han, Hui and UIghur have always coexisted. An ethnic uighur state now would be a step backwards, leading to ethnic division.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 February, 2010 @ 9:18 pm
Sorry for being off-topic, but… averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com
Comment by Lindsey German Resigns from SWP! — 10 February, 2010 @ 9:18 pm
#167
Thank you for doing the research, Teflon. I also suspected the earlier assertion by Marko to be of questionable veracity. Only a native of Dore and Totley could make such a comment.
Comment by steelcityblue — 10 February, 2010 @ 10:10 pm
#54
Question posts, without comment, statement by someone from a deservedly obscure American organization best known for (1) prior to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, its president calling for the death of any leader who would trade any part of the Land of Israel for peace, and (2) refusing to recognize non-Orthodox streams of Judaism. BTW, the organization’s president also led protests against Monty Python’s Life of Brian, claiming it “was produced in hell.”
Inquiring minds want to know what Question was about.
Comment by one of the people — 10 February, 2010 @ 10:29 pm
so newman is against the equality bill. Now why might this be? Is it because he’s in a lash-up with religious nuts who would have me and other queers executed, perhaps? Absolutely disgraceful. No-one should be exempt from the law. As a Marxist i fail to see why you disagree.
Comment by dan — 11 February, 2010 @ 1:14 am
This bothers me:
i) Amnesty International has no formal relationship with Cage Prisoners, they merely have overlappiong concerns over the Guantanamo prisoners, and other parts of the extra-legal network of American prisons around the world.
Aside from the typo, groups should certainly be careful about groups with overlapping interests that they work with. If not, just think of the groups that could end up collaborating. Does this mean that Al Qaeda and the anti-American constituency in Europe are natural partners too?
Comment by europhobe — 11 February, 2010 @ 9:28 am
“Where peoples coexist on the same land (as the han and Uighur have always done)”
No, they haven’t. The Han dominated the forntier provinces through foirce of arms and through the tributary system with tribal warlords.
“then to form a modern nation state aropund one of those nationalities but not the other will lead to oppression.”
Which is what we already have. The Uighur are subject, against their will, to the Han Chinese empire. If the Red Army undertook to remain in their barracks Xinjian would be independent tomorrow. I am sure you know that.
“In Xinjiang, Han, Hui and UIghur have always coexisted. An ethnic uighur state now would be a step backwards, leading to ethnic division.”
I don’t see why. The Uighur are not more inclined to ethnic hostility than the Han and, anyway, nopbody is suggesting an ‘ethinic Uighur nation’ just an indepoendent nation free from imperial control. Why should an independent state not manage its ethnic relations as well as a state subject to an empire? Of course there will be trouble during the transition, but surely you are not suggesting empire should be supported because the costs of transition to independence are too high?
Comment by John Meredith — 11 February, 2010 @ 9:47 am
The Western so called “colored revolution”, “democratization and human rights” blah-blah bull-shit are TOTALLY discreditied in the former Soviet Republics. What is behind this bull-shit blah-blah is only WAR for Resources!!! Divide and Rule!!! This corporate media war is so hypocritical and stupid. The truth is that neither US, UK, Zionis Israel cared, nor their “owned” human rights organizations cared about human rights in Afghanistan or Iraq, and now they want to bomb Iran??? Dream on you stupid blood-handed Bush bastards…
Comment by Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin — 16 February, 2010 @ 10:04 pm
‘What we cannot do as atheists is assume that the evolution of moral and ethical viewpoints within our own society can be regarded as a superior standard that other people must comply with.’ Yes we can. We can and we will. If you propogate the view that society should be run by priests, that a holy text should take precedence over democratic laws, that non-religious books should be censored or burned, that women should have little freedom and one or two limited uses, that people should be killed for having the wrong kind of sexuality or the wrong kind of nationality or for being the wrong kind of Muslim, if you argue for slaughter over compassion and death over life, then we will challenge you all the way and we will win. Call me a ’secular fundamentalist’ or whatever – I don’t care. Watch out, gentlemen, because as Hitchens said, there are many more of us and we are both smarter and nicer.
Comment by Anon — 20 February, 2010 @ 8:03 pm
I put this in a dead thread when it would go better here.
I think Andy Newman has the stick by the wrong end. By looking for a pure, simple answer, he has chosen one poisoned by it’s own contradictions and doomed to fail.
Let me quote Karl Popper, The Open Society and it’s Enemies, Vol. 1, Notes to the Chapters: Ch. 7, Note 4
‘The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
Comment by Josh Scholar — 20 February, 2010 @ 10:04 pm
Note, the emphasis is Popper’s not my own.
Comment by Josh Scholar — 20 February, 2010 @ 10:10 pm
#180
Do you think we should crack down hard on the intolerant secularists then?
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 February, 2010 @ 10:13 pm
I think we should convict Allah of hate speech and sentence him in absentia.
Comment by Josh Scholar — 20 February, 2010 @ 10:46 pm
“…for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument…”
Andy, do you admit the described problem is one that only the religious-fanatic side of this conflict has?
….
Back on topic, Andy has either shown that he is incapable of understanding what Popper wrote or unwilling to engage the argument which is that, paradoxical as it may seem, the need for tolerance to be reciprocal in some cases outweighs the need for it to be universal.
In other words once a group has rejected the rights of others, we may be forced to reject some their own rights in order in order to protect the tolerant nature of our society, because tolerance has the purpose of ending oppression, tolerance of the oppressive defeats the purpose and leads to oppression within society.
An analogy from game theory would be that in potentially cooperative games, giving to those who themselves refuse to give back leads to only loss.
Comment by Josh Scholar — 20 February, 2010 @ 11:15 pm