REVIEW OF GILLIGAN’S “ISLAMIC REPUBLIC” ON C4
If you thought documentaries couldn’t sink lower than the hatchet job by John Ware for BBC Panorama, ‘Who speaks for British Muslims?’, in 2005, the Dispatches programme aired this week is proof to the contrary. Using spurious evidence, half-truths and a ragbag of ‘community leaders’ – none of whom merit a byline demonstrating their ‘leadership’ credentials – Gilligan (pictured) outdoes even Ware in proving that documentary-makers with an animus against ‘Islamism’ have nothing but conjecture and pure prejudice on their side.
Gilligan’s chief claims in ‘Britain’s Islamic Republic’ are that Islamic Forum Europe is quietly and systematically overtaking institutions in Tower Hamlets, from the East London Mosque to Tower Hamlets Council and the local Labour Party association. The targeting of political power and institutions of representative democracy are, Gilligan argues, tactical manoeuvres in an ambitious plan to realise the ‘Islamist’ dream of a socio-political reality anchored in the teachings of Islam.
Who does Gilligan parade in front of our cameras to extemporise and validate his arguments? Well, first up is Paul Richards, former ‘special advisor’ to Hazel Blears. We’ve already exposed the hypocrisy that underlies Richards’ position. Richards seems strangely unaware of the blatant double standards he appears to invoke, decrying the IFE in the programme while in an article for the Jewish Chronicle, lauding the creation of:
‘New groups [which] were nurtured and supported, such as the Muslim Women’s Advisory Group’.
No prizes for guessing the democratic credentials of this particular invention of Blears and her aide, Richards.
Gilligan also brings on board Houriya Ahmed of Douglas ‘conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board’ Murray’s, misappropriately named, Centre for Social Cohesion.
And no documentary would be complete without at least one representative from organisations that have made it their business to attract government funding for battling ‘Islamism’.
Gilligan relies on Rashad Ali, formerly of the Quilliam Foundation and now housed at CENTRI, the organisation headed by Haras Rafiq, formerly of the Sufi Muslim Council.
The link is an important one given that just a couple of weeks ago questions into the public funding received by Rafiq and the SMC were denied public disclosure. In answer to questions put by Lord Ahmed and Baroness Warsi to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, Lord MacKenzie, on the SMC’s use of funds, the peer replied:
“There are no plans to place evaluation reports from Community Leadership Fund projects, or reports submitted by the Sufi Muslim Council, in the Library of the House since they contain confidential information which those organisations conducting the projects would not anticipate seeing made public and disclosure at this time could undermine their (and others) co-operation and willingness to continue participating in the programme.”
And then there’s Jim Fitzpatrick, the Minister for Food, Farming and Environment and MP for Poplar and Canning Town. Fitzpatrick made headlines last summer when he reacted with supreme arrogance and complete disregard for his hosts by complaining to the local papers of being asked to be seated separate from his wife at a segregated Muslim wedding. And who should pipe up and support Fitzpatrick’s ridiculous claim that the hand at work was that of IFE and ‘Islamists’ – Paul Richards and Martin ‘The Great Koran Con Trick’ Bright.
It’s difficult to see how one wouldn’t construe from this that those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, but such a weak response to Gilligan’s charges is not sufficient. That would be as weak as Gilligan’s claim that IFE is taking over the Muslim Council of Britain although out of six office bearers and 18 committees, Gilligan can number only two individuals from IFE ranks among senior MCB postholders.
No, what is important to expose, beyond the utter lack of credibility of the people used by Gilligan to bolster his arguments, is the political mindset that drives the critique of Gilligan and his likeminded cabal.
In attempting to suggest that the IFE, East London Mosque and London Muslim Centre are the bases from which something sinister is taking place in Tower Hamlets, what Gilligan is disingenuously seeking to do is undermine the work of local Muslim groups and institutions to mobilise the local Muslim populations into playing an active role in local community affairs and local politics.
Given that the Labour party candidate for Bethnal Green and Bow is Ms Rushanara Ali, did it perhaps not occur to Gilligan that the rise in Labour party membership may in part be due to Ms Ali’s efforts to mobilise voters to back her and her party in the forthcoming local and general elections? Such common sense theories are unlikely to sway Gilligan and those like him that search for ‘Greens under the bed’ in the vein of rabid McCarthyite Communist –hunters. Martin Bright’s article in the Jewish Chronicle calling for a ‘strategic alliance between British Jews and anti-Islamists in the East End’ is similarly, of this bent.
But back to the claims that ELM/LMC and IFE are planning a gradual takeover of Tower Hamlets.
Last Friday LMC paid host to the renowned American political theorist and philosopher, Michael Sandel. Sandel is one among many contributors to the Guardian’s ‘Citizen Ethics in a Time of Crisis’, publication.
The pamphlet is an attempt to revisit the fundamental questions of social and political order: what is the good life, the common good, and how do we construct the good society?
The programme, organised by London Citizens and hosted by LMC began with the recitation of verses from the Qur’an exhorting justice. Verses from Surah an-Nisa: 135:
‘O you who believe! be ever steadfast in upholding justice, bearing witness to the truth for the sake of God, even though it be against your own selves or your parents and kinsfolk. Whether the person concerned be rich or poor, God’s claim takes precedence over [the claims of] either of them. Do not, then, follow your own desires, lest you swerve from justice: for if you distort [the truth], behold, God is indeed aware of all that you do!’
And Surah Maedah: 8:
‘O you who believe! be ever steadfast in your devotion to God, bearing witness to the truth in all equity; and never let hatred of any-one lead you into the sin of deviating from justice. Be just: this is closest to being God-conscious. And remain conscious of God: verily, God is aware of all that you do.’
The reason being that Sandel’s latest publication is ‘Justice: What’s the right thing to do?’ and the London Citizens meeting, attended by Muslims, Christians, Jews, those of no faith, and by people from all over London, representing in one hall a microcosm of the brilliant diversity of London, was to deliberate the work of London Citizens in light of Sandel’s book and his contribution to Citizen Ethics.
It captures precisely the sort of work done in grassroots Muslim communities and in partnership with likeminded organisations: the invigoration of grassroots democracy, reclaiming values like social justice and equality, tolerance and diversity, at a time of populist far right politics and economic failure. Far from engaging in closet subterfuge, what IFE, LMC and ELM are engaged in is the mobilisation of Muslim communities in the East End of London, to play their part in society and be active citizens for the betterment of all. Initiatives which were attested to by Neil Jameson, Executive Director of London Citizens in response to Martin Bright’s allegations of the ELM/LMC and IFE being ‘sectarian’ and ‘extremist’ bodies.
There is a rather more telling comment by Paul Richards that perhaps sheds light on the witch-hunt tactics employed by Gilligan in the Dispatches programme. Writing on ‘Islamism’, Richards said:
‘Others see the rise of political Islam as a major threat to our democracy; to the UK Jewish community; and to Britain’s interests abroad’.
At a time when Israel is enlisting the help of friendly nations to improve its image abroad after its devastating assault on Gaza and the crippling blockade, and the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and Justice Secretary are being heavily lobbied by pro-Israel groups to change the war crimes legislation to protect suspected Israeli war criminals from arrest in the UK, one can see more clearly why the efforts of IFE, ELM/LMC and MCB to politically mobilise British Muslims might upset other quarters in British society.
To repeat the verses of Surah an-Nisa, which instruct Muslims’ efforts to see that the war crimes legislation remains unchanged:
‘O you who believe! be ever steadfast in upholding justice, bearing witness to the truth for the sake of God, even though it be against your own selves or your parents and kinsfolk. Whether the person concerned be rich or poor, God’s claim takes precedence over [the claims of] either of them. Do not, then, follow your own desires, lest you swerve from justice: for if you distort [the truth], behold, God is indeed aware of all that you do!’
Thanks for putting this up.
Comment by J A — 3 March, 2010 @ 11:35 am
@1- any proof what so ever would be a start
Comment by ben — 3 March, 2010 @ 11:44 am
Interesting that not a word is here on the IFE’s connections with the Jamaat-I-Islami. That is the far-right group waging war against Bengladeshi Leftists, secularists and non-Muslims. In fact not a peep.
Instead we get all-too clear hints that people oppose the Jamaat because of tis threat to the “UK Jewish community” and British interests.
No doubt the martyrs of Bangladesh’s War of Liberation died for these causes, and thsoe who wish to procecute Jamaat’s supporters for complicity in war crimes of this period have this as their hidden agenda.
As for Sandel’s work and notably his latest book providing certain proof of anything whatsoever well, it doesn’t. But it certainly would pose problems for any kind of religious politics - though as a ‘communitarian’ - the correct word here - he is anxious to embrace religious communities.
I am near to finishing Sandel’s most recent book. It is at variance with the Islamist claim that Justice depends on something called ‘God’ (”God’s claim” as is said above). I suggest Islamists read the chapter on Kant and autonomy (the two categorical imperatives for example).
Comment by Andrew Coates — 3 March, 2010 @ 12:06 pm
@Andrew Coates…
“IFE’s connections with the Jamaat-I-Islami”… right so we are supposed to assume there is some sort of sinister connection that IFE youngsters (who were born and raised in UK and some have only been to Bangladesh a few times) have something to do with Jamaati-Islam? Get real!
Secondly, its the same only game being played about Jamaati islam (as with practising Muslims in the west) in saying they are war criminals. I wonder if if the case is the same with Jamaati islam that members were born post the seperation war? Again rumour mongering hate, guilt-by-assocation and xenophobia at work!
Some people have some warped conspiracy theorist ideas out there!
Comment by J A — 3 March, 2010 @ 12:31 pm
Now listen up children. The programme was entirely accurate and I say that as an anti fascist with nearly forty years of involvement with the Bangladeshi community in Tower Hamlets. I have seen the gradual creep of Islamofascism and I know that the majority of the community do not support IFE or any of the other groups but it is absolutely true that IFE run the council.
Honest council officers are afraid to speak out as if LutfurRahman can sack the CE and get away with it what chance do they have? Not a single one of the morons who will no doubt come on her slagging off Gilligan know the first thing about East London, have never lived in Bangladesh and do not speak, read or write the language.
Comment by terry fitz — 3 March, 2010 @ 1:15 pm
I was about to say in relation to the last three points that I made that I tick all three boxes. Cleanse your brains of Marxism and get real. Also check out Radio 4 at 8 pm this Saturday as you will be able to hear me speaking about this and other similar subjects. Always remember children, I was there and you lot weren’t.
Comment by terry fitz — 3 March, 2010 @ 1:19 pm
I completely support Terry Fitzpatrick’s comments. Muslims out of politics now!
Comment by The Provisional Kumar Murshid — 3 March, 2010 @ 1:21 pm
Andrew Coates: would this be the same Kant who wrote Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone and of the necessity of belief in god in the second critique?
In fact, there are interesting strands of Islamic and Islamist thought which take up these themes and seek to ground religion in a Kantian way, rather than through the arguments of thinkers such as Aquinas.
But, they’re all a bunch of mussies, aren’t they? So let’s bash them over the head with an enlightenment thinker whom we retrospectively beatify a an anti-religious thinker.
Comment by Nas — 3 March, 2010 @ 1:24 pm
“In attempting to suggest that the IFE, East London Mosque and London Muslim Centre are the bases from which something sinister is taking place in Tower Hamlets, what Gilligan is disingenuously seeking to do is undermine the work of local Muslim groups and institutions to mobilise the local Muslim populations into playing an active role in local community affairs and local politics.”
What a pile of crap. As the programme showed, the ELM hosts preachers who rant about ‘fags’ and ‘adulteresses’ (women who wear perfume). More reactionary right-wing hate preaching in British mosques, and more whitewash apologism for the same by supposed ‘progressives’ here and elsewhere. If westminster Cathedral kept giving a platform to people preaching the inferiority of black people you would be in a rage about it, not throwing around accusations of anti-Catholic bigotry.
Andy Newman, your hypocrisy is breathtakingly cynical. Instead of yet again trying to tar those who point out this phenomenon - of hate preachers in supposedly moderate mosques - as racists, why don’t you and your fellow ’socialists’ for once unequivocally condemn such preachers and the fact that places like ELM have over and over again hosted them. It shows your commitment to women, gays and other minorities is pure posturing and something to be disregarded when a religious man with a beard and brown skin says so.
Comment by Stanislaw — 3 March, 2010 @ 1:36 pm
#9
“If westminster Cathedral kept giving a platform to people preaching the inferiority of black people you would be in a rage about it, not throwing around accusations of anti-Catholic bigotry.”
Isn’t it more likely, given my known views, that I would argue that it is up to the Catholic Church what they beleive?
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 March, 2010 @ 1:40 pm
“Isn’t it more likely, given my known views, that I would argue that it is up to the Catholic Church what they beleive?”
Not at all. You don’t have a general tolerance of other people’s opinions, and you have a particular intolerance of opinions when they are objections to bigots whom you happen to find congenial. You don’t respect the right of gay people and others to object to homophobes preaching in mosques, instead you smear these and other victims of bigotry emanating from Mosques as ‘Islamophobes’.
The only likely thing with you is that you will argue that black is white, that bully is victim, and that reactionary is ‘progressive’ if it suits you.
Now, are you going to condemn the preachers and the fact that places like ELM have over and over again hosted them, or are you just going to keep smearing the people who expose or object to their bigotry as Islamophobic?
Comment by Stanislaw — 3 March, 2010 @ 1:54 pm
Sad but inevitable. A man of great principle at his peak but a complete disaster as leader of the Labour party when the Labour Left started to go into a tailspin and serious decline.
Actualy,I thought Michael Foot was already dead and had died years ago. What’s going to happen to his donkey jacket question mark.
Comment by Donkey — 3 March, 2010 @ 2:00 pm
@Terry Fitzpatrick… you sound like you are a close friend of Jim Fitzpatrick, Andrew Gilligan (friends and relatives perhaps?) and coming here to “big them up” as we’d say in Tower Hamlets.
My roots are in Tower Hamlets (lived there almost all my life since the age of 6!) and if IFE/ELM/LMC had no support it would not be packed out with 15,000+ worshippers every Friday. The fact that ELM/LMC itself got millions from the donations of local community (to build the LMC) proves their support and backing of the community. As a community activist I find in general the people who are usually against the LMC/ELM are racists, ignorant people, extreme secularist (who would rather do away with religion), and last but least various Labour party members whose political interests are at risk!
The program’s negative effect means that now many parents will probably pull out of the Big Read day where ELM/LMC/IFE are trying to help set the new world record in London! All thanks to Dispatchs lies.
Comment by J A — 3 March, 2010 @ 2:35 pm
Stanislaw,Great post. Send in the 1st Polish Parachute Division (Sosabowski).
Comment by terry fitz — 3 March, 2010 @ 2:51 pm
Be careful about the Provy bit Kumar. People have been knee capped for less. I see your mate Lee Jasper is now the ” Chief Political Commentator” for The Voice. Should be intersting, as while you were both crooks, you at least had intelligence, of a sort.
Comment by terry fitz — 3 March, 2010 @ 2:56 pm
Let’s have a beer, Terry. Sort things out.
Comment by The Provisional Kumar Murshid — 3 March, 2010 @ 3:01 pm
#15 Lee Jasper wasn’t a crook. There was a full police investigation and no charges resulted. Stop being so silly.
Comment by little black sister — 3 March, 2010 @ 4:18 pm
terryfitz says, “as an anti fascist with nearly forty years of involvement with the Bangladeshi community”
What is the use of all that experience if you just come out with Islamophobic shite all the time? The BNP love bashing Muslims too. You should be ashamed.
You’re not a member of Searchlight by any chance? For them, opposing the political organising of Muslims is as important as confronting fascism, because they’re Zionists.
Comment by Fossil — 3 March, 2010 @ 4:26 pm
“For [Searchlight], opposing the political organising of Muslims is as important as confronting fascism, because they’re Zionists.”
Bollocks.
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 March, 2010 @ 4:28 pm
So, Respect, Labour, the Tories, Boris Johnson and Prince Charles are all conspiring to turn Britain into an Islamic Republic. This documentary was up there with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion when it comes to hoaxing the public. A documentary made by fascists on how the Jews are `taking over the planet’ could not have been more strained, convoluted, tortured and tortuous. Gilligan has finally made of himself such a fool that nobody can any longer deny it and still retain any of their own credibility.
Comment by David Ellis — 3 March, 2010 @ 4:30 pm
David Ellis
“So, Respect, Labour, the Tories, Boris Johnson and Prince Charles are all conspiring to turn Britain into an Islamic Republic. ”
No. Islamist activists are infiltrating the Labour party and organising support for Respect by getting Imams to tell Muslims who to vote for. In the East End, democracy is becoming tribalism.
Comment by Boab — 3 March, 2010 @ 4:58 pm
#21 “Islamist activists are infiltrating the Labour party and organising support for Respect by getting Imams to tell Muslims who to vote for.”
Are you sure about that ?
Muslims are infiltrating the Labour Party to build support for Respect ?
Crikey, the plot thickens.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 3 March, 2010 @ 5:06 pm
“You’re not a member of Searchlight by any chance? For them, opposing the political organising of Muslims is as important as confronting fascism, because they’re Zionists.”
Interesting, that’s exactly what the Nazis and BNP say!
Comment by Doctor's Plot — 3 March, 2010 @ 5:17 pm
#21 I think that would probably be the noxious Fitzpatrick’s position and it got most of the space in the documentary probably because he backed the film in some way if only by being generous with his time. But the likes of Gilligan and the increasingly paranoid and politically unstable David T is that Islamic fundamentalists are infiltrating all facets of British society to achieve their Sharia republic hence the footage of Boris Johnson and Prince Charles enjoying the hospitality of the East London Mosque.
Comment by David Ellis — 3 March, 2010 @ 5:37 pm
So, David Ellis, what did you make of the speakers talking about ‘fags’ and perfumed ‘adulteresses’ in this famed establishment?
Worthy of condemnation and censure - ridicule even?
What did you make of the Asian Muslims interviewed and their fears regarding the influence of a sectarian fundamentalist group into local politics and religious institutions?
Comment by Doctor's Plot — 3 March, 2010 @ 5:42 pm
Eddie Trueman
I know you have reading issues, but although “to” and “and” are both prepositions but they have different meanings. “And” means “in addition”. To means something different.
I can recommend “Janet and John do Prepositions” if you need help.
Comment by Boab — 3 March, 2010 @ 5:51 pm
#25 Doctor’s Plot: what do you make of the thesis that not only is there an attempt to subvert the whole of the British establishment by Islamic Fundamentalism from Labour to Prince Charles but that such an attempt would be worth taking remotely seriously even if existed?
By the by, I don’t agree with Fossil’s claim that Searchlight is opposed to Muslims organising politically but undoubtedly there are Zionists within it, such as Terry Fitz I believe who are far more interested in boosting Israel than confronting fascism and I don’t think the BNP would be calling zionism on its Islamaphobia at the moment at least.
Comment by David Ellis — 3 March, 2010 @ 5:55 pm
#26 Boab, you always strike me as being one of the most half witted of the right wing idiots who comment here and your willingness to believe the most ridiculous conspiracy stories of Muslims taking over the world confirms you as just another racist crank.
Muslims infiltrating the Labour Party to build support for Respect - arf !
Comment by Eddie Truman — 3 March, 2010 @ 6:06 pm
“…your willingness to believe the most ridiculous conspiracy stories of Muslims taking over the world…”
Thing is Boab doesn’t believe this but the truth doesn’t matter to Islamophobes.
Comment by Ray — 3 March, 2010 @ 6:13 pm
No Eddie, what we have here is your inability to understand the most basic of concepts and that it is possible to do two things at the same time.
Support was mobilised for Respect via a range of Islamist organisations. On the IFE website there is a pdf entitled Voting in Islam, and expansion of an earlier work by Shaykh Haitham Al-Haddad’s called “Why vote and who to vote for”.
In this, Haddad says that voting is too complicated for Muslims to think about and that they should do what the MAB tells them:
“Consequently, I believe that individuals should avoid involving themselves in this process and rather should entrust this responsibility to the prominent Muslim organisations that have sufficient experience and ability to determine the issue according to the interests of the Muslims. ”
He then continues:
“In closing, I have come to the conclusion that the major Muslim organisation concerned about politics in UK so far is the Muslim Association of Britain. They have done a great service by preparing a list of candidates whom they believe will best represent the interests of Muslims in the event they are elected. For example, they recommend that Muslims in London should vote for the Respect party, led by George Galloway. For those living in the South-East, they recommend that they vote for the Green Party, led by Caroline Lucas.”
So Eddie, you stick to your “out of a packet” Marxism, and I will stick with research, reading and conclusions based on the evidence available. As regards denying entryism, lets face it, you and your little cabaal are the experts at both its existence and its denial.
Good luck with the court case.
Comment by Boab — 3 March, 2010 @ 6:21 pm
Notice that David Ellis and Andy Newman have simply refused to answer regarding the preaching about ‘fags’ and ‘adultresses’, the former trying instead to deflect about ‘zionists’. That says it all: the ‘progressive’ ‘left’ for you.
Comment by Stanislaw — 3 March, 2010 @ 6:53 pm
I’m a gay woman who sometimes wears perfume and I resent the attempts of the trolls here to attempt to use me and my people as an excuse to bash Muslims and Islam. Much like the Palestinian cause doesn’t need neo-Nazis on our side, feminism and queer liberation don’t need Muslim-haters on our side either.
Comment by Daphne — 3 March, 2010 @ 7:13 pm
#30
Boab. You do know that “and” can equally be used to indicate a result? As in “build it and they will come”?
You really shouldn’t attempt to pompously dish out lessons on literacy when you’re a bit limited yourself. You end up looking a bit thick.
But in any case, even if you did mean “in addition” it still doesn’t make any sense. Why infiltrate one party when telling people to vote for another? If that’s your brand of original thinking mean I’ll keep my intellectual straitjacket on.
Comment by Mike — 3 March, 2010 @ 8:26 pm
#30
Sorry Boab, I came in a bit late to this thread but what exactly is wrong with Muslims voting for parties who best represent their interests? Are their interests automatically opposed to yours?
Comment by Omar — 3 March, 2010 @ 8:37 pm
#31
“.Notice that David Ellis and Andy Newman have simply refused to answer regarding the preaching about ‘fags’ and ‘adultresses’, ”
I haven’t refused to answer anything. Some Muslims beleive this sort of thing, some Christians do as well, so do some Jews.
This, for example, is taken from the Old Testament, a Holy book for all three religions:
So this is not unique to Islam, nor typical of Islam.
Furthermore, the Disptches documentary siganlly failed to make any substantive connection between these unfortunately reactionary views, and the more mainstream views of IFE.
Indeed they pointed out key Bengali figues n Tower hamlets who either work closelt with gay men, or who have been associated with council run campaigns AGAINST homophobia.
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 March, 2010 @ 8:43 pm
Mike
“Why infiltrate one party when telling people to vote for another? If that’s your brand of original thinking mean I’ll keep my intellectual straitjacket on.”
Because there is no need to infiltrate yourself.
I said “Islamist activists are infiltrating the Labour party and organising support ”
which Eddie turned into
“Muslims are infiltrating the Labour Party to build support for Respect ?”
Why exactly did Eddie change the meaning?
Comment by Boab — 3 March, 2010 @ 8:57 pm
Mike
PS
The original quote is; “”If you build it, he will come”
Comment by Boab — 3 March, 2010 @ 9:00 pm
#37
NO, clearly not
“Si tu id aeficas, ei venient.”
It is not HE will come but THEY will come
honestly, what do they teach people in school nowadays
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 March, 2010 @ 9:04 pm
Where’s that from Andy?
Comment by Boab — 3 March, 2010 @ 9:24 pm
http://libcom.org/library/searchlight-for-beginners-larry-o-hara
The problem is not “Zionists” but the fact that Gerry Gable et al have been passing on details to the secret services.
Comment by ECOLEFTY — 3 March, 2010 @ 9:33 pm
#40 yawn
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 March, 2010 @ 9:34 pm
#39
Not sure what the original latin source is, I think it is a “well known” latin phrase that in the days when all educated people could read latin cropped up in ordinary English, like “Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 March, 2010 @ 9:36 pm
#30, Boab, dear heart,
I have to say I am moved by your post of 286 words, usually you manage not much more than a semi literate dozen or so.
You know, like from #21;
“Islamist activists are infiltrating the Labour party and organising support for Respect by getting Imams to tell Muslims who to vote for.”
I’ll grant you that, in haste, like having our minds on more pressing matters, people can express themselves clumsily but it is clear from everything you write that you are a moronic half wit from the Harry’s Place school of idiocy.
Now away and read your Ladybird book of English grammar.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 4 March, 2010 @ 12:07 am
“these unfortunately reactionary views…”
mealy-mouthed apologism for disgusting bigotry, Newman, you unprincipled prick.
Comment by Stanislaw — 4 March, 2010 @ 1:23 am
@ Daphne
“I’m a gay woman who sometimes wears perfume and I resent the attempts of the trolls here to attempt to use me and my people as an excuse to bash Muslims and Islam. Much like the Palestinian cause doesn’t need neo-Nazis on our side, feminism and queer liberation don’t need Muslim-haters on our side either.”
Daphne I am a gay man, and I resent your kneejerk counter-accusation of Islamophobia. I reasonably want to know why ELM, a centre in receipt of large sums of public money to support its supposed work towards social cohesion and pluralism is hosting preachers who rant against ‘fags’, and why Newman and co can’t bring themselves to condemn such hate speech. You appear to be arguing that objecting to hate speech is in itself hate speech. Your argument is feeble. Condemning those preachers is no more ‘bashing Muslims’ than condemning Nick Griffin is ‘bashing white people’. Do better.
Comment by Stanislaw — 4 March, 2010 @ 1:32 am
Even if there were flaws in the program, there appears to be enough fear from within the community itself for further substantive investigation.
It’s frankly unacceptable that one of the most prestigious mosques in the UK plays host to such vicious, sectarian views. I can assure you that a presentation denouncing ‘Fags’ is worthy of the BNP.
Comment by Nie Wieder Fascismus & Communismus — 4 March, 2010 @ 1:38 am
or, Andy, the often mistranslated, timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.
Comment by Nas — 4 March, 2010 @ 1:51 am
I just noticed Boab’s erudite disquisition on literacy. ‘And’ used to be a conjunction. All sorts of logical delights become available should it now be, according to Boab, a preposition.
Maybe we could invent a prepositional calculus. Why do these characters morph into malapropic Mail readers?
Comment by Nas — 4 March, 2010 @ 2:09 am
That little trip down the sewer of Terry Fitz’s mind (’intellectually challenged refuge’) does demonstrate one thing: the Labour camarilla who are driving this fearmomgering in Tower Hamlets and their admirers know that this is about disciplining and problematising the whole Bangladeshi community.
Comment by Nas — 4 March, 2010 @ 8:15 am
They’ll never get us down, Nas. Not now I’ve formed an alliance with Terry Fitz and Donna Guthrie.
Comment by The Provisional Kumar Murshid — 4 March, 2010 @ 8:22 am
Well I suppose I was being a little rash when I invited a measured response.
Comment by terry fitz — 4 March, 2010 @ 8:51 am
#48 I wonder if it ever crossed Terry Fitzpatrick’s tiny, distorted and drink-befuddled mind that the alienation of younger British Muslims might have something to do with their experience of racism and an unwillingness to tolerate it, combined with a foreign policy which murders very large number of um, err, Muslims.
No, it can’t possibly be that. Instead it is all the product of a conspiracy of Islamic fundamentalists and war criminals from Bangladesh. The intellectual incredibility of this argument beggars belief.
As for Gilligan’s pathetic and very damp squib conforming to Fitz’s experience. Well, it probably does. The programme was designed to confirm the prejudices of every bigot and ignorant half-wit and Fitz certainly meets at least one and probably both of those descriptions.
I particularly like Fitz’s boast about how he knows the Bangladeshis better than any living white man, a claim so self-evidently preposterous as to raise a question about whether Fitz is still being allowed to walk the streets. His self-delusion is certainly a danger to himself if no-one else.
Comment by campaign against rubbish journalism — 4 March, 2010 @ 9:19 am
Terry Fitz: “I know the Bangladeshi community probably better than any other non Bangladeshi posting here.”
This me laugh so much I nearly choked on my breakfast.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 4 March, 2010 @ 10:07 am
Terry Fitz: “I know the Bangladeshi community probably better than any other non Bangladeshi posting here.”
This made me laugh so much I nearly choked on my breakfast.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 4 March, 2010 @ 10:07 am
Campaign against rubbish journalism.
Well I have certainly rattled your cage, which of course is what I am intending. It is ironic that the generation of Bangladeshis which actually suffered racism in the forms of discrimination in housing and racial attacks throught the seventies and eighties are the ones that are least likely to be receptive to Jihadist propaganda.
The current radicalised generation have no experience of the violence of the 70s and 80s and are the products of an educational system which has stressed their separateness and Bangladeshi identity to the exclusion of their citizenship of the UK.
On top of this a whole series of radical Immams, like the ones imported by the Labour IFE group from the mosque of the Khabba in Mecca, preach a form of hatred which is very much in an Arab tradition but almost alien to Bangladesh. As I have pointed out above the issue of Palestine was never an issue amongst the community in East London thirty odd years ago. A concept of the Ummah of course existed but but it was second to being Bangladeshi.
Over the last ten to fifteen years the reverse has happened and the radicalised youth see themselves as under attack from unspecified forces but certainly amongst which are “The West” generally and Israel and Jews in particular. In the same way that television radicalised my generation over the Viet Nam war the same media brings, now of course on a twenty four hour basis, news from Gaza, Afganistan and Iraq.
You seem to be saying that the sight of Muslims being killed in these and other countries justifies or explains the Twin Towers and the Madrid and London bombings. This of course is the Chomsky/Fisk argument and was one that you can hear in playgrounds everywhere, “Now look what you made me do,it’s all your fault”. No it isn’t our fault. The vast majority of the deaths in Iraq and Afganistan were Muslim on Muslim.
Palestine could have been sorted out half a century ago if Palestinian leaders and the Arabs had wanted to negotiate, All of the suffering the Palestinian people have endured is as a result of their own leadership, living in luxury most of it, and the oil rich Arab states using them as pawns in their international games.
We still come back to the problem that you lot will not face up to. Is there anything that I have been saying for the last few years about the IFE situation in Tower Hamlets or is there anything in the Despetches programme which is untrue? Answers please, go through it point by point and try and refute what I am saying. Ten oclock news on Radio 4. Four Muslims convicted in German of conspiracy to cause explosions. Of course its not their fault, they were made to do it by the nasty Jews.
Comment by terry fitz — 4 March, 2010 @ 10:11 am
Hmm, my last post has disappeared. Only up for a few seconds. Perhaps you should all put terry fitzpatrick into Google and see my profile written by a Bangladeshi organisation.
Comment by terry fitz — 4 March, 2010 @ 10:16 am
Hmm, my last post has disappeared. Only up for a few seconds. Perhaps you should all put terry fitzpatrick into Google and see my profile written by a Bangladeshi organisation. Mind you they are secular and campaign for the prosecution of war criminals so are probably suspect in your eyes.
Comment by terry fitz — 4 March, 2010 @ 10:17 am
“Islamist activists are infiltrating the Labour party and organising support for Respect”
Is this like the Jews taking over finance capital and organsing the Bolshevik revolution?
Comment by Nick Fredman — 4 March, 2010 @ 12:00 pm
If we don’t stop all the Muslims soon this country will be hanging gays from lamposts.
They should all be rounded up, put in camps and stamped as potential extremists. All Islamists criticisng Israel should immediately be imprisoned.
They already have control of the Labour party and the BBC (see that Asian family in Eastenders!). Where next will these evil doers spring up?
Reclaim your nation!
Comment by Daniel — 4 March, 2010 @ 12:24 pm
“Is this like the Jews taking over finance capital and organsing the Bolshevik revolution?”
No, its like Militant infiltrating the Labour party.
Comment by Boab — 4 March, 2010 @ 1:14 pm
“No, its like Militant infiltrating the Labour party.”
In the current climate I would have to disagree with this. That climate being the rising tide of anti muslim prejudice in case you were wondering.
Comment by SteveH — 4 March, 2010 @ 2:37 pm
@ Daniel #60
“If we don’t stop all the Muslims soon this country will be hanging gays from lamposts.”
Why are you trivialising the unmistakeable hate speech against gay people highlighted in the documentary?
ELM has hosted a number of speakers who incite hatred and violence against gay people. why has the left stopped caring about that and resprted to strawman vilification of those who do object to it, portraying the Islamist bigots as victims?
With one exception, the critics of Gilligan on this thread have simply refused to address the homophobia at ELM, or trivialised it as you have. The one exception was Andy Newman who couldn’t bring himself to anything beyond referring to ‘unfortunately reactionary views’. Shame on the so-called ‘progressives’ on this thread.
Gay people object to being demonised by Islamist preachers. Why shouldn’t we? No one made those preachers spout hate agaisnt gay people. They are not victims of some kind of sting. And why do you treat us as ‘Islamophobes’ for angrily objecting to such speech rather than unconditionally defending OUR rights not to have hatred stirred against US by anyone?
Comment by Stanislaw — 4 March, 2010 @ 2:37 pm
As I said above, Trots are the experts at both entryism and its denial.
Comment by Boab — 4 March, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
URGENT: The Met police estimate that 1,000 EDL are going to march on parliament tomorrow. Take the day off, miss your lectures,bring your friends—everyone should be there. Spread the news through every possible avenue available. Get on the phones/emails/blogs. Assemble at Parliament at 11am. Spread the word.
Comment by The Bunk — 4 March, 2010 @ 3:02 pm
“As I said above, Trots are the experts at both entryism and its denial.”
It was bullshit then and is bullshit now.
Comment by SteveH — 4 March, 2010 @ 3:14 pm
#62 Boab: for your analogy to have any validity it would mean that the Millies entered the Labour Party in order to recruit to the SWP. Zionoia is making you irrational.
Comment by David Ellis — 4 March, 2010 @ 3:26 pm
“It was bullshit then and is bullshit now.”
No it was not. I was a LP member in Midlothian and remember Tam Darby and his mates all too well.
Comment by Boab — 4 March, 2010 @ 4:07 pm
We are denying entryism now because it is nothing but a figment of your imagination and paranoia.
Comment by SteveH — 4 March, 2010 @ 4:12 pm
I stadn vindicated. The Trots have fucked off because they know that what I am saying is true. Unless of course, Trots you want to deal with reality. Did you google terry fitzpatick?
Comment by terry fitz — 4 March, 2010 @ 4:36 pm
Terry, are you around for a beer this evening?
Comment by The Provisional Kumar Murshid — 4 March, 2010 @ 4:46 pm
Actually I have been lying all along, I am not Terry Fitzpatrick but some sad tosser pretending to be him.
Comment by terry fitz — 4 March, 2010 @ 6:16 pm
LONDONERS CAN BE PROUD of the London Muslim Centre.
Last night over 3,000 children (from all over London) came to the BIG READ world record event and managed to set the new world. Dubai was the previous world record holder with around 2500 children. Children sat around reading the famous Rold Dahl’s Charile and the Chocolate factory (which every child got free).
Shows that Muslim and non-Muslim parents were not deterred by the negative islamophobic propaganda that Gilligan ranted in his Dispatches documentary!
AGAIN WOHOOOO… Londoners did it!!
Comment by J A — 5 March, 2010 @ 12:07 pm
One additional aspect of this that concerns me is the silence of the union that represents most LBTH council workers.
Unison is a big union with potentially big clout. It just had its AGM in the town hall (Thursday I think), and it was standing room only.
Yet the issue of the witch hunt against council workers and the general climate of Islamophobia infecting the borough wasn’t even raised.
I’m really worried about this. Not least because the Unison branch has well-known hard militants running it. I would’ve expected a pre-emptive response as well as public statements after the programme, along with a public response to the local Labour Party chair declaring that Unison members were part of the “fundamentalist” town hall.
In my union - the RMT - we issued statements and organised our members against the racism that came about after the 2005 bombings. It came naturally to us - we knew that our Muslim members would be under attack.
Why has Tower Hamlets Unison stayed completely quiet about this? Tony Benn spoke at the AGM - why wasn’t this perfect opportunity used to raise the issue?
Comment by tony collins — 5 March, 2010 @ 10:47 pm
#76 This doesn’t surprise me. Coming out against the Dispatches’ and Tower Hamlets Labour chair’s smears would mean going up against New Labour and its scaremongering. Few Unison branches will do that, notwithstanding the revolutionary claims of a few braanch officers.
Additionally the branch secretary and assistant branch secretary in TH are members of an organisation, the SWP, which, when it split from Respect, identified the IFE in Gilliganesque terms: a shadowy, fundamentalist organisation bent on infiltration (see an appalling article by Chris Harman in International Socialism and similar Rubbish from Alex Callinicos, both informed by the now unmentionable John Rees).
Further, the branch leadership can comfort themselves with the claim that this is all grubby politics and they’re getting on with the syndicalist work of defending their members, except against a nationwide Islamophobic slur.
Tower Hamlets Unison leadership’s positive is very weak. It’s worthy pf comment only because some of its officers are self declared revolutionaries, who you would generally expect better of.
Comment by Nas — 5 March, 2010 @ 11:36 pm
#77 With all due respect, Tower Hamlets Unison’s failure to do anything in response to the Gilligan witch-hunt followed by the attack on the thousands of Town Hall staff by the thuggish Graham Taylor is nothing short of criminal.
This must be the biggest attack ever launched on Tower Hamlets town hall. The suspicion has been raised against all the many staff of Bangladeshi origin that they are infiltrators whose purpose is to impose shariah law on the good people of Tower Hamlets. The Assistant Chief Executive has been vilified on national TV because he is of Bangladeshi origin and for no other reason.
Unison has had difficulty recruiting amongst the ethnic minority staff no doubt because newer staff almost certainly don’t see what purpose the union serves. This was an ideal opportunity to demonstrate the union will not tolerate Islamophobia and racism and through that to relate to a large minority of Town Hall staff.
The silence and the failure even to mention the issue at the AGM is a massive lost opportunity and shows a criminal lack of backbone. The SWP should be ashamed of its members who hold leading positions in Tower Hamlets Unison.
Comment by campaign against rubbish journalism — 6 March, 2010 @ 5:59 am
“the Gilligan witch-hunt”
“This was an ideal opportunity to demonstrate the union will not tolerate Islamophobia and racism and through that to relate to a large minority of Town Hall staff.”
It was an ideal opportunity to demonstrate that the union, and the left generally, will not tolerate homophobia, misogyny and anti-semitism, but the left completely failed to take it. Again.
Are any of you going to actually address the hate speech by preachers at ELM, or are you all going to cling to the tactic of ignoring the hatred and instead depicting the reporting of these facts as ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘propaganda’? Your cynical betrayal of progressive values and non-Muslim minorities is disgusting. You side with the likes of Abdul Karim Hattin simply and solely because he is a Muslim, so he is entitled to spout hatred against ‘fags’ and those who rightly condemn him are the ones cast as ‘bigots’. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Comment by Stanislaw — 6 March, 2010 @ 12:35 pm
The most amazing aspect of this whole kerfuffle is Gilligan’s motivation. It’s quite clear fame, heroism and foolishness played a big part in his drive to alienate you Muslims. I have close alliances with individuals in Channel 4. They’re paying him enough to pay for several hundred meals at Park Lane.
Now, I first thought how much has Quilliam Foundation played a part in this. The truth is it’s quite obvious they’ll be coming out the closet soon. My next hypothesis was that Channel 4 must have had a top-general from the ranks to influence and provoke the controversy. Who in which rank got involved? Well I got to say there have been quite a few people upset with the sole existence of Islamic Forum of Europe in the community of Tower Hamlets – the once upon a time Labour heartland. That’s right, Oona King! She is the head of Diversity at Channel 4. Ms King reports directly to the Chief Executive of the corporation. What a surprise!
Comment by Re-Public — 6 March, 2010 @ 7:42 pm
“The most amazing aspect of this whole kerfuffle is Gilligan’s motivation.”
What’s really amazing is how NONE of those denouncing the documentary as a smear job have addressed ANY of the recorded instances shown on film of Muslims preaching hatred. The most that has been prised out of anyone on this thread has been Newman’s mealy-mouthed passing reference to ‘unfortunately reactionary views’.
“It’s quite clear fame, heroism and foolishness played a big part in his drive to alienate you Muslims.”
Ah yes, poor Muslims being ‘alienated’ when the bigotry that is preached in ELM is exposed on Channel 4. Has it not occurred to you that the reactionary hatred preached at ELM and other mosques may be alienating NON-Muslims, especially groups like gay people? Or do they just not count? Or do they count but not as much as Muslims?
Why have you ALL kept ducking this?
Comment by Stanislaw — 6 March, 2010 @ 9:07 pm
NON-Muslims, especially groups like gay people
Believe it or not, but I have heard a rumour that there might actually a gay person or two who is Muslim.
Comment by KrisS — 6 March, 2010 @ 9:15 pm
#79
what are we ducking?
On the programme, ONE Muslim speaker was heard defaming gays. It was a reactionary and prejudiced speach; but not all Muslims share that view, by a very long way.
You are seeking to impute some guilt by assocation with other Muslimns n the programme.
You couod just as easily point out that fiercely anti-gay evangelical preacher from the Sadleback church, Rick Warren, gave the blessing at Barrack Obama’s inauguration. Does this make Obama a homophobe? Does this make the entire Democratic party homophobic?
Have you condmened Barrak Obama for associating with Rick warren? Have you condemned the democratic party?
So why do you extrapolate to all muslims, on the basis of a video clip of just one Muslim?
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 March, 2010 @ 9:36 pm
#80
What is even more amazing is that you have failed to notice that neither the speaker making the reactionary argumnent about gays, nor the one making offensive remarks about women had any connection with the IFE, other than they had booked a room to speak at the East London Mosque. where the IFE are infleuntial.
This was a very thin association that Andrew Gilligan passed off by hoping that viewers wouldn’t pay that close attention to the detail.
Gilligan’s thesis was that the IFE were “taking over” Tower hameets by joining democratic political parties and participating in the political process, in order to “sex up” this dossier of unexceptional and unremarkable civic engagement, he includes these clips of speakers unconnected with IFE.
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 March, 2010 @ 9:58 pm
@ Andy Newman
“On the programme, ONE Muslim speaker was heard defaming gays. It was a reactionary and prejudiced speach; but not all Muslims share that view, by a very long way.
You are seeking to impute some guilt by assocation with other Muslimns n the programme.”
The ELM has hosted a number of other homophobic preachers in the past few years, including Abu Usamah, Abdur Raheem Green, Bilal Philips, Uthman Lateef, Mohammed Alshareef and Murtaza Khan.
I am most certainly imputing guilt by association with those who run the ELM and who don’t do anything to stop it, just as I would impute guilt by association to the people running a church which time and again hosted preachers who preached, say, the inferiority of black people.
The mosque claims it holds to “values of moderation and tolerance”. The message of those preachers is anything but, and as usual you are making excuses for them and denying the evidence of an unmistakeable trend.
“neither […] had any connection with the IFE, other than they had booked a room to speak at the East London Mosque. where the IFE are infleuntial.”
You are being coy, aren’t you? The IFE basically runs the mosque. Mohammed Abdul Bari, the current chairman of the mosque, and its vice-chairman are former IFE presidents. The director and imam of the mosque are trustees of the IFE. Of 22 IFE trustees in recent years, only five have not also been trustees or officeholders of the religious centre.
And you expect me to believe that the preachers I mentioned, a number of whom are very well known, just sneakily booked in, with those who run ELM being unaware that ELM hosting homophobic bigots, at odds with the mosque’s supposed promotion of the values of moderation and tolerance? That it all just happened as some kind of oversight and conincidence? You are taking the piss.
In any case, I take it you will now acknowledge that ELM has been repeatedly hosting bigots, in contrast to its stated policies, and that it deserves strong criticism for this?
Yeah, I know, you’ll come up with yet another piece of playing dumb.
@ KrisS
“Believe it or not, but I have heard a rumour that there might actually a gay person or two who is Muslim.”
Believe it or not most gay people in this country aren’t Muslims, and gay people as a group ARE targeted in the hostile sermons of the above preachers. Try another deflection tactic.
Comment by Stanislaw — 7 March, 2010 @ 10:12 am
I won’t have this idea, propagated by Islamophobes and homophobic Muslims alike, that “gay” and “Muslim” are entirely distinct and separate categories. And that’s what you’re doing when you say
NON-Muslims, especially groups like gay people.
Comment by KrisS — 7 March, 2010 @ 11:10 am
You are playing dumb. Gay people as a group are vilified with impunity by Islamists, including at the supposedly tolerant and moderate ELM. Address that, rather than ducking the issue with your desperate sophistry.
Comment by Stanislaw — 7 March, 2010 @ 11:22 am
The discussion already seems to be addressing that.
I don’t expect you to change your method, of lining up with Islamophobes and homophobic Muslims to dismiss gay Muslims as a non-existent group.
But I thought I’d mention it.
Comment by KrisS — 7 March, 2010 @ 11:28 am
You thought you’d try and bog things down. Well done, nice try.
Now are you going to condemn ELM for hosting a number of virulently homophobic preachers, as referred to above, in violation of its supposed values of ‘moderation’ and ‘tolerance’?
I bet you still can’t bring yourself to. You, like Newman and co, have ducked it so far.
Comment by Stanislaw — 7 March, 2010 @ 11:32 am
Yeah Kris, condemn it, cos that’s what is important here - whether or not you condemn it.
Comment by tony collins — 7 March, 2010 @ 11:35 am
And yet more passive resistance from the ‘progressives’. When Tony Collins finds himself among the latest category to be preached against as worthy of execution, again and again, at places like ELM, maybe his current convenient indifference will alter. Then again, maybe he’ll just accuse himself of Islamophobia for annoying the nice preachers in the first place.
Comment by Stanislaw — 7 March, 2010 @ 11:41 am
Are you making assumptions about me and tony, now?
Comment by KrisS — 7 March, 2010 @ 11:47 am
I am making logical inferences from your repeated refusal to answer what should be a simple and uncontroversial question. Here it is again:
“Are you going to condemn ELM for hosting a number of virulently homophobic preachers, as referred to above, in violation of its supposed values of ‘moderation’ and ‘tolerance’?”
Your move. I bet you duck (again).
Comment by Stanislaw — 7 March, 2010 @ 12:03 pm
So Muslins can’t be gay, and anyone who disagrees with you on that subject can’t be gay either?
Comment by KrisS — 7 March, 2010 @ 12:12 pm
You ducked. Again.
I didn’t say Muslims can’t be gay, I referred to a group which are vilified by Islamists and treated as non-Muslims. Yes, you are correct Muslims can be gay, though most Muslims would say they can’t be true Muslims either, and no, the two groups are not totally distinct. I take your point and your correction, though I think it was a pedantic effort to avoid answering a larger point.
Now I have clarified, will you answer my question:
Are you going to condemn ELM for hosting a number of virulently homophobic preachers, as referred to above, in violation of its supposed values of ‘moderation’ and ‘tolerance’?
Comment by Stanislaw — 7 March, 2010 @ 12:37 pm
Damn, you’ve got us backed into a corner! Now, unless we condemn whatever it is you ask us to condemn, we can’t be taken seriously as socialists!
Curse you and your infernal grasp of internests debating!
Comment by tony collins — 7 March, 2010 @ 12:48 pm
By the way, ELM is a building, it can’t have ‘values’. Just thought I’d point that out…
I happen to be one of those ‘Islamists’. And I also happen to be gay.
I’m not going to condemn the management of ELM for renting out their facilities to someone who made homophobic comments. However, I will “recognise [that they] are not perfect, and have room for improvement”. And part of that is checking that those people they rent their facilities out to are suited to speak in their buildings.
But that’s not your issue. You’ve found a stick to beat them with and you won’t stop until you’ve satisfied that sado-masochist within.
Comment by TH Respect Survivor — 7 March, 2010 @ 12:58 pm
The preaching of hatred at ELM is germane to the argument about whether ELM is merely the victim of propaganda, or whether the criticisms of it as being an incubator, moreso than a victim of hatred, are actually justified.
So why do you keep ducking around it as if I was dragging in a completely unrelated topic?
Posters on this thread have found it easy enough to condemn the programme makers as Islamophobic, but have shown a striking reluctance to address specific charges made with relation to filmed evidence, including evidence of hate speech.
Why the jokey “Curse you… etc”? Do you find the preaching of virulent homophobia to be something worth making light of?
Comment by Stanislaw — 7 March, 2010 @ 1:14 pm
Wow, another knockout blow! My refusal to be dragged into your Court Of Condemnation means that I must think that “virulent homophobia” (that word “virus” again!) is a good thing!
You’ve got me bang to rights there!
Comment by tony collins — 7 March, 2010 @ 1:19 pm
This whole thread has been a Court of Condemnation of the programme as islamophobic, and yet you and others refuse to adress the points the programme makes, and the filmed evidence therein. You efforts are pitiful. Why can’t you condemn ELM’s repeated giving of a platform to homophobic preachers?
It’s quite evident from your evasions that you think virulent homophobia at the mosque is not a matter worthy even of comment.
Comment by Stanislaw — 7 March, 2010 @ 1:32 pm
No, I think your attempts to justify Islamophobic witch hunts are not worthy of my time.
Comment by tony collins — 7 March, 2010 @ 1:37 pm
How, precisely, is it ‘Islamophobic’ to object to the hosting of a number of homophobic hate preachers at ELM?
You are portraying the victims of such hate speech as the bigots, and those making the speeches as being victims of propaganda. Disgraceful. The far left in all its cynical and callous ‘glory’.
Comment by Stanislaw — 7 March, 2010 @ 1:43 pm
I find it very worrying that Stanislaw has not CONDEMNED Barack Obama for hosting the known homophobe Rick wareen to bless his presidential inauuration.
Barack Obama is the most infleuntial man in the world, and he is giving a platform to a KNOWN HOMOPHOBe
Why hasn’t Stanislaw condemned barack Obama?
Comment by Andy Newman — 7 March, 2010 @ 4:03 pm
Fitzpatrick is mentally I’ll. There is no evidence to suggest Lee Jasper was guilty of anything other than being black and in possesion of power. What I did note as an African Caribbean is the total lack of support from Muslims . I seem to remember Jasper always banging on about unity and the Muslim struggle being our struggle. That was proven to be crap I doubt that a single Muslim community organisation or significant individual put out a statement defending Jasper. The black /left coalition is smashed and brutally expoused. You can see that from the way Jasper is now ostricised from the Labour left. Even Livingstone has dropped him. In a way Im glad because he now been welcomed back into his own community . So it’s a bit rich here hearing this twaddle about Gilligan now Muslims and the IFE are in the firing line.
So much for Black and Asian Unity in the face of the enemy. It should be noted that the black community has not forgotten what happens to Jasper and the desertion of people who were described by Jasper as comrades. I hope Jasper does not male the same mistake again now he is political editor of the Voice.
Comment by Toks Agbewe — 7 March, 2010 @ 8:16 pm
“I find it very worrying that Stanislaw has not CONDEMNED Barack Obama for hosting the known homophobe Rick wareen to bless his presidential inauuration.”
Start a thread on it, Andy. This thread is about IFE and supposed propaganda against ELM. But I certainly condemn Obama for hosting the known homophobe Rick Warren to bless his presidential inauguration. And if Obama attended a supposedly moderate and tolerant church where numerous homophobes had preached in the past few years I think people would be seriously condemning him for that.
Now, your move: will you condemn ELM for hosting a number of virulent homophobic preachers in recent years, in contravention of its supposed policy of ‘moderation’ and ‘tolerance’, and in spite of the £10m in publiuc money it has received to promote pluralism, prevent extremism etc?
Or will you just duck the question again, because the IFE people are political allies of your supposedly progressive party?
Comment by Stanislaw — 7 March, 2010 @ 9:27 pm
So Stanislaw, why have you stupidly missed my final main point of Oona King’s role in all of this?
Comment by Re-Public — 8 March, 2010 @ 10:32 am