SALMA YAQOOB LAUNCHES ELECTION CAMPAIGN
By Salma Yaqoob, Respect candidate for Birmingham Hall Green
It has been a busy weekend, to put it mildly! Yesterday over 1,000 people attended a rally in Sparkbrook in support of my campaign to be MP. By any standards for a political meeting that’s a phenomenal turnout, made all the more impressive considering it was built pretty much by word of mouth and personal invite.
There was a powerful sense of unity at the event, with many prominent local Labour supporters in attendance and pledging support. A lot of people wanted to speak, so it was nearly two hours before the special guest speaker took to the podium. As ever, George Galloway was his insightful, powerful and eloquent self. George took time out from his own campaign in East London to travel to Birmingham to speak in support of mine and I owe a special thanks to him for doing so.
I was really touched by the warmth of the support I received yesterday. And to put the size of the event in perspective, when supporters of Labour’s Roger Godsiff and Lib Dem Jerry Evans tried to organize similar events, they attracted 30 and 80 people respectively.
Political pundits like to talk about ‘momentum’ in politics. Well, yesterday was evidence that my campaign has certainly got some, and it’s having an infectious impact!
Good luck!
Comment by Derek Wall — 6 April, 2010 @ 4:22 pm
Spot Lenin in the top, left hand corner.
Comment by Karenski — 6 April, 2010 @ 5:21 pm
Bloody hell! Over 1,000 people! Good luck to Salma and her team.
Comment by mouse — 6 April, 2010 @ 5:37 pm
Interesting to see the sexes sitting apart in the audience. That’s a nice touch - it’s time white Britain was more respecting of other cultures and adopted some of their etiquette. Diversity IS equality. I hope we will see more of that with the Respect party in the future. Good stuff.
Comment by Ellis — 6 April, 2010 @ 5:40 pm
Actaulll, there are more women than a Respect meeting in Tower Hamlets, and tha’s saying some.
Comment by terry fitz — 6 April, 2010 @ 5:51 pm
Reminds of the Left Bloc rallies in Portugal. Go Salma!
Comment by Raphie — 6 April, 2010 @ 6:14 pm
Is that the sound of panic and crying I hear in the Labour and Lib Dems camp - Yes I think it is HA! Good on you Salma a real people’s candidate of the entire community in Birmingham Hall Green!
Comment by Roy — 6 April, 2010 @ 6:37 pm
DELETED
Comment by Julian — 6 April, 2010 @ 8:37 pm
Go Salma. You can do it.
Comment by David Ellis — 6 April, 2010 @ 8:40 pm
Why do so many people feel moved to write trivia on this website? A radical candidate has mustered quite astonishing numbers in a formidable challenge to the political establishment and they feel moved to do what…carp!
This is a very significant political meeting. Good luck to Salma.
Comment by Alan Gibbons — 6 April, 2010 @ 8:43 pm
“Interesting to see the sexes sitting apart in the audience. That’s a nice touch - it’s time white Britain was more respecting of other cultures and adopted some of their etiquette. Diversity IS equality. I hope we will see more of that with the Respect party in the future. Good stuff.”
Ellis mate - are you serious?
Comment by Julian — 6 April, 2010 @ 8:43 pm
While I am not really a single leader person, I am enjoying supporting two amazing women leaders of political parties who if we get involve could both be elected to Westminister, both of whom are supportive of ecosocialism.
Comment by Derek Wall — 6 April, 2010 @ 8:49 pm
#11
“Ellis mate - are you serious?”
no- that was clearly a poor attempt at humour.
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 April, 2010 @ 8:59 pm
Hi Andy. A poor attempt indeed, unlike mine, which you deleted.
Comment by Julian — 6 April, 2010 @ 9:05 pm
Fantastic to see 1000 people turn up.
Good luck Salma!
Comment by George W — 6 April, 2010 @ 9:10 pm
17 The women are sat at the front, and in the middle (see the two white pensioners). Moron.
Comment by whatever you want to see — 6 April, 2010 @ 9:26 pm
That’s not a very diverse audience sitting behind her. If she was instead a white male Tory candidate, and the audience overwhelming white men, the criticisms would be very obvious indeed. That’s my concern about Respect: its support is not broad enough.
Comment by doublethink — 6 April, 2010 @ 11:04 pm
Ahhhh. A concern. What are you doing to overcome your concern?
I’m just thinking of what you might say if you’d been at the meeting Martin Luther King addressed the night before his assassination: my concern is that this civil rights movement is not broad enough?
Comment by Nas — 6 April, 2010 @ 11:39 pm
The cadaver of Jim Fitzpatrick is still twitching apparently. The event was not organized by Respect members, as it happens, but my sympathizers. And as anyone who goes to practically any event in the Muslim community will testify, there is almost always separate seating for women at them, if they want to avail of it. Muslim men and women invariably expect this. Many men and women will simply not attend without it. That is a social reality, it causes problems for political organizing and there are ways of compensating. Ignorant hectoring is not one of them.
Comment by ger francis — 6 April, 2010 @ 11:55 pm
Nas: “I’m just thinking of what you might say if you’d been at the meeting Martin Luther King addressed the night before his assassination: my concern is that this civil rights movement is not broad enough?”
Please don’t insult MLK like that. There is no comparison. None whatsoever.
Comment by Rootless Cosmpolitan — 7 April, 2010 @ 12:00 am
#18 “That’s my concern about Respect: its support is not broad enough.”
Excuse my language but ‘bullshit!’ You see pictures of one meeting which is in an area where there are most likely predominantly south Asians and you declare the entire party isn’t ‘broad enough’. Why didn’t you use that trump card when all of Salma’s other recent events were posted on thsi site?
Go look at her site and check the first page alone to see how diverse her supporters and party are.
What, you think if David Cameron attended this event, the colour of people’s skin in the middle of Sparkbrook would suddnely change? Moron.
PS - How the heck do you know what nationalities, races or ethnicities are present here, have they got ‘Arab’, ‘Asian’, ‘Pakistani’, ‘Mexican’ or ‘Yemeni’ branded on their foreheads.
Oh, and women aren’t at separate tables in the pic, look again….
Comment by Adam — 7 April, 2010 @ 12:02 am
PS - Salma’s website: www.salmayaqoob.com
Comment by Adam — 7 April, 2010 @ 12:03 am
What other elements of “social reality” do you pander to? Funnily enough, the mention of Martin Luther King earlier makes me wonder whether, if you were stuck in the 1960s deep South, you’d have said racial segregation was such a “social reality”…
Comment by Anonymous — 7 April, 2010 @ 12:04 am
Like the salivating dogs they are, the Islamophobes come out en masse at the sight of a hijab-wearing woman whose constituents are also - SHOCK, HORROR- Muslims! Look at’em all! Best go down the pub and have a nice British pint to soothe yer nerves, eh?
Comment by Omar — 7 April, 2010 @ 12:13 am
Right you are Omar. Anyone raising questions about segregation of the sexes is secretely Islamophobic. Nice argument…
Comment by Anonymous — 7 April, 2010 @ 12:17 am
Hey anonymous, never mind Omar’s point - if you want to discuss this, respond to my earlier point.
And segregation is a choice. If people want to segregate, be it in a meeting, swimming class, PE lessons, sex ed. class, public toilets, synagogues, monasteries, churches etc. that’s their choice - it doesn’t immediately suggest they are challenging the ‘british’ way of life - whoever was stupid enough to make that point earlier in the thread…
Comment by Adam — 7 April, 2010 @ 12:25 am
‘Anonymous’ needs to chill and get out more. Go to a few Muslim weddings. And take Jim Fitzpatrick with you.
Comment by ger francis — 7 April, 2010 @ 12:35 am
Maybe the women sat alone there are separatists lesbians. Could be.
Comment by Karenski — 7 April, 2010 @ 12:37 am
How are the women sitting ‘alone’ if they are all together. Why isn’t your conclusion that men are sitting ‘alone’?
Comment by Adam — 7 April, 2010 @ 12:39 am
#28
“…questions about segregation of the sexes…”
Oh. I see. I presume then you’ll provide us with a link to where you voice your concerns about the Mechitza in Orthodox Judaism? And separation of the sexes in Eastern Orthodox Churches, too? Give me a break!
Comment by Omar — 7 April, 2010 @ 12:56 am
omar, you mean well but you state something foolishly and then you get licked.
Not your fault but it’d help if you got it right.
Firstly,
“And separation of the sexes in Eastern Orthodox Churches, too?”
Basically, your argument here is what mine was before you but mine stated that people who CHOOSE to segregate have every right. Not ‘Separation of’, noone should be forcing people to separate. But if they CHOOSE to, like in synagogues, mosques, meeting halls and many very British institutions, then that IS their choice.
Now, anonymous, stop trying to score cheap points by responding to Omar’s mishaps and respond to what I have to say…
Comment by Adam — 7 April, 2010 @ 1:37 am
#32
As has already been mentioned there are some women sitting at tables along with men. Still waiting on those links where you strike down with righteous fury on other communities that practice this so-called “segregation”.
Comment by Omar — 7 April, 2010 @ 1:48 am
This is why the left gets nowhere in this country, half of you would much rather bicker about perceived seating arrangements than actually get off your arse and try to make this country a better place. Is the fact that an area with a predominantly working class Asian population chose a woman (against 2 Asian men candidates) to represent them not good enough? Jeez…
Comment by Daniel — 7 April, 2010 @ 2:06 am
The far left is now well and truly dead and buried!
Roll on the Postmodern condition for the 21st century.
Yup that’s all folks!
Comment by Miloronic — 7 April, 2010 @ 2:10 am
Of course it matters! I presumed when reading this site we were, at the least, socialists trying build socialism, not pandering to religious oppressions what ever religion they might be. I still say the women there are lesbian, separatists feminists. As a woman on the left, this is incredibly frustrating.
Comment by Karenski — 7 April, 2010 @ 2:14 am
36# Indeed, it seems that gone are the days where left wing parties comprised of people who are er………left wing! Maybe we should rename class consciousness identity consciousness.
Comment by Miloronic — 7 April, 2010 @ 2:31 am
Oh, and Karenski, that’s not Lenin… but it could be Ming the Merciless
Comment by Adam — 7 April, 2010 @ 3:22 am
Let me see if I have got this correct. Respect is formed by an opportunistic alliance of Galloway, the SWP and a collection of extreme Islamist groups. It immediately adopts as its colours those of the flag of Bangladesh. In its first election victories it is clear that its only real base is Tower Hamlets where only Bangladeshis are elected, no whites.
In Tower Hamlets it eventually splits, as does the SWP, and the six SWP orientated councillors eventually defect to the other three parties. There is total bewilderment on this blog as to what has gone wrong even though I was explaining to various varieties of not very bright Trots for the previous couple of years how Syhleti village politics worked.
The Tower Hamlets rump of Respect is totally controlled by Islamic Forum Europe which also has key members in the Labour Party and the Tories, no one can bothered with the Lib Dems. The fallout from this is felt right to the top of the SWP with several leading members getting the boot and Hoveman and Ovenden prefering to stay taking Galloways wages rather than resign on principal, or is that a word that can’t be used in relation to Trots.
Tower Hamlets Respect is totally Bangladeshi and in Birmingham almost entirely Pakistani. Any pretensions to a socialist programme is merely a facade for some pretty extreme Islamist politics of various kinds with the odd white lefty there to make things look good and to get more people out to canvass. Have I missed anything here?
Comment by terry fitz — 7 April, 2010 @ 4:42 am
Daniel #34 “Is the fact that an area with a predominantly working class Asian population chose a woman (against 2 Asian men candidates) to represent them not good enough?”
Good point. But I think the idiots yapping on this thread about seating arrangements and making other Islamaphobic innuendo are not leftists but trolls.
Comment by Tony — 7 April, 2010 @ 4:58 am
#38 “The Tower Hamlets rump of Respect is totally controlled by Islamic Forum Europe which also has key members in the Labour Party and the Tories”
There’s something strangely familiar about this line of thinking. A conspiracy theory that suggests members of Europe’s largest non-Christian religion are secretly accumulating control and threatening “European” (naturally superior) values. Where have I heard this before?
Comment by Tony — 7 April, 2010 @ 5:06 am
It immediately adopts as its colours those of the flag of Bangladesh.
Bad news, folks. The Left can’t use Green or Red any more: these are Bengali colours. I recommend adopting a new White and Blue colour scheme.
Comment by skip — 7 April, 2010 @ 6:58 am
22 - ‘That is a social reality,’
…and that is not a good enough response. Just because something is a ’social reality’ doesn’t mean it should be endorsed and pandered to, especially by those on the left, if it means treating people differently on the grounds of gender or race or sexuality. On the contrary, it should be argued against and fought. And the fact that the discrimination is done in the name of religion doesn’t make any difference.
Comment by Jonny Mac — 7 April, 2010 @ 8:15 am
Segregation of the sexes! Go to any fucking party or disco and I’ll show you segregation of the sexes!
Comment by Allin — 7 April, 2010 @ 8:29 am
#38 Terry Fitz on his favourite hobby horse again. Makes one quite nostalgic. But I wonder if he could just enlighten us with some facts rather than Gilliganesque fantasy. Where in the policy programme of Respect are the “pretty extreme Islamist politics” reflected? What motions to the council, questions and motions in parliament, what speeches by its leaders reflect this “pretty extreme Islamist politics”? Or is this a conjecture which does not require anything so mundane as evidence but came instead as a blinding flash of revelation to the nauseating Fitz as he drowns his pathetic existence in alcohol? Fitz’s delusions are to my mind clearly pathological. He is convinced of his omniscience on all matters Sylheti but almost certainly could not point to it on a map.
Comment by campaign against rubbish journalism — 7 April, 2010 @ 8:29 am
#42
And so here we have, Jonny Mac, self appointed attack dog on behalf of enlightenment values, advocating an assault on a culture he neither understands or even cares to understand. Under the cloak of ‘humanism’ he wields his mighty sword in the interests of secularism, intent on saving the poor victims of discrimination whether they want to be saved or not.
For him and his kind, the world isn’t made up of diverse cultures each contributing in its own way to the rich tapestry of humanity, but instead is made up of superior and inferior cultures and civilisations.
There’s a word for this.
Imperialism.
Comment by John — 7 April, 2010 @ 8:37 am
45 -
‘For him and his kind, the world isn’t made up of diverse cultures each contributing in its own way to the rich tapestry of humanity, but instead is made up of superior and inferior cultures and civilisations.’
But that’s so much hypocritical bullshit, isn’t it? There are some cultures that no-one in their right mind would respect: slave-owning cultures, for example. And the American South in the 50s didn’t add much to ‘the rich tapestry of humanity’ if you happened to be black.
New definition: imperialist (noun): a person who believes in and upholds universal human rights.
Comment by Jonny Mac — 7 April, 2010 @ 8:47 am
ahh yes the enlightenment! so which country totally banned women from political activity, and even banned assembly of more than a half dozen women congregating together?
This was because attending political meetings took them away from ““the more important concerns to which nature calls them.” “
Not Taliban Afghanistan, but Republican, revolutionary France.
Who said this:
“So! Since when have people been allowed to renounce their sex? Since when has it been acceptable to see women abandon the pious duties of their households, their children’s cradles, to appear in public, to take the floor and to make speeches, to come before the Senate? … Nature has said to woman, be a woman; the tender cares due to infancy, the details of the household, the sweet inquietudes of maternity, here are your tasks … Oh, impudent women who wish to become men what more do you want?”
That was Anaxagoras Chaumette, Prosecutor of the Paris Commune in 1793, the year when women were banned from politics, and the newspsper, Moniteur, published an article explaining the ban and also described the proposed fate of thse who disobeyed - the guillotine.
Comment by Andy Newman — 7 April, 2010 @ 8:51 am
#46
‘There are some cultures that no-one in their right mind would respect: slave-owning cultures, for example. And the American South in the 50s didn’t add much to ‘the rich tapestry of humanity’ if you happened to be black.’
So now you equate the Islamic practice of gender segregation at public events with slavery and racism?
This is patent nonsense and you know it. What you’re doing is venting your own distaste for religion and those who choose to live according to the culture and tenets of their religious beliefs. Have you ever bothered to ask Muslim women what they think? Do you even care?
Comment by John — 7 April, 2010 @ 8:55 am
#46
“There are some cultures that no-one in their right mind would respect: slave-owning cultures, for example. ”
Ah, those would be the enlightenment cultures of post revolutuionary America and France (slavery restored by napoleon), and of Britain.
Jonny Mac is undermining his case here.
In any event, surely there is a massive diference between a culture where women and men may CHOOSE to be seperate sometimes, and slavery and Jim Crow laws where segregation and discriminatin is ENFORCED.
Comment by Andy Newman — 7 April, 2010 @ 8:58 am
[CONTENT DELETED]
Comment by terry fitz — 7 April, 2010 @ 9:22 am
John@48 raises a very important point: Have you ever bothered to ask Muslim women what they think?
In fact, this is just a variation on the old “white man’s burden” thinking, in which the poor benighted savages - these women of color, of course - require the leadership of a white male to carry their cause.
Comment by mouse — 7 April, 2010 @ 9:24 am
Ban people sitting apart as they wish and watch how many people would turn up for a political meeting in a heavily Muslim area. I reckon about 12 which would about the same most left groups can muster these days.
From where I am sitting the campaign seems to be really building up steam and hope to be out supporting it myself.
Comment by ben — 7 April, 2010 @ 10:27 am
I wouldn’t realy listen to anything Terry Fitz has to say. Over on Harry’s Place he’s claiming that Colgate and Butler have been kicked out of the BNP while both Butler, Colgate & the BNP seem blissfully unaware of this.
Comment by Red Rob — 7 April, 2010 @ 10:30 am
48 So now you equate the Islamic practice of gender segregation at public events with slavery and racism?
No I’m not. Don’t be so childish. I’m talking about the principle that I understood you to be espousing, that all cultures are of equal value and to be respected, and that it is somehow racist to criticise elements of a culture that discriminate against people. Which is crap. Or you end up in the horrific moral relativism that says you should not criticise female genital mutilation.
49 - Ah, those would be the enlightenment cultures of post revolutuionary America and France (slavery restored by napoleon), and of Britain.
What’s your point Andy? I’m not seeking to defend those societies.
The most interesting point made against me is ‘what do muslim women think? They choose to be separated!’
I quite agree that if Muslim women make a free choice to sit separately, they should be allowed to do so.
My point is that:
a) on the face of it, separate treatment of men and women at public events is not acceptable, in the same way that it would not be acceptable for blacks and whites;
b) however, women do of course have a choice to sit where they want;
c) but, women in conservative religious communities can rarely make a free choice about such matters;
d) moreover, the left should be taking the lead in championing women’s liberation, rather than facilitating segregation;
e) therefore, it is disturbing to see Muslim men and women segregated in this way at a nominally left wing meeting, and astonishing to be denounced on a left wing website for making that poin
But it’s all about ben’s point, isn’t it. If it hadn’t have been allowed, no-one would have turned up.
But that’s not a reason for allowing it, if it’s wrong, is it?
Comment by Jonny Mac — 7 April, 2010 @ 11:04 am
You should have a look at Richard Seymours critique of the absurd idea that multi-culturalism implies accepting everything that occurs in any given culture (why would anyone think this?), and the new right roots of this idea.
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2010/04/racism-in-britain-today.html
Comment by johng — 7 April, 2010 @ 11:33 am
There was an old crank called Fitz
Who always loved to bitch
About Islamoranians
Or Venezuelians
Anyone but racist white gits
Comment by Calvin — 7 April, 2010 @ 11:51 am
#55. Spot on Johng
Comment by LarryN — 7 April, 2010 @ 11:54 am
55 - oh what utter cock. Criticise unequivocally ANY aspect of Islamist teaching - denounce those who preach in British mosques that gay people should be killed, for example - and to the “lenin”s of this world, you’re an “Islamophobe” and/or a racist.
Comment by Jonny Mac — 7 April, 2010 @ 1:17 pm
The Johnny Mac’s of this world refuse to engage in any critical discussion of ideas. I wonder why that is?
Comment by johng — 7 April, 2010 @ 2:13 pm
One feature of the present is endless demands for debate and then as soon as anyone responds abusive and angry replies. It is just the new Powellism.
Comment by johng — 7 April, 2010 @ 2:13 pm
I tell you what, johng, instead of directing me to a 43 minute video of Richard Seymour lecturing, which I have neither the time or the inclination to sit through, why not engage with my posts; for example, you could tell me which of my points a to e in my post 54 you disagree with, and why.
Comment by Jonny Mac — 7 April, 2010 @ 2:33 pm
In a Soviet art gallery in the 1980s, I saw a painting entitled “Religious Fanaticism”. The work was painted late in Tsarist times, and showed an angry mob of orthodox Jews physically attacking a young Jewish woman. No explanation was given why - she must have angered them in some way.
The painting could be looked at in various ways, and probably was, by those who saw it. Anti-Semites could see it as confirming their prejudices, while those opposed to religion in general could see it as a statement of rationalist values, and it could be seen as furthering atheist propaganda in Soviet times. The second interpretation was probably why a Soviet gallery displayed this pre-Soviet work. However, when I saw it I wondered why Jews in particular were singled out as examples of religious fanaticism, when there were no doubt other examples to hand, such as pogroms, which were often triggered by an excess of Russian Orthodox zeal. Of course, maybe a Tsarist artist found Orthodox religious excesses an unsafe subject.
It is easier to attribute negative qualities to a minority that is disliked on other grounds. In present-day Western Europe, Muslims fit the bill.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 7 April, 2010 @ 2:43 pm
Isn’t it a sad sign of what the left has become in this country when the campaign for a bright inspirational left wing candidate manages to attract a 1000 people to the launch and all we do is sit at a keyboard and moan and bitch about who is sitting where.
Comment by ben — 7 April, 2010 @ 2:55 pm
#31
Andy (not Newman), please don’t patronise me. “Anonymous” didn’t distinguish between “forced” or voluntary separation. His “concern” about it extended, quite obviously, as far as politically active Muslims.
Comment by Omar — 7 April, 2010 @ 3:38 pm
#65
Do we need cheap and tawdry cracks like this ?
Comment by Halshall — 7 April, 2010 @ 9:36 pm
I’d love to stay and rap, folks, but someone baleeted all my comments.
How IS the libel case going, anyway?
Comment by anonymous — 7 April, 2010 @ 9:41 pm
Lynne Jones MP to call for a vote for Salma Yaqoob? There is a very interesting story breaking here. Keep an eye on it…
http://www.thestirrer.co.uk/April_10/labour-mp-to-back-rival-party-070410.html
Comment by ger francis — 8 April, 2010 @ 1:11 am
I hope she does Ger.
Would be a real feather in the cap. One of the few Labour Mp’s I would vote for. Shame she is standing down. Will be a loss for Birmingham
Comment by ben — 8 April, 2010 @ 1:53 am
#64
Whoops my comments were directed at Adam, NOT Andy.
Comment by Omar — 8 April, 2010 @ 6:56 am
I hope she does come out and support Salma. Voters will be more drawn to Respect’s policies but an endorsement will be an assist. Well done Brummie Land and the respect team
Comment by Larry N — 8 April, 2010 @ 8:38 am