Sunday 13 October 2013


Further to Craig’s post summarizing this morning’s edition of Sunday Morning Live, allow me once again to go over to Samira Ahmed, who is usually an excellent host for that Sunday  Morning Live scenario, daft as it is.
There are oh so many reasons why it’s daft, least of all the unreliability of Skype, and Samira’s inability  (partly, but not wholly, through technical limitations) to get certain contributors to shut the f**k up. Not that she had to do that this week.

Then there’s the wording of the “question” that was put to the vote. This week it was loaded in favour of the ‘yes’ vote. So much so that putting the question thusly, so that the outcome was a forgone conclusion, made the whole voting malarky even more of a pointless exercise than usual; even though I say so myself, being, as I am, an enthusiastic opponent of the Islamification of the western world.

What was it again? “Do you agree that we should be allowed to criticise Islamic terrorism?”
oh no, it was “Does the EDL represent a view that needs to be heard?” Duh! How could anyone object to views being heard, whatever they are? Well apparently 5% of people do, a figure that oddly echoes the proportion of Muslims in the UK.   

It would be interesting to know how many people picked up the phone in total. As it happens,  someone in my household who is not averse to doing pointless things did just that, and having been unable to get through for quite a while, was told “we’re very busy this morning”. So there.

Tommy Robinson is still anxious to distance himself from that awful sin, ‘racism’. Quite right, because although what he does has nothing to do with race, it may or may not come into the category of bigotry, which some people call ‘tarring with the same brush.”

He says over and over, that he’s “not against Muslims” just “radical Islam”, and that’s where things get muddy. Have Quilliam been re-educating him, has the left’s vilification of the EDL pushed him into a corner, does his eagerness to be seen to be tolerant of, nay, to embrace multiculturalism, cause him to stop short of criticising “Islam” and make him confine his criticism to “Radical Islam?” It certainly looks that way. If so, this begs clarification. 

What defines a moderate Muslim as opposed to a radical? Where does the red line go? Is it in the degree of devotion? The amount of prayer? The interpretation of the Koran? Adherence to the law of the land rather than Sharia? The attitude towards assimilation? The antisemitism? 

Some people think the line isn’t crossed until violence is involved; others draw the line just the other side of apostasy. As far as I’m concerned there needs to be more than merely any individual’s ethical decision to refrain from physical participation in holy Jihad before I feel reassured about the Islamification of Europe.
Charles Hawtrey

The appearance of Bungle lent levity to the affair. Looking like a cross between a microcephalic 
Mr. Bean and Charles Hawtrey, Inayat was funny. In both senses. Funny peculiar and funny haha. His attempt to introduce the ‘Muslims are the new Jews’ fallacy was laughable. His deliberate attempt to misrepresent Tommy’s position as repentant was less amusing. And he was sorely trounced by the vote.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.