Saturday 7 May 2016

The Muslim Mayor

(Most of the following post was written before Ken stepped in to inflame the antisemitism row.)

I could hardly live much further away from Bow Bells, but I do care about the rhetoric surrounding the London Mayoral elections. 

Ken, the previous Labour Mayor, was more famous for antisemitism and cronyism than for London-specific policies. He improved transport, apparently. But what do I care? I’d rather have both feet nailed to the floor than do a daily commute around the capital. Boris was okay because he was `Boris’. He introduced bikes.

A bunch of uninspiring candidates unconvincingly posing as all things to all people. Both the main contenders say one thing to one group of voters, the opposite to the next. 

Both have been photographed standing beside a Muslim extremist. The Muslim extremist denies he is an extremist. 

David Cameron is still fixated on the crudely simplistic concept that Islam is a great religion with a Moderate majority and a tiny violent minority.
...what we face is not some clash of civilisations between Islam and Christianity or Islam and Buddhism. What we are seeing is a small minority within one of the great religions of our world, Islam, believing that there is only one way—a violent, extremist way—of professing their faith. This is a battle within Islam, and we have to be on the side of the moderate majority and make sure that they win it. We have to really understand what is happening, otherwise we will take the wrong path.”
But he was referring to the recent Muslim-on-Muslim murder in Glasgow, not those dodgy friends of Corbyn, Ken and Sadiq. Or even Zac.

At another PMQs David Cameron made a hooha about Sadiq Khan’s ‘IS-supporting friend’  but it transpires that the gent in question is a Conservative, and a supporter of an Islamic State, not the Islamic State. 

David Cameron:
If we are going to condemn, not just violent extremism but also the extremism that seeks to justify violence in any way, it is very important that we do not back these people and we do not appear on platforms with them and I have to say I am concerned about Labour’s candidate as mayor of London who has appeared again and again and  again.
Jeremy Corbyn : 
David Cameron:
Well, the leader of the Labour party is saying it’s disgraceful. Let me tell him. Right. So. Suliman Gani. The honorable member for Tooting has appeared on a platform with him nine times. This man supports IS. He even shared a platform....Mr. Speaker. I think they are shouting down this point because they don’t want to hear the truth. Anyone can make a mistake about who they appear on a platform with. We’re not always responsible for what our political opponents say, but if you do it time after time after time, it is right to question your judgment.

I somehow think he should have said: “We’re not always responsible for what our political colleagues say,” (rather than opponents) It doesn’t make much sense to say opponents, for obvious reasons.

It’s likely that Sadiq Khan is not a clandestine extremist waiting for a chance to pounce so much as a politician who’s after your vote. 

Maybe he is a would-be one-man Trojan Mayor? They do say there will be an Islamic flag flying over Buckingham Palace in a minute.

The Royals probably wouldn’t care. They are Arabists who don’t deign to darken the door of the Jewish State. Charles likes to shimmy wearing Arabic attire. The Queen herself is fond of the headscarf. 

Is it the BBC’s fault that both serious contenders for London Mayor are politicians doing what politicians must do? Schmooze? Is it the BBC’s fault that both front-runners have been snapped or papped standing next to some darkly sinister bushy beardies?

The BBC could have made a bigger issue over Khan’s serial involvement with dubious clients when he was a human rights lawyer. (In fact have any BBC political interviewers brought up his relationship with Louis Farrakhan and Yusuf al-Qaradawi etc.?) 

When the unfortunate Uncle Tom thing came to light, everyone assumed he’d accidentally revealed his own Islamist disdain for moderate Muslims who suck up to whitey.  But it’s equally possible that he was merely using throwaway, short-hand phraseology for ‘assimilated Muslims’ while explaining that there was little point in preaching to the converted when there are extremists to engage.

As Craig says, the BBC did not report all these things, and if they had, it might just have swayed a few voters.

Let’s be realistic. If you want to be Mayor of London the Muslim lobby is probably worth getting onside. 

We don’t really know if Sadiq is an ambitious self-serving politician, a Trojan Islamist or an idealist who wants to make the world a better place. As London’s Mayor, would he be dangerous? How dangerous? Blind eye to corruption? Blind eye to antisemitism, homophobia, intra-Islam violence? Funneling dosh to dodgy causes? Think Lee Jasper.

No matter how many times Sadiq says he’s going to be a Mayor for all Londoners, the BBC is so delighted that it insists on calling him the Muslim Mayor. 

I thought dwelling on that was deemed racist.


  1. The BBC's promotion of Khan is something to behold. DId they do the same for Boris? I doubt they made him headline news. And of course they are promoting the view that a dirty campaign was run by the Tories. My opinion the reason that campaign got nowhere was because Goldsmith didn't sound like he meant it and never seemed to master the detail of Khan's serial consorting with dodgy Islamists.

    There is no doubt Khan changed tack after M15 was on to him (recording his conversation when he was prison visiting terrorist suspects). Supporting gay marriage is not what you expect of a Sharia enthusiast. However, on the other hand I have never heard him condemn Sharia law.

  2. Indeed, sue. It's odd how there doesn't seem to be much emphasis on Khan's competence, vision, or what a great campaign message he had. Usually the victor is defined on his own merits, not so much on how the victory is proof of the opponent's negatives.

  3. The thing you have to understand about Cameron's statements about Islam is that he will be fully briefed on what Islam is (its history and teachings), what Sharia is, what is taught in the unofficial schools teaching Islam in the UK and what Mosque Committees discuss in private. He'll know all that because he is at the centre of a huge, huge information network including the security services.

    He knows exactly what sort of threat is posed to liberal democracy - and he knows that it isn't confined to the "tiny minority" of violent extremists.

    He is hiding the true nature of the threat, as most mainstream politicians do, probably for a number of reasons: the impossibility of telling the truth in our politically correct culture, his belief (I think common among Western leaders) that given enough time they can wear down Islam and make it submit to modernity, and his desire not to alienate potential Muslim Conservative voters.

    Personally it has always been my view that it is a mistake to underestimate Islam - probably the most successful and coherent ideological system ever to make its presence felt on this planet. 1400 years on after its foundation, it has changed remarkably little and has hundreds of millions of followers fully committed to its precepts.

    It is numbers that count, and that Cameron cannot and will not address that. As long as there is a demographic doubling every decade, the future for liberal democracy does not look good.

  4. Especially interesting BBC connection between the current elections and the current Jew Hatred scandals in Labour. Ken Livingstone blamed for Labour seat loss in Jewish area

    You probably missed it as it was hidden in London Region News.
    It does raise quite a few questions.

    * The first is whether it is true. Why specifically Livingstone whose Jew hatred was well documented before the Hitler fallacy?
    * Why solely Livingstone in a period when the Labour Party from Corbyn down has been involved in the scandal?
    * Is there any evidence that Jews and only Jews changed their voting preferences in those seats?
    * Is it a ‘dog whistle’ attempt to paint the Jews as having too much political power?

    * On the other hand, is it an acknowledgement that pandering to supposed Muslim prejudices can have an electoral cost in addition to an electoral benefit?

    As another issue, the BBC reports Livingstone's 'Hitler was a Zionist' fallacy as the source of criticism but that can be explained away as a erroneous reading of history. His other obnoxious comments are ignored.

    'Creation of Israel was fundamentally wrong'
    Israel is a 'mistake,'
    “When Hitler won the elections in 1932 and came to power, his policy was not directed toward killing the Jews. He wanted to deport all the Zionists to Israel." [My note: Hitler never distinguished Zionist from Jew. I doubt he ever used the word Zionist.]
    Claims there was no anti-Semitism in the Arab world until founding of the Jewish State'.


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