Monday 19 June 2017

Incitement is incitement is incitement

If you have joined “The State’ in hounding Tommy Robinson for inciting violence against the Muslims, you should wash your mouth out with soap immediately.

If anyone says something that’s considered ’wrong’ these days, you can bet that some cloth-eared bully of a media pundit will reinterpret it and encourage the baying mob to ridicule you. Incitement is incitement is incitement.

Guido got a severe bollocking below the line for his post about Tommy Robinson, and quite right too.

Tommy Robinson has made several mistakes along the way, but he deserves to be listened to. He certainly wasn’t taken apart by Andrew Neil or Jeremy Paxman and as for Guido’s cobbled together list of ‘similarities between Tommy Robinson and Anjem Choudary’ it’s as wrong-headed as it is dumb.

Both agree on an expansionist, conquering interpretation of the Quran.
Big difference. Choudary is for and Robinson is against.

Both are denounced by the vast, vast majority of British Muslims.
Who isn’t?

Both have been in prison.
But for committing what crime?

Both led extremist organisations.
Cheap and sloppy.

Both love noisy confrontational street demonstrations where violence and arrests were common.
Sloppy and cheap.

Both have been taken apart in BBC interviews by Andrew Neil.

Both, in their time, loved a beer and a fag.

Both were based in Luton.

Both struggled to keep their language short of incitement to violence laws, treading carefully to avoid official action against them.
Choudary managed to avoid official action for far too long whereas Robinson failed to avoid the patently unwarranted official action that was taken against him.

Both are attention-seeking media manipulators who exploit legitimate grievances.
Aren’t we all?   1/10.

Now go back to exposing the real villains.


  1. If the intent were different, it's actually pretty funny. Leave out the penultimate 'reason', obviously, and read it imagining some comedian doing a bit.

  2. Guido is, was and always will be a gossip columnist. Of no consequence whatsoever. Fundamentally frivolous.

    Tommy Robinson has his faults but is generally on the side of the angels. The fact he gives his opinions in blunt working class fashion, does not make them less valid. His persecution by the state has been outrageous.

    "Both agree on an expansionist, conquering interpretation of the Quran." Not just those two - but every single leading Islamic cleric. And every Muslim evening and weekend school teaches the same expansionist message to its children - worse the governemnt knows this parallel education system is in place but does nothing to stop it.

    AS for liking violent confrontation, it is clear that the Police always allow counter demonstrators close enough to Robinson's demos (despite his urging that they don't do this) so they can throw things at them. The question is: why do the Police do that?

    So is Guido saying he isn't an attention seeking media manipulator who exploits legitimate grievance? And what "legitimate" grievance does he think Choudray was exploiting? I can't think of a single one.

    I see civil war has broken out in UKIP as Ann Marie Waters is making progress in her campaign to take over the leadership. Will be interesting to see where that goes.

  3. I don't think I'm an extremist. I've never been on a demonstration, I've always paid my taxes, I've never been arrested. I've never been to a football match, I don't support any team. Boringly conventional I've even spent half my working life as a civil servant.
    I don't bear ill will to any nation or people, if 'they' want to live like 'that', well good luck to them.
    I'm not blind either. I don't see Islam being good to any peoples anywhere. The more I study of its doctrines the more convinced I am that it is bad. I can understand why people in Pakistan follow it because to not do so is to die. I don't understand why a free people would continue to follow it or, even dafter, adopt it. I can't understand why any sane government would want to import it and having done so protect it.
    But then I thought men were men and women were women and their different bits fitted and that made babies and babies were better off with mums and dads. And I thought that I should accept some responsibility for my weaker neighbour but now I find that it his right to demand my help, even if he never was my neighbour until yesterday.
    So just by standing firm on my society's foundations I am now an extremist as the new 'moderates' rush towards me with their staves and sickles.

  4. "Both love noisy confrontational street demonstrations where violence and arrests were common."

    This is probably referring to Tommy Robinson's past associations with football hooliganism. It extends to EDL association to Casuals United, who are...well I'm sure you've seen cinematic classics like Football Factory, Green Street etc. Furthermore, EDL demonstrations are/were very much in the same vein as how gangs of football fans/hooligans conduct themselves on a match day - walking in union, chanting songs/taunts, carrying flags, swilling lager. Much as it may disrupt the narrative here, that is pretty accurate.

    Don't get me wrong, it's a daft article and Tommy Robinson (now doing this for a career rather than a cause, let's be honest) is hardly the villainous figure certain lefties portray him as but he's easy to pigeonhole and hardly on the side of the angel. Ditto professional "thought criminal" Katie Hopkins. The right - or rather the righteous - need a more reasonable and less confrontational voice.

  5. "The right - or rather the righteous - need a more reasonable and less confrontational voice."

    Isn't that how we got here? Just being so 'reasonable' and not prepared to say "NO, NO, NO!"

    1. Is it Anonymous? If Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins are the best people have to hide behind...

    2. Look at another thread on ITBB and you see reference to one who "finds himself appearing closer to the top of the list at speaking engagements because those who used to appear higher on the bill are either dead or in hiding".

      Tommy and Katie are also risking their lives. But of course you knew that before you posted.

    3. There isn't a single elected representative at national level - not even UKIP MEPs - who are telling the truth about Islam's teachings, Sharia law and what Muslim clerics are planning for the UK. Why? Because the truth is no longer important? Because it's not important to know what is taught by all four Sunni schools of Islam and by the Ayatollahs of Iran? Because it's not important to know what is being taught in the parallel Islamic education system in the UK. Here's a suggestion - why don't you go on Mosque websites and see if you can find out the syllabus children are educated under. There's virtually nothing out there.

      Which part of Sharia do you like AnonAnon?

    4. "Which part of Sharia do you like AnonAnon?"

      I'm not aware that I ever claimed to, but you knew that anyway since I'm sure you can read. I love this site. You either agree with every last word because if not, one of the many (or is it just one?) Anonymous pops on to suggest you support extremists or one of the standard accusatory labels thrown at liberals, lefties or (just to be sure you're only including all those that lean away from the right) liberal-lefties. What was that about "thought criminals" again?

      But since you're asking questions, besides writing harsh words from anon accounts on the internet, what part are you playing in a solution?

      To reiterate, I meant only that Tommy Robinson is too tainted and Katie Hopkins too altogether obnoxious.

    5. It's not a difficult logic problem is it AnonAnon? Either you like (a) no parts of Sharia (b) some parts of Sharia or (c) all parts of Sharia.

      I have never understood why people who use the Islamophobia label (not saying you did, but this applies to others who do) will never answert that simple question. Of course, sometimes it's because they have no idea what Sharia law is, but generally it's because they don't want to answer.

      As I say it's a simple question, to which I answer (a) and to which all Muslims have to answer (c).

      A solution? You're sounding like Katie Hopkins now.

      I know what I would do - it would basically be a legal pushback on Sharia in all its many manifestations, including education,Saudi funding of Mosques, importation of foreign clerics, judicial pretensions,Jihad fighting abroad,polygamous marriage, Islamic charities, arranged marriages, FGM (approved of by some Islamic scholars) and so on.

      What part are you playing in a "solution"?


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