Cuddly-Islam, part 1
By Rebecca Seales
A whole page devoted to this inane article on the BBC website?
Oh yes. Trump is a fascist. It’s official.
Justin Webb spoke to that poor Leo Murray about his inflatable Trump-in-a-nappy stunt. We used to say ‘it takes one to know one’. Maybe someone should crowd-fund an inflatable Leo Murray-in-a-nappy. (Why bother. Nobody knows who he is.) Dr. Jan Halper-Hayes’s good-humoured response took the wind out of his sails.
Women’s hour (Cuddly-Islam, part 2)
Splish-splash I was havin’ a bath when I overheard some of this conversation with Kirstie and Katie on the radio. Did they really avoid mentioning the motivation behind this horrific attack? From what I heard the motivation appeared to be almost incidental. As if it was a natural disaster or something. An act of God.
Labour's new anti-Semitism code of conduct.
I wouldn’t have mentioned this if it hadn’t been included in an early morning radio 4 news bulletin t’other day.
"Labour has taken some of the language used in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which is now widely accepted as the most useful definition and has been adopted by the government, the Crown Prosecution Service, many local councils and many other countries.But instead of adopting the definition as agreed by all these bodies, Labour has excised the parts which relate to Israel and how criticism of Israel can be antisemitic."
They're keeping the following four back for themselves: (why the American spelling I'm not sure)
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide than to the interests of their own nations.
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. (sic)
- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior (sic) not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
The Labour Party needs to be able to still use these terms and memes with impunity. They’re not antisemitic; oh no, they’ve fought antisemitism all their life. (For or against?)
The 10:10 Foundation to which Leo Murray and his group belong is a registered charity Charity no. 1157363. According to the Charity Commission website:ReplyDelete
.... [The Charity's] Aims & activities
Our role is to provide a positive and compelling narrative that inspires action and support for environmental action, and to provide innovative, exciting yet practical projects that enable a mainstream constituency to take meaningful action to protect and enhance the environment for the benefit of the public both today and for future generations....
There's no need to worry about donations being used for purposes other than the aims and activities of the charity - the 'Trump baby' inflatable project has been crowd-funded - so we are told.
The alternative balloon - Sadiq Khan in a nappy - is now fully funded and it will be interesting to see if he approves it being floated above London, and - if not - what excuse he comes up with.ReplyDelete
One can imagine Labour NEC agonising late into the night over how to set a code of conduct on anti-Semitism that didn’t offend the anti-Semites in their own party.ReplyDelete
I take it the Labour Party also considers the following ‘definitions’ immune from being termed “Islamophobic.”ReplyDelete
Accusing British Muslims of being more loyal to Islam or to the alleged priorities of Muslims worldwide than to the interests of their own nations.
Questioning the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination because of their determination to establish a “Jew-free” Palestinian State. (Which is a racist endeavour )
Applying equal standards, e.g., requiring of a future Palestinian State behaviour expected and/or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Palestinian policy to that of the Nazis.
Re cuddly-islam 1 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-42009219ReplyDelete
I read this and thought it was quite amusing, but when you realize that the reason why the lady in question can't shout "Jihad" or that speaking in arabic may cause suspicion at an airport is not due to far-right racism in western countries but rather the deadly terror attacks in the name of Islam the item takes on a more disturbing tone. I wonder why the people interviewed did not want their faces shown, fear of attack by far-right bigots, fear of harassment on international flights, or fear of attacks from the peaceful and harmless jihadist freedom fighters ?
If only there were a cuddly version - I'm sure we'd all give it a big hug. But it exists only in the BBC's fevered PC-Bake Off-Ostrich-like imagination. The proof is that no non-Muslim BBC reporter or presenter has ever, as far as I am aware, identified a single thing in Sharia that they'd like to see incorporated into British law or culture. When they do, we might take the propaganda a little more seriously...ReplyDelete