If only everything was black-and-white

I was listening to Today this morning and, after marvelling at the absolutely masterly way that the Rev. Woy Jenkins pivoted his TFTD talk from being about Chelsea Manning to being about God, heard Justin Webb talking to two former Tory advisors, Danny Kruger and Philip Blond, about Mrs May's brand of Toryism. 

It was pleasant - if you like that kind of thing. 

And, of course, some do, and some most definitely don't. 

The social media reaction to this Tory/Tory discussion consisted of masses of lefties moaning about it being "BBC propaganda" or "a Tory lovefest" or "a studio-wide Tory Party love-in" or "a political broadcast on behalf of Theresa May", etc, etc, whilst righties (in far smaller numbers) have tended to voice their pleasantly-surprised approval, with one regular BBC critic on another blog describing it as "remarkable" and "fascinating" and "reasonably moderated by Justin Webb".

Such responses do make me worry about my own confirmation bias. Do I sometimes react like that too? 

The Corbynistas were also furious at Today for featuring Labour's John Woodcock, the Trident-supporting, Jeremy Corbyn-disliking MP for Barrow-in-Furness (who I could wave to across Morecambe Bay). Mr Woodcock said Labour wouldn't win. 'BBC bias!', they cried.

Well, I'm going to cry 'BBC bias!' at Mishal Husain for her handling of the closing political discussion between a right-winger, a left-winger and a cross-bench peer. That guest selection might sound balanced but, as most of the discussion focused on Brexit and immigration, and two of the guests were Remainers and strongly pro-mass immigration while only one was a Leaver and in favour of controlled immigration, it should have been Mishal's job to either even up the numbers (devil's advocate-wise) or to stay completely out of it. Instead, she kept interrupting and questioning the one pro-Brexit, right-wing controlled immigration supporter from the stance of his two 'opponents'. It made Mishal sound like a Remain partisan and a pro-mass immigration hack rather than an impartial BBC broadcaster. 

Still, if there's one person 'people hereabouts' wouldn't expect to be given a lengthy, unhostile interview on the problems posed by mass Muslim immigration into Europe, it's Ayaan Hirsi Ali - and yet there she was this morning on Today. And a very interesting interview it was too, conducted "reasonably" by Justin Webb.

Stop demonising Israel

Learn from Israel. Ayaan Hirsi Ali. H/T Notasheepmaybeagoat

“Israel from the time it was founded has had to deal with this. Over time and in a painful way Israel developed an infrastructure. It is legal. It is counter-terrorism measures; it’s intelligence. They know what they’re doing. 
We should stop demonising Israel, we should start learning from them, and by my knowledge Israel hasn’t declared war on Islam. Israel collaborates with some of the Muslim countries when they want to collaborate with Israel, but Israel is in a place now where in terms of fighting domestic terrorism they have made such headway that the scenes we’ve seen in Paris are unthinkable.
Yes, the terrorists are using knives and cars and other desperate measures but the mass murders of Israelis on Israeli soil is unthinkable because of the measures that they’ve put in place, and I think we have a lot to learn from them.”

She’s right that Israel is dealing with exactly the same thing, and she’s right that they have made headway in dealing with domestic terrorism by implementing rigorous counter terrorism measures.  

She’s right that we should stop demonising Israel and she’s right that Israel has not declared war on Islam. But I doubt if  she is right to say with confidence that mass murder on Israeli soil is unthinkable.

Here is Jeremy Corbyn:

“I want to start, Mr Speaker, by expressing the horror of all those on this side of the House at the events in Paris on Friday evening and our continued solidarity with the victims and all those affected by conflict and terrorism, whether in Paris, Beirut, Ankara Damascus or anywhere else in the world. Nothing can justify the targeting of innocent civilians by anyone.”

Jeremy Corbyn refrained from mentioning Israel. Perhaps he can’t bear to utter the word “Israel”, but of course he doesn’t regard Israeli civilians as innocent. On the other hand he did say “all those affected”, so one can’t be sure whether the violence perpetrated by his friends are included or excluded from this vaguely-defined condemnation

For the purposes of this blog, the take-away message is “We” should stop demonising Israel.

The ignorant and incoherent versus the poisonous and lethal?

I have been following the Harry’s Place thread on the ‘US Prophet cartoon attack” with interest because I know that some of the H.P. regulars, commenters and mods alike, think Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are, as they put it ‘Nutters”.

Spencer and Geller’s views on Islamic Jihad and the Islamic religion are uncompromising it’s true, but I’d suggest necessarily so. The enormity of the opposition, be it from both the Muslim and non Muslim majority/world view, means they must be emphatic in order to get their voices heard above the cacophony of unlimited, self-destructive ultra-tolerance and political correctness.

The ‘Draw Mohammed contest’ is viewed by many (specially the BBC) as provocative, controversial, and deliberately inciteful, and the subsequent attempted terror attack for which IS is now somewhat opportunistically claiming responsibility, is viewed as quid pro quo.  You asked for it, and you got it.

Geller and Spencer’s claims that the aim of the event was purely to take a stand for freedom of expression and to protest against special treatment being gifted to the Islamic religion are being greeted with cynicism by people who  judge the incident solely by their own negative opinions of the organisers. 

I imagine that if they were to watch the live-stream video (on YouTube) of the actual event they would be hard-pressed to find anything that gives the lie to those claims. I didn’t spot anything in the speeches beyond a great deal of self congratulatory waffle, expressions of gratitude to the supporters, and reiteration of the issues of freedom of speech and the right to offend without being murdered.

Personally I don’t particularly follow Pamela Geller or Robert Spencer, but I’m roughly on their side and I’m not prepared to denounce either of them. I don’t want to start being one of those people who have to add a caveat to everything they say. Nor do I want to turn into someone who always has to be careful to qualify an extreme view I might wish to express, in case I alienate someone I desperately want to be liked by.

People say “I’m no fan of Katie Hopkins, but she does have a point when she says....” Or, “I don’t think much of Tommy Robinson, but...” Or Geert Wilders, or Ukip or, for that matter, anything to do with Israel.  They’re scared to simply agree with, or to be thought a fan of, or be seen as an outright supporter of whatever it is. But they really do, and they really are, and they just can’t face admitting it because they don’t like being called racist, or being accused of the crime of being right-wing.

Some criticism of the cartoon competition cites the argument that neither the location of the event nor the actual venue were especially associated with this issue, therefore both the attackers and the intended targets had to be bussed in from other areas, which means the whole thing must have simply been a gratuitous honey-trap and nothing more. However, something that wasn’t disseminated very clearly was that (according to Geller) that particular venue had hosted a defiantly pro-Islam event in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo incident. 

The issue of Islamic extremism is a topic I wanted addressed in the election debates, a topic that, with the help of the media, was ignored by all parties. In todays Times, (£) Ayaan Hirsi Ali has an article entitled “Only one party will tackle the Islamist threat” 

Here’s an excerpt:

“Most western leaders have been thrown into moral confusion by the rise of radical Islam within their own societies. Mr Cameron is an exception. He has been vocal in his call for the acceptance of Muslims as fellow Britons. He has gone out of his way to include Muslims in his cabinet and in other positions of leadership. He has been meticulous in his choice of language, always stressing the point that British Muslims are a part of the fabric of Britain.
But he has also been one of the first western leaders to admit that multiculturalism has failed as a philosophy. Britain is a place of many ethnicities and religions, he has argued, but there is one dominant culture and that is British.”

I am a big fan of Ayaan, but although it’s one of the most persuasive arguments in favour of voting Conservative that I’ve heard so, far I’m not completely convinced that they'd take more decisive action against Islamic extremism than they already have.

Melanie Phillips in the Jpost is addressing a related topic. She describes Cameron’s party as decent but ignorant and incoherent. That is certainly true of William Hague, but he’s history.  

“The UK’s election alternatives on Israel would seem to be between decent but ignorant and thus incoherent on the one hand, and poisonous, existentially agonized and lethal on the other.”

 Melanie thinks a Labour government would be disastrous. If I understand her correctly, she believes a Conservative government would perhaps be less so. Faint praise.

“Of course it is also possible that David Cameron may stitch together another coalition. In recent weeks, he has expressed his shock and concern that some British Jews are now wondering aloud whether their families have a future in Britain. Doubtless Cameron’s shock is genuine. He’s a decent enough guy.

But it is the demonization of Israel, unchallenged by British politicians and now running at epidemic levels throughout the British political and educated classes – and fed by the Foreign Office, with its false claims that Israel’s occupation and settlements are “illegal” – that is behind this anti-Jew atmosphere.
In short, the UK’s election alternatives on Israel would seem to be between decent but ignorant and thus incoherent on the one hand, and poisonous, existentially agonized and lethal on the other. A no-brainer, you might think – but in a country where reason itself seems to have taken an extended vacation.”

If only the media would allow these things to be debated openly and thoroughly, up front and naked, we might have a clue what we’re letting ourselves in for. Foreign policy, mass Muslim immigration, Trojan Horse, (still not dealt with) grooming and child sex exploitation. (ditto) 

What’s to do?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the BBC.

Having castigated the BBC for playing down the elephant in the peace negotiations, i.e., the PA’s officially sanctioned cradle-to-grave incitement to hate/kill/exterminate Jews whilst amplifying spurious obstacles to peace concocted by the PA, I’d like to mention that the BBC has in fact publicised Brandeis University’s unfortunate decision not to award an honorary degree to  Ayaan Hirsi Ali. They even link to this, with its sympathetic Q and A.

Brandeis's deplorable decision is worse than merely ‘deciding not to’ because having decided to award it, they were persuaded by an angry letter from a number of left-leaning objectors to retract the wretched award after it had been offered. 

This grossly insulting reversal has drawn adverse publicity, both to the university and  to the craven individual responsible, one Fred Lawrence. It has also set off a controversy over Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s views about Islam as well as everyone else’s views about Islam, everyone’s debating whether it can ever be modernised, reformed, or be compatible with the infidel world. 

Melanie Phillips supplies the background:

“Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Somali-born woman who, after enduring ritual genital mutilation, fled an arranged marriage, renounced Islam for atheism and became a Dutch MP. Subjected to death threats after her colleague Theo van Gogh was murdered in Amsterdam in 2004 because of the film they made highlighting the plight of women under Islam, she moved to the US where she continues to campaign against Islamic extremism.Now she is at the centre of another controversy. Brandeis University, a small but well-regarded liberal arts institution in Massachusetts, has withdrawn its proposal to award her an honorary degree. The university’s president, Fred Lawrence, said: “We cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.” These included calling Islam “a destructive, nihilistic cult of death” that “legitimises murder”.The volte-face followed pressure from Islamic groups, in particular the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a group accused by the FBI of being a front group for Hamas, and by members of Congress and others of having links with extremism.This has far wider significance than a spat in a small American university. It graphically illustrates, and deepens, the dangerous muddle over Islamic extremism and the charge of “Islamophobia” that has caused problems in the UK for years, and now seems to have spread to the US.”

The rest of it is behind the annoying Times paywall.  

The interesting part of the aforementioned letter objecting to an honorary degree being bestowed upon Ayaan Hirsi Ali is where they try to rationalise their opposition by glossing over the cognitive dissonance that allows the liberal left to align itself with illiberal  Islam.

  “Please know that, like Ms. Hirsi Ali, we fully recognize the harm of forced marriages; of female genital cutting, which can cause, among other public health problems, increased maternal and infant mortality; and of honor killings. These phenomena are not, however, exclusive to Islam.”

...says the letter. You see, we’re not going to get caught out approving of these terrible things. We defend Islam because.. because.. because  other cultures do them too so that’s okay goodnight.

“The selection of Ms. Hirsi Ali further suggests to the public that violence toward girls and women is particular to Islam or the Two-Thirds World, thereby obscuring such violence in our midst among non-Muslims, including on our own campus.”

What? How does the selection of someone who opposes violence, forced marriage, FGM, honour killings and the like within Islam automatically suggest that these problematic cultural traditions are exclusive to Islam, merely because they’re characteristic of, or if you like, particular to Islam, (and, good grief, if they’re rampant on the campus, root them out why don’t you) and why exactly does highlighting the existence of them within Islam obscure them outwith Islam?   Not logical at all in my opinion.

 “It also obscures the hard work on the ground by committed Muslim feminist and other progressive Muslim activists and scholars, who find support for gender and other equality within the Muslim tradition and are effective at achieving it.”

No it doesn’t.

 We cannot accept Ms. Hirsi Ali's triumphalist narrative of western civilization, rooted in a core belief of the cultural backwardness of non-western peoples.” 

Hmmph. Do we hate ourselves?

Their main objection to Hirsi Ali is that she takes an uncompromising approach to what many people think is an uncompromising religion. No half measures. 

Many liberals are desperate to prove that there is “moderate Islam”, even though people like this, and surely they should know, are adamant that there is no such thing. Abdullah al Andalusi had his knickers in a right old twist because the BBC allowed Maajid Nawaz a platform to spout his inconsistent theories about moderate Islam, and what’s more they did this in the sincere belief that he speaks for others, not just himself alone (when it is I, Abdullah al Andalusi, who I believe speaks for others, not just myself alone.) For our enlightenment, Abdullah al Andalusi summarises, with derision, a list of the devilish reforms the UK government wishes to impose upon the Muslim community. 

• Create a ‘reformed’ (and deformed) ‘Liberal Islam’ (2) (3) that fully adopts Liberal values,

• Detaching Muslims living in Britain intellectually and emotionally from the rest of the Ummah (global Muslim community), and set up British nationalism as the definer of their ‘main identity’  and

• Complete mental enfranchisement of Muslims into the concept of Secularism, by encouraging active enfranchisement and confidence in the Secular democratic system, via voting (4)

The impudence of the UK government! If only they had the will.

Mr al Andalusi seems oblivious to the fact that this is Britain, and the Western World appears equally oblivious to the fact that they are The Western World. Or, if you will, “Western civilization, rooted in a core belief of the cultural backwardness of non-western peoples” and if all’s well, rooted in a core belief in their own superior humanitarian credentials.

Because Islam is the one religion that by its very nature has resisted reform and will do so for ever after because that’s an inbuilt requisite of Islam. 

No-one knows whether ‘moderate Muslims’ are “culturally Muslim” apostates, ex-Muslims who emerged, blinking, from Muslim backgrounds, or what? Without the trappings, is there anything left?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali says what others are afraid to say. If they agree, they’re ashamed to say so. All they can do is qualify everything with disclaimers. 

“I’m no supporter of the EDL, but...” “I disapprove of Geert Wilders, but..” “I agree with some of what Robert Spencer says, but..” “I admire Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s courage but...”

Mark Steyn has written extensively and forthrightly about this topic . He’s a fine writer.

“At Brandeis University, we are learning the hierarchy of the new multiculti caste system. In theory, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is everything the identity-group fetishists dig: female, atheist, black, immigrant. If conservative white males were to silence a secular women’s rights campaigner from Somalia, it would be proof of the Republican party’s ‘war on women’, or the encroaching Christian fundamentalist theocracy, or just plain old Andrew Boltian racism breaking free of its redoubt at the Herald Sun to rampage as far as the eye can see. But when the snivelling white male who purports to be president of Brandeis (one Frederick Lawrence) does it out of deference to Islam, Miss Hirsi Ali’s blackness washes off her like a bad dye job on a telly news anchor. White feminist Germaine Greer can speak at Brandeis because, in one of the more whimsical ideological evolutions even by dear old Germaine’s standards, Ms Greer feels that clitoridectomies add to the rich tapestry of ‘cultural identity’: ‘One man’s beautification is another man’s mutilation,’ as she puts it. But black feminist Hirsi Ali, who was on the receiving end of ‘one man’s mutilation’ and lives under death threats because she was boorish enough to complain about it, is too ‘hateful’ to be permitted to speak. In the internal contradictions of multiculturalism, Islam trumps all: race, gender, secularism, everything. So, in the interests of multiculti sensitivity, pampered upper-middle-class trusty-fundy children of entitlement are pronouncing a Somali refugee beyond the pale and signing up to Islamic strictures on the role of women.”

So the BBC didn’t avoid this subject altogether, which is a plus. At the risk of sounding like Amazon (People who bought one of these, also bought one of those)  if you’ve ploughed through all this, you’ll be interested that the BBC has also mentioned this.

That’s a turn up.