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?

Neo-Nazi hoaxes on Twitter

Commenters at Biased BBC have picked up on a piece at Jihad Watch by Robert Spencer with the disturbing headline UK Labour Party: “UKIP has evil money grabbing jews in their party”, based on an earlier post by at the same blog by Pamela Geller. 

It highlighted a grossly antisemitic tweet by North London Labour, "official branch of the North London Labour presence" attacking a member of UKIP.

Robert Spencer wrote: 

Labour is backpedaling furiously now, of course, and denying (in the teeth of abundant evidence to the contrary), that this appeared on an official Labour site. Their protestations notwithstanding, this illustrates the ugly antisemitism that increasingly pervades British society — not coincidentally, as the Muslim population is growing quickly and becoming more assertive. Labour assiduously courts those Muslim votes — hence this tweet.

The Biased BBC commenters wondered why the BBC wasn't making a big deal of such a disgusting tweet - the way they would if, say, a UKIP or Conservative politician had tweeted/said something so offensive...or even something far less offensive...

...and, yes, the BBC doesn't appear to have jumped on the story yet.

It looks, however, as if Jihad Watch may have jumped the gun here. 

Investigating on Twitter this evening, it looks as if Labour's denials are correct. There is, apparently, no North London Labour, "official branch of the North London Labour presence" and @LabourLondon is just a reversal of the official Labour Party feed @LondonLabour.

The feed certainly looked convincing enough though to attract a lot of Labour Party followers (according to Jihad Watch), including Meg Hillier, Sadiq Khan and Dan Hodges.

The growing consensus is that it's a fake set up by a notorious hoaxer and neo-Nazi called Joshua Bonehill-Paine (whose antics have even resulted in a Wikipedia entry).

UKIP has also been plagued by fake accounts (such as “UKIP East London branch”). Several have been posting offensive tweets in the past weeks. The party believes that Joshua Bonehill is behind those too. (A new one sprung up just as the 'North London Labour' affair was unraveling called @UKIPLondonHQ before being quickly rumbled and suspended).

They too must have been as initially convincing as 'North London Labour', as they also attracted genuine UKIP followers at the start - presumably through a 'lure them in and then let them have it' strategy on the part of the hoaxer. 

Mark Lewis, the Dowler Family lawyer, wants legal action taken against Joshua Bonehead. He's been battling him on Twitter.

Given his past history of appearances on programmes like Newsnight, Mr Lewis might get this disgusting story onto the BBC after all.

Snubbing Thugs and Banning Bloggers

Even though what I am about to say is only indirectly related to the BBC, the presupposition is that the BBC is largely responsible for the politically correct constraints that stunt our thinking. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin.

Melanie Phillips has written about Theresa May’s ill-advised decision to ban Geller and Spencer. It seems the government has caved in to pressure from the likes of  Tony Lloyd and Nick Lowles, two of the most disreputable individuals ever to have influenced a Home Secretary.

'making your world secure'

Melanie Phillips explains what a bad move this is, and I agree with her, but with one reservation. She says:

“I do not support the approach taken by either Geller or Spencer to the problem of Islamic extremism. Both have endorsed groups such as the EDL and others which at best do not deal with the thuggish elements in their ranks and at worst are truly racist or xenophobic.”

Many people think Geller is generally out of order and a loose cannon, and perhaps a slightly fewer number think Spencer goes too far, and in the process of denouncing him deliberately spin and re-interpret selected quotes of his, to strengthen their case and justify Theresa May’s ban. That is another matter. 

Excluding the hard left who have adopted a bizarre political alliance with Islam and think banning Geller and Spencer the right thing to do even though they don’t encourage banning violent Jihadis, people who think the ban is ridiculous and who denounce radical Islam (or criticise Islam itself) yet religiously distance themselves from the EDL because of ‘thuggishness’, reveal their own ignorance of a particular type of “white working class”. This is where I take issue. Melanie says Geller and Spencer’s “endorsement” of the EDL wields a serious blow to both writers’ credibility, which has: 

“split the defence against Islamic extremism, and handed a potent propaganda weapon to those who seek falsely to portray as bigoted extremists all who are engaged in the defence of the west against the Islamic jihad.”

It could be argued that her outright dismissal of Tommy Robinson and the EDL also “splits the defence against Islamic extremism etc etc.”

Despite the similarity between his arguments and their own, people who refuse to entertain the validity of Tommy Robinson’s position because he hasn’t succeeded in reining in his followers seem hypocritical. Particularly when that view comes from those of the left whose entire political views revolve around establishing equality for the working class. 

They expect, nay demand, that poorly educated, relatively inarticulate so-called yobbos whose 'lifestyle choices' are blighted by inferior schooling and lack of opportunities -  the very deprivations the political left specifically decry - behave like middle class liberals, forming an orderly queue and singing Kumbya. It’s as though they’re blaming them for what, in the next breath, they say is unfair. Condemned for being what they are, merely because of 'social immobility', lack of opportunity, bog standard education, etcetera. 

In fact they’re highlighting their own insularity. Some members of the EDL do have tattoos and shaved heads. They can be crude, rude and boisterous. Some of them have been to prison. But that doesn’t alter the fact that they don’t like the change that has befallen towns like Luton and feel, understandably that the character of their hometown has been stolen from under their noses. They don’t see why they should tolerate the unfamiliarity, uncertainty and insecurity they foresee as the UK’s future, or be arrested for making a stand by cheekily walking through was has apparently been demarcated a “Muslim area” -  “In our own country!”    

The EDL are guilty of actively demonstrating as an expression of their frustration, unlike their passive detractors or counterparts like me who can only moan and blog. 

They have taken the initiative and are doing something, therefore they deserve to be listened to rather than denounced by those who likewise bemoan the government’s capitulation, who argue nicely and politely against all institutional kowtowing to Islam, who also  see the change that has befallen towns like Luton and cities like London and fear the unfamiliarity, uncertainty and insecurity that awaits us, but who nevertheless determinedly and yobbo-phobically distance themselves from the EDL.

There are also yobbo-phobes amongst politicians and the BBC/Guardian axis who, for the sake of social cohesion, insist that most Muslims are moderate and harmless. 

For the sake of social cohesion they might also assert that violence, sexual grooming, misogyny and homophobia are a distortion of Islam, they might tolerate antisemitism because they believe it is understandable, they might  overlook intolerance, rudeness and exploitative sexual practices from Muslims lest they offend any of them. This group objects only to what it calls “radical” Islam, and it insists that its opposition to the EDL is based on the inaccurate and disingenuous declaration that they “hate all Muslims”.

So the EDL and Tommy R are rejected and vilified as racists by people from all sides; defenders of free speech, opponents of the Islamization of the UK, deniers of the Islamization of the UK, people who support violence if it’s needed to defend, for example, Israel and people who oppose violence especially if it’s needed to defend Israel.   

Certainly there are truly racist and xenophobic elements everywhere, but not necessarily exclusively confined to the the ranks of the EDL.