On the fence

Sarah AB is a regular ‘above the line’ contributor to one of my favourite pro-Israel blogs, Harry’s Place. I find the b.t.l. comments varied, mainly erudite, though often surprisingly combative and irascible.  Sarah AB, renowned for her champion-level fence-sitting, has gawn and done it again. She’s positively teetering on top of the most uncomfortable rung of the fence.

As far as the Israeli Palestinian conflict is concerned, all pre-1967 history is a big empty BBC void. The BBC is of the opinion that ‘it all started’ when Israel spontaneously decided to occupy Gaza and the West Bank.  The crucial evidence - that the six-day war was an intended war of annihilation - is routinely hidden or absent from the narrative. Israel’s neighbours had hoped to destroy it, but they miscalculated. 

Apparently unaware of the BBC’s promotion and amplification of Dr Allin-Khan’s agenda-laden fact-finding mission, and having avoided listening to the run-up to the current situation,  in a similarly context-lite manner Sarah AB has dived straight in at the middle of the Dr Rosena Allin-Khan saga.

 She must also have missed the Today Programme where Mishal Husain’s overbearing chairperson-ship pushed any potential reconciliation further away than ever.

In Sarah AB’s post, she seems to imply that Dr Allin-Khan had made a conciliatory gesture - almost a sacrifice - in accepting an invitation to the Israeli Embassy to continue the discussion face to face. Perhaps it was courageous to venture into enemy territory when you see the enemy as mad, bad and dangerous, but surely the magnanimity was on the part of the deputy Ambassador who was so unkindly disrespected by Husain. 

Issuing an invitation to an openly hostile adversary who, aided and abetted by the BBC, had been doing the rounds to promote a disingenuous, Israel-bashing agenda, shows considerable generosity of spirit. After being subjected to the Beeb’s infamous two-against-one scenario and forced to sit through a distorted account of one's own country's gratuitous malevolence, I doubt if many of us would be as generous with our hospitality. Especially when the chances of changing an implacable mindset were next to nil. But hey ho. 

In the end, (which is where Sarah AB came in) it was those disgustingly shocking antisemitic tweets that opened Allin-Khan’s eyes. She is simply experiencing the extreme end of the “No to Normalisation” phenomenon. There can never be peace while so many people are busily shoring up Palestinian intransigence, as the BBC is. 

It takes bare-faced hate to expose the antisemitism behind the ‘no normalisation’ campaign and to show the futility of encouraging the armies of useful idiots on the left who think they are helping the Palestinians. They mean well, as I’m sure does Sarah AB.

Incendiary affair

I watched  “The Satanic Verses: 30 years on”   t’other night. 

Before sitting down to comment on the actual programme, I was curious to see what other reviewers had made of it. The Independent’s review by Sean O’Grady was a shocker, even for that publication, and it was a pleasant surprise to see several below the line comments that reflected that view. 

The Telegraph’s review was better, but not a lot. Collective tiptoeing around Islam is safer than committing a hateful thought-crime these days. 

Over on Harry’s Place, as we used to say quite a lot, Sarah AB has also tackled the tightrope of reviewing a programme-that-shows-Muslims-in-a-bad-light, and as she took an interest in Maryam Namazie at one time Sarah AB might have the measure of Mobeen Azhar. 

Do look through some of our brilliant pieces on Mobeen Azhar to set the scene. I’m going to steal a chunk from Sarah's article.

“In last night’s programme The Satanic Verses: Thirty Years On, Mobeen Azhar reported on the novel’s legacy, and its role as a catalyst in the conflict between radical Islam and the West. Azhar had never read The Satanic Verses before and it was interesting to hear him articulate the discomfort it made him feel.  He went on to make it clear that he does not question Rushdie’s right to write or publish the novel. 

He began by reminding us of the context to this controversy – the racism and discrimination facing immigrants and the reasonable perception of unfairness in a blasphemy law (now of course thankfully abolished) which only protected one religion – Christianity. 

Azhar went on to interview several of those caught in the events of 30 years ago. Some of these seemed disturbingly adamant that they still see nothing wrong in their actions. Chillingly, Mohammad Siddique said he thought the response to the novel had been useful in stopping others write similar books. (By contrast Shahid Butt said he’d no longer resort to violence – but he would call Rushdie a ‘fucking dickhead’.)”

That gives you an idea of what we watched. The next section of her review featured a contributor from Hope not Hate - a portly chap called

“Matthew Collins, formerly a NF activist, now with Hope Not Hate, gave an interesting account of his (largely ignorant) views at the time. However it was a little unsettling – though he may simply have phrased the point unfortunately – that he almost seemed to blame Salman Rushdie for writing the novel rather than simply noting that it could be exploited by the far right.”

There was the obligatory shot of “far-right” ex-EDL persona non grata formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, a completely gratuitous and unhelpful inclusion, very BBC, in my objective opinion.  

Having outlined the plot so to speak, Sarah AB drifted off to express her characteristically benign opinion of our presenter so I'll take up the narrative. Mobeen was dressed in a fetching, three-quarter length trench-coat, belted and cinched in at the waist, which made its full peplum-style skirt flap as he pursued the angry Muslim man who had snatched his precious copy of The Satanic Verses out of his hand.  

Our presenter looked decidedly urbane and camp with his trademark quiff, which always makes him look like like a displaying cockatoo. Was it the gay look that triggered the incendiary Muslim Uncle and the man in the (Arab) dress and the baseball cap? Or was it simply the effrontery of anyone holding offensive literature in a “Muslim Public Area”? 

Either way, it provided plenty of fuel for the likes of the far right - who are obviously not far wrong when they talk about ‘no-go areas”. 

The urbane Mobeen was suitably taken aback by this unexpectedly dramatic and absurdly comical encounter, but he also confessed that he himself religiously made sure his own copy of the Koran remained in an elevated position (on a high shelf) in compliance with superstitious Islamic rules and regs.

The most significant moments for me, however, were conversations with some elderly British Muslims who had no intention of conforming in any way shape or form to British values and customs, and frankly didn’t see why anyone might expect them to. 

 Here’s a funny distillation by   “Veedu Viz” (whatever that is.)

The New Denial

Regular readers of ITBB will have read Douglas Murray’s piece in the Spectator “Beware the modern-day heretic hunters”, and very likely they will also have read Sarah AB’s post on H.P. and viewed the video and listened to the secretly recorded audio from “that interview” . 

This is about the latest kind of denial.  Gender-denial, as espoused by a Canadian uni  professor, described by one viewer of the YouTube video as a “bald something-year-old Canadian (who) sounds like a 19-year old girl from California”. 

Gender denial is an extreme interpretation of the non-binary, non-gender-specific politically correct pronoun-related dictum. Thou shalt not offend the trans. 

Following this dictum to its (il)logical conclusion requires total deconstruction of the conventional structure of language. It requires you to use the plural for the singular, as in 'they / their' instead of the potentially offensive 'he / she' or 'his / hers'.

It also threatens all those languages that ‘gender define’ inanimate objects.  No more 'le' and 'la', no more gender specific word endings. Come to think of it - life could be a lot easier. No more need for non essential ante-natal scans, for a start. Is it a boy or a girl? Who cares. It’s a they. And feminism, poof! All gone. No more gender quotas. No more all-wimmin shortlists. Bye now, all you socially constrictive constructs that are put there to trip people up.

Do listen to the video and the audio if you’ve got a spare hour or three. 

I might have mentioned this before, but some of our oldest, most established utility companies have already transitioned by stealth from relative sanity to gender-fluid pronoun madness. “Your engineer Neil is on their way”. 

May I just say that the clip from Canada’s “The Agenda with Steve Palkin” above is utterly bonkers. 

To a Brit like yours truly Canadians speak like Americans, apart from the pronunciation of “ou” as “oo”. Everything’s fine  until “about” suddenly becomes “aboot". Then you get the giggles, which interferes with the gravity of the debate and lends a slightly hysterical aspect to it.

Professor Jordan Peterson, who has been cruelly labelled ‘alt-right’ by the new order, seems to be the only sane person present, but he undermines the purity of his eloquence a teeny bit by the nuclear-level fury that he is obviously struggling to keep a lid on. (And who wouldn’t be?)

The only other contributor who had some sensible observations to make, a convincing-looking trans,  (man-to-lady) all but obliterated her argument with seductive eyelash flutterings and a very distracting palette of simpering, sexually-suggestive lip-pursing gymnastics. 

The rest of the debate was almost other-worldly, I thought. 

However there is a side, vis-a-vis no-platforming, that needs to be taken very seriously. One way of approaching this question is to cite prime examples of candidates that deserve, indisputably, to be no-platformed, and discuss.  Bringing up topics (or people) that are deemed beyond the pale - Hitler being the most obvious one - immediately shows that it all boils down to a matter of opinion. One man’s terrorist etc etc.
We didn’t like it much when the Labour Party fringe debated “The Holocaust, yes or no”? It seemed utterly offensive and beyond the pale.

Would anyone bother getting worked up about a debate called “Flat Earth, yes or no?”
No, because they’d be confident of a reasonable outcome for the simple reason that the foolishness therein would speak for itself. 

But these days, we can’t rely on any such thing.

One little thing that surprised me was that the BBC actually reported the undercover recording incident etc. on their 'US and Canada' page.  (It has now been displaced.) I didn't expect to find anything, but...

“A Canadian university is being accused of stifling free speech after it scolded a teaching assistant for airing a debate on gender-neutral pronouns.
Wilfrid Laurier University chastised Lindsay Shepherd for showing her class a televised debate featuring Jordan Peterson, a transgender-rights critic.
Mr Peterson has gained fame online with the alt-right for slamming "PC culture" and the use of gender-neutral pronouns.
Many in academia have rallied behind Ms Shepherd and criticised the school.”

....I shouldn’t have been surprised at all, as the BBC is ideologically pro trans. The report is brief but fairly accurate, apart from the dodgy bit about the 'alt-right'. (Should the BBC use such elastic terms without including the customary scare quotes ?)  Interestingly, it refers to her as "Ms Shepherd" throughout. 

What did surprise me was Sarah AB’s rather pompous criticism of Douglas Murray. I thought he was spot on.

Is the BBC a lost cause?

As regular readers might know (or guess) I am a big fan of Harry’s Place. I only lurk, because I made it a rule not to acquire an online presence by commenting here, there and everywhere. I might do that when I give up this blog. Also, I’m too much of a wimp to create a load of sock-puppets and creative IDs and pretend they’re not me.

What I particularly like about H.P. is the palpable sense of ‘family’ below the line, which I think is pretty unique in the blogosphere. I’m not  saying I approve of the the vitriol, which can spring up all of a sudden for no obvious reason. It’s colourful I suppose, but that's the internet for you.

Lurkers like myself would probably have the impression that the general consensus on Harry’s Place is that the BBC is a bit of a lost cause. 

"Come on! Harry’s Place is a lefty blog," I hear you say. Well, it kind of isn’t these days, especially now, what with the rise of Corbynism. And, of course it’s a Zionist blog, and the commentariat are not just any old commentariat, they’re the M & S variety. 

So why am I saying all this? I nearly forgot. It’s about the BBC. However well informed, highly qualified, educated, literate and eloquent the btl H.P. family may be, they’re not all geeky about the BBC like we are. We seem to know all the presenters by name and can remember things they said years ago. (By the way, I see Jon Donnison is back reporting on hurricane Irma, as is Alan “I’m telling your story” Johnston.)  

So when Sarah AB wrote about Radio 5’s breakfast show, which tackled the BBC’s flavour of the month news item, namely the news concerning some members of the British Army belonging to the banned neo-Nazi organisation National Action, the discussion inevitably turned to Nicky Campbell. 

I know Nicky Campbell is, or used to be one of the pet hates of contributors to the Biased BBC blog.  If you search the site for ‘Nicky Campbell’ about 200 posts pop up, mostly concerning The Big Questions or Radio 5 Breakfast.

I myself wrote at least two of them, way back in 2011 or thereabouts.

"So nothing changes," I hear you say. "You’ve wasted about eight years of your life blogging about BBC bias, and had precisely zero effect." Well, that’s as may be, but in fact things do change. Have changed. For one thing The Big Questions has improved. I quite miss it when it’s off air. Is it that I myself have become more tolerant, or is it that the BBC has tried a little harder to get better quality guests? I don’t know, but when Douglas Murray agrees to appear on the show, it can’t be that bad. 

And Nicky Campbell is a good presenter. He handles the volatility much more competently than many a hardened BBC professional.  As to how much serious understanding of Islam-proper he has, who knows? He’s no scholar, nor does he claim to be, but let’s say he’s matured. Nowadays he seems less credulous when it comes to being taken in by the likes of Mo Ansar.

Here is another confession. I don’t listen to radio 5. I don’t even know how to tune in, should I suddenly decide I want to. I did follow the link on H.P. though, and I have to say the very tone of it wasn’t to my taste. I don’t want to be rude. Actually I do. It sounded dull, childish and irritating and I don’t think I’ll be visiting again. 

Many people on ‘right wing” blogs (you do realise that anyone right of Jeremy Corbyn is now considered right-wing) have mentioned the BBC’s disproportionate interest in the news about four or five members of the British armed services being investigated for belonging to a “proscribed anti-Semitic and homophobic group”. That’s it. That’s how the group is being described, as if the BBC believes that hearing about that particular duo of hatreds is all we need to know to ensure we are horrified at the very idea. Well, we are. But when identical dual prejudices are associated with Islam, as they famously are, it’s somehow deemed insignificant. I don’t get it. 

Incidentally, while we’re on the subject of BBC presenters, someone brought up Emma Barnett. She seems to be a BBC favourite at the moment, (you know how the BBC over-exposes its pet presenters till we’re sick of the sight of them) Grilling is Emma’s forte. One minute she’s demolishing Jeremy Corbyn’s  credibility, next she’s humiliating the gymnast Louis Smith for mucking about in a manner offensive to the Muslims. 

It’s indiscriminate grilling that grates. Yet we call for impartiality, and you can’t get more impartial than indiscriminately dishing out your grillings. Or can you? It may be technically impartial, but it seems unintelligent. Choose your victims wisely, is all I can say. 

Here’s Pat Condell. (H/T Daphne Anson)

I don’t think that would be popular on Harry’s Place, but it’s a damn sight more sincere than the feigned 'game' - ‘find the extremist’.

   

Maryam Nawazie’s ordeal at Goldsmiths University

Over on Harry’s Place, Sarah AB has posted an interesting piece:

“Earlier this week I posted on the disgraceful treatment Namazie received from Goldsmiths ISOC.  As many will have already seen, this prompted surreal solidarity messages from Goldsmiths’ LGBT and feminist societies.  Surreal, because the solidarity was for the ISOC not for Namazie.”

I had to have a look on YouTube, where the video of the whole event has been uploaded. You can view it here.

While I think Namazie’s presentation was flawed, her bravery was admirable. But surely no-one in their right mind could accuse her of saying anything extreme. 

She seemed to be merely listing a series of outrageously oppressive and vicious practices that are being carried out in Islamic countries. In particular, she explained the difficulties faced by any Muslim who wishes to leave the religion, and pleaded for apostasy to be a matter of choice, and not punishable by ostracism or death. Fair enough, one might say, but evidently most of the young lads sitting at the front in the audience disagreed; and in varying degrees, so did several of the sisters. 

Are these adult infants actually students though? How did they ever manage get a place in a university? Their attention spans were obviously next to zero, and their loutish manners were as disruptive as any maladjusted primary-school child.  Is that what students are like these days? What could they be “studying”? Chemistry? Aviation? Internet security? 

Seriously.

Freedom of speech: Tommy Robinson and Anjem Choudary

Talking (which we weren't) of biases beyond the BBC, this piece by Sarah AB at Harry's Place is typically thought-provoking - and not a little alarming:

Freedom of speech: Tommy Robinson and Anjem Choudary

Ex-EDL leader Tommy Robinson has been released on bail following his conviction for mortgage fraud but, despite their being no political aspect to his conviction, the terms of his release are alleged to include prohibitions on speaking about Islam, Mohammed, or the Koran. If he does he will, apparently, be recalled to prison.

Sarah says:

If true, this clearly goes way beyond the original condition that he avoid contact with members of the EDL. I am not sure what justification there is for banning Tommy Robinson from discussing any of the proscribed topics.  He should be able to speak freely on these issues.  If what he says is wrong or bigoted, I am sure there will be other speakers who can point this out.  I certainly don’t always agree with Tommy Robinson, but I very much doubt he is likely to say anything as hateful or offensive as the stuff Anjem Choudary regularly comes out with – as readers will probably know, he has recently had his bail conditions softened, allowing him to preach.

One would think the people making these decisions were secret counterjihadists, for they play into their narrative, and don’t help Muslims, or those opposed to anti-Muslim bigotry, one jot.

H.P. Gone Mad

Charles Moore’s article in the Telegraph is the topic of a thread on Harry’s Place.

Sarah AB says:

“those who think it’s bad, full stop, and those who think it’s pretty bad, but perhaps raises issues which need to be addressed.” 

I’m confused. Where has she seen these views expressed? Certainly not in the BTL comments, which are predominantly from people agreeing with Moore and expressing their gratitude for seeing the piece in the MSM at last.

Charles Moore says:

"It (EDL) does not – officially at least – support violence. It is the instinctive reaction of elements of an indigenous working class which rightly perceives itself marginalised by authority, whereas Muslim groups are subsidised and excused by it. "

Sarah AB says: ”But if the indigenous working class feels marginalised, I don’t think it’s helpful to suggest this is all the fault of Muslims. And Muslims (whether working class or not) may, if they look at certain tabloids for example, feel marginalised too, on occasion.”

Why does Sarah AB think Moore suggests that the fact that the working class feel marginalised is “all the fault of the Muslims? “ 

As far as I can see, he never suggested that at all. He clearly said that an indigenous working class perceive themselves to be marginalised  - i.e. not deemed worth listening to  - by authority. He contrasts this with the fact that “the authorities” are falling over themselves to listen to Muslim groups. 

  

The indigenous working class EDL’s primary grievance stems from their understandable objection to the nature of their home towns, particularly Luton, being changed out of all recognition. That is certainly because of the overwhelming Muslim influx, which is the fault of the “authorities” as well as the militant, political, proselytizing element that is responsible for casting such a shadow over their lives. 

The blame falls on all of us for their marginalisation. It’s everyone’s fault that this has been allowed to happen, especially with the media being intimidated and the government being paralyzed and intimidated. 

 We’re all guilty of marginalising people like Tommy Robinson. Everyone is afraid of being associated with the EDL or being seen to defend him in case they’re accused of racism, like some sort of leprosy. That’s why they feel marginalised, and Charles Moore hasn’t said anything to make me think he doesn’t know this. So if anyone’s being unhelpful, it’s you really, Sarah AB.

Of course the poor Muslims feel marginalised on occasion, and they very well should be. They’re the architects of their own marginalisation if you like. This is the UK, not Isbloodylamabad.

Does Sarah AB think working class lads have no right to object when their ‘manor’ is virtually occupied by an alien culture? Middle classes are up in arms all the time when they’re threatened with a new Tesco for goodness sake, organising petitions and marches and raising objections here there and everywhere. They’re usually listened to, are they not?   They’re taken seriously. “Save the high street!” they cry, and no-one criticises them for wanting to preserve the nature of their manor. 

We need to listen to the EDL properly and stop trying to make them go away by dismissing them as far right, or extremists, or hooligans, or lazily umping them together with the BNP.

Update.

“But overall Moore shows no interest in or engagement with those liberal/left voices (Muslim and non-Muslim) who are trying to tackle the problems of extremism”

Concludes Sarah AB. There she goes again. People who believe voting labour gifts them the keys to the moral high ground, and people who think they occupy the moral high ground by separating extremists from ‘good muslims’  ignore the fact that many people think there’s a ‘blurry line’ between the two.

If it’s racist and Islamophobic to criticise Islam, what’s a virtuous moralising person to do when they can’t but notice incidents such as the day-light slaughter of “Drummer Rigby” ? They're forced to concede that there is a problem. Unable to admit it’s a fundamental problem with Islam, the focus turns to “tackling the problem of *Extremism*" a handy euphemism which immunizes one against catching Islamophobia or the dreaded full-blown racism.