For the sake of diversity

Sayeeda Warsi, Twitter:

"Monday morning class for racists - it’s 2020 people
- If you take a negative characteristic of an individual and impose on a whole community that’s racism
- personal anecdotes are not justifications for racism - it’s still racism"

There is quite enough already online about the Trevor Phillips fiasco - not so much the above quote from Sayeeda Warsi’s Twitter thread  - I was thinking more about the negative observations about the Labour Party's suspension of Trevor Phillips below articles about the topic in The Times.

Islamophobia? Looks bad for the Labour Party? With my reputation (!) 

"It would be a bit odd if I suddenly decided that because I had been kicked out of the club I couldn't express my beliefs."

Trevor Phillips, ex-chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, denies that his comments about Muslims are racist. #r4Todayhttps://t.co/kQwpWG6kBk pic.twitter.com/HOkC4E7A2g

— BBC Radio 4 Today (@BBCr4today) March 9, 2020

Instead of going over all that again, I want to pick up Nick Robinson mentioning “A letter from Tommy Robinson that was found in Darren Osborne’s van, referring to Muslims as ‘a nation within a nation.”

Oddly, the above clip from the BBC Politics Twitter timeline excludes that particular reference. That set me thinking. Was there really such a letter? Or was it another of those disingenuous memes? You know, like letterboxes and watermelon smiles.

I found two or three reports in the Independent referring to: “letters beginning with the phrase “dear Darren” ... “signed off” by Tommy Robinson." This, and this written by Lizzie Dearden, a reporter who has ‘history’ with T. Robinson.

This report, illustrated with a suitably aggressive-looking shot of her ‘subject’, refers to ‘emails’ that Osborne had downloaded, and later to an “email from Mr Robinson to Mr Osborne”. So, had Tommy Robinson been personally corresponding with Osborne and specifically inciting him to ‘act’? 

We all know that ‘clicking’ on something can trigger a flurry of unsolicited ‘personal’ messages, or let’s call them personalised messages, and we should also understand that receiving an automatically generated round-robin is not quite the same thing as being actual pen-pals with an individual at the head of the organisation that generated it.

So why did Lizzie Dearden and co make it seem otherwise? ‘Signed off’ is slightly different from just ‘signed by.” The Independent's journalists must have been aware that they were giving the impression that Tommy Robinson was specifically inciting Osborne to kill Muslims.

Nick Robinson said (to Trevor Phillips) that inflammatory messages from Tommy Robinson were ‘in a letter found in his (Darren Osborne’s) van’, and I put it to you that there was indeed a letter, but it was written by Osborne himself. There is even a photo of him sitting in a pub, pen and paper in hand - allegedly setting out his ‘manifesto’. It’s in the actual BBC report. Finsbury Park: what led Darren Osborne to kill? (Dominic Casciani)

Personal correspondence, generic emails, incitements to kill, self-penned manifestos - easily conflated, if you've a mind to, and you know it will pass unchallenged.

There is a considerable dollop of irony in the fact that in all the reports, even the ones that have massaged the facts to suit their agendas, a large portion of the blame for triggering the unhinged Mr Osborne to carry out his nasty deed has been laid at the door of the BBC’s own dramatisation “Three Girls.” 

But Nick forgot to mention that. It might have been awkward because it would have drawn attention to an uncomfortable truth about the "negative characteristics" of certain individuals. Or, to echo a certain Naz Shah (did she really say that?) you need to shut your mouth for the sake of diversity.

Update:
In this post (about the Robinson bros.) I was more concerned with the way Nick Robinson managed to shoehorn Tommy Robinson into his attack on Trevor Phillips than on the substance of the Labour Party’s ridiculous attempt to save its reputation. (As if!!) and I wanted to highlight the annoying phenomena of memes that have gone viral despite being disingenuous and context-lite.

The topic of Trevor Phillips and Islamophobia has been examined from every angle, inside, outside and upside down by The Times, the Spectator, Spiked and I daresay the Guardian and the Independent too. All the arguments have been made so eloquently and articulately by others that it seemed presumptuous for me to try to go over it all again, again.

I would have posted this update below the line (in a comment,) but it's easier to embed the links to some of these excellent pieces here. There are some good responses. (Unfortunately, the Spectator pieces are behind a paywall.)

 In defence of Trevor Phillips

Trevor Phillips’s fate should terrify us all

Why Labour wants to smear Trevor Phillips

Labour will regret its shameful treatment of Trevor Phillips


Here is a rudimentary list of some of the arguments one hears and reads, which one must put to oneself to test their strength and /or validity. 

1.) A phobia is an irrational fear.
2.) The ‘good Muslim’  is an ex-Muslim.
3) A ‘good’ Jew is an anti-Zionist Marxist
4.) Your ‘race’ is your race is your race. (Said Goebbels)
5.) Islam is a political ideology masquerading as a religion.
6.) Lumping disparate things together is racist.
7.) Arabs are 'Semitic' too.  (Gnomes are humans too) (Don’t be silly)

One can get lost in contradictory arguments about Islamophobia and antisemitism plus the concomitant false equivalences. The themes go round and round and trip over themselves on the way back. These days, in the end, it all boils down to ‘feelings’. Points mean prizes; facts mean feelings.

Letterbox gate

This hooha about ladies dressed as a pillar-box has seen the BBC pushing the correlation between antisemitism in the Labour Party and “Islamophobia” in the Conservative Party. There is no real correlation; only fakes.

The Corbynites insist that the antisemitism crisis has been confected to discredit Jeremy Corbyn, while your average puzzled onlooker observes as letter-box-gate is increasingly inflated, hour by hour, for the purpose of vilifying Boris Johnson, who, according to the BBC, is cynically courting the populist vote en route to the top job.

Many believe the Labour Party’s anti-Israel rhetoric is a cynical way of courting the considerable Muslim vote en route to Number Ten.

On the one hand we have Nazi-like antisemitism in the Labour Party (emanating from the hard left and Judaeo-phobic Muslims) which is either being flatly denied by camp Corbyn, or dismissed by foolish left-wing politicians and media pundits as justifiable opposition to the policies of the Israeli government. (Which always comes under the heading “What Israel is doing”)

On the other side of the coin, it is argued that the very concept of ‘Islamophobia’ is false and that opposing or criticising Islam is not a psychological condition but a rational response to the creeping Islamisation that the BBC appears to be foisting upon us, which we have to pretend is fine or be deemed racist.

Genuine anti-Muslim bigotry may be a real phenomenon, but being flippant about pillar boxes is not it. 

Why should we have to pretend that extreme Islamic garb is unremarkable? It’s ludicrous, impractical and medically inadvisable. Extreme fashions come and go; piercings, tattoos, crippling high-heeled shoes, all statements, like “Look at me. I’m a bit of an idiot.” 

Wearing the Islamic, 'extreme modesty' costume in public is equally impractical, inappropriate and idiotic, but with an implicit message: “Look at me!  I’m more pious than you, and unlike you, I’m virtuous and modest. You are debauched and immoral, but I am good.“ 

Evan Davis is a gay man, don’t forget. Why does he bat for the homophobic brigade? The way he handled Newsnight (6/8/18) is as baffling as watching while pre-Corbyn, formerly Blairite MPs silently cling to the sinking ship. 

The item on letterboxgate followed a short item about antisemitism, so was asking for a BBC style link containing false moral equivalence.

“Labour isn’t the only political party that descended into hate speech. Boris Johnson wrote a piece for the Telegraph this morning about a ban on women wearing burkas and nikabs in Denmark. He came down clearly against such a ban, but in the process managed to say about Muslim women wearing them, quote. ‘ it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letterboxes. He separately said they looked like bank robbers.”

Evan leaned forward and gazed intently into the camera.

“Now you have to ask yourself how would that have sounded if something similar was said by Jeremy Corbyn, of orthodox Jews.

No! you do not have to ask yourself that. There is no equivalence. Boris was defending a legal right to wear this uniform but was acknowledging its blatant, undeniable ludicrousness. With humour. 

Jeremy Corbyn, on the other hand, has a long and troubling record of Judaeophobic behaviour which is being unearthed in an ongoing series of revelations. If he made a disparaging remark about the appearance of religious Jews it would have a completely different and more sinister significance.

  

For the record, Haredi Jews do dress in eccentric garb and yes, it may indicate a wish for separateness, and it may give out some sort of “don’t come near me” vibe. It’s not as if this hasn’t been lampooned and described in flippant and derogatory terms many times by all and sundry, but have we heard defiant accusations of racism from that community? They’re probably so insular that they ain’t even bovvered.

Remember that time @JeremyCorbyn appeared on PressTV and said that the Israeli government and Israeli embassy are “very assertive towards all journalists and the BBC” and as proof of this said “there is a bias towards saying . . . Israel has a right to exist”. No? Here you go... pic.twitter.com/9Jy8l1VKHT

— The Golem (@TheGolem_) August 7, 2018

My old man's a bus driver ('e wears a bus driver's 'at)

“Well, there’s been a pretty sharp reaction to the Johnson column” continued Evan, as he brought Alex Forsyth in to reiterate the stuff outlined above. They cited such authoritative bodies as The Muslim Council of Britain and the ubiquitous Sayeeda Warsi (who was on radio 4 again this morning with Peter Hennessy) to underline their point, and as there was no-one available from the Tories, they consulted Mohammed Amin, Chair, Conservative Muslim Forum, who was duly outraged. Outraged by letterboxgate. Suffice it to say that one attribute that couldn’t be ascribed to Amin is GSOH.

Earlier on I saw on TV an animated lady in a full face veil fiercely expressing her indignation through a slit in her costume. Now you come to mention it, she did look as though she was dressed as a letterbox. 

Heroes and villains

Palestinian heroes.





Prince William doesn’t know what he’s letting himself in for, does he?

Neither, obviously, do the noble lords. (Big H/T  to Daphne Anson.)

Funny thing is, Baroness Warsi cites Tommy Robinson’s imprisonment as a way of discrediting him. Whereas in the sort of societies she aligns herself with, imprisonment is cited as a symbol of heroism.

Get Douglas!

The Muslim Council of Britain has complained to the BBC about Douglas Murray's appearance on The Sunday Politics. 

They are trying to discredit him and influence the BBC. 

Simultaneously, Baroness Warsi has unleashed the 'ad homs of war' (and the racism card) on Douglas in her attempt to influence the BBC:

It looks as if a campaign to keep Douglas Murray off the BBC is underway. It's up to the BBC now to resist it and not to cave in to it. 

I'm not feeling too optimistic about that though. 

Hope and Chutzpa

I feel the urge to revisit some recent topics.

Sayeeda Warsi is one of the BBC’s privileged Muslim spokespersons whose visceral hatred of Israel is always allowed to stand unchallenged. Since I posted my earlier comments several further reviews of her book The Enemy Within have materialised.

Jenni Russell, for instance, in the Sunday Times (£) has written a rather respectful review, but one gets a vague impression that she’s written it through gritted teeth.  If that’s not purely a figment of my imagination, one might well ask, why? Why submit a review that seems to be holding something back? I know. That sort of speculation is  above my pay grade.

Here’s a passage:

“She identifies the anger over Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses, in 1988, as the first time that British Muslims became politicised as a community. Furious Muslims felt the state was failing them by refusing to prosecute Rushdie for blasphemy. The government, horrified by the bounty placed on Rushdie’s head by Iran, felt bound to defend one of liberal Britain’s fundamental rights, to speak and publish freely. Mutual incomprehension “set Muslims on a journey of simmering resentment and a narrative of grievance”. After 9/11 and the war on terror, Muslims came to be seen as a problem, with their religion, not their Britishness, as their defining identity.”

To me that seems almost conspicuously non-committal. Has Ms Russell caught the BBC’s value-judgment-o-phobia?

Another article on the Baroness cheered me up far more. It’s by Col. Richard Kemp. Surprisingly the BBC still consults him on military matters from time to time, which is surprising. One would think his commitment to defending the IDF would have discredited him altogether in the eyes of the BBC.

Here are a couple of passages:

“The chutzpah of Sayeeda Warsi. I mean that in the Yiddish sense of despicable insolence, but likening the Israel Defence Force to the Islamic State is much worse, it is dangerously irresponsible. Warsi excuses IS and Muslims who leave Britain to murder and rape for them yet condemns the IDF and British Jews who serve in their honourable ranks. 

Coming from the most prominent Muslim parliamentarian, this will make Islamic jihadists sniff blood. It will encourage UK Muslims to join terror groups and embolden IS. Repeating the lie that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza validates Hamas’s human shield strategy and encourages further violence and killing. She has blood on her hands.
Her arguments are absurd. She obviously doesn’t care about the so-called loophole she demands is closed: allowing British citizens to join a foreign army. If she did, she would apply the same in reverse, condemning the thousands of Gurkhas and Commonwealth soldiers in the ranks of the British forces today. 

[…]The IDF are the diametric opposite of this (IS) evil. They are the army of our close allies, at the forefront of the war on terror. Israeli intelligence has saved many British lives on the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, here at home and abroad.
Israeli drone, counter-IED and battlefield medical technology have made our forces more effective and kept British soldiers alive and fighting. 

Israel’s staunch military backing to Egypt and Jordan has held IS at bay and prevented an even worse immigration flow into Europe. 

Will our young people who join the IDF cut off their victims’ heads, burn them in cages, bury them up to their necks and leave them to die, line them up and shoot them in the back of the head, systematically destroy their cultural heritage, rape their women and children, torture their prisoners, beat and abuse their elders, as IS do? 

I won’t even answer that. The IDF complies with the Geneva Conventions and with Jewish morality handed down across the centuries. In their efforts to avoid civilian casualties in battle, they are admired and emulated by armies throughout the world. 

I have seen many young British IDF soldiers in action. I hugely admire their dedication, humanity, professionalism, courage and fighting spirit. 

I abhor and reject the contemptible accusations of Sayeeda Warsi. Unlike these brave Jewish men and women, she has never put herself in harm’s way for her country, has no understanding of the depredations of our bestial IS enemies or the righteousness of our friends and allies of the IDF.

*************

The other piece I want to quickly revisit concerns our old friend Ken Livingstone and his wretched hearing.

On Harry’s Place Sarah AB draws our attention to a pathetic Steve Bell ‘cartoon’ that the Guardian deems worth publishing. In my opinion it has nil merit. It’s really badly drawn and its message contains neither wit nor humour. Any discernible satire, should anyone wish to discern some, misses whatever target was in Steve Bell’s head and lands - bullseye fashion - upon seriously unfunny antisemitism.

Tomorrow. The verdict.

************

I see Owen Jones has put his social media flounce behind him and has returned to Twitter. Having been  vilified by the Corbynistas for not being sufficiently antisemitic, (at least not enough to boycott the Jewish Labour Movement) he used the first Henry Smith Memorial Lecture  to try out  a spot of damage limitation by keeping a toe in both camps. 

Firstly condemning antisemitism - why, some of his best friends are Jews -  then denouncing Benjamin Netanyahu: “riddled with bigotry”,  and the current Israeli government: “hard-right, bigoted, violating international law and making peace impossible.” 

Here’s a taster from a report in “Jewish News”:

“But Mr Jones — who has not yet visited Israel — did not pull his punches when it came to condemning the current Israeli government. Describing himself as a passionate supporter of Palestinian self-determination, he described Mr Netanyahu’s government as “hard-right, bigoted, violating international law and making peace impossible.”

Owen’s Twitter thingy gave me a nasty shock, too. Owen is appearing at the Hall for Cornwall next week.. His performance is titled: “The Politics of Hope”.

I’m well aware that there is a strong Corbynista contingent in west Cornwall, as well as a mini branch of the PSC.  (H/T David Collier)The Corbynistas in the audience, if they could afford the £13 per ticket, could easily turn into a nasty little baying mob. 

It’s a great shame that so many social justice warriors believe their racist campaign is morally righteous. For disseminating misinformation and bias, I hold the BBC responsible.

**************

One of the least offensive stories of the day is the undercover apostrophe doctor. Many viewers must be baffled. The greengrocers amongst us, at any rate. 

The BBC really ought to set out the proper rules for apostrophes so that the people who aren’t quite sure could get educated. (Oh, they do!) I have to say that the intrusive ‘greengrocer’s apostrophe’ undermines many an otherwise fine bit of prose.

"A moment of calm and clever reflection"

Sayeeda Warsi was on The Andrew Marr Show this morning arguing that the Westminster attack had nothing to do with Islam. People from all religions can carry out violent acts, she said, and Masood "was a violent Christian long before he was a violent Muslim". She also condemned the government's "obsessive focus" on "Islamic ideology" - a term she regards as "not factually correct" - and wants to see the present Prevent strategy replaced by a new strategy which will better engage with Muslims.

Now, you may have thought that her contribution was the usual, predictable guff from the baroness but Andrew Marr ended the interview by gushing:

A moment of calm and clever reflection. Sayeeda Warsi, for now, thank you very much indeed for talking to us.

He'd already described her new book as "eloquent". 

Morally indefensible

Israel won’t talk while rockets are being fired from Gaza! Also, Hamas won’t accept preconditions.

So hang on.  Hamas won’t accept preconditions; it will send rockets, deal or no deal.  

The BBC recounts this demand with scrupulous impassivity lest they commit a value judgment. 

Later the BBC passes on the news that Hamas will contemplate a ceasefire, but only if Israel meets its demands.  This looks like a precondition, smells like a precondition and walks like a precondition. 

Hamas’s demands are: 1.) Israel lifts the blockade.  2.) Israel ends the occupation. Hamas reserves the right to send rockets, or (should Israel accede to demands 1 or 2) bring rockets in person. 

Stalemate. Unless Hamas decides that there is no longer any need to kill Jews. This could happen if God comes along and says ‘Lo! it would be nicer if everyone would live happily ever after” 

*********

Sayeeda Warsi was on the Today programme last year warning us about the persecution of Christians. 

Sarah Montague managed to give the erroneous impression that Israel was amongst those doing the persecuting, and Warsi didn’t clarify. It was the subject of a complaint to the BBC and upheld, for what it’s worth, by the Editorial Complaints Unit. 

So Sayeeda isn’t just concerned about the Palestinians. She is aware of the plight of Christians.  If she doesn’t make a fuss over what is happening in Iraq now, but still obsesses about Gaza it will look pretty bad. Her position will be morally indefensible.

********

Canon Andrew White has a very sad tale to tell, which you can read here.  

He used to say Christians should stand firm and stay put, but now he’s seen the depth of the brutality he no longer can.

********

I can’t see what the Conservatives are making all that fuss about. Their piddling ethnic minority vote was neither here nor there. It’s the UKIP vote they should be trying to  steal. If they stood firmly behind Israel they might just stand a chance, especially now that Hitler is being bandied about as a role model for prospective UKIP orators.

Yesterday

Tuesday 5th August 2014.

Today I’ve mostly been watching the BBC News channel. I really don’t know how anyone in their right mind could accuse the BBC of being pro Israel.

The BBC has leapt on the carefully timed, attention-seeking resignation of Sayeeda Warsi in order to undermine the conservatives and highlight the weakness in the coalition.

The BBC’s anti-Israel /  pro Hamas rhetoric has been especially noticeable after the gift that Baroness Warsi’s resignation has generously handed them. They snapped up the opportunity to show Crispin Blunt throughout the day, denigrating Israel in the way the BBC continually invites Israel-bashers to do.

 “Go on go on,” they say. “More.” 

The BBC bombarded us with pundits opining on the affair on and off, all day.

They kept showing Warsi trotting along to hand in her resignation.  One couldn’t help noticing the smirk she couldn't conceal when she knew she was being 'papped' outside number ten with her bundle of papers.

It seems the BBC with their handy band of Warsi-ists is in a world of its own, because the overwhelming number of below the line comments online seem to agree that her move was pure opportunism and that she suffers from delusions of grandeur. 

Cameron’s shilly-shallying over Israel is simply the floundering of someone who’s caught between a rock and a hard place - he knows he should be steadfast in speaking out against terrorism and therefore in support of Israel, but has been blackmailed and intimidated by the media’s campaign against Israel. Mustn’t alienate the Muslim vote, and yet mustn’t alienate the UKIP vote. Oh dear.

What to do? Fall back on the disproportionate argument. This argument, as it’s presently being played out, is not being addressed in a direct or an honest manner because it skips the technical definition of ‘disproportionate’ and rests entirely on numbers. 

To reiterate, proportionate doesn’t mean that the exact number of casualties must be equal. It has to take into consideration the cost/benefit, which can only be evaluated with hindsight. But ‘we’ don’t want to wait. ‘We’ want to condemn Israel NOW!.

Part of the government’s inability to stand up to the Hamas apologists is due to the BBC’s trial by cinematography.

Jon Donnison has become an amateur photographer. If you look at his Twitter feed, something I wouldn’t recommend and I wish I hadn’t b/c you can’t unsee stuff, it’s choc-ablock with pathos. Note deferential nod to Twitterese.

I’m not saying these images aren’t touching, moving and heartrending. They are. But that amount of overkill is desensitising, and now I can’t help seeing humour, specially in the one with the woman in a burka, eyes peering through the  slit, with Donnison’s comment below.

“You can tell a lot my(sic) looking into someone’s eyes. Mother and her daughter at the UN school shelter in Rafah”

It’s in the eyes, definitely. It has to be. 

The daughter obviously has a sense of humour even if JD hasn’t, or a keen sense of the ridiculous.

Donnison is so taken up with the theme of pathos and poignancy that he doesn’t even care that he’s reached rock-bottom saccharine-sickliness 

He is going all out for pro Palestinian activism, with his pointed reTweets and cryptic remarks, which he gets away with under the “Tweets are my own” pantomime get-out clause.

Emboldened by public opinion, or what the BBC encourages us to believe is public opinion, (they obviously don’t read the btl comments in the  online press) more and more BBC employees are out and proud over their support for Hamas.

When Gavin Esler interviewed Mark Regev, his voice crackled with venom. When they got to the topic of the number of children killed, Regev  reiterated what Colonel Richard Kemp has said many times, namely that in comparison, “collateral damage” as it’s called when we do it (Baby killing when Israel does it ) is, historically, far greater in conflicts perpetrated by the UK and the US than by the IDF. “Israel takes great care to limit civilian casualties” he said. “It’s not working though is it?” said Esler, ignoring everything he had just heard, because he knew he could. 

People will still be claiming that the BBC is too pro Israel because it has the gaul to allow Regev or Peter Lerner on to our screens, when they think Israel should be blackballed like the IRA was at one time, and have the few impudent statements it might be allowed to make, ‘voiced’ by actors.  

In comparison to channel four, they might have a point. Krishnan Guru- Murthy and Jon Snow have managed to turn channel four into a creepy parody of the Islam channel. At least Jon Donnison’s attempts at photography have provided levity.

Update: Matthew D'Ancona

"Israel is bigger than Gaza and the West Bank, but it is smaller than almost everywhere else. Less than a century old, it is a democracy surrounded by hostile nations and under permanent attack by terrorists who wish to see it wiped from the surface of the Earth. What is a “proportionate” response to a hydra-like enemy who sees the Final Solution as work in progress? All terrorism aimed at Israel is genocidal in spirit. What would a “proportionate” response to that ambition look like?"