Posts Tagged ‘‘Londonistan’’

Liddle and Phillips Hold ‘Freedom to Offend’ Event – But No-One Seems Interested

March 8, 2019

More fun at the expense of right-wing hacks and hate-mongers Rod Liddle and Melanie Phillips from Private Eye. According to this fortnight’s edition, for 8th-21st March 2019, Liddle and Phillips held an event supporting the ‘freedom to offend’. But no-one was interested. The article on page 8 runs

FORGET the Rumble in the Jungle; consign Frost v Nixon to the history books. As the Eye went to press this Monday evening, London was preparing itself for the event that would eclipse them all: “Spectator and Sunday Times columnist Rod Liddle makes the case for the freedom to offend. Rod will be in conversation with Melanie Phillips”.

For just £32.50, organisers at the How to Academy were offering tickets to a “no-holes-barred (sic) approach to what it is and is not acceptable to say in the 21st century”.

Alas, despite the Spectator’s boast last year that Liddle’s pulling power was enough to sell out the 2,300-seat London Palladium,m his popularity seems to have wanted. A full fortnight before the Rod/Mel smackdown, self-described audience-booster website Central Tickets was trying to convince its “community of seat fillers” to make up the numbers at the event, paying just a “nominal booking fee” of £4. Any gluttons for punishment taking up the offer were given strict instructions: “Don’t mention complimentary tickets in or around the venue. Do not make social media posts referencing free tickets.

The Tory press has been pushing the ‘freedom to offend’ stance for some time. It’s part of the usual torrent of complaints about ‘political correctness’ stifling free speech. And they are also ostensibly firmly against racist hate crimes being investigated as such only on the perception of the person offended. Over two decades ago I remember the Heil publishing a long rant against Labour’s introduction of this legislation, complaining that perfectly decent people would now be accused of racism simply on the subjective judgment of the offended person.

Er, no. That’s not what the legislation says. As Mike’s pointed out time and again, the legislation states that a possible hate crime is to be recorded as a hate crime if the victim believes that it is, but is to be investigated in the same way as any other crime. And this includes ascertaining whether it is, in fact, a hate crime.

And it’s cant and hypocrisy anyway. The right really isn’t interested in the ‘right to offend’ as such. Both Liddle and Phillips are venomous islamophobes. Liddle is notorious for saying that there should be more islamophobia in the Tory party, while Phillips is constantly talking about the threat Islam poses to Judaeo-Christian western and British society. She published the book, Londonistan, about how the country’s capital is now the largest centre of Muslim terrorists in Europe. When these two talk about the right to offend, like the Mail and the rest of the right-wing press they mean the freedom to demonise and vilify Blacks and other ethnic minorities. And particularly Muslims.

But this doesn’t apply to Zionists and Zionist Jews, as the press is fully against anyone offending them. And this is what many of the anti-Semitism accusations come down to: not that Jews were really being vilified or demonised, as they notoriously were by the Nazis in the pages of Der Sturmer. Or that the information in the material which forms the basis of their complaints is incorrect. That’s irrelevant. Shai Masot at the Israeli embassy was certainly conspiring with British officials to have Alan Duncan removed from the government, but simply describing it as a conspiracy is anti-Semitic. Because of the real anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, you see. No, they’re quite happy to accuse innocent, decent people of anti-Semitism due to personal offence. Marc Wadsworth was accused of anti-Semitism partly because, according to the Heil, he had made Ruth Smeeth cry. He hadn’t, but fact has never been of particular concern to the Heil in these matters. And Mike was accused of anti-Semitism because someone had been ‘upset’ by one of his pieces. And then there’s the matter of libel. Because it was the Sunset Times, along with other rags like the Jewish Chronicle, which published the libels against Mike that he’s an anti-Semite and holocaust-denier.

In fact, I fully support the ‘right to offend’. George Orwell wrote about the political writer’s job being to tell people things that they don’t want to hear. It’s a quotation often used by news journalists, including hacks like Liddle. But Liddle and Phillips aren’t really interested in the right to tell uncomfortable truths. That’s why the right has given its full, malign support to the anti-Semitism smears and witchhunt in the Labour party. They’re only interested in the right to smear, and create racial hatred and division. Because it’s through racism and hatred, including that of the poor, the unemployed, and ethnic minorities, that the Tories thrive and their vile press sells their papers.

But possibly not for much longer. By and large the younger generation is much less racist than the older generation of readers and bigots, who seem to be the core of the internet groups demanding that Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson should lead the Tory party. And the Spectator and Sunset Times were clearly promoting Liddle and Phillips as a pair of journalistic big hitter, who could be expected to draw crowds in. But they didn’t. And I hope this will continue, until there’s no-one left reading these genteel, up-market hate-sheets.

Advertisements

Shaun Bailey: Not Only Islamophobic, but also Misogynist

October 12, 2018

On Wednesday, Mike put up a piece reporting and commenting on a story by Business Insider about the rather unpleasant attitude Shaun Bailey, the Tory candidate for mayor of London, has for girls from poor backgrounds. He has made a series of comments in an article he wrote for the Torygraph, at the Tory party conference in 2008 and in 2005, when he was a social worker, claiming that young women deliberately became pregnant to get a flat or benefits. He also said that poor people need rules to stop them from turning to crime, and that girls were more likely to start smoking than boys because they had the ‘smoker’s attitude’.

Labour’s Rosina Allin-Khan told Buzzfeed, the site that uncovered some of these comments, that it was appalling sexism and misogyny.

Mike in his article points out that Bailey’s campaign team tried to excuse him by saying they were the “blunt words” of someone “who hasn’t figured it all out” but wanted to make a contribution to society by offering his experiences, “however raw they might seem now”.

Mike advises his readers to go to the Business Insider and Buzzfeed articles, look at them, and decide for themselves. But he doubt their decisions will be favourable to Bailey. He recognizes that people’s attitudes change over time, and that we might hear from Bailey a statement disowning his comments. But Mike won’t be holding his breath.

https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2018/10/10/shaun-bailey-tory-london-mayoral-candidate-is-sexist-as-well-as-racist-it-seems/

This isn’t the first time Bailey’s shown an unpleasant, bigoted attitude. At the end of last month, Mike put up a piece reporting that Bailey had retweeted an image of Sadiq Khan, the present London mayor, as the Mad Mullah of Londonistan. The Tory party tried to excuse this by saying that he didn’t really look at the image before he retweeted it. Or something like that.

https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2018/09/29/tories-appoint-racist-as-their-new-london-mayoral-candidate/

‘Londonistan’ is the name ‘Mad’ Melanie Phillips, a writer for the Heil, has given to Muslim London in her book of the same name, because she claims the capital’s Islamic community is full of Islamist terrorists. And Mike’s article also shows that people on Twitter, including Jeremy Corbyn, were also quick to connect Bailey’s sneer with Zac Goldsmith’s Islamophobic campaign against Sadiq Khan, in which he claimed that his rival was indeed a supporter of Islamist terrorism.

Now we see Bailey repeating the old Tory lie that young women just get pregnant in order to sponge off the state. It’s a lie that’s been repeated endlessly in the Tory press, particularly the Heil. Now I dare say that in the case of some women, who are poor and desperate, this might be the case. I can remember a female friend telling me years ago that if she was homeless, she would try and get pregnant to be rehoused. Incidentally, that young woman was a very hardworking and responsible citizen. It was an expression of the desperate measures she would take, if she was in that position.

I don’t know if the young women Bailey encountered deliberately did get pregnant to get housing and benefits, as he said. For all the ranting about benefit fraud and unmarried mothers in Tory rags like Geordie Grieg’s esteemed organ, the rates of schoolgirl pregnancy and people fraudulently claiming benefits are absolutely miniscule, a fraction of a percent. But thanks to the vile Tory press, a poll of the British public found that they thought 25 per cent of all benefit claims were fraudulent, and the country was drowning in waves of schoolgirl mothers.

And unmarried mothers were on Peter Lilly’s foul little list of the people he hated, which he paraded at a Tory conference back in the 1990s in a weird parody of the Mikado. They’re also a threat to ‘our stock’, according to Maggie’s mentor, Sir Keith Joseph, showing his own eugenicist, Social Darwinist attitude to poverty.

I also wonder if there isn’t a little bit of racism in their as well. Bailey didn’t mention what colour these girls were, but it reminded me very much of the fear Reagan and his supporters whipped up over in America about Black ‘welfare queens’. These are young girls in the ghettos, who supposedly get pregnant by any number of different men in order to claim benefits. A little while ago I came across an article – I think it was in Counterpunch, the American radical magazine and news site – which argued that the Republicans used Blacks and ethnic minorities to hate on other people of colour. They supported the argument with numerous examples of BAME Republicans attacking Muslims as an invasive culture, incompatible with American culture and values, and the Black community for its supposed criminality and contentment to rely on state support. In actual fact, American sociologists have found that while there are real problems of poverty in Black America, they’re the same kind that afflicts White society. The only reason they’re more acute is because Blacks in general are much poorer than Whites.

But perhaps I’m wrong about Bailey. Perhaps he isn’t racist towards other, poorer Blacks. He is, however, retailing the same story the Tories use to justify benefit cuts. And these cuts are pushing people into grinding poverty, and claiming lives.

Racist or not, Bailey, and the party that has adopted and supported him, is a disgrace. He’s a bigot who has no business being mayor of world city like London. Just as Tweezer and the Tories have no business being Prime Minister and the government.

Mo Shafiq on the Systematic Islamophobia in the Tory Party

June 2, 2018

This is another great clip from RT. In it, Polly Boiko talks to Mo Shafiq, the Chief Executive of the Ramadhan Foundation about the calls from the Muslim Council for an inquiry into the endemic racism within the Tory party. Shafiq states that it isn’t just the everyday racism, but that it also comes from the very top. Like Zac Goldsmith’s islamophobic campaign when he was running for mayor of London, when he tried to connect Sadiq Khan with terrorism; or with the islamophobic remarks from David Cameron and the Tory leadership. Such as Cameron’s comment that if Muslim women didn’t learn English, this would leave them more open to terrorist propaganda.

Boiko asks him if this isn’t actually rather political. The Labour party has been attacked for anti-Semitism, and now the Tories are being accused of islamophobia. Shafiq states that it’s quite right to attack anti-Semitism, as it has no place in our society. Neither should Islamophobia. But there as been a continuous stream of attacks on Muslims, stating that Islam is alien to Britain, and that it’s now got to the point where people are scared to go to the mosque or wear headscarves in public.

Boiko then asks him if the calls for an investigation into the Tories’ Islamophobia won’t actually make people more scared and fearful. Shafiq replies that there isn’t just a problem with the Tories, but also with wider society. However, he doesn’t agree that the problem is as large as the polls suggest. He then goes to talk about the way Muslims have been presented negatively in the press since 9/11, and talks about the way it has become fashionable to attack Muslims in the media and on-line. He mentions Melania Phillips, the Times journalist, who rages about anti-Semitism, but is also constantly attacking Muslims. He goes on to claim that now, if you want to get hits, all you have to do is write pieces attacking Muslims and put a hashtag on it #HateMuslims.

Shafiq is absolutely right to welcome the Muslim council’s demand into the Tories’ Islamophobia. Zach Goldsmith’s Islamophobic campaign and Cameron’s comments about Muslim women, who can’t speak English being more vulnerable to terrorist propaganda were remarked on and condemned at the time. But nothing has been done, and Baroness Warsi complained the other week that Islamophobic incidents now occur at least once a week within the party.

As for Melanie ‘Mad Mel’ Phillips, what can you say? She used to write for the Daily Heil, and her columns were full of vitriol about Muslims then. She’s also the author of a book, Londonistan, about how London became a haven for Muslim terrorists. Unfortunately, London and Britain did give sanctuary for Muslim terrorists. This was under Maggie Thatcher, he gave some of the truly vile butchers from the Taliban in Afghanistan asylum in Britain, because they were anti-Communist and so ‘one of us’. And many Muslims were shocked at the way these creatures were free to preach hatred and violence from their mosques. There were numerous complaints against them, but these were systematically ignored.

The Tories are not only riddled with Islamophobia, but they have actively aided the immigration to Britain of the murderers, who inspire it. They are absolute hypocrites on this issue.

No, IDS, It Isn’t the EU Who Have Left Us Vulnerable to Terrorism

February 21, 2016

IDS Bird Crap

Mike over at Vox Political has posted a piece from the Independent, reporting that IDS has said that EU membership makes us more open to terrorist attack. In answer to a question by Laura Kuenssberg, he states that it’s because of the EU’s open borders policy.

Mike points out in his comment that the real terrorist here is aIDS himself, for the way the Spurious Major and his collaborators in the DWP have inflicted nothing but terror, pain and death on the unemployed and disabled. The EU, he points out, has legislation giving us some minimal protection, which we would lose if we took his advice and left. And of course the Gentleman Ranker has personal reasons for leaving the EU: he won’t be dragged off to face trial at the Hague for crimes against humanity, if justice and sanity breaks out on this side of the Channel.

Actually, it’s not the EU that has given sanctuary in Britain to known terrorists, who have committed horrific crimes. It was an entirely domestic political leader, who loudly proclaimed her patriotism at every available opportunity.

thatcherburn

Terrorist Enabler: Margaret Hilda Thatcher

Yes, it was Maggie Thatcher. During the war in Afghanistan in the 1980s and after, she let in Muslim extremists on the grounds that a members of the Mujahideen they were ‘freedom fighters’ against the Soviets. These included a particularly noxious individual, who had bombed a plane full of schoolchildren heading back to Russia because it was also carrying Soviet officers. This no doubt explains why, for a long time, the police were extremely reluctant to move against certain Islamist terrorists and hate preachers. For example, an Algerian Muslim, who was alarmed at the Islamist preaching at the Finsbury Park mosque, complained three times about the threat they present to the rozzers, and was ignored. It was partly Maggie’s hospitality to these butchers which created ‘Londonistan’, the name given to the capital after it became a haven for Islamists and Jihadis.

Membership of the EU does leave our borders open to migration from other EU countries. But it also gives us the opportunity to formulate a common strategy on terror that could clamp down on it from one end of Europe to another. And the so-called humans rights legislation that the Tories have denounced as preventing us from deporting terrorists don’t come from the EU. Mike and the Angry Yorkshireman have pointed out that they actually come from the 1950s UN Convention on the Refugee. And even this allows terrorists to be deported.

So all this verbiage about EU membership somehow contributing or enabling terrorism in Britain is just that: verbiage. It’s designed to distract us from the real people, who let the terrorists into Britain – Maggie and the rest of the political establishment. And it’s to prevent us realising what we have to lose if we leave the EU: the Social Charter, and the Human Rights laws protecting us, along with other EU citizens.

This is what the Tories hate and despise. And when they’ve got rid of it, they will create a true terror state, to kill, starve and imprison as they see fit, unhindered by liberal foreign interference. Mike’s entirely right. When IDS tells you on television about the dangers of terrorism, the true terrorist is there, right in front of the camera.