/ New Zealand mosque attacks

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
Doug on 15 Mar 2019

Just seen the horrific news from Christchurch. For once Facebook was useful & I now know that my friends living there are safe, unlike the 40 dead (so far) & who knows how many injured.

Report
lummox - on 15 Mar 2019
In reply to Doug:

Has NZ ever suffered a terrorise attack before? Just awful.

Report
Luke90 on 15 Mar 2019
In reply to lummox:

> Has NZ ever suffered a terrorise attack before? Just awful.

Nothing anywhere close to this. Wikipedia lists a handful of previous incidents. Mostly bombs, mostly with few or no casualties and mostly a long time ago. Personally I think that some of those shouldn't count as terrorist attacks anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_New_Zealand

Report
Trangia on 15 Mar 2019
In reply to Doug:

Death toll has risen to 49. Absolutely awful. New Zealand has always been regarded a friendly, welcoming and safe country, something New Zealanders have been rightly proud of. Commentators are saying that sadly this event may have changed that perception forever.

There are times when I despair at the way the world has been changing with intolerance, bitterness and hatred spreading faster than I have ever known before.

Report
The Wild Scallion on 15 Mar 2019
In reply to Trangia:

> There are times when I despair at the way the world has been changing with intolerance, bitterness and hatred spreading faster than I have ever known before.

The internet and the media has a lot to answer for regarding this , and the general lack of critical thinking shown by a large portion of those that use it.

Report
ben b - on 15 Mar 2019
In reply to The Wild Scallion:

agreed  - and one thing we can all do is not watch or link to the video footage. Tell people that you don’t want to see it, and by watching it, you demean the dead. They had no mercy or dignity then, but we can allow them some dignity now.

B

Report
jkarran - on 15 Mar 2019
In reply to Doug:

Awful. Sounds like there are echos of the tactics used in Norway.

jk

Report
Clint86 - on 15 Mar 2019
In reply to Trangia:

I have an increased resolve to see that peace starts in my own heart.

Report
derryclimbs - on 15 Mar 2019
In reply to Doug:

I'm from NZ, and lived in Christchurch for many years. And this stuff just doesn't happen! You walk down the street and don't have to look over your shoulder. I am absolutely shocked and deeply saddened to hear this news. Christchurch has been rebuilding after the 2011 earthquake literally ripped the heart out of the city. Last time I was back the community spirit was just being joined back together as the CBD was being rebuilt. I can't even imagine what this has done to the people, my friends back home!

Report
ben b - on 15 Mar 2019
In reply to derryclimbs:

From a friends Facebook feed:

Heartbroken by the events that have unfolded in Ōtautahi/Christchurch today. Forty people killed, and dozens more wounded, as they prayed in a place that should have been safe. Everywhere should be safe. 

Lots of people are saying “this is not my New Zealand” as we are faced with the unfolding events. But this is our New Zealand. We can’t be blind to the fact that we live in a country where racism, violence, and evil, exists and is allowed to grow. We live in a country where the media, and in particular social media, allow hate to be spread and to be normalised. Us white New Zealanders aren’t the targets of the everyday aggressions, but it doesn’t mean the country is a utopian paradise of love and equality. 

What I say I say is “this, sadly, is my New Zealand, but I commit myself to making this country better, and to do that I must acknowledge my privileges.”

b

Report
Pan Ron - on 15 Mar 2019
In reply to derryclimbs:

Though Christchurch has always been the place in NZ to go to if wanting to get involved in white-power gangs for some reason.  Guns were, and maybe still are, easy to get hold of as far as I understand.  NZ, like everywhere, has its dark underside and no where in the world is it impossible to find a handful of people out of a million who might do something like this.  

But I don't see why the reputational damage should be huge.  There doesn't appear to be an endemic racism or extremist movement in the country.  Its hardly likely to inspire copycat actions, or represent a general feeling.  An event like this is probably no more likely to occur or be repeated than an attack on a Marai by white gang members, an attack by Hindus on Muslims, or an attack by ISIS-inspired nutters on NZ Synagogues.  

Report
Dax H - on 15 Mar 2019
In reply to ben b:

> agreed  - and one thing we can all do is not watch or link to the video footage. Tell people that you don’t want to see it, and by watching it, you demean the dead. They had no mercy or dignity then, but we can allow them some dignity now.

> B

Damn right. I have been sent the video twice this morning via WhatsApp. I don't understand why people feel the need to share this stuff. Both are now blocked from my phone. 

Report
krikoman - on 15 Mar 2019
In reply to Doug:

I thought their PMs handling of it was brilliant, a terrible day for NZ.

Report
Roadrunner6 - on 15 Mar 2019
In reply to Doug:

Awful.

Very strange how it was an Australian, who largely referred to US politics, and not just Trump, but Candice Owens.

He's specifically used guns to encourage a split in the US and debate over the 2nd Amendment. 

Report
Graeme Alderson on 15 Mar 2019
In reply to lummox:

The state sponsored terror attack on the Rainbow warrior.

Report
Roadrunner6 - on 15 Mar 2019
In reply to Doug:

He also had 'for Rotherham' scrawled on his ammo case.

These right wing groups need calling out for what they are.

Report
L Pefa on 15 Mar 2019
In reply to Doug:

Apparently this fascist child killer was playing Serbia strong on the way to butcher these people in cold blood.

A song which sings about fighting fascism not supporting it.

A deluded halfwit as well as a coward. 

Report
SenzuBean - on 15 Mar 2019
In reply to Doug:

Another sickened kiwi here
Christchurch did always have a reputation for having more neo-nazis than other cities (but it was always a tiny portion). I'm shocked they actually planned something so heinous and went through with it.
I think that we need to ask ourselves what let these hateful ideas breed.

Report
Luke90 on 15 Mar 2019
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> Very strange how it was an Australian, who largely referred to US politics

Not all that strange, really. Political divides run pretty internationally these days. How many UK citizens know as much about US politics as our own? Who in the world doesn't have a strong opinion about Trump? It goes both ways too, US groups certainly take an interest in UK affairs.

Report
Offwidth - on 15 Mar 2019
In reply to Luke90:

A bit more from one of the alledged philosophical influencers with both full denial and blaming of the opposing ideology. When what we actually need is less hateful ideology all round:

"Renaud Camus’ 2011 book The Great Replacement seems to have inspired the gunman’s 74-page “manifesto” – it certainly served as the title for it. The French far-right polemicist has denounced the murders as “terrorist, terrible, criminal, disastrous and imbecilic”, but conceded the “ethnic substitution” that he argues is taking place in the west could encourage violence.

Camus, 72, told Agence France-Presse that the gunman “cannot claim to have acted according to my writings because I argue the opposite. If he wrote a brochure titled The Great Replacement it’s plagiarism, an abusive use of a phrase that is not his and that he plainly does not understand.”

The essayist, whose “theory” that Europe’s white majority is being steadily replaced by non-white, often Muslim immigrants, is often advanced by far right and anti-immigration figures in France and elsewhere on the continent, was convicted in 2015 of incitement to hatred or violence against Muslims.

Camus told AFP was was “absolutely non-violent. I utterly condemn these acts.” He added, however, that “what worries me most about what I call ‘the great replacement’ is precisely the extent to which it could encourage violence, of all kinds, in everyday life but also – obviously – in acts of terrorism”.

It seemed to him that the gunman was more likely to have been inspired by the Islamist terror attacks carried out in France in the past four or five years, he said: “I do not see what he should be more inspired by me than by acts that directly resemble those he carried out.”"

Taken from the Guardian news feed here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2019/mar/15/christchurch-shooting-injuries-reported-as-police-respond-to-critical-incident-live

Plus some truly scummy victim blaming from an Aussie Senator

"An Australian senator has been strongly criticised after he blamed the New Zealand shooting on Muslim immigration.

In the wake of the attack, Fraser Anning tweeted: “Does anyone still dispute the link between Muslim immigration and violence?”

In a statement shared by an Australian journalist on Twitter, the Queensland senator also wrote: “As always, leftwing politicians and the media will rush to claim that the causes of today’s shootings lie with gun laws or those who hold nationalist views, but this is all cliched nonsense.

“The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place.”"

Post edited at 16:52
Report
Pan Ron - on 15 Mar 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

The Guardian will no doubt be overjoyed at this opportunity to insinuate anyone who doesn't agree with its viewpoints on immigration and Islam is in some way responsible.  They're already quoting "Hope Not Hate", with frequent references to "free speech" playing a role, and even pointing fingers at Trump.

When Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are accused of peddling hate, does this mean anything other than the sanctioned viewpoint makes you an enabler of this sort of attack?  To be a vocal critic of Islam (in the same way one can be of the Catholic Church and cardinals) is to inspire violence?  Or to be anti-immigration or identify with your white skin colour is culpability? 

Flying a swastika, calls to take up arms, or engage in violent action are one thing.  Connecting everyday nationalism, patriotism, or simply it would seem discussion with "hate" and "violence" is something else. 

When bombings or knife attacks have taken place here, the message quickly comes out not to blame Islam and that we will not sacrifice our freedoms.  Just looking at the Guardian feed photos, where a placard next to Jeremy Corbyn reads "stop the voices of hate",  taken at face value this isolated event is looking like it might already be being used to promote something potentially sinister and ideological. 

Too early for this kind of discussion?  Maybe.  But the Guardian feed, and those contributing to it, are already intimating that speech itself is a problem.  The politicisation and opportunism has well and truly started.

Post edited at 17:45
Report
Yanis Nayu - on 15 Mar 2019
In reply to Doug:

Terrible. I’ve been impressed with what I’ve seen of the NZ prime minister Jacinda Ardern and the way she’s spoken about the tragedy.

Report
wbo - on 18:34 Fri
In reply to Pan Ron: .this is not the day for you to be telling me islamophobia is all Okey dokey

Report
Pan Ron - on 18:49 Fri
In reply to wbo:

You seem to be implying that something in the post you are responding is telling you Islamophobia is fine. 

Hence why I'm worried that we're edging in a direction where not reading the Guardian, or expressing the incorrect view on immigration, points you in league with someone who murders 50 people.

Report
TobyA on 18:52 Fri
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Too early for this kind of discussion?  Maybe. 

Yeah, maybe. Perhaps people could let the families bury their dead before they start whining about why it's nothing to do with them, while actually making it all about them.

8 years ago they called themselves "the Counter Jihad", now they can call themselves the alt-right, or generation identity, or whatever - new name, same old hateful bullshit. When the few of us in academic and policy-research circles who had been following the 'creation of the narrative' got our hand's on Breivik's manifesto the evening that he was taken into custody (surrendering as soon as someone stuck a gun in his face, which sounds familiar from today) you didn't even need to infer it; he had neatly footnoted all the bloggers and writers and populist politicians who he had been reading. He lauded them for bringing to light the 'socialists' who were enabling the 'invasion' of the Muslim hoards. Then he went out and shot children because, you know, 'socialists', 'bad' and stuff. And all those bloggers, after years of pumping out endless hateful essays and apocalyptic fantasies of race wars whined "how can you possibly blame me? I didn't tell anyone to do this". And soon they were back to telling everyone what a hateful ideology Islam is and how it invariably leads to violence.

So f*** them and their pitiful attempts to wash their hands of responsibility. And I apologise for my crassness but it was pathetic then and it is just as pathetic now.

Post edited at 19:01
Report
Pan Ron - on 19:26 Fri
In reply to TobyA:

If the alt-right are the problem, but anyone and everything that isn't solidly on the left seemingly gets accused of being alt-right at some point, who exactly is this "they" you are referring to?  What exactly constitutes the "hate" that the people in these pictures wish to put an end to?

If we don't want "them" to change our way of life, perhaps being clear (and restrained) about who we are blaming for this is important.  If its Jordan Peterson, if its PewDiePie, if its anyone who wants reductions rather than increases in immigration, or if its anyone who has concerns about their changing national identity, then be clear about it and let those who don't agree say their bit without the automatic assumptions that they are racists or nazis.  Or murderers.

I'm sure many racist extremists have attempted to read Mein Kampf.  Banning it may be justified.  But then so should the Communist Manifesto, which was just as likely on the reading list of left-wing genocides.  Marx should apologise?  

Report
wbo - on 19:51 Fri
In reply to Pan Ron: your second paragraph above is very unclear about who you're blaming for what, but by any reading it reads as apologism.

I get it - you're islamophobic, but you're a friendly , rational islamophobic only interested in 'common sense'.  

I'm genuinely disgusted

Post edited at 19:51
Report
Pan Ron - on 19:56 Fri
In reply to wbo:

Seemed pretty clear to me.  If you can point out the bits that are Islamophobic, perhaps I can clarify them to you?

Or just sit and, helpfully, be disgusted.

Report
marsbar - on 19:56 Fri
In reply to Pefa:

I understood he was playing a song that was a particular favourite with the murderers of Bosnia.  

Report
marsbar - on 20:04 Fri
In reply to Pan Ron:

Well the only good thing about your post is that is shows your true colours, insensitivity and your callous attitude.  You are aware it's too early and yet you had to make your point anyway.  49 people murdered and you are only interested in making your point.   Them and us language is the bit that makes it seem Islamaphobic BTW. 

Report
Pan Ron - on 20:10 Fri
In reply to marsbar:

..."8 years ago they called themselves "the Counter Jihad", now they can call themselves the alt-right"...

That is the "they" I am referring to.  Try reading my message without jumping to your own conclusions.

Report
Pete Pozman - on 20:23 Fri
In reply to Doug:

There are two sides in this struggle. Make sure you're on the side of righteousness 

By the way if these hateful nutters wanted to save christendom they could fill the empty churches on Sundays. But that's not going to happen is it ? 

Report
marsbar - on 20:37 Fri
In reply to Pan Ron:

I'm referring to 

>If we don't want "them" to change our way of life

Report
Offwidth - on 20:49 Fri
In reply to Pan Ron:

Are you seriously agreeing with Camus, or worst still, with Anning? That was all my post was about... yet another disgusting terror attack and this time already linked to the victims and then blamed on the victims.

The sections I cut and pasted are mostly direct quotes and pretty straight facts, so what on earth has the Guardian politics got to do with it??

Report
Pan Ron - on 21:11 Fri
In reply to marsbar:

> If we don't want "them" to change our way of life

.....we need to (i) not change our way of life and (ii) define who "they" are.

"Them" refers to the attackers. 

As in, why the refrain that we will not let "them" change our way of life is always trotted out when attacks happen in the UK.  Yet here, an attack in NZ, has the Guardian pointing to the dangers of free speech, implying the sensible response is to further limit it (hate speech laws presumably not enough?) and throw away the very thing we should be holding on to?

Excuse my cynicism, but I suspect the people claiming our freedom of expression is an issue are more interested in the opportunity to silence opinions they don't agree with, that hurt their feelings, or challenge their own beliefs.

And likewise because Toby refers to a "they" (extremists authors) under the vague title of "alt-right".  Well, if "they" are so vaguely defined, and includes practically anyone who isn't left-wing, who exactly are the "they" we going to crack down on in response to this attack? 

The court of UKC opinion has declared me an Islamophobe...perhaps I need a visit from the police?  A Count Dunkula-style day in court? 

Knee-jerk reactions on day-1 are already pushing in a direction that the 7/7 bombers ("they hate our freedoms") didn't manage to achieve.

As tragic as 49 dead is, I'm very very doubtful that there will be a spate, or even single, similar attack in NZ any time soon.  I don't see an institutional problem that requires change (or the banning of books) there.  It didn't after the Aramoana shooting and it unlikely needs changing now.  Or here.  These events are thankfully rare, and in most countries have simply never happened and will likely never happen.  It isn't an endemic issue - though some seem keen to paint it as such.  If worried about Muslim lives, I'd be more worried about the risks in a place like Kabul, where 49 were killed in hospital attack (08/03/17), 150 were killed in a truck bomb attack (31/05/17) and where 42 died in a hotel attack (20/01/2018)...and they are probably a tiny minority of the total who lost their lives in that 12 month period.

Report
Pan Ron - on 21:22 Fri
In reply to Offwidth:

> Are you seriously agreeing with Camus, or worst still, with Anning? That was all my post was about... yet another disgusting terror attack and this time already linked to the victims and then blamed on the victims.

I know nothing about them.  Hadn't even heard of them until today (though being an Islamophobe, perhaps I should have).

What are you proposing we do?  Burn their works?  Ban them?  How far are you willing to go?  If "hate" speech laws apparently aren't working, what are you going to beef them up with?  A pug dog giving the seig heil is enough to get prison time - perhaps more of that?  All in response to a one-off attack? 

My old lecturer, Eric Kaufman, recently wrote a book "Whiteshift, Populism, Immigration and the Future of White Majorities".  Perhaps that needs to be taken off the shelves given it actually talks in positive terms about white identity?  Extremist literature perhaps?  He's been accused of hate and had a conference picketed.  Knowing the guy personally, it is nothing other than an academic interest stemming from his work on sectarianism in Ireland.  

Despite the number of islamic terror events in the UK, and the ongoing cases of attempted plots being foiled, I'm really not worried about a risk to life and limb.  What really concerns me is the responses to these events being used for political ends.

Report
marsbar - on 21:44 Fri
In reply to Pan Ron:

Freedom of speech doesn't mean what you say it means.  I'm done talking to you.  

Report
Pan Ron - on 22:00 Fri
In reply to marsbar:

Right.  Well, I suggest you go back and read my posts, not looking at them from how you want them to appear, or how you presume I think, but from how they are written and if need be, how I have elaborated on.  

And maybe take from that that it is possible to have entirely different viewpoints on things and that one viewpoint, which in this case you identify as Islamophobia, is actually anything but.  And extending that to what is happening here, one person's reading matter, or viewpoint on a religion or skin colour, might be deemed as extremist, but may also be anything but. 

And that giving any one person, at a time of high emotion, a right to remove those viewpoints, to declare them out of bounds, gets us into the realm of McCarthyism.

As a New Zealander, I do have a fair bit of skin in this game as it happens.

Report
Eric9Points - on 22:16 Fri
In reply to Pan Ron:

I get what you're saying but if an author discovers that nutters are committing horrible crimes after reading their work or listening to their speeches isn't the sensible and responsible thing for them to do is to modify their message somewhat?

Can I turn this on its head. Radicalism in Pakistan is to some extent the product if the Saudi funded fundamentalist madrassas that have been operating in the country for several decades. Surely you would agree with me that Pakistan and the rest of the world would be a better place if these schools imposed some self censorship knowing of the crimes that have been committed by their ex students?

Report
Pan Ron - on 22:37 Fri
In reply to Eric9Points:

By that reasoning though we would also be banning the Koran. Either literally, or figuratively, it calls for (and dozens if not hundreds of its adherents carry out) a pretty systemic campaign of terror attacks on an annual basis.

If someone finds the writings of a bigot captivating, they have plenty of avenues to go down in support of that (voting for an anti-X party, protesting, a bit of street thuggery even), all of which are already punishable if they go too far. If someone decides to go as far as committing mass murder then I'd argue they already have screws loose and would have found there way there regardless. An Aussie neo-nazi doesn't need a book to make him go and kill 50 people when the end result is simply going to be no more guns allowed for his neo nazi mates in NZ thereafter. He achieves nothing. There is no logic. No goal is furthered. I doubt the authors being cited in any way called for extermination of anyone - and if they do, there are likely already legal tools for removing them.

The madrassas should only self-censor once they break the law. If they want to claim I am an infidel then so be it. If they connect that to causing me bodily harm, or (if in the UK) denying me usual rights, then there is already sufficient recourse to reign them in.

What concerns me is that the people now being potentially implicated are doing 1% of that. Candice Owen? PewDeePie? They are reportedly included in his manifesto. So they are the cause?  If "hate" becomes the defining characteristic of what we ban, and everyone gets accused of hate, we have a pointless and stupid law, that is not far removed from the type of anti-terror rules we all despised after 9-11.

Post edited at 22:40
Report
Eric9Points - on 23:02 Fri
In reply to Pan Ron:

> By that reasoning though we would also be banning the Koran. Either literally, or figuratively, it calls for (and dozens if not hundreds of its adherents carry out) a pretty systemic campaign of terror attacks on an annual basis.

> The madrassas should only self-censor once they break the law. If they want to claim I am an infidel then so be it. If they connect that to causing me bodily harm, or (if in the UK) denying me usual rights, then there is already sufficient recourse to reign them .

It is not the Koran that leads people to commit acts of violence, it is interpretations of the Koran that do that. Same with the bible, Marx etc, etc..

If someone committed a murder and then justified it based on some of your posts on UKC (hypothetically) wouldn't you think about what you'd said and try to avoid saying whatever it was that gave an arsehole an excuse to behave like an arsehole?

Report
jkarran - on 23:02 Fri
In reply to TobyA:

Thank you. It needs saying.

Jk

Report
Pan Ron - on 23:07 Fri
In reply to Eric9Points:

> It is not the Koran that leads people to commit acts of violence, it is interpretations of the Koran that do that. Same with the bible, Marx etc, etc.

These books are pretty clear about what you are expected to do to non believers, adulterers...not much need for interpretation.

The books on these peoples reading list would seem to require far more creative thinking to justify a gun rampage

> If someone committed a murder and then justified it based on some of your posts on UKC (hypothetically) wouldn't you think about what you'd said and try to avoid saying whatever it was that gave an arsehole an excuse to behave like an arsehole?

You go down that route and just about anything that has ever been written can be banned. And if all they are using it for is "an excuse" then doesn't that make the book doubly the wrong target. Again, do we ban Candice Owen. She was reportedly directly mentioned.

Report
TobyA on 23:09 Fri
In reply to Pan Ron:

Who is calling for anything to be banned?

Your  reaction to this tragedy seems to be to go on about some purely hypothetical threat to your speech, or at least to the speech of people you agree with. But what's actually getting banned?

Report
Pan Ron - on 23:22 Fri
In reply to TobyA:

This started in response to Offwidth's link to the Guardian. The feed made repeated references to free speech disguising hate speech, hate speech being the cause, a photo of Jeremy Corbyn standing next to someone with a sign saying stop "voices" of hate. Etc.

...and then the idea that hate covers just about anyone. Were already in a moral panic where declaring someone "hateful" can get them closed down. Declare someone an Islamophobe and job done. There clearly IS an appetite for censorship. Or maybe the discussion on whether to censor or not is better conducted between yourself or and Eric9Points as my opinion should be obvious.

So who are you going to censor? Ben Shapiro? Probably not. But if someone kills another 50 muslims tomorrow and mentions Shapiro as his motivation - then what? What if someone blows up a government building tomorrow - would we be happy for Chomsky to be banned? If another truck moves down a few dozen in Nice, and verses from the Koran are cited?

Report
Darren Jackson - on 23:32 Fri
In reply to Pan Ron:

The overall level of your debate, grammar, spelling, and punctuation suggests unfamiliarity with all of the above... 

Are you a shill? Do let us know Pan Ron Ron. Do, do, Pan Ron?

Report
Bob Kemp - on 23:35 Fri
In reply to TobyA:

> Who is calling for anything to be banned?

> Your  reaction to this tragedy seems to be to go on about some purely hypothetical threat to your speech, or at least to the speech of people you agree with. But what's actually getting banned?

Spot the straw man...

Report
Pan Ron - on 23:37 Fri
In reply to Darren Jackson:

Really got me there mate. Well done. I'm sure you'll be nice and toasty around a sizzling pile of "12 Rules For Life", or whatever is deemed "hate" next year.

Report
MonkeyPuzzle - on 01:09 Sat
In reply to Pan Ron:

Muslims kill people: Pan Ron goes apeshit about Muslims.

People kill Muslims because they're Muslims: Pan Ron goes apeshit about Muslims.

You've given yourself away on this thread. Have a read back and ask yourself a question or two about your bias. Maybe try and flip it that this is a an attack of Muslims on Christians and ask yourself if you'd still respond in  the same way.

Report
SenzuBean - on 02:36 Sat
In reply to Doug:

I've heard a lot of calls for not tolerating these ideas, and of course - that's what should be the case. But ideas cannot be destroyed, and trying to do so will only increase their appeal to a select few. Similarly isolating people who hold these disgusting views into pariahs of wider society, will only turn them into paragons of their insular online echo chambers. This is I believe what has happened, and is continuining to happen on a global scale.
Happy well-adjusted people, who have things to do and social lives to play (such as the people of UKC forums), have almost no time for stewing in their own misery, to foment the bitter hate that is the only slow-burning fuel for the sick dedication required to plan these atrocities. A few moments of mild envy or rage over months is simply not enough. What do we do with these people? How do we find them, and unwind their twisted whirlpools of delusional certainty?
I think it (unfortunately) does require that we provide a place for them in society, a 'high road' that they may well not take to that place, but know is there. This is the hard choice - it's much easier of course to scream "f*ck all nazi scum!", refuse to engage than it is to acknowledge the few true nuclei of their hateful ideas and co-opt them. In other words - to acknowledge the few facts, but to use them to reach a different conclusion. I think this is necessary. I don't think denying them to speak the grains truths is helpful. Such grains of truth are that yes - the genetic makeup of the population is changing. And yes, we should be able to have a conversation about what is the best (what even is the meaning of best?) population for a given piece of land.
As unpalatable as discussing these ideas are, the alternative is that they will be discussed in a secret echo chamber, and the whirlpools of hate will spin faster than if they were out in the open with the currents of reason trying to calm them.

Report
Dr.S at work - on 06:37 Sat
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Muslims kill people: Pan Ron goes apeshit about Muslims.

> People kill Muslims because they're Muslims: Pan Ron goes apeshit about Muslims.

> You've given yourself away on this thread. Have a read back and ask yourself a question or two about your bias. Maybe try and flip it that this is a an attack of Muslims on Christians and ask yourself if you'd still respond in  the same way.

I have to say I’ve just read back through the thread, and in no way can I see Pan Ron going apeshit about Muslims. 

Report
Dr.S at work - on 06:38 Sat
In reply to SenzuBean:

The secret echo chambers already exist. How to crack them open? 

Report
PeakDJ on 07:31 Sat
In reply to Pan Ron:

How about we stop blaming any one group, for now, and just blame the individuals responsible for the attack?  I'm more than a little baffled how this can turn in to a discussion about the wrongs of Islam when the victims of this attack were Muslim and the attacker was white, non-Muslim and educated according to similar norms as those observed in the UK and elsewhere in the developed world.  People develop their views and act based on their social influences....what influenced the guy committing this atrocity most, I wonder?  In reality I don't think any of us really know, but your crystal ball seems to be showing you images of evil ideologies at the root of all this...

You might proceed to justify why it is useful to look at the bigger picture.  Of course, you're right, and when we do examine the bigger picture we see billions of Muslims and immigrants living in peace.  I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with the religion, just as I wouldn't say there are not things wrong with other ideologies in the world.  But, for a minute (and yes, why not, out of respect) why not try to see the good in some of the people who adhere to this faith/ideology or whatever?   Why not condemn the acts of the attackers, while at the same time, refraining from attacking the ideology that has billions of peaceful adherents?  I think it is fairly easy to see why doing this is hardly going to help us move towards a better world.

No faith or group of people is responsible for this or any other attack apart from the individual(s) involved.  I am sure the attackers are influenced by many factors.  It's all too easy to just say "it is the fault of Islam or Muslim immigrants" because it helps one avoid the nuance and, yes, the acceptance that maybe some things we do/have done in the our own countries (and abroad) have contributed to this particular brand of atrocity.   People kill each other on both sides of this crazy battle and I think all the killers, regardless what side they are on, have gotten things more than a little wrong.  "They" are no worse than "us" whoever they and us are. 

We'll never get out of this mess if we continue with all the tribal bullshit....the "us" and "them".  The media doesn't help with this obviously, and it seems to be that while you're very dismissive of the Guardian and its stance on matters like this, you yourself have been influenced by the other "side" portrayed in the media.  The nuances seem fairly obvious to me and I remain perplexed as to why so many people - yourself included - can't see to recognise them.

Post edited at 07:33
Report
fifthsunset - on 07:37 Sat
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Too early for this kind of discussion?  Maybe.

You should have asked that question to yourself, then resisted the urge to whine about the Guardian at least until the blood had dried.

Report
In reply to PeakDJ

> We'll never get out of this mess if we continue with all the tribal bullshit....the "us" and "them".  The media doesn't help with this obviously...

If we are to discuss the responsibility of the media in stoking sectarian divisions then that should include UKC discussion forums which have a very tangible anti-Islam presence.

UKC editorial policy on the other hand seems very inclusive.

Report
TobyA on 08:53 Sat
In reply to Pan Ron:

I've tried not to let this get to me but it has. OK, it's now Saturday morning and Today is on in the background with the programme being co-presented from Christchurch. And you're right, there is now talk about banning going on. It seems there is some miscommunication between Ardern and her attorney general as to if and how semi-automatic rifles should be banned in NZ.

But why are you wittering on about Ben Shapiro? I'd like to say "WhoTF is Ben Shapiro?" but that would be disingenuous because after years of reading debates here on UKC between you, Jon and maybe Coel - I have heard of him so have been told about his politics. But why are going on about him now? Did the NZ killer cite him? Has he said something approving or understanding about Tarrant?

Unless you are somehow worried about the message you think others might be getting from those sort of writers and media personalities (not you, or perhaps even what you believe is the "true message" of such texts), I'm not sure what its got to do with anything.

We all have our hobbyhorses, but sometimes it's just not a good look to ride them all the time.

Post edited at 09:09
Report
Pete Pozman - on 09:00 Sat
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> The secret echo chambers already exist. How to crack them open? 

The secret Chambers have always existed. That's what the myth of Pandora's Box is all about. We don't want them to be cracked open any more  We'd buried them so deep that we forgot about them. We always knew what they contained. But we've allowed demagogues to rehearse their old themes again. We teach children about the War as if it's something to do with cute children on steam trains, wearing cardboard boxes on a string. We stopped remembering the appalling horror.

Immediately following the News last night was a trailer/advert for a game about being a hero and taking back the White House with assault rifles. There was only a glimpse of the villains, but they sure looked like Muslims to me. 

We've allowed a downfall in civility which only a short while ago would have been judged illegal. And here on this forum, on the same day a congregation of Muslims was shot to pieces, climbers think it appropriate to start a debate about "free speech". It's bloody frightening. Freedom from fear trumps freedom to abuse whomever you like. 

Like I've said before, choose a side. But look along the line; if Yaxley-Bastard and Trump are there  you're in the wrong line  

Report
Stichtplate on 09:20 Sat
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> Like I've said before, choose a side. But look along the line; if Yaxley-Bastard and Trump are there  you're in the wrong line  

Choose a side, choice of two? Them and us? No thanks. Not unless we can herd the extremists, of whatever ideology, all onto the same lunatic fringe. Then I'll choose a side. 

Report
Offwidth - on 09:50 Sat
In reply to Pan Ron:

I'm suggesting we should be highly concerned that an Aussie politician tweets, after tragic mass muslim death in a terror attack by a fascist, that muslim immigration is to blame. Also the far right theorist in denial about the possible consequencies of his words.

I find it really sad you feel the need to exaggerate my concerns about free speech and generate all sorts of fantasied whataboutery on the subject. I personally see no need to tighten limits on public freedom of speech at all in the UK,... if anything in some areas I think they are too tight. As far as social media goes, that is up to the organisations running the Aps but I don't buy the idea that removing extremists from them  generates dangerous echo chambers elsewhere as where they currently are are the most dangerous and cavenous echo chambers possible with easy access to the public. We don't let fascists (or any other extremists in politics or religion) have access to TV, radio or major newsprint in the UK.

Post edited at 09:53
Report
FactorXXX - on 10:22 Sat
In reply to fifthsunset:

> You should have asked that question to yourself, then resisted the urge to whine about the Guardian at least until the blood had dried.

What you're basically saying is that it's alright for one person to politicise the incident, but not alright for someone to criticise that viewpoint.

Report
FactorXXX - on 10:28 Sat
In reply to Offwidth:

> I find it really sad you feel the need to exaggerate my concerns about free speech and generate all sorts of fantasied whataboutery on the subject. I personally see no need to tighten limits on public freedom of speech at all in the UK

This very week you suggested that Coel should be banned from UKC for what he has posted!

Report
Pan Ron - on 10:31 Sat
In reply to fifthsunset:

> You should have asked that question to yourself, then resisted the urge to whine about the Guardian at least until the blood had dried.

I did. And as far as I'm concerned its never too early to call out the Guardian's ongoing politicization of the issue. They're usually the first to do it themselves. 

But I'm sure you'll be able to advise me when I'm allowed to speak about it.

Report
Pan Ron - on 10:38 Sat
In reply to TobyA:

And we all have our blind spots. The press was, within hours, seemingly keen to blame anyone who has so much as criticised Islam as being a contributor to this event. 

So it's very interesting that the sorts of people who would be quick to say "we mustn't blame X for Y terrorist attack", even when there is a far closer connection and sometimes outright statement of support, lose all such reticence on the matter here. 

Its BS partisanship. And pointing that out seems to stir quite a reaction.

Ben Shipiro, Owens, Petterson...you name it. They're all accused of peddling hate. Are you going to be the one to speak up when the spurious connections get made to them and mass murder? 

Post edited at 11:07
Report
Pan Ron - on 10:50 Sat
In reply to PeakDJ:

> How about we stop blaming any one group, for now, and just blame the individuals responsible for the attack? 

Fine with me. I think you need to make the case to Guardian columnists though.

> I'm more than a little baffled how this can turn in to a discussion about the wrongs of Islam

I'm not sure it has been. I've compared how the usual terrorist attacks (which just happen to be overwhelmingly Islamic) are handled compared to this one. That they are polar opposites of each other just makes the comparison all the more interesting.

> But your crystal ball seems to be showing you images of evil ideologies at the root of all this...

I'm saying entirely the opposite.

> People kill each other on both sides of this crazy battle and I think all the killers, regardless what side they are on, have gotten things more than a little wrong.  "They" are no worse than "us" whoever they and us are. 

Indeed. my point is I deeply value the freedom of speech that should, in principal, allow me to hurl the same venom at Imams and a ridiculous holy book as I can at Catholic clergy and their holy book.  Within hours of these events prominent columnists are urging restrictions on that. They are capitalising on this event, half a world away, to do so.

> you yourself have been influenced by the other "side" portrayed in the media. 

That is true. I don't, as I once did, limit my reading to Left leaning press. And it's been informative. The people who the guardian likes to portray as monsters are often anything but. When it comes to sewing division in communities, the Guardian does it every bit as well as the Daily Mail.

Report
Pan Ron - on 10:57 Sat
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> People kill Muslims because they're Muslims: Pan Ron goes apeshit about Muslims.

Yeah. Nah.

> You've given yourself away on this thread.

I hope so. Always trying to be open in my views.

> Maybe try and flip it that this is a an attack of Muslims on Christians and ask yourself if you'd still respond in  the same way.

If the stated driver for a mass killing was phrases in a book and sermons delivered that explicitly instruct someone to cut off heads, shoot, and kill, I wouldn't care if they were Christian or Muslim. Full force of the law required.

If it was noted that the same killers also ascribed to a bigoted rule book, or odious speakers, which didn't instruct them to go out and kill, I wouldn't implicate that book or speaker, and all other followers of it, in the murder.

It's really quite simple.

Report
Offwidth - on 10:57 Sat
In reply to FactorXXX:

My comments in reply to Pan Ron were about his ridiculous examples and, hence, being clear about my views about the appropriate legal response to public statement at the limits of public freedom of speech (the UK law on freedom of spech is about right in my view.. but showing a few worrying signs).

UKC in contrast is not a public place, it's a web forum with fairly tight moderation limits that I mostly support. I think Coel's repeated attacks on all of Islam being tolerated here is both unwelcome and very odd compared to other limits placed by the moderators. I'd much rather Coel was asked to tone down than be banned, as I share his concerns about extremist behaviour and views, in parts of Islam, and feel his contributions to highlighting this and some of his discussion on that are important; plus his contributions on climbing have been excellent over the years.

Allowing Islam to be too often singled out (compared to other religions) and repeated attacks on all of Islam are hardly going to help us shift the terrible lack of diversity on the UKC site. (1 in 20 brits are muslim) and although I think climbing has poor diversity in this respect, it is improving... especially indoors.

Report
In reply to Pan Ron:

> The press was, within hours, seemingly keen to blame anyone who has so much as criticised Islam as being a contributor to this event. 

Do you think Islam should be criticised as being a contributor to this event?

Report
TobyA on 10:57 Sat
In reply to Pan Ron:

> The press was, within hours, seemingly keen to blame anyone who has so much as criticised Islam as being a contributor to this event. 

Was it? Do you think you might be looking for that? Virtually all the mainstream media criticism I've seen has been at the tech companies for not squashing the live stream quicker, and calling out the newspaper websites that replayed bits of the live stream.

Again, it might not all be about you/Ben Shapiro. 

Have you read the Bellingcat piece on Tarrant and "shit-posting"? It's very worthwhile and suggests his mentioning of the black American conservative woman was probably just trolling. The only thing about the reading of his 'work' with "the lolz" in mind, is in all his meta irony laughing at the inevitable arguments his 'shit-posting' would provoke, is that he didn't catch the irony of an Australian (of self declared British-Irish heritage) who had moved to NZ, saying he was off to massacre "invaders". But then again he also said he hadn't done very well at school, so perhaps he isn't as smart as he likes to think he is.

Post edited at 11:02
Report
Pan Ron - on 11:02 Sat
In reply to TobyA:

> Was it? Do you think you might be looking for that?

No, I wasn't looking for it. It was posted right here, I clicked the link, and the Guardian feed produced it.  I was surprised by the tone, hence the response.

> Have you read the Bellingcat piece on Tarrant and "shit-posting"? It's very worthwhile and suggests his mentioning of the black American conservative woman was probably just trolling.

Yes. A nuance lost on those hellbent on using this event to denounce criticism of Islam. Stated intent was to sew discord between left and right.

Report
Pan Ron - on 11:06 Sat
In reply to Some time some place:

> Do you think Islam should be criticised as being a contributor to this event?

No. Perhaps you do?

Report
Pan Ron - on 11:12 Sat
In reply to Offwidth:

> Allowing Islam to be too often singled out (compared to other religions) and repeated attacks on all of Islam are hardly going to help us shift the terrible lack of diversity on the UKC site. (1 in 20 brits are muslim) and although I think climbing has poor diversity in this respect, it is improving... especially indoors.

Try sparing a minute then for what it must be like for the 50% who are right of centre or Tory voters, or Brexiteers, when they step in to the UKC echo chamber.

Report
TobyA on 11:24 Sat
In reply to Pan Ron:

Perhaps that nuance is lost in the fact that it seems all the people he killed were Muslims. 

Do you think he picked Muslims to murder BECAUSE that would provoke division between left and right and not because they were Muslims?

Report
Offwidth - on 11:35 Sat
In reply to Pan Ron:

I genuinely symapthise with you on that, but that's what you get with climbing forums. UKB is even worse (in your concerns and mine: fewer conservatives and brexiters; even less diversity). Yet none of this is an extremist threat to society, whereas some social media platforms most certainly are, in how they allow (or fail to block) dangerous and often illegal content: in this, western liberal politics has failed us in making new law as there is seemingly little legal consequence on the site owners. Social media firms apologise but the profit margins are huge and making better algorithms to stop such content is easy as is removing those posting it. It's not just standard social media.. some newspaper websites also originally linked the terror vid.

I share some of your concerns about how the left can behave but please take those blinkers off and see the scale of the threat from extremists on both sides... there is no mass growth in far left parties in the west... there is a massive growth in far right parties.

Report
Pan Ron - on 11:43 Sat
In reply to TobyA:

No. I think he picked them because they are Muslims. In the absence of his drivers (which appear to have ranged from Islamic terror attacks to Balkan nationalism) he'd probably have become a school, cinema, or shopping mall mass killer I imagine.

I fail to see why a man in New Zealand killing 49 Muslims should mean I can't criticise the Burkha in London though.

But if that is the kind of logic we are going to apply, then what impact on that discussion do the suicide bombings in Kabul or London, or terrors of ISIL have? I'm not understanding the metric here as it seems to only push in one direction of less and less criticism of one particular religion.

Report
planetmarshall on 11:43 Sat
In reply to Pan Ron

> You seem to be implying that something in the post you are responding is telling you Islamophobia is fine. 

Maybe it's that on a day when 49 people were killed by an extreme right wing terrorist, you decided to start your post by having a go at The Guardian.

Report
Pan Ron - on 11:52 Sat
In reply to planetmarshall:

Nah, I started before that, but I guess that doesn't fit your desired version of events.

My post about the guardian was in response to the journalism around it - which seemed far more focused on implicating those who are completely innocent (but happen to have the wrong political viewpoint). Somewhat surprised you don't have an issue with that. Is there a regulation number of "thoughts and prayers" I must post first?

Post edited at 11:52
Report
planetmarshall on 11:53 Sat
In reply to Pan Ron:

> ...And as far as I'm concerned...

Well there's your problem right there.

Report
Bob Kemp - on 11:54 Sat
In reply to Pan Ron:

> I fail to see why a man in New Zealand killing 49 Muslims should mean I can't criticise the Burkha in London though.

You'd help your case a lot if you dropped the rhetorical devices and logical fallacies. I can't decide whether this is a red herring or a straw man, but it's something that's not been mentioned at all in this discussion anyway. 

Report
wercat on 11:58 Sat
In reply to Offwidth:

I think the trend on here to be totally intolerant of all religious people is unhealthy.  Many times have I seen it asserted that the religious are somehow less intelligent or less educated or less worthy (eg the usual "incapable of surviving without a big friend" attack) reducing them somehow to the status of lesser humans or even lesser, perhaps less deserving, beings.  I have no problem with reasonable freedom of speech and with Atheism or Atheists, but the fundamentalist anger and hatred towards religion and religious people you see here is part of the phenomenon of hatred that pervades the internet.

LIVE and LET LIVE!

This is one of the things that sickens me about UKC

Post edited at 11:59
Report
planetmarshall on 12:11 Sat
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Nah, I started before that, but I guess that doesn't fit your desired version of events.

Everyone has their "desired version of events", but I have not used this story to go looking for opportunities to reinforce my pet causes.

Report
wbo - on 12:19 Sat
In reply to Pan Ron: god forbid that the Guardian has a political spin on what is a piece of politically driven terrorism

You seem a lot more concerned with the guardisn's politics than the terrorists. 

Report
TobyA on 12:24 Sat
In reply to Pan Ron:

> I fail to see why a man in New Zealand killing 49 Muslims should mean I can't criticise the Burkha in London though.

Who says you can't?

I've just been looking up some of the blogs and writers Breivik quoted in his manifesto, Gates of Vienna, what's his face - the guy who was Karadic's spokesperson in London during Bosnia, etc. I mentioned some in the article Foreign Policy asked me to write after the Oslo slaughter, and mainstream journalist tracked them down too and asked them to comment on why Breivik quoted them. They really didn't like that. The nasty socialists were ganging up on them over what? Just a little decade of hate speech and political organisation amongst far right parties and street movements. How dare anyone suggest all that could have possibly have an influence on Breivik. 

And yet they're still there, 8 years on; still saying the Muslims are going to replace us, and kills us, and still whining about the liberal elites who have sold out to the Islamists banning them from telling "the truth". And yet there they still are.

So who is stopping you? Or stopping Saint Ben of free speech? All I said is wittering on about it now, on this thread, isn't a good look.

Report
TobyA on 12:31 Sat
In reply to Pan Ron:

Btw I read an article by what's his name, the British guy on infowars who's now a UKIPer. It made me just as angry as articles on InfoWars always do. so I guess I just won't read anything on that website for another 6 months or a year. I'm sure they wont  change much by the next time I look. If the Guardian upsets you so much why don't you just do the same?

Report
Pan Ron - on 13:09 Sat
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> but it's something that's not been mentioned at all in this discussion anyway. 

But its exactly what's being thrown on to the mix in places like Guardian. From Trump to Chelsea Clinton, people with the most tenuous of connections to an Australian mass murderer are being implicated. Its utterly bonkers and far from a straw man argument when its actually happening.

Report
Pan Ron - on 13:10 Sat
In reply to planetmarshall:

> but I have not used this story to go looking for opportunities to reinforce my pet causes.

If you're going to accuse me of it then at least have the self awareness to see what you've just done.

Report
Pan Ron - on 13:12 Sat
In reply to wbo:

> You seem a lot more concerned with the guardisn's politics than the terrorists. 

Yeah. Obviously.  And until you can point to where I was Islamophobic in my previous posts, which was your claim, I'll continue to look at yours as drivel.

Report
Pan Ron - on 13:16 Sat
In reply to TobyA:

No one is posting links to infowars here for me to read, so it's hardly topical. Besides, the Guardian is a goto news source for UKCers who would consider themselves credible I imagine.

As for who is being stopped, its only 24 hours in. But fingers are being pointed and the intent is to connect entirely innocent individuals. You don't have an issue with that? 

Report
Bob Kemp - on 14:04 Sat
In reply to Pan Ron:

> But its exactly what's being thrown on to the mix in places like Guardian. From Trump to Chelsea Clinton, people with the most tenuous of connections to an Australian mass murderer are being implicated. Its utterly bonkers and far from a straw man argument when its actually happening.

It's a distractive technique, presumable to try and shift the discussion to an area of your choosing, as with your introduction of the Guardian. 

Report
TobyA on 14:22 Sat
In reply to Pan Ron:

> No one is posting links to infowars here for me to read, so it's hardly topical. 

Again this isn't about you. My point is people who were name checked by Breivik are still out there doing exactly what they were doing before. Your imagined SJW-elite out to ban all Islam and immigration critical voices are obviously a bit shit at their job. 

> As for who is being stopped, its only 24 hours in.

Ok, so that would be no-one then 

Report
Pan Ron - on 14:26 Sat
In reply to Bob Kemp:

You're tying yourself up in knots there.

If I wanted to shift the discussion, I'd probably have led with why a Muslim bombing of a church in Indonesia about a month ago, killing around 20 people, went completely under the radar...no "thoughts and prayers" there. Or maybe the 120 Christians killed by Fulani in Nigeria.  Or perhaps why Burman destruction of Rohingya doesn't get much mention on here.

Instead, someone posted a link, I read it, find it overtly politically loaded and say so.  And you choose to read some ulterior motive into that.  The conspiracy theory is all your's.

Report
Pan Ron - on 14:31 Sat
In reply to TobyA:

Your turn to straw-man there.  I don't imagine any SJW elite.  I just see a double standard in reporting and commentary, with usually critical media sources repeatedly making tenuous links to connect people they dislike with a mass murderer.  It stinks and it seems, outside of echo chambers like here, its having a real impact in sympathy.  You don't think that's a problem?

> Ok, so that would be no-one then 

Freedoms don't vanish overnight.  But they're eroded.  You should know as well as anyone that the connections being made between individuals in this kind of case can only have a negative impact on the public dialogue.  And some are being far less than subtle in ensuring thats the case.  Blows my mind that the people who are usually so worked up about exactly that kind of thing seems to take such offence to it being pointed out here.

Report
TobyA on 14:43 Sat
In reply to Pan Ron:

Not now with a change in my line of work so much, but I was getting called a terrorist-appeaser, a traitor to my race, a foreigner who should keep his nose out of "our" business and so on from the mid-noughties for the best part of a decade. So you have my sympathy, but be strong and you'll survive! 

And if that comes over as a bit sarcy sounding, at least I didn't say suck it up snowflake. ;-)

Report
Pete Pozman - on 15:56 Sat
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Choose a side, choice of two? Them and us? No thanks. Not unless we can herd the extremists, of whatever ideology, all onto the same lunatic fringe. Then I'll choose a side. 

The lunatic fringe are already herded together. They both want the same thing: to get normal people to fight each other. And they are validated by clowns like Trump, who are, in turn, primed by sinister figures like Bannon, Farage, Miller. 

Report
Bob Kemp - on 16:13 Sat
In reply to Pan Ron:

No conspiracy theory. You made that up. I simply pointed out that you used a red herring . A red herring is a distractive technique. That's all. 

Report
Stichtplate on 16:39 Sat
In reply to Pete Pozman:

I don't see it that way. There are hardly ever just two sides to anything, and certainly not when you're considering the sort of rambling bullshit justification this latest nutter came up with. The lunatic fringe are so called because they exist right at the outer edge of the global political/cultural conversation. Hardly anyone takes them seriously until they slither out of their bedrooms and start hurting innocent people.

What side has claimed Tarrant anyway? who wanted Breivik or Mair or the prat that drove the van into the London mosque crowd? These white power wannabes are so out there that they're completely on their own. There's no ISIS or Al Queda equivalent applauding and validating them. They haven't got a side, they're just sad pathetic little men, seeking someone to blame for how sad and pathetic their lives have turned out.

Report
L Pefa on 16:46 Sat
In reply to Pan Ron:

> But its exactly what's being thrown on to the mix in places like Guardian. From Trump to Chelsea Clinton, people with the most tenuous of connections to an Australian mass murderer are being implicated. Its utterly bonkers and far from a straw man argument when its actually happening.

The verbal against a Clinton was an emotional outburst from a Muslim at an emotional time which made no sense with respect to the NZ massacre. The Guardian showing it is just poor journalism and nothing more.

The extremist forms of Islam have been used by the capitalists and their extremist ideology and their extremist adherents to destroy the progressive socialist moderate forms of Islam for many decades.Which was always going to create big problems further down the road. 

Report
L Pefa on 16:50 Sat
In reply to Stichtplate:

> What side has claimed Tarrant anyway? who wanted Breivik or Mair or the prat that drove the van into the London mosque crowd? These white power wannabes are so out there that they're completely on their own. There's no ISIS or Al Queda equivalent applauding and validating them. They haven't got a side, they're just sad pathetic little men, seeking someone to blame for how sad and pathetic their lives have turned out.

Tommeh has 1 million followers on, it's either FB or twitter. 

I'm not saying he is the same as the fascist in NZ but there are a lot of people out there who sympathise with some of the issues. 

Edit: had on FB. 

Post edited at 16:53
Report
Stichtplate on 16:56 Sat
In reply to Pefa:

> The extremist forms of Islam have been used by the capitalists and their extremist ideology and their extremist adherents to destroy the progressive socialist moderate forms of Islam for many decades

OOO, the scary 'Capitalists' again. All the big global players have been manipulating everyone else since time immemorial. The last 100 years worth of political machinations have been dominated by the USA, USSR and China.

The scary capitalists aren't one sinister bloc. They're everyone from the bloke that cleans my windows to Bill Gates and their drives and motivations are just as varied.

Report
Pete Pozman - on 16:57 Sat
In reply to Stichtplate:

Just watch Vikings clips on YouTube or start researching blond hair distribution in Europe or the Nazis atrocities. Or Google the Knights Templar, Jan Sobieski, Charles Martel etc  Read the comments people make. It won't be long before you are wondering what the hell is going on. 

Report
Offwidth - on 16:58 Sat
Duncan Bourne - on 16:59 Sat
In reply to Pan Ron:

I might not agree with you on everything but I do agree with you that curtailing freedom of speak is counter productive and hurts more than it heals.

Whe you ban something it stops dialoge it stops it being addressed and worse still it makes us think that everything is ok. If you stop people having a voice then a) you are denying them a voice and b) you are admitting that you can not counter their arguments.

Report
Stichtplate on 17:01 Sat
In reply to Pefa:

> Tommeh has 1 million followers on, it's either FB or twitter. 

> I'm not saying he is the same as the fascist in NZ but there are a lot of people out there who sympathise with some of the issues. 

You think all those followers agree with him? There's an old joke in the army about incompetent officers...

"I'd follow that man anywhere, more out of morbid curiosity than anything else".

Report
Stichtplate on 17:06 Sat
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> Just watch Vikings clips on YouTube or start researching blond hair distribution in Europe or the Nazis atrocities. Or Google the Knights Templar, Jan Sobieski, Charles Martel etc  Read the comments people make. It won't be long before you are wondering what the hell is going on. 

Honestly not being disparaging, but I'd rather not. Most of the stuff you've just listed just isn't on my radar and I'd hardly class myself as disconnected from world affairs. If you go looking for stuff on the web, you'll find it. Doesn't mean it's a serious force in the world.

Edit: maybe Toby A can clarify, but wasn't that knights templar guff almost solely an invention of Breivik's imagination, right down to his silly uniform and bullshit rank?

Post edited at 17:27
Report
Stichtplate on 17:19 Sat
In reply to Offwidth:

> The propaganda structures look pretty organised to me and the casework is growing .... worrying enough to now involve MI5.

I'm completely open to being wrong on this, but I just don't see it. I spend a fair bit of time on a Northern uni campus: far right presence- zero. Fair bit of time in the pub: far right rhetoric- zero. Eldest in high school: far right ideology- never mentioned. Just look at the photo of the national action demo, how many turned up? 20 maybe? How many can the EDL muster for one of their 'Big' protests? 100 tops? And my main point stands, when one of these far right nutters/social inadequates crawl out of the woodwork and start killing people, nobody is claiming them as one of their foot soldiers.

Report
L Pefa on 17:37 Sat
In reply to Stichtplate:

If you think the guy who washes your windows (presumably self-employed) is a member of the capitalist class then that confirms to me the basis behind many of your replies to myself  

Was there not some 40,000 at a recent Football Lads Alliance meet in England that was something about Muslims or Islam? 

The far right are splintered in to BF, EDL, BNP and a few others but they have masses of ordinary followers who don't go out to their events but do sympathise with the points they make. Look at Tommeh, now an advisor for UKIP on grooming gangs etc and how many voters do they have ? 

Post edited at 17:43
Report
Offwidth - on 17:53 Sat
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

There is a big difference between allowing freedom of speech and allowing a convenient soapbox with a potential mass audience (or access to proscribed material). Pre internet we had no issues with editorial control and responsibility, under the law. I don't see why the social media companies should escape this.

Report
Offwidth - on 18:03 Sat
In reply to Stichtplate:

I should imagine if we are looking at comparing sub-sectors of society far right views are going to be at close to minimum on a campus. Having said that my place has had more problems with racism recently than for decades... seemingly part of a wider trend.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/racism-uk-university-students-campus-nus-incidents-a8390241.html

Report
Duncan Bourne - on 18:04 Sat
In reply to Offwidth:

What is the difference? That is what the internet is a convienient soap box for all manner of stuff. You don't get ride of it by putting your fingers in your ears and going la la la.

We don't tackle this stuff we just brush it under the carpet and hope it will go away

Post edited at 18:07
Report
TobyA on 18:14 Sat
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

>  I do agree with you that curtailing freedom of speak is counter productive and hurts more than it heals.

So are you saying National Action shouldn't have been proscribed? 

As I've asked Pan, what else is being banned?

Report
Stichtplate on 18:16 Sat
In reply to Offwidth:

> I should imagine if we are looking at comparing sub-sectors of society far right views are going to be at close to minimum on a campus. Having said that my place has had more problems with racism recently than for decades... seemingly part of a wider trend.

I really hope that this rise in racism is more a result in an increase in reporting and a decrease in people putting up with that sort of crap. Growing up in the 80's, I vividly remember red lace skinheads in full regalia complete with nazi tattoos, knocking about the place. I think that sort of tw*ttishness died a death round about 1990 and hasn't resurfaced since. Remember when prince Harry dressed as a nazi and a short time later video surfaced of him calling someone "our little paki friend"... can you imagine a public figure coming back from that these days?

Report
TobyA on 18:18 Sat
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Edit: maybe Toby A can clarify, but wasn't that knights templar guff almost solely an invention of Breivik's imagination, right down to his silly uniform and bullshit rank?

From memory, the idea that there was some secret organisation was his fantasy, but the counter-jihad and now alt-right worlds are awash with crusader symbolism. Have you not seen people dressed up like that even in Brexit demos?

Report
Stichtplate on 18:28 Sat
In reply to TobyA:

> From memory, the idea that there was some secret organisation was his fantasy, but the counter-jihad and now alt-right worlds are awash with crusader symbolism. Have you not seen people dressed up like that even in Brexit demos?

Yeah, but then I’ve seen people dressed as sponge bob square pants in the London marathon and assigned it equal significance...ie. just shrugged and thought, their goes another loon whose mummy didn’t pay them enough attention as a child.

Edit: fair cop for the dislike sponge bob. Who knew you'd be on UKC?

Post edited at 18:49
Report
Duncan Bourne - on 19:39 Sat
In reply to TobyA:

Interesting point. I put it to you should the Satanic Verses have been banned? On the grounds that it instigated a Muslim outrage.

I think there is a difference in freedom of speech (Which let's face it we do not have complete freedom of speech anyway) and freedom of action.

Therefore I differentiate between speech which critisises a group or religion and speech which calls for the killing of individuals of a group or religion.

I would defend any group against violent attack but I would consider it my right to criticise the beliefs of that group

Edit: In answer to your question I agree with the proscription of National Action on the grounds that it is a terrorist organisation advocating violence. I would say the same for any such organisation. Any organisation advocating violence is an attack on free speech.

Question is what do you do if you feel that your free speech is being ignored?

Post edited at 19:46
Report
Eric9Points - on 21:04 Sat
In reply to Pan Ron:

> No. I think he picked them because they are Muslims. In the absence of his drivers (which appear to have ranged from Islamic terror attacks to Balkan nationalism) he'd probably have become a school, cinema, or shopping mall mass killer I imagine.

> I fail to see why a man in New Zealand killing 49 Muslims should mean I can't criticise the Burkha in London thoug.

Parliament does not enact legislation to restrict free speech every time someone spouts bollocks in the Guardian. The only legislation I have heard talked about, by Tom Watson and Savid Javis is to compel the likes of Facebook and Youtube to stop extremists using their platforms as weapons in a propaganda war.

You are mistaken to believe this guy was just looking for people to kill. He was associated with far right groups and when he appeared in court he gave some sort of far right gesture. His crime was a politically motivated hate crime.

Report
The New NickB - on 21:09 Sat
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Remember when prince Harry dressed as a nazi and a short time later video surfaced of him calling someone "our little paki friend"... can you imagine a public figure coming back from that these days?

Boris Johnson, most weeks!

Report
The New NickB - on 21:19 Sat
In reply to TobyA:

Somebody on this forum was very upset a few weeks ago because it was suggested that Turning Point UK might not be a nice mainstream centre right youth organisation and in fact be run by people with very extreme views, such as Candace Owens.

Owens is cited by the suspected perpetrator of these killings in his Breivik style manifesto as his biggest influence. Although he does describe some of her ideas as a bit extreme for him. I guess that might lead to a bit of deflection.

Report
TobyA on 22:22 Sat
In reply to The New NickB:

I had never heard of her before yesterday. She seems a pretty boilerplate not very thoughtful Fox News talking-head, a sort of wannabe Coulter perhaps? Her views seems pretty unpleasant to me, but nothing out of the normal for US rightwing media and nothing suggesting anyone should go and shoot people. Him calling her too extreme even for him seems to have been some sick in-joke with his troll mates on 8chan - perhaps because she is black and a woman? This is the "shitposting" that the analyst at Bellingcat talks about https://www.bellingcat.com/news/rest-of-world/2019/03/15/shitposting-inspirational-terrorism-and-the-christchurch-mosque-massacre/

Report
TobyA on 22:34 Sat
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

So beside groups actively promoting violence, what is being banned? I still don't know. It's like I said all the writers and blogs that Breivik cited still seem to be about. 

What about this (from my old neck of the woods)  http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/16265-hate-graffiti-on-the-walls-of-helsinki-mosque-distresses-finnish-muslims-after-nz-massacre.html Is that criticism of religion that should be protected under free speech? 

Report
Duncan Bourne - on 23:35 Sat
In reply to TobyA:

Beats me I thought you knew?

Is that worse than saying f*ck christianity? It is a nonsense. Insulting to some not so to others. Of course context is everything. It depends on how threatened the community already feels. The Satanic Verses was the last straw in a lot of other stuff. Had the community not already felt under seige It might not have had the effect it did.

Report
Pan Ron - on 00:05 Sun
In reply to The New NickB:

He also repeatedly cites capitalists and capitalism as the enemy and a motivating force for the shooting spree.

Perhaps it's time to examine those espousing socialist and anti-capitalist views too, see them as hate mongers and to blame for this event?

Report
Offwidth - on 00:48 Sun
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

A web forum is not the internet: it is an online media source with owners. People are free to visit legal sites as they please on the internet and its easy enough to vist those with UK illegal content, but site owners setting up forums for general public discussion have more moral responsibility (and too little legal responsibility at present). If all forums were like UKC we probably wouldn't be talking about extremist echo chambers on the web (they would still exist but be much less relevant).

I propose the exact opposite of putting fingers in ears and going la la la. The first step in tackling any extremism is removing them from any uncriticised platform on mainstream media, limiting public unquestioned access to the equivalent of a street corner soapbox (or grubby e-rooms of like minded shits) where intelligence resources are enough that they can be watched. Then to take legal action where evidence of illegality exists. These people have hard line ideologies and thrive on attention and don't suddenly become nice moderate citizens when granted full public access. That's why I think removing the likes of Tommy Robinson from major Ap platforms is a good idea. Sure his supporters will kick up a stink but who listens to them if they also can't moan on the big platforms any more. We don't allow him free access in the press or TV or radio, so why is a big company run Ap any different? We also need to follow the money a lot more ...find who funds extremist borderline legal stuff and why, and expose it. The right wing libertarian moguls in the US and the Russians (who both hate and fear the broadly liberal west) would have to be a lot more careful if the media and intelligence services did their job a bit better. At least they have more people watching them now. It looks to me very much like a proxy war where western liberal democracy needs to act more effectively to defend itself.

Report
L Pefa on 03:04 Sun
In reply to Pan Ron:

> He also repeatedly cites capitalists and capitalism as the enemy and a motivating force for the shooting spree.

This is probably a diversionary tactic by you. 

It looks as if the fascist"s conditioning and fear of Muslims were the motivating force behind his cold blooded murder of 49 Muslims or perhaps your conditioning is telling you different. 

> Perhaps it's time to examine those espousing socialist and anti-capitalist views too, see them as hate mongers and to blame for this event?

Does he say the means of production should be in the hands of the united workers of the world and thereby everything should be socialised to end racism, division, exploitation, imperialism, class and wars and build a society based on equality for everyone ? 

No. He is spouting neo-nazi rhetoric just like his hero's did, he who wants a divided world controlled not by workers of all races United in equality but by a dominant imperialist empire of whites. 

It's like believing the German fascists were socialist because they stuck the word socialist in their title to fool the vast majority of Germans who voted socialist in the 30s, its a nonsense.

Does he mention British and European imperialism recent and past for criticism and hate ?

Does he shout about all the Muslims murdered in Iraq, Libya and Syria by capitalist countries and the imperialism - thieving?

No. So like Tommeh and the rest he attacks particular sections of the community on race or religion or both (sometimes with justification) and omit all the horrors and crimes inflicted by his perceived, but capitalist tribe. 

Post edited at 03:33
Report
Arms Cliff - on 09:09 Sun
In reply to TobyA:

Thanks for posting this Toby, important reading I think. 

Report
Duncan Bourne - on 09:17 Sun
In reply to Offwidth:

>If all forums were like UKC we probably wouldn't be talking about extremist echo chambers on the web (they would still exist but be much less relevant).<

Hear hear UKC is good for broad discussion.

>I propose the exact opposite of putting fingers in ears and going la la la. The first step in tackling any extremism is removing them from any uncriticised platform on mainstream media, limiting public unquestioned access to the equivalent of a street corner soapbox (or grubby e-rooms of like minded shits) where intelligence resources are enough that they can be watched.<

>removing the likes of Tommy Robinson from major Ap platforms is a good idea. Sure his supporters will kick up a stink but who listens to them if they also can't moan on the big platforms any more. We don't allow him free access in the press or TV or radio, so why is a big company run Ap any different?<

I still think that is blocking the issue rather than tackling it. I’ll grant you it does limit the legitimacy of their message, somewhat, but it doesn’t eliminate it. What you are saying is that a subset of people in this country have less freedom of speech than others, that their views shouldn’t be heard. It is an interesting dilemma. Last night I watched a programme on the Satanic Verses 30 years on which was very interesting. In actuality the book was little more than the fuse to a powder keg that had been building for some time in a community that felt dismissed and marginalised and finally insulted. It sparked riots, fatwas, death threats and fanned the flames that lead to 9:11 and beyond. Salman Rushdie raised a legitimate criticism of religion but it struck at something deeper and created an umberella platform for people who had issues with their place in society. In another time it would not have made an issue raising no more protest than the book of Mormon or the Life of Brian.

It should also be noted that the Rushdie affair also gave “legitimacy” to the right wing groups who had been in decline at that point and lead to the Tommy Robinsons of today.

The question is how do you tackle the root of extremism if you don’t understand what is fuelling it?

>We also need to follow the money a lot more ...find who funds extremist borderline legal stuff and why, and expose it. The right wing libertarian moguls in the US and the Russians (who both hate and fear the broadly liberal west) would have to be a lot more careful if the media and intelligence services did their job a bit better.<

It is my contention that they own the media services. We are drip feed right-wing views under the guise of legitimate journalism (thinking of particular tabloids here) who will condemn such acts while adding fuel to the fire. They are more subtle now than 30 years ago when the Sun could get away with articles like “How to spot a mad mullah” now they just point out how a terrorist was “an Angelic child” till he went bad obviously, but the use of the word angel so prominently is a subtle nudge.

Post edited at 09:18
Report
Pan Ron - on 09:43 Sun
In reply to Pefa:

No. He's pretty clear about his pro-worker leanings,  being anti-elite and anti-capitalist.  It's not just a title. It's right there on the logo on the front page of his manifesto and elaborated on throughout. Yes. He's a nazi and white supremacist. He's also your classic, bitter, anti-capitalist.

A surprising glaring omission in the media coverage.

Report
Offwidth - on 10:52 Sun
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Its not reducing the freedom of speech of a subset of extremists, its reining in their newish e-freedoms to spread hate and fear to the general population. We know who is fuelling it: rightwing extremists have always been the foot soldiers of far right thinkers and far right politics is very much in the ascendancy in the west and supports unconstrained capitalism (with its huge sympathetic slush funds hidden in tax havens). Saudi provides the Wahhabist ideology and oil based funding for most Islamist extremism. The new Russia also funds its growing influence from oil and started by destabilising neighbours but now has bigger aims. Corrupt Zionist leaders (like the PM) take money and use it to feed paranoia to get their own way locally, irrespective of UN censure. Trump is overtly protecting the Russians, Libertarian moguls, Eastern European Popularist leaders, Zionist leadership and the Saudi protectorate of Islamist hate, who together are funding industries to undermine liberal western democracy (especially online). This is ideological warfare on several fronts, happening right now and we need to wake up and recognise this and fight back. Key in this is following the money behind leaders of all hues and insisting any political or media (including online) expenditure is completly clear. 

The UK right wing press are largely tamed by law, press regulation and civil society. For dangerous mass media go to the US and watch Fox News, where US 'freedoms' allow a mass TV news channel to lie with impunity; where funding for the likes of Breitbart is opaque. Yet, for real extremist news of almost any level of craziness go deeper online (its all there and needs to be blocked). All of this would be massively improved by full funding transparency and better regulation.

Report
r0x0r.wolfo - on 11:35 Sun
In reply to Pan Ron:

> No. He's pretty clear about his pro-worker leanings,  being anti-elite and anti-capitalist.  It's not just a title. It's right there on the logo on the front page of his manifesto and elaborated on throughout. Yes. He's a nazi and white supremacist. He's also your classic, bitter, anti-capitalist.

> A surprising glaring omission in the media coverage.

I think that's because what he is, i.e. a white supremacist murderer is more important than what he isn't i.e. pro capitalism. He's not a Marxist either. He's also a brexiteer but this has generally been left alone by the media from what I've seen. 

I think most of his political leanings stem from his extreme racism and not the other way around. His view on capitalism stems from the fact that labour prices have brought non-whites to white countries rather than his dislike for capitalism has led him to hate brown people. 

Post edited at 11:36
Report
Pete Pozman - on 12:02 Sun
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

The guy doesn't know anything about capitalism, just some stuff to do with unseen hands and a certain race/religion  I'd guess .

Report
Stichtplate on 12:21 Sun
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> The guy doesn't know anything about capitalism, just some stuff to do with unseen hands and a certain race/religion  I'd guess .

I suspect his real motivation boils down to him being a bit short, a bit thick and wholly unsuccessful at attracting a girlfriend.

Report
Pan Ron - on 13:13 Sun
In reply to Pefa:

> The verbal against a Clinton was an emotional outburst from a Muslim at an emotional time which made no sense with respect to the NZ massacre. The Guardian showing it is just poor journalism and nothing more.

Unsurprisingly, apparently not.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/leendweik/why-we-confronted-chelsea-clinton

Report
The New NickB - on 17:17 Sun
In reply to Pan Ron:

The anti-capitalist references in these sorts of tracts are usually thinly veiled references to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, aren’t they?

Report
wbo - on 17:26 Sun
In reply to The New NickB:Yes, international syndicates of Rothschild's and so on 

Report
Pan Ron - on 18:08 Sun
In reply to The New NickB:

Sometimes its anti-semitic.  More so if you believe the current Labour anti-semitism scandal.

But most of the time its what it says on the tin; people who don't succeed blame "the system", because they can see people who are succeeding and have been told by more than enough other people on the internet and in the mainstream media that capitalism is weighted against them and the cause of life's unfairness.  Others have stuff that they don't have, others have money they don't have, others appear to be more successful.  They get bitter about it and there is no shortage of mainstream and fringe media that tells them exactly who the enemy is.  Marxism 101 really and millions died horrible deaths in the last 100 years as a result of left-wing extremism.  Shouldn't surprise anyone to see it included in his manifesto.

Report
Shani - on 18:23 Sun
In reply to Pan Ron:

> But most of the time its what it says on the tin; people who don't succeed blame "the system", because they can see people who are succeeding and have been told by more than enough other people on the internet and in the mainstream media that capitalism is weighted against them and the cause of life's unfairness.  Others have stuff that they don't have, others have money they don't have, others appear to be more successful.  They get bitter about it and there is no shortage of mainstream and fringe media that tells them exactly who the enemy is.  Marxism 101 really and millions died horrible deaths in the last 100 years as a result of left-wing extremism.  Shouldn't surprise anyone to see it included in his manifesto.

'The System' has lots of unfairness baked in. This is why the very wealthy are able to avoid taxes, buy passports, or get their offspring in to a prestigious university - the latter happening to Toby Jones 30 years ago by virtue of a phonecall to Oxford University by his dad, and variations of which have been in the news all this week:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/us/college-admissions-cheating-scandal.html

Report
Shani - on 18:37 Sun
In reply to The New NickB:

> The anti-capitalist references in these sorts of tracts are usually thinly veiled references to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, aren’t they?

Curiously his anti-capitalist opinions do NOT appear to be the usual Rothschild/anti-Semitic crackpot ideology usually spouted by the Right.

His thinking is more around the environmental and social cost of globalisation, from cheap labour to a race to the bottom from increased consumption and a constant bid to drive down costs. A few sensible points there.

But, it is all wrapped up in a nasty 'ethnocentric European future' model.

Post edited at 19:02
Report
Pan Ron - on 18:52 Sun
In reply to Shani:

This starts getting in to interesting territory. Good ideas buried in bad ones...

Arguably, given high support for Sharia and other highly illiberal outlooks in the UK Muslim population is it not fair to question increasing Muslim demographics?  Or even be deeply troubled about it? 

7% seems tolerated fine. 20% probably too. What would be the public reaction when it reaches an electoral tipping point of 35-40%?  And how will that reaction differ if discussion is stifled because it sounds like Islamophobia, or when even citizenship tests and calls for civics lessons are deemed racist?

Report
Stichtplate on 19:10 Sun
In reply to anyone taking this prat seriously.

He was a nutter, as evidenced by what he did. Why bother giving his 'manifesto' a second thought. Cut and paste ramblings of a social inadequate who desperately wanted people to notice him. Breivik, Mair, Abedi and Charley bloody Manson, they're all cut from the same cloth and I'm bored of the lot of them.

Report
marsbar - on 19:18 Sun
In reply to the thread.

Pan Ron continues  wih his nonsense.  There is not strong support for Sharia law amongst British Muslims.  Utter lies.  

Can't imagine why people think he is Islamaphobic.  

Report
PeakDJ on 19:22 Sun
In reply to Pan Ron:

> 7% seems tolerated fine. 20% probably too. What would be the public reaction when it reaches an electoral tipping point of 35-40%?

Assuming the 35-40% are British citizens then there isn't much you or anyone can do...sort of the way the system works.  Lot of people (from all backgrounds and religions) who have bad ideas can vote.  If only we could stop the idiots with ideas we don't like from voting, we'd be in a much better place, I'm sure ;) 

If you're right and people like you, through these suggestions, manage to halt immigration from Islamic countries (or whatever it is you want to do in order to prevent an increase in the proportion of Muslims), can you please come up with something whereby we can kick out all the white, British-born people who are horrible people?  And perhaps we could replace them with the good, hard-working, moderate, peaceful Muslims who want to come to Britain?

Report
Pan Ron - on 19:31 Sun
In reply to marsbar:

And there we go, Islamophobic.  I have a strong dislike for Catholicism's conservatism too.  What's the term for that "phobia"?

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2016/12/over-40-percent-of-uk-muslims-support-aspects-of-sharia-law

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

If these issues can't be discussed without being considered Islamophobic then good luck resolving the rise of the far-right, because you are giving people nowhere else to go.

Report
marsbar - on 19:36 Sun
In reply to Pan Ron:

Oh do f@#$ off.  

Report
Pan Ron - on 19:41 Sun
In reply to PeakDJ:

Nowhere am I calling for a halt to Muslim immigration.  Or even targetting Muslim's in general.  In my previous job I was working directly within Cham Muslim communities and they were exactly the kinds of people who the UK should be welcoming.  They adhered to one of the more liberal branches of Islam however with some reasonably progressive viewpoints.  But I don't think its unreasonable to, as many countries do, to enact more meaningful citizenship requirements with a greater emphasis on liberal values.  This has been proposed before but usually runs up against claims of racism.

There is little you can do about targetted immigration.  You can do a lot about integration though.  The bottom line, if you can't discuss either, because "integration" is as much a dirty word as limits on "immigration", then I think views in the Muslim population in the UK might be far harsher in decades to come as tensions are likely to grow, not lessen.

If the media is to be believed, there is a real issue with Islamophobia, with just 7% of the population being Muslim, what do you think will be the state of race relations in the UK if that number rises to 30%?

Report
FactorXXX - on 19:41 Sun
In reply to marsbar:

> Oh do f@#$ off.  

If the information given in those two links are correct, then isn't there a possibility that there might well be a problem and it should be discussed as opposed to any criticism being shut down with cries of 'Islamophobia'?

Report
Pan Ron - on 19:42 Sun
In reply to marsbar:

> Oh do f@#$ off.  

Thought provoking as always.  You've made your views on differing viewpoints pretty clear.

Post edited at 19:43
Report
Jon Stewart - on 19:55 Sun
In reply to Pan Ron:

> 7% seems tolerated fine. 20% probably too. What would be the public reaction when it reaches an electoral tipping point of 35-40%?  And how will that reaction differ if discussion is stifled because it sounds like Islamophobia, or when even citizenship tests and calls for civics lessons are deemed racist?

Firstly, it would be useful if you have a look at some data on the proportion of Muslims in UK population and come back with a time estimate of when you think, with current policies remaining the same, the population will be 20% and 35-40% Muslim. I'm just interested in whether this is something I should be considering as a change to my cultural environment as I live out the rest of my life.

And next, if you think that we need to change policies so that we have a lower proportion of people with illiberal views, can you justify whether targeting policies on ethnic and religious grounds could be justified. If we want to get rid of these types of beliefs, are they just held by Muslims, or are there any other groups that we need to limit the numbers of in our society? 

In general, it's just not possible to make policies that discriminate on religious or ethnic grounds, for example, it wouldn't be possible to have an immigration quota that specified a proportion or number of Muslims to be be admitted to the UK each year. This type of policy would lead us down an extremely dark road in terms of treating people differently according to their religious and ethnic background - this approach has generally not worked out well historically. Have you considered that if we want the UK to foster liberal attitudes, and be hostile towards illiberal attitudes of the type held for example by conservative Muslims, then rather than trying to limit how much of our population has brown skin and prays to Allah, it might be incumbent upon us, through our institutions, to educate our people such that we build the society we want to live in?

I completely reject, on both factual and ethical grounds, the picture you paint of liberal, inclusive British culture being undermined by a rapidly expanding illiberal Muslim population. I know Douglas Murray talks a good talk, but ultimately he's a liar and his views sow distrust of our neighbours and divide our society. It's horrible to see his insidious ideas taking root.

What would you rather see? Our society being inclusive to everyone of different races and religious backgrounds, with all of those people taking on our values of tolerance and respect because that's what our institutions teach and demand? Or do you just want to see one with fewer Muslims? 

Report
marsbar - on 19:57 Sun
In reply to FactorXXX:

I'm happy to discuss things with reasonable people at a reasonable time and place. 

As I and others said, 49 people murdered including a 3 year old, this was the topic this thread was about.   

Once again I'm terrified for my families safety in the aftermath of this incident.  I'm not in the mood for lying hateful scum pretending it's all about free speech just now.  

I'm sure Pan and Coel and the rest can have their little discussions because actually they do have free speech, as do I.  I can't be bothered to debate with people and I'm free not to.  If the mods don't like me swearing they are equally free to deal with it.  

Report
FactorXXX - on 20:02 Sun
In reply to marsbar:

> I'm happy to discuss things with reasonable people at a reasonable time and place. 

Except that you call them Islamophobic if they say things you don't like and therefore try and close down any discussion that involves criticism.
 

Report
Jon Stewart - on 20:05 Sun
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Except that you call them Islamophobic if they say things you don't like and therefore try and close down any discussion that involves criticism.

Why doesn't free speech include Marsbar's freedom to say someone's Islamophobic? Some speech is freer than others, isn't it?

Report
marsbar - on 20:10 Sun
In reply to FactorXXX:

If you look back I've criticised various aspects of the religion myself.  Right now the nonsense about children not being taught about gay relationships springs to mind as a recent issue where I think the school should have had some balls and stuck to policy.  The Thomas Cook nonsense is another if you look back.  I'm not pro religion and I'm atheist.  It doesn't mean I can't call.someone out for hiding behind free speech or immigration when actually in my opinion they are islamaphobic.  That's my opinion.  

Report
FactorXXX - on 20:12 Sun
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Why doesn't free speech include Marsbar's freedom to say someone's Islamophobic? Some speech is freer than others, isn't it?

Where have I said that she can't call someone Islamophobic?
She can say what she wants, I really don't care.
What I do care about is marsbar trying to shut down discussion on UKC by using Islamophobia as a means to do it.
Offwidth has suggested that Coel should be banned from UKC for his comments and now someone is being called Islamophobic for posting links that criticise Islam/Muslims.
Not good...

Report
marsbar - on 20:21 Sun
In reply to FactorXXX:

He can say what he wants.  I'm not stopping him.  If criticising him and calling him islamaphobic is going to get me accused of stopping debate on ukc then I'm more powerful than I thought.  I don't think anyone can stop debate on here.  

If someone thinks that a minority of people (getting smaller as the age gets younger) showing some support for something is strong support then (at the risk of shutting down debate with my super powers) they are either crap at maths or stirring.  

Post edited at 20:25
Report
Jon Stewart - on 20:24 Sun
In reply to FactorXXX:

The point is that every single time someone uses the phrase "shutting down debate" (which I interpret to mean "limiting free speech") they're talking bollocks. 

In an open debate, one person can say, "that sounds like racism to me" and the other can reply "no, it's not, I'm saying that..." and explain why their comment isn't racist, if indeed, it isn't. To accuse someone of racism or Islamophobia is just to challenge someone to justify that something they've said which seems to come from a prejudiced motivation, actually isn't. This "shutting down debate" thing is just complete and utter bollocks. If someone accuses you racism, Islamophobia, whatever, then you're free to respond to the challenge.

Trying to get someone banned from the site however is a different matter - that *is* attempting to shut down debate.

In general, the whole "free speech" shrieking from the right is garbage. There is a widespread failure to  understand that there just is no such thing as absolute free speech; there's constant competition for the freedom. The more freedom racists and homophobes get, the more is taken away from minorities. In every discussion forum there has to be moderation where a choice is made about whose freedom is going to be prioritised. Happens on here all the time when threads get pulled - some speech is deemed to be an infringement of other people's rights. When people shriek "freedom of speech" what they're really saying is "prioritise my speech".

Report
Ramblin dave - on 20:30 Sun
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Offwidth has suggested that Coel should be banned from UKC for his comments and now someone is being called Islamophobic for posting links that criticise Islam/Muslims.

He's being called Islamophobic for suggesting that it's "fair" to be "deeply concerned" about "increasing Muslim demographics" due to hypothetical issues if the British muslim population increased by a factor of five. That the far right narrative of "indigenous European culture" being wiped out by hordes of brown skinned invaders is basically correct and that as good liberals we're the ones who are at fault for not accepting that and meeting them halfway with a less mass-murdery solution.

Report
Pan Ron - on 20:30 Sun
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Firstly, it would be useful if you have a look at some data on the proportion of Muslims in UK population and come back with a time estimate of when you think, with current policies remaining the same, the population will be 20% and 35-40% Muslim. 

The figures are plucked out of thin air.  The point is, presumably there is a number where, if support for things like Sharia remain unchanged, public opinion may tip.  I have no idea what that is.  It could be as low as 10%.  It could be as high as 70%.  It might be so high that we never reach that population proportion and it simply isn't something we need to worry about.  But, isn't it worthy of discussion at least?  I'm concerned that if Islamophobia is the problem it is made out to be, and the Muslim population proportion is only 7%, what will relations be like if that proportion doubles to just 14%? 

Seems worthy of discussion at least, and without the immediate assumption this means I want deportations, crack-downs, or support gun-massacres.  And it's not seeking to limit the Muslim population.  It's about fixing the bloody Sharia issue so whatever the Muslim population becomes, there will be no antagonism.

> And next, if you think that we need to change policies so that we have a lower proportion of people with illiberal views, can you justify whether targeting policies on ethnic and religious grounds could be justified. If we want to get rid of these types of beliefs, are they just held by Muslims, or are there any other groups that we need to limit the numbers of in our society? 

People can largely hold whatever views they want.  But if pointing out the stats gets a reaction of "f*ck off, that's Islamophobic", then I see little opportunity to do anything about these uncomfortable stats.  Which does nothing for the Muslim communities who harbour them, or reduce the likelihood of neo-Nazis having a bumper recruitment year.

Sticking fingers in our ears and shutting our eyes when presented with uncomfortable data does not help.  If the Guardian article is to be believed, and the comparisons it gives between Muslim and non-Muslim populations are accurate, then it does look like Muslim communities in Britain need a boot up the arse when it comes to getting with the programme.  It's seemingly fine to give men a boot up the arse in a very ubsubtle manner because we're incipient rapists and apparently have an endemic misogyny issue. Brexit supporters can have all kinds of venom thrown at them for their exercising their political views.  Any hint of homophobia or whiff of sexism from a prominent public figure will likely have them out of their jobs.  Yet half of Muslims apparently think homosexuality should be illegal (who knows how many believe that should be a capital offense) and the reaction is....shhhhh? 

If you don't make space for these discussions as part of moderate discourse and people don't feel they are not allowed to have their views heard, they have to go elsewhere...like UKIP, or the far-right or far-left social movements.

> then rather than trying to limit how much of our population has brown skin and prays to Allah, it might be incumbent upon us, through our institutions, to educate our people such that we build the society we want to live in?

If you don't allow the social engineering and education that would remove some of those statistics (half of Muslim communities say gay people shouldn't be teachers?), because to attack those things head-on in the same way as say, gender workplace disparities or the MeToo movement, then you paint yourself in to a corner of having few other options than immigration rules that target people's religion or skin colour.   

> What would you rather see? Our society being inclusive to everyone of different races and religious backgrounds,

I'm all up for that.  But where does tolerance of intolerance get us?  In this case, where it allows communities to isolate and bring up their kids (the Shamima Begums of this world) in an environment devoid of a counter-narrative.

Report
Pan Ron - on 20:40 Sun
In reply to marsbar:

> He can say what he wants.  I'm not stopping him.  If criticising him and calling him islamaphobic is going to get me accused of stopping debate on ukc then I'm more powerful than I thought. 

Would help if you actually pointed out what was Islamophobic.  It's a very strong term - up there with Nazi.  

I point to an issue in the British Muslim community.  You say I hate that community. 

You really think that's fair or accurate?  Actual Islamophobia is probably grounds to have me kicked off these forums.  Anyone agreeing with my viewpoints is likewise tarnished by it.  You think it doesn't stifle debate? 

You prevent these discussions and you set up a curse of low-expectations in the communities you think you are helping.  I was discussing exactly this last night with a colleague who, like me, is married to an African, and where she was lamenting the low standards expected of her son in school because of his skin colour.  Not low standards from right-wing racists but low standards for do-gooding, well-meaning, liberals.  How well integrated do you think Muslim kids are going to be when their home environment is getting a stamp of approval that wouldn't be tolerated of others?  Your damning them. 

Post edited at 20:41
Report
Jon Stewart - on 20:46 Sun
In reply to Pan Ron:

> The figures are plucked out of thin air.  But, isn't it worthy of discussion at least? 

I think it's a really badly framed discussion. Like you, I think it's worth discussing how to tackle the attitudes of the Muslims who want Sharia and exclusion/punishment of gays. I don't think it's worth discussing, "given what Muslims are like, how many can we white Brits tolerate". And that's what you raised when you said:

Arguably, given high support for Sharia and other highly illiberal outlooks in the UK Muslim population is it not fair to question increasing Muslim demographics?  Or even be deeply troubled about it? 

> And it's not seeking to limit the Muslim population.  It's about fixing the bloody Sharia issue so whatever the Muslim population becomes, there will be no antagonism.

Great. You've just been extremely careless in the way you phrased it, because you did so explicitly in terms of being "deeply concerned" about "Muslim demographics".

Your problem here is that you've said something that looks a lot like "I think we should limit the proportion of Muslims allowed in the UK" and then there's a load of "what me? Islamophobic? You're shutting down debate!". [Shrug].

> If the Guardian article is to be believed, and the comparisons it gives between Muslim and non-Muslim populations are accurate, then it does look like Muslim communities in Britain need a boot up the arse when it comes to getting with the programme. 

I agree.

> If you don't allow the social engineering and education that would remove some of those statistics (half of Muslim communities say gay people shouldn't be teachers?), because to attack those things head-on in the same way as say, gender workplace disparities or the MeToo movement, then you paint yourself in to a corner of having few other options than immigration rules that target people's religion or skin colour.   

> I'm all up for that.  But where does tolerance of intolerance get us?  In this case, where it allows communities to isolate and bring up their kids (the Shamima Begums of this world) in an environment devoid of a counter-narrative.

So do you think we should try policies other than tolerance then? You're just not clear about what you want.

I agree with much of what you're saying about getting the backward-thinking Muslims to change their attitudes in order to improve our society. I just think you're very unclear about whether or not you're also saying "look what Muslims are like - they're a threat to our society". And that is anti-Muslim rhetoric that's divisive and harmful, and not a whole lot better than the crappy attitudes towards gays etc held by conservative Muslims.

Post edited at 20:47
Report
Mr Lopez - on 20:59 Sun
In reply to Pan Ron:

> If these issues can't be discussed without being considered Islamophobic...

A good start would for you to try and 'know' what you are talking about before disseminating islamophobic propaganda, for example,

you could have worked out that the "aspects" of Sharia law which are supported, and in fact functional in the form of arbritation within sectors of society in a voluntary basis, are matters of family law and inheritance, and that unless extremist, Muslims believe Sharia law should apply only to Muslim.

The idea that Sharia law is about chopping hands and stoning people and that Muslims want to impose that flavour of Sharia onto all the Country is the type of tropes spouted by Tommy and the likes.

Something else you'll find Tommy and co regularly alluding to is that Channel 4 'poll', which was widely exposed and criticised for being intentionally skewed in its questions and polling methods to give the type of sensationalist results needed to make a TV program put bums on seats...

ETA: Had a read through the poll relating to that first link, the 40% support for Sharia law thing question, is "broadly defined, to include civil law on questions of financial disputes".

Also cut and pasted from in there:

"What [the] media is talking about [with] Sharia law is, I’ll give you an example. When

they say Sharia law, that means hand chopped off, leg chopped off, and stoned to death.

That’s it. That is Sharia law, and that’s done, washed our hands. It’s not. When we are

talking about Sharia law, we are talking about divorce, you know, in Islam, how the

divorce is done, or getting married. That is Sharia law.”

Male, Birmingham Group 2

Post edited at 21:22
Report
PeakDJ on 21:03 Sun
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I had also typed a fairly long reply...then I read yours and you put it better than I had.  I agree totally here.  I think either Pan Ron has been very careless in the way he has phrased things, or he is actually Islamophobic, and now back-pedalling with all this “what me?”  

Report
elsewhere on 21:12 Sun
In reply to PeakDJ:

I think it is pretty disgusting for Pan Ron to be complaining about how the right are portrayed in the media before 50 of his countrymen are even buried. It doesn't reflect well on how he values his countrymen compared to his politics.

Report
Pan Ron - on 21:13 Sun
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> So do you think we should try policies other than tolerance then? You're just not clear about what you want.

I just wrote a substantial response to a post that was deleted which covered much of that.  But I can summarise it briefly: I have no idea what the solution is. 

I would like to not have these events take place.  I would like to have met Shamima Begum and found her to be a regular 15 year-old girl, consumed by the usual bollocks that 15 year-old girls are....rather than having grand ambitions to run off to ISIS with her friends and marry murderers, seemingly with the support of her local community.

Which is why a free-ranging discussion needs to take place.

There is evidently an issue and once you factor in Islamic terror attacks (which have seemingly become so normal that I have no idea how many we have even suffered in the last decade) it seems absurd that we are tying ourselves up in knots over how to be sensitive...sensitive to a level we don't bother with when attempting to address most other social issues.  To a point that not articulating yourself in quite the right manner means an end of discussion - and has the added impact of excluding much of the UK population from that discussion because they maybe don't quite have the way with words that liberal, educated, Guardian readers do.

Report
Stichtplate on 21:19 Sun
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> you could have worked out that the "aspects" of Sharia law which are supported, and in fact functional in the form of arbritation within sectors of society in a voluntary basis, are matters of family law and inheritance, and that unless extremist, Muslims believe Sharia law should apply only to Muslim.

I don't like the idea of sections of British society running any level of parallel legal system based on 'cos sky fairy'. Along with schooling on religious grounds and attaching shame to interfaith marriage, these are strong drivers pushing against cohesion, understanding and mutual respect. 

Report
Pan Ron - on 21:21 Sun
In reply to elsewhere:

> I think it is pretty disgusting for Pan Ron to be complaining about how the right are portrayed in the media before 50 of his countrymen are even buried. It doesn't reflect well on how he values his countrymen compared to his politics.

Seems fair to me when, "before 50 of my countrymen are even buried" anyone who has ever criticised Islam is being implicated in their murder. 

I'd rather not have been dragged into the politicisation of this. 

But, from the outset, the coverage went way beyond pointing fingers at neo-Nazis and white-supremacists.  Yeah, I do actually value my countrymen, many of whom are right-wing, and many of them with concerns about the status of Islam.  Fvcked if I'm going to sit back while anyone from that side of the political spectrum gets painted as an accomplice to mass murder.

Report
Pan Ron - on 21:31 Sun
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> ETA: Had a read through the poll relating to that first link, the 40% support for Sharia law thing question, is "broadly defined, to include civil law on questions of financial disputes".

Well, that's a relief.  No issue there then.  Let just institute it and see where it goes.  Can only be a good thing, yes?  

Again, low-expectations.  Are we really that supine that so long as hands aren't being chopped off then a parallel system that hinders integration is seen as a good thing?  A fall-back option?

Report
Timmd on 21:40 Sun
In reply to Pan Ron:

''35% of 18-24 year olds expressed support for "aspects" of sharia and nearly half of the over-55s supported some "provisions" of sharia.

The report noted that other polls conducted in the past had found younger Muslims were more likely to support sharia, but Policy Exchange suggested that sharia might have "diminished appeal" "in an age in which this concept has become associated with, and tarnished by, ISIS."

49% of respondents in London favoured "Sharia provisions."

Just over half of British Muslims said they wanted to "fully integrate" (53%), and 37% said they wanted to integrate "on most things" with what Policy Exchange described as "separation in some areas, such as schooling and laws." 6% sought a "separate Islamic life as far as possible" and 1% wanted a "'fully separate Islamic area in Britain, subject to Sharia Law and government".

59% of young Muslims wanted full integration, suggesting some progress has been made, and the Policy Exchange report noted that this result suggested "that support for integration will increase as time goes by". ''

It can potentially come down to how one crunches the figures, and exactly what those aspects are, meaning that it needn't be anything more scary or worrisome than what Christians or other religions already have in law and schooling (which isn't without it's faults), to do with the bigger proportions of Muslims who are talked about. Any change in the influence Islam has on UK society could be affected by whether there's any increase in the secular nature of society in Britain, too.

Post edited at 21:54
Report
Pan Ron - on 21:52 Sun
In reply to Timmd:

See, it is possible to have a civil discussion about this ;-)

> The report noted that other polls conducted in the past had found younger Muslims were more likely to support sharia, but Policy Exchange suggested that sharia might have "diminished appeal" "in an age in which this concept has become associated with, and tarnished by, ISIS."

I had seen the same.  Just a theory but seems possible that 1st generation migrants, probably just happy to benefit from the UK but still with one foot in their homeland, didn't entirely integrate but it was unproblematic.  For them at least.  But raising UK born offspring in an un-integrated environment, where their expectations were higher and they had little connection with their parents home, may cause more problems.  This may all wash out in another generation.  But it may not.  It's a big gamble. 

> It can potentially come down to how one crunches the figures,

Indeed.  Though there are worrying signs and we can't overlook the number of UK born Jihadis and ubiquitous terror attacks complicating this in a negative direction.

Report
Timmd on 21:57 Sun
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Indeed.  Though there are worrying signs and we can't overlook the number of UK born Jihadis and ubiquitous terror attacks complicating this in a negative direction.

Perhaps I've not grasped what you're meaning to say, in what way would a minority of Muslims being jihadis and the terror attacks affect the figures?

Post edited at 22:00
Report
Mr Lopez - on 22:04 Sun
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Well, that's a relief.  No issue there then.  Let just institute it and see where it goes.  Can only be a good thing, yes?  

> Again, low-expectations.  Are we really that supine that so long as hands aren't being chopped off then a parallel system that hinders integration is seen as a good thing?  A fall-back option?

Pan Rom's Choose Your Own Adventure:

A: Gammonise the subject and rage until eyeballs pop up.

B: Research the subject to form a clear level headed understanding of the situation

C: Catch up with last season's Celebrity Love Island

Report
Pan Ron - on 22:28 Sun
In reply to Mr Lopez:

It's been a fascinating adventure for sure.

Imam Tawhidi, Maajid Nawaz, Tareq Fatah and Ensaf Haidar are saying much the same thing I'm saying.

Any plans to accuse them of Islamophobia...?

When the strength of your argument is decided by presumptions on your skin colour or religion, just who is being the bigger bigot you think?

Report
Stichtplate on 22:45 Sun
In reply to Mr Lopez:

Wondered how long before gammon cropped up. English, white, middle aged and choleric. Let's save everyone some time and stick a derogatory label on them.

Cos what the UK really needs right now is a whole new lot of derogatory terms to label people we disagree with, based on physical characteristics they have no control over.

Report
John Stainforth - on 22:59 Sun
In reply to Pan Ron:

Sorry, wrong. The vast quantity of unnecessary deaths in the last 100 years were caused by right-wing extremism. Otherwise known as fascism.

Report
wintertree - on 23:00 Sun
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Wondered how long before gammon cropped up.

I don’t want a departure from the EU, let alone one as disorganised, manipulated and unworkable as the one we seem to be heading for.

I know a few people (in person) who are ranting and raving on line, in person and to anyone who will listen about the horrors of Brexit.  They’re largely spouting shite that they don’t realise is shite due to their ignorance, apparently driven by their belief they have to fight thick racist idiots using their long clever words.  

They keep using all sorts of made up words that start with “gammon” and I literally have no idea what that’s all about.  It’s a handy flag however to warn me that they’re part of the manipulated idiocracy that’s making it all worse.

Report
Stichtplate on 23:10 Sun
In reply to wintertree:

Couldn't agree more. Snowflakes Vs Gammon. SJWs Vs Tory Scum. Libtards Vs Deplorables. Pick a side. You're either one of us or you're the enemy. All these people convinced they have the answers. They're right and everyone else is an idiot. 

The only thing I'm certain of is that this weaponisation of public discourse can only lead to more division, disharmony and general unhappiness for everyone.

Report
Tom V - on 23:11 Sun
In reply to John Stainforth:

I think you know that fascism from both political extremes has been guilty of causing millions upon millions of unnecessary deaths

Post edited at 23:11
Report
Pan Ron - on 23:17 Sun
In reply to Timmd:

> Perhaps I've not grasped what you're meaning to say, in what way would a minority of Muslims being jihadis and the terror attacks affect the figures?

Because it's a worrying extra dimension and we would be foolish to think it isn't indicative of a wider support network and tolerance in British Muslim society.

It may be difficult to make much headway on gay rights when we've clearly not yet won the it's-not-ok-to-behead-infidels argument.

Report
John Stainforth - on 23:24 Sun
In reply to Tom V:

Totally agree that extremism has caused most of the problems, but I have always reserved the term "fascism" for the extreme right.

I also agree that, in practice, the very far right and left virtually merge into the same thing, perhaps best labelled Totalitarism.

Report
Dr.S at work - on 23:28 Sun
In reply to Tom V:

Given fascism is a specific ideology, how can it be from both political extremess?

Could we not just say that people have the capacity to be horrific to each other, and given enough power and control this has lead to disgraceful acts from Lee Rigby, to this horror in Christchurch, to Dresden, to Auschwitz, to the Gulags, to the Khmer Rouge and countless others that have not even brushed my conciousness.

We are fundamentally violent apes, we need taming - and are in the main making progress, some things - like the widespread divisions in society fuelled by the modern media - risk taking us back.

Report
L Pefa on 23:44 Sun
In reply to Pan Ron:

So because this nazi said he cares about the environment and the workers you are saying what that he is a leftist? Hitler was a veggie who loved his dog. 

Perhaps You should rethink re Marxism, trade unionism and socialism came from jealous people or from totally exploited masses? 

Millions killed? 

USA(Champion of capitalism) killed way over 10 since WW2 and attacked nearly 60 countries (nearly one a year) so you telling me capitalism must be outlawed I presume?

In the name of decency and civilization. 

Report
L Pefa on 23:48 Sun
In reply to Dr.S at work:

Are we "fundamentally violent apes?", or just so far removed from our true selves by conditioning and ego that we think we are?

Report
ben b - on 00:01 Mon
In reply to Pan Ron:

> 7% seems tolerated fine. 20% probably too. What would be the public reaction when it reaches an electoral tipping point of 35-40%?  And how will that reaction differ if discussion is stifled because it sounds like Islamophobia, or when even citizenship tests and calls for civics lessons are deemed racist?

5.02% of the UK population identify as Muslim. 

If 40% of muslims support Sharia, that's a whole 2% of the population. I would guess Sharia law would not be voted for by non-muslims. 

Sharia WILL NOT HAPPEN in the UK, ever. Even in enclaves - the vast majority of muslims still reject it. 

In NZ, 1.2% of the population identify as muslim. Even less likely to happen. Arguments about sharia law are totally spurious. 

b

Report
Pan Ron - on 00:08 Mon
In reply to Pefa:

Nah. None of the above. It should be clear to everyone this guy is a lunatic and that's pretty much all there is to it. A lone mass-killer, like a Timothy McVeigh or Vegas shooter.

But if folks want to extend that further, which they're welcome to do, and implicate anyone from Trump and Boris to Chelsea Clinton, then at least have the decency not to be partisan about it and note that he directly cites left-wing causes as his motivators too. Otherwise it looks a little too obviously like political point scoring.

Report
FactorXXX - on 00:11 Mon
In reply to John Stainforth:

> Sorry, wrong. The vast quantity of unnecessary deaths in the last 100 years were caused by right-wing extremism. Otherwise known as fascism.

Most people immediately think of Hitler and Stalin when it comes down to unnecessary deaths, etc. but you also have to remember that Japan was essentially responsible for about 20 Million deaths in World War 2.
You also have to factor in that China suffered massively from self imposed policies which resulted in things like The Great Famine.
Take that all into account and Communism has probably been responsible for more deaths than Fascism.

Report
Timmd on 00:15 Mon
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Because it's a worrying extra dimension and we would be foolish to think it isn't indicative of a wider support network and tolerance in British Muslim society.

How much support do you know there to be, rather than suspect there to be? 

Post edited at 00:16
Report
Dr.S at work - on 00:21 Mon
In reply to Pefa:

Solid question - Dont know if its possible to answer definitively.

Certainly people through the ages have been pretty grim to each other. Chimps can be pretty grom to each other.

I think we are getting better morally, but we have bigger levers than in the past and can do greater levels of harm to more people more easily.

Report
Pan Ron - on 00:30 Mon
In reply to ben b:

Sorry, more Islamophobia from me (and the Islamophobic Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/29/muslim-population-in-europe-could-more-than-double

These are national statistics with some burroughs already having up to 30% Muslim populations and London as a whole having 12%. This looks like a profound demographic shift to me and probably a good reason to resolve the extremism thing early?

What occurred in NZ is largely irrelevant to the argument about Muslim integration. They have virtually no Muslims and no real history of anti-Muslim violence. The killer was a recent arrival from Australia who seems to have found a soft target. I don't think there are grounds there to worry about endemic violence or Sharia, as should be clear from the public reaction. The problem in Europe is different...some 25 terror attacks in 2 years, 100-200 dead, hundreds arrested every year. All despite extensive preparation and vigilance.

Report
Pan Ron - on 00:40 Mon
In reply to Timmd:

We have no idea.

But you'd be burying your head very deeply in the sand if on one hand you try to connect a lone shooter in NZ to Islamophobic "enablers" in the UK, while pretending close to 1,000 British jihadis had gone to join ISIS without substantial support in their community. That's before taking in to account a few dozen who have launched terror attacks here already, the hundreds of arrests and foiled attacks, and before you even begin to count those with bog-standard, pro-hard-sharia kill-the-infidel tendencies but who maybe haven't the skill or inclination to martyr themselves.

Post edited at 00:41
Report
Timmd on 01:25 Mon
In reply to Pan Ron:

> We have no idea.

> But you'd be burying your head very deeply in the sand if on one hand you try to connect a lone shooter in NZ to Islamophobic "enablers" in the UK, while pretending close to 1,000 British jihadis had gone to join ISIS without substantial support in their community. That's before taking in to account a few dozen who have launched terror attacks here already, the hundreds of arrests and foiled attacks, and before you even begin to count those with bog-standard, pro-hard-sharia kill-the-infidel tendencies but who maybe haven't the skill or inclination to martyr themselves.

Given that you've no idea how much support there is, what do you mean by 'substantial' support?

Post edited at 01:26
Report
Stichtplate on 04:34 Mon
In reply to Pefa:

> USA(Champion of capitalism) killed way over 10 since WW2 and attacked nearly 60 countries (nearly one a year) so you telling me capitalism must be outlawed I presume?

Capitalism is an economic system, not a political ideology. Communist China seems to like it and only 5 years after the Russian revolution Lenin became a big fan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy

Edit: come to think of it Cuba, Vietnam and Laos all seem to be grasping capitalism with both hands. North Korea, not so much (largely due to sanctions, I'd presume). Perhaps I'm wrong. Where's this non-capitalist paradise you're thinking of?

Post edited at 04:53
Report
ben b - on 06:19 Mon
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Nah. None of the above. It should be clear to everyone this guy is a lunatic and that's pretty much all there is to it. A lone mass-killer, like a Timothy McVeigh or Vegas shooter.

You have (finally) encompassed much of your point in that sentence - he's a lone nutcase, and implicitly that his actions are thus different from, for instance, organised terrorists. There is an inherent "you can't legislate against stupid or mad" aspect to this - it's very hard to stop nutcases who pop up from nowhere. It's a tempting narrative as it helps absolve us of any feelings of guilt. 

However, I'd argue strongly that he's not a lone nutcase, in the same way the Breivik wasn't a lone nutcase, and all the other white supremacist lone nutcases weren't lone nutcases either. They feed off each other and find nourishment from what sources they can - often, from sources decrying particular groups or stoking up tensions for political gain - after all it's much easier to blame someone else for problems than come up with workable and effective solutions of our own. This happens on either end of the political spectrum (and often in the middle too, but less obviously).

b

Report
L Pefa on 08:19 Mon
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Nah. None of the above. It should be clear to everyone this guy is a lunatic and that's pretty much all there is to it. A lone mass-killer, like a Timothy McVeigh or Vegas shooter.

> But if folks want to extend that further, which they're welcome to do, and implicate anyone from Trump and Boris to Chelsea Clinton, then at least have the decency not to be partisan about it and note that he directly cites left-wing causes as his motivators too. Otherwise it looks a little too obviously like political point scoring.

I agree with you about the Clinton one but don't you think(if you are honest with yourself ) Boris and his trolling ie. Post boxes and burkas and Trump with his comments about Muslims in general add to a narrative that reinforces white supremacist views?

And when such high profile public representatives are seen using the same rhetoric which only a few years ago was confined to those on the far right and other racists who hate Muslims then ii makes these acts more justified to the perpetrators as they think they have the quiet nod and wink from the highest levels.

Leftists are not responsible for any shooter/terrorist acts against groups of Muslims or blacks so to say that our views align with the acts of this racist nazi don't work but I see what you are trying to do and good effort but no sorry

Report
Ridge - on 09:42 Mon
In reply to ben b:

> However, I'd argue strongly that he's not a lone nutcase, in the same way the Breivik wasn't a lone nutcase, and all the other white supremacist lone nutcases weren't lone nutcases either. They feed off each other and find nourishment from what sources they can - often, from sources decrying particular groups or stoking up tensions for political gain - after all it's much easier to blame someone else for problems than come up with workable and effective solutions of our own. 

The 'lone nutcase' phrase is an interesting one. Not sure if it's really about 'absolving ourselves of any feelings of guilt', I suspect it's more about reassuring the public.

If you look at the PIRA bombing campaign, or the 7/7 bombings, or the firearms attacks in Europe then these were clearly organised groups.

If you look at the various vehicle attacks, stabbings, Brevik and this arsehole then they are clearly lone nutters. However, as you've stated above, they are also clearly members of 'virtual groups'. They don't have access to funding and weapons supply chains, but they're a lot harder to identify and track.

If there are enough 'lone nutters' then they're as likely to be as big a threat as the organised groups, especially if 'tit fot tat' killings begin to occur in response.

Report
Offwidth - on 10:01 Mon
In reply to FactorXXX:

The Japanese were allied to the fascists and were also far right wing nationalists, not communists. The common factor in all these genocides was putting ideology above common humanity. Labelling people who disagreed with ideology as dangerously wrong or highly inferior and, eventually, as requiring extermination.

My point on Coel clearly bugged you but he regularly breaks site rules (picking fights and several times deliberately libelling myself and others as being "well trained by Islamists"... a murderous form of Islam I abhor). He also doesn't really debate on the subject of Islam: he repeats different versions of the same blanket anti Islam views; he deflects and sometimes uses highly selective word definitions to form his own linguistics in order to dodge logical faults in his arguments. True debate involves the ability to receive and change.. for Coel on Islam it always looks like a political rhetorical bout. Even so, I don't really want him banned.... when you mentioned it upthread this was my reply:

"I think Coel's repeated attacks on all of Islam being tolerated here is both unwelcome and very odd compared to other limits placed by the moderators. I'd much rather Coel was asked to tone down than be banned, as I share his concerns about extremist behaviour and views, in parts of Islam, and feel his contributions to highlighting this and some of his discussion on that are important; plus his contributions on climbing have been excellent over the years. Allowing Islam to be too often singled out (compared to other religions) and repeated attacks on all of Islam are hardly going to help us shift the terrible lack of diversity on the UKC site. (1 in 20 brits are muslim) and although I think climbing has poor diversity in this respect, it is improving... especially indoors."

Report
Offwidth - on 10:13 Mon
In reply to ben b:

Well said... you could argue quite a few Islamist terrorists (or those who tried to be and got caught first) were loners and nutcases but they were also clearly influenced by a wider movement. The security services know this and certainly don't regard terrorist risks as down to isolated cases, even if the individuals never met those who generated the dangerous polemic that influenced their actions. It's why we have proscibed groups and why its illegal to distribute propaganda from them. We never had complete freedom of speech in the UK, it was always limited, for public safety.

Report
Coel Hellier - on 11:33 Mon
In reply to the thread:

Well I'd been doing stuff over the weekend, and staying out of this thread, but since Offwidth attacks me directly:

> My point on Coel clearly bugged you but he regularly breaks site rules ...

So Offwidth thinks he gets to decide what is in line with site rules?

> (picking fights ...

Which is rich, coming from someone who just picked a fight with me on this thread, when I'd posted nothing on it.

Offwidth has long had a bad habit of sanctimonious posting coupled with personal attacks on people he disagrees with.  For a long time I ignored this, and just stuck to the issues, but eventually I lost patience with him and replied in kind.  He's been whining about it every since.

> and several times deliberately libelling myself ...

See what I mean? 

> and others as being "well trained by Islamists"... a murderous form of Islam I abhor).

Note that Offwidth misunderstands the term "Islamism" here. "Islamism" refers to Islam as a *political* ideology; it is not necessarily "murderous".  

From the AP style guide: "An advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam. Do not use as a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals, who may or may not be Islamists".

That is relevant to his comment on word meanings below.

> He also doesn't really debate on the subject of Islam: ...

Well he's right on that, in the sense that I'm more concerned with free-speech principles and am less interested in the theology. 

And debates here always get bogged down with people like Offwidth paying lip service to free speech but in-practice sanctimoniously deploring anyone who just wants to debate issues openly as with everything else.

> ... he repeats different versions of the same blanket anti Islam views

Strawman. 

> ... he deflects and sometimes uses highly selective word definitions ...

This means that I care what words mean and use them properly.  Offwidth, like many today, is happy to mis-use them to advance his agenda, such as when speech gets labelled as "violence".

> ... to form his own linguistics in order to dodge logical faults in his arguments.

This is an empty boast from Offwidth, claiming to detect "logical faults" that he can't actually substantiate. 

> True debate involves the ability to receive and change..

People usually resort to that whine when they don't find themselves being as persuasive as they imagine themselves to be in their own mind.

> ... for Coel on Islam it always looks like a political rhetorical bout.

And Offwidth always tries to make it so.  In at least two previous threads where I'd been discussing free-speech issues that were nothing to do with religion, *Offwidth* was the one who changed the topic to Islam and started whining about my attitude towards it.    Which makes him a big hypocrite. 

And again, he's the one who made me an issue on this thread. 

So, apologies to the families of those tragically slaughtered in New Zealand for pursuing this on this thread, but as I've said I've totally lost patience with sanctimonious crap from Offwidth.

Report
summo on 11:44 Mon
In reply to Doug:

It's pretty clear that far right mouth pieces in the West motivated him to some degree or confirmed his ideology. 

So what about the recent ira bombs posted to the UK and a senior politician parading in New York with a flag 'get England out of Ireland' and repeated postings of the image online by political leaders. 

Should all forms of inspiring terrorism be treated equally? 

Report
Tom V - on 12:01 Mon
In reply to summo:

Well done for having the temerity to use the phrase "what about" on UKC.

Report
Offwidth - on 12:16 Mon
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Actually FactorXXX raised your name first and that I want you banned and I responded to that. I don't want you banned.. I do want your blanket atacks on Islam to stop and I feel surprised the mods haven't resolved this already. Its a UKC decision, not mine. I feel this site is not a welcoming place for 1/20th of the UK population and its not a public place where free speech is a key aim: its a privatly owned web forum with quite strict rules.

The rest is mostly ad hominem guff (except you are right about my misuse of Islamism: to be clear I abhor murderous Islamists and their extreme ideology). I've never been so fussed by word definitions as rhetoric can always be used to distort even where words are well used. What I objected to was you use of words to mean something other than what most people think they mean  or ignoring alternative valid word meanings. Most of us can always explain what we mean and get across clear message despite disagreement...yet despite days of your writing on Islam and you regularly being a top 10 poster based on it,  I'm still not sure what you exactly mean or why.

On Islam on this thread I remain shocked by the Aussie Senator who blamed immigration for a terror attack on muslims. Pan Ron turned the link my concern came from into an anti Guardian rant which led back to views on Islam again. I make no apologies: my muslim friends feel increasingly threatened in the west by the far right and see such views, (so normalised in Aus they are being expressed by a Senator), as part of the motivation behind this terror.

Report
Coel Hellier - on 12:27 Mon
In reply to Offwidth:

> I do want your blanket atacks on Islam to stop ...

As I've said, you've been well trained by Islamists to try to disallow criticism of Islam. 

> What I objected to was you use of words to mean something other than what most people think they mean ...

Which I don't do. 

Report
Thrudge on 12:35 Mon
In reply to John Stainforth:

> Sorry, wrong. The vast quantity of unnecessary deaths in the last 100 years were caused by right-wing extremism. Otherwise known as fascism.

Any chance you could put a number on that, please?  Estimates vary, but it's looking like 75-100 million killed under communism, 25 million under fascism.

(Multiple sources, but this one includes both fascism and communism: https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-were-killed-in-the-name-of-fascism-and-in-the-name-of-communism)

Report
Harry Jarvis - on 12:38 Mon
Offwidth - on 13:16 Mon
In reply to Coel Hellier:

You regularly claim the most common use of 'Islamophobia' is incorrect and politically motivated. How are people supposed to know you mean something different from most of us. To most people if someone attacks all Islam that is a form of Islamophobia.

Report
Ramblin dave - on 13:26 Mon
In reply to Stichtplate:

> I don't like the idea of sections of British society running any level of parallel legal system based on 'cos sky fairy'.

However, if I compiled a league table of the greatest threats to liberal values in the UK, the idea that about 2% of the population would like to be able to opt in to a separate system of arbitration for inheritance disputes would struggle to make the top 100. To suggest it as a reason that we should be "deeply troubled by increasing Muslim demographics" is pure fearmongering.

Report
Coel Hellier - on 13:40 Mon
In reply to Offwidth:

> You regularly claim the most common use of 'Islamophobia' is incorrect ...

Wrong.  I have never claimed that.   My objection to the term "Islamophobia" is that it has two different meanings, and indeed deliberately conflates them. 

Meaning 1: Bigotry towards Muslims as people. 
Meaning 2: Criticism of Islam, the religion, especially as a political system.

Since you'll no-doubt need schooling on the difference between those two, try following, for example, the Twitter feed of someone like Maryam Namazie.  

As an ex-Muslim, she is highly critical of Islam, seeing it as harmful.  But she identifies with Muslim *people* (she is always strongly supportive of *people* who are Muslim, being, for example, an advocate of open borders). Indeed she sees Islam, the religion, as harmful precisely because she sees it as harming people (Muslims) that she identifies with.

In asimilar way, Solzhenitsyn was a critic of communism, but not bigoted against Russian *people*. 

So, all of the above is *not* claiming that the "anti-Muslim bigotry" meaning of the term "Islamophobia" is "incorrect".

That is *not* the objection to the term from ex-Muslims and reformist and secular-minded Muslims!  

> To most people if someone attacks all Islam that is a form of Islamophobia.

OK, so do you then regard someone like Maryam Namazie as "Islamophobic"?  By that, are you intending to suggest that she is an "anti-Muslim bigot"?  Because it you are then you are clueless.

Report
Coel Hellier - on 13:44 Mon
In reply to Offwidth:

> To most people if someone attacks all Islam that is a form of Islamophobia.

For anyone interested, here is what an "Islamophobe" looks like according to Offwidth:

https://twitter.com/MaryamNamazie

Edit: or for more by her, try:

https://maryamnamazie.com/in-toronto-lgbt-iranians-were-branded-as-islamophobes/

"The irony of “anti-fascist” activists accusing an Iranian holding a sign saying “I am Muslim and condemn the persecution of LGBTQ+ in Islamic countries” of “Islamophobia” was clearly lost on them. It’s just another example of how criticism of Islamism or even Islam is conflated with bigotry against Muslims at the expense of dissenters and to the advantage of Islamists."

Or: https://maryamnamazie.com/charlie-hebdos-mohammed-cartoon-was-not-islamophobic/

Post edited at 13:55
Report
Mike Highbury - on 13:48 Mon
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> the Twitter feed of someone like Maryam Namazie. As an ex-Muslim, she is highly critical of Islam, seeing it as harmful.  But she identifies with Muslim *people* (she is always strongly supportive of *people* who are Muslim, being, for example, an advocate of open borders)....

Bloody hell, Coel, seriously? My jaw just dropped.

Report
Bob Kemp - on 13:51 Mon
In reply to Thrudge:

Don't forget that fascism was only a feature for a relatively small part of the 20th century, as opposed to communism's continuous presence from 1917. You're not comparing like with like. 

Report
Coel Hellier - on 13:56 Mon
In reply to Mike Highbury:

> Bloody hell, Coel, seriously? My jaw just dropped.

Glad to surprise you!  Any explanation of your surprise ...?

Report
Offwidth - on 16:03 Mon
Stichtplate on 16:29 Mon
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> However, if I compiled a league table of the greatest threats to liberal values in the UK, the idea that about 2% of the population would like to be able to opt in to a separate system of arbitration for inheritance disputes would struggle to make the top 100.

I’d agree, but as a threat to the equality represented by one law for all, it’s right up there.

>To suggest it as a reason that we should be "deeply troubled by increasing Muslim demographics" is pure fearmongering.

Again, I’d agree. So it’s a good job I said no such thing, despite your misleading use of quotation marks.

Report
Ramblin dave - on 17:13 Mon
In reply to Stichtplate:

> I’d agree, but as a threat to the equality represented by one law for all, it’s right up there.

I don't actually agree with this - one feature of the law is that it can create situations where a different set of rules apply for whatever reason. For instance, if I enter a boxing match I'm not going to get done for assault, but there are a whole other set of rules around what I can and can't do. This isn't because a different law for boxers - there's only one law but it recognises a boxing match as a different situation from a Friday night taxi queue. Similarly, it'd be extremely easy for the law to say that an inheritance dispute is resolved by (doing some stuff), unless both sides agree to submit to the decision of a recognized adjudicator of whatever sort in which case (some other stuff regarding the scope of the adjudication).

> >To suggest it as a reason that we should be "deeply troubled by increasing Muslim demographics" is pure fearmongering.

> Again, I’d agree. So it’s a good job I said no such thing, despite your misleading use of quotation marks.

But Ron quite explicitly did, in the post that was being discussed.

Post edited at 17:14
Report
Pan Ron - on 17:23 Mon
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> But Ron quite explicitly did, in the post that was being discussed.

Yep, I did.  For the record, I wasn't actually applying it to myself.  I'm certainly concerned about the issue but more by the uneven treatment, blase way it is approached, and reluctance to even discuss it. 

But I'm aware that some people are a hell of a lot more concerned than me (in the same way many are concerned for their personal safety as a result of terrorist attacks while I feel entirely safe) and I'll explicitly say I don't begrudge them that at all.  For many out there it is their number-1 concern, more so than the economy.  Rather than calling them all racist or Islamophobes, it might be a better idea to address the issues they have.  Not doing so is surely how we ended up with Brexit.

Report
Coel Hellier - on 17:36 Mon
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> I don't actually agree with this - one feature of the law is that it can create situations where a different set of rules apply for whatever reason.

In not seeing Sharia law as a problem, if self-adopted by certain communities, are you aware that it explicitly grants women lesser status and rights, and, further, that women can be pressured into accepting such rulings by family and community pressure? 

https://onelawforall.org.uk/about/

"Under Sharia law a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s; a woman’s marriage contract is between her male guardian and her husband. A man can have four wives and divorce his wife by simple repudiation, whereas a woman must give reasons, some of which are extremely difficult to prove. Child custody reverts to the father at a preset age, even if the father is abusive; women who remarry lose custody of their children; and sons are entitled to inherit twice the share of daughters.

"Proponents argue that those who choose to make use of Sharia courts and tribunals do so voluntarily and that according to the Arbitration Act parties are free to agree upon how their disputes are resolved. In reality, many of those dealt with by Sharia courts are from the most marginalised segments of society with little or no knowledge of their rights under British law. Many, particularly women, are pressured into going to these courts and abiding by their decisions. More importantly, those who fail to make use of Sharia law or seek to opt out will be made to feel guilty and can be treated as apostates and outcasts."

Post edited at 17:36
Report
Pan Ron - on 17:38 Mon
In reply to Offwidth:

> Latest:

Seem to always only hit half the story. 

Fair enough, searching for links to far-right groups which may well, and probably do, exist - if I was comfortable killing 50 innocent people I'd probably be perfectly at home taking an interest in extremist groups myself.

But no mention of how he cites specific attacks, such as the guy who intentionally mowed down pedestrians in Stockholm, in the name of Islam, in his manifesto. 

Outlandish as it sounds, maybe terrorist attacks alone have a focusing, and radicalising, effect on people?  Telling people who are angry about those attacks that they are Islamophobic or racist or whatever else is routinely thrown in their direction probably doesn't do much to help.

There's a massive dialogue problem here, and perhaps if some of the sensitivity expected when addressing the issue of extreme radical Islam was also extended to those on the other side of the tracks, we might make a bit more progress.

Report
L Pefa on 18:00 Mon
In reply to Thrudge:

> Any chance you could put a number on that, please?  Estimates vary, but it's looking like 75-100 million killed under communism, 25 million under fascism.

Lol

The fascists killed 27 million Soviet people for starters. 

The fantasy figures plucked out of thin air by cold warriors like Conquest - who was employed to write lies about the USSR - about how many died in the USSR and Mao's China are nonsense. 

The original figure plucked out of thin air about China was from an Englishman who stated 16.5 million died in China under Mao even though he had no clue if any died. Since then the pseudo historians of the capitalists institutes of learning have gone to work to substantialy tart up this original fantasy number. Basically to try and make socialism look somewhere as bad as capitalism and then keep going to put off any other countries workers from going the natural way. 

4 million max would have died from the crop failure of 1932 in the USSR. In the prison system 1 million died before the advent of antibiotics in 1950. 2 million people were killed in the 1918 class war. 

China under Mao roughly the same. 

1 million in Afghanistan, Pol Pot didn't consider himself to be communist rather a nationalist 1 million died in the crop failure in 1991 in the DPRK and that's it. 

So about 15 in total but only about 3 or 4 million killed deliberately in wars. 

Capitalism? 

You don't want to go there. 

Post edited at 18:02
Report
Ramblin dave - on 18:17 Mon
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Yep, I did.  For the record, I wasn't actually applying it to myself.  I'm certainly concerned about the issue but more by the uneven treatment, blase way it is approached, and reluctance to even discuss it. 

> But I'm aware that some people are a hell of a lot more concerned than me (in the same way many are concerned for their personal safety as a result of terrorist attacks while I feel entirely safe) and I'll explicitly say I don't begrudge them that at all.

Funny, I thought you were all about reasoned argument. But when someone comes to you with an irrational reason to fear and mistrust muslims, you pat them on the head and tell them that their concerns are valid and someone really ought to be doing something about it.

You really do behave a lot like someone who's more interested in spreading fear and mistrust of muslims than in reasoned argument. In which case I see little reason to continue discussing the matter.

Report
Pan Ron - on 18:25 Mon
In reply to Pefa:

Good Lord!

Frank Dikotter, the writer of "Mao's Great Famine", is a personal friend of mine and I can assure you he is about as credible an academic as you can possibly find - more utter genius than "pseudo historian of the capitalists institutes of learning".  His figure for Mao is 45 million.  If you can provide the credentials for someone who disputes his figures and can come up with better ones (smaller does not automatically mean better) be my guest.

As for Pol Pot, he embodied the idea of class warfare and agrarian revolution better than anyone I can think of.  So you can't pretend he's not one of your own....attempting to do so neatly captures much of Pot's socialist ideas.

Crop failure?  It wasn't crop "failure".  It was working people to death towards a failed agrarian dream that had no hope of success, combined with the destruction of everything built by capitalism, while punting off the surplus to China.  Just because he considered himself a nationalist (which goes hand-in-hand with the concept of class-enemies) doesn't detract from his communist/socialist mindset.  And like them, his biggest failure was the erasure of criticism, of being able to tell truth.  So when things didn't work out, no one could say it, preferring instead to blame mythical enemies rather than themselves.  So much there to chew on with present-day socialism.

2 million dead Khmer might not sound like much to you, but it was a quarter of the population - that's quite an achievement and the country remains a basket-case 40 years later.

Report
Pan Ron - on 18:31 Mon
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Get the impression you're not really up for discussing it much anyway.

When someone says "once again I'm terrified for my families safety in the aftermath of this incident" does that sound irrational to you? 

What would you say to someone who holds this viewpoint?  

Report
Ramblin dave - on 19:05 Mon
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Get the impression you're not really up for discussing it much anyway.

If you mean I haven't got the energy to keep up with your stream of exaggerated claims, dubious evidence, backpedalling and appeals to emotion then to be honest, no I'm not. If that makes you the master of rational debate and me the loser who's failed to prove my point then so be it, have a badge.

Report
Pan Ron - on 19:38 Mon
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Here's a claim:

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/new_zealand_mosque_attacks-701904?v=1#x8958693

You be the one to tell them that their fear, their concerns about terror attacks, and of wanting something done about it, are invalid.  

The problem is, we have adopted a glaring double standard and I simply cannot tell why.

I've sort of been there myself.  When 9/11 happened I pretty much said "we had it coming".  Likewise 7/7 (as we'd invaded Iraq) and the Madrid attack (Aznar had supported it), and all those various instances that occurred after.  I gave Islam a hundred miles of slack as we'd gone and poked it and presumed everything those on the right said was racism and Islamophobia.   

But it's been a while now, close to two decades.  At a certain point, after the umpteenth attack in the name of Allah, the ongoing polls showing continued hardline views being so prevalent in the British Muslim community, you have to ask yourself if the conservative thinkers might just have some fair ideas buried in their UKIP or Tory heads.  That maybe it isn't black and white, and people on the right aren't just motivated by bigotry, and may in fact be highlighting bigotry that we refuse to acknowledge. 

Being on the left has become a bit like being a devout Catholic, utterly dismissive of those who point to paedophile priests and fvcked up abortion and gay-rights laws...because the other side represents the devil.  Well actually the vast majority of people on the right, the people pointing to issues in Islam that are in need of serious addressing, are actually normal people, with genuine concerns, not motivated by biased press or racism.  Those people constantly banging on about how they were molested as children?  Listening to them isn't actually the thin end of the wedge to bring down the Catholic church, and you may just make your faith stronger by dealing with its dirty laundry. 

Being willing to say there is a serious fecking problem in the Muslim community doesn't mean you have to hate Islam, or hate Muslims, or want to control brown people.  It doesn't mean you support our foreign policy, love the wars we started, or can't acknowledge racism and Islamophobia exist.  We'd say it for anyone else.

Why the cultural cringe when it comes to Islam? 

BTW, most of the "dubious evidence" I've linked to here is direct to Guardian articles.  If the Guardian is in the business of "exaggerating" claims about Islam then we really are in a bad way.

Post edited at 19:42
Report
Andy Hardy on 19:59 Mon
In reply to Pan Ron:

"after the umpteenth attack in the name of Allah, the ongoing polls showing continued hardline views being so prevalent in the British Muslim community"

Where are these polls? 

"Being willing to say there is a serious fecking problem in the Muslim community doesn't mean you have to hate Islam, or hate Muslims"

No but it's a fine distinction, and requires careful phrasing. The knuckle headed street activists (or their handlers) will use your words to justify their actions if possible.

Report
Pan Ron - on 20:08 Mon
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> Where are these polls? 

A few are linked to above.  I imagine only the Guardian's ones are palatable here.

> No but it's a fine distinction, and requires careful phrasing. The knuckle headed street activists (or their handlers) will use your words to justify their actions if possible.

I wager that a substantial number of those we define as knuckle headed street activists got to where they are because every concern they have was dismissed as Islamophobia and racism.  For all the left's soft cultural openness and warmth, it can be incredibly harsh to those who depart from the acceptable narrative. 

Is it any surprise where downtrodden, working-class, or out of luck individuals end up?  

Post edited at 20:09
Report
TobyA on 20:12 Mon
In reply to Pan Ron:

Why don't you start a different thread? The more you bang on like this here, a thread about the brutal killing of 50 people because they were Muslim, the more it looks like you're basically saying they had it coming. Not for anything they had done personally, sure, but because of what other Muslims have done and even just believe. But, you know, time and place and all that.

Report
Pan Ron - on 20:20 Mon
In reply to TobyA:

Oh, FFS.   It was a response to the mainstream media trying to paint anyone who criticised Islam as being in cahoots with a mass murderer.  So yeah, time and a place and all that....as well as factual accuracy may just need calling out.

The discussion has morphed and evolved over time into a wider one.  That's is what happens on the internet.  

If you want to interpret that as me saying 50 innocent people in a mosque deserved to die then I really don't know what more to say.  I figured someone as smart as yourself wouldn't be so petty.

EDIT: I hope you can accept that dealing with this problem, preventing c. 2,000 British born Jihadi's jetting off to join ISIS, would probably have saved a hell of a lot more than 50 Muslim lives.

Post edited at 20:40
Report
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> My objection to the term "Islamophobia" is that it has two different meanings

> Meaning 1: Bigotry towards Muslims as people. 

> Meaning 2: Criticism of Islam, the religion, especially as a political system.

Which meaning best describes the following sentence (which you wrote):

"The evidence worldwide seems to be that having Muslims as a majority of the population is usually harmful for freedom and for the political, social and intellectual life of the country. "

Report
Coel Hellier - on 20:34 Mon
In reply to Some time some place:

> Which meaning best describes the following sentence

Meaning 2, obviously.

Report
TobyA on 20:38 Mon
In reply to Pan Ron:

Your last post said that knuckle headed street activists become that because their (you suggest) legitimate concerns about Muslim minorities are called islamophobia and dismissed by liberal elites.

Is Tarrant in a different category somehow? You're the one bringing up polling that you are saying shows the widespread support among British Muslims for violence or harsh interpretation of Islamic texts in a thread about his crimes against Muslims in New Zealand. 

Report
Coel Hellier - on 20:46 Mon
In reply to Some time some place:

By the way, I'd be interested if anyone sees anything objectionable in the following, which I'll also readily put my name to:

"The evidence worldwide seems to be that having communists as a majority of the population is usually harmful for freedom and for the political, social and intellectual life of the country."

(Well, Pefa will object, obviously ... anyone else?)

Report
Pan Ron - on 20:48 Mon
In reply to TobyA:

I'm not sure the reference to knuckle-headed activists was directed at Tarrant alone.  I presumed it to be your bog standard "racist", be it a Tory who uses the term "coloured" or a full-scale EDL supporter who the left won't even talk to.  Anyone who drifts further right than is healthy, but not necessarily anyone who would go so far as to murder.

The left's approach to half the population is just part of the problem.  I don't pretend its the solution.  But as a doctrine it is proving incredibly adept at writing-off anyone who doesn't fit within an increasingly narrow confine (as the media coverage proved) and seems to have undertaken a dramatic co-opting of Bush's you're-with-us-or-against us approach.   

Some serious introspection on that side of the fence might just make a big difference to the draw of the right.

Report
In reply to Pan Ron:

> When 9/11 happened I pretty much said "we had it coming".  Likewise 7/7 (as we'd invaded Iraq) and the Madrid attack (Aznar had supported it), and all those various instances that occurred after.  I gave Islam a hundred miles of slack as we'd gone and poked it and presumed everything those on the right said was racism and Islamophobia.   

> But it's been a while now, close to two decades.  

Do you follow the news? In the past 8 years the UK has extensively bombed Libya, Syria (Assad and ISIS) and Iraq. It has also provided military support for Saudi Arabia in Yemen and Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories. 

Also your opposing of "we" (for the USA, UK and Spain) and "Islam" says a lot about how you view the world.

Report
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Meaning 2, obviously.

Funny that because you specifically target Muslims. 

Report
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> By the way, I'd be interested if anyone sees anything objectionable in the following, which I'll also readily put my name to:

> "The evidence worldwide seems to be that having communists as a majority of the population is usually harmful for freedom and for the political, social and intellectual life of the country."

Lots of people in France who have elected communist town councils would find that very insulting.

Post edited at 20:56
Report
Andy Hardy on 21:01 Mon
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> By the way, I'd be interested if anyone sees anything objectionable in the following, which I'll also readily put my name to:

> "The evidence worldwide seems to be that having communists as a majority of the population is usually harmful for freedom and for the political, social and intellectual life of the country."

> (Well, Pefa will object, obviously ... anyone else?)

I'd object, on the grounds that I don't think there's ever been a country with a majority of Communists. There's been plenty of countries ruled by "Communists", but that's not the same.

Report
TobyA on 21:25 Mon
In reply to Some time some place:

To the best of my knowledge the UK has not given "military support" for Israel in the Occupied Territories. The British position is that the occupation of the West Bank is illegal under international law.

Report
climbercool - on 21:26 Mon
In reply to TobyA:  I fully support most of what Pan Ron has said in this thread but agree it was a terrible time and place to have this discussion.

Report
Bob Kemp - on 21:27 Mon
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Oh, FFS.   It was a response to the mainstream media trying to paint anyone who criticised Islam as being in cahoots with a mass murderer.  So yeah, time and a place and all that....as well as factual accuracy may just need calling out.

Which mainstream media said this? I haven't seen much like that at all. Another of your straw men?

Report
TobyA on 21:30 Mon
In reply to Coel Hellier:

You spent a lot of last week going on about how Islam was a dangerous ideology that inspires people to act.

As this is a thread about the killings in New Zealand, rather than going on about communism, would you tell us what dangerous ideology you think inspired Tarrant to kill?

Report
In reply to TobyA:

> To the best of my knowledge the UK has not given "military support" for Israel in the Occupied Territories. The British position is that the occupation of the West Bank is illegal under international law.

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/51776

Report
Coel Hellier - on 21:49 Mon
In reply to TobyA:

> ... would you tell us what dangerous ideology you think inspired Tarrant to kill?

Well I've not really looked into him (I've not read his manifesto for example), but from what I hear it was likely a   racially-based, white-supremacist ideology.   (Which was also what drove the Nazis.)

Report
TobyA on 21:58 Mon
In reply to Some time some place:

Yeah, so arms sales like to KSA. But that's not military support. I take the point, the world would almost certainly be better with out weapons exporting, but as far as I know the British military does not give any form of support to the IDF. 

Report
wbo - on 22:05 Mon
In reply to climbercool:

> I fully support most of what Pan Ron has said in this thread but agree it was a terrible time and place to have this discussion.

Obviously any atrocity is a great excuse for 200 posts telling us about the wicked leftwing Guardian and how it's the lefts fault for making Nazis feel lonely 

Report
Timmd on 22:21 Mon
In reply to Pan Ron:

> We have no idea.

> But you'd be burying your head very deeply in the sand if on one hand you try to connect a lone shooter in NZ to Islamophobic "enablers" in the UK, while pretending close to 1,000 British jihadis had gone to join ISIS without substantial support in their community. That's before taking in to account a few dozen who have launched terror attacks here already, the hundreds of arrests and foiled attacks, and before you even begin to count those with bog-standard, pro-hard-sharia kill-the-infidel tendencies but who maybe haven't the skill or inclination to martyr themselves.

The reason I've being asking about how one knows, is because it was (and should always be remembered to have been) Bin Laden's plan to set the West against Islam - as he saw things within his twisted Islamist world view.  The far right terrorists shooting up mosques are the other side of the coin to the Islamist extremists blowing people up, they're the extremes from none Muslim society and Muslim communities respectively.

I'm not trying to infer that there isn't a problem which needs addressing, in the form of radicalised individuals using an Islamist indoctrinated world view as justification for blowing people up - anybody with half an ear to the news knows this to be clearly true. It's more that, rather than speculating in general terms about there being substantial support from the Muslim communities for Islamic terrorists, I think we'd be better off keeping in mind what it is that Bin Laden wanted to achieve, which (while keeping an objective eye open for anything suspicious) to my mind means being less prone to suspecting anything negative or ulterior about any Muslims we happen to come across or talk about - unless there's actual genuine evidence of anything bad.

I think it bears repeating - what Bin Laden wanted to happen was to pit the West against Islam. If it's reasonable to talk about substantial support for terrorism within the Muslim communities (rather than 'moderate' or 'limited'), is it also reasonable to talk about substantial support for the terrorists who shoot up mosques - and how would one start to quantify the support from none Muslims for the people who shoot up mosques?

Post edited at 22:38
Report
Pan Ron - on 22:22 Mon
In reply to climbercool:

> but agree it was a terrible time and place to have this discussion.

You're probably right.  What is the solution though?  If someone is posting links that deserve to be challenged, that overtly politicise what happened, is letting them pass an ok reaction? 

Internet discussions take a life of their own so its difficult to avoid short of moderating/banning any post that doesn't say "thoughts and condolences".

Report
TobyA on 23:34 Mon
In reply to Some time some place:

So hard evidence is a written parliamentary answer which list something like 30 other countries including the PA! And your original claim was much more specific than that. An Israeli diplomat I knew said Britain was "a firm friend inside the Green Line and strong critic across it". That was a few years back, but things haven't changed much. 

Post edited at 23:36
Report
In reply to TobyA:

> So hard evidence is a written parliamentary answer which list something like 30 other countries including the PA! And your original claim was much more specific than that. 

My original claim was that the UK supports the Israeli military via arms sales. You can dispute the definition of 'support', but the evidence for the arms sales is very easy to find. Nobody's even trying to hide it!

Report
Jon Stewart - on 08:50 Tue
In reply to TobyA:

> An Israeli diplomat I knew said Britain was "a firm friend inside the Green Line and strong critic across it". 

In other words, our position is one of despicable hypocrisy. 

Report
TobyA on 10:15 Tue
In reply to Some time some place:

> My original claim was that the UK supports the Israeli military via arms sales. 

You said "military support in the Occupied Territories" which I understand as different to above. But, yeah it's an argument over terms, I just think that we should be resist the narrative of lumping ''sins", real and perceived, of different western states together. It's what bin Laden and al Zawahiri used to do successfully, and has had a corrosive effect on attitudes of Muslim diaspora communities in the west.

Report
TobyA on 10:16 Tue
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Or recognition of international law... Same same?

Report
Jon Stewart - on 11:48 Tue
In reply to TobyA:

> Or recognition of international law... Same same?

Whatever. I'm just not really down with the idea that it's either acceptable or necessary for the UK to be "firm friends" with murderous extremist regimes like Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Report
Offwidth - on 12:10 Tue
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Especially the Saudis... the country contains the biggest bankrollers of terror in the world and funds world growth of Wahhabism, the most dangerous widespread form of Islam. Yet our governments are seemingly OK with that as we need their oil and they prop up our arms businesses.

On the subject of the combination of the two this is interesting.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/mar/19/why-israel-quietly-cosying-up-to-gulf-monarchies-saudi-arabia-uae

Post edited at 12:17
Report
Mike Highbury - on 12:26 Tue
In reply to TobyA: But Israel!

Report

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.