When will we be paid?
Post of the week: Terry Glavin "Proximate Cause".
The BNP: Some more posts, to add to the lists here, here and here. Johnny G: A hollow victory for the goodies. Modernity: Thinking about no platform. LGF: BNP's mask falls off. Duncan: Debating no platform. Dave Hill: Can the BNP define British? Patrick Hayes: Would the BBC give a platform to Hitler (or cut to the money quote here).
No to Shariah law! No to the EDL!
Strange alliances: I listened to the incredibly articulate Chief Rabbi of Poland, Michael Schudrich, on the Today Programme this morning, defending Michal Kaminski, the far right Polish politician with whom David Cameron's Conservative Party is now allied. Schudrich was arguing that, yes, there are some unsavoury aspects to Kaminski, but we need to "understand" him in the round. The key thing is that he is (now) "a strong friend of the State of Israel". I find this position reprehensible. A JC letter writer cleverly compared Kaminski's defenders (such as Stephen Pollard) are the mirror image of Ken Livingstone: Ken would unflinchingly defend any European Jew from right-wing antisemites but turns a blind eye to Islamist antisemitism; Pollard the exact reverse. Would Schudrich ever say we must "understand" Ken in the round, and brush off his alliances with the Muslim Brotherhood because he is a good friend of European Jewry? Of course not. No more than we should "understand" Nick Griffin in the round and let him off the hook for his appalling racism because he is (now) a supporter of Israel. On this issue, read: Schudrich's u-turns. Keith on the Kaminski affair and the neocon-decentist alliance. David Cesarani on Marek Edelman and Michal Kaminski. Miriam Shaviv on the BNP and Kaminski posing as friends of Israel. And Engageniks discuss these issues in a very interesting comment thread. (For more, also read: Jonathan Freedland (plus this and this from a while back), John Mann, JTCam, Martin Bright, Ben Helfgott, Left Foot Forward, Sunder Katwala.)
Gay imperialism? And what are we to make of this? A new low for the Second Campist defenders of the Iranian theocracy. Basically, Peter Tatchell is accused of "gay imperialism" for fighting for the human rights of gay and lesbian people in Iran, Zimbabwe, Jamaica and elsewhere. Essentially, while dressed up as an attack on white privilige, the logic is that brown people don't deserve the same human rights as white people do. Disgusting, and shame on Richard Seymour for disseminating this rubbish. (Incidentally, this is from Yoshie, who you can read more about here, here, here, and here.) [UPDATE: More from Harry here, including Tatchell's defence.]
Also:
Cosmopolitan law: Stop Sri Lanka's crimes. Harold Evans on Judge Goldstone. Resistance and repression in Guinea.
Sarf London: Guerrilla gardening Brockley-style. A lens on Deptford. The London nobody sings.
Other stuff: The FCO's whistleblower. Tories telling lies about immigration. The best of Democratiya. Under the pavements of Poland, the Jewish gravestones. Anarchists for Remembrance Day poppies. Muslim terrorists are not the new Jewish anarchists. Robert Bernstein on Human Rights Watch.
Comment trail: At Engage on Kaminski and anti-fascism; at Lenin's Tomb on squadism (update: and a little more); in Brockley on Glenn Beck and Bundism.
Other round-ups: Roland, Poum, Anti-German.
When will we be paid? This week's music is the Staple Singers.
The BNP: Some more posts, to add to the lists here, here and here. Johnny G: A hollow victory for the goodies. Modernity: Thinking about no platform. LGF: BNP's mask falls off. Duncan: Debating no platform. Dave Hill: Can the BNP define British? Patrick Hayes: Would the BBC give a platform to Hitler (or cut to the money quote here).
No to Shariah law! No to the EDL!Date: Saturday 21 November 2009Maryam Namazie has been blogging hard, defining the politics of this movement. Read some of these:
Time: 1200-1400
Venue: North Carriage Drive, in-between Stanhope Place Gate and Albion Gate, Hyde Park, London (Closest underground: Marble Arch)
SHOW YOUR OPPOSITION TO SHARIA LAW AND ALL RELIGIOUS-BASED TRIBUNALS IN BRITAIN, IRAN, IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, PAKISTAN, SOMALIA AND ELSEWHERE
DEMAND AN END TO CULTURAL RELATIVISM AND RACISM
DEMAND ONE SECULAR LAW AND UNIVERSAL RIGHTS
DEFEND THE RIGHT TO ASYLUM FOR THOSE WHO HAVE FLED SHARIA
Confirmed speakers and performers include: Nazanin Afshin-Jam, Mina Ahadi, ‘AK47,’ Fari B, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Roy Brown, Nick Doody, AC Grayling, Goranka Gudelj, Rahila Gupta, Johann Hari, Marieme Helie-Lucas, Mehboob Khan, ‘Lilith,’ Houzan Mahmoud, Maryam Namazie, Taslima Nasrin, David Pollock, Fariborz Pooya, Terry Sanderson, Muriel Seltman, Issam Shukri, Selina aka ‘Jus1Jam,’ Sohaila Sharifi, Bahram Soroush, Hanne Stinson, Peter Tatchell and more...
For more information, contact: Tel: +44 (0) 7719166731 or onelawforall@gmail.com
- It is dangerous to incorporate religious laws
- It is not racist to criticise Islam
- We will have nothing to do with the English Defence League
- One Law for All is against the Beth Din too
- The pathetic excuse of much of the European Left is no better
- The battle against Sharia is against both the Islamists and the far right
- Please don't export your Islamists, deal with them
Strange alliances: I listened to the incredibly articulate Chief Rabbi of Poland, Michael Schudrich, on the Today Programme this morning, defending Michal Kaminski, the far right Polish politician with whom David Cameron's Conservative Party is now allied. Schudrich was arguing that, yes, there are some unsavoury aspects to Kaminski, but we need to "understand" him in the round. The key thing is that he is (now) "a strong friend of the State of Israel". I find this position reprehensible. A JC letter writer cleverly compared Kaminski's defenders (such as Stephen Pollard) are the mirror image of Ken Livingstone: Ken would unflinchingly defend any European Jew from right-wing antisemites but turns a blind eye to Islamist antisemitism; Pollard the exact reverse. Would Schudrich ever say we must "understand" Ken in the round, and brush off his alliances with the Muslim Brotherhood because he is a good friend of European Jewry? Of course not. No more than we should "understand" Nick Griffin in the round and let him off the hook for his appalling racism because he is (now) a supporter of Israel. On this issue, read: Schudrich's u-turns. Keith on the Kaminski affair and the neocon-decentist alliance. David Cesarani on Marek Edelman and Michal Kaminski. Miriam Shaviv on the BNP and Kaminski posing as friends of Israel. And Engageniks discuss these issues in a very interesting comment thread. (For more, also read: Jonathan Freedland (plus this and this from a while back), John Mann, JTCam, Martin Bright, Ben Helfgott, Left Foot Forward, Sunder Katwala.)
Gay imperialism? And what are we to make of this? A new low for the Second Campist defenders of the Iranian theocracy. Basically, Peter Tatchell is accused of "gay imperialism" for fighting for the human rights of gay and lesbian people in Iran, Zimbabwe, Jamaica and elsewhere. Essentially, while dressed up as an attack on white privilige, the logic is that brown people don't deserve the same human rights as white people do. Disgusting, and shame on Richard Seymour for disseminating this rubbish. (Incidentally, this is from Yoshie, who you can read more about here, here, here, and here.) [UPDATE: More from Harry here, including Tatchell's defence.]
Also:
Cosmopolitan law: Stop Sri Lanka's crimes. Harold Evans on Judge Goldstone. Resistance and repression in Guinea.
Sarf London: Guerrilla gardening Brockley-style. A lens on Deptford. The London nobody sings.
Other stuff: The FCO's whistleblower. Tories telling lies about immigration. The best of Democratiya. Under the pavements of Poland, the Jewish gravestones. Anarchists for Remembrance Day poppies. Muslim terrorists are not the new Jewish anarchists. Robert Bernstein on Human Rights Watch.
Comment trail: At Engage on Kaminski and anti-fascism; at Lenin's Tomb on squadism (update: and a little more); in Brockley on Glenn Beck and Bundism.
Other round-ups: Roland, Poum, Anti-German.
When will we be paid? This week's music is the Staple Singers.
Comments
Yeah, well, I am tempted to disagree with the argument "It is not racist to criticise Islam" and Maryam Namazie, but I haven't got the brains, I think the real answer is "It can be, but it depends".
Fine set of links, I should read Stott more....
These are both noble, indeed essential, goals.
But why are they one campaign?
I don't see how the "and" connects the two.
I really do see this as a mad, pathetic attempt at "balance."
As a way of "comforting" people who stand against cultural relativism.
As though more people will publicly oppose cultural relativism if they can feel that, at the same time, they're against "racism."
As though they have a sense that opposing cultural relativism itself has a "racist" undertone.
It has to do with Orwell's concern for accuracy and distinction in the use of language.
In Normblog's Friday blog profile, featuring Point of no return, in answer to the question: What is your favourite proverb? Bataween responds:
'Mal nommer les choses, c'est ajouter au malheur du monde' (Not to call things by their correct names is to add to the troubles of the world) - Albert Camus.
Misnaming, attempting to smear one term by intermingling its meaning with another, notorious term, diluting the meaning of words, creating uncertainty as to what a word means by the kind of tactic Jogo mentioned, all ploys in the service of some dogma.
CC: excellent point.
Jogo: I will try to answer this tomorrow!
Everything looks good in your posting.
That will be necessary for all. Thanks for your posting.
Bathmate