To Veil or Not to Veil: Is that the Question?

[scawenb]

not sure I understand

The niqab is a one of the most obvious signs of Wahhabism. Women who just wear the Hijab may be viewed as Muslims they certainly would look down on them as not 'good Muslims' because they do not conform.
Take Saudi Arabia, only Wahhabism is allowed to be practiced openly....

Sorry I was talking about Muslim women here, who are taking up the veil not because they are Wahhabis or look down on other women or have any connection to the Saudi but as a sign of devotion. I've already said why I think there is a link between Wahhabism/Saudi Arabia and the waering of the niqab which is cultural not religious.

 

[Mallard]

I bet the New Labour nerds, Islamaphobes and rent a mob are wishing they'd left well alone. This could well explode in their faces.

 

[JHE]

I bet the New Labour nerds, Islamaphobes and rent a mob are wishing they'd left well alone. This could well explode in their faces.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, Mallard. I think you mean that if anyone says anything that Mohammedans don't like, there'll be bloody riots - and that you'll welcome that. Have I understood you correctly?

 

[belboid]

1. It wasn’t the speed of your delivery, it was the fact that the points you made (although individually comprehensible) did not seem to form an argument, nor to address a position I actually hold or espouse. Taking you comments here along with comments on another thread, I now see that this is because you have constructed your own ideas about what my position is, which don’t match what it actually is.

Well, we both seem to be ascribing positions we don’t hold to each other. Perhaps we both need to write a little clearer.

2. Indeed. I agree.

Hurrah – 1 down, 6 to go.

3. I was attempting to draw from you what you thought the current context was, and what you thought was permissible comment within that context, and perhaps even why. You consistently referred to a context, but not adequately what that context was, or why the response you propose is the best.

Well, I refer you back to my post 63 – the context was one of rising islamophobia/racism against muslims. That such bigotry was on the rise you have not disputed, but you also do not appear to have taken it into account in any way. Would you dispute it? How would you take it into account? Don’t you think that such fears tend to push many muslims towards a more conservative position? And that without explicitly rejecting such racist notions, many muslims would assume you are going along with them, and that you views are, therefore, simply bigoted ones they can, indeed should, ignore?

What was the ‘spurious and false perspective’ of mine that you challenged? What was the challenge you think I ignored? Perhaps I can address it now. (I’m sorry if I haven’t gone through your posts point by point, but that often makes tedious reading for others. I will attempt to do so here, however).

It was your gross exaggeration of the extent to which religions can be criticised today. I refer again to post 63 – and note, again, that you entirely ignored the points made. I should just add, that Jerry Springer not only completed its initial run, it went on tour nationally and was on TV. Unlike Romans in Britain, which was pulled after 17 performances, iirr. Hardly an example of religion getting harder to criticise then, is it?

4. You seem to think that I disagree with the statement ‘It is entirely up to you what you choose to believe in and wear, and the state has no role in determining or restricting your choices’. I do not. I can only assume that it is the way this debate has been polarised that has led you to this erroneous conclusion. I have, since the beginning of this debate, on this thread and others, never sought to try to dictate what anyone should or should not wear.

I have, simply, no idea where you got that view from, nothing in my posts, and I don’t believe that that is your view.

What I have said - again all along - is that a religious view does not trump a non religious view. Religious people - not matter to which religion they belong - seem to think that if a stalemate is reached between a secular view and a religious view, the religious view should win as a matter of course. Merely by dint of being religious. I disagree with that, but apply it to all religions, not just - as you seem to think - Islam.

Again, I don’t think you refer solely to islam and don’t know why you should think that. I also, tho, don’t know what you mean by religious views ‘trumping’ non-religious ones. You do not explain that, or give any examples. They could be handy.

Furthermore I have said that, regardless of the attire choice of individual women, there is a wider question for Islam, and that is why the desire for ‘modesty’ is sometimes interpreted as requiring women to hide their faces. This question - directed at the institutions of Islam - should not wait until racism is defeated. That is an important point. There are layers of oppression within society, and Muslim women are subjected to several - yes, to racism; you seem to think I ignore or undervalue that; I do not. But it does not mean that we ignore other sources of oppression simply because racism exists.

And where have I made any such suggestion? It is you who is trying to falsely polarise things here. What I said was that you need to take such discrimination into account, that it needs to be taken up as an issue as well if we are to get anywhere on other matters. That has been the whole point of my criticising you for taking a seemingly abstract POV. I refer you back to the questions I posed earlier in this post.

5. You have at several points asserted that I think the issue exists within a vacuum. I have several times told you I do not - for the final time: I oppose capitalism, racism, misogyny, homophobia, and all forms of oppression. It seems to me that it is actually you who wishes to isolate these out. You seem to want me to shut up about misogyny and homophobia because there is a climate of racism. I say, let us tackle them all.

Actually, you’ve made no such comments, but what the hey. The question is, how do we best tackle them, how do we actually pose these questions in such a way that they will get a genuine hearing and engender a real debate? We agree, I think , that such changes can only come from within the muslim community (in this specific instance) and so we need to actually engage them, and not imply that we are simply attacking them as backwards.

You are in this paragraph constructing a straw man. I did not say I wanted to reach Muslim women through the pages of a secular magazine, nor from these boards. I said I had been criticizing religion for years. If you can’t see the difference, let me point it out. You are doing several things here. First (once again) you are reading “Muslim people” where I have said “religion”. Second you are conflating ‘Islam’ as a belief system with ‘Muslim people’. Third, you have taken words I have used to address one point and pretended (whether consciously or not) that I was addressing quite a different point with them. (I was establishing the fact that my criticism of religion pre-dated the New Labour government and their agenda, rather than being a part of that agenda as you seem to insinuate). Fourth, my articles in secularist magazines were not intended to convince anyone not to wear the veil. In fact (and this is apparently worth spelling out for the dull of thinking), I don’t want to convince individuals to change their choice of dress. I haven’t said I do, I haven’t implied that I do, and I haven’t posted that on these boards.

Firstly – I will pull the discussion back to Islam rather than ‘religion’ as I think it is kinda handy to base any such discussion on concrete circumstances and situations, and not on abstract principles. Secondly, I must admit, I don’t really see the point of avowedly ‘secularist’ magazines, overwhelmingly preaching to the converted from my (admittedly limited) experience and mainly about making the author feel good rather than effecting any kind of change in the world.

You ask what we should be trying to achieve. Well, what I’d prefer to happen is that a debate takes place within the institutions of Islam in which people felt they could question a lot of assumptions.

Good stuff, another point of agreement. The question is, how do we best promote such a debate? You started on this thread by saying ‘I don’t care who started this debate’ – but I bet you most of the people we wish to take the debate up do care. And they will care whether those who also wish the topic to be discussed do so from a position of wanting muslims to be ‘more British’ and ‘less muslim’ or whether they want muslims to feel happy to take part in British society as they (muslims) see fit. To simply attack, and say ‘your view is wholly reactionary’ (as you appeared to from the ‘contexts’ you posted up in post 62) is hardly likely to engender such a free discussion, don’t you think?

 

[belboid]

And here is where we come once more to the issue of polarisation. So long as we assist in presenting the ‘debate’ as being split into two camps - ‘Islamophobes’ on one hand And ‘Muslims and those who stand by them’ on the other - no such internal debate will take place. There seems to me to be three main sources presenting that polarised picture: sections within the state, sections within the Muslim community, and sections within the liberal left. It is the last that causes me most concern, because I don’t understand the motivation.

If people on the left aid and abet that polarised picture being disseminated, then they stifle critical debate within the community they say they want to stand in solidarity with. And in so doing prolong strands of oppression that people within that community experience.

an utterly false polarisation, and not one that I believe have supported. You certainly havent presented nay evidence that I have done so. Moreover, you omit one group who have attempted just such a polarisation - ie the far right. they dont seem to appear on your radar at all, any particular reason? Dont you think they have any impact upon the discourse around race religion etc at the moment?

6. The Gore Vidal quote. I agree with him that the Abrahamic religions have been, on balance, a bad thing. (I do not subscribe to the view that monotheism is an improvement on polytheism). Religion has been the way in which people have been persuaded to accept all manner of oppression, including capitalism.

Is that a 'yes' or a 'no'? Wussy liberal that he is, Vidal wasn't singling out the monotheistic religions by accident, he does actually believe they are qualitatively worse than polytheistic ones. A totally ahistorical opinion imo, but there you go.

7. I make no apology for being a rationalist. But I do take issue with your allegation that I don’t listen. Not least because you have been incapable of listening to me without distorting what I have to say somewhere between your ear and your brain. I assume here that you think I haven’t listened to Muslim women who say it is their choice to wear the veil. I addressed that above, but reiterate here, I do not presume to tell individual women what to wear. Nowhere have I done so, though you may have assumed I agree with people who might have (to wit, see polarisation, above).

I note that you present no evidence to contradict my assertion, and further note that you make no comment at all on the central point about 'rationality'. Shame.

Finally, I shall just finish off by pointing out where we started to disagree here - you wrote that you didn't care who started the current debate, and that the fact that Straw is a reactionary tool should be ignored, and we should just talk about 'the issues'. Do you still hold by that? Do you not think that where the current discussion started from has an impact upon where it might end up, and how any such discussion is likely to pan out? If you do believe the origins have such an effect, how should we take them into account?

 

[danny la rouge]

I won’t quote you extensively, if you don’t mind; I think these posts are getting more than a bit unmanageable size-wise, and comprehension-wise.


You ask if I dispute the idea that there is a climate of racism against Muslims. I have said several times that there is, so I wonder why you feel the need to ask. But, no, I don’t dispute that. (I do, though, challenge the term ‘Islamophobia’. I first heard it in the 1990s, and thought it a deceitful term then, and still do now. It seeks to liken criticism of a religion with racism).

I have explicitly condemned racism in several posts, across several threads. But I do not think criticism of Islam is equivalent to, or indicative of, racism towards Muslims. I reiterate: racism towards Muslims = bad. Criticism of Islam = necessary.

You ask about criticism of religion, but miss my point - it is not the BBC or the theatre-going public who will not thole criticism of religion, but religious groups themselves. We have already agreed about Government and legislation. What I’m concerned about is religious groups being given too much ‘respect’ for unpleasant ideas. Allowing that to develop could lead us to the types of situations we see in the US with religious lobbies wielding far more power than they do here. And where public opinion has been adversely affected by the religious propaganda. [In 1999 as Gallup poll found that Americans when asked if they would vote for an otherwise well-qualified person who was a woman, 95% said yes. A Catholic? - 94%. A Jew? - 92% Black? - 92%. Mormon? - 79%. Homosexual? - 79% An atheist? - 49%].

(You refer to your post 63. [And incidentally, I am hardly ignoring your points in my last post if I asked where I could find them.] Do you want me to go through it paragraph by paragraph? Para 1 - answered several times, including above. Para 2 - misogyny exists in many cultures, and women often collude in it. This is typical of oppression, where arithmetically the oppressed have to collude in their own oppression. The comparison I made was to illustrate this fact, no other. Para 3 - see above. Para 4 - Sentence 1 addressed above. Nothing to add to your sentiments in rest of paragraph. Para 5 - already addressed in other posts).

You ask me where I got the idea that you thought I’d disagree with the statement I quoted . I got that idea when I read this “any socialist/humantitarian worth their salt, would start by saying (something along the lines of) 'it is entirely up to you what you choose to believe in and wear, and the state has no role in determining or restricting your choices'.” Why say it if you weren’t addressing it to anyone?

You ask about the religious trump card. I’m surprised you’ve never come across this. I gave an example in my first post on this thread. But what I mean is that religious people will think a view held religiously automatically deserves to be respected and accepted in a way that they do not think a non religiously held view does.

For example: - the Christian Fellowship schools in the UK who want exemption from corporal punishment legislation because the Bible says “spare the rod, spoil the child”. The fact that it is their religious belief that kids should be struck with rods is, they think, reason enough for them to be allowed to do so.

- The Ohio schoolboy who in 2004 won the right to wear a T-shirt proclaiming “Homosexuality is a sin. Islam is a lie. Abortion is murder” He trumped ‘hate laws’ by saying those were his religious beliefs. But even if he had lost, he thought that the fact they were exempt because they were religious beliefs, and a lot of supporters agreed. (Incidentally, it is amusing, is it not, that a boy belonging to another religion might have equally strongly believed that the slogan “Christianity is a lie” was the truth. They can’t all be right).

- Anyone who says “but it’s my religion” and expects that to be seen as more of a reason than an atheist expressing any ethical objection to something.

You say you weren’t suggesting that I shouldn’t criticise homophobia or misogyny in Islam. If so, what is this discussion about? You know very well that I ‘take into account’ racism against Muslims.

You say I haven’t opposed racism, homophobia, misogyny, or capitalism. I have, as anyone reading this or other threads can see for themselves. But if you want to believe that, suit yourself, I’m not going to worry unduly about that. On the other hand, though, I have not at any point implied that Muslims are ‘backwards’, as you seem to suggest.

I am quite capable of drawing a distinction between ‘Muslims’ and ‘Islam’, a distinction I have drawn to your attention before, but which you have not acknowledged. Do you acknowledge or even understand it?

On the subject of secularist magazines, they, like socialist newspapers, are read only by the interested. But both types of publication want to promote societal change.

What matters is not who starts the debate, but how it is continued. If all points are null and void because Jack Straw once said something about veils, then we should give up now. And what you think I said in post 62 is not what I actually said.

You reject my perception of the debate. That’s your right, I suspected you might. But let me put this to you: is it the case that you have repeatedly criticised my criticisms of Islam? I criticise misogyny and homophobia. You criticise me for this, implying I shouldn’t because there is racism towards Muslims. Is that your argument or not?

Are the far right on my radar? What a bizarre question. You have been round long enough to know that I have taken a keen interest in racism towards immigrants, asylum seekers, indigenous non white groups, and Muslims, and in the far right’s attempts to conflate all that. Both as danny, and as Pilchardman. Is it too much to expect that you might have noticed some of that over the years? But even if you had missed all my posts until now, do you really think I need to make an exposition of my entire world view in every single post I make? That would make even more tedious reading than these posts, which far exceed the ideal 3 - 5 lines a bulletin board post should have.

Vidal, though a liberal, is right that the monotheistic religions have been a disaster for the cultures they have blighted. Sometimes liberals are right. Do I agree with him on this? Yes. I thought that was clear.

You say I didn’t make a comment on your ‘central’ point that I’m a rationalist. I’ll make it again if you like - “Yes. I’m a rationalist. I regard that as a good thing”. If you think rationalism equals liberalism, then you are entitled to. I certainly won’t wasting any time ‘addressing’ that fatuous comment. You say it is a pity I haven’t provided evidence to disprove an assertion you make. To be honest, I don’t really see why I should. If you don’t agree with me, that’s fine, but don’t expect me to run errands for you.

Finally, you ask if I believe it matters how a debate starts. Well, many a good thread has been started on these boards with a reactionary initial post. So, no, I don’t think it matters who starts a debate, just what is made of the opportunities the debate provides.

This exchange is now far too intricate and tedious to continue in this point by point way. By all means reply to my points in that way if you want to, but this is the last one I will make this way. I intend to go back to a more succinct and flowing style of argument.

 

[bruise]

the ideal 3 - 5 lines a bulletin board post should have.

word





joking - i read the exchange with interest.

belboid - i should probably remember what party you're in, but don't. or if not a member - what tendancy you feel closest to

i'd be interested if you're in the SWP, as you are clearly deeply intelligent and thoughtful but you seem to share the same myopia as the nuSWP (RESPECT incarnation) do - you are misreading furiously, for one, but apart from that seem to be putting a considerable intellectual attention through one focus or lens through which to see the world.

I intend to go back to a more succinct and flowing style of argument.

'go back'?

 

[danny la rouge]

Bruise – far point on the wordiness.

Here’s a quick(ish) example that might help explain where I’m coming from.

A few years ago I got talking to a Catholic priest at a Faslane demo. As you do. Nice bloke. He was interested in my politics, and we got onto the subject of gay rights. He wasn’t quite as hard line as you might imagine, but he was still pretty reactionary. I was polite, but didn’t water down my views. It wasn’t a long conversation, but there was time for us each to explain our views.

Now, at a push I can imagine us forming an organisation in which we both co-operated to oppose nuclear weapons at Faslane. And perhaps other church people might join. But I wouldn’t work with them on any agenda that compromised gay rights. The religious people would need to be told: we can co-operate on this, but not on this or this. That isn’t disrespectful, just necessary.

Unfortunately I don’t think that sections of the left have co-operated with representatives of the Muslim faith on that basis. I think they have compromised too much, and I think that’s a mistake on several levels.

 

[belboid]

danny, I'm sorry but I find your above post rather bizarre, and somewhat all over the pace, not to mention simply untrue in various places.

I, too, dont really see th epoint of going through everything line by line,m so I'll try & pick out some of the key points/disagreements.

Islamophobia & racism - you say you dislike the term islamophobia - fair enough - and prefer 'racism against muslims' - except muslims arent a race so for vast numbers of people that is a meaningless phrase, indeed an inherently contradictory one. But one has to choose one or the other really, & Ithink Islamophobia is a pretty reasonable one myself, it doesnt say there is nothing to criticise within Islam (and its a pretty crude view of yours if you dont think thats the case) it says that some 'criticism' goes way byond that into sheer bigotry and hatred, and is akin to racism. However, I think we're only really arguing over terminology here, so stuff it.

In terms of the 'rise of religion' you have here shifted the ground from your original argument. Youy cant say 'look at this example' and then, when that example is dismissed simply go 'well that one didnt matter anyway'! Sorry, but that is clearly dishonest. Yes there are concenrs, but in your earlier posts you grossly overegged the pudding an exagerated the situation. I'm glad you now seem to recognise that, with your rather more constrained post above.

Post 63 - well, you had a go here I suppose. Shame you didnt do it at the time, but hey ho.

“any socialist/humantitarian worth their salt, would start by saying ..." - why dont you consider me to have inculded you within that catgory? I am bemused.

Religous trump card - I've come across the expression, but never been really sur how it is sused, as it doesnt seem to be particularly consistently. Yours being a case in point. So someone has a sticking point, dont we all? No big deal, imo, the fact that they are unable to argue why they must follow it is more of a problem for them than us. Only if you think your viewpoint must be followed does an inconsequential thing like someone elses irrational need to wear a particular attire become problematic. There was more in that first post I'll come back to later tho, as it does illustrate the essential point whree we disagree. you make refer to a case where schools etc are arguing to be able to play such a 'religious trump card', but cant give an example of where they have done so succesfully. Of course we want to stop them having any such right (eg over scum Kellys attempts to allow catholics to discriminate against gays) but there is no need to make up such things as having already happened, they havent.

"You say you weren’t suggesting that I shouldn’t criticise homophobia or misogyny in Islam. If so, what is this discussion about?" For fucks sake Danny, are you being deliberately obtuse? This is an example of my real problem with all such discussions as this - I say 'one should consider Group X are oppressed and are reacting to that opperession' person Y says 'oh you mean I cant criticise them for anything they do'. Well, thats just bollocks, and if thats your opinion of what I'm saying, well, thats your problem, nothing I write would change it.

"You say I haven’t opposed racism, homophobia, misogyny, or capitalism." - I say no such thing at all. Simply untrue.

"Are the far right on my radar? What a bizarre question." It might well be bizarre. I also am entirely unaware of having asked it.

"Both as danny, and as Pilchardman." aahhh! Thats who you are! I knew I recognised the name, but I think you dropped it almost as soon as I joined here, so I'd completely forgotten that you were he and vice versa. Well, that goes some way to explaining all these beliefs of yours that I should know you held, even when I'd only read a couple of dozen of your posts ever.

Vidal - once again, you are actually fudging whether or not you agree with his point that it is the monothesitic religions which are explicitly worse than the polytheistic ones. I'm not talking the fairly obvious point that those religins have beewn 'bad', but whether they are specifically worse than the polytheistic ones (I dont think this is an exactly central point by any means, but just clarifying the initial point of disagreement).

Secular mags - no doubt you're right, tho at least, imo, lefty mags make a little bit more of an attempt to break out of their own ranks, and arent so self-congratulatory.


Re 'rationalism' - sorry you cant defend your position, but give it a go lad My argument is not that 'rationalism' per se is definitively liberal, obviously attempting to think rationally at all times is a generally 'good thing'. No, the argument that it is enough is the liberal argument. Those that describe themselves in such terms overwhelmingly, ime, do believe that simople rational conversation will, eventually, win the day. It is just down to good logic and clear exposition. In that way, rationalism is clearly anti-materialist, thus idealist, and thus, ultimately, liberal.

And finally, the central point. The one you kept asking after. If you ont mind, I'll quote you twice:

"Finally, you ask if I believe it matters how a debate starts. Well, many a good thread has been started on these boards with a reactionary initial post. So, no, I don’t think it matters who starts a debate, just what is made of the opportunities the debate provides."

"Leaving aside the fact that as Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary Straw was an authoritarian xenophobe, there is a point to be debated.

I heard an irate Muslim spokeswoman saying Straw's request to remove their veil makes Muslim women feel undermined. Well, presumably not being able to see the face of the person he is talking to makes him feel undermined. So where does that leave us? I had the distinct feeling that the spokeswoman felt her view should take precedence since it was a religious view, whereas Straw's was not. That is exactly the kind of thing I fear we face when we try to discuss things with religious people.

So, on balance, I think I agree with Straw on this one."

These are my two central disagreements.

I think it is utterly utterly false to state that 'it doesnt matter where the argument started'. A debate started by a senior member of the cabinet in a climate of anti-muslim discrimination cant really be copmpared that well with a debate staarted by some right-wing troll on a message board overwhelmingly dominated by people who utterly oppose discrimination. Poor comparison. Especially as the powers of this board to actually change things are, sadly, negligible. you say it doesnt matter how a debate started, just where it goes - but you cant deny that how a debate starts plays a very significant role in how it develops, can you? And so it is always of great import to know how t started. After all, that is where we have to start from as well, or do we just ignore the argument till it gets to a point we approve of? Of course not.

I also dont think that your example of someone playing the 'religious trump card' in the first example is a very good one - especially as Straw never made any claim to feel 'undermined', and because as a supposed public servant its his tough fucking shit, its his job to represent his constituents whatever they look like. What he complained about was 'feeling uncomfortable' - and, as said before, gay couples, mixed race, coupls, disabled people - all of those make some sad cunt feel 'uncomfortable', but would we give an inch to any cunt saying they didnt want to deal with them because they made them feel 'uncomfortable'? Of course not.

 

[belboid]

belboid - i should probably remember what party you're in, but don't. or if not a member - what tendancy you feel closest to

i'd be interested if you're in the SWP, as you are clearly deeply intelligent and thoughtful but you seem to share the same myopia as the nuSWP (RESPECT incarnation) do - you are misreading furiously, for one, but apart from that seem to be putting a considerable intellectual attention through one focus or lens through which to see the world.

ferfeckssake! cant anyone just have an argument without the author having to describe their affiliations of the last twenty years before it is replied to!



I'm in the AWL.

 

[danny la rouge]

I'm off to do something else in a minute, so I haven't got time now but I'll try to get back later, OK?

 

[belboid]

no!! answer now or never young man!

oh, go on then.....

 

[danny la rouge]

Belboid, I was going to answer you post, but on reading it decided life was too short. My problem is that I don’t understand the way you think or express yourself. I used to be a lecturer, but if your posts were essays I’d have to get a colleague to help me mark them. You misread what I say, you misunderstand my intentions when I give examples or parallels, then accuse me of rewriting history if I try to explain that you misread me in the first place. If something parallels something else, I don’t not intend to suggest it is a perfect map, identical in every point, but that some principle you aren’t getting in the first also broadly applies to the second.

You quote me, then below the quote make statements, then say they don’t apply to me. I end up not knowing what on earth you are on about. You accuse me of not telling the truth, then don’t do the courtesy of saying where. But don’t bother now; I’m certain it is that you have once again misread me.

I don't mean any disrespect; I'm sure you're a lovely person. It's just that we clearly have difficulty communicating, and I don't think we'll ever make things clearer to each other.

Two things though: racism. There are no human races, only humans. The idea that there are races is racist, just as much as the idea that one race is better than another. Therefore the fac6t that Muslims are a race is entirely besides the point – of course they aren’t. The affliction is one of the racist, not the victim for not falling into the categories he wants to place on them. Witness the term of abuse “Paki”.

Secondly, when tackling the oppressions that exist, we start from the conditions we have. We can do nothing else. And in those circumstances we have to say it as we see it, not hold back because there are existing conditions. Socialists, anarchists, progressives, should oppose capitalism, homophobia, sexism, misogyny, racism, etc wherever we find it. And that is the bottom line.

All the best. Please accept my apologies for being a grump, but this has been like wading through treacle.

 

[belboid]

given the appaling typo's in my last post, I'm hardly surprised it was a tad difficult to wade through it. And fear ye not, had I done it as an essay (poly was it ) I'd most likely have re-read it and made sure all the points flowed nicely, but I cant be arsed dog that for a post on a message board.

I'm not clear about wheere you think I am 'misreading' you, or accusing you of rewriting history, tho I do think you have used some bad examples that havent illustrated your point very well, and indeed have mitigated against your point at some points.

Obvously there is little point in a simple tit for tat point by point 'rebuttal' - so I shall make just one point, re your 'not telling the truth' (as I think that is the most 'serious' accusation - to the extent that any such bulletin board point can be 'serious'). I did actually specifically say where I thought you did this in my last post -

"You say I haven’t opposed racism, homophobia, misogyny, or capitalism." - I say no such thing at all. Simply untrue.

On your two main points - swhilst I agree the whole notion of 'races' has been shown to be without any scientific or other basis, there are still clearly groups who are distinguished between on the basis of supposedly inherited racial characteristics. We cannot deny this, much as we may want to. Muslims do not inhereit such characteristics and it cant be argued that they do,as Islam is a belief system, not a racial category. Therefore to use the term 'racism against muslims' is highly problematic. And while I have some sympathy with your dislike of the term 'Islamophobia' I feel forced to think it is a better one. You simply rejected it as implying that criticising muslims wasn't okay, that doing so would be an example of 'Islamophobia'. yet such criticisms arent displying an 'irrational fear' of Islam, far from it. And that is what the term actually means - in rejecting the term 'Islamophobia' are you rejecting the possibility that Islam can be 'irrationally feared' (over and above any perfectly rational fears that there may be)? Surely not.

Secondly - 'we start from the conditions we have'. Absolutely, that ws my disagreement with your earlier statements re Straw, you didnt actually seem to do so. Indeed, your earlier comment 'it doesnt matter where it started, its where it ends' would seem to me to stand in contradiction to this.

Anyhows, no worries about you being a grump, I shine with the munificent benevolent light of Allah, and that's more than enough for the both of us.

 

[danny la rouge]

OK. People who are prejudiced towards Muslims are often ignorant of the varieties of ethnicities they are hateful towards. Indeed they often over generalise to include Sikhs and other “towel heads”. (I made a related point about over generalisation and blame in the Britishness and Passports thread). The hateful people will often be entirely ignorant of Islam, as well as of whether the people they hate actually form an ethnic group in any sense; that is one of the points about racism, the unfounded categorisation of people. This hatred is directed towards “otherness”, that is the point. Perhaps xenophobia might be a better term, perhaps “anti Muslim prejudice”. But for me “racism” sums up the ignorance and unfounded hatred according to imagined categorisation of humanity.

Islamophobia is inadequate in my view for a number of reasons – the phobia part implies an involuntary illness, but I don’t want to say racists are in some way not responsible for their racism; that sounds like an excuse, a mitigation. (My subject was psychology, and I just can’t see the “illness” of a racist responding to any of the known phobia therapies: “Flooding”, anyone?)

Secondly, the term implies an irrational fear or hatred of Islam, whereas I’d suggest the problem is more one of how Muslims are seen and treated. And I further suggest the beliefs of Islam aren’t really the issue, even if the hateful person actually knows or understands any. Thirdly, the term – whether you like it or not – is used to bat away rational criticism of Islam; I’ve had it fired at me, as have others who didn’t warrant it.

Regarding the conditions, I think we’ll find our difference lies in the way we respond to them, rather than whether or not they exist (as I think you may have thought I doubted). My approach has always been to favour frank, direct, honesty. As with the priest I mentioned above.

Another example I can give you is of a time I challenged a student for a comment I regarded as close to racist. A colleague who overheard, waited until the student had gone then said “You can’t say that to him; he’s disabled!” In my view the fact that he was a wheelchair user was beside the point. And the fact that I’d once challenged him did not stop me supporting the same guy when he rightly raised very real access issues at the college.

Peace be on you.

 

[bruise]

ferfeckssake! cant anyone just have an argument without the author having to describe their affiliations of the last twenty years before it is replied to!



I'm in the AWL.

i can see why the irritation about being lumped in with the Swappies, then! deepest apologies

plus now i remember (too late)

anyway - what's wrong with being clear about your political affiliations? are you ashamed of it or something? plus it gives a quick shorthand as to the rough paradigm you're thinking through

i don't get where the difference between you and Danny so i'll not go there.

 

[belboid]

you remember??!! how can you remember! I'm as in the AWL as I am in the fucking tory party! i was just trying to think of the most unlikely lefty sect

 

[danny la rouge]

You should join the AWL, though. They've got great logos.

 

[bruise]

you remember??!! how can you remember! I'm as in the AWL as I am in the fucking tory party! i was just trying to think of the most unlikely lefty sect

whatever. i'm obviously mistaken. forgive me for not remembering every user on urban.

so who was the AWL-er that used to post on here?

 

[belboid]

Just struck me as a series of posts no AWLer could possibly have posted.

There were a couple on here - tokyo & some complete prat who kept making up what anyone disagreeing with him said - Danny Boy?

 

[scawenb]

Perhaps they are still here as Entryists.

 

[bruise]

Just struck me as a series of posts no AWLer could possibly have posted.

true - and my original reaction was that you must be a SWPer

however there are AWL members who have their own brains - i know a couple

There were a couple on here - tokyo & some complete prat who kept making up what anyone disagreeing with him said - Danny Boy?

danny boy - that's the one i remember.

 

[scawenb]

however there are AWL members who have their own brains - i know a couple

I could believe there was one out there but to know 2 with brains that just not believable.

 

[belboid]

it's just the one brain, they pass it around between them.

(Martin Thomas is due a turn around 2017)