Did Thatcher "destroy Britain's coalmines"?

That's what her detractors keep saying. And it's a big reason for the outpouring of hate and "happiness" since her death... So, how do her predecessors shape up?

Here's a graph of coal output and employment from 1950 to 2011, as a percentage of the figures in 1950...

 

Maggie Thatcher - destroying Britain's coalmines??

The source data, from the UK government data giving coal statistics since 1850, can be found here...

A deeper discussion on the data can also be found here...

What does it tell us? Well, there was certainly a decline in Maggie Thatcher's time. However, under both Wilson and Macmillan, it is clear that there was a much steeper decline. Under Harold Wilson in the 60s, 80% more miners lost their jobs each year. Yet how often do we hear that Wilson destroyed Britain's coal industry?

More positively, at the end of the Thatcher era, around 3/4 of coal was produced (of the figure in 1979), by around 1/4 of the miners. Which equates to around 3 times more coal produced, and hence 3 times higher productivity, per miner. 3 times less miners to do the same job, and be supported by the UK taxpayer... In any private industry, this would be hailed as a fantastic success... so why is there no acknowledgement of this in the case of evaluating Thatcher's reign as prime minister??

The solution for Israel - surrendering settlements, or developing technology?

Barack Obama gave today, in Jerusalem, what some of his fans have classified as a "vintage Obama" speech. High on elegant words, erudite, some may say inspirational - like some of his past speeches. And like those previous speeches, whether the outcome results in anything more than these words remains to be seen. He implied that the only feasible future for Israel was for an independent Israel and independent "Palestine" alongside each other. It would require surrendering the West Bank settlements and a return to the 1967 borders - however Obama suggested that if Israel surrendered these vital strategic positions and settlements, the Palestinians may respect the Jewish state, and its right to exist... This is because Israel can now trust Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to be a "partner", and Obama's USA to be Israel's "greatest friend" that it can "count on". In short, he tried to persuade young Israelis that things that appear very improbable can actually happen.

Oil - the key for the USSR... and Israel?

Indeed - improbable things HAVE happened... The USSR fell only a couple of years after East German president Honecker described the Berlin Wall as being built to last "for the next thousand years". Why such a turn of events? In large part, the USSR's weakening power could be attributed to a drastic fall in the price of oil, on whose export it was dependent for its revenue. In the absence of income from oil, the Eastern Bloc nations resorted to increasing their debts.

Given that the Palestinians' and current US administration's respect for Israel is questionable to say the least, my opinion is that the solution proposed by Barack Obama is dangerous, possibly making the destruction of Israel that much easier for the Palestinians. Instead, only another drastic, and lasting, change in the price of oil will make it possible to guarantee Israel's long-term future. Oil being the reason why the West currently has to recognise the Arab world's many grievances and demands. It was a weapon used in 1973, when Arab countries launched an embargo on Western "allies of Israel" in the wake of the 1973 war. Possibly now, the oil Sheikhs are an unofficial source of funding for the "Palestinian cause" - including Qassams, as well as food and medicine. Dependence on oil is also why the EU in particular feels the need to be in the good books of Arab Gulf state rulers.

The Burj Khalifa - petrodollars helped to build it

Qassam rockets - petrodollars also helped to build them?

So how would a large decrease in the oil price change things? The UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other oil exporters, having made large investments, would be liable to face serious economic problems - quite possibly making Greece and Cyprus today look like oases of stability. It would mean less "benevolent funding" for Western universities, and takeovers of Western companies. It may even result in once-wealthy Gulf states requiring Western assistance in the form of bail-outs... As a result, if Western pressure were to be carefully applied following a lasting oil price decrease, could Arab states not be more inclined to recognise Israel's needs - and even possibly to accept some Palestinian immigrants?

A vastly bigger oil price = vastly more petrodollars!

 

Discovering America

There have already been occasions in the past when Islam held a stranglehold on the West. After the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, the Ottomans made Western trade with India increasingly more costly and difficult. Suffering under the trade restrictions, European Christians started to look for new solutions. Eventually, these included radical ideas to find entirely different trade routes to India, not encroaching on Muslim territory. The search for an alternative trade route was the reason for Christopher Columbus sailing West from Europe, as well as Vasco da Gama sailing South, four decades later. We all know what happened next...

Although the New World was discovered by accident, it was as a direct result of trade routes to India through newly-conquered Muslim lands becoming much less favourable. And a way to India via America was finally found after Ferdinand Magellan set sail around the world in 1519. Once again, we need to "discover America" - to find a way out of the stranglehold the Muslim world currently exerts on us.

Breaking the Muslims' stranglehold on Europe... in the style of Columbus and Vasco Da Gama

Increasing supply, decreasing demand

How can such a "Columbus moment" be achieved in the present day? The cause of the current stranglehold by the Islamic world - a high oil price - is due to a significantly higher demand than was previously the case - without as much of an increase in supply. Much of it due to new demand from China. Since oil is a globally-traded commodity, a decrease in demand from one country will exert an impact on the oil price in another country - even if no direct oil trade takes place between them. For example - if US oil consumption decreases, the price of oil sold by Indonesia will drop - even if the US buys no oil from Indonesia. This is because there is more surplus oil left in the original suppliers of the US, who can now also offer it to Indonesia's customers. The key, then, to reduce the oil price must be to reduce oil consumption - or increase oil supply - throughout the world...

The western world - bankrolling its own enemies...

Such an imbalance between supply and demand can be rectified using various means, including:

• New technologies.
• Drilling new oilfields.
• Alternative means of travel.
• Greater efficiency of vehicles.
• Reducing travel.

Petrol from air

To drastically alter the oil supply and demand seems unlikely. Indeed, current trends suggest the opposite... However there are some glimmers of hope. These include:

• Vast new shale oil reserves in the USA and Canada.
• Efficient, non-car-dependent urban transportation systems (such as in the Brazilian city of Curitiba). 
• A new method of creating fuel - "Petrol from air" - using water, Carbon Dioxide and electricity. A method developed by the "Air Fuel Synthesis" company in the UK.

A process for obtaining petrol from air and water - with no oil

Finding new oil reserves however seems only a temporary solution, and one which has been tried already - in the North Sea, whose oilfields Britain and Norway have to a large extent already depleted. Meanwhile, kerosene-powered aircraft appear to be the only answer for long-distance air travel (and gasoline-powered cars for much short-distance travel), and while efficiency is increasing, there are no quantum leaps to be made. 20% less fuel burn per passenger-kilometre is a feasible target for aircraft, with similar reductions expected for cars. With more Chinese and Indians travelling, and Western college graduates travelling around the world in ever greater numbers, reducing travel is not only impossible, but a vast increase in demand for travel appears inevitable. Therefore, new technology appears to be the most probable cause of any future radical downward shift in oil demand.

A new method of creating gasoline, or a gasoline equivalent, independently from oil - but instead with electricity from another source (at present - coal, gas, hydro, wind or nuclear fission. In the future - nuclear fusion?) - could result in a vast decrease in the demand for, and hence the price of, oil, and indirectly go a long way to securing Israel and the Western World's future... perhaps Israel's world-renowned scientists and technologists, residing in a country described by Obama as a "center for innovation", should focus on working on such solutions?

Britain gets tough on illegal immigrants - no, wait...

After years of millions of illegal immigrants arriving, by boat, trucks and aircraft, often carrying no documentation and launching fake asylum claims, Britain finally starts to get tough on them. Well, at least one of them...

Yes - Tommy Robinson, the leader of the English Defence League, was found guilty of travelling to the USA, while identifying himself using a friend's passport. This in order to stay for one day, to attend a rally in memory of the September 11 attacks, before heading back to Britain. Quite possibly the shortest voluntary stay for an illegal immigrant in the history of the USA.

Usually, the punishment for illegal immigrants, if any, is deportation - although Britain is known for rewarding them with large benefits - and when they're found guilty of holding false passports, the courts even allow them to retain their fraudulently-acquired flats. Not so for Tommy Robinson, however - for his troubles, he ended up getting a 10-month prison sentence. This, in Britain, is longer than the sentence for more than half of all burglars.

At the same time, the London rapper Dappy is in the process of being charged with three counts of assault, as well as affray, for an incident in which 2 girls were spat at, followed by 3 men sustaining serious facial injuries (one of whom had 9 teeth missing). Dappy is alleged to have committed both the spitting and the assaults...

It will be interesting to see what the British justice system regards as the more serious: causing serious facial injuries and lifelong damage, or entering another country illegally, for a period of one day, before returning.

But then, Dappy is no ordinary thug. In his own words, he said that the Guardian was his favourite newspaper. And in 2011, the Guardian was all-too-eager to repay him with a long interview, giving him some much-needed free publicity... Will we see them give similar red-carpet treatment to someone else falling foul of the law - Tommy Robinson? I won't hold my breath...

My first time - commenting on an Obama ad

Lena Dunham talks here about her first time - and that it should be "with a great guy"...

Well, her "guy" (the one she's going to vote for, anyway) and his team sure look like they're "great" - at controlling what people write about him (and his opponent):

Is this Obama's "great" respect for free speech and the first amendment in action?

Update: A parody is already out... and contains more than 7 times the amount of comments as the original video!

Mohammed - the movie, and the aftermath

Yesterday - on the 11th anniversary of the September 11th attacks, followers of the Religion of Peace went into its predictable mode of outrage following an obscure, low-budget film about the Islamic prophet Mohammed. It resulted in the death of Christopher Stevens, the US ambassador to Libya, and 3 other staffers.

To which the first response of the US embassy in Cairo was:

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

Note - after murderous attacks by fanatical followers of Islam, the US government already lays the blame at the door of US citizens producing the aforementioned film. More - it declares that they have "abused" their first-amendment rights. Did it release such statements after "piss Christ" or similar offending of Christian beliefs?

But what was the film actually about? Turns out the 13-minute trailer for it is still on Youtube.

My initial impressions of it were as follows:

• Low-budget? Yes
• Blatantly fake shots of deserts and palm trees? Yes
• Suitable for worst film of the week on TV? Yes
• Making fun of Mohammed? Yes
• Tackling the most-"controversial" bits of his life? Definitely
• Showing him in any humiliating/gross scenes? Maybe 2 seconds - where he is shown near a woman's crotch.

Apart from these aspects, the film does actually try to tackle serious aspects of Mohammed's life - such as his 6-year-old bride Aisha, or another of his wives, Safiyya bint Huyayy, whose husband was killed by Mohammed's men - apparently in cold blood... Even if the film was not a great one - it was one that actually tried to tackle these subjects. Something that may well be a first in the history of cinema.

It didn't take long for the Guardian to get in on the action of bashing those who had "abused their right of free speech". So out came Andrew Brown, who even compared this low-budget production to films of terrorists chopping off peoples' heads:

"If jihadi videos are banned in this country, and their distributors prosecuted, the same should be true of this film and for the same reasons."

Apparently for some, it's too difficult to distinguish between glorifying homicidal maniacs and ridiculing them....

I wrote the following response to one of Andrew Brown's comments:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No: the offence is not blasphemy but incitement to religious hatred. They can be distinguished quite easily.

Here's some more text that could be construed as "incitement to religious hatred"...

O ye who believe! surely, the idolaters are unclean. So they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year of theirs. And if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you out of His bounty, if He pleases. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, Wise.

Fight those from among the People of the Book who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor hold as unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have declared to be unlawful, nor follow the true religion, until they pay the tax with their own hand and acknowledge their subjection.

And the Jews say, Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say, the Messiah is the son of Allah; that is what they say with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before them. Allah’s curse be on them! How are they turned away!

(Quran 9:28-30)

Not only incitement to hatred - but 9:29 may be understood as a clear incitement to violence too. Which I believe is illegal, under UK law...

Just out of curiosity, would you also be in favour of making these texts illegal?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This comment was written under an old Guardian username, Falcon3, under which all my comments are pre-moderated. It was never published. I had also written the following as a response to another comment:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do you choose to accept the version of the story that says Aisha bte Abu Bakr was 6 and not other accounts that say she was between 19?

Here is the Hadith of al-Bukhari,  Book 7, Volume 62, Hadith 88:

The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

About the Hadiths of al-Bukhari:

Sunni Muslims view this as one of the three most trusted collections of hadith along with Sahih Muslim and al-Muwatta [1]. In some circles, it is considered the most authentic book after the Qur'an.

So, what's your basis for saying Aisha was 19? Anything more "authentic"??

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This comment was also not published. Apparently on the Guardian, it's now unacceptable to cite Quranic verses, as well as Hadiths. Is this the censorship they seek for those who "abuse their right of free speech"? And what further action will they seek against such "thought criminals" in the future?

The likes of Terry Jones and Sam Bacile may at times seem unnecessarily offensive. But the likes of Andrew Brown and the Guardian moderators are, on the face of it, an infinitely bigger threat to the foundation of our societies.

New Britain's Undesirables

A long time ago, back in 1997, a new Labour government came to power, bearing a slogan: "New Labour -  New Britain". Its leader, Tony Blair, promised a new "Cool Britannia". Later, Blair vowed to "defeat" the "forces of conservatism". The 15 years since his election have taken the country on a long journey through rampant, deliberate and unprecedented levels of immigration, empowerment of Islamist groups, reducing the BBC to a propaganda station and a gradual battle with the country's own people and culture. And now, in the last few weeks, 5 stories emerge to illustrate the desirables, and undesirables, of this New Britain.

 First, the undesirables - who are unwelcome in the New Britain:

1) John Tulloch: A July 7 2005 bombing victim, born to British parents, lecturing at a London university college - and facing deportation from Britain. His "crime" - being born in India, while it was still a colony. By a decades-old legal quirk, it meant he was ineligible for UK citizenship. So he was forced to hand back the passport he had "wrongly" received, and now faces possible deportation. Below is John Tulloch just after the 2005 terror attacks: (image from the Daily Mail website):

As a comment below the article shows, he's not the only one to face such an experience:

"I'm in a similar boat. We can't settle in the UK, where I was born 70 years ago, because my wife's a Kiwi and would be deported on my death. When she applied for UK citizenship, when we lived there, she was asked, by a Sikh official, if our marriage (at that time of 30 years; now 40, was one of "convenience." I kid you not."  - protem, Burgundy, France, 3/9/2012 10:23


This implies that the visit to the Sikh official, culminating in his "perceptive" question, happened around 2002 - long after the "New Britain" revolution had started...

Some possible reasons, and ways Mr Tulloch could avoid being deported, are also mentioned in other comments:

"The problem is Mr Tulloch you were prepared to work in the UK, if you were a scrounger you would have a lovelly big and free house in London and never have to work again. Shame on this government." - jo-jo was a man, bahrain, 3/9/2012 5:02

"Yet if he had set off the same bomb that injured him he would be welcomed with open arms by the idiots in charge." - alzie, Cumbria ., 3/9/2012 10:28

"WHY IS HE FACING DEPORTATION? " Easy , I know why . It is because he is actually legitimately British , and as reported , born of British parents serving the country in a British colony , he has devoted his life to the education of others in this country , he also has paid his taxes and has no criminal record , thus he does not qualify to live in the cesspit of the world otherwise known as the UK. Oh, I forgot . . . . and suffered horrendous injuries and shock whilst going about his lawful business perpetrated by terrorists truly foreign to this country . Yup , obviously he must be the first out of the door so we can harbour and give succour unto illegal benefit scroungers , terrorists and honour bliar's human rights rubbish . We are trying to leave the cesspit so if he wants to come with us he is more than welcome . - Lara, London UK, 3/9/2012 5:21

Sadly, far-feched as these comments may sound, they allude to frequent events: wannabe terrorists, criminals and benefit receivers entering as illegal immigrants being given leave to stay - and often receiving British passports in the process. They are almost always never asked to hand them back, like John Tulloch.


2) Next, 4 UK Christians, fighting for the right to express their faith. 2 of them dismissed from their jobs for wearing small crucifixes. The government's lawyers had this to say:

"Christians should leave their religious beliefs at home or accept that a personal expression of faith at work, such as wearing a cross, means they might have to resign and get another job, government lawyers have said."

The official reason for such a statement:

"James Eadie QC, acting for the government, told the European court that the refusal to allow an NHS nurse and a British Airways worker to visibly wear a crucifix at work “did not prevent either of them practicing religion in private”, which would be protected by human rights law."

Is that really so? Will we now then see the government ban the Muslim Burqa and Hijab from its offices - on account of such a ban "not preventing Muslim women from practicing religion in private"?

To see how such a proposition would sound in reality, let's make a very slight change to the original sentence:

"Hindus should leave their religious beliefs at home or accept that a personal expression of faith at work, such as a 'Bindi' on the forehead, means they might have to resign and get another job, government lawyers have said." 

Or

"Muslims should leave their religious beliefs at home or accept that a personal expression of faith at work, such as wearing a Hijab, means they might have to resign and get another job, government lawyers have said." 

What would the reaction be to such a sentence being uttered by a government representative? Accusations of hate? Bigotry? But apparently, it's perfectly ok to say something similar about Christians...

The lawyer also mentioned the following:

"Government lawyers also told the Strasbourg court that wearing a cross is not a “generally recognised” act of Christian worship and is not required by scripture."

For many Christians, wearing a Crucifix is an important part of their faith - and something they have done for most of their lives. Whereas in Islam, many women do not wear the Hijab or Burqa. So who's to say that the Crucifix "is not a generally recognised act of Christian worship" - but that the Hijab is an act of Muslim worship?! Naturally, the ever-unbiased British justice system is assumed to be the best judge of that!


3) Last but not least, those protesting against the radical Islam which has become so prominent in the New Britain. They came last weekend to Walthamstow in London, to protest against the attempted enforcement of Sharia law in the area. The reception by radical Muslim and "anti-racist" groups such as United Against Fascism was predictable. What was new, however, was the type of treatment meted out by the police, meant to be protecting their right to democratic assembly and protest. Among the incidents (from Gates of Vienna):

• A man bleeding from deep gashes to the head (believed to have been inflicted by Muslim protestors) in clear view of dozens of officers, offered no medical aid, not even basic first-aid.
• A heavily pregnant woman kettled in and detained with the others and released only after dark. (There were reports that she had been vomiting, having being denied access to water and toilet facilities for many hours .)
• People forced to remain on their feet for eight hours or more.
• Water and toilet facilities agreed by the police only after angry and vociferous protests from the crowd.
• People complaining to police officers of chronic pain due to not being able to relieve themselves.
• Others, unable to contain themselves any longer, forced to endure the humiliation of urinating or defecating in full sight of the crowd, in a busy public place.
• Searching of individuals taking many hours longer than necessary, with only a handful of officers deployed for the task, whilst dozens of others sat on the kerb drinking water or stood idly chatting.
• Individuals who, having been searched and found clean, were arrested, handcuffed and put into police vans.
• Reports of women left by the police in unfamiliar locations in dead of night.

A compilation of video footage, put together by Vlad Tepes, can be seen here.
All this leading Paul Weston, leader of the British Freedom party and ex-candidate for MP of Westminster to conclude:

"Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Speech died in Walthamstow on September 1st 2012".

So is freedom of speech another of those "undesirable" traits of New Britain?


Taking the places of the undesirables in the New Britain are the desirables. Those wanted, supported and, by many on the side of the new regime, even celebrated:

1) Those in Walthamstow protesting against the anti-radical-Islam protesters:

While the English Defence League are the undesirable "racists", these are the "anti-racist heroes" protesting against them. No doubt the "Islam" that they want to "dominate" would be every bit as respectful of (what's left of) British culture as the powers-that-be in Britain are respectful of Islam, today... or would it?


2) Earlier this summer, the East London rapper Dizzee Rascal performed at the Olympics opening ceremony:

At 0:20 of the video, he sings, in front of the Queen, dignitaries from around the World, and a worldwide audience of around a billion people, the memorable line:

"And all I care about is sex and violence..."

With the London riots, carried out by "youth" in large part listening to artists such as Dizzee Rascal, only a year old, this seems to have been a fitting line to summarise the defining values of the New Britain.


So, with these flag-bearers of the New Britain in mind, perhaps there is a way to ensure that the 7/7 victim John Tulloch stays in the country? Perhaps if he was a rapper glorifying violence, or an Islamic supremacist Jihadi wannabe, he would not be now facing deportation?

Banned at Harry's Place - reply to sarka

First my comments were put up for pre-moderation. Now it looks like, despite my best attempts to stick within their rules, I've been banned from Harry's Place altogether. 2 of my comments on their "Christians" thread did not even make it past pre-moderation. Only the last one I had saved on my computer - a reply to sarka - so I will repost it here. The topic concerns a young Pakistani-Christian girl accused of burning a Quran, and comparisons between this case and Pussy Riot's trial in Moscow for breaking into a cathedral to play a concert.

Sarka's original reply to me was here:

Green Infidel:
If a group of Muslim (or of Muslim background) women went into a mosque, and cavorted a bit chanting a ditty that went “Oh Allah, oh for the sake of Ayesha, drive out (insert name of political leader in Muslim-maj state), and may crap fall on the head of (insert name of leading imam), oh we are feminists for Allah! etc etc…” Then THAT would be a sort of equivalent. An EDL group rushing into a mosque in shoes and chanting. “Allah Allah, who the fuck is Allah?”, would NOT be an equivalent.

As far as I know, all the convicted Pussy Rioters are at least vaguely Russian Orthodox Christian by background (none are of other faiths by background, anyway – I am sure if one had been Muslim, or Jewish by background we would have heard about that!), and they made reference to RO cultural traditions – as being their own, Russian traditions – in their statements.

To which I replied (banned by HP):

@sarka - what does "their own traditions" mean?! Did the families of Pussy Riot go to church - or were they perhaps a small part of the vast Soviet state apparatus that was, among their other activities, persecuting the Church? That makes a slight difference - for the latter, making fun of religious symbols is something that's likely been practiced for most of their lives... so how exactly would doing so in adulthood be "radical" in any way?! And would you say the descendants of Soviet security forces sending priests to Gulags also share Russian "Orthodox tradition" - and if they acted disrespectfully to Orthodox beliefs, that it would be comparable to people who were once Orthodox doing the same?!

If PR were once Orthodox then the above of course does not apply. But I'm still not sure how it would be any more acceptable - personally as a Catholic, if anything, I would find it more offensive if those from a Catholic background acted disrepectfully towards their former religion than the likes of Ian Paisley. After all, they should know better!

"Acting disrespectfully" is the operative phrase here - PR did not merely criticise Orthodox belief. They went way above that, invading the sacred area of a church to do something seriously offensive to Orthodox believers.

(by comparison, in the case in Pakistan, it is only alleged that a young girl who may have Down's Syndrome did something in any way comparable)

Apparently this was too much for HP's rules - but Sarka, if you're out there -  this is my reply. Any on-topic replies posted here will not be removed!

Imagine... a multi-kulti olympics!

On Sunday, the 2012 London Olympics drew to a close. 2 weeks earlier, the opening Ceremony was a feast of multiculturalism on steroids. And now, in the Closing Ceremony, the song was played that encapsulated the spirit of the Games - and perhaps the ideals of much of Britain's population. That song, of course, being John Lennon's "Imagine"...




Below are the full lyrics:

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace

You, you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world

You, you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will live as one

The ideas expressed in these lyrics are a large source of what has driven Britain to adopt the multi-cultural, "progressive" form it has today.

John Lennon was among other stars such as Crowded House, the Spice Girls, One Direction, Eric Idle from Monty Python and  many others... however, perhaps Professor Green and his hit "Jungle" could have also been included to showcase the wonders of Britain's type of multiculturalism in practice? He raps, after all, about Hackney - an area very close to the Olympic Stadium. Below is the video:

Criticism of Mehdi Hasan - censored at the Guardian

The recent bout of Guardian censorship continues on an article by Mehdi Hasan, as what must be one of the most complete rebuttal comments ever published at the Guardian is deleted - after receiving more than 1600 recommends...

For those not familiar with Hasan - he is a smooth-talking British journalist who up until recently was the editor of the New Statesman. (one of the two leading British news magazines). And someone who was also exposed as being not-so-smooth in his other incarnation - as a Muslim talking to his fellow "brothers":

http://hurryupharry.org/2009/07/24/medhi-hasan-exposed-part-i-–-atheists-and-disbelievers-are-“cattle”-and-“of-no-intelligence”

The main premise of his point - there in the name of the link :)

Mehdi Hasan denied being an "Islamist", and instead wrote to complain about how he was stereotyped because of words "taken out of context".

The third comment of the thread was by quizborg, citing Hasan's earlier offending words (something Hasan failed to do), and posing to him some difficult, but polite, questions... However, after many other comments asking Hasan to answer quizblorg's points, the Guardian moderators had their own answer - to delete quizblorg's comment...

Fortunately, Harry's Place managed to get a copy of the comment, so it is not wasted but can instead serve to remind us of the two-faced nature of Mehdi Hasan, as well as the increasingly desperate measures the Guardian are resorting to.

Pasted below in full is quizborg's deleted rebuttal to Hasan:



Mehdi

    I absolutely agree with you that there is a disturbing phenomenon of nasty and bigoted comments being posted in the comments box of any piece about Muslims or by a Muslim writer

    There is world of difference between that – which should be condemned – and the proper criticism of writers who are Muslim, who themselves express sometimes horrific political views, or use offensive rhetoric. Such revolting rhetoric should be opposed, always.

    You don’t quote from the ’selectively edited speeches’ that you gave. You should.

    This was what you said:

    ““The kaffar, the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and stubborn to the teachings of Islam, the rational message of the Quran; they are described in the Quran as, quote, “a people of no intelligence”, Allah describes them as; not of no morality, not as people of no belief – people of “no intelligence” – because they’re incapable of the intellectual effort it requires to shake off those blind prejudices, to shake off those easy assumptions about this world, about the existence of God. In this respect, the Quran describes the atheists as “cattle”, as cattle of those who grow the crops and do not stop and wonder about this world.””

    Not only did you use the offensive term ‘kaffar’. You said that people who were not Muslim were ‘people of no intelligence’. Imagine somebody saying that about Muslims -you would object, and rightly so.

    You went on to say:

    ““In Islam, to believe is to know. To disbelieve is not to know. That is what it fundamentally comes down to; it [to disbelieve] is to remain ignorant; to cover up knowledge. After all, what is ‘kaffar’? Kaffar comes from the root word which means to cover up, to conceal. The kaffar is the one who covers up that knowledge which is clear. The French orientalist scholar Lamens [?], he once wrote that the “Quran is not far from considering unbelief, disbelief as an infirmity, as an illness, as a disease of the human mind”. Subhanallah. Non-Muslims point this out to us.””

    What is the ‘context’ within which that is acceptable?

    You also said that Muslims needed to improve their standard of education, and were praised for saying this by your defenders. But you made this point in the context of … Muslims needing to “outthink” Jews!

    ” Our Jewish brethren who we spend so much time fighting and arguing with: 12 million Jews in the world and 150 nobel prizes to their name. All Israel’s top 6 universities feature in the top 200 universities on earth – none of the Muslim world’s top universities feature in top 100 or 200 universities in the world and then we wonder why we are losing battles – we are not being out-fought we are being out-thought. We are not underarmed. We are undereducated.””

    This was a comment about conflict – battles, arms – with those you think are in conflict with Islam.

    The most worrying part of your speech was when you praised the Supreme Leader of Iran – a Shia religious authority – for his supposed opposition to nuclear weapons. Is it not worrying that a political editor of a national newspaper should take the statements of a religious leader as ‘gospel’, so to speak. It implies that you believe that Iran is not really building nuclear weapons – and that, I think, is actually your view. You’re free to hold that view, but to do so on religious grounds is worrying:

    ““Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa saying the stockpiling, the production, the use of nuclear weapons us forbidden under Islam. Spot on. Islamic Republic of Iran. The fatwa of the Supreme Leader.””

    The other matter of concern is that you have shown a readiness to attack others who draw attention to Islamist hate preachers. Remember this piece?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/01/islam-channel-quilliam

    In it, you attacked the anti-extremists of Quilliam for their report on hate preaching and extremism on the Islam Channel. You denied it existed. However – tellingly – you then went on to attack the Islam Channel itself – because it had broadcast a preacher who had said nasty things about Shia Islam, your own sect. The Islam Channel was later censured by OFCOM for precisely the offences that you denied it was guilty of.

    There are other points to make briefly. Lady Warsi is a politician. She has a close relationship with somebody who was active in Hizb ut Tahrir. Frankly, if there were a Tory with a close relationship with a BNP activist, you’d attack them, and rightly so. They’d probably resign. Similarly, Lord Ahmed, whose record speaks for itself. Yet, he has been let back into the Labour Party, recently.

    Frankly, if these problems are not addressed by us, then the field is left clear for the BNP and the EDL, and the nastiest people in the comments box.

Morsi at the Guardian - a sign of things to come?

The new Egyptian president, Mohammed Morsi, of the Muslim Brotherhood, last week became the latest commentator at the Guardian. With this, came another example of censorship at the Guardian website. (for an earlier case, see here) But was it the Guardian moderators, or Morsi himself (or one of his staff) responsible this time?

Morsi's post consisted of the address to the Egyptian people at Tahrir Square, after his election. It was flowing in superlatives. Below, just a few snippets:

"Social justice, freedom and human dignity are our basic slogans..."

"We Egyptians, Muslims and Christians, are harbingers of development and civilisation and we will remain so."

"we will work to have a system of Egyptian values, especially in the area of freedom and human rights, and women's and children's rights, and to remove all forms of discrimination."

"Therefore, say with me together my beloved people, by our will and our unity and our love for each other, we will be able to make a great future."

Soon enough, in the comments section, PeterNW1 linked to a post by the (US-based) Egyptian Coptic blogger Raymond Ibrahim, who'd found a snippet by President Morsi from six months back:

According to the popular Egyptian website, El Bashayer, Muhammad Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood presidential candidate, just declared that he will "achieve the Islamic conquest (fath) of Egypt for the second time, and make all Christians convert to Islam, or else pay the jizya," the traditional Islamic tax, or financial tribute, required of non-Muslim "dhimmis."

In a brief report written by Samuel al-Ashay and published by El Bashayer on May 27, Morsi allegedly made these comments while speaking with a journalist at the headquarters of the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party, adding "We will not allow Ahmed Shafiq or anyone else to impede our second Islamic conquest of Egypt."

 The original article on elbashayer.com can be seen here. The Google translation contains this fragment:

 Mohamed Morsi Alastbn candidate for the Brotherhood, Egypt Amusliman it would open for the second time and enter all the Christians in Islam or to pay tribute.

and

Mursi said the second is the conqueror Mohammed Morsi and me Cisgelh history.

The journalist said: What do you think voting in the cluster given by the Copts for the team Shafiq.

Mercy replied, saying: They have to know that the opening is coming and Egypt will be Muslim and they have to pay tribute or migrate as one who left.

Although, as all Google translations, it's not 100% perfect, the context seems clear enough. According to Morsi, Christians in Egypt will have 3 choices: convert to Islam, pay a tribute or leave Egypt.

Another user,  "Hereslookingatyou", responded to PeterNW1's post, accusing Raymond Ibrahim of being an "Islamophobe", and saying that the accusation at Morsi was a "lie". As a response, I wrote the following comment, under my long-time Guardian username:

Falcon3

25 June 2012 11:01PM

Response to Hereslookingatyou, 25 June 2012 8:17PM

This paying of the jizya issue has already been discredited.

Where exactly?! Can you provide details or is this another ad hominem fallacy? e.g. "Raymond Ibrahim is a horrible Islamophobe and therefore everything he says must be wrong".

Raymond Ibrahim is a well known Islamaphobic writer whose article are often published on vehemently anti Muslim websites such as the David Horrowitz center website. It's a lie and you've been bandying this about quite a bit.

Err, the original source (of Ibrahim's article) is elbashayer.com, not Raymond Ibrahim - and the Google translation does indeed suggest that Mohammed Morsi, the new president of Egypt, said that Christians in Egypt should "pay a tribute".
And there's nothing to suggest that elbashayer.com in Arabic is an "Islamophobic" website.
So, looks like Mohammed Morsi, who a year ago in a BBC interview said that the Muslim Brotherhood "wouldn't put up a candidate for president", is making false promises again - either to the English or Arabic-speaking public. Deal with it.

The following day, the comment had 50 recommends - then disappeared...

Below is a screenshot of the comment:

The next picture shows the comment, with the previous comment visible:

The final screenshot shows the comments page after the deletion:

Did the post - consisting of a citation of another website, and recollection of Morsi's past statements - contain "hate speech", or anything else which would break the Guardian's community standards?

PeterNW1's comment (about Morsi suggesting Christians should pay the Jizya) is still visible on other threads. Which begs the question - was my comment deleted by a Guardian moderator (surely extreme, even for them?) or did Morsi himself, or one of his staff, take it upon themselves to re-edit the comments in such a way that "inconvenient" comments ceased to exist?

And if so, what might that imply for the future of Egypt?