No go areas for non-Muslims

TonyHannon Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:24:04 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

The Bishop of Rochester and the Daily Mail have made me wonder if there’s any mileage in a new wing of the Labour Party called “Labour against stupid people” – frankly, I think our time has come.



This is a country in which the right-wing screeches about Christmas not being called Christmas anymore because we can’t offend Muslims. Nativity plays are cancelled so as not to offend the Muslims. We’re told of a country where we have to tip-toe around a menace sensitivity on issues that shouldn’t matter to any sane person. Yet, broad and proud, The Daily Mail claims (yesterday and today) there are no-go areas in Britain now for non-Muslims.

I’m sorry – but isn’t that pretty offensive?

What’s worse is when we examine where this claim comes from. Is it an expert sociologist? No. Was it the considered verdict from an exhaustive Government study or survey? No. Was it from the Police or National Association of Local Councils? No. Was it a director of an urban NGO in Bradford of East London which generated this national newspaper front page? Of course not.

It was the Bishop of Rochester. He, whose father was a convert from Islam to Roman Catholicism and himself a convert to Anglicanism, claims the “multi-faith mish-mash” undermines Christianity. [And there, I think, we find his motivation.] He, who came to this country from Pakistan, is now kicking away the ladder of tolerance he enjoyed and gleefully adding to the difficulties besieged Muslims already face.

Now I’m no apologist as I think all organised religions are in ill a position to point an accusing finger at another - but have we not learned how to talk about a religion or ethnic group at this stage? Have we not learned that if you’re going to traduce a group of people you damned well better have some numbers, facts and legitimacy? Even if we take into account how difficult it must’ve been in the past to be Irish in the UK or how difficult it was to be a black Briton in the past (indeed it's claimed to be difficult still), has any group suffered the continued and sustained campaign the Muslims have suffered from the press in the past few years?

Muslims have had to listen to their faith been closely associated with extremism, terrorism and hate. They probably cannot go a day in Britain without some journalist reminding them what a nuisance they and their kind are to the country. It must feel awful to hear their faith, which is precious to them, being insulted by half informed, idiot prognosticators.

It must be deeply embarrassing and angering to them that so many "Islamic spokespeople" are from the lunatic fringe rather than mainstream. It must be disappointing to read story after story on the worrying growth of Islam and yet find no word about their contribution to society or the economy. No word about the great number of Muslims adapting to British life in sport, top professions or cultural pursuits. No word about the silent, massive majority of Muslims who work and pay taxes save the occasional platitude about them “not all being terrorists”.

Why it’s so stupid to disaffect a people, besides it being immoral (especially when your newspaper is a sales vehicle for commemorative Royal mugs and coins), is that the more alienated these or any people feel, the more fractured the society we live in becomes.

In an age when c-list celebrities can win libel cases because a newspaper speculated on their cosmetic surgery – why can’t a few Muslim groups get together and pay for a few lawyers to read and challenge articles and news stories which traduce their faith?


tags: , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
No go areas for non-Muslims | 31 comments (31 topical)

Re: No go areas for non-Muslims (#1)

by swatantra on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:40:30 PM GMT

I don't see many apologists from the Muslim community  stepping forward and demonstrating what their Faith actually is. It seems that they have allowed the extremist Fundamentalists in their midst to hi-jack Islam. Christianity went through a period of great upheavals which led to protestantism and reformation. I would like to see the same for Islam. Is it for example a fact that 90% of Muslims are creationists? Or do they accept modern day scientific evidence. Are they also willing to accept equality in terms of gender and sexuality. Until the Islam can demonstrate a willingness to evolve then we are going to have problems.


Re: No go areas for non-Muslims (#3)

by TonyHannon on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:00:58 PM GMT

"I don't see many apologists from the Muslim community  stepping forward and demonstrating what their Faith actually is. It seems that they have allowed the extremist Fundamentalists in their midst to hi-jack Islam."
 
Then you must be blind. Mainstream Muslim leaders are blue in the face telling the Country about their faith and that it's a religon of peace etc - but who gets the front page coverage? The extremists. Abu Hamza et al. Who gets the Dispatches documentary, Jon Ronson book chapters and columns? Omar Bakri et al.

You'd like to see a "great upheaval" for Islam but, judging from your ignorance of what mainstream Muslims are saying, you probably wouldn't notice it if you saw it.

There's no doubt in my mind that, in general, Islam is far too illiberal, dogmatic and regressive for my tastes. However, so too is every other organised religon when practiced to the letter of its teachings. Also, the acceptance of illiberalism is one thing - falsely associating a religous group to dangerous areas is something completely different as is associating them with murder and extremism.

It's also counter productive. The more nonsense we have from idiots talking down Muslims - the more entrenched Muslims become. The growth in the wearing of the burkha (which is actually not even a requirement for most female Muslims!!!)  is a clear demonstration of that isolation.

Finally, as I say, it ill behoves one religon to demand progress from another. We all have blame and shame. The Catholics that murdered thousands in South America and the Hindi practice of Sati (widows burning themselves to death or being burned) are two horrendous examples - let's have a little humility, but above all, knowledge and context before we go kicking anyone else.


[ Parent ]

Re: No go areas for non-Muslims (#5)

by swatantra on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:29:39 PM GMT

Tony you've said it yourself that that there are many aspects of Islam that are abhorent in a free society. But you don't help the Muslim  Community one bit making excuses for them. You have to show up their failings, and they have to address them. They really do have to face up the uncomfortable fact that Islam needs a new interpretation. And to say that Islam is a religion 'of peace' I do not believe for one minute: History proves otherwise. I am quite aware that all religions have unsavoury aspects to them eg Hinduism, and I'm a Hindu, has Caste System embedded in it. Its a question of how you bring about changes; your approach will simply not work. 


[ Parent ]

Re: No go areas for non-Muslims (#6)

by TonyHannon on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:49:58 PM GMT

I said no such thing. I said the religon was illiberal and regressive for my tastes.

I'm not making excuses. I'm seperating the accusation of illiberalism which is fair enough to the accusation of alignment with extremism which is not fair for the majority of Muslims. Nor am I denying that there is a worrying number of crackpots who claim to be Muslims and they delight in whipping up anti-western feeling.

You're confusing the two and you forget what it is to be tolerant. I advise reading this post from the beginning.

If we didn't isolate Muslims so much, by the way, I'm certain it wouldn't be so easy for the fringe minority of crackpots to wind so many people up.

There are several interpretations of Islam - they're not getting the coverage. I'm betting you've never heard of, let alone read, Irshad Manji to take but one example.

If I were to speak disparagingly about you, your race, your religon and talk ignorantly about your beliefs - it would be the one sure way of getting you frustrated and angry about my interjection. It would be the sure way of never having a proper dialogue. If I were to listen to whatever number of Hindu extremists (if there is such a thing) and pass it off as mainstream Hindu opinion - you'd be rightly hurt and offended -not to mention exasperated.

Don't do the same to the Muslims - it's clearly not working.


[ Parent ]

Re: No go areas for non-Muslims (#7)

by swatantra on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:09:13 PM GMT

The fact is Tony, they are isolating themselves, the point Rochester was trying to bring out, which the Govt is trying to address by talking more about integration into our community, and not solely living within their own community, and that could start with language classes.


[ Parent ]

Re: No go areas for non-Muslims (#8)

by swatantra on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:12:17 PM GMT

I am also aware that there are more Progressives branches of Islam eg in Turkey, but they get a hard deal from the Traditionalists. Eg the Progressives would not see the necessity of praying 5 times a day; they are more flexible.


[ Parent ]

Re: No go areas for non-Muslims (#9)

by TonyHannon on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:32:57 PM GMT

"I don't see many apologists from the Muslim community stepping forward and demonstrating what their Faith actually is."

Your first words.

"I am also aware that there are more Progressives branches of Islam."
 
Your last.

You either know about a diversity of Muslim opinion or you don't.

It sounds like you don't.


[ Parent ]

Re: No go areas for non-Muslims (#10)

by swatantra on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:13:36 PM GMT

Its for those Moderates to speak out and tell us what and why we should listen to them and to completely dissociate themselves from and to drive out that militant wing. Only they can do that. Its their community. So far they haven't.


[ Parent ]

Re: No go areas for non-Muslims (#11)

by laurencemarshall on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 04:40:24 PM GMT

Tony, I wouldn't waste time on talking to Swatrantra about Islam.

He has shown a distinct anti Islamic streak in the discussion about Pakistan.

I don't think there is any saving him. 


[ Parent ]

Re: No go areas for non-Muslims (#13)

by TonyHannon on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:35:06 AM GMT

I see that now.

For someone who talks about BME issues and rights etc., this mindset pretty much invalidates everything he/she says.


[ Parent ]

Re: No go areas for non-Muslims (#21)

by Muj on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:50:40 PM GMT

Tony,

excellent article, well done.

Current pre-occupation with muslims will eventually move on to the chineese as they become the next target of the tabloids and fellow travellers on Labourhome.

Pastor Martin Niemoller come to mind, first they came for the communists.

Oh and for those teenage vanity scribblers and geeks who have nothing better to do than sit in their bedrooms peddling hate get a life. Its the weekend go and get laid.


[ Parent ]

Re: No go areas for non-Muslims (#22)

by laurencemarshall on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:01:11 PM GMT

The "thin edge of the wedge" is a logical fallacy, it doesn't necessarily follow that just because the x minority is picked on the y minority will be picked on. Not without evidence anyway.

 


[ Parent ]

Re: No go areas for non-Muslims (#18)

by luke warm on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:22:42 PM GMT

I am  sad to say but Tony is wrong.
 
I live in Bradford and I will never forget coming back from holiday abroad and seeing the devastation caused by the  rioters . It broke my heart to see my home town desecrated in such a way.

That, as far as I was concerned was the real start of the alienation, separation and mistrust between the two groups of people in our city.  That is Muslim and non Muslim.

I will also never forget speaking to a friend who had been driving on Manningham Lane the night of the riot who was surrounded by a group of Asian youths who told him in no uncertain manner to Get out of our city you white b*****d!

Then today I read with amazement a letter in our local paper, from a lady who lives in Cheshire visiting relations in Bradford only last week, who was told by some Asian youths that this was their area and she was  not welcome.

These examples are backed up by the very public TV appearance of a Muslim fanatic in London who quite openly asked the Home Secretary how he dare enter a Muslim area!!!!!!!

Frightening but unfortunately true. And until our Government take their collective heads out of the sand and admit this is happening, then future generations will have a problem of biblical proportions to sort out.


[ Parent ]

Re: No go areas for non-Muslims (#19)

by TonyHannon on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:46:54 AM GMT

Luke - try to understand for a second.

There are and were Catholic and Protestant areas in Belfast where one was not welcoming of the other. In the 19th Century and beyond, you'll find there were Irish, Chinese and Italian areas in New York where gangsters and a criminal class ruled. Harlem was notorious because people were afraid (and still are) of the black people there and there are several latino communities in LA that people are terrified of. There was even a dangerous Greek quarter of ancient Rome where citizens were afraid to go.

A ghetto inhabited by a poor minority is not new to mankind and certainly wasn't invented by Muslims or other Asians in Bradford.

In every one of those situations there were people, who like you, confuse the problems with a poor area as a problem with the religon or ethnicity of the people in that area. The simple reality is that: "It's the ghetto, stupid!" The three things these people from different ages and different communities and different religons have in common is that they were poor, they were likely to remain poor and they were isolated.

Fix the ghetto and you fix the problem.

Please don't presume that I know nothing about extremists. I had just landed in Newark Airport from South Carolina on September 11th 2001. I saw the panic and the tears and the reaction in that city. I later found out that one of those who died was from where I was born and was a childhood friend of my older brother.

I was also 10 minutes or so from being caught up in Liverpool St on the 7th July 2005. My flatmate and I were evacuated from Bank Station.

At no point did I consider our collective problem to be ordinary Muslims when it was and is very clear to me - the mortal enemy of all we stand for in this country is violent extremism.

The irony is that the people who should be most motivated against extremists are the ordinary Muslims because it is they who have to put up with your, Swatantra's, The Daily Mail and the Bishop of Rochester's resulting bullsh*t!  

So let me put this at its most shamefully simple: Islamic extremists are our enemy. They are bad. Ordinary Muslims are our allies. They are good. We should not treat our ally as if they were our enemy. We should draw the distinction between them. If we don't, they will not be a useful ally.

Surely, that's not difficult to follow?


[ Parent ]

Re: No go areas for non-Muslims (#2)

by alexswanson on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:42:20 AM GMT

"Have we not learned that if you’re going to traduce a group of people you damned well better have some numbers, facts and legitimacy?"

No. Handgun owners after Dunblane were savaged in the press. Even though there was then, and still is now, no evidence whatever to support the idea that the 1997 handgun ban (and remember pistol shooting is a recognised Olympic sport), the Labour Party and its friends in the media remain committed to maintaining the ban, and opponents of it get next to no representation, even on the BBC, which is supposed to treat everyone fairly.

"has any group suffered the continued and sustained campaign the Muslims have suffered from the press in the past few years?"

 Yes, target shooters. In fact, Muslims get a lot of good press - target shooters are simply ignored or vilified as potential child killers. When Muslim extremists commit murder we routinely see opinion pieces and hear BBC interviews emphasising that these are not typical; but so far as gun crime is concerned, the attitude is that anynody who is interested in guns in any way is a psychopath.


Re: No go areas for non-Muslims (#4)

by TonyHannon on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:23:20 PM GMT

Jesus wept. A huge omission on my part.

Handgun owners? Those poor defenceless thousands who had no say in the decision of whether or not to become a handgun owner. Those people who happily welcome that there is a human cost to their hobby when their firearms are stolen.

Those poor families of handgun owners who are singled out in the street for verbal abuse. Those maligned people who endured a 350% increase in violent assaults after 7th July 2005.

Those pitiable gun owning souls who are taken aside at airports, viewed with suspicion on trains and whose hobby has borne the brunt of every attack on mythical PC initiatives.

Those forgotten heroes who come from a community that when even one of them makes a misguided effort to defend his belief (such as not allowing a blind woman in his cab as he thinks her dog unholy) - it makes national newspaper headlines. National headlines for one stupid dogmatic decision such is our pre-occupation with this group.   

You’re right Alex. Boy, you have conscience and I don’t. When I think about those gun toting honest citizens who’ve never hurt anyone, watching television with their family and listening to some non-gun owning IDIOT talking guns down – you know, my heart goes out to them for the embarrassment and shame they must feel to hear something they love talked about by the intellectual equivalent of a spiteful Ronald McDonald.  

Forget Muslims man. Let’s not care about them. It doesn’t matter that Muslim extremists are no more Muslim than football hooligans are actual football fans.
 
I’m with you Alex, because shotguns and rifles can be too impractical – let’s remember the plight of the handgun owners.


[ Parent ]

Re: No go areas for non-Muslims (#15)

by alexswanson on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 09:02:05 AM GMT

Is being a Muslim banned by law? No, it isn't.

Is being a pistol shooter banned by law - and remember that pistol shooting is an Olympic sport. Yes, it is.

So if you're suggesting that Muslims are worse off than pistol shooters, you're clearly wrong.

"When I think about those gun toting honest citizens who’ve never hurt anyone, watching television with their family and listening to some non-gun owning IDIOT talking guns down – you know, my heart goes out to them for the embarrassment and shame they must feel to hear something they love talked about by the intellectual equivalent of a spiteful Ronald McDonald. "

We don't feel embarrasment or shame. We feel anger and bitterness at the legal intolerance we have to put up with and at the lies which are are told about us and which - unlike Muslims - we are rarely if ever given the chance to counter. 


[ Parent ]

Re: No go areas for non-Muslims (#16)

by TonyHannon on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:39:42 AM GMT

Angry and bitter? Why, you're the very man to have a gun - here, have three!

This desperate claim to victimhood is an awful demonstration of selfishness on your part.

While is fair to say that pistol shooters suffered rough justice in that they haven't had this Section Five dispensation - your comparison of this with the treatment of Muslims is outrageous.

Pistol shooting is, after all, just a hobby. I don't care that it's an Olympic sport (so is race walking and the Luge for God's sake!!), the Olympics seems to be little more than a festival of cheating anyway. 

Pistols are pistols after all. If they are to 'err' when it comes to guns, I'd far rather the Government err on the side of caution.

You'll probably wind up getting dispensation for shooting ranges and licences (or whatever) in advance of the Olympics in London, but I advise your making a more enlightened argument than the one you've shamed yourself with here.


[ Parent ]

Re: No go areas for non-Muslims (#12)

by FA on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:15:58 PM GMT

Mr. Swanson - after the handgun ban a lunatc went to a school in Wolverhampton armed with a knife. He wounded many but killed noone. The more restricted gun ownership is the safer we are. No, it won't eliminate gun crime but thats not what its about. Many guns are necessary - one of my friends is a farmer and he and has familyseveral guns needed for their work. Handguns aren't. The diminishment of people's ability to engage in a pastime is a small price to increased safety.

The treatment of Muslims to handgun owners is incomparable - there was never villification for handgun owners as there was for Muslims. Take a Melanie Phillips article - change the word Muslim to "handgun owner". Were there any articles like that being printed when the handgun ban was being discussed? No.


Re: No go areas for non-Muslims (#14)

by alexswanson on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:57:07 AM GMT

"No, it won't eliminate gun crime but thats not what its about."

According to a Home Office press release of February 1998, that's exactly what it was about.

"The diminishment of people's ability to engage in a pastime is a small price to increased safety."

But there's no evidence that safety has been increased. Write to the Home Office and ask if you don't believe me. You get get only waffle. 

"there was never villification for handgun owners as there was for Muslims"

Go and read the back copies of the tabloids during the months the legislation was being discussed in Parliament.

The fact is that Muslims get plenty of press to defend themselves when they want it. Shooters get next to nothing, the odd letter published in the press if we're lucky.


[ Parent ]

Re: No go areas for non-Muslims (#17)

by FA on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:13:57 PM GMT

Reduction and elimination of gun crime are two different things.


The fact is that until the handgun ban a Dunblane style massacre was still possible. The fact that criminals use guns doesnt change the fact that lawfully acquired guns can be misused too. The only reason you could want a handgun is for a hobby. Getting rid of your hobby to save even one life is worth it - you don't have a fundamental right to a particular hobby.


As for the Muslim comparison, now you're being ridiculous. Noone suggested handgun owners leave the country, take loyalty tests or be locked up without trial. I DO remember some of the tabloid coverage and you must have no sense of proportion to seriously suggest you were persecuted. The law changed. None of your fundamental rights were violated by this law change. Deal with it.


Perhaps the reason you handgun owners didn't get any decent media coverage is because you seemed like nutters whenever a mic was out in front of you.


Re: No go areas for non-Muslims (#20)

by EvanPrice on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 06:30:05 PM GMT

I realise that this is off-topic, but I find this interesting.

"Getting rid of your hobby to save even one life is worth it - you don't have a fundamental right to a particular hobby."

Interesting idea ... but in the case of hand guns, where is the evidence that banning them has saved a life?  Very sadly, gun crime has risen dramatically since the ban ... that might have something to do with access to guns.

The report after the Dunblane massacre suggested tightening and actually implementing the existing law on handguns.  It did not suggest a ban - in fact it said that a ban would achieve nothing save to make it impossible for people to take part in a sport.  I seem to remember that it referred to the fact that if there was a ban, Olympic sportmen and women would not be able to train here - and for the Olympics themselves, we are going to need a specific change to the law to allow the competition to take place.

Of course, the comparisons being made by others are not apposite.


[ Parent ]

Re: Offending a faith? (#23)

by Limony on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:11:25 PM GMT

Of course it is alright to 'offend a faith' or 'traduce a faith' in a liberal, secular country. It is not alright to tar all people with the same brush or be offensive to them because of their beliefs. We have to stop being precious about the contents of iron age philosophies and 7th century books and expose them to the same critique as any other historical document. If we choose to use them as present-day guidance we must explain how we can do so when they don't cohere with our scientific knowledge or standards relating to how we treat others. It is perfectly OK to point out the inconsistencies.

Islam contains invocations to violence. So do other monotheistic religions which claim to be the one true religion relaying the words of the one true god. Intolerance goes with the territory. Now sue me.


Re: Offending a faith? (#24)

by TonyHannon on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:47:52 PM GMT

But is it alright to single one out above all others and never shut up about it?

You're making a completely seperate point - one I agree with. It is perfectly ok to have a debate about someone's faith and how that faith throws up questions and problems...that's not what we have here though - is it?

I'm afraid we could never hope to believe the Daily Mail engages in anything as lofty as the honest critique of the Koran. I'm sure you don't either.

Read the post. It's about the Bishop of Rochester ignoring socio-economic reality and handing partial responsibility for poor areas around the necks of Muslims. Without evidence. Without research. Without statistics. Without inner city experience of what he was on about. Without answers beyond an attack on the Government. Not even the jerk's place to say it.

The Bishop of Rochester talking down Islam is about as credible and predictable as Abu Hamza lamenting the quality of US made flutes.

I'm happy to hear from experts about the problems of society - not opportunists.

Above all else, I cannot bear to see a bully being aided by cowards. I especially can't stomach watching a moronic bully spewing bile on a community and making it more and more likely that, through continued isolation, the tiny, lunatic fringe of that community will grow by even one more person.


[ Parent ]

Re: Offending a faith? (#25)

by swatantra on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:13:02 PM GMT

The fact is Tony, Islam is having such an
impact on community relations, quite out of proportion to the number of Muslims actually living hear. It is now a global network spreading to all aspects of our everyday lives. Not a day passes when there is not a news story related to terrorism emanating from Islamic Fundamentalist. And its not just the Daily Mail.
The world is getting fed up to the back teeth with the activities, bombings and atrocities being commited all around the world in the name of Islam. Where are the Moderates coming forward and denounce the extremists and physically cleanse the Mosques of the preachers of hate? There are cells reputedly springing up everywhere. You have to ask yourself how has this situation been allowed to get out of control. The terrorists are simply using Iraq as an excuse to argue their case. But the fact is Iraq was not about Islam, but about oil.
The Bishop was speaking for his parishioners who are wondering when all this climate of fear is going to stop. And who is going to stop it. Accepted that the vast majority of Muslims are peace loving and law abiding, but we have to deal with the lunatic fringe. And that means the whole community must rethink how Islam can work in Modern Britain. Some challenging questions on faith need to be faced up to.


[ Parent ]

Re: Offending a faith? (#28)

by TonyHannon on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:54:24 PM GMT

Swatantra - a hint for you.

Don't begin sentences with the words "The fact is" when what follows is not a fact at all, merely an uninformed opinion.

Where are the moderates you ask? Are you an idiot? Do you expect the moderates to come to your house and explain? Should they email you personally?

I've said (and I suspect I could say it to you till I'm blue in the face) there are moderates. They're not getting the coverage. 

Any fool can tell you that the vast majority of Muslims are peace loving. I'm complaining that far too often we're treating the vast majority with the suspicion they are the lunatic fringe. 

Anyway - let's move on - I can only bang my head against a brick wall for so long. 


[ Parent ]

Re: No go areas for non-Muslims (#26)

by Mash Tory on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:26:09 PM GMT

The Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, writing in the Sunday Telegraph, blamed multiculturalism for segregating religious groups and said non-Muslims faced a hostile reception in places dominated by the ideology of Islamic radicals.

To begin responding to Rt. Rev Michael Nazir Ali, it is important to insist where these "no-go areas" for non-Muslims are, whether they are in London or outside of the capital. Have the local authorities in those specific areas investigated and verified whether there is any evidence to suggest Rev. Ali is correct.  If it is true, which I very much doubt, then the Government should respond. As Gordon Brown, Prime Minister, rightly stated, there shall be no "no-go" areas in this country.

As a British Muslim myself, I am opposed to segregation on racial or religious lines, whether it be Muslims' in Whitechapel, Sikhs' and Hindus' in Southall or white people in Wiltshire. I support integration and communities working together, rather than separating communities. Or alternatively, the large black communities in the south of London. You cannot subject only Muslims to this rule of segregation.  





Re: No-go areas? (#27)

by Limony on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 01:25:15 AM GMT

Read the blog, mate. Didn't comment on the Rev's words as I take no notice of what religious figures think or say about society. I don't, of course, exclude what they say if they are inciting violence or hatred but then I don't ignore anybody who does this. As for picking on one religion more than another, Christianity is the most openly and frequently criticised because it is the most popular and because it is relatively safe to do so. Ask Ayan Hirsi Ali.

Bullying is a terrible thing but there is no need to invent victims. Litigating against people who don't say nice things about this or that religion is arguably a kind of bullying, however. That is what you advocate at the end of your piece.


Re: No-go areas? (#29)

by TonyHannon on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:51:14 PM GMT

I did read your post (not blog) and had YOU read the blog entry from the beginning you’d see it was prompted by the Bishop (not Reverend’s) words.

Yes, you did indirectly comment on what he said.

Here is what you said exactly:

“Of course it is alright to 'offend a faith' or 'traduce a faith' in a liberal, secular country. It is not alright to tar all people with the same brush or be offensive to them because of their beliefs.”

The second point is what I’ve already said. I have no problem with someone presenting facts that may or may not offend racial or religious sensitivities. If they are facts, they are facts and are worthy of their place in an adult discussion.

As I said – it’s not what we have here though. We have more ignorance abound about Islam than is imaginable. I will happily talk about religion in general and how the whole foul jamboree has led humanity from acrimony to acrimony and war to war.

I’m not inventing victims. You don’t have to take my word for it. Look at this and this on the first pages of a Google search.

There’s no doubt that there appears to be a hyper-sensitivity from the Muslim community right now and whether it be pictures of Allah or a teddy or whatever else – but it’s always the angry ones get the coverage. Although bearded men shouting “Death to the EU” is bad grammar, producers think it makes good television.

What anyone with any historical perspective and even an ounce of commonsense can see is that if it wasn’t the Muslims getting this provocative press prodding – it’d be someone else. The blacks, the Asians, the Jews, the Irish or the Scots – perhaps even Brummies. We’ve all been there and I assure you – it does not feel good to read headlines that say: “Catholic man accused of murder” and read the story only to find his Catholicism had nothing to do with the case.  

My point is very simple - when you get the impression that your religion or ethnicity is constantly criticised by morons – it feels less and less like the rigours of open, respectful debate in a tolerant society and more and more like a campaign to piss you off and remind you you’re not welcome.

(going round in too many circles on this post - not repeating myself again - last word is yours if you want it)


[ Parent ]

Re: No go areas for non-Muslims (#30)

by Limony on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:39:46 PM GMT

Catholic man does x, y or z is not a good headline but in some contexts makes sense. Never mind about that.

If I understand you right, you are now saying that it is OK to criticise a religion but only intelligent people need apply for the job. Morons must shut up. This is a very odd sort of censorship indeed.

In an ideal world, only the intelligent would have their comments picked up and the morons would indeed shut up. But who decides what is ignorance in connection with the interpretation of 'holy books'? There is no single authority, I'm afraid.

Anyway, you are putting the cart before the horse. I repeat, it is perfectly in order to criticise religions, as it is to criticise any other set of beliefs or practices. It is not OK to print inflammatory stuff, but there are already laws about that. It is not OK to print lies and errors, but in a society with a free press it happens. We can buy other newspapers or press a button on our remote.

It is already happening to Jews and people of other religions. The internet has been a haven for antisemites. But there is a difference between telling hateful lies about people on the basis of their religion and criticising the religion.

That all tackles the end of your post.

The main point of your blog was that someone with a level of authority but with suspect knowledge made a claim that there are no-go areas. I don't know of any but I'm no expert on urban human geography. It is quite possible that the Bishop had no good facts to go on and spoke anyway. I don't think that's so terrible; it happens in the House of Commons everyday. The solution is to ignore the people who make no useful contribution to a debate and seek out people with something thoughtful and evidence-based to say. In other words, switch off your telly, stopy buying the Mail, and do something more interesting instead.

A useful discussion on multiculturalism, segregation etc can be found in the multicultural issue of http://www.signandsight.com/, especially the Buruma/Garton-Ash correspondence, and in Buruma's book Death in Amsterdam http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PxFWAAAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:Ian+inauthor:Buruma

which describes 'satellite cities' (estates covered in satellite dishes to pick up Al Jazeera) in Holland and their implication for healthy multicultural societies. 

(Incidentally, my Dad had a sophisticated shortwave radio to pick up Arabic language news - it was the satellite technology of its time - but that didn't mean we lived apart from our neighbours. Buruma may have read too much into the wish to listen to news from home.)

 


Re: No go areas for non-Muslims (#31)

by TonyHannon on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 05:01:21 PM GMT

????




[ Parent ]

No go areas for non-Muslims | 31 comments (31 topical)