Islamophobia Watch have found another less-than-worthwhile cause to throw their “might” behind – defending global Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir from their critics.
In reality, Hizb ut-Tahrir is a peaceful if highly sectarian organisation that poses no threat whatsoever to the people of East London. But what can you expect from the Tories, given that David Cameron is on record as calling for HT to be made illegal?
Needless to say, Cameron isn’t calling for a ban on the far-right British National Party, even though no HT members have been convicted of the sort of violent crimes that BNP members have. Clearly the Tories apply different standards to white fascists than they do to brown Islamists.
In a spectacular bit of whataboutery, Martin Sullivan implies the Tories are racist because they have not called for the BNP to be banned even though they are a political party which officially eschews violence whilst Hizb ut-Tahrir look forward to a war which will kill millions. I suspect the Tories might have something to say about this (a lawyer’s letter, perhaps) but, as I’m no fan of the Tories myself, let’s move on to something rather more fundamental.
What planet is Sullivan living on if he thinks that HT are peaceful and present no threat to the people of East London? And does he really think that the non-violent “Islamophobes” he smears on Islamophobia Watch are not a threat to Muslims in Britain? That is the logical conclusion of what he writes yet, I suspect, he would never accept it.
Some would be unforgiving and suggest that he is guilty of the racism of lower expectations – you just can’t expect those Muslims not to subscribe to deeply unpleasant views. I would reject this conclusion; I think it’s much more likely that Sullivan, poor chap, is simply incapable of advancing a logically coherent argument.