As highlighted by Faisal a while back.
So I have to leave my country to have a free debate, what does that say about my country?
As highlighted by Faisal a while back.
So I have to leave my country to have a free debate, what does that say about my country?
One of the current government’s flagship tactics for “preventing violent extremism” is the sledgehammer-nut method of banning speakers deemed detrimental to the public good. From Dutch parliamentarians and American radio presenters to Israeli politicians and jihadist clerics, Her Majesty’s Government has wielded the visa-denying axe on a wide range of occasions.
This is a topic which I know other contributors to the Spittoon will not agree with me on, but I have written this brief piece in the hope that it will kick off a debate on this very important issue.
The argument goes that it is a privilege, not a right, for non-British people to come to the UK and therefore there is no hypocrisy in denying that privilege to certain (non-British) people for views they have expressed. This is without a trial and whilst boasting of Britain’s commitment to freedom of speech. Indeed, some fans of banning would say, what meaning does being British have if we give equal rights to non-Brits?
This is a guest post by David T of Harry’s Place
****
I was, for a long time, a big fan of Sunny and Pickled Politics. I still think that PP is an excellent blog, and admire many of the contributors who write and have written for it. It is a strong anti-sectarian voice.
Some of you might have noticed that Sunny and I have fallen out, to a certain degree. I think it started, for me at least, with a piece he wrote suggesting that “brown people” should vote Tory (because of Davis Davis). I have personally done my very best not to blog-war with him, because I think that to do so would be pointless.
This is a guest post by David T of Harry’s Place
****
Dr Sayyid al-Qimni is a remarkable Egyptian political theorist who started off as a pan-Arabist and Nasserite, and ended up an Egyptian liberal.
It should be a source of shame to us, as fellow liberals and progressives, that his name is not more widely known. His face should be beaming down from posters in Universities and his ideas hotly debated on the European Left. But, instead, he is largely unknown here. He doesn’t even appear to have a Wikipedia page.
Qimni became a controversial figure in Egypt, when he gave an interview in which he expressed the following views:
From the Egyptian writer and academic researcher of Islamic Affairs, Dr. Sayed Mahmoud El Qemany, who is being exposed to incitements to assassinate him.
In the context of my academic research and practical work I have been able to provide an important set of motion in the stagnant Egyptian situation. I have attempted to make reforms from the inside and worked on the disarmament of those who exploit Islam politically and make it a source of livelihood at the expense of the simple, good people of Egypt. I have therefore created a secular movement that has imposed its presence, although still at a formative stage.
In a free ballot of Egyptian thinkers, I was granted the State Award for Social
Sciences, on June 25th 2009. The hard-line radical militant groups considered that the state has adopted this intellectual secular trend officially, infuriating the mentioned group which called on the State to withdraw the prize with the declaration of my defection from Islam and excommunication which means in our country, I could be slain; any citizen is allowed to kill me and be awarded by God in Paradise.
Earlier this week, Inayat “Mr Bean” Bunglawala’s Engage wrote a characteristically stupid piece libelling Martin Bright under the headline:
“Veteran Islamophobe Martin Bright criticises MCB libel win”.
Martin was rightly upset with that slur observing:
“I object in the strongest terms to the way the insult “Islamophobe” is thrown around so casually. It is essentially a charge of racism: the cheapest of shots and utterly without foundation”.
He was much too kind. The charge was not just without foundation – it was an outright lie. At the Observer, Martin mentored the headscarf wearing Fareen Alam. And, while he was Political Editor at the New Statesman regularly gave a voice to newly emerging Muslim voices including: Ed Husain, Shiraz Maher, and ‘Umm Mustafa’ (a pseudonym).
The Engage article nonetheless made a number of lazy accusations, one of which said:
There is a small but perfectly formed protest ongoing outside the Iranian embassy in London.
As London drives by confused and in a hurry, British based Iranians are protesting because their family and friends in Iran cannot. But the malignant influence of the regime extends this far, where many of the protesters are forced to cover their faces so as to avoid endangering family in Iran.
UPDATE:
As the evening went on the crowd became larger (and noisier) in an incredibly well natured but poignant demonstration of the rights people in Iran are dying for. The only police involvement was from officers trying to keep the swelling crowd within the designated protest area.
We then retired to an excellent Iranian restaurant for post-protest grub.
The terrible repression of ordinary Iranians and reporters continues unabated in Tehran. The latest news to emerge is that the Canadian-Iranian journalist Maziar Bahari who was covering events for Newsweek has apparently ‘confessed’ to participating:
in a Western media effort to promote irresponsible reporting in Iran.
The whole thing started after Maziar gave Channel 4 News footage of Basiji members opening fire on a crowd of protestors. The Basiji responded by arresting Maziar who has been detaind since June 21. Then, as if right on cue, we have this from Iran’s state sponsored broadcaster Press TV:
…Bahari explained the nature of some of his activities in Iran over the past years and the role that Western media had played in the events, which unfolded in the country.
[...]
Sarkozy’s call for a ban on the veil has indeed opened up a number of issues and perspectives, even if he may well have had his own motives for doing so!
We have had the normal reaction on the left to condemn him, the reaction from the right in the UK to call for a ban and even claim Muslims support them and this has caused a little stir amongst Islamists.
iEngage for example originally followed the 1st electronic print of the Express article stating that Ghaffar Hussain from the Quilliam Foundation had stated that the Burka/Burqa was a cultural practice and not sanctioned in the Quran, but then went further and mistakenly claimed that he supported a ban. This has subsequently been “corrected”, by both the Express and iEngage.
A number of ancilliary discussions have persisted some of which are quite interesting, hypocritical and opportunistic.
East London Islamic Societies are at it again. University of East London Islamic Society (UEL ISoc) is hosting its annual dinner event today on UEL premises hosting ‘Sheikh’ Abu Usama Adh Dhahabee.
Abu Usama, an African American convert, advocates holy war (jihad) in an Islamic state; preaches hatred against non-Muslims; that apostasy and homosexuality is punishable by death; and women are inferior to men. He also spoke at two Queen Mary Islamic Society events in March and November 2008.
You may remember Dhahabee from Channel Four Dispatches’ documentary Undercover Mosque (2007) [See here for transcript]. His statements include: