The British Left, or rather a specific group of soft-principled liberals who are subset of the group, seem to have trouble distinguishing between textual criticism of Islam with anti-Muslim bigotry. The worst offenders tend to conflate the two. James Bloodworth has a go at analysing why this is the case:
Being ‘tolerant’ is also very often seen on the left as more important than being correct. It is certainly considered safer. Criticise Islam too strongly and you may fall out with your multicultural peers, face accusations of colour prejudice or, worse still, provoke a fanatic with a penchant for something stronger than polemics. Have a go at Dawkins on Twitter and someone may start a forum thread about you at Atheism UK.
In sum, should you wish to apply your critical faculties objectively to all religions, be prepared for the shrill accusations of prejudice that will inevitably follow you around – not so much from believers, but from your fellow liberal atheists.
This video is extremely distressing. If you bother to watch it you will see a Bangladeshi cab driver in Saudi Arabia being racially harassed and abused by a Saudi passenger.
“Saudi Arabia Is Your Owner You Dog!”
What would be the outcome of this kind of attack had it been perpetrated by a white non-Muslim Briton? It would be “Islamophobic” and rightly condemned. But when we see it perpetrated by Arabs on South Asian Muslims, it will be dismissed at best – or the victim will be considered to have “asked for it”.
Those who call the EDL racist are dangerously missing the point
Confronted with something completely new, people translate it back into language they understand. Hence the sign Smash the racist EDL! Good sentiment but claptap. Racist movements do not, as a rule, have signs saying Black and White Unite! or insist on multi-racial recruitment, or pick fights with real racists and physically toss them out, all of which the EDL has done.
That doesn’t make it nice. ”They said I deserved to be raped in the head because of my last name”, said a young lady on the fringes of the protest. I believe her; Alexander Melagrou-Hitchens and Nick Cohen, two sources I trust, have reported similar things. Being non-racist or anti-racist doesn’t make the EDL innocuous but it can make it more dangerous. What we might be seeing in real time is the birth of a truly British form of fascism.
Have a look at this exchange on facebook conducted between Musa Ibraheem, an American Muslim of mixed race ethnicity with Asghar Bukhari and his chums from MPACUK – regarding the use of the N-word. Mr Ibrahim identifies and deals with Bukhari’s racism so completely, there is little else to add. But Asghar is convinced he is justified to call a man a “nigger” because he has seen it used in a film biopic of Malcolm X, and even then, mistakenly so.
The Arab Spring has been successful in getting rid of totalitarian regimes in the Arab world. This is largely a cause for celebration but there are many who lived in those regimes for whom life was safer before the Arab Spring. They are the victims of the Arab racism.
we at the spittoon have for some time been a target for the not-very-impressive “spinwatch” site, which appears to be the hobby-horse of strathclyde university’s answer to bob pitt, dr david miller. dr miller, we hardly need remind you, appears to think that spittoon authors are without exception rabid “neo-cons”, by which he appears to mean some sort of catch-all imperialism of liberal democracy imposed by force of arms on the bucolic, picaresque and entirely pacifist natives of the middle-east and south asia. as if this wasn’t bad (or inaccurate) enough, we are also supposed to be apostles of islamophobia; apparently it isn’t clear enough to someone who is supposed to be an academic that what we oppose is the virulent political ideology known as islamism – as well as other forms of religious and political extremism; jewish, christian, atheist, muslim, ethnicity-based – we are equal-opportunity anti-extremists, or we certainly try to be.
Being a reactionary means never requiring to subject yourself to some self-critcism.
For Darcus Howe, it means blaming white people for black people looting and rioting. Here he is (interviewed by a particularly stupid and confrontational BBC TV presenter) suggesting that the looting of trainers from JD Sports is as an “insurrection of the masses” and shamelessly likens the situation in the UK to Syria.
For David Starkey, it means blaming black people when white went people looting and rioting. In the video segment below, he agrees with part of Enoch Powell’s Rivers of Blood speech and said of youth today: “The whites have become black”:
Both of them, of course, are a pair of reactionary race baiters.
Ghaith Abdul-Ahad writes about the plight of South Asian migrant workers toiling under slave-labour conditions in the building boom in Dubai. As you would expect, Ahad writes sympathetically about their appalling working and living conditions and goes into depressing detail of their perdition.
Then he writes about having dinner at the home of an Arab aquaintance:
One evening in Abu Dhabi, I have dinner with my friend Ali, a charming Iraqi engineer whom I have known for two decades. After the meal, as his wife serves saffron-flavoured tea, he pushes back his chair and lights a cigar. We talk about stock markets, investment and the Middle East, and then the issue of race comes up.
“We will never use the new metro if it’s not segregated,” he tells me, referring to the state-of-the-art underground system being built in neighbouring Dubai. “We will never sit next to Indians and Pakistanis with their smell,” his wife explains.