UKC

Guest: We have to leave the EU to keep out all the Muslims, John.

Me: You know Syria's not in the EU, right? Our membership has no impact whatever on our ability to keep out refugees.

Guest: They're mostly economic migrants anyway, John. But you don't understand. Merkel's going to let them all into Germany and in five years' time they'll be able to get citizenship there and *then* they'll come over here. We have to leave now. It's our only chance.

Me: I see.

Guest: And anyway, John, do you want to pay your taxes to support Romanian gypsies?

Me: Oh-kay.... how was your skiing holiday anyway?

Horrifying. I've never heard the like of it from an educated person.

Anyway, my question was how one should react to this sort of thing? In retrospect I think I should have said 'you're not yourself; you need to go home', and if that hint wasn't taken, amend it to, 'OK, then, I asked you nicely, now get the f*ck out of my house before I call the police.'.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Always challenge them. If they carry on, piss in their booze.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Explain that we on this island nation are all descendants of immigrants.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

This We have to leave the EU to keep out all the Muslims is clearly a cut and paste thought from the Daily Mail, I suggest you take it from his back pocket and slap him about the head with it.

Seriously: Challenge him, unless you support his viewpoint. Silence is acceptance I'm afraid.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

I did challenge [her, as it goes]. When I suggested that as a basis for discussion we could presumably agree that in her view Enoch had been right, she made the memorable reply that 'I don't know, I'd have to examine his argument'.

Now her husband tells me I was 'too aggressive' and that she is 'upset' and I should apologise.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I used to have to deal with this sort of cr*p when I was a kid hitching round the country - I didn't want to get kicked out - obviously! - but I couldn't really put up with some of the racist and benefit scrounger nonsense that you used to hear, yes, even in the 70s!

I think I got quite good at saying things like, 'hmm, I can see why you might think that, but some people of course take a different view...' The high point of this diplomacy was getting involved in a 'discussion' with a spaced out provincial governor of Sierra Leone - I thought I was doing OK but my wife thought that his RPG armed sidekicks were getting a bit twitchy and encouraged me to agree unconditionally with everything he said. So I did.

Nowadays I can't be ar*ed and just say 'you're wrong'. You're not going to convert them; and if they are that stupid you don't want them as friends anyway.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I think in this instance it's not you who should be apologising... Tell her husband *you're* terribly upset and that an apology from her wouldn't go amiss... then report back.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
was getting involved in a 'discussion' with a spaced out provincial governor of Sierra Leone...his RPG armed sidekicks were getting a bit twitchy ...

So your answer to the OP is that he should bring along armed guards to dinner parties to ensure the conversation goes smoothly?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


I'm with Clare on this, she was your guest in your home.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Just shows that you can't judge how much anyone has learned in life by how long they've lived

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Never argue with an idiot...

best thing to do is to tell them both to sling their hook imo

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Something along the lines of "I'm so sorry your wife was upset by me pointing out her bigoted views" should cover it nicely.

(I liked the challenge not what her husband said)

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Your story reminded me of this opinion piece in the Guardian today

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/01/germany-refugee-crisis...
and this line specifically "People with different views didn’t listen to one another any more, they just hated one another’s guts."
Should have stuck on the topic and reasoned it out in my view..but agree it's awkward if you think it will result in real unpleasantness.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I have I've been out campaigning for Britain Stronger in Europe and it's been horrible.

I just keep asking 'why?', make them work through it point by point picking at bits of faulty logic and inaccurate fact as they go. It's rarely a coherent considered position built on knowledge.

It's amazing how few of them when faced with the fact I am an economic migrant claim they would want to deport me, I'm ok apparently (I've never had anyone explain why), it's something they only want to happen to other people.

At least now you know who not to invite again.
jk

In reply to Tall Clare:

I told him there was no point in her apologising. Turns out that's the way she is; apologising ain't going to mend that.

Having said that, of course it's one thing to hold this kind of view, another to express it in decent society and embarrass people. One might sensibly apologise for the latter. But perhaps that's a bit sophisticated.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Personally I try to ask questions about their view. Ask why he feels his taxes support 'Romanian Gypsies'. Then keep asking questions until they struggle. Once we're at that stage I begin to fill in the blanks if I can. If I can't then I research them afterwards... after all, it's be arrogant to think my opinion was always correct regardless.

Absolutely no point getting angry, irate, calling it hate speech or calling them bigoted. People have a right to an opinion and nothing your friend has said is illegal nor should be illegal in my opinion. The best solution is always to ask why and to suggest where their explanation may be lacking.

Psychologically if you can speak from an impartial point of view and build on their points in a different direction you have a much higher chance of changing their opinion than if you directly attack it and throw insults.

In reply to jkarran:


Only read this after I posted. Yet again JK is bang on.

In reply to jkarran:

I'm white British descended from an odd mix of economic migrants and refugees. I enjoy asking people like that where they would like to send me back to and give them a list of options. It confuses them.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

I agree people have a right to an opinion. The question is do they have the right to express it in someones home as a guest then demand an apology when the host doesn't agree. Freedom of speech suggests they do, but its rude and inappropriate behaviour.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



On issues of economics I usually ask people who they think costs more to the UK, 1000 ecomomic migrants or the top 1000 aggressive tax avoiders & evaders?

When talk comes round to the rich being 'wealth creators' then we can easily see the bullshit that this is; many of Britain’s top earners are not entrepreneurs in any meaningful sense: they’re gamblers (financial engineers, speculators, venture capitalists), whose winnings are earnings, and whose recent massive losses fell to the UK tax payer to pick up. Welfare indeed.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

With respect John, often your posts on UKC appear quite ... powerful...if you disagree with someone or something. Is it out of the question that you may have taken it a bit too far?

Absolutely not saying that this was definitely the case, just think it's useful to try to see it from their point of view before concluding anything.

Ultimately surely the goal is to show her the error of her thought, and to do that you have to work with her and not against her. Anyone getting upset is unlikely to be particularly receptive to opening their point of view up to amendment.

In reply to marsbar:

I always think of a line from Jilly Cooper on this point.

Left-leaning woman girlfriend (shrieking): "I'm entitled to my opinion."

Loathsome but attractive horse-riding cad and boyfriend: "Of course you are, sweetheart. I just don't want to hear it, that's all."

In reply to someone else:

Of course it's not illegal. But lots of shocking and horrible things aren't illegal.

jcm

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


This, completely. Calling people bigoted or anything is simply giving them an excuse to take things personally and then things become tribal and there's no way out of that.

The one benefit of racism/bigotry though is that its a handy way to thin out your Facebook 'friends' as this stuff tends to easily bubble to the surface. Unfortunately when somebody is already sat at your dinner table its a little more difficult.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Now that's more like it. I was getting quite hurt at the suggestion above that I might have been too polite to say anything.

I'm not sure there's any 'too far' one can take it in challenging that sort of view. As I say, I wish I'd just thrown her out. I don't really remember what I said; I was too horrified.

It's actually not so much the Muslim thing; laughably paranoid though her remark was, I don't mind conceding there's a genuine debate to be had, though it certainly didn't sound like she was having it. But speaking of Romanian gypsies in that bigoted way is just completely unacceptable.

We used to have a Romanian friend, a climber, living with us. She was working delivering pizzas and she used to come home in tears virtually every day after this sort of thing, until she got used to it. What I remember most about it is how incomprehending she was that people could think like this in what she'd previously thought of as a superior kind of country.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Why are you inviting people like this into your home - and to eat? I would have though a man with your level of erudition and opionation would be fairly effective at shifting idiots from his social circle?

Anyway self-selection appears to have played its part admirably, ignore the request for an apology and leave the connection to wither away.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

There's a lot of 'educated', 'decent', 'compassionate' people out there who have truly hideous political views. Thankfully most are based on being ill-educated in the area and having fallen for the usual repeated soundbites rather than thinking things through.

I say thankfully because it's better than finding out a very large proportion of the population are borderline evil, hugely racist, bigoted, self centred bastards.

However it's terrifying to realise how easily intelligent people seem to be controlled, never mind the less intelligent.

I will discuss things politics with people and find it useful to fill in the gaps in my knowledge and arguments (I try to keep on top of what's going on and assess new info and events critically but wouldn't say I was an expert), but there's definitely the types where you know it's just not worth trying to argue against them because pointing out the flaws or gaps in their arguments seems to only enrage them and reinforce the same baseless opinions they hold. I'm quite happy to be proven wrong and adjust my point of view if and when it happens (and it does sometimes) but some just can't take it.

In those cases I tend to give a chance to let me change the subject and accept we're not going to agree and then never speak to them about politics again (this is assuming obviously that their actions go against their supposed politics with some of the for example racist stuff) and if they won't allow it or repeatedly try to engage me in such talks then I am no longer interested in spending time with them.

---

side note, and not one where I can't be friends with them, but a friend recently started a heated rant about politics and appalled me by saying such outrageous things (fully believing her points) as -
"Tories have done more for refugees than any other party would have. They've been amazing. If Labour were in power they'd have been scum and done nothing".

where the hell do people get some of this rubbish from?! Are the tories going round brainwashing people in labs or something? (actually that probably wouldn't shock me that much!)

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Perhaps one could have been a better sport, humouring the situation in this instance.

For example, agreeing with the lady. Falsely expressing your views on a national cull of all non abled Romanain gypsies. How the Empire should regain its momentum and slay the muslim community infiltrating our nation. Pip pip Hurrah!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Paha! Yeah, I don't for one second imagine you bit your lip!

My point really revolves around what you want to achieve. I'd argue that throwing them out just strengthens their resolve and forces a divide between the two of you hindering your chance at influencing them moving forward.

Maybe I'm alone in this but I see it as a challenge. How can I make this person see the problems with their point of view? How can I show them the Daily Mail isn't omniscient? Why lose a friend? Why not educate one?

The thing is... if you want to be successful in getting through to your friend you've got to be prepared to avoid initially reacting to things you may feel are deeply offensive. I suppose it's a role quite similar to some therapists...

In reply to Removed User:

Because manufacturing a social circle of people with the same viewpoint will never provide you with the opportunity to self critique your own arguments.

Take the EU for example. I think the vast majority of us here feel that stability in the economy given by a vote to stay is more important than any benefit from the gamble of leaving. However there are indeed some very good reasons to leave (and there are some very bad but popular reasons to leave). My point is this: if you just hang around with people who want to stay, how often will you sit and consider to yourself the value in the sound yet fairly buried (by red tops) reasons for leaving?

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

It's a nice idea, but I'd doubt it would be very successful. Very few people actually want to change their views, or think that's there's any reason to change. As far as they're concerned, they've taken in whatever information they need, assimilated in whatever fashion they want, and have a viewpoint based on those processes. It may simply be a regurgitation of whatever they're read in their paper or heard in conversation, but stopping to think 'maybe I've got it wrong' is going to be quite a long way down the list of possible responses if they're challenged - it's much easier to confront and react against any opposing views, especially if they've immersed in a particular way of thinking for any period of time.
Many people think that changing their mind is a sign of weakness - regardless of the merits of their arguments, they're just not going to do it.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

I would agree that a robust debate with a well-informed person having an opposing viewpoint and/or political leaning is certainly stimulating and often enlightening and encourages introspection. Bigots/idiots (as this lady clearly is) with weak ill-informed and unevidenced arguments lapped up directly from the hate press generally do little to progress my journey of self improvement.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


That's a fair point. Out of genuine curiosity: what very good reasons to leave have you been presented with?
jk

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


The time it got to me was when a teeny girl I teach told me someone on the bus called her a terrorist.

She wears a headscarf, but she is all of 4'10" and one of the most delightful children I teach. At the age of 12 she is an intelligent sweet girl who as part of her ICT/British values work did some fantastic research and a presentation on how the girls from Bethnal Green were groomed by ISIS using the same methods that sex offenders use to groom children on the internet. She thought those girls were mad to go to Syria but it made me see how nastiness to Muslims here plays into that grooming process and reinforces the chances of extremism.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Is having strong views on immigration classed as hate speech these days?

In reply to tony:


I really disagree from personal experience!


Totally agree. This is why you take their opinion and you work with it and mould it. You don't jump straight in and try to change it outright. It's a real skill and requires patience. Sometimes it just doesn't work. But more often than not they'll consider things a little once you've parted company.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



That's a sad sympton of the times we live in. You find these days that bigots with horribly unpleasant right wings views are extremely forthcoming in expressing these views in any kind of situation and even with complete strangers. They seem to assume that if you're white skinned and indigenous to this country that you will automatically hold the same unacceptable views. I find that extremely offensive and insulting. On the other hand, if you're a tolerant free thinking person who regards everybody equally regardless of colour, religion, nationality or sexual preference you feel as if you have to keep these views to yourself in Britain in 2016.

You keep hearing about "free speech" but it seems "free speech" only works one way. "Free speech" means you are free to agree with the government and right wing gutter press. "Free speech" allows you to racially abuse people but it doesn't allow you to say things like "I've not got a problem with immigrants", "you can't put the blame on every Muslim out there" or "the RAF shouldn't be bombing people in Syria".

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:



Really? When have you been prevented from saying any of those things?

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:


I don't.


You very much have this right, exercise it if you want to. You'll be shouting into the wind but you might be surprised who else joins you once they're not standing alone. As I see it it's like not voting for small political parties 'because they can never win'; they can't while people think like that but who knows how much backing they'd find if individuals no longer felt their vote, their little act of defiance was wasted.
jk

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

The last time I had to deal with any nonsense like this I just gave them a stern look and asked "have you been reading the Daily Mail again?". It worked at stopping them in their tracks and moving the conversation on to something else.

In reply to jkarran:

Just got back to work JK so will be quick but, I run a small recruitment firm ... the guys we target are typically very senior folks in a wide array of firms across Europe. The topic comes up regularly and I've heard convincing logic that some of the trade arguments of leaving are actually quite strong. But ultimately, almost without exception these people feel, and I agree, that the risk is far too high and the unknown far too likely to impact negatively on our economy in the short and middle term that an out vote is reckless.

In reply to MG:


Ha ha. On the UK Climbing forum for a kick off. Every time I express these sorts of tolerant free thinking views I get lambasted from all quarters as well as lots of red thumbs downs.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Don't forget free speech just means you have a right to say it... it doesn't mean you have a right not to be criticised

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


He's one of the very few people who seems right about everything. When he first started posting on here I hated him because his username could easily be mistaken for my name. Now I hate him for being so bloody right all of he time

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:


So you aren't prevented from saying it, people just disagree with you Sorry, but that's how things work.

You are talking nonsense too, Society is increasingly intolerant of racism, homophobia and so on. For example, look at the introduction of gay marriage. And assuming objecting to immigration equals racism is lazy thinking.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Kill them both and bury them in the back garden. A la https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Supper_(1995_film)

In reply to marsbar:


How does freedom of speech suggest that? Asking them to take their poisonous opinions elsewhere is not preventing them from expressing them, just preventing them from expressing them in that particular location.

In the US the first amendment has been successfully cited to defend publication of extremely pornographic material. But I doubt anyone would seriously suggest that that makes it OK in polite society to turn up at a dinner party expecting to be able to pass around your iPad so that your fellow guests can appreciate your collection of downloaded hardcore.

As for having the right to demand an apology if someone disagrees with them, no chance. Freedom of speech cuts both ways after all.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
Tolerance, compassion and patience are to be applauded in our society, but surely the bigotted horribly unpleasant left-wing views are the real evil and the cause of most of our post-war problems.
DC

In reply to Martin W:

I think I must have expressed myself clumsily. I agree with you.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

You're in the wrong thread. You want this one:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=637853

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Crikey John, Jilly Cooper, The Daily Mail and making up rubbish about refugees, are you sure you're not going through the change?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I feel for you. I have once asked someone invited to my home to leave it (owing to blatant racism) - and lost the friendship of their partner (form whom I'd never heard anything similar) as a consequence.

Jerry Dammers has it right.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:


Dare you not even name them?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Illustrates why it's best to avoid discussing politics or religion at the dinner table. Maybe you should have nipped it in the bud by simply saying. "I don't agree with you. You are my guest, so I won't argue with you now, but I would like to change the subject"

Then change the subject.

Did you have any inkling prior to the dinner party that she held extreme views? If so, would probably have been better not to have invited her. No doubt you will not do so again?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


the prevailing educational orthodoxy is an obvious example.

In reply to KevinD:

progressive, surely?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I would report her to the police and push for the full seven year prison sentence under our hate speech laws. We can't have people saying these things. If we can force them to stop saying them, and criminalise the language used to express opinions we disagree with, hopefully in time they won't have the vocabulary even to think these thoughts.

In reply to KevinD:


the orthodoxy promulgated by the Conservative government ?

Can you elaborate ?

In reply to ChrisBrooke:

Its after 12 you know.

In reply to marsbar:

Is that when trolls are meant to go to sleep?

In reply to marsbar:


Yeah, even in GMT-running UKC land...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Whilst (just to be very clear) I am not condoning her views, you need to be aware that there a plenty of people out there who think like that. Plenty of educated people.

You can engage with them in reasoned discussion (but expect some fairly emotive pushback) and/or if, they are having dinner with you, you can decide not to eat with them again.

I don't think you can expect them to 'not exist' or even expect them to be in a tiny quiet minority. Okay, perhaps you can expect the last point but the reality is that they are not a tiny minority and nor are the views so generally abhorrent that people who hold them don't express them.

In reply to jkarran:



Knock knock,

Hello,
Hello I am John and I am here for Britain Stronger in Europe
Oh do come in, I am called Simon, lets us discuss this.

In reply to ChrisBrooke:

Just today. Until the EU rule kicks in and changes it to the 2nd.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


OTOH If, by now, she had been subjected to your 50 favourite chess openings rendered into song and had done a bottle of Mouton Rothschild, a bottle of LBV Port and half a bottle of NBG Port, perhaps she felt the need to liven things up?

I thought you embarrassed yourself awfully with your My Country's Killing Everyone thread but I don't remember offers of an apology or explanation being offered, if that was the line conversation took she was probably laughing all the way to the petit fours.

In reply to lummox:


Look it up yourself. Try googling something like "seven myths about education" for a start.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I had a similar kind of dialogue with someone at the bar in our local recently. I think all you can do is treat it as an exercise in self control.

In reply to tony:



Do you include yourself in 'most people'?

In reply to Ridge:


I do yes, I'm fully aware that I'm not good at changing my mind or being persuaded that something I've previously believed might be a load of tosh. However, I don't see changing my mind as a sign of weakness - I'm more likely to say 'I don't know', and it does depend on the subject - there are things I'm feel strongly about, but I know I'm not good at finding or listening to alternative points of view, as becomes very apparent when I visit my parents.

In reply to faffergotgunz:

Are you Nigel Kennedy by any chance?

In reply to Martin W:



Oh - maybe that explains the lack of repeat invitations!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Don't invite morons to dinner.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Do you seriously think all "educated people" hold exactly the same political opinions as you? Don't you think that may be just a tad...naive?

JW

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Just to give an alternative view about leaving.

http://www.adamsmith.org/the-liberal-case-for-leave

I agree with a lot of the view but I'd prefer a move to a more Nordic Model though.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Easy to take offense when it offends your sensibilities. So worth having the debate. I don't see what is so "offensive" though. Possibly put a bit bluntly with a few gross generalisations. But nothing necessarily wrong in wanting to limit population growth by first targeting immigration, quite understandable that someone might be uncomfortable with the idea of perceived benefit scroungers, and there are rational reasons for leaving the EU.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Make up better imaginary dinner guests to get outraged at.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

It was your choice of guests, wasn't it? If you selected them for purely business relationships then just switch the conversation politely. If it wasn't, it's your fault. Scylla and Charibdis

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I think that the chaps opinions were valid. Nothing worse than an evening with people that all have the same view as yourself.

In reply to Dave the Rave:

Would you really prefer to spend your evenings with stupid, racist bigots than with like-minded people?

Unless of course it isn't an either-or choice?

In reply to john arran:



It isn't an option

In reply to john arran:



Tricky, all we know is who JCM chose to spend his evening with.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:






Never invite people who speak in cliche to dinner.

In reply to John Ww:



Of course not, what a stupid thing for you to say.

I would however expect any educated person to understand that views along the lines of 'we cannot live together with this group of people because they are not like us and will rape all our women' haven't generally led to very fine moments in human history, and that if one truly finds oneself forced to such a conclusion it should be with great regret and should be expressed with all humility and respect.

I would also expect educated people to know that describing an entire nation by such terms as "Romanian gypsies" is ignorant and hateful.

These are not political views, in my opinion at least, but statements about which all decent people agree.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Clearly there is only one correct view.... in your view.

In reply to yorkshireman:

"> Absolutely no point getting angry, irate, calling it hate speech or calling them bigoted. People have a right to an opinion and nothing your friend has said is illegal nor should be illegal in my opinion. "

I disagree.. they have the right to their opinion, and you have the right to call it hate speech or whatever label you want.. That doesn't mean its illegal.

Your very statement is right, they have the right to that opinion. That works both ways.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Sure, I have the right to tell them what I think of them, but it's not about rights. Yorkshireman's point was that if I wanted to change their mind I'd do best to react calmly.

Probably true. It's just such a surprise to hear that kind of stuff; I've really not had the practice at how to react to it.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


A bit pedantic but did they mean all Romanians or just the gypsies? Romanians themselves can be breathtakingly racist towards the Roma.

In reply to MG:

Spot on. A Romanian I work with is very vocal about his dislike for them.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Tell them you don't like to talk sh*t about people who aren't there to defend themselves. Works in many situations.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

While I would expect an educated person not to be so pathetic as to consider calling the police to one's house simply because they don't agree with something a dinner guest has said.

JW

In reply to Skyfall:


Hmm... to quote JCM:

'These are not political views, in my opinion at least, but statements about which all decent people agree.'

Is not this really about fundamental human decency? I suspect it's the casual contempt for such decency that's hurt him so much.

Mick

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: I'm never really sure of the difference between hate speech and simple stupidity. These people sound stupid and uneducated and uninformed.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


As a general comment about the movement of people within the EU, that's a legitimate concern, isn't it? (I'm not saying I share it.) And indeed one which might well influence how many people vote in the forthcoming referendum.

In reply to Frank the Husky:


It's because they are the ones who can be swayed by ignorants arguments. Like getting out of the EU will reduce the number of non-EU migrants..

Look at the power of The Sun in elections.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:




My experience is the opposite. We had a family friend posting pro-Trump ads.. When his best friend is undocumented. One by one we all had a word and he admitted he'd never vote Trump..

In reply to John Ww:

For goodness' sake, don't be so silly. I said (in jest obviously) that I would call the police if she refused to leave when asked. Do try to keep up, and y'know, read the posts you're replying to or something.

jcm

In reply to Rob Parsons:
It's an eccentric view, bordering in my opinion on the deranged, to think that people who have been taken in by one country and rejected by another, are then going to move in any significant numbers to that second country after spending five years in the first one.

jcm

In reply to MG:


Oh, believe me, they meant all Romanians.

jcm

In reply to Roadrunner5:


The left would have more of a chance of winning arguments if they didn't reflexively go for insulting language like 'ignorant', 'uneducated', 'bigoted' and 'hate speech' and try and make it unacceptable to even raise what are what are perhaps incorrect but fairly mainstream and not unreasonable concerns.

The fact is that there are problems from immigration from islamic countries such as the sex crimes in Germany and terrorism in Belgium and France and there are also problems arising from immigration from the most impoverished new member states of the EU. The argument should be about whether those problems are out weighed by moral concerns or economic benefits not trying to make it unacceptable to even mention the problems.

Religions should not get the same kind of special treatment as race or gender. People can change their religion, it is a political belief or philosophy not an immutable physical characteristic. Just like political beliefs and philosophies some are a lot more reasonable than others and they need to be challenged if there is to be progress. If, as soon as someone challenges a religion people start shouting hate speech and threatening to call the cops how is society supposed to exert pressure on them to evolve and become more aligned with modern thought.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Re your last paragraph, Maajid Nawaz has interesting things to say on the subject:

youtube.com/watch?v=ZXvysq5LvVU&

Mr Nawaz is a Muslim and a former Islamist radical who used to preach 'death to the West', and was tortured in an Egyptian jail for his extremist political activities. He coined the phrase 'the regressive left'. In the brief clip I've linked to he explains what he means by the term.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


They can't, for a couple of reasons.

First it has become an ingrained, knee-jerk reflex, the abuse slips out without them thinking and before they have even noticed.

Second it is because they utterly and without a shadow of self-doubt think that they have an absolute monopoly on intelligence and morality, so anyone who holds a different view, that challenges some or all of their totalitarian conformism is extinct in one and probably both. They really cannot accept that other intelligent, reasonable people can have completely different, but strongly held opinions to the left-conformist orthodoxy, it is like dry water to them, an impossibility. The left are simply RIGHT, that is the end of the matter.


Except of course that there is one particular religion where they cannot, as Mr Shah in Glasgow found. This is of course entirely in line with the Koran, which prescribes the death penalty for apostasy or blasphemy.

We effectively have a blasphemy law in Britain that only applies to Islam, and is enforced with the death penalty, just as it is in Pakistan and Bangladesh. This can only become more pronounced as the proportion of Muslims in the population increases, it always does when that happens.

Imagine the continuous media saturation coverage that would have been given to Mr Shah's murder, had there been even a hint that some right wing, white group were involved in it. It has however been virtually buried and forgotten, as things stand now.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The laughable thing is people go on about free speech and not dressing up language with PC terminology.. Then moan if that's used against them.

A spades a spade.

If you spout ignorance then yes, I'll call it ignorant. People may not like it but that is because they know it's correct.

They may not like being called xenophobic but that's what it is.. And suddenly the left have to dress up their language with all politically correct terms for fear of upsetting the sensitive right...

In reply to Simon4:

This is just kids stuff..

Listen to the U.S. Right wing radio stations.. 'For the left, truth isn't a virtue.. They may not all lie, but they don't value truth'

Both sides are as bad as each other and what you seem to fail to realize in you and Tom fail to spot that much of the traditional left support the vote to leave the EU...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I'd most probably have said something like, "I disagree fundamentally with your views, can we move on" or, more bluntly, "I'm sorry, those views aren't welcome at this dinner table" and then changed the subject in the hope of having a more pleasant evening. After they'd gone, I'd consider the wisdom of ever inviting them again.

T.

In reply to Simon4:
'We effectively have a blasphemy law in Britain that only applies to Islam, and is enforced with the death penalty, just as it is in Pakistan and Bangladesh. This can only become more pronounced as the proportion of Muslims in the population increases, it always does when that happens. '

We can dress it up. But that is bullshit. How can 2 people like such an incorrect statement. It is an outright lie.

You know it. We know it.

You are a liar.

We do not have a death penalty and we certainly do not have a death penalty for blasphemy. That is an outright lie and you should be embarrassed for spouting such trash talk. That is pure ignorance.

Be offended... Say i have no right to speak the truth but one of us makes up lies..

Do you think the UK effectively had the death penalty for adultery? Afterall more people are murdered for adultery than blasphemy in the UK?

In reply to Simon4:

You sound pretty frustrated. Are you okay?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Sorry I had to leave this discussion; I was watching my son play football. His team's star player a Muslim - it was extraordinary. He spent the whole eighty minutes running round the pitch without sexually assaulting anyone, and his two brothers on the sideline were chatting away with other parents almost as if they were ordinary people just like us. Fiendish cunning the way they try to fit in before murdering us all for dissing Islam, which as Simon4 pointed out, is all they ever want to do.

Having said that, our Bulgarian full back had a pretty poor game. Maybe I was wrong to judge too hastily that they aren't all useless slackers. (I know Bulgaria and Romania are different countries in theory, but as someone else said higher up, they're all pretty much the same down there.)

jcm

In reply to Simon4:

>They really cannot accept that other intelligent, reasonable people

Don't kid yourself boyyo.

Anyhow no mention of the BBC. Or even the Grauniad.
Standards are slipping.
Please try harder.
0/10.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>Religions should not get the same kind of special treatment as race or gender. People can change their religion, it is a political belief or philosophy not an immutable physical characteristic.

This is a naive view. I would have thought five minutes' consideration of human history would show anyone that people get rather attached to their particular sky fairy (now *why*, heaven only knows, but that's not the point), and that suggesting they might care to change their sf, let alone seeking to exclude large groups from this or that on the grounds that they won't change it, has never really been a success, to put it mildly.

jcm

In reply to Tony Naylor:

Thanks - he sounds like a very sound fellow. I've never heard of him before.

It's the difference between 'we must keep Muslims out because they're not like us', and 'we must challenge Islamism', isn't it?

jcm

In reply to Roadrunner5:

>> We effectively have a blasphemy law in Britain that only applies to Islam, and is enforced with the death penalty, just as it is in Pakistan and Bangladesh.


While Simon4's mention of enforcement with the death penalty is a touch melodramatic (though not entirely so, given that the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris are not that far from London), he is right that to quite an extent we *effectively* have a blasphemy law that applies only to Islam.

Nowdays, most of the mainstream media will refuse to reproduce Mohammed cartoons or any depiction of Mohammed, no matter how newsworthy. This is self-censorship, and it is done primarily out of fear of reprisals from a violent minority of Muslims. I will agree that there is no effective blasphemy law if newspapers feel as free to publish cartoons critical of Islam as they do to publish cartoons critical of Christianity.

The Rochdale child-abuse scandal, the Birmingham Trojan Horse episode, and the prefix of "so called" when mentioning ISIS are other examples of self-censorship, and the deliberate avoidance of saying anything that can be construed as being critical of Islam.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


One thing which makes the EU referendum a particularly interesting - perhaps, in my lifetime, unique - political issue, is that there is no traditional left/right analysis to which to cling.

The whole thing is a complex mixture of political/philosophical/economical questions: we all have to do our best to tussle with these, in as responsible manner as we can.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
So he lied..

Coeljust because you support his general stance doesn't mean you have to support lies..

'A touch melodramatic'

You call it a touch as people have been murdered, in another country no less. That is very odd. Cool, you are a smart guy, you know very well that is no justification for what Simon4 said. As I said, are you then saying we effectively have an anti-adultery law in the UK as people have been murdered for it?

Just because people have died (and in this case in another country) does not mean we have such laws and you know it.

He was wrong, he lied.

We do not have a blasphemy law, and we do not have a penalty for blasphemy.

Regarding newspapers self censoring.. Yes they do. That is not the same as blasphemy laws. The Daily Mail constantly publishes anti-Islamic articles without censorship from UK law.

You know very well not publishing something out of fear of inciting trouble, offending, or whatever reason is not effectively having a blaspheming law.

I really do not get your desire to agree and defend such lies just because you share a general view with him.

In reply to Rob Parsons:



I totally agree.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


He talked about an *effective* blasphemy law, not an actual one. Given some degree of hyperbole, he has a point.

Anyhow, there have been murders in Britain (not just Paris). The death of a Glasgow
Ahmadiyya Muslim shopkeeper, apparently murdered by another Muslim, owing to his "heresy" and "blasphemy" is the recent example., and is presumably what Simon4 was referring to with his "enforced by the death penalty" remark.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Clearly Coel lives in a part of the country in which the Daily Mail doesn't exist. Given John's other thread about this fine organ of free speech for right thinking people everywhere, perhaps Coel could just get in touch with John directly and tell him where to move house...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

He's a very interesting chap, not least because he's walked the walk - an Essex lad of Pakistani descent, as a youth he was on the receiving end of assault from skinhead gangs and discrimination by the police. He was later radicalised and sat on the board of an Islamist organisation. These days he's what you might call a secularist Muslim (my description, not his) and founder of the Quilliam Foundation, an anti-extremist think tank.

IMHO, he expresses his ideas very clearly and repays close attention. He's done a considerable amount of work with the staunchly anti-theist Sam Harris; they recently co-authored a book, "Islam and the Future of Tolerance". Must get around to reading that one.


Yes, I think that pretty much sums up his view, although I'm not aware of much he's had to say specifically on immigration. I'm also interested in (and in agreement with) his views on the 'regressive left' - the people who use terms like 'racist' with little or no genuine provocation in order to shut down debate. A very dangerous trend, I think. There's a famous clip of Ben Affleck doing this on the Bill Maher Show, wherein Sam Harris criticises Islam (very specifically the religion and not its adherents) and little Benny looks all peeved and starts shouting and using the 'r' word a lot.

BTW, I really like Nawaz's take on critiques of religion. He says it's like saying smoking is bad - you're not saying smokers are bad people.

There's quite a lot of his stuff on Youtube, if you're interested.

In reply to Coel Hellier:




Well, if one murder - which is awful - means that something is "enforced by the death penalty" then what do we make of the Muslim men murdered for their faith by white extremists: do their killings mean that "thou shalt not be a Muslim" is a rule "enforced by the death penalty"? Or, as suggested above, that men killing their unfaithful wives means we have an anti-adultary law "enforced by the death penalty"? Or are those cases simply people going mental.

One would of course have to be without a rather dark sense of humour not to see the absurdity of Europeans getting all het up about people killing for ideology.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



So do you agree we effectively have the death penalty for committing adultery?
in fact for any random excuse for a murder?

Dogs barking too loud..
Supporting a rival football team..
Driving aggressively..

It is a preposterously poor argument and defensive of simon4s idiotic statement.

According to your justification we "effectively" have the death penalty for almost any random act.. You are smarter than that.
If you used such logic in s scientific paper you know you'd be laughed at.

It wasn't some degree of hyperbole or a touch melodramatic. It was misleading lies. Please have the spine to call a spade a spade or are you scared to speak freely?

In reply to seankenny:


Well, I do admit to not reading that one. But I didn't say that *everyone* avoids criticising Islam, I gave some examples of self-censorship and the avoidance of criticising Islam. The self-adoption of the Islamic taboo on depicting Mohammed does seem to be pretty universal among the mainstream media, and that is mostly a result of fear of the consequences.


Which events are you referring to?

In reply to Roadrunner5:

No, he didn't. He over-stated (IMHO) but he didn't lie. Bear in mind, Simon4 didn't claim we had a blasphemy law, he claimed we *effectively* have a blasphemy law. I say he over-stated because this 'law' is not invariably applied, but it is applied often enough to give grave cause for concern, and it can carry a death sentence. You may remember that this happened to Salman Rushdie.

Hypothetically, let's say you were unconcerned about hurting peoples feelings on religious matters. Would you be willing to publish a cartoon of Mohammed under your own name? I doubt it.


If by 'we' you mean the UK legal system, you are obviously correct. But it's equally obvious that Simon4 wasn't referring to the UK legal system and was instead referring to very substantive threats from Islamists.



There's something missing from your list. Fear of inciting trouble - check. Fear of offending - check. Fear of committing an act Islamists regard as blasphemy can result in your murder - that's the one you missed.

If you dislike Simon4's politics that's all well and good, but misrepresenting what he says then using that misrepresentation to call him a liar just undermines your own position. Argue better, sir.

In reply to Tony Naylor:
He said we have the death penalty..

FFS what is up with you and coel?!

Blatant misrepresentation of the truth is lying.

I am misrepresenting him! He lied. He didn't just overstate he lied.

Stop defending people because they support your view, it weakens your argument.

You refer back to Rushdie? How long ago was that? And in which country? So not "we"

Argue better sir? Haha I'm not the one who lies. Who totally misrepresents the truth and incites hate.
And you ask a question. Then answer it for me? How rude. no I woulndt.

I don't go out of my way to offend people. Why don't you? There's many things I dislike but I currently work as a teacher so why would anyone go out of their way to insult the faith their students. I criticise inequality. I criticise unjust actions, but I won't criticise whole faiths as I think that gets us nowhere, just a divided society.

This is just crazy.
Anything can result in murder. Look at dando?
any one offended can murder someone. People get murdered for anything, sometimes no reason at all.
trawl the newspapers and read the idiotic reasons people commit acts of murder far more frequently than for religious reasons in the UK.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

This sounds like Sunday dinner with my grandma.... I try to argue with her but it never gets me anywhere. Now I just smile and nod.

In reply to Roadrunner5:








He said "effectively". You can read, can't you?

Salman Rushdie lived here (the UK, not where you live) and had a death sentence pronounced.

In reply to seankenny:


Although on another thread you said that Death for Apostasy (which is essentially racist murder) was 'complex', so does that make you more or less Right Wing than Simon4?

He, at least, seems to reject all forms of racist murder, you OTOH hand seem to think one is less than the other, which would make you further to the Right than him.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Here he is...
No, he said we effectively have a blasphemy law..

He then said 'and is enforced with the death penalty just as it is in Pakistan'
is that true?
do we have the death penalty?

Nope.

He lied.

Can't you read.

Regarding SR. How misleading can you be. He lived here. The death penalty was not from here. We do not have the death penalty. Many Brits have been executed for drug smuggling or murder, does that mean we have the death penalty for those actions. Nope.

Don't twist things that happened 30 years ago where another nation issued a death penalty on someone as the UK having a death penalty.. That is a total misrepresentation of what happened, and the UKs response to the Iranian decision.

"Just as it is in Pakistan" means that we as a state execute people for blasphemy, JUST as Pakistan does. We do not. so do we effectively have a death penalty for dogs barking too loud? For playing loud music?

You know that would be a preposterous conclusion to jump to just because there has been the odd murder for that reason.

In reply to Roadrunner5:









Sorry, you'll have to try and make that a bit more coherent. Capital letters, punctuation, a bit less aggro, would all help.

In reply to Sir Chasm:
Side step.. Good one. Better that than say, sorry.
And if you can't understand that, then you aren't the great mind I had you down for..

In reply to Roadrunner5:

I'll try and reply to your edit.



Yes, he said "effectively", at least you've now noticed that word.



Well, on occasion.





I think I can.


He lived here, and for what he had written he was sentenced to death. That you try to minimise that is sad, but unsurprising.


I haven't misrepresented it. He was sentenced to death. Deny it all you like, why ever you like it.


Well, that's your interpretation.


Sorry, is that a question or statement?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

No, he said we effectively have a blasphemy law.

He then said it was enforced 'just' as it in Pakistan. In pakistan people are executed for blasphemy.

I am not denying SR had a fatwa issued, I am denying it was enforced in the UK, as Simon4s post suggested. He lived in the UK, the sentence was not enforced here by the state. In fact he was protected there.

You are getting aggro here because you've made silly leaps of logic.

others have defended Simons statement because a few have been murdered In the UK for blasphemy. Likewise they've been murdered for adultery, bad driving and supporting the wrong football teams.

There are many websites and publications which criticise Islam in the UK. They are restricted to right wing hate groups because most of us do not go out of our way to incite hatred, however if you support such views than back Britain First. Their facebook page is allowed, it gets banned, but back up quick enough and they and others publish hate articles without execution. Could they in Pakistan?

You know they wouldn't. So no we do not have blasphemy laws "effectively" and we certainly do not have them enforced "just as they are in Pakistan"

In reply to Sir Chasm:
Regarding my interpretation of "just as it in Pakistan"

That is based on the English language. The adverb "Just" means precisely/exactly.. So if a death penalty is enforced exactly or precisely as it is in Pakistan, we would have state sponsored executions for blasphemy.

adverb
1.
exactly.
"that's just what I need"
synonyms: exactly, precisely, absolutely, completely, totally, entirely, perfectly, utterly, wholly, thoroughly, altogether, in every way, in every respect, in all respects.

So there is only one way to interpret "just as", assuming you have a basic grasp of the English Language. Or are you arguing it could be interpreted otherwise?

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Since you're taking a hyper-literalist reading of Simon4's post, I'll just point out that . . .


No, in Pakistan there have not been any judicial executions for blasphemy. There have been death *sentences* (but no executions) and plenty of people have been lynched or otherwise extra-judicially killed for it.


Revealing how you equate "criticising Islam" with "inciting hatred". There are plenty of -- for example -- websites that criticise the government or the opposition, but no-one automatically equates that to "inciting hatred". Why the double standard?

Trying to disallow criticism of Islam by terms such as "Islamophobia", "inciting hatred" and "racism" is one of the ways our "effective" blasphemy law gets policed.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

I think I might understand some of your confusion. You appear to think that if nobody dies then a death sentence hasn't been issued, but living where you do you must know that that's a stupid idea. Surely? And your idea that because it only a "few" have been murdered (let's call a spade a spade) for blasphemy means there is no "effective" blasphemy law is bizarre.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Yet if you ask Muslims, they say they live in an environment of almost constant criticism of their religion.

I think we all need to sit down and watch Rashomon.

Interestingly, googling "pictures of mohammed in the media" brings up a BBC online piece about the issue complete with a picture of Mohammed. There were no blast-resistant concrete blocks the last time I visited the beeb...



So let me get this. The abhorent religiously-inspired killing you know about in some depth, but the well-publicised killing of obviously religious men in racist attacks - another abhorent act - is something you struggle to remember. Well, well, ain't that a thing.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Sorry, my fault, I thought they had.

But 20 people have been sentenced to death by the state.

See. It's not that hard is it? Spot a mistake, correct the statement. Not dig deeper which you and sir chasm favour.

Sir chasm, ok point to 20 times, or once, the UK has sentenced someone to death for blasphemy.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


So is there an "effective" law against adultery in the UK?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Regarding criticism of governments.

Because humans have a history of using religion to commit mass genocide and to divide people.

In the UK, the left and right have traditionally got on ok and the right to criticise each other, within bounds, is an essential part of our government.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


No, he said we *effectively* have the death penalty, because people rightly fear murder by extremists if they publicly blaspheme against Islam. This has been explained several times now. Perhaps your best course would be to admit that you misunderstood Simon4 on this particular point and that, while you oppose his political views, you concede that he did not lie on this point.


Calm down, sir. This is a rational political discussion, not the prelude to a punch up in the pub.


I'm not defending Simon4, I'm criticising the idea that he lied. There is a difference.


If you're implying that the Rushdie affair doesn't matter because it was years ago, it's a strange argument. Surely this was one of the first such attempts to impose Islamic laws outside the Islamic world? And surely there have been subsequent examples where the sentence has been carried out?


My apologies, I did not intend to appear rude - it was a rhetorical question and so didn't require an answer, but thank you for answering anyway, as it leads to my next question. If you wouldn't publish such a cartoon, would one of your reasons be a justifiable fear of being murdered?


That's an interesting set of points. In many Islamic countries, you would find much to offend you regarding the gross inequality of women and unjust actions such as stoning for adultery. It seems to me that your laudable (I'm being sincere, not sarcastic) concerns would conflict with your reluctance to criticise a religion, given that those inequalities and unjust actions derive directly from the religion and have scriptural authority.

I particularly like your idea that criticising whole faiths gets us nowhere, not least because I thoroughly disagree with it. In the short term you are clearly right - arguing against faith provides no quick fixes. But I think it's overly pessimistic to suppose that in the long term we can't make progress. Where are the adherents of Zeus, or Baal, or Osiris or Zoroaster now? It takes time, but it can be done. Faiths can be modified, and they can disappear.

Re a divided society, that's society's default state - we'd all be robots otherwise. And there'd be nothing to argue about. Dull.


True, but we're looking at the question of religiously inspired murder on the grounds of blasphemy, not every kind of murder. Seems like a non sequitur.

In reply to seankenny:


Yes, a 16th century historical and reverent picture from a version of Islam what was ok with depicting him. And even that has a trigger-warning near the head of the piece. But there are no cartoons or Charlie Hebdo covers or anything else topical, however relevant and newsworthy. They are quite clearly self-censoring such images when, by all normal rules, they would show them.

In reply to Tony Naylor:
Read his comment again. He said effectively had a blasphemy law.. Then that it is enforced 'just' as it is in the Pakistan.

"Just" is not a synonym of "effectively"

Even if he meant effectively. He's wrong. Look at the recent execution of the body guard who murdered his boss accused of blasphemy. He was given a heros funeral.

The UK is in no way like Pakistan.

In reply to winhill:


Did I suggest that I supported death for apostasy? I'm fairly sure I didn't, being as I have - just possibly - a slightly better understanding of my own opinions than you do, but perhaps I'm just not very good at expressing myself.

Anyhoooooow... iirc, my take on the apostasy stat from the report we discussed - a report which I read, no idea if you did - was that it was really out of context from all the other information, quantative and qualitative, contained in the report. I mean, it didn't fit with everything else the report was saying... maybe your reading of the report was different. Anyhow, looking into it, I found plenty of Muslims saying there was an issue around the translation from the Arabic of the word "apostasy", which some scholars see as closer to "treason" and relating to the startlingly different view of the relationship between religion, state and society in pre-modern and modern times. Indeed I even found an interesting Q&A with a self-described conservative Salafi British Muslim who totally rejected the idea of killing another for apostasy.

In short: do I think some British Muslims who leave the faith get a hard time from their community for doing so? Undoubtedly. What do I think of that? It's terrible backwards behaviour, but it's not necessarily Muslim behaviour - plenty of groups are intolerant of leavers and heretics (isn't Coel himself some kind of ex-Christian?). Do I think huge numbers of British Muslims are ready to kill those who leave the religion? No. Do I think many of them would support a killer? I very much doubt it, but I might be wrong. There you go, something I'm not sure about. That'll make a change for these kinds of threads eh?

In reply to Roadrunner5:


The right to criticise religions is just as much an essential part of a free society as the right to criticise the government. Anyhow, there have been plenty of wars between political factions across then world. Thus, this does not explain your double standard of wanting to disallow criticism of Islam as "inciting hatred".

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Sorry, I should have clarified - when I said he overstated, it was the 'just as in Pakistan' bit that I had in mind.

In reply to Tony Naylor:

>Where are the adherents of Zeus now?

Not disappeared on account of logical criticism of their faith, I'll be bound. More to do with the Romans conquering the Greeks, the barbarians defeating the Romans and the gods of the former underlings in the empire coming to the fore, I would guess.

jcm

In reply to seankenny:


Nope, unless you count what I might have said when aged in single figures, going to CofE schools; I've been an atheist at least since age 11 or 12.


You're right that few would do the killing, but the polls suggest that a large fraction of British Muslims do not support the right to apostasy and freedom of religion.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Hang on, this needs clarifying: Roadrunner - do you categorise criticism of Islam as as inciting hatred? I'm not suggesting that you do, it's a genuine question.

In reply to Tony Naylor:


It's almost like they are trying to turn the map green, to create an empire on which the sun never set, to import their rules and laws in civilising mission to the rest of the world...

Note: this is sarcasm.

Alexandra Ave, Harrow. Lovely old art deco building. Plus I once visited a very nice Zoroastrian shrine outside Esfahan. Check it out if you're ever in the area.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Ha ha, fair point I wasn't suggesting they were argued out of existence, I was only trying to assert that faiths *can* disappear. Although I would argue that faiths can be criticised away, and currently are being, although it's a slow process. Look at the UK - and even more strikingly Sweden - where atheism/agnosticism/just don't care are becoming the norm. Secularism is very much on the rise, indeed for the first time in European history we have a society where you can declare yourself an atheist without being cast out by your peers or tortured by religious authorities. Rejoice ye faithful, and praise the Dawkins!

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Its quite a topical subject in Glasgow with people receiving death threats for calling for unity and sharing a platform with Christians.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35954510

In reply to seankenny:

Thanks for the tip, I love old temples and churches. (Seriously).

In reply to Tony Naylor:


No.

I think you can criticize a religion it'd when it gets leveled at 'Muslims' I think there are issues.

There are moderate Muslims. I'm not going to say I don't think Islam is backwards and needs to be more progressive. Look at the general treatment of women.

However, to a lesser extent, you can level similar criticisms at most faiths, especially the Catholic Church. However that doesn't mean I think all Catholics have a backwards view of the world.

I think the future lies in working with more moderate members of Islam and hoping for change from within. I can't see anyother way.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


I don't think so, not a UK law. But, if you lived in the UK and had been adulterous and an ayatollah told his followers to kill you, would you consider a death sentence had been issued? If the US say "we're going to kill IS members in Syria", is that a death sentence? According to you it wouldn't be as it wouldn't be a Syrian law.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Hmmm, have you read the Policy Exchange report? I'm not trying to score points, merely saying it is an interesting piece of work.

"37% [of Muslims] believe that "One of the benefits of modern society is the freedom to criticise other people's religious or political views, even when it causes offence". 29% of the general population believes the same."

"A common remark we heard from many Muslims we spoke to - religious and non-religious - was 'everyone
should have their own values'..."

Anyhow, it was interesting. But I'm assuming that a man such as yourself, with a passionate interest in religion, has a lot of meetings and correspondences with the believers to thrash stuff out with them and understand areas of difference, so you probably have really good links with all sorts of Muslims and your finger is pretty much on the pulse.

In reply to Tony Naylor:


The one in Esfahan is great. The Rayners Lane one I've not been inside, but there is a very good Indian restaurant just down the road which is worth a visit for sure.

In reply to Sir Chasm:
You are losing it.

It doesn't matter. That would be war. If it wasn't it would be murder, not a death penalty.

We still don't "effectively" have a death penalty..

A fatwa has been called against all Americans, military and civilian, that doesn't mean we effectively have a law against being American, nor that we have a death penalty for it...

Are you drunk?

Normally you at least follow some logic. This has none.

He said 'we'.. Not death penalties called in other countries..

In reply to Roadrunner5:

>


>

>
Yes "we" do "effectively" have a blasphemy "law" in this country,
Although not in UK law it is in Sharia law and is punishable by death(according to the fundamentalists who adhere to sharia law)
So yes, "we" do still effectively have a blasphemy "law" in this country.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Just trying to keep up.


What doesn't matter? Try responding in order. Are you saying the ayatollah declared war on the UK when he sentenced Salman to death?


So Salman wasn't sentenced to death? It's an opinion, I suppose.


Has it? Well, try not to worry.


Not yet.



It was a death sentence against a UK citizen. Do you think it was an idle threat?

In reply to mwr72:




So which courts are passing down these sentences? Or is it just relatively random nutters?

This is not to play down the seriousness or hideousness of these crimes, but your talk of law suggests there's some kind of institutional aspect to the whole process. Is that really the case?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


After the Litvinenko case, and given the Putin's regime well-publicised closeness to the church, I await your diatribes against murderous Russian Orthodoxy.

Incidentally, how many of Salman Rushdie's books have you actually read? Genuine question.

In reply to seankenny:


Tenterhooks must be painful. But you accept that a death sentence was issued?


One, Midnight's Children, I found it hard going. But I didn't want to kill the author.
What about you?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


By the Iranians? But of course. That doesn't mean "we" have a death penalty, rather that a foreign court passed a death sentence on a citizen of another country in absentia and then sponsored various non-state actors to do the dirty work.




Three - MC, Shame and Haroun and the Sea of Stories. Shame is very good.

In reply to seankenny:


So, at the risk of appearing pedantic, he was sentenced to death?


3/1, you win. But did they make you want to kill him?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Well yes, but in a different jurisdiction. Naturally the Iranian state wanted to pursue its policies by acting outside of its jurisdiction, but they are hardly alone in that are they? Note, before any half-cocked fools jump on this: I'm not assuming equivalence between, say, the governmets of the USA and Iran. Merely pointing out that plenty of states attempt to murder people in other jurisdictions. That doesn't mean we have sharia law or the death penalty for blasphemy or anything else.


Of course I win, otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question, would I?! (What emoticon do I use to suggest my tongue is slightly in my cheek?)
I'd like to read the Satanic Verses, which was the offending book iirc.

In reply to seankenny:


Yes, as I said, he was sentenced to death, and he was in this (the UK) jurisdiction. That the sentence is issued from abroad doesn't change the sentence.



There's a website called Amazing, I think that's it anyway.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Sounds deeply unpleasant. FWIW, I work mostly with very highly educated people and views like that are depressingly common.

As to what to do, probably better to engage than go for the more immediately satisfying 'fuck off' option, but when you're banging your head off a wall...

In reply to Sir Chasm:

>One, Midnight's Children, I found it hard going. But I didn't want to kill the author.

In all fairness, I thought that would have been a perfectly reasonable reaction to MC, albeit on literary rather than doctrinal grounds. I've seldom read anything more tedious.

Actually, I don't think I mean MC. That was the first one. What was the one that got the Ayatollah all worked up? I tried to read that on principle, but I couldm't manage it.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Satanic verses. I think I got fifty pages in before deciding there is a time to sacrifice principles and paying cash for it was enough.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


I believe you, after all, they exist(only) in your imagination.

In reply to Big Ger:

And with that I'm out, with you and roadrunner we've got 2 of UKC's most prolific ex-pat gobshites, all we need is summo for the holy trinity.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Eh? You are turning the argument.

This was about UK law.. Effectively banning blasphemy against Islam..

You really are odd.

And by the way I don't see why we need our press to attack religions. We're British.. The great apologisers.. 'Sorry, can you pass the salt?'. Reserved and polite was part of our culture, we were famed for our manners and polite society.

Why should we go out of our way to insult?

I can't see how attacking Muslims and creating conflict can do anything but be perfect for ISIS.

Like trumps ban on Muslims from the U.S., it is just treating Muslims as second class citizens. Alienate them and make it easier for radicalization. That just seems common sense.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Yey!!

I've had a sir chasm insult! Get in!

Angry little man..

And only the other week you were encouraging me to use my right to vote in the EU referendum? Typical inconsistency. You just pick a side. You remind me of Trump tbh, a total lack of core principles.. Deciding on the day whose side to jump on.. Based on who you like.. And which is the more popular stance. Cowardly and weak.

Yet as a British citizen, father of a British citizen, with family in Britain I can't comment on British society..

You Sir are a joke..

And yet you also posts on threads about other countries. I suggest that you only go on about me being an ex-pat because your arguments are wea.

In reply to mwr72:




Wow..

How is that effectively a law? And how is it carried out JUST as it is in Pakistan?

You are spouting fear inducing trash.. Look at how many posts have attacked Islam on UKC? Are you saying its various fatwas which are to blame for the absence of Norrie, Sutty, JCT and the rest?

What a joke...

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Sorry if my views upset you so.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Damn, me too, one who is returning to live in Blighty in 4 years. I best keep shtum until then.

Oh, hang about, I come back every two yeas for a couple of months, last time was Nov/Dec 2015, am I allowed to build up "posting on UK matters" credits during these stays?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

That was "The Satanic Verses". I had a crack at it, too. Once shortly after publication and again about a month ago. I cast no doubt upon its literary merit, but I couldn't get on with it and quickly gave up both times.

On the bright side, I do enjoy Rushdie as a speaker - the man has a hell of a mind, a gift for expression, and a delightfully deceptive lazy manner.

Two amusing things about Rushdie:

1) Those of a certain age will recall an advert for cream cakes with the tag line, "Naughty..... but nice". Rushdie came up with that one while working for an ad agency.

2) He had an on-stage conversation with Christopher Hitchens at a venue in the US and was asked in the audience Q+A at the end how he thought George Osborne's declaration that he was an atheist would affect the coalition's chance of re-election. He responded that it would be irrelevant and that politics in the UK were very different to the US, to the extent that to market yourself as a person of faith in UK politics was to brand yourself "a flake" and would be political suicide. An obvious point in hindsight, but I'd never heard anyone make it previously. And it seemed to temporarily stun the audience.

In reply to KevinD:


So we have a lot of people commenting on Islam, but not knowing enough background stuff to read a novel about it?

Well, that's something.

In reply to Tony Naylor:
Not sure about that.

In the U.S. Being anything other than Christian is an issue.. Hence the 'barracks a Muslim' issue.

But plenty are Christian in the UK to no ill effects. Blair for one.

It annoys me about the U.S. As religious freedom was part of their core principles from the off..

In reply to seankenny:


Are you suggesting that people should read every novel about a religion prior to commenting on it? As opposed to, say, the core texts and works by the major theologians and philosophers of religion. Do you think reading Dan Brown gives a useful insight to Roman Catholicism.

I will be sporting and ignore the fact the majority of the novel has little to do with Islam. Almost like you havent read it. Plus, of course, this thread isnt really commenting about Islam but hey ho.

In reply to seankenny:

Pardon me while I descend into the vernacular: dude - that's just weird.

In reply to seankenny:


Here you go Sean, this may help;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses#Plot

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Ooh, lots to go at here!


Depends where in the US. On the east and west coasts, things are generally more progressive/liberal. In the interior and the south, not so much. There's also a strong argument that the US, while very religious compared to Europe, is not as devout as it claims to be in opinion polls. Hitchens put it rather pithily when he noted that polls say 80% are firm believers, but when he goes out on the street during church services he doesn't see just 20% of the population. (He was living in the US at the time). I'd broadly agree, though, that the US has a heavy bias towards Christianity. And it often borders on dangerous lunacy, e.g senators and congressmen that deny evolution. Holy Mary, mother of God...



The point Rushdie was making was that you couldn't make your religion a part of your campaign in the UK, whereas in the US it's often a central part. We'd just think a politician that did that was weird and probably untrustworthy. I don't doubt that a fair number of prominent politicians have some degree of religious affiliation, but for the most part we don't know what those affiliations are and the politicians don't talk about them, with good reason. It's not going to be a vote winner in this country.

Re Blair, it's interesting to note that he only came out as a Catholic towards the very end of his last term, at which point it could do him no harm. Politically astute of him, I think.


Well, not quite. The freedom to practice religion was certainly in the Constitution - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - but the core idea of the First Amendment was a freedom *from* religion, exemplified in the "wall of separation between church and state". The founding fathers were a mixture of theists, deists, and (arguably) a few atheists. The latter two groups have no church by definition, and - to the great credit of the theists amongst them - they came up with a profoundly secularist constitution.

In reply to Tony Naylor:
Haha I almost made the Blair point but was arguing against myself..

That was a troubling moment for me, that he didn't feel he had freedom to make that public.

Some say by being catholic he would have sworn loyalty to the pope Over the UK that I don't agree with.

I think we agree with the U.S. I just said it clumsily. It a annoys me that the republicans consider themselves to be he up holders of the constitution and yet would almost go back to a theocracy..

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Barack is black I think is the issue. Most of the barely articulated hatred and disapproval of the man seems to me deep seated emotional dissonance of having a black commander in chief in a country where there is still plenty of rascism but it's no longer acceptable to express it openly. Its okay to hate on Muslims because the U.S. has been at war with them for decades.

D

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I personally think that we have to keep challenging these people and debating with them. It could be that they appear to take no notice, but for some people, if it happen enough times they might reconsider their views.

The lady at dinner who is now upset might think twice about repeating the same views... and then gradually realise that they are not acceptable. In the same way that drink driving became unacceptable.

I have the same thing with people who don't support recycling and just continue to throw everything away, keeping the debate open about why it is important and eventually they will start (well, I convinced my Mum in the end and she became a very dedicated recycler).

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Maybe challenge their opinions?

Or if that doesn't work, listen politely and then never invite them back.

In reply to Dauphin:
That's what I think a lot of the anti-islam behaviour is. It's a more acceptable way to voice your racist views.

I'm not saying everyone at all. But you can't tell me that those on Britain First and its ilk would suddenly be all loving if their was no islamic terrorism. They'd find someone else to hate.

I can understand fear of muslims in general. I don't like it and people should fight their own thoughts there, but I can't see how we can tell them about being more tolerant, by being intolerant. I just think we are making this worse and worse. People like Trump are ISIS's dream.

There's a lot of ignorance about immigration in general. The illegal immigrants taking the benefits of the veterans or the elderly.. by being illegal they almost certainly disappear and will not be illegible for benefits. We see it with many African runners after each major championship. The team just pisses off one night and stays in the UK. They don't then knock on the door of the benefits office and claim benefits or housing. They've taken a major risk getting into the UK and disappearing and will work hard and make a life for themselves, they won't in general be sat there unemployed receiving 50 grand a year living in a 4 bedroom house like the Mail makes you believe.

My wife has gone through med school in a city with a huge undocumented population. They will treat for free using Charity donations but the immigrants don't trust them (despite having Tax Id numbers, effectively Social Security Numbers so the US taxes illegal immigrants without allowing any access to benefits) and don't want to become visible so they come in with massively advanced illnesses, which has made for a great medical education for her but is depressing that many die from very treatable conditions, such as type 1 diabetes.

Likewise blaming the EU for non-EU immigration into the UK - as the OP mentions. There is just so much ignorance about immigration and the economics of immigrants. Suddenly being outside of the EU we will have a non-porous border with France, people won't be visa over-stayers (now a major method).

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I think I'd have carefully tried to deconstruct her argument, and asked what the link was between Romanian gypsies and the other groups of people she was talking about, and asked if it was coming from a fear of unknown possibilities which she saw as being threats, and explored that a bit. I'd have probably asked if all Romanian Gypsies were bad/being paid for without paying tax themselves, too, and why she thought that and how she knew.

You have my sypathies re getting to a point where you possibly can't regulate how you're speaking anymore, a sister in law recently had me shouting in exasperation, and I had to appologise to my brother for shouting at his wife and send her an apollogetic text. It turns out she thought the text was so nice she likes me more than before, so that's a relief, as I love my nieces and brother and she has nice points.

There can come a point where friends can realise they differ too strongly to remain friends, sometimes.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


If you want to try and get to the nub of what she thinks and why (while remaining friends), you'd probably need to meet up fairly frequently and talk about it in little chunks over a period of time.

'Bite sized chunks' so you can both cope with it.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

How about another dinner party this time invite the 'offended' woman, a muslim and a romanian (preferably a gypsy). It should provide enough 'hot air' on this forum to waste another hour of my life as this thread has just done.

As an aside you're on a slippery slope if you're having dinner parties and then expecting to go climbing the next day. I've lost a few climbing partners to the 'dinner party' and ' visiting friends' scene. 'Too tired' , 'I've eaten too much' - Sunday morning excuses to not go climbing. Saw one last week, pulled out his old EBs to reminisce- too late he weighed about 18 stone.Perhaps its a good idea to offend your dinner party guests whatever their views then you can do more climbing because you wont get invited to their party and nobody will come to yours.

In reply to KevinD:



What I suggested was that people lacked the background knowledge to really make much of the Satanic Verses, and yet felt that this lack of background knowledge was no harm to discussing Islam, or indeed the immigrant experience and all the other stuff that goes on in the novel. I did not mean that one had to read every novel on religion to talk about that particular faith - sorry if that wasn't clear.

Anyhow, is that a weird comment to make? Not really. I think a lot of men on forums like this have a hard time with magic realism, and I suspect most posters are fairly firmly wedded to realism in their taste in novels... But I don't think that's all of it. Having read a fair bit of Rushdie, but not TSV, I'm well aware that without a good knowledge of India and South Asia, it doesn't make a whole bunch of sense and the jokes aren't funny. Magic realism relies heavily on symbolism and imagery, and if you don't recognise that, then it's hard to get. So much of it is typical Indian storytelling, if you've never seen Amar Akbar Anthony and a whole bunch of similar movies then you won't get that a baby swap and a befuddled destiny is more than pure Bollywood, it's a national obsession.

I know what this feels like - I ploughed right through the Tin Drum well aware I got about 25% of what was going on, just because I don't know much at all about Germany.

Anyhow, not having the background knowledge to "get" the book might just give one pause to think that one doesn't know all that much about the Islamic world (which Rushdie is most definitely a product of, at least in part).

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

>as a basis for discussion we could presumably agree......

Erm. How could "presumably agreeing" something be a discussion? Surely a discussion must be based on not agreeing?

In reply to seankenny:


No you didnt.
What you did was randomly spurt out some rubbish about people commenting on Islam on a thread which wasnt, ermm, about Islam and then tied that to reading of a specific book.
This is clearly nonsense for multiple reasons.
Firstly Rushdie writes from his own specific angle. That wouldnt give an insight into other aspects of Islam. Anymore than someone brought up, weakly, in the C of E could give an insight into the snake handlers.
Secondly. People can dislike books for multiple reasons. Personally my taste in books is light fiction and then factual for when I want to think. Not liking a specific book by a specific author doesnt give any insight.

It looks like you are trying to crowbar in both a sense of superiority and also to attempt to shut down any discussion.

In reply to silhouette:


One can broadly agree in a discussion, and still discuss/disagree on points of detail.

In reply to KevinD:



I may well have gotten confused with multiple threads. Don't all threads trend towards Islam these days?




I think the point of a novelist - particularly one as good as Rushdie - is that he or she has the knowledge, sensitivity and understanding to illustrate something of the world. Sure he writes from his own angle, but so what? One can't read one book to understand everything. But one can get a lot from it.

But more broadly, you are coming at this from the wrong end. I'm saying that perhaps as *readers* his books are best enjoyed with some background knowledge and understanding.



Well, it might show you don't "get" something. As I said, I didn't get the Tin Drum, and I put that entirely down to my lack of knowledge about Germany.


No, I'm not trying to shut down discussion, merely pointing out that the people doing the discussing might know a lot less than they think they know. Or do you like to proceed through life ignorant of the limits of your knowledge and understanding?

In reply to seankenny:


No, corbyn is an alternative.


You are saying that now but previously you were implying that not reading his books would disqualify someone from talking about Islam.


No but I also prefer not to sound like an arrogant arse.

In reply to KevinD:


It's Goodwin 2.0 clearly.


No, what I actually said was that if someone didn't quite get Mr Rushdie's books on Islam, perhaps they didn't have much of an understanding of the subject. It wasn't "not read" - it was "not understand".


Given that you've managed to get the wrong end of the stick with everything I've written, it is hard not to!

In reply to seankenny:


NO, what you actually said was;


As has been pointed out several times now, Rushdie's book is not "about Islam", and the reading of it, or not, is no way, no how, not in any, the slightest, minuscule, way an indication of how they "understand Islam" especially not in the context of this thread.

The funniest thing is that your initial comment on "The Satanic Verses" was


LOL!! So you haven't read it, yet you seem to think you have the right to castigate others for not having read it before offering a comment "on Islam"


The only reason people are "getting the wrong end of the stick" with you is that you don't seem to have a ruddy clue what you are talking about!

In reply to Big Ger:

Hmmm, those two statements don't look particularly contradictory to me, but what would I know?

I suspect this only troubles you because it hits upon a sense of intellectual inferiority, but really, if that's the case, get off UKC and go read some books or something.

In reply to seankenny:
Love it!! The man who was castigating others for not reading a book, one which he hasn't actually read himself, which he mistakenly thought would give them an understanding of Islam, (it wouldn't,) is now telling me to "go read a book!"

Oh my god, does hypocrisy get any better than that?!?

Here you go Sean, take your own advice before telling others what they should do, "physician heal thyself" ect.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Satanic-Verses-Salman-Rushdie/dp/0963270702

In reply to Big Ger:


That is almost exactly what I didn't say, but don't let that trouble you. I'm not going to go over again what I said, because I've done that once already, and tbh I know from long and tedious experience of you that it's just not worth it.

Look on the bright side: I don't see you as being disingenuous in this case, simply that I made a point you have trouble grasping.

In reply to Big Ger:


Here's an essay on TSV which you may, in the context of your paragraph above - a paragraph more full of brio than insight - find interesting:
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/anglophone/satanic_verses/intro.html

In reply to seankenny:
Very interesting article Sean, did you read it? It says nothing about "The Satanic Verses" giving any insight on Islam. So why did you post the link?

Can I quote?






Interesting, you provide an article which claims to provide a bibliography of the multitude of references that Rushdie makes. But it contains no reference to TSV being any sort of insight into Islam, so what was your point?

Maybe you should look deeper than checking TSV out in Wikipedia, then quoting one of the cross-references from there. Or, if you are going to do that, you should check out that your quote actually supports your own argument, not mine, as this one does.

You should also read "The Satanic Verses", especially before you criticise others for not having read it.

In reply to Big Ger:





Well, I could refer you to my post on Monday in which I explained all this, but let me walk you through it gently.

For a start - and at this you will breathe a sigh of relief - I'm not saying it's essential to have read this one book to discuss these issues. After all, it may not be to your taste. You may have read lots of other books. Whatever. My use of the word "read" in my original post was about people who'd "not read the book" because they'd started reading it, and couldn't get on with it - which seemed the most common response on here. I'd hoped that was clear from the context, but perhaps not.

And as I also said above (see how tedious this repetition is when your interlocutor struggles with comprehension?), some people just don't get on with magical realism in general. That is, of course, just fine. But what is it in Rushdie's brand of magical realism that people struggle with? Having read two out of three of Rushdie's major works, I reckon that it's the "subcontinental-ness" of the books that people struggle to connect with. If you're not at least familiar with that world, it doesn't make so much sense.

Or as the essay I linked to says: "He throws off phrases in Hindi, Arabic, and Urdu which are bound to make the Western reader feel something of an outsider. He delights in playing with those aspects of Indian and Arabic culture which have been trivialized in the West... satirizing the failure of Europeans to grasp what they persistently exoticize. Indeed the work is largely a critique of Western racism, of anti-immigrant prejudice, and a defense of the richness and worth of South Asian and Middle Eastern culture...."
And later: "...part of his style is meant to startle the Western reader into realizing he/she is not the center of all stories."

So, for example, one of the main characters is Gibreel Farishta, right? Now if you speak Urdu (I do), you'll get straight away what his name means. If you don't, it'll go straight over your head. The same with Saladin Chamcha, which is funny if you get it and just another Indian name if you don't. Tho I was delighted to discover that a chamcha isn't just a spoon, it's a colloquial word for a brown-noser, a suck up. So there you go, I didn't quite get the joke either. And that's part of the reason I've not yet read TSV - I'm not sure I'd grasp enough of it to make it a worthwhile experience. (I certainly felt the same reading Candide, YMMV.)

You seem quite exercised on the point of whether "TSV gives any insight into Islam", and quote much on Rushdie's background, focussing on his liberal, non-denominational childhood and ignoring his adult learning and intentions, or as the article says: "Rushdie seems to have been trying to become the Muslim Voltaire..."

Of course despite being a book whose characters are almost entirely Muslim, the book isn't "about" Islam - despite not having read it I know that Rushdie will throw a lot into the pot - quite the massala no? But I hope my point remains: that knowing about Islam, South Asia and the Middle East helps an awful lot in understanding and enjoying Rushdie's work, and that if you don't have this background, perhaps you might want to tread carefully in this subject area. I'm not expecting you to be a chamcha but as I said, it's good to know what you don't know. Instead, we see people using the book as a political football (both the Ayatollahs and their opponents).

This also, of course, links back to John's original point about rampant fear of Muslims. To quote Rushdie:

"Those who oppose the novel most vociferously today are of the opinion that intermingling with a different culture will inevitably weaken and ruin their own. I am of the opposite opinion. The Satanic Verses celebrates hybridity, impurity, intermingling, the transformation that comes of new and unexpected combinations of human beings, cultures, ideas, politics, movies, songs. It rejoices in mongrelization and fears the absolutism of the Pure. Mélange, hotchpotch, a bit of this and a bit of that is how newness enters the world. It is the great possibility that mass migration gives the world, and I have tried to embrace it."

In reply to seankenny:


But you have spectacularly missed the point here, Rushdie is talking about racist muslims, not non-muslims.

Both you and John make the same mistake here, due to your self-loathing, John's awfully stupid My Country's Killing Everyone thread was his second attempt at the topic. The first garnered, after several days, just one response, that didn't progress the subject. A couple of weeks later he tried again, this time with a large dose of I Hate my country, it's such a beast and people lapped it up.

In this instance you read Rushdie for no other reason than self-flagellation.

In reply to winhill:

He is, but his point is more general than that. This bit: "the opinion that intermingling with a different culture will inevitably weaken and ruin their own" is particularly pertinent I think in the current climate.


But I don't hate my country! I can't comment on John's feelings, but I don't know if you know him at all - a more English Englishman I would struggle to find. But then being English is a broad church. As is being lots of things.


And there was I thinking I read his works because I liked his stories and style.

In reply to the thread:

Essentially reading, as usual from Maajid Nawaz:

``Beyond that, we would prefer to assume the best in Muslims, and insist that the extremists are but a “tiny minority.” A closer look reveals a dispiriting and disturbing truth.''

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/06/another-dead-blasphemer-in...

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Cheers Coel... interesting stuff and I'd never heard of that particular minority before.

In reply to the thread:

Re: the murder of the Glasgow Amedi-Muslim shopkeeper:

"The highly unusual statement was made through Mr Ahmed's lawyer, John Rafferty after his second appearance at court before sheriff Brian Adair.

The statement given is: "My client Mr Tanveer Ahmed has specifically instructed me that today, 6 April 2016, to issue this statement to the press, the statement is in the words of my client.

"This all happened for one reason and no other issues and no other intentions.

"Asad Shah disrespected the messenger of Islam the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. Mr Shah claimed to be a Prophet.

"When 1400 years ago the Prophet of Islam Muhammad peace be upon him has clearly said that 'I am the final messenger of Allah there is no more profits or messengers from God Allah after me.

'I am leaving you the final Quran. There is no changes. It is the final book of Allah and this is the final completion of Islam'.

'There is no more changes to it and no one has the right to claim to be a Prophet or to change the Quran or change Islam.'

"It is mentioned in the Quran that there is no doubt in this book no one has the right to disrespect the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and no one has the right to disrespect the Prophet of Islam Muhammad Peace be upon him.

"If I had not done this others would and there would have been more killing and violence in the world.

"I wish to make it clear that the incident was nothing at all to do with Christianity or any other religious beliefs even although I am a follower of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him I also love and respect Jesus Christ."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35976958

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Talk about getting the wrong end of the stick. How utterly pointless, sad and depressing. And, as Aamar Anwar says, bringing over the very worst of Pakistan to the UK.

One hopes they give this scumbag a very long life sentence.

In reply to seankenny:



Or he would have to accept retaliation, or give out a big fat wad under Sharia law:-

Murder, bodily injury intentional or unintentional - is considered a civil dispute under sharia law.
The victim, victim's heir(s) or guardian is given the option to either forgive the murderer, demand Qisas (equal retaliation) or accept a compensation (Diyya) in lieu of the murder, bodily injury or property damage.
Under sharia law, the Diyya compensation received by the victim or victim's family is in cash.

In reply to Jim C:

Erm, I think you'll find we have a different legal system here.

In reply to seankenny:
Lots of fine words there Sean, bragging up your erudition and worldly knowledge, with a light sprinkling of insult, par for the course for you.

Or to put it another way, "look over there, nothing to see here..." straw man diversionary tactics.

But absolutely nothing on the points I was making.

Who said;




Who posted an article about a book which he hadn't read, an article which further disproved his own points? Oh, that was you wasn't it?

Who claimed that people here, people obviously not up to your high intellect, but still people who are members here, should have read a book, one not about Islam, before daring to comment in Islam? Oh, That was you wasn't it?

When in a hole, stop digging Sean, sound advice to you.

In reply to seankenny:


You should read "The Satanic Verses", then you may , or probably may not, have an idea on how to use it in debate.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Satanic-Verses-Salman-Rushdie/dp/0963270702

In reply to seankenny:


erm I think that he may still be tried under Sharia
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sharia-in-the-uk-the-courts-...

In reply to Big Ger:


I think you'll find I dealt with many of the points you raised. You'd be more interesting and less shrill if you read my post and responded to that, rather than batting on the same points. I mean, that's just tedious, move on, keep it fresh man!


So let's get this right. I took the time to respond to your quite reasonable points, in a post which explained what I was thinking, and an academic's take on Rushdie which expanded my ideas (and put them better than I could, but then that's their job), and rather than engage with what I wrote, you simply make assertions.



As I've said before, that's not actually what I claimed. Now, you could choose to engage with what I wrote, which was a fairly full exposition of why I think people don't get Mr Rushdie's work. Sure, I haven't read TSV but I have read about a thousand pages of his prose so I reckon I've a fairly good idea of what he's doing in and with his fiction.

Anyhow, enough of what I think. What did you make of The Satanic Verses, or indeed any other of his work?

In reply to Jim C:


Whilst I hate the idea of a parallel system of religious courts, I'm struggling to see the point of that link to this case, given that it's about divorce courts. Are you suggesting that as well as going on trial for murder, that this man might want to get divorced at the same time?

In reply to seankenny:

I am anticipating that the widow / family would want/ need financial redress, and you would not get that from the UK courts.

We only know about the Sharia 'councils' that operate on marriage cases, there could be other cases heard, and I said that this 'may' be one of them.

In reply to seankenny:

No you haven't, dealt with any of the points put to you. You've tried to divert attention from your own words, but little else.

Thanks for resorting to "less shrill" a sure sign that someone is losing the debate when they have to bring up imaginary emotion on the part of others.

But there again, you've done ad hominem dreaming up emotions on behalf of others throughout this thread,, thus exposing your hypocrisy. Mote and beam mate, mote and beam.



No what I did, using quotes, was point out that the article you linked to, totally failed to substantiate in any way your original assertions. I'll leave it to others to follow your link and se I am right in this.

(you did actually read the article, after you found the link on Wiki,it, didn't you?)


"Blah, blah, blah, look at me I'm so erudite" all well and good Sean, but here are your words yet again;




Shame you cannot say "oops I cocked up there!" like an honest person would.


I've not read any of it, I've never claimed to. Again, unlike you, I don't castigate people for not having read books I haven't read, before commenting issues unrelated to them,.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I'd say, the best thing is not to get into political discussion with invited dinner acquaintances unless you're prepared to tolerate listening to viewpoints that may be abhorrent to you. I'd venture it's best to just splutter over your soup than call the police out.

In reply to Big Ger:


May I politely suggest that my own words from my post this morning might be ones to engage with? Being as I explained quite clearly and openly what I thought, and how you might have misinterpreted my words - as I said, I assumed a context which you might not have got. So, let's get that misunderstanding out of the way and, given that I've now fully explained my thinking, why don't you deal with what I've said?



"Man arguing about books says he has read some," is hardly an unreasonably position to take, is it?



I get the impression you've a fairly Manichean worldview, so this may be tricky to grasp, but... I am not castigating people for not having read the book.

Anyhow, if you've never read TSV, how do you know what it is or isn't about? If you've never read any Salman Rushdie, how can you tell me his themes and style aren't what I'm suggesting they are? Given that TSV managed to enrage Muslims worldwide, why exactly is it "unrelated" to Islam as you claim? Despite your not having read the book, I'm all ears as to why you believe this to be the case...

In reply to Jim C:


Errrrmmm right, so you've never heard of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme?



So you're extrapolating baselessly, right?

In reply to seankenny:

Nope, you're doing it again, bluffing on an empty hand. You've not addressed any of my points.


Yes it is. If said man makes this claim;


Doing that is what we call "hypocritical".



Yes you are, your own words again;




Easy Sean, same as you, when the book was mentioned, I , like you went and looked up information on it on the net (though unlike you I didn't try to bluff on a link taken from Wiki.) None of the evidence I found supported you view that people who hadn't read TSV were handicapped in having and expressing a view on Islam.

Let's look now;


Can you tell us why you think reading this story, a work of fiction, ( not that you have read it,) , is a qualification to comment on UKC about Islam? You obviously think it to be so, otherwise you would not have posted;

would you?


It enraged many Muslims as The Ayatollah decided that certain passages were an insult and issued a Fatwa, I don't think that 0.1% of those enraged Muslims read the book.

Also



To mix metaphors somewhat, you've bluffed on an empty hand, and been called on it, thus showing the emperor has no clothes.

In reply to Jim C:



Sorry, I can't work out whether this is some kind of irony or totally confused. I may be entirely missing your joke. But I assure you that if the victim's wife wants to sue the chap in the UK courts for money she'll win, assuming for a moment this chap actually is the murderer. Of course she won't actually see any money, but that's life.

jcm

In reply to seankenny:



Given that some Muslims clearly think murder for "disrespecting" the prophet is OK, it's hardly baseless to assume that some also think Sharia courts would are appropriate. Remember, until a few weeks ago, you were denying such courts operated in Britain at all.

In reply to seankenny:

Writing as a big fan of magic realism, I would just like to say that I don't think Rushdie is one of its greatest exponents. I know it's a minority view, but I've always found him rather over-rated. I gave up reading him after 'The Ground Beneath Her Feet.' If people don't want a hard time with magic realism, and want to see just how profound and poetic the style can be, I'd check out Marquez and Borges.

In reply to Andy Clarke:

Horses for courses really. I enjoyed The Ground Beneath Her Feet and thought most of Marquez's stuff to be about as far from profound as it's possible to get.

In reply to Brown:

As you say, each to their own. Probably too much Freddie Mercury for me to warm to its hero. Never been a Queen fan.

In reply to Andy Clarke:

In reflection I might have been going through a Queen phase at the time. I enjoyed most of Rushdie's novels at the time. I think it took me two tries to get started with Midnights Children but once I got hooked I found it unputdownable.

In reply to MG:

Interesting series on R4 currently, part of which I heard, about the Deobandi Sunnis who account for 40% of British muslims and 600,000 weekly worshippers. (the CofE has 900,0000)

According to Wiki (quoting a Times report) , that the BBC programme (bastion of racism of course) seemed to corraborate ,about 600 of Britain's nearly 1,500 mosques were under the control of "a hardline sect", whose leading preacher loathed Western values, called on Muslims to £shed blood£ for Allah and preached contempt for Jews, Christians and Hindus. The same investigative report further said that 17 of the country's 26 Islamic seminaries follow the ultra-conservative Deobandi teachings which had given birth to the Taliban. "

Worth a listen. Maybe Sean has some insights?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06gqr66

In reply to Postmanpat:

Hmmm, I'll give that a listen, thanks.

I assume you've heard of this:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jul/23/medina-in-birmingham-najaf-bre...

Don't worry about being infected by Guardian values - the author of this review used to write for the Economist which I'm assuming isn't on the banned list.

In reply to Andy Clarke:

I prefer Marquez too, Borges is okay but a bit... well sometimes I find him the thinking sensitive reader's HP Lovecraft!

Interestingly I found Marquez is quite approachable in a way that Rushdie isn't. I've never been to S America and know very little about it, which never seemed to be a problem. But perhaps that's why others find him less profound - I certainly find his imagery incredible, even if his books lack intellectual heft.

In reply to seankenny:





Don't fear, I am an avid Grauniad reader: know your enemy is my motto

My take on this article, and the part of the R4 episode that I heard, is that there is a very large minority of British muslims (the deobandis) that essentially want to stay cut off from the rest of British society, some/many of those are actively hostile to the rest of British society and its values, and within that there is a dangerous radical minority.

That still leaves 60% of British muslims who are a happy to rub along or integrate, and probably a lot of deobandis are happy to be left alone just to do their own thing. But do you think this is really a "good thing"? Or do you not believe that description is fair?

The gist of the Grauniad piece seems to be along those lines but highlighting that the failure to understand the complexities of Islam in Britain has probably exacerbated the problem. It does seem a bit worrying of even the government doesn't understand the dynamics of British islam.

In reply to seankenny:



What I enjoy more than anything are verbal pyrotechnics and arresting imagery so perhaps I'm too superficial to gauge profundity precisely enough! Somehow never quite taken to Rushdie - never find him as amusing as I expect to, for one thing - but I wouldn't quibble that Midnight's Children, Shame & Satanic Verses are major works.

In reply to Andy Clarke:


Lol I'm sure there's a PhD in there somewhere.

In reply to Postmanpat:





So I listened to the whole documetary, which was well worth the time - thanks for the link. It's a lot less sensationalist than the Times made it out to be (but then we've all got something to sell). I guess I found it fascinating and depressing in equal measure. The whole bit about Islamic schools was suitably grim, but then I'm an opponent of all faith schools. I'm fairly sure if you scraped under the surface of Hindu faith schools you'd find some fairly unsavoury links - bear in mind that Modi is very popular amongst the British Indian community and yet just a few years ago he was banned from entering the US (entirely correctly imho). So not importing the politics of "back there" is a job that has to be done across British Asian communities.

Can we do that? It's clear that whilst there's been a failure of the Deobandi Muslims to really involve themselves in British life, there's been an equal failure on the part of the British establishment and media to try and understand these people and what goes on in their world. I'd argue that things such as the Sun and its dodgy survey don't help matters, but it's the kind of thing that proves very popular. So not only are people from these mono-culture northern towns failing to integrate, but broader British society isn't making it particularly easy (I'd include the idiotic and cack-handed approach in Rotherham as part of this failure). Remember, nearly 50 people here were happy to "like" an anti-Muslim rant accusing their fellow citizens of being a fifth column ready to kill them - so the paranoia is running high in all directions. (I forsee a bunch of tedious "but the British are the most welcomming people in the world" stuff - if you read this and are tempted to reply in this fashion, find a black or Asian person over 55/60 and try talking to them.)

Of course integration itself is a tricky subject. One wonders just how it could be measured. I'd like to venture that the grim northern towns in the doc don't see much in the way of intergration into the rest of the country from their white community either, if we're to measure that by say, where people work or who they marry, or whether they attend university. Sure, they may be plugged into wider British culture, which the Deobandi communities probably aren't (more on this later), but given that these are the people who are strongly complaining about British culture changing, who are abandoning the traditional parties for populist movements, I suspect they are also spinning off from the mainstream in large numbers. Does the failure to integrate have wider causes than simply religion?

The question of course is how static these communities will prove. You know I assume that plenty of Pakistanis find their British cousins hopelessly stuck and backwards? Will kids brought up in this rather cultureally impoverished atmosphere carry it on, or will they change? I think one of the things about Islam which isn't understood too well is the level of personal connection with the divine - it's like Protestantism on steroids. So if enough young people find it doesn't work for them, I'm sure they'll either find or create new ways of approaching religion (if they don't leave altogether as per one girl in the piece). I find it depressing that the experience of moving to Britain has pushed people into this inward-looking world, that they have this psychological need for protection.

On the numbers, again I've no idea how the number of mosques relates to the number of worshippers - some mosques are very small. I'd like to see more research on that.

Will this group produce loads of violent nutters? I'm going to listen to the next piece, but I suspect: not so much. The violent terrorists we're seeing tend to avoid mosques and are small groups of socially isolated individuals. That's quite the opposite of what we're seeing here. But I could be wrong on this.

In reply to seankenny:

Very good post, something to ponder.

In reply to seankenny:

'The whole bit about Islamic schools was suitably grim, but then I'm an opponent of all faith schools. I'm fairly sure if you scraped under the surface of Hindu faith schools you'd find some fairly unsavoury links '

Not to mention Catholic schools in Ireland.

In reply to John2:



Well yes.

You know that this whole programme reminded me of? Oranges are not the only fruit. Remember that? Perhaps there's something about those grim northern mill towns, all folded in on themselves in wrinkles in the earth, that makes them suitable places for this kind of religious fervour.

In reply to seankenny:


>
Thanks for the considered comment. I wonder if the very fact of their isolation in an alien environment is what attracts British or other muslim diaspora to such a "radical" version of Islam. If that is one of the issues it doesn't bode well for future muslim immigrants, if they or their offspring are going to get drawn in by this type of islam.
Rather like gaelic speakers in Nova Scotia, they could be more of them than there are in their place of origin.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Hmmmm, well it's been a while since I've read up on Deobandism and other Islamic revivalist movements, but the important things for me to note are that they are a reaction to the experience of modernity and also geographically located - there were different revival movements in different parts of the Islamic world, much as German, French, British and American democracies and capitalism all have their own stamp. So how much would a South Asian version of this movement attract a Syrian or a Turk? I suspect not much, but it's complex.

Thinking of these movements as a reaction to the stresses of becoming modern is key, but so is some humilty; modernity didn't come quickly, easily or painlessly to Europeans either. I think it's also important to remember that this is not an experience of purely Muslim immigrants. At some level most new arrivals have had to grapple with how to deal with these issues, and the heartening thing for me is that people change, and often quite a lot. Plenty of Asian families - Sikh, Hindu, Muslim - are coming to new accomodations and incorporating new ideas about what it means to live in Britain, even tho there's resistance along the way.

To me, understanding this as a series of personal revolutions helps us British people to get over our old Empire habit of looking for the head man and communicating through him. These are complex communities and generally there's a culture of vigorous disputation and discussion, but that gets forgotten when there's one guy to talk to - and usually he's pretty conservative. So I'd like to see less emphasis on "community leaders" and more on engaging with pre-exsting political structures - I don't want to see the local big man courted as someone who can supply a vote bank.

One thing that came out in the programme - to me at least - was that when young people found this rather austere and rule-bound religious life didn't answer their questions, or didn't meet their spiritual, emotional, political or intellectual needs, they moved away. I wonder if this is the inflexion point? My impression - and remember I'm in London, not Burnley - is that there're lots of young Muslims trying to find new ways to live and to interpret their religion, and as long as they don't go off the scale the other way and become terrorists, then that's a good thing. The question for us then is how can wider British society facilitate this process, or have some understanding it's going on? As I've indicated above, I see it as a kind of mirror image of how we deal with the rustbelt towns where lots of people also want to turn away from the outside.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



You may well disagree with her opinion, but dismissing it as 'hate speech' is both facile and incorrect (if you must label it, it sounds like 'fear speech' would be more accurate).
To say that you're 'horrified' by it and implying you couldn't even stand having someone expressing such an opinion in your house seems a bit dramatic unless she was advocating genocide, the deportation of all non white British-born residents of the UK or something equally extreme.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

No, no, no. That statement from the mouth of the killer proves nothing. You can't believe what he literally claims, clearly, concisely and straight-forwardly to be his motives. It's nothing to do with religion, and you can't take this statement and draw a connection between doctrines of blasphemy that people profess to believe, and their murdering of people they consider to be blasphemers. It doesn't work like that. You know and I know that this was to do with British foreign policy, Western intervention in muslim lands and the oppression of the Palestinians. You can't draw a link between specific religious doctrines and beliefs, and the actions of true believers. It's all to do with politics and political grievances. Don't be so naive and un-nuanced.
And also, bad people will behave badly with or without religion. Sure, it looks like the murderer drove 200 miles to kill this specific person for religiously motivated reasons, but he probably would have done something similar anyway, with or without a belief in blasphemy. You can't lay this at the feet of religion. So, can we stop talking about it please? It doesn't do anything for community cohesion to openly discuss the problems caused by specific religious doctrines. The Guardian has the right idea: none of the stories about Asad Shah have comments sections.

In reply to ChrisBrooke:


Yes, a prime example of how the "mainstream media" try to steer and control debate.