Thursday, 28 August 2014

Muslim sex-gangs & the victims of Rotherham Council’s anti-racism policies

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council via 

According to the latest enquiry into Muslim sexual-grooming gangs in Rotherham (northern England), at least 1,400 children were subjected to sexual exploitation between 1997 and 2013.

Rotherham Borough Council’s report is the third of three inquiries into these matters. The other two were in 2002 and 2006. Both previous inquiries explicitly stated that the council and the police were fully culpable and that the extent of the problem “could not have been clearer”.

As yet, no one has been sacked. Council leader Roger Stone has just resigned; although he wasn’t sacked.

Think about that. That’s at least 1,400 victims in one northern English town alone in a period of 16 years. The same kind of thing has of course happened in literally dozens of other cities and towns throughout England. And in all these cases, virtually all the perpetrators were Muslims.

The Endless Fight Against Racism

According to news reports, many staff at Rotherham Council feared to identify the fact that all the perpetrators were Pakistanis, yet many have known that for over twenty years or so – certainly since 2004. The current report by Professor Alexis Jay only a new acknowledgement of the problem by an English council, not a new acknowledgement of the problem itself.

Many of the newspapers which are now keen to point the finger at Rotherham Council – were once part of the problem. National newspapers (as well as regional ones) - on the whole - hardly ever featured these cases. And even when they did, they too would never say that virtually all the perpetrators were Pakistani - never mind that they were all Muslims.


The Daily Mail, for example, continues this tradition by failing to mention the fact that most – often all – the perpetrators were Muslim. How can this – or any – newspaper castigate Rotherham Council when it’s committing the same wrong?

In other words, the Daily Mail says that it was wrong for councillors, police and social workers to have been afraid of saying that the perpetrators were Pakistani.

So why now is this newspaper afraid of saying that they were all Muslims?

The thing is, most sexual groomers in the UK are of Pakistani heritage simply because most Muslims in the UK are of Pakistani heritage. If most Muslims in the UK were Arabic (or north African), then nearly all the offenders would be Arabic (or north African). The author is willing to acknowledge that there may be – in theory at least - slight differences of degree between different Muslim ethnic groups. However, since there is also a problem with north African, Somali and Arabic sexual grooming in Sweden, Norway, France and other European countries, the differences between Pakistani Muslims and Arabic/north Africa/ Muslims are likely negligible.

And this points to one obvious conclusion: the problem is not one of race. It’s one of religion (i.e. Islam) and the culture generated by that religion.

The other important point is that Rotherham Council’s confessions (or self-criticisms) – and even the retroactive actions of the police and newspapers – have all been the result of external pressure. Councillors, newspapers and the police came to realise that the public at large – at least in the areas affected – was well aware of what was happening and very angry that nothing was being done about it. And only when that outrage (partly as a result of EDL demos and various independent investigations) reached a certain critical mass (roughly in 2010) did councils, the police and newspapers begin questioning their various positions on the massive problem of Muslim sex grooming-gangs in England.


Professor Alexis Jay herself said that there had been “blatant” institutional failings by the council’s leadership and that senior managers had “underplayed” the sexual grooming of young girls in Rotherham. In addition, South Yorkshire Police had also largely dismissed the problem.

The failings of the council, the underplaying by council managers and the dismissals of the police were nearly all to do with politics and little to do with the severity  – or the lack of severity – of the problem. More correctly, nearly all of the players were scared stiff of being classed as “racist” by other councillors, police bodies and Leftist activist groups.

As the report puts it:

"Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so."

In other words, it was deemed to be far more important to fight against often possible and fictional racism than to fight against the systematic and widespread exploitation of literally hundreds of young girls. Quite literally, all these young girls were sacrificed in the battle against racism. Or, more correctly, the suffering of these girls was deemed to be a lesser evil than the racism which could have been unleashed by highlighting – or even mentioning – the ethnicity or religious affiliations of the sexual groomers. Thus anti-racism achieved the highest possible rank in the scales of justice.

The fact that all the girls – it can be argued – were selected by Muslim men precisely because of their ethnicity (or race) appears to have bypassed the self-styled anti-racists of Rotherham and beyond. Or to put that another way: racism against Muslim sex groomers was deemed a worse crime than racism towards young white females.

The Left, as usual, tied itself up in knots. And those non-Leftists who passively swallow the many Marxist/Leftist theories about racism – upheld in council offices as much as in university departments  - did the same.

Pious & Fanatical Anti-Racism

Sections of the Left will attempt to hide the truth however it’s offered.

For example, if the Pakistani heritage of the perpetrators is mentioned, the word “racism” will be used. If, on the other hand, the fact that all the offenders were Muslims is mentioned, then – yes, you guessed it – we’ll get the debate-stopper “Islamophobia” from Leftists.


Such people are far more culpable than Rotherham’s councillors (the non-Leftist ones). Many councillors simply feared the accusations of “racism”; whereas these kinds of Leftists are the ones who did – and still do – the accusing. Not only that: many councillors, police and social workers have seen the error of their ways; whereas Trotskyists/communists/”progressives” want the situation to remain exactly as it was in the period before 2010: one of complete and total inaction on Muslim sexual-grooming gangs. Why is that? Because many Leftists believe either that any action whatsoever against Muslim grooming gangs is itself racist; or that such action will simply “encourage racism” (as it’s often put).

Thus the young victims of such sexual grooming were – and still are – very low on the list of worthy Leftist causes. At the top of that list is the permanent revolution against often fictional and possible racism.

Tuesday, 26 August 2014

Galloway’s ‘freedom of speech’ to incite violence against Israelis?

Galloway’s speech about him making Bradford “Israel-free” (given on the 2nd of August, 2014).

Predictably, UK Respect Party Member of Parliament George Galloway has treated his recent interview by West Yorkshire Police (over his desire to make Bradford “Israel-free”) as a “freedom of speech” issue. He also said that he “won’t be silenced” over Gaza and Israel.

In full, Galloway said:

"This is an absolute and despicable attempt to curb my freedom of speech by people who appear to be quite happy about the indiscriminate murder of Palestinians in Gaza.
"I won’t be silenced, I will keep speaking out against horrendous injustice."

These are precisely the words you’d expect from a rhetorician and demagogue – all bombast and a distinct lack of content.

Galloway was not – repeat not – interviewed because of his criticisms of the Israeli state and its actions in the West Bank and Gaza. He was investigated because of his (possible) racism and his incitement to violence. More accurately, Galloway was investigated for saying that he has banned all Israelis – from “academics” to “tourists” – from Bradford.

George Galloway, Member of Parliament for Bradford (northern England)/

The incitement to violence angle of this refers to the way in which Galloway – along with his Leftist and Muslim stormtroopers – would enforce such a ban. Since Israelis/Jews aren’t banned from Bradford according to British law, such a banning could only be upheld through the illegal use of force – through violence.

It’s also strange that a man – Galloway – who’s been a fan of Lenin, Stalin, the Soviet Union, Chairman Mao, the PLO, Hamas, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, Bashar Assad, theocratic Iran (he worked for Iran’s Press TV), etc., should talk about “freedom of speech” and not being “silenced”. This man has had the hots for totalitarian regimes, terrorists and despots almost all his life (Hence his recent attachment to Islamism and Islamist groups). That’s how he’s consistently found himself a nice political niche.

I mean, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. We wouldn’t have a ounce of free speech in a regime/state run by George Galloway.


The Bradford Muslim Riots of 2001. There had also been riots just five years earlier – in 1996.

In response to Galloway’s tub-thumping Israeli-hating populism (at least amongst Bradford’s Muslims and Leftists), Daniel Taub, Israel’s ambassador to the UK, visited Bradford to talk to local councillors and Jews.

The thing is that there aren’t many Jews left in Bradford. The more the Muslim population of Bradford increased, the more the Jewish population has decreased. Take these figures from the Jewish Year Book:

1949 – 700 Jews in Bradford
1990 – 430 Jews in Bradford
2004 – 356 Jews in Bradford

Today there’s only one synagogue left in Bradford. (There are over 80 mosques). The other one was burned down in the 1990s (it was rebuilt as a mosque). On one account, the last Jewish business (a company which made boxes) packed up in the 1980s as a result of the Jew-hatred of local Muslims.

This kind of thing is replicated throughout the Muslim and even in the non-Muslim world (as in Bradford, parts of France, Holland, Norway, Sweden, etc.). There are no Jews left in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Libya and Afghanistan. And there are hardly any Jews left in north Africa and Iran; despite the fact that I’m often told that Jews are treated well in certain north African countries and Iran.

      The Ethnic Cleansing of Jews in the Arab Muslim World

Saudi Arabia – 1948: 0 – 2001: 0
Jordan – 1948: ? – 2001: 0
Libya – 1948: 38,000 – 2001: 0
Syria – 1948: 30,000 2001: less than 100
Lebanon – 1948: 20,000 2001: less than 100
Egypt 1948: 75,000 2001: 100
Algeria 1948: 140,000 2001: 100
Iraq – 1948: 150,000 2001: 100
Yemen – 1948: 55,000 2001: less than 200
Tunisia – 1948: 105,000 2001: 1,500
Morocco – 1948: 265,000 2001: 5,700
Iran – 1948: 100,000 2001: 11,500

Pakistan and Afghanistan

Pakistan 1948: 1,300 2009: less than 200 (though no synagogues or “community”)
Afghanistan 1948: 5,000 2001: 1

In any case, ambassador Daniel Taub tweeted a picture of himself holding an Israeli passport and an Israeli flag.

Predictably, a Muslim “community leader” – as such people are often called – called Zulfi Karim (secretary of the Bradford Council of Mosques) said that Mr Taub’s actions were a “deliberate provocation”. How is that, exactly? Is it because Israelis have been banned from Bradford by George Galloway?

Why is okay for Muslims to wave Palestinian/Hamas/ISIS and Pakistani flags in Bradford (as well as in many other northern English towns and cities), though wrong to do the same with an Israeli flag? If Taub doesn’t believe that Israel’s actions in Gaza are wrong, then he has the right to wave the Israeli flag in Bradford.

Here yet again we have that omnipresent and systematic threat of violence from Muslims. Or, as is often the case, we have a possible pseudo-moderate Muslim telling us what his immoderate “brothers” will do if we don’t obey their demands. You see, that’s what Zulfi Karim meant by “deliberate provocation”. What else could he have meant? Zulfi Karim meant that the Israeli ambassador’s actions might have provoked Bradford’s Muslims to violence; just as other non-Muslims provoke Muslims to violence when they criticise Islam or Muhammad, or publish cartoons, or books… or do anything that’s not in full accordance with Islam. (Perhaps non-Muslims provoke some Muslims simply by being non-Muslims. Indeed isn’t that precisely the case in Iraq and Pakistan today?)

Almost every day British Muslims threaten – either directly or indirectly – violence if the British people or the government doesn’t do X, Y or Z.

For example:

“Stop arming Israel” – or there’ll be violence.
“Pull out of Afghanistan” – or there’ll be violence.
“Ban the the EDL” – or there’ll be violence.
“Allow more sharia law” – or there’ll be violence.
“Ban the Satanic Verses” – or there’ll be violence.
“Don’t allow Gert Wilders into the UK” – or there’ll be violence….

Thus Bradford – and other cities in the UK – ends up becoming more and more like Peshawar or Karachi than a city in a secular, democratic and Christian country.


Some of Bradford’s Jews (as well as Jews elsewhere) may well think that I’m stirring things up by stating the facts and making these statements about Bradford. That is, many people believe – implicitly at least – that the truth (i.e., what they take to be the truth!) can work against what’s often called “community cohesion” (as with telling the truth about Muslim grooming gangs, the attempts by Islamists to take over state schools, Islamic terrorism, etc.). Yet I believe the exact opposite is the case. Things can only get worse if the truth about these matters isn’t confronted. You see if you know what the given negative facts or realities are, then you can take steps to deal with them. If, on the other hand, you sacrifice truth to the abstract god of community cohesion, then the problems will undoubtedly increase.

For a start, if what I’ve said are the facts, then there’s no genuine community cohesion in the first place. Thus the words “community cohesion” become precisely that: mere words. Or, more mundanely, the words “community cohesion” are nothing more than a political soundbite used to disguise what is often a distinct lack of community cohesion. Indeed since there are so few Jews in Bradford, it hardly makes sense to talk of community cohesion between Jews and Muslims anyway. It’s like talking about community cohesion between Jews and Muslims in Iraq when there are, on the last count, less than ten Jews living in that Muslim country. (There were 150,000 in 1948.)

It’s ultimately as if the Great and the Pious believe that if they chant the words “community cohesion” often enough, the more there’ll actually be community cohesion in Bradford and beyond. After all, Marxists, post-structuralists and post-modernists have been telling us for decades that if only we changed the words we use, then we could also change the realities in which we live. So this endless talk of “community cohesion” (which supposedly exists in Bradford, Birmingham, etc.) isn’t actually meant to reflect reality, it’s designed to bring about a new reality.

There’s just one problem with the theory (or theology) – it isn’t working. And it isn’t working for two reasons: the words don’t reflect the reality and no one believes the words anyway. In addition to that: the “community cohesion” mantra isn’t changing reality either. It’s hiding it and ultimately making it worse.

Thursday, 21 August 2014

Unapologetic Galloway has been interviewed by the police

George Galloway in Bradford, with a fellow activist for Respect/PHOTO CREDIT: The Guardian

George Galloway has been interviewed by West Yorkshire Police about the “Israel-free” comments he made at a meeting in Leeds on the 2nd of August. The meeting was held for Respect activists. The video of the speech was then posted on YouTube. (Click here and here  for more information.)

According to Chief Superintendent Paul Money, George Galloway cooperated with the police and was interviewed at Elland Road station under caution.

West Yorkshire Police has said that the case will be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) when its enquiries are completed.

libert gb
George Galloway/PHOTO CREDIT: Liberty GB

To recap on the speech, this is what George Galloway said on the 2nd of August:

"We have declared Bradford an Israel-free zone.
"We don’t want any Israeli goods; we don’t want any Israeli services; we don’t want any Israeli academics coming to the university or the college.
"We don’t even want any Israeli tourists to come to Bradford even if any of them had thought of doing so.
"We reject this illegal, barbarous, savage state that calls itself Israel – and you have to do the same."

Mr Galloway has been a Bradford West MP since 2012.

Galloway in Court

Galloway during the US Senate hearings of 2005/PHOTO CREDIT: The Guardian

George Galloway will milk his questioning and possible court appearance for all it’s worth. He is, after all, a consummate performer.

Even the people who despise George Galloway – as many people do (especially his former “comrades”) – freely confess that he has excellent literary skills and that he’s a performer of the first order. Despite that, when you read – rather than hear and see – his words on paper or on the Internet, Galloway-power lessens somewhat. Indeed you quickly find that there’s hardly any analysis, argumentation or even factual data in what he says. And beyond the literary exhibitionism, there’s no much politics either. This man “thinks with the blood” and primarily appeals to people who think that way. He tends to appeal to those who are politically simple-minded, Manichean and full of dreams of vengeance and power – hence Galloway’s Hitleresque style and (lack of) content.

As I said, Galloway will make the most of his court appearance. It may end up like Hitler’s court performance (in 1924) after being convicted for the Munich Putsch of 1923. Indeed Galloway may replicate the RADA skills he used during the Galloway v the US Senate (“oil-for-food”) hearings in 2005 (see image above). And since judges, lawyers and prosecutors can’t also rely exclusively on literary style, rhetoric and polemics, it’s no wonder that Galloway sometimes comes across so well at such appearances.

David Ward MP (Bradford East), who’s also pushing for a sectarian/communalist Britain/PHOTO CREDIT: The Guardian

Because Galloway is a pathological exhibitionist, it wouldn’t surprise the British public if he said something even more extreme and racist about Israelis and Jews either before or during the trial. In addition, since he’s competing with David Ward MP to see who’s the most immoderate and perverse Bradfordian Islamophile of them all, this may well happen.

One very-often-used strategy Galloway employs is to accuse virtually all his critics of lying. He’s done this very many times over the years. (Such things can be seen on various YouTube videos.) In fact apart from using his flamboyant literary skills, this seems to be Galloway’s first resort: especially when he’s being questioned. This is bizarre really since George Galloway – along with Jeffrey Archer – is one of most well-documented liars in British politics. This must simply be a case, then, of what psychologists call “psychological projection”. That is, a trait that Galloway recognises in himself (compulsive lying) is projected onto virtually all of his opponents. (See ‘The Lies of George Galloway’.)

George Galloway will be truly saddened by the fact that cameras aren’t allowed in British courts.

*) Latest Update

West Yorkshire Police, Leeds District, has written and delivered letters to the 250 people (in Leeds alone) who reported George Galloway’s remarks. The letter reads:
Thank you for your complaint in relation to the speech made by George Galloway MP on Saturday 2nd of August 2014 in Leeds.
West Yorkshire Police have received a number of complaints in relation to the content of the speech and are conducting an investigation.
It is likely that the investigation will take a number of weeks. The Crown Prosecution Service will then review all the facts and make a decision. We will contact you regarding any further developments.
"If you would like to discuss this matter please do not hesitate to contact [... ] on contact [...]. Another agency that may be of assistance are Victim Support on [....].
Yours faithfully,
Pat Twiggs
Detective Superintendent
Head of Crime – Leeds District

Wednesday, 20 August 2014

BBC deceit about British baby names and 'Muhammed'

Anthony Reuben, in a BBC News item entitled 'Most popular baby names Amelia and Oliver' (15th August), wrote that

“some people have added up the spellings of Muhammad to put it in first place on the list”.

He then went on to say:

“There are eight different spellings, and if you add them up you get to 8,380, which would put the name in first place, ahead of Oliver on 6,949.”

[The BBC's Anthony Reuben.]

However, Anthony Reuben responds to these points in the following manner:

"But you're on a slippery slope once you start combining entries on the list.

“If you add the number of babies called Harry to the number called Henry, for example, you get to 9,136. Combining Jack and Jacob gives you a whopping 13,649.”

Firstly, even though 'Harry' and 'Henry' may have the same common root, they are still different names: not simply different spellings of the same name. The same goes for 'Jack' and 'Jacob' – different names with (possibly) the same root.

In addition, if there were even more different spellings of 'Muhammed', then – in theory at least - that Muslim name wouldn't even come in the top fifty or hundred of British names if we were follow Reuben's faulty logic. Thus, in the BBC's Orwellian world, hardly any babies at all in England and Wales will have been named 'Muhammed' in 2013. I wonder what the English nurses and midwives think of Reuben's ideologically-correct reasonings.

However, none of that matters. Every Muslim baby named 'Muhammad' is named after the Prophet Muhammad.

So are all the people named 'Harry' and 'Henry' named after the same person? Indeed is everyone named just 'Harry' named after the same person? Of course not! And the same is true of the names ''Jack' and 'Jacob'.

Is Anthony Reuben “lying for justice” here? (Is he lying about the number of Muslims being born in the UK in order, presumably, to fight against racism and insure Community Cohesion?)

The BBC doesn't seem to want its readers and viewers to know how many Muslims are being born in the UK. Now why is that? 

*) According to the BBC, 'Muhammed' and 'Muhammad' are different names simply because one includes an 'a' and the other has an 'e'.

British Christian leaders speak out against Islamic extremism…at last!

Bishop of Leeds via Daily Telegraph
Bishop of Leeds Nick Baines via Daily Telegraph

At last, a couple of senior British Church leaders have spoken out against Islamic extremism. Up until this point, such people have barely even dared to utter the words “Islamic extremism”, let alone speak out against it.

And hasn’t it been the case that many – or nearly all – British Church leaders have attempted to argue that the words “Islamic extremism” are effectively a contradiction in terms (or an oxymoron)? In any case, Prime Minister David Cameron has certainly more or less said that (as we shall see later).

The most obvious point to make here is that this isn’t just about the treatment of Christians and other non-Muslims in Iraq. It’s about the treatment of Christians and non-Muslims in literally every Muslim state on the planet. And if that’s the case (which it is), then surely it must follow that the persecution and killing of non-Muslims by Muslims is in many ways actually written into Islam itself. Well, it is.

To be fair, the Right Rev Nicholas Baines, in a letter to David Cameron (which is also published on his website), did write about “Islamic extremism as it is developing across the globe”, not just in Iraq.

Rev Baines also had strong words to say about the “increasing silence” from his own Church and from politicians about the persecution and murder of Christians throughout the Muslim world.

It seems that the more committed Churches and Church leaders are to the interfaith movement, the more silent they have been about the anti-Christian actions of Muslims and Muslim states. After all, those heavily engaged in what could be called the Church of Interfaith (as many Christians and Christian leaders are), the more likely they’ll be interacting with Muslims on a weekly – sometimes daily – basis. Thus it has become almost impossible for them to say anything negative about Muslims and even about Muslim states. And it’s certainly the case the criticism of Islam itself – or even even criticism of a single Islamic doctrine – is quite simply verboten. And that’s primarily the case lest Community Cohesion is threatened, accusations of racism are thrown around and Muslim outrage/violence and Guardian articles ensue. (Thus proving the point being made here.)

The Right Rev David Walker (the Bishop of Manchester) has also contributed to this sudden chorus against global and systematic Islamic extremism. Of course it’s the case that some Christian Christian groups (though not senior Christian leaders) have already spoken out. However, since the Rev David Walker and Rev Baines have themselves said that there’s been widespread silence on Islamic extremism, then those who point out this sudden turnaround (because of Iraq) can’t be accused of being cynical.

The Bishop of Manchester said (on Radio 4′s Sunday) that the UK government has a “moral obligation that it is repeatedly failing to rise to”. However, as I said, this hasn’t only been the government’s fault. It’s also the fault of the Church itself, the interfaith circuit and the anti-racism industry. All of these institutions have consistently portrayed any and all criticism of individual Muslims or Islam itself as being tantamount to racism.

As many people will know, David Cameron has also spoken out against Islamic extremism in the last few days. Yet what he has said may turn out to be counterproductive and even suicidal in the long run.

Mr Cameron, for example, hasn’t got the right or the authority to come out with his recent categorical statement that there’s

"Islam on the one hand and extremists who want to abuse Islam on the other".

Cameron simply doesn’t know enough about Islam to make such a statement. And even if he did know at least something about Islam, that statement still wouldn’t be justified. Indeed even when Muslims make such statements, they are unjustified in doing so. Why is that? Simply because there is no central authority in Islam. What’s more, the so-called “Islamic extremists” are just as theologically sound (actually more so!) than those Muslims involved in, say, the interfaith circuit.

Party Politics

Even the British Labour Party has begun to realise what many other people have known for a very long time. For example, the Shadow foreign secretary (Douglas Alexander) has spoken about the Tories’ lack of action on the issue of Islamic extremism. Though, of course, this is Mr Alexander scoring party-political points against the Conservative Party and nothing much more. And let’s not forget here that these words are coming from a Labour Party which has done more than any political party in British history to enable - both in the UK and abroad – Islamic extremism.
There’s also been some party-politicking from Lord Ashdown. He said that Cameron’s comments about defending “our values” are “ill-judged”.

So here’s yet another politician who has virtually ignored domestic and foreign Islamic extremism until the recent events in Iraq. Or, more correctly, until he saw an opportunity to score party-political points against David Cameron. After all, Lord Ashdown – even more than many other British politicians – appears to have a deep faith in the Orwellian myth that “Islam is peace”.

In any case, if talk of “our values” is deemed by Lord Ashdown to be “ill-judged”, then what, exactly, are we fighting for? And what are we fighting against? Indeed how can we defend or fight at all without shared values?

Yet Ashdown, on his own admission, does believe in shared values: it’s just that these values “included those in Islam”.

And therein lies the heart of the problem: na├»ve, gullible and ultimately suicidal Islamophilia.

Monday, 18 August 2014

Owen Jones explains the Gaza demonstration fixation

Comrade Owen ‘Son of Dave Spart’ Jones/PHOTO CREDIT: Wiki Commons

Oxford University graduate and media-socialist, Owen Jones (a son of self-described Trotskyists), said – in a recent Guardian (where else?) article – that there haven’t been any demonstrations against the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS), the jihadists in Syria, etc. because people demonstrate against governments, not groups. In other words, they demonstrate in order to change government policy in a given region.

This is how Owen ‘Son of Dave Spart’ Jones legitimises the decades-long Leftist monomania with Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.

This is an utterly bogus argument.

“Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.” UK demo in support of Gazans.

Leftists (or perhaps I should say Trotskyist-led groups like the Socialist Workers Party, the Stop the War Coalition/Press TV, etc.) have never demonstrated against a single Muslim/Islamic state. They didn’t demonstrate against what happened in the Sudan in the 1990s and early 2000s. They’ve never demonstrated against Pakistan’s treatment of Christians or its support of terrorism. They’ve never demonstrated against the gay-killing theocracy of Iran. They never demonstrated against Muslim-Brotherhood-controlled Egypt and its persecution of Copts and other minorities. And so on. And neither did Leftists ever demonstrate against the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, or even against Pol Pot.

Indeed in many of these example, the Left supported and still explicitly supports these regimes, such as Iran today and China in past.

In addition, Owen Jones says that people have demonstrated against Israel because the UK government arms that country. But our country also arms Pakistan to the teeth. It has also armed Saudi Arabia. And I bet that it armed – at least to some extent – Sudan in the 1990s and early 2000s. Again, there were never any demos – led by the Stop the War Coalition (or its SWP equivalent) – against the Sudanese Islamist regime or against Saudi Arabia. (There have been small-scale demos - or ‘vigils’ – organised by groups such as the Campaign Against the Arms Trade.)

And no doubt that are some neat little Marxist theories as to why Leftists support – or at least don’t demonstrate against – various and many ideologically-correct oppressors, misogynists, racists, terrorists and killers.

No: Leftists demonstrate against Israel because that country has been an obsessional target of their hate since the 1967 war. In other cases, large segments of the Left (including the Soviet Union and its minions) turned against Israel before 1967.

What Owen Jones also singularly misses out is the fact that International Socialist Jew-hatred pre-dates the founding on Israel by some one hundred years or so. Indeed there are strands of International Socialist/Marxist Jew-hatred which pre-dated the formation of the National Socialist German Workers Party (in 1920) by some fifty or so years. (I’m not just talking about Marx here: there were many Jew-hating communists and socialists in the late 19th century.)

Lindsey German of the Stop the War Coalition (StWC). She is formerly of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). Virtually all “pro-Palestine” or anti-Israel demos – as well as many others – are run and controlled by literally a handful of white, upper-middle-class academics of the SWP, as well as some ex-SWP: including John Rees and other friends of Iran’s Press TV./PHOTO CREDIT, Wiki Commons

Large segments of the Left aren’t really against Israel because of Gaza or Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. They’re against Israel! Full stop. And they’re against Israel for two primary reasons:

  • Israel is a “capitalist democracy”.
  • Israel is a a state primarily for Jews.
Thus Israel fuses three things which many Leftists hate: capitalist democracy, Jews and nationalism…. except, of course, that the Left has always accepted all sorts of nationalisms advanced by non-capitalists or people with brown and black skin. (Many on the Left deem all Jews to be “whites”.)

And because Israel is a new state, the Left has always believed it can do it severe damage. That’s why Israel has been a political obsession (or fashion) of the Left. Many Leftists would like to destroy the “capitalist democracies” (which aren’t, according to Marxist theory, genuine democracies) of the UK and the US too. However, they think that their chances of destroying Israel are far more likely; especially since they have aligned themselves with all sorts of murderous forces and terrorist groups which have precisely that intent.

Friday, 15 August 2014

Meet Iraq’s New Prime Minister: the Islamic Dawa Party’s Haider al-Abadi

Haidar al-Abadi, the new Prime Minister of Iraq/PHOTO CREDIT: Wiki Commons
Haidar al-Abadi, the new Prime Minister of Iraq/PHOTO CREDIT: Wiki Commons

Nouri Maliki has officially resigned his post as Iraq Prime Minister on Iraqi state television. Haider al-Abadi was then asked, by Iraq’s president, to form the next government.

Mr. Maliki said:

I announce before you today, to ease the movement of the political process and the formation of the new government, the withdrawal of my candidacy in favour of brother Doctor Haider al-Abadi.
Al-Abadi was an Iraqi exile between 1980 and 2003. He resided in the United Kingdom, unlike Ahmed Chalabi before him who resided in the United States. And we know what happened to Chalabi. Yes, he was in office for less than 12 months; though not as either Prime Minister or President.

However, its not just the American government which backs al-Abadi. He also has the support of his own Islamic Dawa Party, Iraq’s Shia clerics and Iran.

From the various news pieces published recently, it’s hard to see the arguments as to why Haider al-Abadi is a better alternative to Nouri Maliki.

Did Nouri Maliki lose the support of the Americans and Iraqis because he wasn’t tough enough on the Islamic State (IS) jihadists and other Sunni militants? Or did he lose it because he prolonged and accentuated the Shia hegemony over the Sunnis in the Iraq government and beyond?

The Islamic Dawa Party’s emblem/ IMAGE CREDIT: Wiki Commons

In terms of the former possibility, Nouri Maliki did once say that he didn’t want to be the responsible for shedding a single drop of blood in Iraq. Nonetheless, that might have had more to do with the lack of loyalty of the Iraqi army (as well as the limited numbers of the Shia militias) than any true pacifism on Maliki’s part.

As for the latter possibility, US National Security Adviser Susan Rice has said that that Haider al-Abadi’s appointment is a “major step” towards uniting Iraq.

President Obama has himself said:

[Haider al-Abadi] still has a challenging task in putting a government together, but we are modestly hopeful that the… situation is moving in the right direction.
Since Haider al-Abadi is the spokesman for an explicitly religious (Shia) party, the Islamic Dawa Party (da’wah means the proselytising or preaching of Islam), it’s hard to see how sectarian tensions – both inside and outside of government – will lessen. The IDP is also very closed linked to Shia Iran. (Tthis, when you think about it, is hardly a surprise.)

The Islamic Dawa Party was created to “promote Islamic values and ethics, political awareness, combat secularism, and create an Islamic state in Iraq”.

Furthermore, according to Roger Shanahan, the Party states:

  1. Absolute sovereignty belongs to Allah.
  2. Islamic injunctions are the basis of legislation. The legislative authority may enact any law not repugnant to Islam.
  3. The people, as vice-regents of Allah, are entrusted with legislative and executive powers.
  4. The jurist holding religious authority represents Islam. By confirming legislative and executive actions, he gives them legality.

In other words, there’s no separation of state and religion (or Shia Islam) within the Islamic Dawa Party’s political ideology.