[The Lancaster Unity post follows the comment; after the dotted line.]
Denise G suffers from a common medical ailment, which is a bit like Tourette’s Syndrome. It's called RoboTrotism. Those who suffer from it are incapable of uttering a single sentence without including the words ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’ (sometimes both). Denise G has got it very badly and will hopefully die from it in the near future.
When it comes to those beardos, the Muslimist supporters of Roshonara ‘Stabber’ Choudhry, I do think it’s a case of ‘us and them’. Doesn’t Denise G think of them as them?
And no, the Daily Mail does not attack Muslims simpliciter. They attack Islamists, terrorists and other such scum. Denise G, and many other such scum, fail to see the difference. They see written and spoken attacks on Islamist loons as attacks ‘against Muslims’. That says a lot about what Denise G takes Muslims to be and also what some Muslims take Muslims to be. How can an attack on Islamoterrorists or nasty Islamists be taken as an attack ‘against all Muslims’? I mean, Muslims themselves are always making a distinction between Islamoterrorists, etc. and ‘moderate’ and ‘ordinary’ Muslims. Does Denise G accept this difference? It seems not!
As you would guess, there’s not a single denunciation of Choudhry’s heinous jihadist offence. No. The platonic Tabloid Press are the real villains (as per usual with leftists).
I have a simple question for Denise G:
She also says that if the upstarts in the court had been Christian (whatever that means), the press would not have mentioned their Christian status. Maybe not. It depends. Does she mean people who just happen to be Christians or people who are making trouble because their religion demands it? What the hell does Denise G mean? Islamists and Leftists like her have said the same about Timothy McVeigh. That is, why didn’t people mention the fact that he was a Christian? Again, it depends on whether reading the New Testament inspired him to his terrorist act. It didn’t! It was firmly political, not theological. Then again Denise knows this. She is simply doing the Trot-thing: ‘Lying for Justice’.
- November 06, 2010, posted by Denise G, for Lancaster Unity
The front page and main story of Thursday's Daily Express is a clear and unsubtle attempt at maintaining the "us and them" mentality which is so often levelled by that paper against Muslims.
The headline refers to the shouts from "a group of men" (according to the Mail) who were sitting in the public gallery during the trial of Roshonara Choudhry, the woman convicted of stabbing Stephen Timms MP earlier this year.
As the Express reports:
"JEERING Muslim fanatics turned an Old Bailey court into a battleground yesterday after an Al Qaeda follower was jailed for stabbing an MP.
"In unprecedented scenes the angry mob chanted “British go to hell” as would-be assassin Roshonara Choudhry was handed a sentence of life with a minimum of 15 years."
Rather than leading with the story at hand, the sentencing of Choudhry to "life" imprisonment, the Express has chosen to focus on the deranged rantings of a few nutcases in a courtroom instead.
(Both the Daily Mail and The Sun have also gone with this angle, but neither has chosen to put it across in as brazen a way as the Express.)
That there are Muslim extremists who say such things is beyond a doubt. However, the Express' decision to make this the key focus of the story, along with the deliberately ambiguous language used in the headline, is an attempt to imply that these shouts are in some way an expression of what every Muslim thinks about the British.
The Express sees Muslims as a homogeneous mass that is in complete agreement with the ramshackle fanatics at its fringes. The headline is a dog-whistle signal for the idea that "Muslims" disapprove of "us British".
Can you imagine, for example, what the Express would have done if the men who broke into shouts of "Go to hell, Britain" were Christians? Would the Express have replaced "Muslims" with "Christians" in the headline? Would they even have mentioned it so prominently in the first place?
I doubt it.
Continuing the theme of rampant hysteria, the Express' article states that:
"The gang, sitting in the public gallery, chanted “Allahu akbar” or “God is great” and another demonstration raged outside the court."
"Raged"? Gosh, that sounds dramatic, doesn't it?
Between the Express, the Daily Mail and The Sun, the "raging" demonstration seems to have comprised of at least three poor souls holding particularly unimaginative print-outs.
In their articles about Thursday's events, the BBC and the Telegraph make no mention of the men holding signs outside or of the shouting from the gallery, and the Guardian makes a passing reference only to a small demonstration... taking place outside the court.
An examination of The Sun's article reveals the following:
"Security men bundled the ranting bigots from Court Seven after the disgraceful scenes.
"But the three were allowed to continue their poison rants [sic] in the street - yelling "British soldiers must die."
According to this, the demonstration outside appears to have consisted of the same men who were shouting in the gallery. Therefore the Express' claim that "another demonstration raged outside the court" seems pretty baseless.
Nonetheless, expect the wearisome English Defence League to seize this stormy teacup with both of their grubby hands.