Fiyaz Mughal, in his cheap, nasty and pathetic smear of Richard Dawkins, tells us that he “hope[s] that Dawkins dissociates himself completely from... racial identity politics”.
“[R]acial identity politics”? Pardon me! What does Fiyaz Mughal mean by that phrase? The racial identity politics which is displayed by the Society of Black Lawyers? Or perhaps by the National Black Police Association?
Indeed it's a monumental fact that the multiculturalism on which Mughal himself feasts was founded on “racial identity politics”. It has been at the very heart of British multiculturalism for decades.
Of course what gets the goat of Fiyaz Mughal is that it's the wrong kind of identity twice over which Richard Dawkins supposedly highlights: the identity of English people who are also kuffar! Yes, white English people aren't allowed to have an “identity”; let alone practice “identity politics”. So I hope that Fiyaz Mughal communicates his strong disgust at “racial identity politics” to, say, the various Bangladeshi community centers or the Music of Black Origin Awards (MOBO).
Of course this is Muslim racism against white English people in that Mughal is explicitly denying this ethnic group an identity. And yet “racial identity” has been “celebrated” insistently in the councils, newspapers, interfaith meetings, Leftist demos, etc. of the UK since at least the early 1980s.
So why do people put up with Fiyaz Mughal's blatant racism, prejudice and bigotry? Why does he think that the identity of English white people (or even just of the English) is a notion - and even an ethnic group - fit for extinction?
This kind of hypocritical racism also has a long history in the Left.
Take Ratna Lachman of the (Trotskyist/progressive) “rights group” JUST West Yorkshire. JUST West Yorkshire, apparently, “promotes racial justice”. It does this so well that Ratna Lachman once said the following:
“The so-called 'white working class' means the far right.”
Does the “so-called” black or brown working class mean far right too? Of course not! Why is that? Because Ratna Lachman, just like Fiyaz Mughal, is a racist. In fact the so-called black or brown working class is actually championed by Ratna Lachman and JUST West Yorkshire. It's only the white working class she singles out for extra-special attention; just as The Guardian, Hope Not Hate, the SWP-UAF, the Huffington Post, etc. also do.
JUST West Yorkshire also campaigns against “extremism”. It campaigns so well against extremism that it has often used Moazzam Begg and other Muslim extremists to do so. But, and here we go again, according to Ratna Lachman's racism (just like Fiyaz Mughal's): it's only white extremists she's bothered about. She isn't even bothered about the brown people who blow women and children to pieces. (Here she is – at one minute 22 seconds - doing her best to stop any police action whatsoever against Islamic terrorism in the UK; after all, Muslim terrorists have brown skin. [As featured on the BBC's 'Generation Jihad'.])
Moazzam Begg speaking at a JUST West Yorkshire event.
Fiyaz Mughal also feigns disgust when he quotes Paul Weston (the leader of Liberty GB) when he said “I wish to preserve the people of my country”. And what's wrong with that, Fiyaz Mughal? If a Pakistani, a Somalian or an Egyptian had said that, would Mughal have been disgusted at that too? Of course not! Why? Because these people have brown or blacks skins and they are Muslims too.
So how pure do you want your racism to be? And yet, with the logic of children, Leftists and Left-Liberals don't recognise such prejudice and bigotry as racism simply because the person who is saying these things has brown skin.
After all, what's more racist than excusing someone of racism because he has brown (or black) skin? Indeed what's more racist than excusing sexual groomers, terrorists, those who carry out female genital mutilation, rape, misogyny, etc. simply because they have brown skins? That is how racist the Left is. The very fact that the Marxist Left only deems whites to be racist again clearly shows us how racist and race-obsessed it is. And it's clear that Fiyaz Mughal himself has picked up on this hypocritical Leftist racism.
And what the hell is it with Fiyaz Mughal's complete fetish for Tweets? Doesn't he ever read articles or books? Would his litigious little mind find that too much like hard work? Still, this pornographer of other people's Tweets is clearly on the lookout for off-the-cuff remarks. Yet there is a mountain of screenshot Tweets from everyday Muslims, Leftists, Mo Ansar, Mehdi Hasan, etc. which would make your skin crawl and which could similarly be emblazoned over Tell Mama's website.
Without racism - or, more correctly, without accusations of racism, Fiyaz Mughal would have nothing. Zero. His entire defence - as it were - is based on the supposed racism of everyone who dares to criticise Islam and Muslims in any shape or form.
Fiyaz Mughal has no doubt picked up this nasty little psychological and political quirk from the Left – the very same Left which whores for Islam in the hope that is can “tap into the revolutionary potential of Muslims” (the words of John Molyneux, formerly of the SWP). This is the very same technique which was so well-mastered by Joseph Stalin when he accused literally all his many political enemies – even fellow communists/socialists – of being “fascists”.
So why is it that totalitarian creeds such as Islam and Leftism/Marxism rely almost exclusively on such ad hominems? Is it because they cannot rely on truth, fact and argument?