[Image above: 'Disagree with us, and we'll smash you! Either that, or we'll put you in a gulag.']
Red-fascist Leftists (SWP/UAF/Searchlight/Hope Not hate/etc.) have many strategies which are intended to silence all opposition and everyone who disagrees with them.
For instance, they want an outright ban of all EDL demos - followed by a ban on the organisation itself.
Thy also uphold a red-fascist ‘no platform’ position/policy; which is meant to deny ‘the oxygen of publicity’ to ‘fascists’, ‘racists, ‘Islamophobes’, etc - basically, anyone who disagrees with the red-fascist Left.
This No Platform position had been adopted by nearly all student unions in the UK. It has recently been aimed primarily at the BNP. However, considering the fact that most - or all - student unions virtually never invite representatives of the Right, never mind ‘far right’, then this No Platform hasn’t really needed to be extended (though various controversial scientists, speakers, writers, journalists, etc. have been victims of it over the years).
Red fascists also accuse every opponent - not just the ‘far right’ (EDL, BNP, etc.) - of being ‘fascist’, ‘racist’ or ‘Islamophobic’. This is a good method to silence debate and to delegitimise anyone who dares to contradict them.
Finally, we have Leftist whataboutism. This too is used to silence debate and question the credentials of all those who dare to criticise Islam and the Leftist defenders (‘enablers’) of Islam and Islamists.
My last experience of this occurred very recently. I was debating with the Birmingham Salafists/Islamists who often hold a stall on Birmingham’s New Street. For some strange reason, a Leftist defender (or ‘enabler’) of these Muslims immediately appeared (perhaps she was on guard) and came to their defence. Although she didn’t know who I was, which group I belonged to or anything about what I generally believed politically, all she said, in response to my accusations that they supported Salafism, al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, etc. was:
‘Don’t you think you should concern yourself with what your Government and the American Government are doing in the world?’
How did she know I didn’t do these things? Indeed, how did she know I wasn’t a socialist of some kind? Presumably, at least some old-style - not red fascist - socialists have very strong views against al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and even against Islamism.
Still, to that red fascist, any and all criticisms of Islam and Muslims are, by her red-fascist definition, ‘fascist’, ‘racist’ and/or ‘Islamophobic’. That way she can bring about a situation in which there can be no debate or discussion; or, as it’s often called by red fascists, a No Platform position/policy.
[Image above: the threat of being 'smashed' by this bespectacled turd shouldn't fill anyone with that much fear.]
You will come across endless Leftist whataboutisms; especially in debates about Islam and the behaviour of Muslims - and even about the behaviour of Islamic killers, misogynists, supremacists, authoritarians, etc.
The idea seems to be that only they, as Leftists, have the right (which they never seem to actually exercise) to criticise Muslims or Islam because only they are coming at it from the right perspective - the Leftist/Marxist/theoretical/SWP/etc. perspective. All other criticisms must be, by the fact that they are not (far) Leftist, 'racist’, 'fascist’ or 'Islamophobic’. Only Leftist criticisms are therefore correct or true. But, again, it is a shame that such Leftists hardly ever put into practice their highly sophisticated and theoretical understandings and criticisms of the Real Nature of Islam and Muslims/Islamists. However, everyone outside the Leftist gang is merely ‘disguising’ their real ‘racism’, ‘fascism’ and/or ‘Islamophobia’.
Take this example of a Leftist response to a criticism of Islam’s position on women:
You say this about Islam, but what about what Christians did in the 19th century in...?
You will often find that Leftists basically argue (if it is an argument at all) that
You shouldn’t criticise X unless you also criticise Y.
But who says that the non-Leftist, or anyone else, doesn’t also criticise Y at other times or in other circumstances? The Leftist simply assumes that if you criticise X, then, by red-fascist definition, you must either support or defend Y. But why can’t this person criticise both X and Y? It just so happens that in this debate with the Leftist, criticising Y is quite simply besides the point and not to the issue at hand.
For example, why should I also criticise Christianity when I am arguing that Islam is largely, but not exclusively, to blame for the abuse of women in Pakistan? Should I criticise Christianity’s record on women simply to prove to Leftists that I’m not biased in favour of Christianity? How does the Leftist know that the critic of Islam is not also critical of all religions and perhaps even an atheist?
Talking about Islam’s record on anything shouldn’t mean that I must also start talking about Bible Christianity - it wouldn’t necessarily be relevant! Though it may well be relevant at another time and in another place.
Again, take any criticism of Muslim bigots. That almost every time elicits this response from red-fascist Leftists:
What about Christian bigots?
Or what about criticism of Arab and/or Muslims states? You’ll more often than not get this:
What about America doing X and Y....?
What about the EDL.... ?
Take the debate, again, about Islam in Pakistan and the treatment of women there.
You will get the usual stuff about ‘Christian sexism’ and ‘Christian misogyny’.
But even here it isn't just a question of relevance. It is also a question about the legitimacy of the particular whataboutism.
For example, take a man who beats his wife and who just happens to also be a Christian. Then take a Muslim man who beats his wife and does so largely because his religion states that he can - and which justifies and even encourages it (as in the Koran).
So this is classic Leftist whataboutism:
You can’t criticise X unless you also criticise Y.
To get away from Christianity/Islam comparisons, stating the above is exactly like stating:
Don’t criticise Stalin - what about Hitler?
Or, as one Muslim said in response to criticisms of the Taliban blowing up Buddhist statues:
‘Do you know what’s happening to Muslims in Palestine?’
Indeed that’s a whataboutism that hardly makes sense! However, you get these all the time from Leftists; especially from red-fascist Leftists.
To get back to the Islam/Christianity case.
Regardless of what is said in the Old Testament, do many, or any, Christians stone women to death? Cut off their clitorises? Ban them from working? Etc. Maybe some do. But millions upon millions of Muslims believe that these anti-women words and actions are acceptable and true because Islam has practised them for the last 1, 300 years and such actions, they say, are justified and even encouraged in the Koran itself.
The same is true about warfare and violence. There are indeed a few suspect passage in the New Testament. In fact, less than a handful. These passages can be, and have been, used to justify war and even violence. In fact, let’s say that they are not ‘used’ at all. Let’s say that the New Testament does, in certain passages, condone war and violence. Does that honestly compare to a book, the Koran, which has well over a hundred passages which justify and even propagate violence and warfare against all Islam’s enemies?
Not only that. Violence is at the very heard of the Koran and the Hadiths. Mohammed himself was a warrior for most of his life and he’s on record as having personally beheaded over 100 (some accounts say over 800) of his ‘enemies’.
The ‘violent’ passages in the New Testament are also allegorical in nature. The Koran is brutally specific about violence and the rationale for violent jihad (as well as stoning, beating wives, etc.).
Also, only a tiny proportion of Christians take the Old and New Testaments literally. Most Muslims are more or less ordered to take the Koran literally. That is also a massive difference.
All these points about Christianity are still valid and may even be true. But despite that, and on most occasions, none of them are direct Leftist responses to comments made about Islam and/or the behaviour of Muslims as Muslims. In other contexts, and at other times, they may well be relevant.
Again, the whatabout strategy is designed to kill all debate and discussion about Islam and Muslims; not to enlighten people about Leftist truths about these subjects. In that sense, Leftist whataboutisms are very similar to logical ad hominems, which are also used either because a person can’t debate in the first place or because he doesn’t want to (as with most Leftists).
Thus Leftist whataboutisms help bring about a No Platform position/policy on all critics of Islam and/or Muslims (as Muslims).