Witch-huntery

Posted on by

Remember the pathetic non-story where Ken Livingstone was accused of antisemitism after telling a nasty piece of work journalist that he shared personality traits with concentration camp guards? It’s back, thanks to an official complaint from the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

Send the Board to the gas chambers, that’s what I say (no, not for their ethnicity; for their fatuous whining. And obviously, the people who complain about Bob Geldof saying ‘fuck’ on the telly should be ahead of them in the queue….)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by John B. Bookmark the permalink.

82 thoughts on “Witch-huntery”

  4. Perhaps whining is part of what it means to be culturally / ethnically Jewish?
    I had a disputation with 2 Jewish New Yorkers last night about their allegation that "Canadians aren’t whiny enough to be Jewish". Personally I see argumentativeness as a more characterisatically Jewish trait (apparently it stems from the Rabbinic tradition of textual interpretation) but that may be partly what they meant by ‘whiny’.

  5. Er, Evening Standard journalist?

    "Personally I see argumentativeness as a more characterisatically Jewish trait …"

    Oh no it’s not.

    Oh yes it is.

    Etc.

  8. Appending his CV to a site which calls for the Jewish Board of Deputies to be sent to the gas chambers and wondering why he doesn’t get any calls from employers.

    John Band – hopeless village idiot of the blogosphere.

  9. Good grief, man!

    a) That took enormous balls.

    b) You still shouldn’t have fucking said it.

    Did I mention that took balls? But you still shouldn’t have said it.

  10. I don’t particularly want a job as a SAP consultant in Australia, as it happens. Already have quite a good one, which doesn’t (exclusively) involve pissing about with dull database software 15,000 miles away. Nonetheless, I thank you for your sympathy.

  11. It’s a good job you didn’t say that about the Muslim Council of Britain, otherwise some of the morons posting here might give a shit.

  12. Well, OP, I’ll say it then. The Muslim Council of Britain are also frequently guilty of "fatuous whining." And gassing may be too good for fatuous whiners of any stripe.

  17. Yeah, I’m considering dropping my link to SBBS. I’m horrified by how safe and middle-of-the-road it’s making my blog seem in comparison. Calling the Scots too fucking stupid to know what’s good for them just can’t compete.

  18. Lenny, I’d like to press you further on your comment. Specifically, WHY do you think John should not have said it?

    Because it would offend people? (So would much else on many of the blogs listed here, including yours and, although it’s not listed, mine too)

    Because it is an incitement to religious hatred? (Possible, although anyone remotely familiar with this site would not take the remark seriously)

    Because it exposes John as an anti-Semite? (Ditto)

    Because it’s tasteless? (No case to answer)

    Anyone who is looking for anti-Semitic material on the web would have to be pretty desperate to come here! Freedom of speech on blogs is starting to come under serious attack (thank you Blogger), and I think we need to be very clear about our terms if we object to a particular statement, however tasteless or offensive.

  19. Yes, HIOP, it is tasteless. Outlandishly so. The only thing you could do to top it at the moment would be…I dunno. A Black & White Minstrel show singing "Three Feet High And Rising"? Hiroshima porn?

    But no, I won’t be delinking. (In fact, due to the tech fuckup I still haven’t bothered to resolve, I need to relink.)

    But then, I’m not a serious site..

  20. The only thing I find offensive is that people are dumb enough to be surprised to find things that are offensive (and highly amusing for it) at this place. That’s dear Mr Band’s USP, surely? And anyway, as a (Jewish) friend of mine asked a few years back, if the Jews are God’s chosen people, why the fuck does he shit on them so bloody much? And if they’ve got the all-powerful skyfairy on their side, do they really need the help of random internet bods to defend themselves?

  21. Be as offensive as you like, just dont complain when people talk about paedophile prophets from the 7th century, who had their enemies killed and used g-d as their own personal aide to help their political and sexual victories.

    Your moral relativism is going a little far, but then thats only to be expected from the country that brought us chamberlain and appeasement. Long live the queen!

  22. Well, that’s what a politician gets, and clearly deserves, for not being respectful to a journalist. This should send a clear message – in future, politicians will know to answer questions promptly and to give journalists whatever else they want. If any politico ever contemplates treating a journalist without the proper respect and deference, they’ll know that they risk being dragged before the Standards Board and being out of a job for five years. Voters should also take note of this: if you want your democratic choices to stick, you better make sure you vote for a politician who knows better than to go around disrespecting journalists.

  24. "paedophile prophets from the 7th century, who had their enemies killed and used g-d as their own personal aide to help their political and sexual victories."

    Hmm. part 2 seems to apply to Nancy the Cheerleader, America’s first gay president, and his bald catamite "Jeff Gannon". Not 7th century of course.
    As for the first part, King David qualifies I think..

  25. More important question: What the fuck is this "Standards Board" bollocks anyway? I don’t remember electing them. Surely accountability should be to someone with a smidgem of democratic legitimacy, such as the London Assembly, which AFAIK can no-confidence the mayor?

    It’s just what they’d call it, too. Has a really nice Orwellian ring.

  27. Alex: Fortunately I wouldn’t know.

    Erm, I would be very interested, seeing as the BODOBJ is so interested in standards, what if anything it had to say about Dame Shirley Porter, the homes for votes scam, and the fact that she ended up paying a fraction of the charge imposed upon her.

    Anyone know?

  28. I think you have your history wrong dave, king david a prophet? or living in 7th century… that was a long way before then…

    Interesting that all the others you mentioned are Americans, that wouldn’t betray your ethnic bias perhaps?

  29. "king david a prophet? or living in 7th century"

    No,but an admired religious figure who had his enemies killed, the husband of some bint he fancied, no?
    "all the others you mentioned are Americans"

    Just the president & his catamite.

    My ethnic bias isn’t very ethnic – GW Bush is English through & through, an old New England family.

    This paedophile malarkey re Mohammed, incidentally, this would be his "wife" Aaliyah (sp?)? Didn’t she become some sort of big cheese in the religion?
    I’m genuinely ignorant about "marriage" customs at the end of the Roman Empire. At what age did people shack up, normally? Did the girls go & live with their husband’s extended family the way they do now?
    Was the News of the World imposing its own particular selective morality (it’s OK to take their eyes out with a cluster-bomb, but an arranged marriage oh no) then?
    Cos you can’t go round and burn Mohammed’s house down now, can you?

  30. While my employers are aware of my blog, I don’t use their IT resources for blogging, and any comment which mentions them by name will be deleted. Also, if you make such a comment, you’re a pathetic sneaking little fuckwit.

    (this also means civilised responses to said comments will be deleted. Sorry, civilised people.)

  31. Missguidedhadji, who or what is ‘g-d’? Is it pronounced "gee-dash-dee"? Or is the dash for some letter with diacritical marks which John’s HTML can’t handle? I have a hard enough time with words in regular English without people here posting in text, m8!

  32. Dave, because of Mohammed’s paedophilic rape of Aisha, under the pretext of marriage, in Iran the age of ‘consent’ for girls was lowered to nine, where it remained until 2002. So all over Iran lots of little girls were getting legally raped.

    Muslims regard Mo the paedophile as prophet for all time, and the best of men, and role model for humanity.

    But don’t let that bother you. Little girls getting raped and wearing sacks – all part of cultural diversity innit?

  33. Sorry, OP, but that wasn’t the question I asked.
    I know what happened in Iran in 1979 & on.

    I was wondering, as you can see, what age a Christian "bride" might have been in 630 AD.

    And whatever age it was it’d still be no excuse for polygamous "Christians" in their heavily-armed David Koresh style bunkers taking very young "brides". In the glorious USA.

  34. Big, big difference – in the ‘glorious USA’ – it is illegal. In the glorious Islamic Republic it is legal.

    Big big difference – Jesus never raped a nine year old and whatever disgusting, primitive habits Christians in the Middle East had, they were not part of Jesus’ own example, not set in stone as unchangeable laws and so forth.

    Big, big difference. No little girls are getting legally, and I stress legally, raped because of someone getting Christianity bad.

  36. Raping nine year old girls is not part of Christianity. Priests involved in sex scandals are deviating from their faith. Raping nine year old girls is part of Islam. Jesus didn’t do it. Mo did it, Sharia law allows it and it happened in Iran as late as 2002 because they followed sharia.

  38. No, they just stopped this particular bit of sharia and raised the age of ‘consent’ to an enlightened 13.

  40. It is part of Islam, but sometimes people see sense and don’t go the whole hog. Islam only becomes tolerable the less you have of it. So none is best of all.

  41. <cite>[Insert noun here] only becomes tolerable the less you have of it. So none is best of all.</cite>

    See, this is just silly, and about as logical as "if a bit is good, lots must be better!" Honestly, OP, please be sensible.

  43. You know, I do wish all you sensible and clever leftists would make up your mind already — either it’s good to insult people based on their religion or it isn’t. As an evil blood-sucking, baby-killing, well-poisoning neo-Con, I know where I stand. ("Kill all brown people, my family members included, so that we could have more oil, even though I don’t actually drive" in case anyone is wondering.)

    Or is it the nuanced explaination, such as, "it’s OK to insult people based on their religion, but only if they work for a newpaper I do not like."

    Inquiring minds do, sincerely, want to know.

  44. Peculier: Islam only becomes tolerable the less you have of it. So none is best of all.
    So, to that extent at least, you agree it *is* the same as Christianity?

  45. Angua – that might be difficult, since if we are all of one mind on the issue, the memo didn’t get as far as me. I personally think Ken Livingstone’s comments were offensive and on the anti-semitic side, but hey, at least he was insulting one person, and not an entire worldwide religion like OP.

  46. How the hell were Livingstone’s comments "anti-semitic"? Offensive, certainly. But it was his intent to offend. What is anti-semitic about them?

  48. Jim Bliss – You make a lot of valid points, there. I guess what it comes down to is that I do think trivialising the Holocaust as a random rhetorical point is insulting to all the groups that were persecuted during it, and that it’s particularly insulting to do that to someone who’s identified themselves as a member of said group. But yeah, I guess "anti-semitic" isn’t actually what I mean. (So sorry, Ken.) Still squicks me a lot more than if he’d just had a straightforward go at the guy, though.

  49. Well, we shall have to agree to disagree on this one Lorna (or is that too civilised a thing to do on this blog?). The holocaust was clearly a crime of almost unimaginable proportions, but I fail to see how using it to frame a personal insult about an individual is an insult to jews, communists, homosexuals, gypsies and the mentally ill in general.

    Indeed, as far as I can see, the only group of people who would be justified in feeling aggrieved by that insult are nazis and concentration camp guards (and frankly, who gives a shit about them?)

    I do understand your view that using "concentration camp guard" as an insult somehow trivialises the Holocaust. But despite understanding that view, I disagree with it.

  50. Indeed, as far as I can see, the only group of people who would be justified in feeling aggrieved by that insult are nazis and concentration camp guards (and frankly, who gives a shit about them?)

    Jim, that’s a bit twisted, isn’t it? He didn’t say to a Nazi/concentration camp guard, "You are a terrible person, as awful as some who would write for the Evening Standard." He said to someone, whose sin, as far as I could tell, consists strictly of writing for the wrong paper, that he is as terrible as someone who would kill civilians an masse.

    Trivializing an autrocity *is* an insult to everyone who suffered it, whether it is anti-semitic or not. If having a mean article written about you is as bad as being gassed, then, frankly, being gassed is not that bad. It is an insult to someone’s memory to say that their awful, painful, scary, lonely, pointless death is, basically, the equivalent of an elected official having to deal with criticism.

    Words have meaning. It’s like when people use "rape" to mean "make me feel awkward by looking at me funny". Well, no. There is a significant difference. And when you use "rape" to mean this, I think you *do* insult rape victims. Do you?

  51. Jim, that’s a bit twisted, isn’t it?

    No, I don’t think it is. But you clearly do, and I doubt there’s anything I can say to change your mind about that.

    He didn’t say to a Nazi/concentration camp guard, "You are a terrible person, as awful as some who would write for the Evening Standard."

    Of course he didn’t. And if he had, I think we can all agree that wouldn’t have been a personal insult against the Nazi, but a general slur against Evening Standard journos. The individual being insulted was a journalist, and the essence of the insult was to compare him personally to a group of people (concentration camp guards) who we all acknowledge acted abhorrently. Indeed that’s the essence of any comparative insult.

    It’s hyperbole. A sharper version of "You’re as fat as a whale" (a phrase which insults a person by comparing them to something far larger than any human being could possibly be. To take it literally requires willful misunderstanding).

    He said to someone, whose sin, as far as I could tell, consists strictly of writing for the wrong paper, that he is as terrible as someone who would kill civilians an masse.

    Yes he did. That’s the insult. But it’s hyperbole (def: "A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect"). Get it?

    Trivializing an autrocity *is* an insult to everyone who suffered it, whether it is anti-semitic or not.

    I agree with that. I just disagree that Ken trivialised an atrocity. I don’t buy into this whole reverential "thou shalt only speak about things in our prescribed way" horseshit. Let’s be clear about this… the only reason Ken used that phrase as an insult is because he clearly believes that concentration camp guards epitomise the evils of the 20th century. Why else use the phrase as an insult?

    If having a mean article written about you is as bad as being gassed, then, frankly, being gassed is not that bad. It is an insult to someone’s memory to say that their awful, painful, scary, lonely, pointless death is, basically, the equivalent of an elected official having to deal with criticism.

    Words have meaning. It’s like when people use "rape" to mean "make me feel awkward by looking at me funny". Well, no. There is a significant difference. And when you use "rape" to mean this, I think you *do* insult rape victims. Do you?

    I’m sorry, but I completely disagree with you. Are you familiar with the word "exaggeration" at all? Let me give you a less inflamatory example: A few days ago I was halfway across a pedestrian crossing when a car sped through the crossing and missed me by inches. I shouted the phrase "you fucking psycho!" at the driver.

    Do you honestly believe that I was making an objective assessment of the mental health of the driver and concluding that he was clinically psychopathic and should probably be sectioned to safeguard society? Do you believe that I was trivialising the deaths of those who have been murdered by psychopathic killers? If so, I would suggest that you are deliberately misunderstanding me.

    As for the "rape" issue. I’ve heard people (men and women) say they "felt like they’d been raped" after their home had been burgled. I understand their use of the phrase, though it’s not something I would feel after a burglary. However, given that a burglary – when it boils down to it – is nothing more than the loss of personal possessions compounded by the feelings of insecurity that follow a stranger trespassing upon what you felt was private property; is it an insult to victims of violent rape that people should use the same word?

    You seem to feel that my use of ‘psycho’ was inappropriate, and that anyone using the word ‘rape’ after a burglary is actually insulting rape victims. Fair enough, that’s your opinion. But I, for one, am simply not that literalist about things. I accept that people use words to mean different things at different times; that they use exaggeration for effect and insult.

  52. So when people on this blog call me a c*nt they really mean that they disagree with me, while respecting my right to my well-informed opinions?

    And the predictable response is….

  53. You’ll have to ask them, OP. Though I suspect the fact that you have expressed exactly the same sentiment 30 or 40 times whilst ignoring or insulting anyone who disagrees may have something to do with it.

    Perhaps the fact that you make factually incorrect statements (e.g. the introduction of Sharia in the UK would make the charging of interest illegal) and then misrepresent the views of those who try to correct your inaccuracies (insisting that anyone who doesn’t agree with your view of islam must therefore be in favour of everything about it) has something to do with it?

    As I say though, I’ve never called you a cunt and can only speculate as to why others have done. So you’d probably be better off asking them.

    Incidentally, why do people asterisk out letters of swear words? Everyone reading "c*nt" says the word "cunt" in their mind when they read it. So what’s the point precisely?

    Besides which, ‘cunt’ is a perfectly good word though I tend not to use it as an insult myself.

  54. Not quite as predictable, but nearly.
    factually incorrect statements (e.g. the introduction of Sharia in the UK would make the charging of interest illegal)

    Charging interest is illegal under sharia. So if sharia were introduced in the UK, it would be illegal. Full stop.

    There are already banks offering sharia-compliant mortgages – in fact a fiddle, because the interest is just added to the sum paid in ‘rent’ and used to buy the property.

    If you mean that sharia would be introduced only for Muslims, and interest charging etc would be legal for everyone else, then this is equally pernicious. Laws, if they are to mean anything, must apply to all citizens equally. It is nonsense to have one law for Muslims and one for everyone else.

    You, and others on this site have consistently failed to refute a single one of my arguments about Islam, which is why so many have resorted to abuse.

    If the introduction of sharia, which 60% of British muslims want, is to make no difference to British laws at all, why do they want it? And if it is to make a difference, then of course it should be resisted at all costs, since sharia has no place amongst civilised human beings, whether one is talking about the major barbarities such as the hudud punishments, or minor aspects such as interest charging and so forth.

  55. We’ve been through this, OP, though you appear curiously reluctant to accept the fact.

    Sharia can be adopted in two forms; one is as the primary legislature / judiciary of a society (per Saudi Arabia), and the other is as a secondary system which applies only to members of the moslem community (per Northern Nigeria).

    Are you actually incapable of understanding that concept? Is it too complex for you? I only ask, because your statement:

    So if sharia were introduced in the UK, it would be illegal. Full stop.

    is very much of the form of someone incapable of grasping complexities. Answer just one question; why is it possible for me to drink alcohol in Northern Nigeria without being subject to legal sanction?

    If you mean that sharia would be introduced only for Muslims, and interest charging etc would be legal for everyone else, then this is equally pernicious.

    That’s exactly what I mean. That’s how it works in Northern Nigeria. That is also how it would work in Britain were it to be allowed.

    I think it would be a travesty. I abhor the notion of religious laws and would fight tooth-and-nail against the introduction of sharia in any nation where I lived. But that doesn’t mean I should tell lies about it (re: the charging of interest), merely that I should find factually correct reasons to prevent its introduction (of which there are many).

    You dramatically lessen the credibility of your arguments against islam when you insist on mixing them with untruths and absurd hyperbole. It’s a great tactic for insulting a person or group of people, but it just makes you look like an idiot when you try to use it during rational debate.

    I don’t need to "refute your arguments about Islam". I’m well aware of the reasons why islam is a profoundly destructive cultural force. I just object to people telling lies about it.

  56. OP, to provide another example…

    There are (everyone would agree) good arguments to support an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. You may disagree that such a withdrawal should occur, but there are nonetheless valid reasons for it (which you would feel were trumped by the reasons to remain there).

    A person arguing for such a withdrawal might begin by pointing out that there is good reason to believe the occupation is illegal under international law. They would then argue that such a withdrawal would increase Israeli security in the long term (there are good reasons to believe this, though others might argue that they are trumped by the reasons to stay).

    Such a discussion can take place rationally, and though neither side may convince the other, it’s perfectly possible for them to respect the opposing view.

    But this is all turned on it’s head when the proponent of disengagement suddenly announces that Israel should pull out of the West Bank because a worldwide Zionist conspiracy (financed by Shylock-type characters living in Zurich) is planning to set up concentration camps in the West Bank to herd all the Palestinians into prior to gassing them.

    Suddenly it’s impossible to hold a rational discussion or to respect the opposing view… that person is clearly making shit up in order to justify a prejudice. And so all of their arguments in favour of disengagement (some of which were reasonable) are inevitably weakened by the lies and refusal to engage in rational debate.

    Can’t you see that?

  57. You have no idea, any more than I have, what Muslims mean by ‘the introduction of Sharia’ in the UK. You assume it would apply just to Muslims, as in Nigeria. Yet why do you assume this? In Iran, in Pakistan, in Saudi Arabia, three countries which apply sharia, it applies to non-Mulims too. So you have no basis, other than your assumption on the basis of Nigeria, for assuming anything about the UK.

    Sharia is a comprehensive legal system, which specifies rights of non-Muslims living under sharia law. I use the words ‘rights’ loosely, as they in fact represent deprivation of those rights.

    What basis do you have for assuming that sharia would be introduced as in Nigeria, rather than as in Iran?

    None whatsoever.

    Whatever way sharia is introduced, and given that Muslims are a minority in the UK, it is more likely to be by the back door, eg through religious hatred legislation, it is as you rightly say repuslive. But by what right do you claim knowledge of what the 60% of UK Muslims polled had in mind?

    You might well ask by what right do I claim such knowledge? Well I don’t, but I know that sharia is barbaric, misogynist and backward, and the fact that 60% of British Muslims want it in any form whatsoever, is a cause of great concern to me, and should be a cause of great concern to all who care about our civilisation.

    Again, you have failed to refute my argument with logic, and must resort to petty attacks. You are more civilised than most posters here, but barely more logical in your arguments.

  58. What basis do you have for assuming that sharia would be introduced as in Nigeria, rather than as in Iran?

    The fact that moslems make up a tiny percentage of the population and would not be capable of imposing Sharia upon the other 95% of us.

    It’s really very simple OP.

    And please don’t call the logic of my arguments into question whilst using self-defeating logic. That’s just plain silly. When you rightly point out that I don’t know what 60% of moslems are thinking, you also point out that neither do you.

    Or do you claim that knowledge?

  59. I don’t. Please read my posts. I don’t know how, or in what form 60% of muslims want to impose sharia. However, given the nature of sharia, the fact that they want to impose it at all, in any shape or form, even a small part of it, even just for them, is something abhorrent. Isn’t it abhorrent to you too? A vocal minority in this country, far larger than the BNP, whom you would rightly deplore, want to impose, even, giving them the benefit of the doubt, in a mild form, sharia, a barbaric, backward, misogynistic, racist and fascist set of laws. That doesn’t bother you at all? If 60% of Jews wanted to impose Leviticus on us, which of course none do, not one,you’d no doubt have something to say about it.

    You know as well as I do what sharia is about. So why aren’t you as shocked by I am about the fact that a majority of British Muslims want it?

  60. I don’t. Please read my posts. I don’t know how, or in what form 60% of muslims want to impose sharia.

    This directly contradicts a statement you made about one and a half "Page Up"s ago:

    Charging interest is illegal under sharia. So if sharia were introduced in the UK, it would be illegal. Full stop.

    The reason that the idea of a British Sharia "doesn’t bother me at all" is because I know it’s a red-herring and will never happen. If there was even a sliver of a possibility of it occurring then I’d be bothered.

    Also, given that we both admit to not knowing what 60% of moslems think; and therefore to not knowing in what form Sharia would be hypothetically introduced in Britain; the only rational way to discuss it is to examine established case-histories and try to infer from that. This is still speculation, but it’s informed speculation.

    Therefore it makes sense to believe – on the balance of evidence presented – that were Sharia ever to arrive here it would be in the same form as in other places where moslems form a minority of the population. It is far more likely, therefore, to follow the Nigerian model rather than the Saudi one.

    We can’t know that for sure; but it’s a reasonable assumption. Certainly it’s more reasonable than assuming that 3% (60% of 5%) of the population could impose a law against charging interest on the City of London.

  61. But they could impose it on the Muslim population by your reasoning. Muslims are British citizens. No British citizens should have sharia law imposed on them, whether Muslim or not. That 3% of the population (around 1.2 million British citizens if extrapolated) want it, is disturbing, and should disturb you as a leftie, and supposedly progressive, more than it disturbs a right winger like me.

  63. But they could impose it on the Muslim population by your reasoning. Muslims are British citizens. No British citizens should have sharia law imposed on them, whether Muslim or not.

    I couldn’t agree more, OP. But that wasn’t your initial position which was that the law would apply to Britain in general. "Full stop". Just as I would agree completely – to refer to my previous analogy – with a Palestinian who argued that an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank should be undertaken in the name of regional peace, but would immediately set myself against him if he decided to back up his argument with lies about jews in general.

    That 3% of the population (around 1.2 million British citizens if extrapolated) want it, is disturbing

    Well, to an extent yes. But people want all manner of disturbing stuff. You don’t have to be moslem for that. There’s a significant proportion of the population who wish to see the return of capital punishment. I find that far more disturbing personally, given that the desire is not restricted to a single religious minority with limited political clout, but crosses class, race and religious boundaries and includes far more people. Therefore it has a much greater chance of happening than the introduction of sharia law in Britain.

    I think that people who wish to run their lives based upon the instructions of arcane sacred texts are misguided and potentially damaging to society in general. But given that the Anglican Church is ripping itself apart over the issue of homosexuality, it’s a little myopic to claim such irrationalism exists only in those who seek sharia.

  64. given that the Anglican Church is ripping itself apart over the issue of homosexuality, it’s a little myopic to claim such irrationalism exists only in those who seek sharia.

    Ludicrous moral equivalence. Sharia demands killing of homosexuals. The Anglican Church is dithering about whether or not to ordain them as bishops.

    Can you really not see the difference?

  65. and the fact that 60% of British Muslims want it in any form whatsoever

    Aargh, no, this is not factually correct! The link you provided stated that they wanted it if the penalties did not conflict with British law. Stop lying through your teeth.

    Sharia demands killing of homosexuals. The Anglican Church is dithering about whether or not to ordain them as bishops.

    The people who attacked me for kissing another girl were yelling Biblical things. And given that killing me for eating pussy isn’t legal in this country, forgive me if I don’t see a major difference between groups that regard me as subhuman and sinful.

  67. I’m sorry that you have been getting such a nasty response, Old Peculier, but what do you expect? When you start trolling on a blog and leave offensive, inflammatory,offensive comments, you’re not likely to be greeted with flowers and sweets (unless you’re visiting here).

  68. 60% of British Muslims want it in any form whatsoever

    The words ‘in any form whatsoever’ covers ‘if the penalties did not conflict with British law. Lorna, are you incapable of reading and logical thought. Sharia, in any form whatsoever, with any penalties whatsoever, is what I am objecting to. As a gay woman, supposedly of the left, you should be up in arms about the fact that up to 1.2 million of your fellow citizens want to impose, in any form, and with any penalties, a backward, primitive, misogynist system

    ‘The people who attacked me for kissing another girl were yelling Biblical things’.

    Under civilised British law, your attackers would be punished. Under sharia you could be put to death, you silly idiot.

  69. Old Peculier, if you are going to be a racist, at least get the facts straight. This is the question from the poll Old Peculier keeps referring to:

    SO LONG AS THE PENALTIES DO NOT CONTRAVENE BRITISH LAW, I WOULD SUPPORT SHARIA COURTS BEING INTRODUCED IN BRITAIN, TO RESOLVE CIVIL CASES WITHIN THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY

    Agree 61%
    Disagree 30%
    Don’t know 9%

    Notice the question refers to Sharia courts dealing with civil cases, not the introduction of Sharia to all matters of life in Britain. As the article in The Guardian states, "Many civil cases in this country deal with family disputes such as divorce, custody and inheritance." While I do not support such a policy, the option of using alternative religious courts to settle civil matters is not unprecedented in liberal Western democracies.

  75. Old Peculier, if you are going to be a racist, at least get the facts straight. This is the question from the poll Old Peculier keeps referring to:

    SO LONG AS THE PENALTIES DO NOT CONTRAVENE BRITISH LAW, I WOULD SUPPORT SHARIA COURTS BEING INTRODUCED IN BRITAIN, TO RESOLVE CIVIL CASES WITHIN THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY

    Agree 61%
    Disagree 30%
    Don’t know 9%

    Notice the question refers to Sharia courts dealing with civil cases, not the introduction of Sharia to all matters of life in Britain. As the article in The Guardian states, "Many civil cases in this country deal with family disputes such as divorce, custody and inheritance." While I do not support such a policy, the option of using alternative religious courts to settle civil matters is not unprecedented in liberal Western democracies.

  77. Under sharia you could be put to death, you silly idiot.

    Yes, but unless Lorna is planning to move to Iran or Saudi Arabia – which I would strongly advise against in the current climate, and I’m not just talking about the weather – this scenario isn’t going to arise.

    Given that OP clearly imagines herself to be the reincarnation of Oscar Wilde, it seems apt to quote one of his characters: "That is clearly a metaphysical speculation, and like most metaphysical speculations has very little reference at all to the actual facts of real life, as we know them."

  79. He was indeed, though admittedly he wasn’t actually put to death. I think by that stage we only had the death penalty for really serious things like murder, treason and setting fire to the Queen’s dockyards (the last two of which were only repealed in 1998).

  80. SO LONG AS THE PENALTIES DO NOT CONTRAVENE BRITISH LAW, I WOULD SUPPORT SHARIA COURTS BEING INTRODUCED IN BRITAIN, TO RESOLVE CIVIL CASES WITHIN THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY

    For the umpteenth time I have noted this, and in fact did not see the distinction as important. For the umpteenth time, any form of sharia, with any penalties whatsoever is totally against the British way of doing thing.

    And do not for one minute trivialise the importance of a law dealing with personal matters – divorce, child custody etc. It is in these areas that sharia is grossly and heinously discriminatory towards women. Women have very limited child custody rights, men have the right to divorce on demand, and of course polygamy, maintenance is a joke etc.

    Not that I’d imagine that anyone on the left would give a toss about women’s rights if they contradict multiculturalism.

    Is nobody posting here at all concerned that up to 1.2 million British citizens favour a system of law, even if it is just for them that discriminates so blatantly against women?

    Stupid question, really.

    Oscar Wilde was imprinsoned? Yeah right, not stoned to death like in one of the Islamic countries that you all think are not much worse really.

  82. I’m sorry I broke down by engaging in debate with Old Peculier, when it is obvious her only interest is to goad other commenters by being as moronic and inflammatory as possible. Frankly, I see no reason not to ban her, but it’s not my blog.

    Anyway, if anybody wants to see the poll that is being discussed, it is here.

Comments are closed.