# Gair Rhydd published *those* cartoons?



## Col_Buendia (Feb 7, 2006)

Just noticed this on the end of the Beeb's top story atm.




			
				BBC said:
			
		

> Publication of one of the cartoons by a Welsh student newspaper has prompted the Cardiff students' union to apologise for any offence caused.
> 
> The editor and three student journalists from Gair Rhydd newspaper were suspended.



Source BBC 

Anybody heard anymore about this? GR is a fucking joke, I just read an article they had in yesterday about the threat to democracy in Venezuela. By the "politics editor", no less. Yet the idiot did NOT mention the CIA sponsored coup attempt against Chavez in 2002. No, the threat was Chavez himself, an, errr, democractically elected leader. Jesus. God save us from student journos.


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Feb 7, 2006)

Great  

Without going into rights and wrongs of the cartoons on this thread, they've seen what the reaction is, and it's not like there are no Muslims in the college or the city as a whole. Pricks


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Feb 7, 2006)

The former political editor was a vocal BNP supporter and regularly contribites xenophobic and homophobic shite to the Echo letters page. Looks like they've continued in the same tradition.

I bet the uni are hopping mad - they get so much dosh from foreign students.

Shite paper - there's a bit about it in todays echo too.

An aside. - On the back page of the GR there is the small print where it says stuff like 'Registered as a newspaper at the post office - printed and bound by blah blah blah'.
Well once there was a black line obscuring one of the comments - when I held it up to the light I could see it once said 'An Arab rise is imminent - infadels will perish'    I expect that was the political editor's idea of a joke.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Feb 7, 2006)

King Biscuit Time said:
			
		

> The former political editor was a vocal BNP supporter and regularly contribites xenophobic and homophobic shite to the Echo letters page. Looks like they've continued in the same tradition.
> 
> I bet the uni are hopping mad - they get so much dosh from foreign students.
> 
> ...



Yes, I helped expose the BNP guy writing for the paper and contacted NUS Wales to but pressure on Cardiff SU to expel him from the Union and take away his membership, which after much refusal they eventually did.

At first I thought Mr. Andrew Caldicott was just a right wing tory, but his continual complaints about the ANL and "violent communist" SWP being allowed on campus but the BNP not, alerted my suspicions

My suspicions were confirmed when 2 articles were published in Gair Rhydd that were virtually lifted from the BNP website


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Feb 7, 2006)

Was it you who wrote the letter calling for him to fuck off?
A quick google of his name should bring up all the poison shite he's sent into the echo and the BNP website.

Totally unrelated - he's also a transvestite.(link broken) www.djleahjones. moonfruit.com


----------



## ddraig (Feb 7, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Yes, I helped expose the BNP guy writing for the paper and contacted NUS Wales to but pressure on Cardiff SU to expel him from the Union and take away his membership, which after much refusal they eventually did.
> 
> At first I thought Mr. Andrew Caldicott was just a right wing tory, but his continual complaints about the ANL and "violent communist" SWP being allowed on campus but the BNP not, alerted my suspicions
> 
> My suspicions were confirmed when 2 articles were published in Gair Rhydd that were virtually lifted from the BNP website



fuking nice one udo! thanks for that.
yeah, just what we need in multicultural cardiff! jumped up tory-boy shitstirrers.

SU's are a bit slow off the mark aren't they, i remember ours walking on eggshells when some nf/b np tosser who'd brought down another union somehow got into ours and caused great fear but not much action


----------



## Col_Buendia (Feb 7, 2006)

King Biscuit Time said:
			
		

> A quick google of his name should bring up all the poison shite he's sent into the echo and the BNP website.



Look what I found from Sat 17th Dec 2005:



> Storm over a sausage roll
> I FELT my blood boil while reading the article in Monday's Echo about Muslim fury at the ordeal of being served sausage rolls at school.
> 
> 
> ...



Source 

What can you say?


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Feb 7, 2006)

How the fuck did he get in? I presume there was some kind of election?

Has studentdom changed that much, e.g. shift in class attending or increased apathy.

Worrying


----------



## Col_Buendia (Feb 7, 2006)

Here's the article from today's Echo that KBT mentioned:

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100...=islam-cartoon-stops-the-press-name_page.html

What's the tranny business about, tho, KBT?


----------



## ddraig (Feb 7, 2006)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> How the fuck did he get in? I presume there was some kind of election?
> 
> Has studentdom changed that much, e.g. shift in class attending or increased apathy.
> 
> Worrying



yes


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Feb 7, 2006)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> Here's the article from today's Echo that KBT mentioned
> What's the tranny business about, tho, KBT?



He seems to at least be in favour of tolerance when it comes to sexuality/gender issues. Shame he doesn't extend the same courtesy to race/religion.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 7, 2006)

also when i used to oversee our student newspaper team, i was responsible for checking the copy and advising them on it, and i was a full time member of staff.
if there were any problems - ie overt criticism of the uni    that i let slip through then the Vice President for Campaigns & Communications would see it and have the final say as an elected sabbatical or have to deal with the flak.

surely someone other than the editor at GR has to 'sign-off' the paper before going to print


----------



## Redstar (Feb 7, 2006)

Well I've just seen the news item on the BBC and I'm fuming. Regardless of the political affiliations of people who publish for this paper, this is a matter of FREE SPEECH (Remember that concept?).

 We have a democratic right to express our views on any subject and those views are now being suppressed to pander to a violent minority (remember when a lot of us went to the G8 in Scotland and were branded a "violent minority" for protesting about third world debt etc.?)

 If someone writing for Gair Rhydd (Translation "Free Speech") has published these cartoons, as far as I'm concerned, he's acting in solidarity with papers on the continent who have published them too. Our own government and media are obviously too spineless. 

 You people are a joke. 70 years ago people on the Left went out and fought in Spain against Fascism and now the Left has become so morally bankrupt that it happily panders to Islamofascist sentiment. 

 I think we should have a solidarity demo for the suspended journos.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 7, 2006)

go on then i dare you!

this cunt has got form - he is prejudiced, plain and simple.
the evidence is posted and linked to up there ^ did you not see it?
what ever you may think of 'free speech' this has nothing to do with it, he is elected, has a position of responsibility to his fellow students of all races and religions and has abused it. bet he thinks this is his defining moment and will further his career churning out hate   




			
				Redstar said:
			
		

> Well I've just seen the news item on the BBC and I'm fuming. Regardless of the political affiliations of people who publish for this paper, this is a matter of FREE SPEECH (Remember that concept?).
> 
> We have a democratic right to express our views on any subject and those views are now being suppressed to pander to a violent minority (remember when a lot of us went to the G8 in Scotland and were branded a "violent minority" for protesting about third world debt etc.?)
> 
> ...


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Feb 7, 2006)

And 70 years ago racial hatred was stoked up with cartoons like this






Would you allow that in the nature of free speech?


----------



## Redstar (Feb 7, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> go on then i dare you!
> 
> this cunt has got form - he is prejudiced, plain and simple.
> the evidence is posted and linked to up there ^ did you not see it?
> what ever you may think of 'free speech' this has nothing to do with it, he is elected, has a position of responsibility to his fellow students of all races and religions and has abused it. bet he thinks this is his defining moment and will further his career churning out hate



 OK here's the evidence. A FORMER journo had BNP sympathies and got kicked off the paper. In this instance 3 journos and the editor have been suspended for publishing a frikkin' cartoon FFS!

 So they are different people. 

And here's some more evidence for you (tricky stuff, this evidence innit?) Here is a quote from one of the LINKS put up by one of your colleagues

 "Gair Rhydd, the winner of the Guardian Best Student Newspaper of the Year 2004/2005, is so far the only newspaper in the UK to have published any of the offending cartoons."

 This is an issue of Free Speech. As far as I can see it's been done in solidarity with those editors on the continent (obviously right-wing BNP types, too...) who had the guts to publish these cartoons. 

 Explain to me the logic when a bunch of howling fanatics can go out on the streets and incite murder, beheadings etc, burn down embassies and kill people, yet when a woman goes to the gates of Downing Street with a list of 100 troops killed in Iraq (which I opposed and demostrated against by the way) she is arrested immediately by no less than 15 cops. 

 This business about Multiculturalism is a load of shite when there is one set of rules for the Islamic lobby and another for the rest of us.

 The Left have become so clueless and divorced from public opinion they are going to drive people straight into the loving arms of the BNP. How stupid is that?


----------



## Col_Buendia (Feb 7, 2006)

Redstar said:
			
		

> This business about Multiculturalism is a load of shite when there is one set of rules for the Islamic lobby and another for the rest of us.



You know what you sound like...? Hmmm, lets see. You sound like, errr, the BNP bloke writing in to the Echo.

A freedom of speech doesn't exist in a vacuum, the same as we don't live in a vacuum. You'd have thought someone with the username "redstar" would have been able to muster even a working notion of society...

Anyway, if you think there should be a solidarity demo for the journos, go ahead and organise it. Please, seriously, you made the suggestion, now walk the walk.


----------



## Redstar (Feb 7, 2006)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> And 70 years ago racial hatred was stoked up with cartoons like this
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Idiot. You're LINK says "Nazi propaganda"! Did they have free speech in Nazi Germany then?


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Feb 7, 2006)

ffs. I'm not saying the Gair Rhydd shouldn't be allowed to publish whatever it likes.
I am however, disapointed that the political editor of GR thought it would be a good idea to do so considering the current climate, the huge number of Muslims in the uni, Cardiff's own muslim community and the slightly dodge rightwing origin of some of the cartoons.


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Feb 7, 2006)

Redstar said:
			
		

> Idiot. You're LINK says "Nazi propaganda"! Did they have free speech in Nazi Germany then?



The subject matters relevant like it or not, and yes posters like this one were common before the Nazis came to power , when free speech was available.

So is it right for a fascist to have ultimate freedom of speech, even if that threatens to kill people, rape muslims, bugger young kids, where do you draw the line.?
This wasn't a debate about whether it was right to depict the prophet ( a debate in which Mulslims could put their point of view, share an arguement, etc ). This was a crude misrepresentation of a sacred person.

How do you think certain sections of th UK would react if someone drew a cartoon of Diana Spencer being fucked by a pig...I'd think there would be repercussions. 

You may defend the right to print it...fair enough. But to re-print it knowing it's a good chance it'll kick off is irresponsible this bloke was aiming to make a name for himself not out of an higher moral standing.


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Feb 7, 2006)

Another point about that poster, whether it was a totalitarian regime or not, if you allow free speech you allow the poster Yes or No?


----------



## lewislewis (Feb 7, 2006)

Not going to comment on comparisons to Nazism.

I will say that there was a free student zine being given out in Cardiff a while back which was full of racist 'jokes'.


----------



## garethd (Feb 7, 2006)

i'm shocked by all this.

i can't believe the student paper decided to print something that is totally offencive to a large part of the student population, their target audience.

basically i think this whole thing has played into the racist media's hands. they love to show pictures of muslims in the UK chanting and holding banners that say 'death to....' whoever.
it gives them ammo and fuel to stir up hatred.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 7, 2006)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> The subject matters relevant like it or not, and yes posters like this one were common before the Nazis came to power , when free speech was available.
> 
> So is it right for a fascist to have ultimate freedom of speech, even if that threatens to kill people, rape muslims, bugger young kids, where do you draw the line.?
> This wasn't a debate about whether it was right to depict the prophet ( a debate in which Mulslims could put their point of view, share an arguement, etc ). This was a crude misrepresentation of a sacred person.
> ...



seconded
Redstar - maybe you wanna calm down and leave out the insults eh?

my outrage at someone at a students union re-printing a cartoon already deemd and proven offensive does not mean i agree or condone the demo's all over the world.




			
				redstar said:
			
		

> Explain to me the logic when a bunch of howling fanatics can go out on the streets and incite murder, beheadings etc, burn down embassies and kill people, yet when a woman goes to the gates of Downing Street with a list of 100 troops killed in Iraq (which I opposed and demostrated against by the way) she is arrested immediately by no less than 15 cops.



there is no logic there, i agree. but again the things aren't really connected. the placard people were not breaking a specific law at the time as the woman who protested outside downing st clearly was. doesn't make it right but that is the way the police operate - inconsistently (for more of an explanation check detective boy's post on the threads in general)

also the placard people are now being investigated and rounded up, the reason they lay into 'the left' and people at demos is because they can get away with it and it's always portrayed that these people are the troublemakers which, these days, is accepted by the majority.
oh and if you care about that woman getting done for reading out names within the protest zone, i trust you will be signing up to this and joining us in a peacfull demo against the stupid new law?
pledgebank
*"I will form part of a human chain around the Westminster no protest zone but only if 6,000 other people will join in."*  started here on urban.

i did this graphic btw 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




who do you think would be attracted to your 'a solidarity demo for the suspended journos.' ?
seriously, would you walk alongside them with their ulterior motives?


----------



## Col_Buendia (Feb 7, 2006)

C'mon, I'm still waiting for Redstar to post up details of the solidarity demo s/he is going to organise for the suspended journos. 

Gair Rhydd have now got their own headline article on BBC Wales: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4689442.stm

Twats.


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Feb 7, 2006)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> Great
> 
> Without going into rights and wrongs of the cartoons on this thread, they've seen what the reaction is, and it's not like there are no Muslims in the college or the city as a whole. Pricks



Just what i was about to say. they are absolute idiots


----------



## rhod (Feb 7, 2006)

Redstar said:
			
		

> If someone writing for Gair Rhydd (Translation "Free Speech") has published these cartoons, as far as I'm concerned, he's acting in solidarity with papers on the continent who have published them too.



It was nothing to do with journalism. The half-baked idiots thought that captioning the cartoon with "That's Allah, Folks!" was funny. Well, maybe it is funny as a private joke between friends, but not in a publication with an open circulation to students of all religions.


----------



## 1927 (Feb 7, 2006)

King Biscuit Time said:
			
		

> He seems to at least be in favour of tolerance when it comes to sexuality/gender issues. Shame he doesn't extend the same courtesy to race/religion.



Mmmmm. What about this guy  then? works both ways I think!


----------



## llantwit (Feb 7, 2006)

Peeps have said it all already:
Redstar (if you can pluck it up to come on this thread again), you're a fuckwit sticking up for a fuckwitted move by a bunch of fuckwits.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 7, 2006)

1927 said:
			
		

> Mmmmm. What about this guy  then? works both ways I think!



who is saying it doesn't?


----------



## ddraig (Feb 7, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> Peeps have said it all already:
> Redstar (if you can pluck it up to come on this thread again), you're a fuckwit sticking up for a fuckwitted move by a bunch of fuckwits.



redstar is there online at the bottom of this forum.

no response rs?


----------



## Redstar (Feb 7, 2006)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> You know what you sound like...? Hmmm, lets see. You sound like, errr, the BNP bloke writing in to the Echo.
> 
> A freedom of speech doesn't exist in a vacuum, the same as we don't live in a vacuum. You'd have thought someone with the username "redstar" would have been able to muster even a working notion of society...
> 
> Anyway, if you think there should be a solidarity demo for the journos, go ahead and organise it. Please, seriously, you made the suggestion, now walk the walk.



 Ah yeah I forget. The Left (and when I say the Left you can safely put all the middle class anarchists/commies/swoppies in the same lifestyle politics bracket) doesn't have the intellectual confidence to tolerate criticism, so it resorts to comparing people to the BNP to shut down the debate. 

 We live in a Western democracy. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are the foundation stones of our way of life. I didn't see rioting and demonstrations in Western cities when Iran made the repugnant suggestion of setting up a commission to investigate whether the Holocaust ever happened. 

And do you know why? Because in the West we are more tolerant and can deal with repugnant views in a mature fashion. Obviously the Islamists can't and don't even have the maturity to deal with a cartoon. 

 Go to an Islamic state and see how tolerant they are of other religions! In Saudi Arabia you'd probably be whipped if you were found carrying a bible. Why? Because Islam is an intolerant religion (aside from the fact that it's misogynistic and homophobic). 

 There was a time when the Left championed the principles of equality, tolerance and social justice. But obviously those principles have been sold out to people who hate women, want sharia law imposed, hate homosexuals and cannot tolerate dissent and tolerance themselves. Sad.


----------



## Redstar (Feb 7, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> Peeps have said it all already:
> Redstar (if you can pluck it up to come on this thread again), you're a fuckwit sticking up for a fuckwitted move by a bunch of fuckwits.



 Is that the best you can do? Where exactly is your argument?

 Let's have a bit less of the twit, and more of the Llan, diolch.


----------



## Redstar (Feb 7, 2006)

1927 said:
			
		

> Mmmmm. What about this guy  then? works both ways I think!



 Like I said, I thought the Left used to be FOR gay rights (which I am). But hey, let's not offend the Muslims...


----------



## 1927 (Feb 7, 2006)

Personally I think Redstar has a point. We either want freedom of the press or we don't. 

When Sir Iqbal Sacranie made his comments about homosexuals I watched Question time that night,on the panel was the ehad of Liberty who said that she was in two minds to condemn him,because as much as she resented his attack she defended his right to make it.

So what all the fuss about "those" cartoons is I don't know!


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Feb 7, 2006)

Who has stated they are against gay rights?

As a rule, I'm just anti pissing people off. These cartoons seem to piss people off. Normal people too, not just the nutjobs who turn out to protest in London.

And I'm all for freedom of the press (of course   ). But just because the press is free to print anything it likes - doesn't mean it should. If the GR had good reason to print the cartoons then fine - but I can't for the life of me think what it might be.


----------



## laptop (Feb 7, 2006)

Seems to me that the lack of interest shown by those who publish the cartoons in *what it is they're doing* is important. 

There's the reported caption in _Gair Rhydd_, above.

And there's _France Soir_ last Wednesday: _«Oui, on a le droit de caricaturer Dieu»_ - "Yes, we have the right to caricature god".

Er, no.

The whole point, as I understand it, is that within Islamic belief representations of the Prophet risk idolatry - turning this man into a deity. The Xtians assuming that Muslims must have some equivalent to their utterly bonkers concept of the Trinity is, I suspect, more annoying and, I believe, more blasphemous than the cartoons themselves. 

As an atheist, I like to know *precisely* how and why I'm pissing off the religious. Those who lash out in ignorance are clearly being xenophobic, no more.


----------



## nightowl (Feb 7, 2006)

they didn't publish for any great reasons of free speech or solidarity with other papers, they just did so for a bit of cheap and easy publicity which is what they've got. the only reason most people i knew used to pick up that rag at college was for the tv listings anyway.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Feb 7, 2006)

Redstar said:
			
		

> Ah yeah I forget. The Left (and when I say the Left you can safely put all the middle class anarchists/commies/swoppies in the same lifestyle politics bracket) doesn't have the intellectual confidence to tolerate criticism, so it resorts to comparing people to the BNP to shut down the debate.
> 
> We live in a Western democracy. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are the foundation stones of our way of life. I didn't see rioting and demonstrations in Western cities when Iran made the repugnant suggestion of setting up a commission to investigate whether the Holocaust ever happened.
> 
> ...



Ah, forgive me. I assumed from your username that you had something in common with the "left" (as you call it). But in fact you don't. You're just another foamy-mouthed frother who can see the mote in another's eye, but not the beam in your own. I mean, anyone who can write "Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are the foundation stones of our way of life" about the West which is currently waging illegal wars and torturing people in illegal prison camps in Eastern Europe obviously has a vision problem. And so, back to my first point. You do indeed sound just like the BNP, and not because I want to shut you up (I find this sort of knee-jerk Daily Mail stuff quite amusing, tbh), but because last week Griffin was acquitted after saying Islam was "wicked vicious faith". You say "Islam is an intolerant religion". Ergo, you sound like the bloke from the BNP to me.

Need any more proof?

And now you've talked the talk, Reddy, when you gonna walk the walk? Do let us know of the date and time of your solidarity demo.


----------



## onemonkey (Feb 7, 2006)

it does prove  that the religious don't have a monopoly on stupidity so perhaps it will bring us all closer together


----------



## llantwit (Feb 7, 2006)

Redstar said:
			
		

> Is that the best you can do? Where exactly is your argument?
> Let's have a bit less of the twit, and more of the Llan, diolch.


Witty.
It's not about free speech you ignorant patronising git - it's about a bunch of twatty students thinking it'd be a jolly good wheeze to make a name for themselves whilst fanning the flames of racial hatred that have blown up around this whole thing.
Just for the record, and if you'd care to read this, slowly, so you understand...
My position, and most of the others whove had a go at you on this thread isn't about sticking up for Islamists. 
Like the last poster, I'm an atheist, and couldn't really give a fuck what is published about any religion - it could be a three way cluster-fuck between Jesus, the prophet Mo, and a big fat smiling Buddha, and I genuinely wouldn't care. I might find it a tad distasteful, but then again I might not  . 
What I DO find distasteful is a bunch of wankers in Europe 'making a stand' about 'free speech' by repinting already right-wing and racist cartoons after they'd already been printed by the Danish right, AND THEN some wanky Cardiff students coming along and either deliberately stirring shit up some more or doing something extremely naive and stupid by publishing them AGAIN.
This is not a free-speech issue in a vacuum - the right will try to turn it into that, but it's not just that... there's a context to all this of extreme racism that people have to live through day in day out - this was just the spark that lit the fire. Unfortunately some fundy Islamist nutters have managed to control the general 'muslim' response, and that's a pity... but it ain't anywhere near as simple as you're saying it is redstar, so wise the fuck up.


----------



## onemonkey (Feb 7, 2006)

laptop said:
			
		

> The whole point, as I understand it, is that within Islamic belief representations of the Prophet risk idolatry - turning this man into a deity. The Xtians assuming that Muslims must have some equivalent to their utterly bonkers concept of the Trinity is, I suspect, more annoying and, I believe, more blasphemous than the cartoons themselves.


but then surely the Muslims can't protest about these cartoons as being 'blasphemous'? merely offensive?

gosh, isn't religion complicated?


----------



## Brockway (Feb 7, 2006)

Who is the editor of Gair Rhydd?


----------



## ddraig (Feb 7, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> Witty.
> It's not about free speech you ignorant patronising git - it's about a bunch of twatty students thinking it'd be a jolly good wheeze to make a name for themselves whilst fanning the flames of racial hatred that have blown up around this whole thing.
> Just for the record, and if you'd care to read this, slowly, so you understand...
> My position, and most of the others whove had a go at you on this thread isn't about sticking up for Islamists.
> ...



excellent post, my position also


----------



## ddraig (Feb 7, 2006)

Brockway said:
			
		

> Who is the editor of Gair Rhydd?



now or yesterday?   

something here, don't know how current
nus online 

funnily enough the actual site for gair rhydd is dead 
maybe taken off or exceeded bandwidth. i guess the former


----------



## llantwit (Feb 7, 2006)

Brockway said:
			
		

> Who is the editor of Gair Rhydd?


Maybe their the 'ex-editor' now?

BTW, there's a decent article on the whole cartoons thing here.
Written by a bunch of pinko commies, like, but it's not bad.


----------



## nightowl (Feb 7, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> funnily enough the actual site for gair rhydd is dead
> maybe taken off or exceeded bandwidth. i guess the former



that site's been knackered for yonks now. keep saying its being updated but it's been the same for months


----------



## Brockway (Feb 7, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> now or yesterday?
> 
> something here, don't know how current
> nus online
> ...



Phew.... he's English.


----------



## Redstar (Feb 7, 2006)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> Ah, forgive me. I assumed from your username that you had something in common with the "left" (as you call it). But in fact you don't. You're just another foamy-mouthed frother who can see the mote in another's eye, but not the beam in your own. I mean, anyone who can write "Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are the foundation stones of our way of life" about the West which is currently waging illegal wars and torturing people in illegal prison camps in Eastern Europe obviously has a vision problem. And so, back to my first point. You do indeed sound just like the BNP, and not because I want to shut you up (I find this sort of knee-jerk Daily Mail stuff quite amusing, tbh), but because last week Griffin was acquitted after saying Islam was "wicked vicious faith". You say "Islam is an intolerant religion". Ergo, you sound like the bloke from the BNP to me.
> 
> Need any more proof?
> 
> And now you've talked the talk, Reddy, when you gonna walk the walk? Do let us know of the date and time of your solidarity demo.



 Yeah you're quite right col. I don't have much in common with the Left. Thank Christ. 

 I used to consider myself Left-wing but the left has disappeared so far up it's own arse that it doesn't even know a free speech issue when it sees it. 

 Obviously in your case col, you're so safely reassured in your own self-righteousness you don't see the need to address my arguments. But in my book the far left and the far right are pretty much the same thing anyway...you're all fundamentalists and apologists for fundamentalism as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Feb 7, 2006)

Yeah right Redeye, keep piffling. Like, you said you'd support a solidarity demo, so when are you going to organise it? Or are you all bulletin board talk, cos it is starting to sound like that.

I have addressed your argument, in a nutshell (you might have missed it with all the steam coming off your copy of the Mail) I said to you that free speech doesn't exist as an abstract right in a vacuum. Now you wanna come back at me on that with some Thatcherite "there's no such thing as society" (wtf am I giving you your lines?? Maybe cos yours are so bollox mate!) or whatever? Cos I don't see you doing much more than slagging Islam from behind the safety of your computer. And you haven't addressed my points, which were that your language is extremely redolent of the the language of the BNP. And that doesn't mean people are ignoring you here, in fact it seems like most posters here have taken time to answer your spleen.

So when's the demo?


----------



## Redstar (Feb 7, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> Witty.
> It's not about free speech you ignorant patronising git - it's about a bunch of twatty students thinking it'd be a jolly good wheeze to make a name for themselves whilst fanning the flames of racial hatred that have blown up around this whole thing.
> Just for the record, and if you'd care to read this, slowly, so you understand...
> My position, and most of the others whove had a go at you on this thread isn't about sticking up for Islamists.
> ...



 Who is fanning the flames of racial hatred here? This is not a racial issue this a RELIGIOUS ISSUE. Hello? And as to fanning them what about the nutters on the streets of London threatening to chop people's heads off when these cartoons were not even published in the UK? Who exactly is fanning the flames of hatred here? No-one in the UK anyway and I hardly see how publishing a cartoon in a (Guardian awarded) Uni mag is fanning these flames either.

 And in any case the cartoons were published in September of last year. So it's taken the Islamic world around 4 months to find it's indignation? Nothing to do with the fact that a group of rightwing Imams went touring the middle East with the cartoons (along with a mysterious new set of cartoons which appeared out of nowhere... ) with the blatant intention of inciting widespread anger across the middle east. 

 So who is inciting what here? And why? 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1702091,00.html

 I strongly suggest you acquaint yourself with the FACTS mate. Remember them?


----------



## niclas (Feb 8, 2006)

Today's Guardian reports that the Danish paper that published the cartoons rejected cartoons satirising Christ three years previously on the grounds that they'd offend the readership.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoonprotests/story/0,,1703552,00.html

So much for free speech.

I also think we should defend free speech as a democratic right, but not to abuse minorities (or majorities for that matter). I wonder how Scousers felt about the Sun's right to 'free speech' at any price when it claimed Liverpool fans had robbed the Hillsborough dead. I think Scousers burnt copies of the paper and continue to boycott it now. 

The more I hear of the Danish paper's pro-Hitler past in the 1930s, the more I feel this was a deliberate provocation (that has, of course, seen the nuttier elements of Islamic fundamentalism help stoke the flames).


----------



## neprimerimye (Feb 8, 2006)

Theres a lot of rubbish being spouted about this pathetic affair. First off it is about Free Speech. Like it or not the Danish right wing paper and Gair Rhydd do have the right to publsh these moronic cartoons.

By the same token students who oppose the editorial policies of Gair Rhydd can organise to have the editiorial team removed by democratic means. Which actually seems like a good idea in that it would involve a greater number of students than is usual in taking democratic control of what is supposed to be their student union and their student paper.

It should also be noted that the original publication of these racist cartoons was a provocation and would seem to have succeeded in its aims. That is of aggravating antagonisms between Muslims and the peoples of the Western countries. In other worse the beneficiaries of this affair are the right wing reactionary right in the west and the right wing reactinary sometimes fascist Islamist groups in the Muslim countries.

For example the Mukhabarat (political police) in Syria are usually heavy handed in their repression of demonstrations but when the Danish Embassey was torched stood by from reports I've read. One can only conclude that the regime approved of the riot as it distracted attention from the failings of their tyranny.

Again in Britain the small demonstration of 300 or so held by former Al-Mahajaroun folks, that is the same people who attacked Galloway during the last election, was treated rather well by the police. One can only conclude that their paymasters see these idiots as a useful political foil. Useful idiots if you like.

Many on the left, loosely defined, argue that what we have is a choice of siding with oppressed Muslims or defending Free Speech for right wing racists. Which is no choice at all as far as i'm concerned. Muslims are not oppressed by reason of a stupid cartoon which has not even been published in the Muslim world. Free Speech is indivisible one either is for or against it.

Some final comments. As a communist I oppose all state laws limiting freedom of speech. As such I support the separation of church and state along with a prohibition on religious bodies controling schools. Christian cults should not have priviliges which the sects of other religions do not possess. better then that none of them have any connection with the state. As an advocate of Free Speech I recognise that fascism is opposed to any and all Free Speech therefore I support a poliy of No Platforming them. Unlike liberals and reformist socialists I'm opposed to any form of state censoorship. Frankly i find the support of some socialists for the proposed Religious Hatred Bill disgusting treachery to their principles.


----------



## llantwit (Feb 8, 2006)

Not a bad post Nep, thanks. It seems to me like it leaves Muslims in the UK (and the rest of europe) out of the equation - that's my major beef here, tbh. There's already a climate of increasing racial and religious prejudice/hatred here and elsewhere in europe (anti muslim, anti-arab, anti-asylum seeker, anti-difference), and the continued REprinting of already dodgy and provocative texts like these just serves to stoke up the tensions. When I said it wasn't a free speech issue, I meant to say that that wasn't the most important issue for me - and point out that it shouldn't be seen ONLY as a free speech issue, as there's more important things going on here. I definitely wasn't calling for state censorship, or any shit like that, just expressing a personal opinion about why the cartoons shouldn't be reprinted.

Redstar - People have taken the time to aswer your questions thoughtfully and you still come out with the same shrill bollocks. And if you can't see that RACIAL and RELIGIOUS hatred all feed into a bigger picture of general prejudice and repression on this issue then you're an even bigger fuckwit than I thought you were.
you're a prick, and you're going on ignore. Yes, I'm censoring you. Go and cry to your 'liberal' student friends. Maybe they'll write an article denouncing it in thier shittty rag.


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Feb 8, 2006)

This, on the day Abu Hamza was banged up for inciting racial hatred. 

There can't be on law for us one law for them ( as the 4 skins would say ).


----------



## Col_Buendia (Feb 8, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> <snip> Free Speech is indivisible one either is for or against it.<snip>



Y'see, this is what I'm getting at, Nep. You sound like a narrow-minded ideologue with this sort of rhetoric (you're either for it or against it...? Hmmm... which world leader was using that sort of manichean terminology around, errr, 2001-2002?)

Free speech doesn't exist in a vacuum, it is not some sort of abstract right. Surely as a materialist you're at least prepared to concede that it must have some presence in the world around us in order to be taken into consideration?

From the Guardian article that silly Redstar posted: 





> At this critical point the Danish PM decided to intervene. On Monday, Mr Rasmussen conceded the debate had moved on from an abstract argument about freedom of speech, and expressed his regret at the offence caused to millions of Muslims.



And then slightly further down the article we learn that "Germany's Die Welt slapped the turban-bomb Muhammad cartoon on its front page". This was easily the most offensive and disciminatory cartoon (imo), and the defence given was:


> "It's the core of our culture that the most sacred things can be subjected to criticism, laughter and satire," Roger Köppel, Die Welt's editor-in-chief, told the Guardian. The Arab world was guilty of "hypocrisy", the paper said.



This, from a country where it is a crime to deny the holocaust. Now, I'm not interested in arguing the toss about the Holocaust, obviously, but the German defence, in this case, is that they will permit free speech on anything, when in practice they don't. So what that means, _in context_, is that it is not a simple, abstract, free speech issue, but that it is a matter of outright discrimination against the Muslim religion. And in that context, I don't see how it is either useful or helpful to continue to insist on people's abstract rights when it is only playing into the hands of the neo-cons who are aiming for permanent war with the Middle East.


----------



## Redstar (Feb 8, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> Not a bad post Nep, thanks. It seems to me like it leaves Muslims in the UK (and the rest of europe) out of the equation - that's my major beef here, tbh. There's already a climate of increasing racial and religious prejudice/hatred here and elsewhere in europe (anti muslim, anti-arab, anti-asylum seeker, anti-difference), and the continued REprinting of already dodgy and provocative texts like these just serves to stoke up the tensions. When I said it wasn't a free speech issue, I meant to say that that wasn't the most important issue for me - and point out that it shouldn't be seen ONLY as a free speech issue, as there's more important things going on here. I definitely wasn't calling for state censorship, or any shit like that, just expressing a personal opinion about why the cartoons shouldn't be reprinted.
> 
> Redstar - People have taken the time to aswer your questions thoughtfully and you still come out with the same shrill bollocks. And if you can't see that RACIAL and RELIGIOUS hatred all feed into a bigger picture of general prejudice and repression on this issue then you're an even bigger fuckwit than I thought you were.
> you're a prick, and you're going on ignore. Yes, I'm censoring you. Go and cry to your 'liberal' student friends. Maybe they'll write an article denouncing it in thier shittty rag.



 The only one being shrill here and using abusive language is you mate. I've expressed a critical opinion of the Muslim community's attitudes and you've thrown a wobbly and chucked your toys out of the pram. Grow up and get a life. You're against state censorship but you'll censor people who express opinions you don't agree with. Your contempt for free speech is, er, contemptible.

 And obviously "racism" and "racial hatred" are totally one-sided and never comes from the Muslim community who are nothing more than an oppressed minority. Please. It just goes to show that Political Correctness has gone mad and become a kind of Fascism to gag people who reserve the right to be critical of everything and ALL religions and persuasions. 

 If you haven't got the emotional maturity or the intellectual confidence to deal with my points without resorting to abusive language then that says more about you than me.


----------



## Redstar (Feb 8, 2006)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> Yeah right Redeye, keep piffling. Like, you said you'd support a solidarity demo, so when are you going to organise it? Or are you all bulletin board talk, cos it is starting to sound like that.
> 
> I have addressed your argument, in a nutshell (you might have missed it with all the steam coming off your copy of the Mail) I said to you that free speech doesn't exist as an abstract right in a vacuum. Now you wanna come back at me on that with some Thatcherite "there's no such thing as society" (wtf am I giving you your lines?? Maybe cos yours are so bollox mate!) or whatever? Cos I don't see you doing much more than slagging Islam from behind the safety of your computer. And you haven't addressed my points, which were that your language is extremely redolent of the the language of the BNP. And that doesn't mean people are ignoring you here, in fact it seems like most posters here have taken time to answer your spleen.
> 
> So when's the demo?



 Are you really so up yourself that you think I feel the need to justify my actions to you? I'm active in all sorts of ways on all sorts of issues, that's enough for you to know.

 All you've proven to me is that people on the Left are just as susceptible to Knee-jerk reactions as people on the Right, and that neither side of the political divide has a monopoly on common sense. 

 As to the BNP, I suspect knee-jerk PC Fascists like you are the best recruiters the BNP will ever have.


----------



## nwnm (Feb 8, 2006)

"70 years ago people on the Left went out and fought in Spain against Fascism " Oh Yeah, which side were you on then....
Much has been made in recent days of the commitment to free speech in the Danish press. But Jyllands-Posten, the right wing paper that first published the racist caricatures of the prophet Mohammed, refused to print a cartoon of the resurrection of Jesus in 2003. The paper feared that publication of the cartoon would provoke anger among Christians. And in 1984 it campaigned against the artist Jens Jørgen Thorsen, who was commissioned by a local art club to paint the wall of a railway station. The work showed a naked Jesus with an erect penis. The paper has shown no such sensitivity towards Muslims. Last September a news story appeared claiming that the writer Kåre Bluitgen was unable to find an illustrator prepared to work on his children’s book about Islam. Blutigen said that artists feared attacks if they illustrated the book. In fact the third artist asked to illustrate the book had agreed to do sn 30 September, Jyllands-Posten published its 12 caricatures, under the headline “The Face Of Mohammed”. Accompanying them was an article by Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten’s culture editor, claiming, “Modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech.” One cartoon purported to show the prophet Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, another showed him on a cloud, greeting dead suicide bombers with the words: “Stop, stop, we have run out of virgins!” The racist provocation by Jyllands-Posten is just the latest episode in the paper’s right wing history.
When the fascist Benito Mussolini came to power in Italy in 1922, the paper wrote, “The very strong man, that Mussolini absolutely is, is exactly what the misruled Italian people need.” In 1933 the paper argued for dictatorship in Denmark, saying, “We must assume that a majority of the voters wish for dictatorship as the only solution to the administration of the state.”
More recently, Jyllands-Posten has lent its support to right wing forces in Danish politics. On 16 March 1992 Henrik Christenson, a leading member of Socialist Worker’s sister organisation in Denmark was killed by a bomb planted by Nazis. The right wing press in Denmark initially claimed that Henrik had been making explosives. In the 2001 election, Jyllands-Posten played a crucial role in support of the victorious right wing Venstre party. It has since supported the governing coalition led by prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen – which includes the rabidly anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim Danish People’s Party. A number of its journalists have been employed as “spin doctors” by the government.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH MY ARSE


----------



## Col_Buendia (Feb 8, 2006)

Redstar, be sure to let us know when you're organising this solidarity demo you talked so much about on page one.

I mean you wouldn't want people here thinking you're just so much hot air, now, would you? Not after you gave such carefully thought out rebuttals of the positions that have (generously) been put to you.

Time & date? And we can come and video it for you for evidence for the subsequent trial, eh?


----------



## nightowl (Feb 8, 2006)

i've got mixed feeling on this whole issue. as i posted earlier i don't believe the students were motivated by any freedom of speech issue, they just saw the chance for a bit of cheap publicity and grabbed it. however, on the issue of the original publication of the cartoons on the one hand i can see the argument against publishing potentially inflammatory material in the current climate, whereas on the other hand part of me thinks why should what we do be dictated to by a bunch of religious lunatics.


----------



## ZIZI (Feb 8, 2006)

I think its all been blown out of proportion. Its been an excuse to shout hatred against the West and Europeans and their religion which most of them appear not to understand in the first place. All these religious leaders have been a bit bizzare and go against what they preach. Give it a rest.


----------



## llantwit (Feb 8, 2006)

I feel like I've been doing this for at least 1/2 a year now - it's fucked up in my opinion.

Every time I hear some wanker mouthing off about 'Islam' this, or 'Muslims' that (usually talking about suicide bombers or wife-beating, etc), I feel the need to have a go at what I see is a prejudiced attack that's basically just racism by proxy.

Said wanker then generalises some more, starts going on about politically correct lefty types sticking up for religious extremism... like they are some voice of the non-pc people, and that they can say what they like 'cos of 'freedom of speech', and that's supposed to be the end of it.

Now, I'm not sticking up for extremists - islamists can go fuck themselves and so can fundy xtians... but I'm not gonna stand by and let a huge group of people get tarred with the same brush, either. People might well have the 'freedom' to spout racist shit, but I've also got the freedom to challenge them on it, and shrilly crying 'Politically Correct' isn't a good enough argument either. It's called 'politically correct' because most of it is basically, well, correct, ok?

Just to clarify, I've not got a problem with general criticism of religion - I think they're all pretty wrong in general... but I do respect the right of others to practice religion, and even have some religious mates (  ) of a number of different faiths... quakers are the best, of course, but I EVEN know some sound muslims (shock horror), and from talking with them about the racist (yes, RACIST) shit they've been getting recently cos of the way they've been brought up/community they belong to/lifestyle choice they've made, I've seen how dangerous and irresponsible it can be to join in with the kind of vocal Islam bashing that's happening at the moment.


----------



## llantwit (Feb 8, 2006)

And just for the record, I'm not screaming 'RACISM' for the sake of it here - I'm just saying that there's a whole culture of unquestioned racism that this whole debate slots very nicely into. You can't ingnore this context when taking a stand in the debate.


----------



## Prefade (Feb 8, 2006)

*Good grief....*

What the hell is wrong with people today?

I remember when I was at uni the student newspaper had to be "withdrawn" because of some small article that violated a nonsensical union rule.

In response, a group of individuals got hold of one of the few unexpurgated copies, make thousands of copies of the offending page and plastered them around campus late at night. The result was that the censorship attempt failed.

Hopefully people at Cardiff uni will share the same sense of outrage and make sure that the censored newspaper is given as wide an audience as possible. Just reading about the whole thing makes my blood boil. Such grotesque censorship cannot and should not ever be tolerated.

studentsunion@cardiff.ac.uk seems to be a good contact address to express your distaste for this suppression of free speech.


----------



## llantwit (Feb 8, 2006)

Would you say the same about a cartoon that took the piss out of Judaism and Jews by apeing the holocaust?


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Feb 8, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> Would you say the same about a cartoon that took the piss out of Judaism and Jews by apeing the holocaust?



Or Anti-Irish cartoons that were widespread in the past in the context of imperialism in Ireland, as discussed in this thread:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=150673

These cartoon's aren't to do with religion - the right wing tabloid newspaper that printed them refused to print cartoons that might offend Christians - but politics.

The images include depictions of the Prophet of Islam being a terrorist, the subtext being that ALL muslims are terrorists. They are clearly racist and the left should condemn them.

They are part of an ideological project of demonising and denigrating Islam in order to justify the occupation of Muslim countries and the war on terror - afterall if Muslims are backward and crazed terrorists (as the cartoons try and seduce people into believing) then what choice does the West have, but to occupy the Middle East?


----------



## Leon (Feb 8, 2006)

Anyone who's ever seen Gair Rhydd will know that it is THE most pretentious, up its own arse student newspaper ever. FFS it looks like the Telegraph.

To be honest, as a former Cardiff University student, I'm not at all surprised they printed it and I reckon they probably just did so because they thought it'd be "cool" to do so.

They are just a bunch of immature twats, and not worth all this.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Feb 8, 2006)

Prefade said:
			
		

> What the hell is wrong with people today?
> 
> I remember when I was at uni the student newspaper had to be "withdrawn" because of some small article that violated a nonsensical union rule.
> 
> ...



Oh do fuck off, you boring troll. If you're gonna troll the thread, at least try not to repeat what the demo-organiser-to-be Redstar was trolling with on page one.

And we *are* people at Cardiff Uni, and we're fed up seeing the media jump on the bandwagon of Islamophobia. But I'm sure you'll now repeat Redstar's page two comments, and thus this thread will continue to the Pearly Gates...

Capiche?


----------



## cybertect (Feb 8, 2006)

Prefade said:
			
		

> What the hell is wrong with people today?
> 
> I remember when I was at uni the student newspaper had to be "withdrawn" because of some small article that violated a nonsensical union rule.



A bit of history from pre-institutional merger days. 

I'm somewhat dating myself now, but the whole thing reminds me of the 1987 debacle over the former UWIST newspaper _Impact_ that, embarrassed of funds, took some advertising from Barclays bank at a time when the JSU had them under boycott for their business involvement in South Africa. Political naiveté is probably the kindest judgement of the editorial staff.

Cue much surprise and indignation amongst the student population at large. The JSU threatened to withdraw any funding from _Impact_ and embargo distribution... so the offending ads were rapidly recalled and overprinted with black. Barclays threatened a lawsuit for breach of contract and Impact had to hand the money back and then folded. [I've a vague recollection that the ads were subsequently put back in as an insert in response to Barclays' legal threats before the JSU closed them down and sent 'seek and destroy' teams round various University building to remove copies from circulation, which would only add to the comic fringe to the story].

_Gair Rhydd_, which was the University College of Cardiff paper did rather well out of the whole affair IIRC. 

For my 2p, I don't think there's any justification for _Gair Rhydd_ publishing cartoons that they know will be deeply offensive to a significant part of their readership. Do they still receive JSU funding?


----------



## neprimerimye (Feb 8, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> Not a bad post Nep, thanks. It seems to me like it leaves Muslims in the UK (and the rest of europe) out of the equation - that's my major beef here, tbh. There's already a climate of increasing racial and religious prejudice/hatred here and elsewhere in europe (anti muslim, anti-arab, anti-asylum seeker, anti-difference), and the continued REprinting of already dodgy and provocative texts like these just serves to stoke up the tensions. When I said it wasn't a free speech issue, I meant to say that that wasn't the most important issue for me - and point out that it shouldn't be seen ONLY as a free speech issue, as there's more important things going on here. I definitely wasn't calling for state censorship, or any shit like that, just expressing a personal opinion about why the cartoons shouldn't be reprinted.



Sure I agree with your sentiments but my post was primarily concerned with the opinions of the pro-censorship socialists on these boards. For what it's worth the publishing of one of the racist cartoons in Gair Rhydd was atttention seeking on the part of a student journo and signified nothing very much at all. My own view is that it is irresponsible at present and would be rude in any context to ridicule the religious views of others in this way.

You say that you oppose state censorship of the media and I'm pleased to learn this. But there are people on these boards who do want cartoons similar in content to these cartoons to be banned. In fact they support the passing o Blairs religious hatred laws which might well have made the publishing of these cartoons an offense. I write that the law might make it an offence because the only way to discover whether or not it would is to test it in court. So at bottom those who support the law wish to leave decisions on the subject to a few rich mostly white mostly male mostly nominally Christian Tony Blair appointed judges.   

Personally I'd be quite happy if the cartoons had been censored as I consider them racist. For that matter they are also rubbish cartoons if you actually look at them. Heck you can ban or censor The Sun and Daily Mail too and I'll be a happer man. And how about censoring Jim Davidson that would be a good idea yes? Well no it wouldn't be really as it would also mean censoring  other media that might be said by some to be classics but do contain materials which can be considered, and rightly so, as offensive to Islam and to Muslims. For example Dante and Cervantes among others. But even if we let these classics alone what of more recent cases such as Rushdie or the play that offended Sikhs recently? Do we ban or censor them? Or do we defend the right of artists and writers to say what they will? Frankly this is the question that the pro-ban 'socialists' and liberals here cannot or will not answer.

Some confuse the issue with the No Platform policy of the socialist left that opposes state bans on fascists but calls on the workers movement to prevent Free Speech for fascists as an exceptional measure because fascism is a threat to the free Speech of all. That this has nothing in common with calling on the state to ban a racist cartoon should be obvious.


----------



## Redstar (Feb 8, 2006)

Prefade said:
			
		

> What the hell is wrong with people today?
> 
> I remember when I was at uni the student newspaper had to be "withdrawn" because of some small article that violated a nonsensical union rule.
> 
> ...



 Total agreement there mate and good to see a few voices of sanity and tolerance on this board at least. Fortunately the PC Thought Police are unable to censor this board... yet....


----------



## chilango (Feb 8, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Sure I agree with your sentiments but my post was primarily concerned with the opinions of the pro-censorship socialists on these boards. For what it's worth the publishing of one of the racist cartoons in Gair Rhydd was atttention seeking on the part of a student journo and signified nothing very much at all. My own view is that it is irresponsible at present and would be rude in any context to ridicule the religious views of others in this way.
> 
> You say that you oppose state censorship of the media and I'm pleased to learn this. But there are people on these boards who do want cartoons similar in content to these cartoons to be banned. In fact they support the passing o Blairs religious hatred laws which might well have made the publishing of these cartoons an offense. I write that the law might make it an offence because the only way to discover whether or not it would is to test it in court. So at bottom those who support the law wish to leave decisions on the subject to a few rich mostly white mostly male mostly nominally Christian Tony Blair appointed judges.
> 
> ...



Nail and Head there Nep.

"No Platform" as I interpret it does not equal a top down ban. 

It does not withdraw anyone´s right to say anything, merely forces people to be held responsible for exercising that right. 

So, if a BNP member wanted to speak, fine they have that right but they may be held responsible for that speech by people...if you know what I mean  .

_Gair Rhydd _ journalists can print this crap, but might have to have eyes in the back of their head given the people they´ve chosen to offen by excersing their right to free speech.

_Gair Rhydd_, historically, fosters this kind of puerile nonsense anyway and aren´t worth worrying about as they have no influence upon any sort of social force anyway.

PS I don´t recall lefties joining in demos against the Life of Brian.


----------



## Brockway (Feb 8, 2006)

chilango said:
			
		

> PS I don´t recall lefties joining in demos against the Life of Brian.



Swansea council banned _Life of Brian _ - can't remember if it was a Labour council or not tho.


----------



## llantwit (Feb 8, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Sure I agree with your sentiments but my post was primarily concerned with the opinions of the pro-censorship socialists on these boards. For what it's worth the publishing of one of the racist cartoons in Gair Rhydd was atttention seeking on the part of a student journo and signified nothing very much at all. My own view is that it is irresponsible at present and would be rude in any context to ridicule the religious views of others in this way.
> 
> You say that you oppose state censorship of the media and I'm pleased to learn this. But there are people on these boards who do want cartoons similar in content to these cartoons to be banned. In fact they support the passing o Blairs religious hatred laws which might well have made the publishing of these cartoons an offense. I write that the law might make it an offence because the only way to discover whether or not it would is to test it in court. So at bottom those who support the law wish to leave decisions on the subject to a few rich mostly white mostly male mostly nominally Christian Tony Blair appointed judges.
> 
> ...



Totally agree. I've seen the no platform thing confused and muddled over this issue, too, and it's stupid.


----------



## Redstar (Feb 8, 2006)

> "70 years ago people on the Left went out and fought in Spain against Fascism " Oh Yeah, which side were you on then....



 Here we go...the authoritarian Left getting up on their high horse. What would you have given us NWMN? Stalin instead of Franco probably...



> Much has been made in recent days of the commitment to free speech in the Danish press. But Jyllands-Posten, the right wing paper that first published the racist caricatures of the prophet Mohammed, refused to print a cartoon of the resurrection of Jesus in 2003. The paper feared that publication of the cartoon would provoke anger among Christians. And in 1984 it campaigned against the artist Jens Jørgen Thorsen, who was commissioned by a local art club to paint the wall of a railway station. The work showed a naked Jesus with an erect penis.



 And did the Christians burn down embassies, riot, and march around the streets chanting "Behead those who offend Christianity"? Or "Get ready for the next Holocaust"? 

 Did they? 



> The paper has shown no such sensitivity towards Muslims. Last September a news story appeared claiming that the writer Kåre Bluitgen was unable to find an illustrator prepared to work on his children’s book about Islam. Blutigen said that artists feared attacks if they illustrated the book. In fact the third artist asked to illustrate the book had agreed to do sn 30 September, Jyllands-Posten published its 12 caricatures, under the headline “The Face Of Mohammed”.



 And as I've pointed out, a group of RIGHT WING Imams then took the pictures on a tour of the middle east, adding an extra few cartoons which mysteriously appeared from nowhere   - so what exactly was their agenda then? There are 2 sides to this story... 



> Accompanying them was an article by Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten’s culture editor, claiming, “Modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech.”



 And here we come to the rub. If you agree with this interpretation of attitudes in the Moslem community then in the eyes of the Left you are basically a right-wing BNP supporter. But let's face it, it's true. The moslem world expects the West to accomodate to it's values - yet where is the tolerance of dissent and other religious outlooks in the Islamic world? 

 Let's talk about the extensive persecution of Christians in Pakistan or the attitudes of the extreme Wahabbi sects that run Saudi Arabia? Or the fact that in Iran they have published cartoons of Anne Frank in bed with Adolf Hitler? And the fact that Iran have called for a commission to investigate whether the Holocaust ever happened? 

 And as for the SWP! If the Islamic world isn't expecting US to bend to it's way of doing things, why is it you can go to SWP meetings to do with Islam and find them SEGREGATED with women separated from men and women expected to pass notes to the front of the room FFS! And I'm talking western women too!

 So what happened to the commitment of the Left to women's equality? 

 The pretentious, intellectual Left who so despise the opinions of the ordinary man on the street (except the 1% stupid enough to vote for them) have so boxed themselves into a corner they cannot see that they have effectively bankrupted themselves, politically and morally, by jumping into bed with a reactionary constituency, and all in the name of political expediency and perceived (if practically non-existent) electoral gain. 

 The Left have become a joke and a laughing stock.


----------



## llantwit (Feb 8, 2006)

People have tried to engage with your arguments on here, but you haven't had the decency to reciprocate. Please stop reposting the same idotic non-arguments, and try to understand the positions people have taken. You're talking like everyone who disagrees with you is part of some disgraceful amorphous PC blob called 'THE LEFT', and you are the only voice of reason. Neither is true.  
Oh, and when's that demo you're organising to support the student journo free speech heroes?


----------



## Karac (Feb 8, 2006)

The way i see it this-im all in favour of free speech.
But i think the people who are publishing these cartoons are taking the piss.
Its just not a question of (as i think it is) all religions are shit.
At this moment in time-when the US is attempting to secure its oil supplies for the next 20 years.
When it is pure imperialism.


----------



## jannerboyuk (Feb 8, 2006)

Redstar said:
			
		

> And as for the SWP! If the Islamic world isn't expecting US to bend to it's way of doing things, why is it you can go to SWP meetings to do with Islam and find them SEGREGATED with women separated from men and women expected to pass notes to the front of the room FFS! And I'm talking western women too!


Just out of interest where and when did this happen Redstar? Genuine question just very curious. 
On a related note I won't join in the kicking you are getting on this thread but this 'western women' stuff is bollocks. 'Muslim' women (which can mean a thousand different things) born in this country or indeed moved here (for example http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/) don't fall into a simple division of western or muslim - and i know this from personal experience. Simply counterposing the two won't do.


----------



## jannerboyuk (Feb 8, 2006)

chilango said:
			
		

> _Gair Rhydd _ journalists can print this crap, but might have to have eyes in the back of their head given the people they´ve chosen to offen by excersing their right to free speech.


And do you approve or disapprove of this reality?


----------



## jannerboyuk (Feb 8, 2006)

The most sane response to this whole kerfuffle can be found here in my opinion: 
http://muttawa.blogspot.com/2006_02_01_muttawa_archive.html#113880890750348783
With a lot of humour this blogger (who is a saudi living in the UK) points two salient facts that just from perusing the general media coverage i didn't really connect: the cartoons were printed FOUR months ago and the offically sanctioned outrage in Saudi Arabia seemed to coincide with regimes failure yet again to adequately protect pilgrims (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4606002.stm).


----------



## chilango (Feb 8, 2006)

jannerboyuk said:
			
		

> And do you approve or disapprove of this reality?



A plague on both their houses.


----------



## jannerboyuk (Feb 8, 2006)

chilango said:
			
		

> Gair Rhydd journalists can print this crap, but might have to have eyes in the back of their head given the people they´ve chosen to offen by excersing their right to free speech.
> 
> A plague on both their houses.


Can I assume that the first post alludes to possible violence against the GR people for printing the cartoons? If so are you saying that printing these cartoons and physically assaulting someone for doing so is an equivalent act?


----------



## nwnm (Feb 9, 2006)

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Redstar
And as for the SWP! If the Islamic world isn't expecting US to bend to it's way of doing things, why is it you can go to SWP meetings to do with Islam and find them SEGREGATED with women separated from men and women expected to pass notes to the front of the room FFS! And I'm talking western women too! 


Just out of interest where and when did this happen Redstar? Genuine question just very curious."

He's talking bollocks - but then he has done all the way through the thread....


----------



## jannerboyuk (Feb 9, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> "Quote:
> Originally Posted by Redstar
> And as for the SWP! If the Islamic world isn't expecting US to bend to it's way of doing things, why is it you can go to SWP meetings to do with Islam and find them SEGREGATED with women separated from men and women expected to pass notes to the front of the room FFS! And I'm talking western women too!
> 
> ...


I didn't ask for your opinion hack. I wouldn't trust you to tell me the name of your weekly newspaper without checking for myself afterwards.


----------



## osterberg (Feb 9, 2006)

'Hack' is a bit unfair especially since he was in agreement.  
I'd like to know where these segregated SWP meetings take place as well.
I'm all for free speech but should there be a right to incite islamophobia and racism?
 Wouldn't Nick Griffin  have been convicted if there was a law against the incitement of religious hatred?
 Genuine questions.Not sure if I know the answers myself.


----------



## chilango (Feb 9, 2006)

jannerboyuk said:
			
		

> Can I assume that the first post alludes to possible violence against the GR people for printing the cartoons? If so are you saying that printing these cartoons and physically assaulting someone for doing so is an equivalent act?



Nah.

Simply that those responsible knew what they did was a provocation, in an incident that has led to violence and deaths around the world. They cannot be surprised if they were to get attacked.

Not saying its right, both sides are wrong if you ask me.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Feb 9, 2006)

Brockway said:
			
		

> Swansea council banned _Life of Brian _ - can't remember if it was a Labour council or not tho.



Cllr. Ray Davies from Caerphilly demonstrated against the "disgusting" Sex Pistols in the 70s, and apparently sang his own ditties outside their concert - unfortunately the kids preferred the Pistols - I saw a very funny clip of archive footage on a TV documentary. To be fair, Ray Davies was interviewed 25 years later and seemed to have re-considered his opposition.


----------



## Brockway (Feb 9, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Cllr. Ray Davies from Caerphilly demonstrated against the "disgusting" Sex Pistols in the 70s, and apparently sang his own ditties outside their concert - unfortunately the kids preferred the Pistols - I saw a very funny clip of archive footage on a TV documentary. To be fair, Ray Davies was interviewed 25 years later and seemed to have re-considered his opposition.



They were singing hymns.   

About a year earlier the Pistols played Cardiff Top Rank, The Stowaway in Newport and Bubbles nightclub, Swansea, on successive nights with barely a murmer of disapproval.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Feb 9, 2006)

The simple facts are these:

If cartoon's were published that depicted Arabs stereotyped as terrorists, then the left would be united in condemning them.

Now, Instead of Arabs, the cartoons imply that ALL Muslims are terrorists - through depictions of the founder of Islam with a turban shaped like a bomb.

Yet, instead of condemning the cartoons, sections of the left obsess about freedom to criticise religion, freedom of speech and equivocate all over the place. The fact that some reactionary Islamic forces have exploited the issue is used to justify the left failing to condemn the cartoons.

The fact that the cartoons attack members of a religious group has led some sections of the left to treat the question completely different to if they attacked an ethnic group. Would they also react this way if they attacked another group not based on "race" - for example asylum seekers?

Yet, to me their seems little difference in cartoons that argue ALL Arabs are terrorists and cartoons that argue ALL Muslims are terrorists.

There is simply no comparison between the Rushdie Affair, or the affair around the Sikh play BEZHTI, or the Jerry Springer Opera and these cartoons.

If cartoons were published in European tabloids stating that ALL Arabs were terrorists, I think that no one on the left would have any problem with knowing what side they were on, I think the question of these cartoons is as simple.


----------



## Swan (Feb 9, 2006)

this article is worth a read;
http://www.muslimwakeup.com/main/archives/2006/02/cartoons_ships.php#more


----------



## chilango (Feb 9, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> The simple facts are these:
> 
> If cartoon's were published that depicted Arabs stereotyped as terrorists, then the left would be united in condemning them.
> 
> ...




From the descriptions I´ve read, the cartoon you refer to is only one of a dozen or so. Does that cartoon depict ALL muslims as terrorists? or that some terrorists use their belief in a version of Islam as a justification for their actions - that they describe as "holy war"? 

I guess thats open to interpretation. 

Certainly not as clearcut as you make out. 

Especially as most of the fuss apperas to be not the "terrorist" depiction but the creation of images of Muhammed or Allah or whatever. 

In which case its not a case of oppression, but rather of nonbelivers in a certain religion breaking a tenet of that faith. Should nonbelivers be forced follow the laws of other religions? That is how the Sudanese dictatorship has justified its campaign of genocide against non Muslims. Should the left support that too?

...besides even if what you claim is true (and it is akin to racism rather than a crude critique of a religion), the left can condemn offensive cartoons  without supporting calls for state bans, censorship etc.

However, i think it is a dangerous game to play fast and loose between the terms Arab and Muslim, as you seem to do.


----------



## jannerboyuk (Feb 9, 2006)

chilango said:
			
		

> Nah.
> 
> Simply that those responsible knew what they did was a provocation, in an incident that has led to violence and deaths around the world. They cannot be surprised if they were to get attacked.
> 
> Not saying its right, both sides are wrong if you ask me.


Fair enough.


----------



## osterberg (Feb 9, 2006)

Anyone want to answer my questions?



> I'm all for free speech but should there be a right to incite islamophobia and racism?
> Wouldn't Nick Griffin have been convicted if there was a law against the incitement of religious hatred?


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Feb 9, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Anyone want to answer my questions?



Yes,I think he would.


----------



## Redstar (Feb 9, 2006)

Well, now a Left-wing French satirical mag has gone and published the cartoons. Which begs the question - is it a Left-thing, a Right-thing, or just a French/European thing? 

 Here's some background info about the mag and it's take:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo


----------



## llantwit (Feb 9, 2006)

I think in this instance it might be a 'French Left' thing - you know how the French like to make a big thing out of their 'Egalite' in the eyse of the state thing... only in France would you have the far left marching alongside Le Pen supporting the ban of religious articles in schools, for example.


----------



## llantwit (Feb 9, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Wouldn't Nick Griffin  have been convicted if there was a law against the incitement of religious hatred?
> Genuine questions.Not sure if I know the answers myself.


What's you're gut answer? Mine would be, yes he might have been convicted, but that doesn't make it a good law, it's stupid cos it could be used against a (perfectly reasonable) radical atheist position against any religion as well as against Griffin's prejudiced bile.


----------



## jannerboyuk (Feb 9, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> I think in this instance it might be a 'French Left' thing - you know how the French like to make a big thing out of their 'Egalite' in the eyse of the state thing... only in France would you have the far left marching alongside Le Pen supporting the ban of religious articles in schools, for example.


As opposed to the SWP marching alongside Serbian fascists?
It would of course be difficult for any other far left except the french to march alongside a french fascist unless it was a very bizaare day trip. 
Are you saying that the French far left physically marched alongisde the FN or just had a policy that co-incided with an FN policy? - a big difference i'm sure you would acknowledge. I personally didn't agree with those policies as they were incompatible with individual freedom but i do think that whoever people are they should develop their policies according to their own principles not shit themselves that the FN might agree with them.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Feb 9, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> What's you're gut answer? Mine would be, yes he might have been convicted, but that doesn't make it a good law, it's stupid cos it could be used against a (perfectly reasonable) radical atheist position against any religion as well as against Griffin's prejudiced bile.



Whatever your opinions on the law, I think that is highly unlikely. The law was extending the same defence to Muslims that already actually exists for Sikh's and Jews - there are no instances of atheists being prosecuted for incitement of religious hatred toward Jews or Sikhs, this to me, would challenge the argument that you put forward.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Feb 9, 2006)

jannerboyuk said:
			
		

> As opposed to the SWP marching alongside Serbian fascists?



I beg your pardon? The SWP (along with Tariq Ali, Tony Benn, Jeremy Corbyn MP and many others) opposed the bombing of Serbia but was never in any way apologists for Millosevic (unlike some on the left). What are you talking about?

Incidentally, the SWP and anti-war movement's position was vindicated when the Serbian Revolution which involved 2 million Serbian workers storming the Parliament achieved what the NATO bombings didn't - the toppling of Millosevic


----------



## llantwit (Feb 9, 2006)

jannerboyuk said:
			
		

> It would of course be difficult for any other far left except the french to march alongside a french fascist unless it was a very bizaare day trip.
> Are you saying that the French far left physically marched alongisde the FN or just had a policy that co-incided with an FN policy? - a big difference i'm sure you would acknowledge. I personally didn't agree with those policies as they were incompatible with individual freedom but i do think that whoever people are they should develop their policies according to their own principles not shit themselves that the FN might agree with them.


I'm sorry if my language wasn't precise enough for you. I remember being frustrated that any leftist group would support a state ban that limited people's freedom like that, and I also found it distasteful that the left were singing from the same hymnbook as the fascists. I wasn't saying they went on demos together to collectively bash the towellheads or anything (neither am I suggesting they sang Islamophobic hymns together, like    ). The headscarf ban in France is the only place I can remember feeling like that, and always put it down to the French authoritarian left's commitment to/fetishisation of the values of the French revolution... that it caused them to end up sharing common ground with the authoritarian right was an extra unpleasantness, for me.


----------



## neprimerimye (Feb 9, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> The simple facts are these:
> 
> If cartoon's were published that depicted Arabs stereotyped as terrorists, then the left would be united in condemning them.
> 
> ...



The facts have little in common with the rather naive positions Udo puts forward.

The cartoons were published months ago in Denmark to general indifference.

They have only received wider attention in the last week or so only as a result of right wing forces, which happen to be Muslim in their ideology, bringing them to wider attention.

The cartoons are noxious reactionary caricatures of Muslims and, to stretch a point, racist. As such to use Udo's emotive term, I condemn them.

But I'm opposed to banning their publication under pressure of the right wing, in some cases clerico-fascist, elements in the Muslim countries and among Muslim communities in the imperialist metropoles. Calls to ban them do make it an issue of Free Speech by definition.

Given that some Christians did seek to have the Springer opera banned and some Sikhs did seek to have Bezhti banned this case is a very close analogue to those others.

As a communist I oppose all laws which limit Free Speech. it follows that i oppose the current laws that make incitement to racial hatred an offence and I oppose the new religious hatred laws. Because as a communist I would argue it is wrong in principle to rely on the bourgeois state to decide what is or is not acceptable to say.

It is my position that racism and religious bigotry must be fought by the methods of the workers movement. That is by seeking through the best possible furtherance of the class struggle to abolish the hold of religion upon the minds of the masses by showing religion to be a form of false consciousness. As such I oppose the advocacy of any measure that will further strengthen the bourgeois state as with the proposed religious hatred law.


----------



## neprimerimye (Feb 9, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> I beg your pardon? The SWP (along with Tariq Ali, Tony Benn, Jeremy Corbyn MP and many others) opposed the bombing of Serbia but was never in any way apologists for Millosevic (unlike some on the left). What are you talking about?
> 
> Incidentally, the SWP and anti-war movement's position was vindicated when the Serbian Revolution which involved 2 million Serbian workers storming the Parliament achieved what the NATO bombings didn't - the toppling of Millosevic



Having just written to oppose the SWP's reformist pro-state centsorship position I guess I had better be even handed  and defend the SWP!

First of all it's an urban myth that the SWP has segregated any of it's meeting. SWP members did however assist in stewarding a Brum STWC meeting which was so segregated. I''ve talked to comrades who were present and trust their reports as factual. A stupid error that means little in itself.

Serbian fascists did participate on anti-war marches in London to my certain knowledge. But the SWP was not in any kind of bloc or solidarity with them. They should have been run off but weren't. Again a pretty unimportant error but nonetheless an error principally of the organisers for not having proper stewarding.

I enjoyed Udo's gloss on the uprising that overthrew Milosovic! While it is true that in the end it was mass action that brought down Milo it should not be passed over that the opposition was financed by US and EU imperialism. A rather undialectical position from Udo.


----------



## osterberg (Feb 10, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> What's you're gut answer? Mine would be, yes he might have been convicted, but that doesn't make it a good law, it's stupid cos it could be used against a (perfectly reasonable) radical atheist position against any religion as well as against Griffin's prejudiced bile.


 I'd like to get the bastard by any means necessary but such a law would probably be used against the wrong targets like 'Jerry Springer','Bezhti',etc.so you're probably right.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Feb 10, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Having just written to oppose the SWP's reformist pro-state centsorship position I guess I had better be even handed  and defend the SWP!
> 
> First of all it's an urban myth that the SWP has segregated any of it's meeting. SWP members did however assist in stewarding a Brum STWC meeting which was so segregated. I''ve talked to comrades who were present and trust their reports as factual. A stupid error that means little in itself.
> 
> ...



1) There was no "segregated" meeting held by Birmingham STWC. There was a meeting where men and women sat together. In the same meeting room, a small number of Muslim women voluntarily chose to sit together in an area of seating apparently designated as women-only.

Some people on the left (understandably) felt this was inappropriate. Personally, I think that sometimes you have to choose your battles and make compromises when involved in a broad campaign. 

2) While it is true that the figures who placed themselves at the head of the movement were bought off by the west, the idea that the uprising was Western sponsored in the same way as the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon where people are bussed in from the affluent suburbs and the demonstrations have corporate sponsorship is false. 

N. also ignores evidence such as the springing up of factory's placed under "workers' management". There is also the anti-capitalist spirit of the student movement _Otpoor!_ who exhibited a subversive playfullness - they played huge public games of Monopoly to symbolise the way their rulers were playing with them, when Milosevic declared he was a national hero, the students put up stickers with their own pictures on and the caption "I am a national hero" - to mock him.

This was a genuine democratic revolution - Serbian Workers and Students achieved in 3 days, what NATO couldn't in 78 days. And this was all without bombing hospitals, bridges, schools and TV stations.

Serbian workers' did torch their Parliament  - but who would quarrel with that.

A good article for N.: http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj89/german.htm


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Feb 10, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> I'd like to get the bastard by any means necessary but such a law would probably be used against the wrong targets like 'Jerry Springer','Bezhti',etc.so you're probably right.



I disagree - there is already existing legislation that covers religious incitement against Sikh's and Jews (one of th reasons for this law was to overturn this anomaly). Yet these laws were not used against "Bezhti".

The law was an extension of "incitement to race hate" legislation. Yet these laws have not been used to generally curb freedom of speech including stuff that we would agree was racist - for example their was no prosecution of Kilroy and Bernard Manning is free to appear in venues up and down the UK.

The one genuine danger, is not that these laws would be used against atheists, but that they would be used against the very groups they are claiming to protect. 

The first person prosecuted by the race-relations bill in the 60s, was Michael X, a British Black Power activist, and you can imagine an Islamicist Cleric being prosecuted for incitement to religious hatred - but this presumably woudn't be a problem for people like Chilango.

I personally, would have voted for this law - with no illusions.

Neprimerimye brazenly states that Communists don't support any curb on freedom of speech. This is all very well for him, but he is not the kind of person who will be a victim of race/religious hate.

He is also a little bit disingenuous. Would he oppose the print workers working for _The_ Sun during the miners' strike who refused to print a picture of Arthur Scargill with the caption "Mine Fuhrer"? - this is presumably a curb on freedom of speech 

Do communists really oppose any curb on freedom of speech?

Shouldn't it be a _legal_ right of ethnic minorities to attend school and work and not be subject to racist language from their fellow workers/students, or employers/teachers? And wouldn't he argue that now workers can take their employers to court for racial or sexual harrasment, that this is a step forward.

Shouldn't women be entitled to work in a workplace free from pornographic images being stuck up? And not have to put up with sexist language? And if they do have to put up with this treatment, shouldn't they be able to take their employers to court - surely ALL Socialists support this?

Surely, the imperfect legislation that has been passed against racism from the 60s onwards is something that socialists would defend?

As it happens, nobody has been arguing that the racist cartoons should have been dealt with in the law courts - we are arguing that the Left should be unequivocal in condemning them and should stand in solidarity with the people being attacked by them who have a right to be angry. 

To liberals like Chilango and N. this might be a complex issue where we can all sit on our hands and slap our backs about how progressive we are, but if you are part of a group that has been demonised by the media and experienced a 600% rise in racist attacks towards you, you might expect a more concrete response from people who claim to be socialists


----------



## Brockway (Feb 10, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> The first person prosecuted by the race-relations bill in the 60s, was Michael X, a British Black Power activist, .



He lived in Cardiff for a few years, down the docks - he even adopted a son, who still lives here. I did some research on him, he (Michael X) was a bit of a con man really, took in a lot of white liberals like John Lennon - it took a black man, Caribbean writer VS Naipaul to write a proper critique of him.


----------



## neprimerimye (Feb 10, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> 1) There was no "segregated" meeting held by Birmingham STWC. There was a meeting where men and women sat together. In the same meeting room, a small number of Muslim women voluntarily chose to sit together in an area of seating apparently designated as women-only.
> 
> Some people on the left (understandably) felt this was inappropriate. Personally, I think that sometimes you have to choose your battles and make compromises when involved in a broad campaign.
> 
> ...



1/ Men and women sitting seperately in a meeting is segregation! Moreover the meeting was stewarded and said stewards directed men and women to their repsective seating areas.

2/ Most of your rather silly attempt to create differences between us on the question of the Serbian revolution are besides the point. But I did enjoy your defence of Otpor! as having an "anti-capitalist playfullness". This being the same Otpor! that was financed by the Soros Foundation I take it?

One point to remember about the torching of the Serbian parliament was that the only workers who benefitted were those employed to rebuild it. I'm pleased your satisfied with the democratic political revolution that brought Serbia under the aegis of US and EU imperialism for my part I look forward to the Workers Social Revolution.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Feb 10, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> 1. But I did enjoy your defence of Otpor! as having an "anti-capitalist playfullness". This being the same Otpor! that was financed by the Soros Foundation I take it?
> 
> One point to remember about the torching of the Serbian parliament was that the only workers who benefitted were those employed to rebuild it. I'm pleased your satisfied with the democratic political revolution that brought Serbia under the aegis of US and EU imperialism for my part I look forward to the Workers Social Revolution.



Would you similarly (like the Stalinists) argue that Solidarnosc was just a CIA front driven by reactionary Catholic politics - if you did I would also disagree with you.

Your analysis seems curiously undialectical and simplistic, if not ultra-left. Sure, we all want a socialist utopia - but does this mean that we oppose democratic uprisings and you still ignore the fact that their were signs of workers power on display, such as the experiments in workers' management - that were unfortunately curtailed by the new regime? Also, a similar senile criticism was made of the revolutions in Eastern Europe against the Stalinist dictatorships.

In actuality, the torching of the parliament was one of those great symbolic moments of liberation like the kicking over of the statues in Eastern Europe and in 1871 when workers shot off the clocks on churches and cathedrals during the Paris Commune.

I think you seriously underestimate the psycho-politics and consciousness-raising potential of seeing your parliament go up in flames and knowing that your fellow workers lit the flames


----------



## neprimerimye (Feb 10, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Would you similarly (like the Stalinists) argue that Solidarnosc was just a CIA front driven by reactionary Catholic politics - if you did I would also disagree with you.
> 
> Your analysis seems curiously undialectical and simplistic, if not ultra-left. Sure, we all want a socialist utopia - but does this mean that we oppose democratic uprisings and you still ignore the fact that their were signs of workers power on display, such as the experiments in workers' management - that were unfortunately curtailed by the new regime? Also, a similar senile criticism was made of the revolutions in Eastern Europe against the Stalinist dictatorships.
> 
> ...



One of the 'rules' of dialectics is to compare like to like. Thus your comparison of the small bourgeois student democratic group Otpor! to the mass many millioned workers movement that was Solidarnosc is drivel.

You also seem curiously lacking in knowledge of the Marxian dialectic which has as its centerpiece the idea that socialism is not utopian but a an urgent neccesity.

As an communist I take Lenins words to Trotsky to heart that the  parliaments are bourgeois.


----------



## nwnm (Feb 10, 2006)

"I didn't ask for your opinion hack. I wouldn't trust you to tell me the name of your weekly newspaper without checking for myself afterwards." Glad you hold my opinion in such high esteem - i love you to 

"As opposed to the SWP marching alongside Serbian fascists?" Yeah right. Here's some footage of a joint meeting we had with them an all = 
http://www.killsometime.com/Video/video.asp?ID=353
Or is it an editorial board meeting of Cardiff Alternative news?


----------



## nightowl (Feb 10, 2006)

the journalists' weekly press gazette has an article on this with the line:

One Gair Rhydd insider said the decision to publish the cartoon had been poorly considered and was not a deliberate "statement of a belief in the right to free speech".

if true, sounds like what i imagined when i first heard about it, a bunch of students taking the piss and landing themselves in the shit rather than any deep crusading intent.


----------



## nwnm (Feb 10, 2006)

sounds about right - do you have a link for this article?


----------



## nightowl (Feb 10, 2006)

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/article/090206/newspaper_pulped_after_it_runs_muhammad_cartoon


----------



## llantwit (Feb 11, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> One of the 'rules' of dialectics is to compare like to like. Thus your comparison of the small bourgeois student democratic group Otpor! to the mass many millioned workers movement that was Solidarnosc is drivel.
> 
> You also seem curiously lacking in knowledge of the Marxian dialectic which has as its centerpiece the idea that socialism is not utopian but a an urgent neccesity.
> 
> As an communist I take Lenins words to Trotsky to heart that the  parliaments are bourgeois.



Ooooooh. Get her!


----------



## osterberg (Feb 11, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> The law was an extension of "incitement to race hate" legislation. Yet these laws have not been used to generally curb freedom of speech including stuff that we would agree was racist - for example their was no prosecution of Kilroy and Bernard Manning is free to appear in venues up and down the UK.
> 
> The one genuine danger, is not that these laws would be used against atheists, but that they would be used against the very groups they are claiming to protect.
> 
> The first person prosecuted by the race-relations bill in the 60s, was Michael X, a British Black Power activist, and you can imagine an Islamicist Cleric being prosecuted for incitement to religious hatred - but this presumably woudn't be a problem for people like Chilango.


 I don't see how you can say this and then say this:



> I personally, would have voted for this law - with no illusions.


 A bit contradictory I think if you think that the law  would be more likely to be used against those it is supposed to defend(which I think it would).

 As for this:



> Shouldn't it be a legal right of ethnic minorities to attend school and work and not be subject to racist language from their fellow workers/students, or employers/teachers? And wouldn't he argue that now workers can take their employers to court for racial or sexual harrasment, that this is a step forward.
> 
> Shouldn't women be entitled to work in a workplace free from pornographic images being stuck up? And not have to put up with sexist language? And if they do have to put up with this treatment, shouldn't they be able to take their employers to court - surely ALL Socialists support this?



 Well rather than relying on parliament to pass laws I'd rather rely on the self-organisation and solidarity of the oppressed and the working class to confront rascism and sexism.
 I'd like to see both women and men in the workplace organised in trade unions and confronting sexism and trying to change the sexist culture in that workplace.
 And the same approach should apply to both black and white workers and students fighting against racism.
 Maybe calling for more legal rights plays its part but only a small part.


----------



## neprimerimye (Feb 12, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> The one genuine danger, is not that these laws would be used against atheists, but that they would be used against the very groups they are claiming to protect.
> 
> The first person prosecuted by the race-relations bill in the 60s, was Michael X, a British Black Power activist, and you can imagine an Islamicist Cleric being prosecuted for incitement to religious hatred - but this presumably woudn't be a problem for people like Chilango.
> 
> ...



OK I missed this yesterday and have since been told, off these boards, that i was avoiding the question! Perish the very thought! I'll take up each of Udo's points in order.

Udo tells us that the danger with legislation regulating race or religious abuse is that it can be used against those it is designed to protect. A very good argument not to support such legislation I would have thought. (We may however ignore the case of the conman Michael X as the revolutionary left did at the time). That Udo is also concerned for "Islamicist clerics" is however curious given that Islam expressly forbids the development of a clerical caste!

Despite such misgivings Udo tells us he would have voted for such legislation. Although without illusions - whatever that might mean. The simple fact known to all adults is that one either votes for, against or abstains in any gien election but there is never a tick box for yes but without illusions. Meaningless demagogy I'm afraid so sad from one so young.

Next Udo resorts to an attempt at liberal guilt tripping by suggesting that being a 'white' and atheist that i'm passing over these issues out of personal convenience. A stupid and ignorant presumption. Udo will note that members of my family have been racially abused and as a result of which I too was similarly involved. Racism is white problem soft lad and 'white' people who stand with their brothers and sisters (in law) are can also become subject to racial abuse.

As for the printworkers blacking - hope that time honoured phrase is not too racist for our PC comrade - the slanderous of the picture of Scargill no it was not a curb on free speech. It was an act of class war and in war the rule of civil law is replaced by the rules of combat. Which is to say that had printworkers refused to run a story simply because they disliked it then that would be an unconscionable abuse of their position and an attack on frree speech. But what they did was an act of solidarity with their fellow workers. I believe this fairly represents the position of the SWP at the time.

Udo then asks, in his usual rhetorical manner, whether communists really oppose any curbs on free speech. Actually Udo is well aware that the commuist position is opposition to state enforced curbs on free speech. In the real world there are always various curbs on free speech what revolutionists oppose is the bourgois state being granted the power t decide what we can say, see or hear.

This brings us to another series of empty minded repetitious questions from Udo. Again Udo asks if socialists should support having the legal right to take employers/teachers to court to seek redress from such abuse. But no communists do not support such laws although we can and must make use of it if need be. If such laws exist as they do then we cannot simply ignore them especially when our organisations are very weak as at present. What we ought to argue as an alterntive is that if fellow workers are abused that the offending person be removed or sacked and the correct way to raise such a demand is through the trade unions. In any case many cases of abuse of workers are persecuted through the courts by the unions. In fact unless a workplace is unionised many laws, health and safety too not just harassment, aren't worth shit in the real world.

It follows that the various laws which purport to fight racism - I dispute that this was their purpose - should only be defended by communists if their removal would cause a deterioration in the abilty of workers to combat racism. What is certain is that Marxian revolutionaists should never support the granting of more power to the bosses state to govern over us. That is a purely liberal or reformist position which udo has voiced support for I note.

Finally Udo comments that "the left"-whoever and whatever "the left" might be - should condemn the cartoons and stand in solidarity with those so caricatured. Nobody is calling on the state to ban them Udo tells us. Which sounds really good if you say it fast but actually means sfa. You see in fact people are calling on the state, in many cases not even the state in which they live, to ban the cartoons. People in Britain are using this non-event to boost the chances of more legislation being passed that will place limits on free speech including the right to publish these cartoons. And those who stand in solidarity with such right wing, in some cases as Cliff described them clerico-fascist, elements are guilty of tailing such backward reactionary demands and politics. Which is gross opportunism when placed in the context of Respects need to win council seats, at any cost, this coming May.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Feb 12, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> Ooooooh. Get her!



Actually a pretty poor come back from N.

I wasn't comparing Otpoor! to Solidarnosc, but the mass movement against the communist dictatorships with the mass movement against Milosevic.

Both were popular uprisings and in both the West clearly had some intervention.

But as this is completely irrelevant to this thread, I suggest we take up the issue of the Serbian revolution in 2000 against Milosevic another time


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Feb 12, 2006)

Let's clarify, the Left are well aware that the state can't be relied upon to smash fascism, this doesn't mean that we are unwilling to use all means necessary including bourgeois law to fight racism and fascism without for a single moment believing that legal means are the ultimate way to tackle these problems.

The standard reason that the Left has been generally unenthusiastic about things such as "state bans" on marches by extremists is because generally the evidence shows that these laws are used against the far left rather than the far right. For example, Police fight to enforce the right of fascists to freedom of speech - but ANL Carnivals and counter-demo's are banned.  Also, mass action by anti-fascists driving the BNP/NF off the streets is far more effective than the state banning them from the streets.

Now let's turn to the Race Hatred Bill and Public Order Act. All the evidence shows that these forms of legislation haven't been used in the overwhelming majority of cases against ethnic minorities. And I mentioned the prosecution of Michael X in the 60s - yet despite this nobody on the left campaigned against the Race Relations Bill, despite having no illusions that it would solve the problem of racism, because it was rightly seen as a bill that arose in response to anti-racist agitation from the left.

There is also little evidence that the Race Hatred Bill has been used to curb freedom of speech except in cases where their is believed to be incitement to violence against ethnic minorities: Members of the BNP and NF have been prosecuted, but Robert Kilroy Silk and Bernard Manning have never been prosecuted.

It is also known that this kind of legislation covers "mono-ethnic" groups such as Sikh's and Jews.

Despite this, there has been no cases of writers who offend Sikh's or Jews being prosecuted.

Now the current legislation proposes to close the loophole that allowed Nick Griffin to escape prosecution - he claimed that he was criticising a religion Islam, not a race - and there is no evidence to suggest that it contains clauses that would allow the prosecution of writers such as Salman Rushdie, or even the author's of ther racist cartoon's, or that it would be used against an atheist critique of religion.

The question is - the majority of Muslim organisations representing a minority religion in the UK that has experienced a 600% rise in racist attacks have called for this legislation - should the left support them - while expressing reservations about the efficacy of this legislation to fight islamophobia, exposing the government's role in stoking islamophobia, and discussing the government's "carrot and stick" approach to the Muslim population of this country? Or should it be seen to oppose them. 

I personally have no problems with freedom of speech that results in violence to ethnic minorities being curbed - I just have some reservations about the capitalist state implementing this - but all the evidence shows that the legislation against race hate has not generally been used against your regular racist and garden bigot, but only in very specific incidences in the most high profile cases against members of Nazi organisations.




			
				Osterberg said:
			
		

> Well rather than relying on parliament to pass laws I'd rather rely on the self-organisation and solidarity of the oppressed and the working class to confront rascism and sexism.
> I'd like to see both women and men in the workplace organised in trade unions and confronting sexism and trying to change the sexist culture in that workplace.
> And the same approach should apply to both black and white workers and students fighting against racism.
> Maybe calling for more legal rights plays its part but only a small part.



I would like to see this too, but I would have thought that the idea that revolutionaries though not _reformists_ do fight for _reforms_ would be one that you agree with?

Surely, it was as a consequence of the massive struggles against racism and sexism in the workplace and wider society that wrenched concessions from the state to achieve reforms such as the Equal Pay Act, the laws against racial discrimination etc. etc. - socialists have never thought that legislation in itself is enough to fight sexism or racism - but this doesn't mean that we oppose legislation and reforms that protect our rights.

Socialists never rely on the state alone to protect any rights - they always rely on the mass movement too.

But we see where the ultra-left cretinism of Neprimerimye (who seems to get his opinions these days sent to him from the Weekly Worker) leads - he even opposes legislation that was won from the agitation of anti-racists, the left and the women's movement on the basis that it is implemented by the bourgeois state. 

Logically, Neprimerimye and Osterberg would oppose the Equal Pay Act on the basis that pay shouldn't be decided by the bourgeois capitalist state but by workers councils - actually I hope ultimately the wage-system will be abolished, but that doesn't mean I oppose reforms of benefit to working people in the here and now.

That women can take their bosses to court if they experience sexism in the workplace is something that I see as a step forward - of course, it would be better to see their fellow workers engage in a wildcat strike against sexism, but this doesn't alway happen, and in some cases it is these very workers who are perpetrating the offence. Socialist's don't oppose laws that defend women against sexism - but Neprimerimye does.




			
				Neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Finally Udo comments that "the left"-whoever and whatever "the left" might be - should condemn the cartoons and stand in solidarity with those so caricatured. Nobody is calling on the state to ban them Udo tells us. Which sounds really good if you say it fast but actually means sfa. You see in fact people are calling on the state, in many cases not even the state in which they live, to ban the cartoons. People in Britain are using this non-event to boost the chances of more legislation being passed that will place limits on free speech including the right to publish these cartoons. And those who stand in solidarity with such right wing, in some cases as Cliff described them clerico-fascist, elements are guilty of tailing such backward reactionary demands and politics. Which is gross opportunism when placed in the context of Respects need to win council seats, at any cost, this coming May.



Typically, N, distorts what I said - I stated that nobody on this thread had actually called for the cartoons to be banned by the state, not that nobody in society had made this call.

Because N. dislikes the politics of some Muslim groups who are cynically using the issue of the cartoon's to boost their reactionary politics, he states that the left should stay silent. Here we get to the cruch and Neprimerimye reveals his true colours and what happens to those who take a liberal rather than Marxist approach to the question of the cartoon's.

Actually, we have to be absolutely clear. The cartoon's ARE racist, they depict ethnic caricatures that carry the implicit message that ALL Muslims are terrorist just as in the past newspapers carried cartoon's implying that ALL Irish people were terrorists. Their publication across Europe is directly linked with the War on Terror and racism against immigrant and ethnic minorities. Virtually any Muslim in Britain will find these cartoon's unsavoury and be unsettled by the rush of the media and liberal intelligentsia to condone cartoon's which are demean Muslims as terrorists.

The same right wing Danish tabloid that boasts about "freedom of speech" refused to publish cartoons offensive to the Christian religion and campaigned against a Danish artist who offended Christian sensibility.

In Britain racist attacks against Muslims have risen by 600% We have witnessed an racist ideological offensive that seeks to portray Muslims as the enemy within and Muslim culture as being backward, inferior, reactionary etc.

In this context, the job of Socialist's is to state clearly that they don't side with those who are taking part in this offesive, but stand with Muslims.

This seems pretty elementary anti-racism to me. As Pastor Niemoller said . . . "they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew"


----------



## llantwit (Feb 12, 2006)




----------



## neprimerimye (Feb 12, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Actually a pretty poor come back from N.
> 
> I wasn't comparing Otpoor! to Solidarnosc, but the mass movement against the communist dictatorships with the mass movement against Milosevic.
> 
> ...



Fine by me but you are guilty of bad faith here as you did in fact compare Solidarnosc, a mass WORKERS Movement, with Otpor! a small Soros Foundation fainanced student movement. The point goes to both program and agency.


----------



## neprimerimye (Feb 12, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Let's clarify, the Left are well aware that the state can't be relied upon to smash fascism, this doesn't mean that we are unwilling to use all means necessary including bourgeois law to fight racism and fascism without for a single moment believing that legal means are the ultimate way to tackle these problems.
> 
> The standard reason that the Left has been generally unenthusiastic about things such as "state bans" on marches by extremists is because generally the evidence shows that these laws are used against the far left rather than the far right. For example, Police fight to enforce the right of fascists to freedom of speech - but ANL Carnivals and counter-demo's are banned.  Also, mass action by anti-fascists driving the BNP/NF off the streets is far more effective than the state banning them from the streets.
> 
> ...



It's interesting that Udo ends with a quote from Niemoller that talks of the Nazis persecuting various groups until there was nobody left to speak for him. It shows a complete and utter inability to distinguish between a fascist state based on genocide and a few objectionabole cartoons.

Which rather places udo's statement concerning the rise in attacks on muslims in some sort of perspective I would hope. Suffice to say that no Muslims have been murdered, no Mosques burnt ot the ground and the objectionable cartoons threaten no one but the easily offended clerico-fascists of Al-Gharouba and the MAB reactionaries whom Udo is allied with.

Udo repeats himself in saying that the cartoons are racist but this point is not in dispute he also claims that I "state that the left should stay silent" but provides no citation for this statement for the good reason that I have made no such statement. In short Udo is reduced to a common lie to bolster his position of reliance on the bourgeois state.

Udo again lies when he claims that he wrote "that nobody on this thread has called for a state ban" yet in post no 107 the words "on this thread" do not appear. Rather silly to falsify one's own position when it is so easily checked on but thats centrism for you I suppose.

And heres another lie from Udo "Socialist's don't oppose laws that defend women against sexism - but Neprimerimye does." Again no citation, no proof simply an assertion that is nothing but a lie. For the record I'm totally in favour of abolishing anti-union laws which impede unions defending the rights of our sisters.

As if lying were not enough for him the usually intelligent Udo resorts to gross stupidity in claiming that I, and Osterburg, oppose the Equal Pay Act and other pieces of legislation won by the workers movement in the past. Again no proof or citation just an empty assertion.

What Udo does not understand is that the revolutionary left does not support legislation which limits the freedom of the workers movement to express itself or generally limits the freedom of all of the citizenry. We oppose legislation such as the race Relations Act for this reason although for purely tactical reasons we do not call for their repeal. This I should point out is the stance adopted y revolutionaries when this Act was first introduced in contrast to the support of 'the left' that is the reformist and Labour Party left which supported this anti-democratic legislation.

Now Udo tells us that the propsed legislation will not be used against the likes of Rushdie but only against Nazis like Griffin. Apart from a rather touching naive belief in the impartiality of the state this is completely wrong headed. For the good reaqson that the legislation could be used to bring a private prosecution of Rushdie which would probably be successful given that Rushdies novel is insulting towards Islam as anyone who has read his over rated pablum will know. But for Udo the bourgeois courts are to be trrusted in this matter.

here is the nub of the matter really. Udo knows that the state is the instrument of the bourgeoisie and therefore reactionary. Thus 'the left' opposes state bans on fascists but does not oppose limitations on free speech? Actually as i have mentioned the revoltionary left did oppose limitations on free speech when the Race Relations Act was first introduced we did not campaign against it nor do we call for its repeal for tactical reasons. But this does not mean for a minute that we support or advocate such curbs on free speech as does Udo.

The problem is that Udo is pulled between his formal adherence to Marxism and his membership of Respect the populist alliance. And the MAB constituent of espect support and campaign for limits on free speech as a result of which udo and the SWP gag themselves and fail to put a principled position forward. In order to bolster his position then Udo talks of 'the left' rather than refer to Marxism, he talks of 'the people' not the workers movement and generally negates his own avowed politics. And all this for a few crappy cartoons not even published in this country by any paper with a circulation larger than that of Socialist Worker.


----------



## osterberg (Feb 13, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> I would like to see this too, but I would have thought that the idea that revolutionaries though not _reformists_ do fight for _reforms_ would be one that you agree with?



 But the Incitement to Religious Hatred thing is not a reform but a piece of New Labour spin.



> Logically, Neprimerimye and Osterberg would oppose the Equal Pay Act on the basis that pay shouldn't be decided by the bourgeois capitalist state but by workers councils - actually I hope ultimately the wage-system will be abolished, but that doesn't mean I oppose reforms of benefit to working people in the here and now.



Don't be daft.The equal pay act was something that had to be fought for.
It wasn't a badly thought out attack on civil liberties.

Yes, the cartoons are racist.Does that mean we have to support the state attacking our freedom of speech?


----------



## osterberg (Feb 13, 2006)

Rather than supporting a badly put together failed piece of legislation,perhaps this  is a better way of challenging Islamophobia.


----------



## neprimerimye (Feb 13, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Rather than supporting a badly put together failed piece of legislation,perhaps this  is a better way of challenging Islamophobia.



No its not. The entire purpose of that badly attended rally was to support the introduction of the Religious Hatred bill which you rightly label as Nu Labour spin.

Curious that the only lefties to attend were the SWP and Socialist Action. The George Galloway and Ken Livingstone fanclubs. Urghh!


----------



## osterberg (Feb 14, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> No its not. The entire purpose of that badly attended rally was to support the introduction of the Religious Hatred bill which you rightly label as Nu Labour spin.
> 
> Curious that the only lefties to attend were the SWP and Socialist Action. The George Galloway and Ken Livingstone fanclubs. Urghh!



Well the Lenin's tomb thing says it was against islamophobia and the bill is hardly mentioned . But I'm sure you know better having not been there   .


----------



## neprimerimye (Feb 14, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Well the Lenin's tomb thing says it was against islamophobia and the bill is hardly mentioned . But I'm sure you know better having not been there   .



Quite how a demonstration can combat Islamophobia, an ideological construct, evades me will someone please explain the thinking behind this. Unless of course the intention is to back the Religious Hatred Bill which can then be used to prosecute not only racists who abuse the religious beliefs of others but anybody who dares to criticise the superstitious nonsense that is Islam and indeed anay and all religions under the cloak of 'fighting Islamophobia'.

The only groups at the demonstration all support the Religious Hatred Bill from the Muslim Association of Britain (founded by the Muslim Brotherhood described by Tony Cliff as clerico-fascist), Respect the populist alliance whose MP Kitty Galloway supports the Bill and Socialist Action who back Ken Livingstone who supports the Bill.

Coincidence?


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Feb 14, 2006)

Any chance of the contibutors to this thread stating their political leanings?

I'll try and re-read it then to see if I can follow it.

Cheers


----------



## llantwit (Feb 14, 2006)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> Any chance of the contibutors to this thread stating their political leanings?
> I'll try and re-read it then to see if I can follow it.
> Cheers


Llantwit - anarcho-leaning socialist

But I really don't recommend reading it over again - esp. after the bit it turns really windbaggy and nitpicking.


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Feb 14, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> really windbaggy and nitpicking.



Let it not be said we are a nation of windbags......where was that Welsh characteristics one again


----------



## neprimerimye (Feb 14, 2006)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> Any chance of the contibutors to this thread stating their political leanings?
> 
> I'll try and re-read it then to see if I can follow it.
> 
> Cheers



It won't help.

Chilango - Anarchist of some kind with experience of Political Islamist atrocities in southern Sudan. In other words a liberal. (X-SWP)

Nwnm - SWP fulltimer.

Udo Erasmus - Nwnm's more intelligent sidekick

Osterburg - socialist ex-member of a pabloite group (a guess)

Neprimerimye - Communist


----------



## Col_Buendia (Feb 14, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> It won't help.
> 
> Chilango - Anarchist of some kind with experience of Political Islamist atrocities in southern Sudan. In other words a liberal. (X-SWP)
> 
> ...



What about the OP you fucking discriminationist!!


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Feb 14, 2006)

What's a pabloite?


----------



## chilango (Feb 14, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> It won't help.
> 
> Chilango - Anarchist of some kind with experience of Political Islamist atrocities in southern Sudan. In other words a liberal. (X-SWP)
> 
> ...




 liberal?  



there you go. predictable righteous indignation. 

I dunno how my views fit into "liberal" though? explain nep...

also souldn´t you be "communist" not "Communist".

anyway short summary of my position.

1/ against state bans, fullstop.
2/ for selforganised opposition to racism etc from below.
3/ against wanky journos
4/ against clericofascist islamicism and its hangers on.

there.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Feb 14, 2006)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> What's a pabloite?








The bloke in the shorts at the back is a Pabloite.

I'm sure that clears things up for you, RB.

 (Here to help)


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Feb 14, 2006)

Ah, a wishing I could do that sort of person, always the bridesmaid never the bride


----------



## neprimerimye (Feb 15, 2006)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> The bloke in the shorts at the back is a Pabloite.
> 
> I'm sure that clears things up for you, RB.
> 
> (Here to help)



And help you did! Now Picasso was a Stalinist and the guy in the back is his toady tailing behind him.

Thats what Pabloites do they tail end other social forces.

Technically it refers to the epigonii who destroyed the Fourth International in 1948. Pablo being one of the leaders of the day.


----------



## neprimerimye (Feb 15, 2006)

chilango said:
			
		

> 1/ against state bans, fullstop.
> 2/ for selforganised opposition to racism etc from below.
> 3/ against wanky journos
> 4/ against clericofascist islamicism and its hangers on.



OK good enough but point 4 is dodgy.

After all said and done despite their socially reactionary program the Muslim Association of Britain, which is the creation of a group that was clerico-fascist, is not itself fascist.

While I find the idea of an avowedly revolutionary tendency such as the SWP forming a common party with them deeply objectionable I have no objections to their taking part in the anti war movement.


----------



## osterberg (Feb 15, 2006)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> What's a pabloite?


 Here you are.Pablo's in there somewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_International
By the way he's nothing to do with me


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Feb 15, 2006)

Were the SWP ever called th Trotskyite Workers Party ( TWP ) at one stage?


----------



## osterberg (Feb 15, 2006)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> Were the SWP ever called th Trotskyite Workers Party ( TWP ) at one stage?


Never heard of them.


----------



## chilango (Feb 15, 2006)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> Were the SWP ever called th Trotskyite Workers Party ( TWP ) at one stage?


----------



## nwnm (Feb 16, 2006)

Getting back onto topic, this motion was passed at the Cardiff students union AGM on Wednesday Titled 'Freedom of Speech and Responsibility' stating, 
"This union notes - 
1) the appearance of cartoons in a recent edition of Gair Rhydd , which was reproduced from a Danish right wing newspaper , and were perceived as offensive to the Muslim faith. 
2) that previous publication of these cartoons had led to world wide protests and rioting 
3) The withdrawal of that edition of Gair Rhydd from the news stands. 
This union believes - 
1) that the students union was right to withdraw Gair Rhydd over this. We should be proud that of the fact that the University is a campus where people of many faiths work and study together. 
2) that the wording of the article itself did not mock Islamic beliefs - it is the Danish cartoon which is seen as offensive. 
3) that the right wing Danish newspaper that commissioned these anti Muslim Caricatures has previously campaigned against an artist who produced and ‘erotic’ image of Christ, and also previously refused to print a cartoon , on the basis that it would cause an outcry among Christians. It has only invoked ‘freedom of speech’ to justify bigoted caricatures that imply every Muslim is a terrorist. 
4) whilst we agree with the concept of free speech, this has to come with responsibility where ther are sensitive issues. Gair Rhydd as the newspaper of Cardiff University should be promoting tolerance amongst students. 
This union resolves - 
1) to call on Gair Rhydd to publish an open letter which has already been signed by a large number of students. 
2) to ensure that, if it has not already happened , Gair Rhydd publishes a full apology to the students of Cardiff for this episode, and that it represents the diversity of our campus. 
3) re-affirms our commitment to anti racism, diversity and equality for all"

The open letter reads - 

"We the undersigned believe the Students union was right to withdraw Gair Rhydd from the news stands over its publication of one of the Danish 
anti Muslim cartoons. We should be proud of the fact that Cardiff university is a campus whee people of many faiths work and study together; with more than 3,000 international students. Neither should we be fooled into thinking that this is an issue of free speech - it is about Islamophobia and racism. 
The right wing Danish newspaper which commissioned these anti Muslim caricatures are such 'champions' of free speech, that they campaigned against an artist who had produced an erotic image of Christ, and refused to print a cartoon 3 years ago because the editors said it would provoke an outcry among Christians. Freedom of speech was only invoked to justify bigoted caricatures that imply every Muslim is a terrorist. 
There is only one word for the sort of hypocrisy which sees one rule for the majority and another for Arab, Asian and African Immigrants - racism. Those who claim it is impossible to be racist against Islam because it is a religion 'not a race' should consider the fate of the Jewish fate in Nazi Germany. If a paper were to reprint a cartoon of a Jewish person in the manner of Nazi propoganda of the 1930's everyone would slam it as racist. 
Nobody would say it was merely about 'debating religious views'. This anti Muslim racism has been stoked up by war in the Middle East and is the subtext of George Bushes 'war on terror'. 
We call on Gair Rhydd to issue a public apology to the student population of Cardiff university for dragging our name in the mud, to publish this letter. and to commission articles on Islamophobia, and the effect of the war on terror on the Muslim community instead of scuttling around in the gutter like the tabloid press"

The suspended editor has also apologised, "The reproduction of one of the controversial cartoons of the prophet Mohammed in our most recent edition was a naive and ill-considered course of action which caused needless offence to Muslim students and members of the community alike. 
"The cartoon was not reproduced as part of some frivolous defence of freedom of speech, but was a genuine mistake on our part which arose from a desire to give context to a small and balanced world news piece reporting the developing international situation surrounding the cartoons. 
"We apologise for the harm we recognise we have caused."


----------



## nwnm (Feb 16, 2006)

"Were the SWP ever called th Trotskyite Workers Party ( TWP ) at one stage?"

Wot? My Dad's thicker than yours?

No - but we have been accused of being anti - septic on occasions. Thats not we're about either - thats another outfit called the TCP


----------

