Guardian publishes "a see-through attempt to demonise certain political ideas by branding them racist"

While these scumbag leftists pontificate to us about tolerance, the Islamofascists are killing, torturing and persecuting gays and women as we speak. It's like these people don't own a tv or have an internet connection.

How can you see so much brutality, violence, hatred coming out of one religion and completely ignore or be blind to it? Makes you wonder if these are paid shills or secret converts to Islam-they defend this most evil ideology in human history, even more strongly than radical muslims.

When you belong to a death cult that attacks and wages war against us unbelievers, then you deserve to be hated, ridiculed, marginalized and destroyed.

I recently saw a disturbing video of just how oppressive Islam is-I believe it was posted on Pamela's blog, anyways it was about Jews living in Morocco who marry off their daughters at 12 yrs old so they don't get kidnapped, raped and killed by their Arab neighbors (if she refuses to marry them).

This is not the kind of future I want to see happen anywhere to anyone. War is a much better alternative.

In a way, this is good news. The watch dogs of political correctness are fearing that they will loose the debate. The guardian journalist complains that even progressive, guardian-friendly people are criticizing Islam for what it is: oppressive of gay and women's rights. So there appear to be cracks in the leftist/islamist alliance. Leftists are deserting their forces.

Islam Hijacking the UN Human Rights Council "Islamophobia"
by Intl. Institute for Islamic Thought

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQH9ePL3hmk

... sanctioned by Islamic law as "racist" and "Islamophobic" for years

Vs.

5:38 "(thieves) cut off his or her hands"

Lol what!? so Islam isn't oppressive of women, gay, non-muslims... rights?

Hahaha... oh wow! http://bit.ly/uawqZc

"... you may agree or disagree with the idea that Islam is repressive of women and gays"

Well, that's like saying "you may agree or disagree with the idea that the holocaust happened". It's not an idea, it's a factual thing, Islam curtails, sistematically, the individual liberties of non-muslims, women, gays, apostates... etc.

So according to the Guardian and that lunatic Freedland, if you "troll" christians/christianity then you're a racist towards white, blue eyed blond people even if there's black, brown, latino, asian christians?. Ad hominems are the first refuge of the ignoramus and cretin, the last refuge? violence.

Freedland's freak-out was an article in defense of a Muslim called Mehdi Hasan who once said of non-Muslims;

'We know that keeping the moral high-ground is key. Once we lose the moral high-ground we are no different from the rest, of the non-Muslims; from the rest of those human beings who live their lives as animals, bending any rule to fulfil any desire.'

Mehdi claims to have later said that his remarks were 'ill-advised'; but at no time did he say he took them back or that they were wrong!

Freedland is jumping to this supremacist's defense. I suppose Mehdi thinks the murder of that poor, young girl in Afghanistan the other day is Islam's way of hanging on to the moral high ground.

Freedland is a clown, and so is Mehdi!

As we have observed many times in the past, Islam is a paradox for the left.

On one hand, Muslims are considered a minority, and so they deserve the left's uncompromising protection.

On the other hand, Muslims have the dirty habit of attacking other "endangered minorities" such as women and gays.

What a conundrum! who do we protect now?

In such desperate events, the common leftie tends to side with "the more fashionable minority", which currently happens to be the Muslims, and that's why the nowadays left always looks the other way whenever an honor-killing or gay-bashing takes place.

I have some choice names to call lean, Freedland and their demonic ilk...but they are not suitable for mixed company, and Robert would surely delete them, and rightly so...

Yes, and the trade union of British journalists, the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), is by its official policy politically opposed to the English Defence League(EDL). And this NUJ political predujice is indicated in how its NUJ media branches report daily against the EDL, and not only in 'The Guardian' and the BBC.

Just as there is no limit to the absurdity that Islam can engage in, so is it the case that there in no limit to the absurdity which political correctness can attain. Drink the Islamic Kool-Aid or the PC Kool-Aid and ludicrousness will be a constant companion.

This is a different issue for those in the UK, a very different issue.

In the UK, they don't have a right to free speech and free press. One can go to jail for speaking the truth there, even a truth that everyone knows. Therefore, they must have debates and discourse over what truths - and what falsehoods - will be permitted to be spoken and published.

Pity them.

Thank be to God there are still some media outlets like the Telegraph where sanity is not yet totally outlawed.

We need to loudly proclaim Islamophobia as the healthy fear of the supremacist, male-chauvinist, and evil nature of the CULT of Islam.

Actually, Leftist, Liberal elitists have been attacking posters/commenters for a while. They have only empty rhetoric, so all they have is to personally attack those who do not uphold their rhetoric and to simply discount any other perception, opinion, or fact. It seems there are those who see this kind of abuse as a sport and probably see themselves as champions of fellow self-entitled elitists.

This is an ongoing affair on the website of the Guardian, that's been growing since the Guardian published this piece by Mehdi Hasan (up until taking up a new job recently, the editor of the New Statesman - one of Britain's two most-popular news magazines), saying that Muslims must be heard, while complaining that they're not heard due to the rising tide of (gasp) Islamophobia - and that Hasan's himself had his previous nice Quranic quotes about infidels being stupid and "like cattle" taken out of context...

Which prompted a reply by a user called Quizborg, thoroughly debunking Hasan's claims and, as a result, getting 1600 recommends (possibly a record on the Guardian) and 30 pages of comments, many discussing his own comment... By the end of Monday however, the post disappeared, and may have been forgotten about - had Harry's Place not put a copy of it back up.

Since then, the increasingly desperate Guardian closed the comments thread on Mehdi's piece and released Freedland's article mentioned above. Which was disected and thoroughly debunked again. So today, the Guawrdian rolled out their big-gun professional complainers (including the infamous Inayat Bunglawala) to ram their message home (are they following Joseph Goebbel's philosophy that “Repeat a lie a thousand times and it becomes the truth”?)

And to counter the ever-more-panicking leftie-elites at the Grauniad, Harry's Place now have another post up about censorship, Hasan and Freedland. In addition, of course, to the effort above by the Telegraph.

So the debate (about both "demonising ideaas" and censorship) rages on, and grows by the day...

Below is Quizborg's deleted reply to Mehdi Hasan (still up at Harry's Place)- and an example of what now passes for an "unacceptable" comment at the Guardian:

Mehdi

I absolutely agree with you that there is a disturbing phenomenon of nasty and bigoted comments being posted in the comments box of any piece about Muslims or by a Muslim writer.

There is world of difference between that – which should be condemned – and the proper criticism of writers who are Muslim, who themselves express sometimes horrific political views, or use offensive rhetoric. Such
revolting rhetoric should be opposed, always.

You don’t quote from the ’selectively edited speeches’ that you gave. You should.

This was what you said:

““The kaffar, the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and stubborn to the teachings of Islam, the rational message of the Quran; they are described in the Quran as, quote, “a people of no intelligence”, Allah describes them as; not of no morality, not as people of no belief – people of “no intelligence” – because they’re incapable of the intellectual effort it requires to shake off those blind prejudices, to shake off those easy assumptions about this world, about the existence of God. In this respect, the Quran describes the atheists as “cattle”, as cattle of those who grow the crops and do not stop and wonder about this world.””

Not only did you use the offensive term ‘kaffar’. You said that people who were not Muslim were ‘people of no intelligence’. Imagine somebody saying that about Muslims - you would object, and rightly so.

You went on to say:

““In Islam, to believe is to know. To disbelieve is not to know. That is what it fundamentally comes down to; it [to disbelieve] is to remain ignorant; to cover up knowledge. After all, what is ‘kaffar’? Kaffar comes from the root word which means to cover up, to conceal. The kaffar is the one who covers up that knowledge which is clear. The French orientalist scholar Lamens [?], he once wrote that the “Quran is not far from considering unbelief, disbelief as an infirmity, as an illness, as a disease of the human mind”. Subhanallah. Non-Muslims point this out to us.””

What is the ‘context’ within which that is acceptable?

You also said that Muslims needed to improve their standard of education, and were praised for saying this by your defenders. But you made this point in the context of … Muslims needing to “outthink” Jews!

”Our Jewish brethren who we spend so much time fighting and arguing with: 12 million Jews in the world and 150 nobel prizes to their name. All Israel’s top 6 universities feature in the top 200 universities on earth – none of the Muslim world’s top universities feature in top 100 or 200 universities in the world and then we wonder why we are losing battles – we are not being out-fought we are being out-thought. We are not underarmed. We are undereducated.””

This was a comment about conflict – battles, arms – with those you think are in conflict with Islam.

The most worrying part of your speech was when you praised the Supreme Leader of Iran – a Shia religious authority – for his supposed opposition to nuclear weapons. Is it not worrying that a political editor of a national newspaper should take the statements of a religious leader as ‘gospel’, so to speak. It implies that you believe that Iran is not really building nuclear weapons – and that, I think, is actually your view. You’re free to hold that view, but to do so on religious grounds is worrying:

““Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa saying the stockpiling, the production, the use of nuclear weapons us forbidden under Islam. Spot on. Islamic Republic of Iran. The fatwa of the Supreme Leader.””

The other matter of concern is
that you have shown a readiness to attack others who draw attention to
Islamist hate preachers. Remember this piece?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/01/islam-channel-quilliam

In it, you attacked the anti-extremists of Quilliam for their report on hate preaching and extremism on the Islam Channel. You denied it existed. However – tellingly – you then went on to attack the Islam Channel itself – because it had broadcast a preacher who had said nasty things about Shia Islam, your own sect. The Islam Channel was later censured by OFCOM for precisely the offences that you denied it was guilty of.

There are other points to make briefly. Lady Warsi is a politician. She has a close relationship with somebody who was active in Hizb ut Tahrir. Frankly, if there were a Tory with a close relationship with a BNP activist, you’d attack them, and rightly so. They’d probably resign. Similarly, Lord Ahmed, whose record speaks for itself. Yet, he has been let back into the Labour Party, recently.

Frankly, if these problems are not addressed by us, then the field is left clear for the BNP and the EDL, and the nastiest people in the comments box.

I should add - this is not the only case of on-topic and carefully-written posts, often highly-recommended, "disappearing" at the Guardian. Here's two more examples (with saved text and, for the first case, screenshots):

A comment pointing out Egyptian president Mohammed Morsi's quote that Christians in Egypt "should pay a tribute", on an article by Morsi himself, disappears, along with a whole lot of other well thought-out comments...

A comment simply stating the 2 words "Mohammed did" (in reference to having sex with children) gets reported, then disappears...

While Freedland has a point about the crude comments, it does seem from his article that he considers any criticism of Islam or Muslim behavior to be in the same category, i.e., it is all racism and bigotry. Only a careful follow-up questioning of Freedland would tease out the extent and scope of his apparent bias in favor of Islam and his apparent hostility toward Islam criticism. How much of it is genuine, and how much of it is just partisan political and/or ego-based posturing? Writing articles back and forth is probably not likely to teach us much.

The phenomenon of crude and outlandish commentary on the internet is a problem in many areas, not just on subjects of religion and politics.

"Guardian publishes "a see-through attempt to demonise certain political ideas by branding them racist""

I suspect that these bogus charges of racism and bigotry that are made by various politicians and journalists, whenever someone criticizes Islam, are backfiring. These idiotic accusations are not going to win over most people of fair mind and good will. On the contrary, such false accusations already are and will continue to have the effect of making most people oppose the Freedlands, Fisks, Karen Armstrongs, et al. who make such charges. In a way, the Freedmans et al. are useful to us in illustrating the politically correct mindset which enabled this whole mess with Islam in the West in the first place.

I haven't finished this article. But the first thing that screamed out at me was the question of whether or not these poor offended souls have ever checked out "LoonWatch" and read what those scumbags say about Christians...or anybody else they don't like. I admit. Most of them sound like they're still in High School but I'd suggest they check their own house before criticizing anybody else. Like those genocidal Jew hating Imams on MEMRI. It just pisses me off how our politicians seem to hold Muslims to such a low standard. And criticize us FOR TELLING THE TRUTH!!!

I've signed up on LoonWatch by the way. I love going on there and calling them on their idiotic comments. What the heck. It's so fun.....and easy.

Who reads The Guardian?

The Guardian certainly sunk to new depths by allowing Mehdi Hassan to write this cringe-making, whining article, and added insult to injury by wheeling out Jonathan Freedland to back him up. Freedland, a member of the tribe of the "trembling Israelites", did not seem to mind that in supporting Hassan he was in the "august" company of Inayat Bunglawala - supporter of the efforts to murder of Bin Laden.

I am sure you in the US are scratching your heads in confusion as to why the Brits are so accommodating to such idiots. The good point about Hassan's and Freedland's articles is that though many who pasted them on Comment is Free had their posts deleted, enough posts remained that told them exactly how despised they are.

Thank goodness for the rational comments of many bloggers to these articles. It did not make a difference, anybody who showed up Hassan and Freedland for what they were, were deleted, but because the likes of Hassan lack of the basic intelligence to understand how their actions affect others, and they are too ignorant to realise that people do have long memories, there is no lack of people who will remind them of their Islamist roots. The British public is waking up, and hopefully in the not too distant future public opinion will flush the Guardian down the toilet, where it belongs.

The Guardian is execrable, and that is the best that can be said about its articles and ethos.

Haha. I'm a Derbyshire Man. Those from Nottinghamshire call us "sheep sh***ers"; so far as I can remember we called them robbers (Robin Hood): we say of ourselves "Derbyshire born, Derbyshire bred, strong in't arm and strong in't 'ead" but we say of Yorkshire folk "Yorkshire born Yorkshire bred, strong in't arm and weak in't 'ead"; Yorkshire folk reverse that.
"in't is "in the" in dialect.My apostrophe is deliberately misplaced to help pronouncement.
Everyone jokes about Norfolk folk being inbred.

Actually they are, usually, jokes and we usually laugh even though on the receiving end of such "racist" insults. Surely being a Derbyshire man is every bit as much a race as being muslim? What would Freedman make of it all? Stifle all fun - in the muslim way? Guess so.

It is not just the Guardian that equates criticism of Islam with racism. My local police in the United Kingdom accuse me of racism because I publicly criticise and expose Islam. Fortunately for me and to the great annoyance of the Police, the U.K 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act permits one to 'criticise, express antipathy, dislike, ridicule insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs and practices of their adherents.' Try as I and my lawyer do to explain this to the Police they still insist upon harassing me........ am I to conclude they are all Guardian readers ?

In spite of the Crown Prosecution Service informing the Police that a prosection cannot be brought against me for racial or religious hatred, I am still harassed and I am told that in the opinion of the police "The matter is ongoing". I take this to mean that they do not defend my right to criticise Islam and are waiting for me to step outside of the protection afforded by the 2006 Act.

The UK 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act is interesting. As well as giving the protection mentioned by Stuart Parsons, it is stated to apply to:

"A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening... if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred"

So burning Qurans, drawing pics of Mo etc - which may be ridiculing and abusive - but not "threatening" in itself - is OK then? In that case, why are such cases being prosecuted?!

I have wrote a metaphor about islam (and other abrahamic patrilineal faiths) in the form of a digital novel. check it out on kindle if interested. its called oakheart.