This should be a fairly sound rebuff to those who think that when “teh Left” argues that we – and governments in particular – shouldn’t discriminate against a religious group, we somehow have to tolerate discrimination just because it’s by members of that group:
Ofcom has ruled that Islam Channel, a London-based broadcaster, broke the broadcasting code for advocating marital rape, violence against women and describing women who wore perfume outside of the home as “prostitutes”…
The broadcaster, which was fined £30,000 by Ofcom in 2007 for a series of breaches, also broke impartiality regulations for broadcasting one-sided coverage of international affairs and the Middle East conflict.
Group A should not discriminate on the grounds of sex, gender, race, religion etc against group B; and group B should not discriminate on the grounds of sex, gender, race, religion etc against group C.
It’s really not that complicated. I don’t know how so many commentators could be honestly confused by it.
Moved On 
I’m sure the women and gays in the Islamic world will be dancing in the street at this joyous news. The women of Saudi Arabia have cause for a double celebration as their country has been appointed to the UN Women’s Rights Panel, although they won’t be able to drive to the celebration and will need to be accompanied by a male relative. The incessant vocal and vigorous protests of the left have finally been heard and it won’t be long before islamic countries institute equality and freedom for all women. In the meantime women will continue to be mutilated and murdered and stoned for being raped, but they can at least afford a little happiness knowing help is on the way as the tsunami of leftist protest gathers force.
Actually the complaint didn’t come from some feminist group or human rights organisation, but rather an islamic foundation which receives far too little publicity for its attempts to reconcile islamic and western values. It was founded by Ed Husain after he he became disenchanted with Hizb ut-Tahrir. Sadly it is not wildly popular with the muslim community in the UK.
I don’t know how so many commentators could be honestly confused by it.
The answer lies in their tribal approach to politics. These people don’t understand politics as a battle of ideas, but as a battle between different groups. If you argue in favour of an ideal that incidentally benefits one of those groups then you are assumed to support that group.
The reverse is also true, and explains why conservatives are often confused when they hear left-wing praise of the United States.
And without skipping a beat SB illustrates the described stupidity perfectly.
The answer lies in the tribal approach to politics. If you have designated one group as victims it is hard to mount a serious and vigorous campaign against any deeply held but utterly ghastly beliefs they hold. True you might mumble a bit of self-serving cant when challenged but the yawning silence of the leftist lambs on these issues is an utter disgrace.
“If you have designated one group as victims it is hard to mount a serious and vigorous campaign against any deeply held but utterly ghastly beliefs they hold.”
I wonder when the obvious contradictory evidence right in front of him will sink in.
Nah – SB’s just rehashing the tired old nonsense that because the Left protests more vigorously against the behaviour of our own government(s) than we do the behaviour of, say, the Iranian government then we must love the Iranian government and want to marry it.
It’s a slight variation of the stupidity you have already described, but in this case SB simply declares hostility towards Australian or US government policy to be ‘hypocritical’ unless equivalent hostility is shown towards every other government in the world that shares similar (or worse) policy.
It’s utter idiocy, with the logical conclusion that as long as our country is marginally better than the worst country in the world then we are, by definition, immune from internal criticism.
Where is the serious and vigorous campaign against the human rights abuses inherent in sharia law? Perhaps you could point me to a major leftist blog that focuses on these issues, documents the abuses and calls for action to be taken.
It is more common to see victims of religious fundamentalism vilified by leftists when they speak out about these issues, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali has. At least to his credit Adams has her on LNL when she is in town
The action taken by the authorities in this case is commendable, but it falls into the category of ‘bleeding obvious’. The point is that this did not occur as a result of leftist or feminist agitation. In fact among all the horror stories of PC insanity by British authorities there is also good work being done by some of them. For example they are quite vigilant about teenagers being sent abroad for arranged marriages. Sadly I do not see any concerted action by leftist groups to have abusive states treated as pariahs.
I take your point that this represents a step in the right direction. It is not, however, an explanation of the overall supine attitude of much of the left in the face of the endemic pathological misogyny in much of the islamic world.
When something of the scale of the anti-apartheid movement or the womens liberation movement rallying to this cause we will know that people are taking this great evil seriously.
So unless ‘the Left’ engages in utterly pointless protest action against Middle Eastern theocracies, or gets hysterical over their obviously idiotic religion-based legal system, then we’re all hyporcrites?
Ooookay SB.
Just out of interest SB – are you aware that the ‘leftist’ complaint against Hirst Ali is based on the idea that her advocacy harms the cause of female equality in the Middle east?
She is not criticised because she attacks Islam, she is criticised because her attacks are thought to be ham-fishted and counter-productive to the broader goal of actually improving the lives of women in the Middle East.
Yes Mondo, I know the leftards had to tie themselves in knots to formulate an attack on her. Far from being ham-fisted she is one of the most intelligent speakers I’ve ever heard. She argues in a quiet logical tone. She’s never emotive. Netherlands she gained an education and worked to help women who were being oppressed in the islamic community there. But of course many on the left think she ought to shut-up about the bigoted religious beliefs that saw her genitally mutilated and forced into a marriage she did not want, and the fact that she is subject to constant death threats and must live with security guards for the rest of her life.
Her critics are contemptible, as are their lackeys who ignorantly seek to justify those criticisms.
But of course many on the left think she ought to shut-up about the bigoted religious beliefs that saw her genitally mutilated and forced into a marriage she did not want
For the benefit of other readers here who may be mislead by SB’s comment allow me to explain the reason why critics of Hirsi Ali argue that she should refrain from aggressive criticism of Islam.
The argument is that by framing her criticism as an attack on Islam, rather than as an attack on the specific (and often tribal) customs that subjugate women, she actively harms progress in the Middle East. Instead of engaging with the people and attacking the actual practices that are harmful to women, she attacks the entire Islamic belief system thereby fuelling resistance to change amongst ordinary citizens of the Middle East.
Or so the argument goes.
It’s obvious why SB likes Hirsi Ali – she frames the debate in a way that fits his worldview perfectly: i.e. Islam is an evil belief system against which we must fight! But those with an overarching goal of actually improving the lot of women in Islamic societies are less concerned with scoring points against Islam, and more interested in achieving practical results for women.
I should add that I don’t necessarily agree with Hirsi Ali’s critics – I think there’s a role for aggressive condemnation of Islam. I merely want to highlight how dishonest it is for SB to present those critics as defenders or supporters of Islam.
But of course many on the left think she ought to shut-up about the bigoted religious beliefs that saw her genitally mutilated and forced into a marriage she did not want, and the fact that she is subject to constant death threats and must live with security guards for the rest of her life.
Yes, why do leftards love female genital mutilation, forced marriages and death threats for muslim women?
Also, when was the last time teh leftards protested against paedophilia? Never, as far as I can remember. Therefore, one must ask, why does teh left support paedophiles?
Btw, “leftards”? If this is indicative of your level of maturity, perhaps you’d feel more at home with the morons who han out at the blogs of Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt. We’re adults here.
hang, even
Mondo: “I merely want to highlight how dishonest it is for SB to present those critics as defenders or supporters of Islam.”
Of course I didn’t do that! This is Mondo, the creator of straw men, demonstrating his mastery of that puerile art. It seems his ability to read is almost as deficient as his ability to reason. Sadly he appears not to have bothered to read what I said – that the some on the left seem to have great difficulty mounting a vigorous campaign against the vile religious beliefs that are used to justify the oppression of millions of women, and when one of the many women who have been mutilated and abused by practitioners of those beliefs, they attack the victim.
Here is facile reptile Nicholas Kristoff’s hideous hit piece replete as it is with the slithering platitudes of his moral inversion. His decision to attack Hirsi Ali for being overly (because that would be t0o provocative) is nothing short of sickening.
Hirsi Ali should be celebrated as one of the bravest people on the planet, someone who has overcome her oppression and who is not afraid to speak out on behalf of the millions of women still suffering at the hands of those bent on implementing their vile religious beliefs.
You also wilfully misrepresented my views on islam, even though you would have read my positive comment above about the Quilliam foundation. You really can’t help yourself, can you?
Buns: “Yes, why do leftards love female genital mutilation, forced marriages and death threats for muslim women?”
I didn’t say that. I noted that they seemed conflicted about attacking oppression when it is perpetrated by members of a designated victim class.
Sorry about the length of this quote from an article in Slate, but it lays out the issue quite nicely:
One correct decision by a UK broadcasting authority does nothing to negate the moral cowardice of so many prominent intellectuals.
Hirsi Ali should be celebrated as one of the bravest people on the planet, someone who has overcome her oppression and who is not afraid to speak out on behalf of the millions of women still suffering at the hands of those bent on implementing their vile religious beliefs.
Unless, of course, her words actively lead to an increase in the suffering of women in the Middle East – as her critics allege, and as you consistently ignore.
Or is ‘speaking bravely’ now more important than actually achieving results?
As for allegations of straw man argument, I’m quite happy to leave it to other commenters at the site to decide whether I’ve unfairly represented your views towards Islam.
Or is ‘speaking bravely’ now more important than actually achieving results?
Presumably. In much the same way as it is important to continue military smackdown of Teh Evil Muslim Terrists around the globe while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the fact that this actually promotes far more terrorism than it ends.
Mondo: “Unless, of course, her words actively lead to an increase in the suffering of women in the Middle East”
Any evidence for that proposition? How would that work exactly? Someone in the west speaks out so the local mullahs kill a few women? When there was an outcry against the barbarity of the of the stoning sentence Iran imposed on a woman for adultery, Iran didn’t go and stone more women! In fact they bowed to the pressure called off the stoning and opted for a new trial, which is a slight improvement.
In fact the argument you present is craven and gutless argument with no logical merit or supporting evidence. In any event, free speech should not be allowed to be held hostage by religious thugs.
“I’m quite happy to leave it to other commenters at the site to decide whether I’ve unfairly represented your views towards Islam.”
What a cop-out! Why not just quote the bit where I actually made the argument you attributed to me? Funnily enough you can’t, can you?
Any evidence for that proposition? How would that work exactly?
I explained this already above SB: “The argument is that by framing her criticism as an attack on Islam, rather than as an attack on the specific (and often tribal) customs that subjugate women, she actively harms progress in the Middle East. Instead of engaging with the people and attacking the actual practices that are harmful to women, she attacks the entire Islamic belief system thereby fuelling resistance to change amongst ordinary citizens of the Middle East. ”
This is the argument mounted against Hirsi Ali by her critics, and it is interesting that you’ve denounced them without seeking to even understand it (“how would that work?”). I’m not saying that those critics are necessarily correct, but I am at least open-minded enough to recognise that their argument is logical and internally consistent.
You, apparently, are not. You would prefer to paint these advocates for the rights of Middle Eastern women as cowards or apologists for Islam, simply because they will not damn the entire religion as vociferously as you would like. That, SB, is entirely consistent with my experience of your attitude towards Islam.
Presumably. In much the same way as it is important to continue military smackdown of Teh Evil Muslim Terrists around the globe while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the fact that this actually promotes far more terrorism than it ends.
That, buns, is exactly right.
Mondo: “The argument is that by framing her criticism as an attack on Islam, rather than as an attack on the specific (and often tribal) customs that subjugate women, she actively harms progress in the Middle East. Instead of engaging with the people and attacking the actual practices that are harmful to women, she attacks the entire Islamic belief system thereby fuelling resistance to change amongst ordinary citizens of the Middle East. ”
This is not an answer to my question, which was about your statement that Hirsi Ali’s words actively lead to an increase in the suffering of women in the Middle East. That quote is about the most effective way to get change, but it doesn’t disclose any reason for thinking Hirsi Ali is actually making things worse. It is also a unique argument when it comes to fomenting social change. I have never heard a similar argument put in other campaigns for change. Also, I understand your reluctance to endorse the argument as it seems misguided at the very least. But anyway what is wrong with there being more than one voice for change?
You would prefer to paint these advocates for the rights of Middle Eastern women as cowards or apologists for Islam, simply because they will not damn the entire religion as vociferously as you would like.”
Wrong again. They disgust me because of their vile attacks on Hirsi Ali.
It is not surprising that the intelligentsia, grown fat and rich retailing their smug self-satisfied cant, pile on when a person like Hirsi Ali, having been mutilated and brutalised by people driven by vile religious beliefs, dares to speak out. If anything you have understated my contempt for these scum and their resort to bashing the victim for the sake of their own exquisite consciences.
“the fact that this actually promotes far more terrorism than it ends.”
Another grotesquerie from the little shop of leftist horrors! That is like saying that when Britain declared war on Germany it promoted enlistment in the German army.
That is like saying that when Britain declared war on Germany it promoted enlistment in the German army.
It may well have done. Make a point if you have one.
If anything you have understated my contempt for these scum and their resort to bashing the victim for the sake of their own exquisite consciences.
One more time SB, since you don’t seem capable of absorbing what you’re being told: most of those who criticise Ali do so on the basis that her comments make it harder to achieve positive change for women in the Middle East. As explained (twice) above, these advocates believe that her aggressive condemnation of Islam as evil makes it harder for them to make inroads on the ground. As a result, they argue, women continue to suffer needlessly.
You clearly do not accept this argument. You cannot see how fiery denunciations of Islam in the West might hinder someone’s ability to make progress for women in the Middle East. That’s fine – you may even be right (even though, obviously, you cannot know for sure).
But to call Ali’s critics vile, craven cowards for their advocacy is idiotic. To paint them as appeasers or apologists for Islam, or indeed to characterise their opposition as driven by personal spite or craven cowardice, is to misrepresent them, their work and their argument on a massive scale.
You’re entitled to your opinion SB, but you should at least recognise that many of Ali’s critics are actively involved in trying to bring positive change for women in the Middle East. They are fighting for exactly the same outcome that she is, and to abuse them in the way you have (while simultaneously ignoring their actual argument) is both childish and intellectually dishonest.
Mondo: “To paint them as appeasers or apologists for Islam,”
I’ve already pointed out that I didn’t say that, and I note that you’ve refused my invitation to provide some evidence to back up your assertion that I did. Do you really have to keep lying to try to score points?
At least Hirsi Ali presents an example of a how a person can, by thinking for themselves, reclaim their own life and denounce the rotten poisonous beliefs that disfigure the lives of millions of people. To attack her for urging others to follow her example is contemptible. It sickens me. If you want to know why I detest smug intellectuals start right here. Truly these people aren’t worth shitting on.
It is not just about having a right to an opinion. There is a positive duty on all decent people to denounce and marginalise these scum.
Buns I made my point. If you don’t get it I can’t help you further.
Buns I made my point.
I disagree.
To attack her for urging others to follow her example is contemptible.
And you have the nerve to accuse mondo of beating up strawmen. Why do you have to lie to try and score points?
It is not just about having a right to an opinion. There is a positive duty on all decent people to denounce and marginalise these scum.
I know most rightwing keyboard cowboys are arrogant, but this really takes the cake. “How could anyone possibly have a different perspective to me? Anyone who disagrees with me is not a decent person.”
If you want to know why I detest smug intellectuals start right here. Truly these people aren’t worth shitting on. Whereas I suspect at least a few of them might take an opportunity to snap one off on you after spending some time getting to know you.
If you want to know why I detest smug intellectuals start right here. Truly these people aren’t worth shitting on.
Those damn advocates for women’s rights – they’re sickening aren’t they SB? The way they attempt to improve the lot of marginalised women in Middle Eastern countries – it’s disgusting.
How dare they approach this issue with a different perspective to you? For that crime alone they deseve to be abused, belittled, and marginalised.
It is not their advocacy for women’s rights that is sickening Mondo, and nowhere have I suggested that. You must think that if a person does one good thing, they can’t be held accountable for anything else they do. Or maybe you were just being a smart-arse. Which is it?
What is truly disgusting is that when a woman whose rights have been violated in the worst possible way dares to speak up she is again attacked and demeaned, this time by “intellectuals” who should know better.
What is truly disgusting is that when a woman whose rights have been violated in the worst possible way dares to speak up she is again attacked and demeaned
She is attacked because those attacking her genuinely believe that her words and actions hinder their ability to make real progress for women in the Middle East.
If they are correct in this belief then they are right to criticise her for her aggressive advocacy, and you are wrong to abuse them for it.
I think it’s as simple as “I agree with her. Ergo, anyone who disagrees with her is contemptible scum – and much more so for being both ‘leftard’ and ‘intellectual'”.
Let us know if I’ve incorrectly described your position there, SB, and, if so, how precisely. As it stands, the problem seems to be simply that you can’t tolerate the fact that these loathsome “intellectuals” don’t see things the same way you do, and have the nerve to voice their opinions.
Mondo I fail to see how speaking out against bad treatment of women can do anything but help the situation.
Should Martin Luther King not have had a dream?
If anyone had held a similar argument against King it would have been considered a cynical attempt to silence the civil rights movement.
If anyone had held a similar argument against King it would have been considered a cynical attempt to silence the civil rights movement.
King did not, to my knowledge, argue that racial inequality in the US was a product of Christianity (he was a Reverend, after all). He also did not attack Christianity as an evil ideology, as Ali does with Islam.
But just imagine for a moment that this was the strategy he had decided to employ to address racial inequality in the US – do you think it would have been particularly effective? Alternately, do you think such a strategy might have actually driven opposition to King’s agenda, given that the US is a majority Christian country?
In answering that question you should come to understand the logic being applied by Hirsi Ali’s critics.
I think it’s as simple as “I agree with her. Ergo, anyone who disagrees with her is contemptible scum – and much more so for being both ‘leftard’ and ‘intellectual’”
Yup. It doesn’t seem to matter to SB that Ali’s critics are also passionate and effective advocates for the rights of Women in the Middle East. They are critical of Ali’s approach to the issue, and on this sole basis he hates them and considers them vile scum.
But you know SB – his capacity for judgemental abuse is legendary.
Mondo, the claim that by attacking islam Hirsi Ali is somehow making matters worse is a miserable excuse for an excuse. There is no evidence for this proposition, just the whining of gormless snakes. She is the victim in all of this. She has been beaten and mutilated and hunted and she has had the guts not to be cowed by the religious fanatics who perpetrate this violence against her. I have only contempt for those who continue to attack her.
Buns, as usual you have completely missed then point. I agree with a lot of what Hirsi Ali has to say. Personally I wouldn’t frame my attack on ‘islam’. That is because there is no one thing that is islam. There are a lot of belief systems which claim to be ‘islam’, but to attack islam as such is at best confusing.
The real issue is that some vile things that are done in the name of islam and on the basis of islamic teachings. In cases like this it is better to attack the particular vile religious belief in question, even if it is widely supported by the major strands of islamic thought. Sycophantic dissemblers will try and tell you that it is really primitive tribal beliefs that cause the problem, but that doesn’t explain why a woman has been sentenced to death in Pakistan for blasphemy this week, or why Hirsi Ali must live her life under threat of death, or why the laws of many of these primitive tribal places are based on the koran.
The fact is that if you use the term ‘islam’ all you end up with is an argument about the definition of islam. Better to just refer to the specific religious belief that is causing the trouble, like those derived from koranic verses and hadith justifying the amputation of thieves’ hands or feet, or a husband beating his wife, or the killing of non-believers, or that women are inferior to men or that gays should be killed or discriminated against …. you get the picture.
Hirsi Ali is a hero in my eyes because she has overcome the great adversity, she has worked to help others who are oppressed by the same vile beliefs that harmed her, and she has not been cowed into silence by the violent thugs who would murder outspoken critics of islam. Even if I disagree with some of her arguments I would not attack and demean her the way some of her leftist critics have. I have only contempt for them.
I imagine, you asked me to, that it would not have encouraged Christians to start abusing blacks, that would be nonsensical “he called me a racists I better go and be racist.” If their were racist elements in any large Christian churches this may have encouraged them to flush out the racists. Ali’s words could prompt the same guilt in the Islamic world.
I find it hard to believe that moderate adherents of Islam would hear Ali’s comments and decide to begin abusing women. Perhaps, for the already abused women, Ali’s words would be an inspiration but it would be hard to see her words making their situation worse.
If you see a kid getting beat up you don’t walk by you intervene or at least yell at the assailants to stop (they at least know they are been watched and may stop out of shame) either way the Kid is better off or in the same place.
I find it hard to believe that moderate adherents of Islam would hear Ali’s comments and decide to begin abusing women.
That’s not the argument being made.
The argument is that those who are currently abusing women in the Middle East will resist change when it is sold to them as a necessary consequence of their belief system being evil. Ask yourself if the racists in the US would have been persuaded to change their behaviour if King had attacked Christianity, instead of just racism.
If you see a kid getting beat up you don’t walk by you intervene or at least yell at the assailants to stop
Yeah, um, this analogy really has nothing at all to do with the criticism being made of Hirsi Ali. For one thing you have (again) ignored the element of religious abuse, which is the fundamental point being made by her critics.
Mondo, the claim that by attacking islam Hirsi Ali is somehow making matters worse is a miserable excuse for an excuse.
Unless, of course, it’s true. Which is quite possible.
There is no evidence for this proposition
LOL. You’re just making that up. You have no idea whether there is evidence for it or not.
I had a look, Mondo but couldn’t find anything resembling a logical argument. The proposition is inherently implausible once you get beyond vague generalisations. Surely there is room enough for many voices. Why do Ali’s attackers want to shut her up? Surely she has earned the right to voice her opinions about the religious maniacs who oppressed her and still oppress millions of women.
If the religion is being misrepresented then it would encourage the adherents to go out of their way to denounce this. As this abuse goes on in completely Islamic communities the local religious leaders sanction it by their silence on the issue.
Ali in pointing this out (the beat up kid analogy) is not wrong it could hardly make the situation worse if Ali is wrong about Islam allowing this then let the local Islamic community declare her wrong. If a religion doesn’t denounce this then it is evil in that locality at least if not entirely.
Mondo You’re just making that up. You have no idea whether there is evidence for it or not.
as the ones claiming the suffering is worse, due to Ali, the onus of proof is on her critics (and as their defender you) to substantiate the claim. Also practically speaking it is difficult to prove a negative (that evidence doesn’t exist.)
Surely there is room enough for many voices.
Yes, including those of Ali’s critics. Finally, we all agree.
Buns there is indeed room for many voices when it comes to helping relieve the tyranny imposed in so many places by sharia law. Hirsi Ali’s critics should get on with their work of eliminating the oppression so prevalent in islamic countries and not spend their time condemning her.
Why do Ali’s attackers want to shut her up?
You know why they’re criticising her, you just think that their stated reasons are invalid (which, to be fair, may be the case).
Hirsi Ali’s critics should get on with their work of eliminating the oppression so prevalent in islamic countries and not spend their time condemning her.
Unless, of course, Hirsi Ali’s actions really are are making their jobs harder, in which case they’re perfectly entitled to criticise her.
But you are correct that if Ali’s critics are merely disguising a general reluctance to hear Islam criticised by dressing it up as a concern for subjugated women then, I tend to agree, they are cowards and scum.
My problem is I can’t tell which of the two alternatives is reality, and I’m not so confident in one perspective that I’m willing to condemn all who adhere to the other.