Libel: The New Jihad

Fergus Pickering

An attack on the divine Hazel? And none of you lefties red-blooded enoughto spring to her defence. Hazel further traduced by Benn and Livingstone? And still you do nothing? However, it has to be said, you Reds are always a bit creepy-crawly when faced with mad muslims. Youu'v got form, you know. Of course in the Muslim State we may be headed for Hazel wouldn't be able to cross her front doorstep without her father/husband/brother's say so in writing and in triplicate.

mike

Blears has claimed on numerous occasions that Abdullah advocated 'attacks on Jewish communities all around the world'. Abdullah denies this and it's why he sued.
.
If you're going to expect people to get outraged about ho awful it is that he should launch this libel suit, the least you could do is present it properly. Otherwise your omissions looks suspiciously like an attempt to stifle debate on the merits of the libel action (surely, if he does not support attacks on Jewish communities worldwise, he has a right to sue?) - but isn't the stifling of debate in this area what you're opposed to?

Sunder Katwala

Dear Martin,

You can find my views on this on the Fabian blog Next Left, where I published a short post Beware the libel boomerang yesterday.

While I share your general views about our absurd libel laws, this seems to me a good example of self-destruction by lawsuit: my guess is that Abdullah will not pursue it to court, but it depends on whether the motley crew of defenders contain enough people with the sense to see that.

(My own view is that it will help to get to the substance if all future engagement is not seen through the disagreement between myself and Nick, which I regard as closed, and which some of the other participants probably also feel risks being unnecessarily distracting and personalised if continued). I know you are a good friend to Nick, and am glad that we also remain friends.

Sunder

YouCannotBeSerious!

A letter-writing campaign to defend Blears - a good idea. Why don't you organise one instead of fulminating about the lack of one?

Also, you write that there are more important priorities for the left than attacking fellow members - again, I agree.

You might wish to make this observation to your mate Nick Cohen who started all this off with an attack on...fellow members of the left.

Logic and consistency anyone?

Jack R

Martin Bright,

I note the speed and alacrity with which you attempt to clarify the meaning, in your very first sentences, of the meaning of 'JIHAD'.

Bill Warner's site: 'political islam' is worth studying in this respect.

Here is an extract from one of his articles on 'jihad' (from 'front page magazine' 5th Feb. 2007):

"All of Western logic is based upon the law of contradiction—if two things contradict, then at least one of them is false. But Islamic logic is dualistic; two things can contradict each other and both are true.

"No dualistic system may be measured by one answer. This is the reason that the arguments about what constitutes the 'real' Islam go on and on and are never resolved. A single right answer does not exist.

"Dualistic systems can only be measured by statistics. It is futile to argue one side of the dualism is true. As an analogy, quantum mechanics always gives a statistical answer to all questions.

"For an example of using statistics, look at the question: what is the real jihad, the jihad of inner, spiritual struggle or the jihad of war? Let’s turn to Bukhari (the Hadith) for the answer, as he repeatedly speaks of jihad. In Bukhari 97% of the jihad references are about war and 3% are about the inner struggle. So the statistical answer is that jihad is 97% war and 3% inner struggle. Is jihad war? Yes—97%. Is jihad inner struggle? Yes—3%. So if you are writing an article, you can make a case for either. But in truth, almost every argument about Islam can be answered by: all of the above. Both sides of the duality are right."(Bill Warner,politicalislam.com).

Jon

Excellent stuff. Keep standing up for freedom and common sense!

libsoc

Didn't Martin's friends at Policy Exchange threaten to sue Newsnight over the dodgy receipts affair?

RW

"Of course in the Muslim State we may be headed for Hazel wouldn't be able to cross her front doorstep without her father/husband/brother's say so in writing and in triplicate."

You know Fergus, things to come may not be as bad as they seem. Maybe there's something in all this Islamic stuff after all.

Wouldn't Hazel have to wear a burqua? What a blessing to be free of all that mad TV enthusiasm. I suppose it would still be all there, but mercifully muffled.

Meanwhile poor Martin grows madder. "But aren't there better things for the left to do?" Indeed there are, Martin. What about just shutting up for a bit?

Dave

So where are the defenders of Blears? Time foe another letter perhaps,

Have you written one, Martin? Have you invited anyone to sign it? Or have you just mooted it on a blog piece which seems more like another backahnded attack on Sunder et al. This just ANOTHER attempt to smear those who took issue with Nick Cohen's lies as 'Islamism-appeasers'. There's nothing here to suggest that Bright is genuinely interested in 'saving' poor Hazel Blears (and she is a nasty piece of work in any case who has manufactured this 'outrage' to get people like Martin onside).

Praguetory

If a Labour MP made a similar libel threat to a constituent, would you run that as a story? (Hint, hint)

elixelx

Jack R.

A brilliant observation showing the HUGE DISCREPANCY in thought patterns between two cultures, two civilizations...!

"Answer NOT a fool according to his folly!" end of one chapter of Proverbs...

"Answer a fool according to his folly!" beginning of the very next chapter....

"There is NO CONTRADICTION HERE", said the Rabbis, "because we answer a foolish CHILD, but we do NOT answer a foolish man!"

NUANCE is vivifying!
NUANCE is lethal!
Viva Language!
Death to Language!

logdon

Anyone interested in how the lesser jihad (that's paradoxically the far bigger one as previously mentioned) is coralling in big buck funded legality should read Rachel Ehrenfeld's Funding Evil.As one commentator put it, when there are unlimited pots of money sloshing around behind you any fanciful lawsuit is possible. Add into this the imbalance of pc and the walking on glass sensitivities of cultural relativity and you're left with a toxic stew of the tangible fact of money talking with the dogma ridden self loathing attitudes of deluded western so called liberals.
That's the hard logic of the mind and altruistic yearning of the soul nicely covered. Where it comes apart for the islamists is the sheer violence, both physical and verbal they employ to further antedeluvian aims we clearly do not want or even respect in these islands. Blears is now belatedly throwing down the gauntlet to the MCB who are, let's face it, caught bang to rights on this latest bit of treachery. Daud Abdullah did sign the document. The document did call for muslims to attack warships patroling off Gaza (in 'muslim waters'). The Royal Navy does have warships in those waters so how can the MCB deny the allegation? Their defences always hinge on Koranic decrees of islamic precedence and superiority as if a given.

It isn't, we in Britain do not collectively bow to Mohammed and neither should our government. Try http://iaindale.blogspot.com/ for a bit of insight into what is afoot.

Conor

Could you explain your moderating policy Martin? I don't understand the basis on which have refused to post my last comment.

Honda Bob

Hazel Blears can have my support. And I'll happily sign a letter, or send a letter of my own. I think she'd be quite chuffed getting a letter from a guy like me. But seriously, she has my continuing support.

Dave

Wow Fergus, I'm astonished that's been allowed on but at least it shows what kind of creep Bright is attacting to his blog. What's left indeed.

as said up there, Blears has not merely accused Abdullah of the 'attacks on ships in Gazan waters' thing, she's also accused him of supporting attacks on Jewish communities worldwide. The interpretation of Istanbul that's needed for this is rather more stretched and, ahem, 'individual' than the warships one. Which is why Martin et al aren't mentioning it.

Dave Weeden

The letter to the Observer was written to the Observer, because that's where the Nick Cohen articles appeared. Which paper is responsible for the libel suit and to which paper should any campaign be addressed? As pointed out above, if you have answers to these, start your own campaign rather than whinging.

Hazel Blears has a law degree. She's surrounded by lawyers in Parliament and as a Minister is bound to be represented by a QC in court (if it comes to that). Why do you think she even needs defended? If Blears is remotely competent, she's safe. If she loses, she didn't deserve to be a minister. You seem to think she might lose. If I were her, I'd avoid having friends like you.

Sunder Katwala

I appreciate Dave's support. It is also very helpful of Fergus Pickering to demonstrate so clearly what an idiot he is.

Of course, forty years ago, the name Fergus (Gaelic, 'Man of force') might itself have been subject to similar unthinking prejudice.

It will not just be Martin as the house leftie but the vast majority of his Spectator colleagues (and, I would hope, readers) who would find that attitude reprehensible.

Fergus Pickering

As for you, Dave, and you, Sunder, I don't know either of you. And let we assure you both that my prejudice is far from unthinking. None of my friends are called Wayne or Kimberley either. And up in Scotland Fergus is a common name. Prejudice against Scots in England seems to me quite justified, though I have never come across it with regard to me personally Oh, and before you play the racist card, it doesn't work with me. Nearly everybody prefers the sorts of people they know best. Younger people (perhaps you are younger) deny it hotly, but they lie in their teeth.

Ronnie

Fergus, for God's sake put the shovel down. You are starting to seem like a half-wit.

While I'm here, defend hazel Blears? I'm sorry, I don't understand...

Martin Bright

I agree with my friend Sunder that Fergus Pickering's comments are shocking but let's be charitable and hope that they are illustrative of his limited experience rather than something more unpleasant.

Nairn

Fergus sings his blues.

Pete Hoskin

Fergus Pickering: your second comment has been taken down. It should never have gone up in the first place. Apologies to Sunder.

Sunder Katwala

Martin, Pete

I appreciate the swift responsiveness to my comment, especially on an Easter weekend. I might have myself - on a blog like Next Left at the Fabians - have left Fergus' comment up there looking silly once I had challenged it, but I can fully understand why The Spectator feels its reputation or policy means it is better removed in case doing otherwise would infer the attitude was confined.

This confirms my view that the mainstream centre-right does also now reject such views expressed in that way (for those unable to see it - that somebody's name can be used as a good way to gauge the value of their opinions) as unthinking prejudice. For me, clarity about that has been a welcome feature of David Cameron's leadership of the Conservative Party, which I respect, while I remain a political opponent of his.

I don't know how much younger than Fergus I am. I am 35. But he raises the question of who we know best. I have the advantage of being somewhat unable to confine myself to members of the Anglo-Indian-Irish diaspora (my mother is from Cork) if I want to interact with people outside my immediate family. Suffice it to say that the prejudice you express (thinking, in your view, and unthinking in mine) will make it very difficult to offer the support and solidarity to liberal Muslims which Mr Bright, myself and others advocate, even where we might disagree about how that is best done. I think your view does come very close to lapsing into the idea that one can not be Muslim and British (just as it was the majority belief that one could not be Catholic and British). If people called Sunder automatically fall under suspicion by virtue of that name then as a lapsed Catholc agnostic I am pleased to have that as a badge of solidarity with a 14-year old British child called Mohammed.

Sunder Katwala

As somebody who would like to remain British, I don't share Fergus' views that prejudice against Scots in England is justified. Could we not prefer rational judgment to pre-judgment, or am I hopelessly pushing futile Enlightenment values in advocating that, against the call of blood and soil affinities with kith and kin even against those who have been fellow citizens for some 300 years past?

Fergus Pickering

It was a majority belief that one could not be a Catholic and British for a very good reason. Catholics were Jacobites and toasted the King over the water, which made them traitors to the state. I think my remarks have been taken as rather more extensive than they were. Of course everybody prefers what they know. As it happens I was born in India, my wife's mother came from Cork, her great uncle was murdered by the Black and Tans and my mother came from the Edinburgh of Miss Jean Brodie. Good God, I'm almost cosmopolitan. I was (very well educated in Scottish schools where I observed that the vulgar Scots prejudice against the English is most marked. The English, on the other hand, are quite easy going about the Scots and about most national and racial groups, though Brown and his cronies have eroded that somewhat in the last few years.