Stand up for Jim Fitzpatrick

Richard

I will defend happily his right to walk out. However was Mr Fitzpatrick responsible for the wide attention brought to this event? If so that is incredibly rude, after he had been invited to attend. If not I am curious as to who was.

Jeremy

Martin,

I think it's time you wrote a blog entry entitled: Why Daniel Hannan's Trashing Of The NHS On American Television Could Cost The Tories Votes At The Next General Election.

As they do not seem to understand the "why" for themselves, they clearly need to be told.

Edward McLaughlin

Richard.

Well, if there is such a thing as a pyrrhic defence, then surely yours is it.

He had every right to insist that HIS cultural norm of being able to sit with his wife at a public event, be upheld.

Should he have declined the invitation in anticipation of this possible clash? No.

Had he done so, then yet another instance of the imposition of an alien culture on our own, would -as does so much else in this vein - have gone unreported.

Trumpeter Lanfried

Telling Jim Fitzpatrick's wife that she could not sit with him was grossly discourteous.

He was right to walk out and right to draw attention to the way his wife had been treated.

The MCB represents no one but its own self-appointed, self-important spokesmen.

It reminds me of the old Lord's Day Observance Society whose views were widely reported in the 1950s and early 1960s. The Society actually comprised a single individual,'Misery Martin' who had an office in Fleet Street and was always available for a quote when lazy journalists were looking for 'controversy'.

antifrank

You do not disrupt someone else's wedding. It is that straightforward.

Derek

antifrank. All very gracious - but not straightforward = the Book of Common Prayer 1662, for example, invites disruption where there is a good reason when it provides as follows: "Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace".

Fergus Pickering

No I won't. He's a prat.

antifrank

Derek - I accept that if just cause can be shown why a couple should not get married, it is right to speak out. Since this was nothing like that sort of case and was just Mr Fitzpatrick choosing to parade his conscience and damn the consequences of ruining other people's big day, I'll stand by my earlier comment.

JohnAnt

I'm all for not giving way in puclic matters to the MCB, I'm directly opposed to any whiff of sharia being implemented anywhere in any guise. But I thought Fitzpatrick's protest ludicrous and shallow. There are many cultures - not only in Islam - where the sexes remain separate on private social occasions. This is not the personal deprivation of rights Fitzpatrick made it out to be. And certainly not as a one-off. he could have done what many of us have to do when forced to be in the same room as an MP - grin and bear it.

Molotov

God forbid that their spokesmen should always be men. I personally need no more proof of their villainy.

Steve.W

Stand up for Jim Fitzpatrick? Indeed I do, as do countless others. However, don't forget the saying 'charity begins at home'. Because before reaching out to right wrongs it might be better to look inward to how the Spectator has got all huffy about Yale University Press (Coffee House, James Forsyth 'Cartoon cowardice') and made itself look foolish.

Dixon

The whole thing, marriage and the rest was obviously a blasted great set-up. If had gone they would have won ( kuffar kow-towing to Muslim mores: dhimmitude emodied ) and as he hasnt theyve also won ( ooh, terrible offended we are, he, he, he ). He couldnt win either way.

I went to a lot of weddings as a kid and one time did my best to subtly wreck proceedings. Picture Damien being taken to church in The Omen and you have an idea as to how The House of God affected me. Cross that with the band-stand scene in Tin Drum and you get the picture. Thank God I wasnt born Muslim

Judy

The use of the word “segregated” is anyway a profoundly loaded politicised term, given that it is overwhelmingly associated with the former practices of the segregationist political parties and states of the USA. It implies legal political imposition.

I think the most helpful and insightful thinking on this subject is David T’s comment on this thread on Harry's Place on the fact that any wedding is centrally all about the bride and groom (and, in the case of Jewish, Hindu and Moslem weddings) is also about the union of their families — not as in English parlance, the establishment of an “in law” relationship, with its associated routine assumed contempt and antagonism around the resulting relationship between the bride’s mother and the bridegroom.

It’s certainly not about the narcissism and parading of guests’ consciences.

As an Orthodox Jew, I do take the trouble to find out about the expectations of guests of any wedding or similar religious celebration I’m invited to, and make my decisions and arrangements accordingly.

I think it’s somewhat arrogant of Fitzpatrick to assume that unless he’s explicitly informed to the contrary, everything in the arrangements for a celebration of cultures and religions other than his own should be just as he expects and as conforms to his previous experience.

Presumably he’d make the same sort of crass decisions and comments if he got invited to a Chassidic wedding after previous experiences of attending only Reform or mainstream Orthodox Jewish weddings.

The worst aspect of this is that Fitzpatrick spoke out with his authority as an MP representing his constituents. He chose to state that the family’s practices were based on responding to political pressure from extreme Islamist groups. Outrageous. How could he possibly have known what their reasons for their arrangements were?

He’s an MP representing an area with a very wide range of Muslim constituents. I hope that come election time, they remember his insensitivity and political grandstanding of a family celebration within a religion of which he seems to have rather limited knowledge and about which he seems very ready to jump to conclusions which suggest that the celebrants were brainwashed/cowed dupes.

Unfortunately, it could well be that with this intervention, he’s potentially helped Galloway and his crew to get another seat in the next Parliament.

Richard

Edward McLaughlin

It was not Mr Fitzpatrick's wedding. What right did he have to complain in the news media of the terms under which the invitation to him was extended?

Steve W

It is you that looks foolish, and indeed arrogant, for claiming that the Spectator is foolish simply by your assertion. You failed utterly to advance any rational argument for your assertion.

Richard

JohnAnt

"There are many cultures - not only in Islam - where the sexes remain separate on private social occasions"

Indeed, such as the British culture. Mr Fitzpatrick might not have been in a gentlemen's club, and probably not to a Women's Institute meeting, but they can hardly be thought of as un-British!

That's News

He didn't need to tell anyone, He and his wife could have gone home and perhaps raised their concerns with the Mosque later. Did Jim want the publicity?

LondonStatto

A significant swing from Labour to Galloway could, of course, let the Tories through the middle.

East ender

This just shows the danger of attending teh wedding of peole you dont actually know.

Fitz has certainly spoken up against this. However, he keeps very very quiet about the IFE cabal that runs Tower Hamlets Council through the Labour Group.

In late April, four of them, Cllrs Lutfur Rahman, Ohid Ahmed, Muhammed Salique and Rofique Ahmed, went to Saudi Arabia, accompanied by an IFE official. When they returned they removed the council's Chief Executive. Incidentally, this trip took place during the European election campaign.

Fitzpatrick has not said a word about this and slips and slides toconstituents when they raise it with him.

Last Saturday he was out campaigning with a group of IFE councillors and wannabees.

This outburst is a ruse to protect the IFE council cabal within the bitterly divided Labour Group.

Steve.W

Richard – Plenty of rational argument from me and others to indicate why James Forsyth over on Coffee House 'Cartoon cowardice') got it wrong and made the Spectator look foolish.

Ian C

An interesting dilemma. God forbid that Galloway should benefit.

Fitzpatrick could have refused the invitation, feining other priorities (what I would have done, I think); he could have accepted but excused his wife as unable to attend (what I would have done if I had to be there for whatever reason). But to offend the Bride & Groom having accepted is going a bit far. Which suggests he was ignorant of the segregation that was to occur.

In which case he was caught out and looks pretty stupid. And he's handed an opening to the most appalling of men.

To me the segregation should not be allowed - it is a classic case of the immigrant community not adapting to their host country culture. But that is difficult to legislate for.

Richard

Steve W

If you are confidant of those arguments then why do you make no reference to them?

Richard

Ah, Steve, now I have found your comments. They entirely misunderstand the article (as do many others, the article was slightly ambiguous), and argue against it while being in agreement!

The article says that the cartoons should have been published in the book, despite having in themselves no editorial merit. The strong implication (although admittedly not explicitly stated) is that Mr Forsyth believes the cartoons had no merit in their original context, but in the context of the book they not only had merit but were essential to the overall editorial merits of the book.

I must say that I disagree with him; some of the cartoons had little merit in themselves but were an expression of freedom, a couple were amusing and one or two sharply satirical, especially in hindsight. However his opinion is far from foolish.

Richard

Ian C

"...a classic case of the immigrant community not adapting to their host country culture"

The host country's culture is for tolerance in private affairs. It also has a tradition in some social settings of segregation of the sexes. Not weddings to be sure, but it is hardly as if the natives of the host land keep closely to wedding traditions, such as only having one, nowadays.

Edward McLaughlin

Richard.

Do us a favour: define the 'natives of the host land' you refer to in your Aug 17 12:48pm

Dixon

My word the humbug is so thick in the air here you can cut it with a knife. All this ingenuous sixth-form clap-trap about respect for other cultures and related twaddle. Quite plainly the man objected to being expected to play along with ...yes, the mores of a culture that has misogyny written through it like "Blackpool" in a stick of rock. Christianity ( vis St Paul: "Woman is a temple built over a sewer" ), Judaism ( as a Jewish commenter herself here admits in evidence ) and Islam are all deeply misogynistic, but the former two have been forced reluctantly through years of campaigning to ease their oppression whilst its the late comer of the three that really takes the biscuit. To expect a member of our legislature to observe their bigoted practices on British soil is utterly disgusting. To witness a bunch of pretentious farts and buffoons trying to defend it is even worse, it makes me feel nauseous.

Richard

Edward

Errrrmmmmm, the natural-born British. They'd be the ones. Britain being the host land, and native meaning (more or less) natural-born.

steve

segregating the genders is common practice at muslim weddings, not just 'extremist' ones. He'd have known a long way in advance about this and could have simply declined the invitation. would he also decline the invitation to a jewish wedding considering sexes are segregated at synagogues?

it's an utterly bizarre thing to be trying to make a political point out of.

This is distasteful political spin masquerading as 'a principled stand'. But Martin is all-too ready to accept this kind of transparent politcking.

blueharry

How pathetic. Some years ago I went to the Orthodox jewish wedding of friends on mine. My girlfriend and I were segregated. Should I have walked out and gone to the press like Fitzpatrick?

steve

Martin Bright also appears to have bought into the idea (Private Eye have sadly done the same) that if the MCB opposes something, they must be wrong. This is nothing to do with Islamism and if the MP's worried about that he should address it outside of a friend's wedding, because the wedding is an entirely private matter.

The fact is that this was a distasteful, attention-seeking PR stunt. The MP says:

This is a very exceptional occasion, it's a new occurrence

it really is not. And it's not a hardline Muslim position to take, either. Naked political showboating like the Hazel Blears MCB stuff.

Ian C

Richard
August 17th, 2009 12:48pm

Over 1000 weddings each year happen in my home county (Cornwall) that are arranged from outside. The local paper is full of local weddings, in addition. There is a 'host-country' culture still alive even if it is not practiced by all hosts.

Tom Rapp

Disregarding the perceived rights or wrongs of the matter, one wonders why Mr Fitzpatrick didn't take it upon himself to investigate the protocol of such an event before he accepted the invitation. I should have thought he would be very well aware of seating arrangements at a strictly religious wedding. He acted with a bigotry entirely equal to that which he found so offensive.

Linda

Dixon, I am also an Orthodox Jew. My son was married recently and we also had men and women seated separately. Those non-Jews who were invited were advised that seating would be thus. Why should anyone change their religious beliefs at a private event for people like you? Go or don't go, that's your prerogative. Surely, the point is that Mr Fitzpatrick should and would have known about the traditions of his hosts. It beggars belief that he would so wantonly use such a special day to jump on his soap box and humiliate these people.

Frank B

Dixon, you paint the picture of yourself as a pathetic nuisance. Why on earth, having paraded your hatred of religion so brazenly, would you expect anyone to care about your views on this subject.

logdon

"The condemnatory words of the Muslim Council of Britain are entirely predicatble. The ceremony was held at the London Muslim Centre, which is attached to East London mosque, the stronghold of the extreme right Jamaat-i-Islami movement in Britain. The MCB's spokesmen (for they are always men) have been the long-standing apologists for this south Asian Islamist organisation in Britain.

As an east London MP, Fitzpatrick knows more than more about the pernicious influence of segregationism in the area. It was very interesting that he mentioned the worrying growth in influence of Islamic Forum Europe, a group with close links to Jamaat and its middle-eastern parent organisation the Muslim Brotherhood."

I'm with Martin on the substance of this post, merely because of this section of the piece.

I say substance because as with all things Labour, this has been catastrophically handled and Fitzpatrick in contacting the media has made it even worse.

The MB is point man in Europe and the US for the insidious fingers of Islam and their open goal is a global caliphate.

I've attached a url for a piece just in from Rotterdam, where Tariq Ramadam, grandson of MB founder, Hassan al-Bannah has just been fired.

This is the link to the Rotterdam story. For the ultra PC Netherlands to do something like this is quite astounding

http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2332245.ece/Rotterdam_fires_Tariq_Ramadan_over_Iranian_TV_show

His arrogance knows no bounds and the confidence in which he's telling Rotterdam Council what they can and cannot do is highly indicative of the supremacy of Islam mindset inculcated into males from birth.

Abdul Bari is imam of the East London Mosque and also MCB Secretary.

Anyone in any doubt about the MCB and it's affiliates should try this.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2515587181120245843&hl=en

Or, this Today interview with John Ware, who produced the definitive expose of the then General Sec., Iqbal Sacranie and the modus operadi of his MCB.

See how Inayat Bunglawala tries the wriggling act on suicide killing. Thankfully to no avail.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4681857.stm

And the transcript of Ware’s, A Question of Leadership.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/4171950.stm

In this you'll also see moderate, Haj Targey’s view which tells it’s own tale of the cuckoo-like existence of many muslims in Britain. One story in the mosque, a complete volte face when dealing with the kuffar.

Plenty of links here. I say no more but would urge the doubters to try them all.

logdon

Haj Targey - forgive my spoonerism. It's Taj Hargey.

And here's a litte snapshot. Not quite how the East London Mosque would have it?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-imam-who-took-on-the-muslim-mccarthyists-1666126.html

Dr Hargey, a clean-shaven imam from Oxford who describes himself as a "thorn in the side of the Muslim hierarchy", had just won a libel claim against a conservative Muslim newspaper that claimed he belonged to a sect which many in his faith believe is heretical. A South African anti-apartheid campaigner who has lived in Britain on and off for the past three decades, Dr Hargey has made many enemies because of his liberal brand of Islam which he preaches from a small assembly hall.

Unlike most British imams who insist on segregation during Friday prayers, Dr Hargey allows men and women to pray in the same room. He believes Muslims should not feel compelled to grow beards or wear a veil and last November his mosque became the first in Britain to allow a female Islamic scholar to lead Friday prayers.

Madam Miaow

Jim Fitzpatrick didn't know that Muslim weddings are likely to have some form of gender segregation? Can an MP really be that ignorant of the customs of his own constituents?

Or did he seek a confrontation to make a point? Very publicly.

riazmb

I suppose this buffoon was expecting to be handed a pint as he walked in too

Martin

Mr F. must have known that these people refuse to integrate as an article of faith (literally)

Anyone remotely Left/Liberal shuld have nothing to do with Hitler's favourite religion

logdon

Thin end of the wedge?

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/08/britain-becomes-no-go-zone.html#readfurther

logdon

"riazmb
August 19th, 2009 12:09pm

I suppose this buffoon was expecting to be handed a pint as he walked in?"

Obviously that wouldn't do at all.

Muslim model becomes first woman in Malaysia to be caned after being caught drinking a beer

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1207643/Muslim-model-woman-Malaysia-caned-caught-drinking-beer.html#ixzz0OhaKWdEr

The Laughing Cavalier

The trouble with yuo lefties is that, for the most part, you were badly brought up by parents who disdained good manners as bourgeoise and so you have none. Fitzpatrick was ill-mannered and that is all there is to it.

logdon

Muslims up in arms about this 'outrage'?

What's new? There's always one, isn't there?

Meanwhile in reality land...this? Where are the moderates? Where are the MCB on this?

Hello? - I'm still waiting.

Nope, stony silence.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/027288.php
August 19, 2009
U.K.: "Islamic Awakening" website cheers British casualties in Afghanistan

A government spokeswoman said: "The role of the internet in radicalisation is an area of concern." The role of canonical Islamic texts... not so much.

"Sick fanatics cheer body bags," by Padraic Flanagan and John Ingham for the Daily Express, August 19 (thanks to Sr Soph):

British Muslim fanatics sparked fresh fury last night by praising Taliban “heroes” for sending our troops back from Afghanistan in body bags.

Dozens of homegrown “jihadis” have posted website messages cheering last weekend’s carnage in Helmand province that saw Britain’s death toll rise to 204 soldiers.