Standing In The Way Of Control

I expect the blogosphere (i.e. the bits of it that other people actually read) is awash with outrage that Islamist Abu Qatada cannot be deported form the UK to Jordan.

Certainly that is my gut reaction.  I despise what Qatada supposedly stands for - superstitious beliefs, enforced compliance with those beliefs on others, suppression of women, wearing silly clothes.  I'd prefer that he wasn't in my country.

However, Qatada is clearly being demonised to satisfy a national craving for hatred of 'the other'.  Reading the BBC's summary*, a slightly more balanced appraisal than you may find in most print media, Qatada:

"emerged as a key voice in the Islamist movement in London..." which, unless we want to restrict freedom of expression, is fine;

"... which advocated strict Islamic government in Muslim countries..." I have a problem with this, but again, freedom of speech;

"... and armed struggle against despots and foreign invaders."  Sounds like a terrorist, right?  But how would you describe the German or French resistance during World War II?

"He was tried and found guilty in his absence of terrorism offences in Jordan in 1999."  It would be nice to hear some details around this, but I think it is safe to assume that the Jordanian courts are capable of passing political judgements as opposed to ones based entirely on jurisprudence.

So lets have a think about this.  Qatada, as far as we can tell (and the British Government has not acted against him), has committed no crimes in the UK.  He undoubtedly has some unpleasant beliefs and (I assume) would like to impose his backward, medieval superstitions on the rest of us.  However, the only intelligent criminal objection we can raise against him is that the Jordanians want him.  And we'd trust their legal system as far as we can throw it (how would YOU feel about facing  a murder charge in Amman?)

Is outrage really the most appropriate response?  Haven't the European Court and, most recently, SIAC actually made the right decision in ruling that Qatada may not get a fair trial in Jordan and, by extension, should not be deported?

Isn't it possible to despise what Qatada stands for and still be proud that British (and European) justice has prevailed in this case?

Or shall we just be angry that the black man is still in our country?

* some may say that the BBC is a leftist propoganda machine that 'is racist against white people'.  Those people are morons.  I actually read that the other day - 'racist against white people'.  The writer appeared oblivious to the fact that the BBC is run by middle-aged, middle-class white men.  Those who accuse it of left-wing bias have apparently never read The Times, The Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express or The Sun.  Or watched Dragon's Den, or the multitude of other programmes on the Beeb that implicitly or explictly support the capitalist status quo.  I assume that, as sentient moral beings, John Humphreys and Jeremy Paxman have socially-liberal and economically-conservative leanings in their private lives, but to accuse them and their colleagues of left-wing bias in their professional lives is stupid and contrary to the mass of daily evidence.

... and what's more

Diane Abbott is in the news today (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16423278).

In a multi-tweet commencing quite reasonably (whether correctly or not) "ethnic communities that show more public solidarity & unity than black people do much better" she went on to say: "white people love playing 'divide & rule'. We should not play their game", highlighting "#tacticasoldascolonialism" as a relevant topic.

She's in trouble as you might expect, with at least one Tory MP saying Abbot has made a racist comment and should resign. A Tory would say that, wouldn't they, but on the other hand...

We can flip Abbott's comment, imagining it was a white person talking about black people. Would anyone doubt that would be a racist comment? Or how about "black people love playing the victim"? It's a racist generalisation, no question, so surely Aboott's comment is as well.

I think Abbott knows she is in trouble. She later tweeted: "Tweet taken out of context. Refers to nature of 19th Century European colonialism. Bit much to get into 140 characters."

But unfortunately for Abbott she originally said "love" and "their game", not "loved" and "the game of 19th century European colonialism". Despite the pitfalls of Twitter, it is hard to see how a comment intended to be exclusively about 19th century empire became "white people love". And even if it did (which seems highly unlikley), why would the past tense and a focus on certain aspects of Europe of the 19th century make it OK? "Black colonised people loved playing the victim." Is that OK?

Some of my best friends

So a woman caught on camera being vile and abusive and racist has been charged.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15933829

She may or may not be pissed, but she undoubtedly deserves to have the law come after her. I'd say what is more to the point is that she shouldn't be allowed to keep the toddler she is holding in her arms throughout the rant. You just know that child is going to grow up as a burden and a threat to society.

Just a thought though: what about the black woman that replies "if we don't come here, you guys don't want to work, we have to do the work for you (sic)"? She is absolutely delightful in comparison to the woman with the child, but isn't that response in itself racist? It isn't clear what she meant by "we" and "you", and perhaps she wasn't entirely certain herself, but she was definitely differentiating between different racial or cultural groups. You might argue that she was severely provoked, but do you think that she didn't believe, at least in part, what she said? And anyway, the law applies to act not thought.

I'm being a little glib. The black woman doesn't deserve to be punished; the white woman deserves to be... well, she deserves all the public humiliation that having 2 million people gawp at your stupidity on YouTube entails. But my point is that racism is pervasive and not the preserve of 'chav scum'. We all have a little of it in us. And the best way to combat it (as we should) is to acknowledge it every time we see it. Not pretend that some racism is OK.

BNP

Tricky things names. I bet the founders of Banque National de Paris never contemplated that their company acronym might one day be a homonym for a marginal but vocal English racist movement. And I bet the founders of Electricite de France never contemplated that their company might one day be a homonym for a marginal but vocal English racist movement. C'est la vie.

[Update 7/2/11 - I have pointed out to myself that EDF is not a homonym for the EDL. Shame.]

I just watched 'Tommy Robinson', leader of the EDL (the English Defence League, not the French power conglomorate) defending their cause. Scumbag, right? Well, maybe. But I think he made a decent hand of stating his case in a geezer'ish kind of way. He has obviously learned from the politicians and did a damn fine job of sticking to his points while largely ignoring Paxman's questions. So what are his points?


Well, most dubiously he claims to be concerned about elements of the (male) muslim community that are supposedly abusing young white girls - grooming them, raping them, pimping them. He's obviously riding on the crest of a tabloid wave, following the case of a group of men (who happened to be muslims) in Yorkshire found guilty of systematically abusing young girls. The fact is that it is probably no more of a problem amongst muslims than any other group, but 'Tommy' obviously appreciates the sentiment that it arouses and he did a great job of pointing out the differences between Paxman's sheltered middle class upbringing and the "reality" of living in deprived neighbourhoods with significant muslim populations.

But his second point, and the one that I have deep sympathy with, is his description of the Koran as (and I paraphrase) a wicked, violent, medieval work, which muslims are bound to believe in literally. Of course, this is all true, but Paxman was indignant. And this is my problem. The BBC, the media in general and all our institutions (legislature, judiciary, executive) all kowtow to nonsensical religious beliefs. Why are they so reluctant to speak the truth? Why not admit that the Koran (and the Bible) are nonsensical works of fiction, written for an entirely different historical epoch, and filled with the most vile, sexist, racist, homophobic, hatemongering shite. Incidentally, all things that are supposed to be outlawed these days.

[Update 2, 7/2/11 - a journalist in The Guardian made much the same point on 5/2/11, after I posted this. Obviously she doesn't read my blog, but I just wanted to stress that my post is not copied from her comments.]

While Paxman stressed that most muslims are law-abiding, upstanding members of the community, he failed to accept a deeper point. If those same muslims are true to their faith, then in fact it is their number one goal to convert all of us to Islam. The "Inams" (as Tommy called them) may disagree on the details (hmm, how's that considering the Koran is God's direct holy words and not subject to human interpretation?), but ultimately force is to be used if we resist. Atheists, be afraid, be very afraid. And not just of the white supremacists.