Comments on: Libel! Daud Abdullah v Hazel Blears

By: abs

abs — Sat, 02 May 2009 14:34:29 +0000

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha zionists

By: xyzzy

xyzzy — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 06:20:20 +0000

Lets get straight to the point. She is demanding that an independently elected offical be sacked. This would set a dangerous precedent for other cases. Could we see the same treatment of another from another faith? I very much doubt it. I wonder what Mrs Blears response will be to the new racist and fascist Avigdnor Liberman?

A masterpiece of poor flaming. It features whataboutery (Liberman),. It features missingthepointery (it wouldn’t matter had Abdullah been elected by a OMOV supervised by the ERA — the government is perfectly entitled to decided which organisations it talks to and upon what conditions), it features nothearingwhatsheissayingery (Blears isn’t demanding his sacking; she’s presenting the MCB with a three way choice that he recants or resigns, or the government won’t talk to them any more), it features youreouttogetusmuslimsery (I think it unlikely that any church would profit overmuch from calling for attacks on British troops).

By: Alan Ji

Alan Ji — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:53:59 +0000

When a big man attempts to intimidate a little woman, my usual advice is “bend over suddenly, and head-butt him in the balls.

I don’t think Hazel Blears does “intimidated”.

By: keys

keys — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:02:50 +0000

Lets get straight to the point. She is demanding that an independently elected offical be sacked. This would set a dangerous precedent for other cases. Could we see the same treatment of another from another faith? I very much doubt it. I wonder what Mrs Blears response will be to the new racist and fascist Avigdnor Liberman?

By: MITNAGED

MITNAGED — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 21:40:01 +0000

Oh dear. I can’t decide whether this is a reaction to narcissistic injury or attention seeking. We certainly have all the hall marks – exaggerated sense of entitlement, grandiose overinflated sense of worth, etc.

Does anyone else think it strange that such a creature (whose lot would, presumably, dispense with all our laws it got the power it thinks it deserves) is so quick to turn to them?

How does this tie in with Abdullah’s more peaceable and affable (and obviously al-takeyya) presentation when he recanted of his Jew- and other hatred?

I still fail to see how Blears libelled him (although I know that this cannot be explained in detail here). It seems to me that everything she published was fair comment.

I suspect that Cesspit is Free will flog this to death but in order to give Abdullah the proverbial kick in the nuts he so roundly deserves, I vote we either laugh at it or ignore it from now on.

By: Billy Cohen

Billy Cohen — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 17:14:48 +0000

Isnt the one-man Bajwa the same lawyer who had JCom jewish radio station shut down after a Galloway libel victory? And also involved in suing the Policy Exchange hate tank?

This case could be fun.

By: Niels C

Niels C — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 12:27:15 +0000

Mehere -
If you look around you will find a lot of conotation’s to the concept of ‘Islamic Nation’, Bin Laden is using it a lot.
It’s one of the basic concept in the radical sunny islamist discourse.
It’s often used with slogans like keep ‘western forces and values’ out of the Islamic Nation.
Now the concept ‘Islamic Waters’ is new one, but a natural extension.
The problem is that the Istanbul Declaration shares concepts with Bin Laden, because it blurs the distinction between theorist and radical islam, but of course the authors know that, they use ambiguity deliberately.

By: Someone

Someone — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 11:42:11 +0000

“the weighty pronouncement in section 8, in fact, is nothing more than a wank-fest of self delight and mutual jerking off?”

I would say that this is exactly what it is, even if they DO believe in the existence of this mythical “nation” (which clearly they do, when they are overseas, however vociferously they deny this in the UK, as was pointed out above.

“a letter in the Guardian last week, signed by figures including Ken Livingstone and Tony Benn, urged the government to “end its attack on Dr Abdullah and reinstate its relations with the MCB”.”

Yes, but figures of what? I’d say figures of stupidity, hypocrisy and racism.

As to it being a “mistranslation”: damn, I was just going to suggest that.

By: mehere

mehere — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 11:09:22 +0000

So, if this Islamic Nation does not exist and therefore has no substance in sovereignty, then the weighty pronouncement in section 8, in fact, is nothing more than a wank-fest of self delight and mutual jerking off?

I am no lawyer (obviously) but am I right in this careful interpretation of these noisy kiddie’s jolly day out?

By: Jack R

Jack R — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:38:24 +0000

Dedicated to Hazel Blears?!:

‘Chicago’ – We both reached for the gun’.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBM82Ju2kJU&feature=related