Harry's Place

Does this mean you are prepared to sue? I certainly think you should. This sort of defamation shouldn’t be allowed to stand.

But isn’t her point right?

This is a blog, nominally of the Left, which allows racists to vent their spleens in such huge numbers that it’s impossible to challenge them all. You say you have an open comments policy but I’m sure everyone has at some point had a comment deleted for some reason, so the idea that there is no moderation is nonsense. Surely when the opinions and thinking of the writers here start chiming with racists, creating a space where they feel comfortable chatting shit, then you start reconsidering your motivations and writings.

Or is it different when it’s the Trots?

Completely tangential, but it’s ironic that you finger the left as ‘enablers’ of islamic extremists, but not the neoconservatives who took out Iraqi civil society so completely.

Just ignore her, it only makes her feel more important than she is. I love the fake working class accent.

You might as well criticise MPACuk, which also allows comments which display a level of anti-Muslim bigotry, for being an anti Muslim hate site.

Look, you can validly criticise a high budget organisation like the Guardian and Indie, who employ full time comments moderators, and claim to moderate comments, for allowing bigoted comments to be displayed. Were we even to want to institute a generally policed policy of removing views we found distasteful – which we don’t – we would require full time staff. We don’t have those resources.

But that’s not my point here. My point is this. The editorial position of this site is to oppose the French burqa ban. We also oppose anti-Muslim bigotry. On those two points, German has lied about us.

So I expect an apology.

I’d take it as a complement.

It’s funny because, when I heard about this Sarkozy story mentioned on SU, i remarked that people love to exploit this issue on both sides to suit their political agendas so its a waste of time talking about it. The comment was removed and then minutes later up popped an advert for this “defend Muslims” demo, which, as you can see, is an opportunity to peddle a lot propaganda drivel.

Let her spout her lies. Anyone worth their salt can come here and make up there own minds. Blog on young David T blog on.

Not there, but their, silly me.

‘But isn’t her point right?’

Hi Gary, which of her points are you talking about?

- That people who oppose fundamentalists are racists?

- The biggest perpetrators of racism in Britain are the police force and the education system?

- That Hazel Blears bullies muslims?

- Or that integration leads to genocide?

Please clarify.

“Surely when the opinions and thinking of the writers here start chiming with racists”

Garry, the point is that in the case in question the opinions of the writers of this blog did not chime with the allegedly racist views of the commenter. Luckily you benefit from a liberal comments policy or you would have to be deleted for dimness.

garry day

there was a twat from Hong Kong who was allowed to post offensive crap here for over two years before he was ‘moderated’.

anyone who knows this blog knows that the moderation policy is liberal to barely existent.

Ive never had a comment deleted

Nor are there ‘huge numbers’ of racists here

I guess what Im trying to say is that your comments were a pile of dishonest and misleading crap.

I know it was merely an attempt to distract from the actual points made in the post…and by responding I only encourage you…but frankly if people post dishonest and misleading points on these threads its only fair to point it out. Lest anyone visiting for the first time (who like you apparently doesn’t know this blog too well) thinks you have made a valid (and honest) point.

Next…

MattG

Sorry, meant to say – ‘People who oppose RACIST fundamentalists and suicide bombers are racist’.

When she says Muslims she means Islamists. What she is against is Islamistaphobia. Merging this with despicable anti-Muslim racism, which is often found on the comments threads here, is thus a way of using anti-racism to protect racists: that’s how low the STWC has sunk. Having slandered Iranians, Iraqis and Lebanese who fighting for democracy, however, why shouldn’t she slander you?

‘disgusting kind of blog which is very very much against Muslims’

Will over at DSTPW says the same thing about HP, unfortunately.

Will is a cretin who can’t tell the difference between posts and comments. There’s nothing that can be done about that. But Lindsey German knows what she’s saying.

Sue the bitch, David.

Everybody knows in the UK that banning the burka would be unfeasable and counterproductive, but there is a consensus for a couple of years now that we should show disaproval to the concept of it, just as we should show disproval to teenage girls behaving like sluts or hoodie boys. Just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean we have to accept the concept of what you are doing, and the concept of the burka is not something even most Muslims would accept. It’s common sense to everyone apart from a few nutters on the far left; there is nothing more to be said on that really.

Everybody is entitled to opt out of society if they wish, but society doesn’t have to say whoopydo about it.

The editorial position of this site is to oppose the French burqa ban

When challenged over Gene’s backing for the 2002 Venezuelan coup, you told me that this site didn’t have an editorial position and was just a collection of individual bloggers. Which, as you have now demonstrated, is bollocks.

You therefore should have no problem with me denouncing the HP editorial position of support for fascist coups.

Zin, are you still breathing? I had assumed that you had blown yourself out, so to speak. I think that the phrase was meant in the sense of ‘the position of the editorialists on this site’. I hope that lowers your blood pressure a bit.

The woman in this video weaves some reasonable, defensible points into a world view that is a bit cockeyed.

I couldn’t help noticing that she fudged some points. For instance, there’s her claim that anti-Islamic views in British society are expressions of nothing but racism, as if no there were no genuine provocations on the part of Muslims there. Any racism or cultural contempt expressed by the Muslims is explained away as a reaction to US and British foreign policy. Partly true, but that’s not the half of it.

I think that our military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq were disasters, and foreseeable disasters at that, but she presents a simplistic view of things. To her, the “War on Terror” is an artifice, nothing more. The Arabs are innocent, and the Muslim world as a whole is entirely innocent, or nearly so. They’re really just reacting to the US and Britain, sometimes using bad means, but essentially just reacting, and with good cause.

I also noticed that she fudged a point about racism towards non-ethnically-British groups in society, implying that ALL groups suffer tremendous discrimination and hostility. But is that true? What about the Hindu Indians, or the East Asians? I understand that they’re doing quite well in Britain, and excite little hostility among the general public there. Pakistanis are over-represented in Britain’s prisons; non-Muslim Indians and Chinese are not.

Another point she makes is that Muslims suffer the worst antipathy in British society. It’s true that they command the most attention. In terms of actual hate crimes, however, the Jewish community suffers more, I believe even in absolute numbers. Of course, many of these bias crimes are done by Muslims, so they’d be explained away by the issue of Palestine.

One last point: Her perception that people of her political ilk are the underrepresented in the media. That is way, way off. I think that the British media may be more restrained in its tone, but the locus of opinion in Britain seems to be anti-Israel. I think anyone who is pro-Zionist, especially pro-Zionist in principle, is in the distinct minority.

But it’s all relative. To the woman in this video, the media are apparently not pro-Muslim *enough*, not anti-Israeli enough. And so, she imagines herself and those like her to be alone. She is definitely at the left end of the spectrum, but she is not isolated. Rather, she’s at the far-left end of a continuum of majority opinion in Britain that stretches to the center, but that in varying degrees shares her opinions.

there was a twat from Hong Kong who was allowed to post offensive crap here for over two years before he was ‘moderated’.

“over two years”!!!!!! Nearer five years would be more accurate, I think.

What I don’t get about Lindsay German is that she is as thick as pig-shit and why anyone would let her near anywhere near a campaign they supported is beyond comprehension. Her sentences are complete gibberish. She makes John Prescott look like Dr Johnson.

“you told me that this site didn’t have an editorial position and was just a collection of individual bloggers. Which, as you have now demonstrated, is bollocks.”

Zin, it is only the de facto editorial position in that it represents what the site editors wrote and argued independently. which happened to concur. There was no pre-discusion or pre-agreement. It was the position taken by the editors, independently, not as a collective. But I suppose such nuance is of little interest to you.

You could try here, David.

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/lindsey

I fail to understand why you would have an editorial position on the burqa – even more so why it would be against the French ban. The Burqa is a degrading manifestation of the culture of honour and shame that so blights women’s existence through large swathes of the Middle East. Do you have a similar position of female circumcision? Would you oppose a ban on female circumcision on the same grounds?

You could always send her a snail mail…

‘Stop the War Coalition’, they should be done under the trade descriptions act. Rather on the other side coalition.

The fact that we don’t routinely delete Zin’s repeated lies about my position on the 2002 Venezuelan coup is another indication of how tolerant we are about comments.

“… This is a blog, nominally of the Left, which allows racists to vent their spleens in such huge numbers that it’s impossible to challenge them all…

No.

You’re confusing Harry’s Place with Comment is Free; an unforgiveable sin but you’re not from around here, are you? Stick around. You may learn something.

Zin, it is only the de facto editorial position in that it represents what the site editors wrote and argued independently. which happened to concur ~ Brett

Are you a lawyer too?

Your co-editor Gene consistently backed a bunch of Latin American coupsters on your democracy-promoting decent left wing website. And the rest of you pure-as-the-driven-snow decents either muttered in agreement or stayed silent. So cut the crap, it’s your editorial line.

If you want, as I think she does, to have a set of magic words which can be invoked to close down debate, then this site is a perfect target. And if that isn’t a backhanded compliment to the team here at HP, I don’t know what is.

On that thread, the whole issue was fairly comprehensively analysed in the comments, from all directions. That’s what makes folk like me come back to this site so regularly- you get insights here. Stuff that challenges your status quo. It helps to crystalise your point of view. Even if it doesn’t change your mind, it helps you to connect with the basic principles that gave rise to your outlook.

In my case, it made me more aware that our society is very much predicated on the normal civil interactions and discourse between people. If the rule of law is our bedrock, mutual confidence is our national topsoil, without which we would starve in our sovereign wilderness. We don’t trust people, if we can’t even see them.

So I would like to thank the HP team for their editorial policy.

The fact that we don’t routinely delete Zin’s repeated lies about my position on the 2002 Venezuelan coup ~ Gene

Lies?

You defended the coupsters, describing them as “victimised democracy activists”. You campaigned on behalf of one of the coupsters, Maria Corina Machado, despite her having signed the decree that abolished all elected institutions and the supreme court. You continued to support her, in the full knowledge that she had admitted signing the decree, and declared yourself to be “very pleased” that she was invited to meet George Bush, the man who had given his full backing to the coup.

But you didn’t support the coup, huh? LMAO

“…She knows that, as a matter of principle, I will not sue for defamation…”

I salute you as a man of principle, David T, but can you not make an exception, pour encourager les autres, so to speak?

I’d be more upset by the lack of a response from the crowd when she said “do you know about the blog Harry’s place?” There wasn’t even booing and hissing. Who are these people?

People who were genuinely concerned with the position of Muslims in the UK would not be trying to alienate those like HP who were clearly not anti Muslim but anti Islamist.

Proof positive if any futher proof were needed that the liikes of MS Germqan are using Muslims for their own political ends even as the Islamists out manouvre them to use them (and ordinary Muslime of course) for theirs.

OK, slightly off-top here but worth a mention. The microphone in front of her is that of Al Alam TV which is the Arabic language news channel of the Iranian regime.

http://www.alalam.ir/english/contact/contact.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2913593.stm

(Press TV being the English language arm of the same regime).

It looks like they’ve not just betrayed the Iranian people by deserting them but by supporting the regime. Or at the very least allowing it to film and broadcast their meetings.
Very impressive [irony]

“So cut the crap, it’s your editorial line.”

Zin, I think you have to say it THREE times and turn in a circle before it comes true. Keep trying though.

Place to claim that we are “against Muslims”

Except insofar as the tacit HP support for Israel and for right-wing Israelis to claim the whole of Judea and Sumeria as part of Israel with their wee shacks on the hilltops which presumably is ‘against’ Muslims insofar as they live on those bits of land and may resent others stealing them supported by a first-world arsenal.

But they aren’t ‘muslims’ – they are HUMAN BEINGS. Too call them ‘muslims’ as opposed to whatever else is just classically expansionist-Imperialist and not ‘racist’. ‘anti-muslim’ isn’t racist either since Islam is a religion and not a race, as we know. But being anti-muslim isn’t a bad thing confined to the BNP: I am an atheist so refute Islam, Judaism and Christianity equally. The difference is that the mainstream of two of those ‘faiths’ don’t sentence me to death as Muslims would. I don’t believe in your ‘god’ and don’t see why you lot (believers) should sentence people under your dominion to live under what YOU believe are his dictats, be them muslim, jewish or christian flavourer.

The attempts of the left to recast anti-Western, anti-democracy (and anti egalitarian devolopments such as female suffrage etc) as a legitimate class based ‘liberation theology’ is pathetic. If you believe that all men should be free to vote and decide their own lived but women belong in a bin bag to stop us raping them, you are a moron. Sorry. A total moron. You are not a ‘freedom fighter’ – you might be fighting for your own right to be in charge but you are not fighting for ‘freedom’ as you would deny it to over 50% of humanity. You are simply asking us to replace the previous jailor with you. Nice one. Thanks.

But sorry, not good enough…

Except insofar as the tacit HP support for Israel and for right-wing Israelis to claim the whole of Judea and Sumeria as part of Israel with their wee shacks on the hilltops which presumably is ‘against’ Muslims insofar as they live on those bits of land and may resent others stealing them supported by a first-world arsenal.

I have no idea what this means.

David Toube, just now:

as a matter of principle, I will not sue for defamation

David Toube, about a year or so ago:

Edgar misrepresents Cohen’s thesis to such a grand extent that Cohen should sue him.

I wonder if Calvin Tucker has any comment about Chavez’s threats to intervene militarily in Honduras. Isn’t that a bit … erm … imperialistic?:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8123434.stm

Monty, you said it better than I ever could.

On another note it seems once again the Islamists threw a respectable MP onto their flyers to give some semblance of credibility. They probably said Diane Abbot couldn’t make it for some lame excuse but that she wholeheartedly supports the movement.

numbnuts – are you familiar with the concept of “rhetoric”?

Except insofar as the tacit HP support for Israel and for right-wing Israelis to claim the whole of Judea and Sumeria as part of Israel with their wee shacks on the hilltops which presumably is ‘against’ Muslims insofar as they live on those bits of land and may resent others stealing them supported by a first-world arsenal.

Okay Gene, at the risk of derailing and prior to a fisking of the site (which, as an MS sufferer, I reserve the right not to deliver in a timely fashion due to biological crapness):

Do you think that Israel has a ‘divinely granted’ right to Judea and Sumeria?

Do you believe that the ‘Jews’ (an Abrahamic religion from Babylon, in Persia) have a divinely granted right to that land? And if not, why do the Irish have a ‘right’ to Ireland (except the 6 counties, while were talking about a 1921 British Empire)? Do you therefore support the ‘rights’ of ’settlers’ to breed profligately and take over more land that while most people feel is not theres, they do and use their children to populate?

Or do you feel that ‘natural’ expansion via population growth is and should be constrained by internationally recognised borders? And if not, why should, for instance, Ireland not mandate its youth to copulate with British and French women with a goal of creating an Irish majority in their areas? Surely within a generation or two, they could have a majority at which point, e.g, Normandy or Londopn would be Irish, right? Except that can’t be right as, after all, the ‘palestinians’ pose a demographic threat to Israel by breedin more numerously than Israeli jews.l..

Which makes your views, or at least those majority-expressed on Harry’s Place, about promoting or preserving Judaism as a force, if not as the Court of Appeal would have it, about ethnicity.

So shame on you, shame on the BNP and shame on any muthfuck*r who thinks that your parents sperm and eggs plus where you were squeezed out and/or what sky fairy you believe in makes you better or worse than any other human being.

Do you think that Israel has a ‘divinely granted’ right to Judea and Sumeria?

No. Neither does any of the other regular authors at HP, as far as I know. I’m not sure why you believe we do. We’ve been quite outspoken against settlement expansion and extremist settlers, and in support of a two-state agreement which would remove most of the settlements.

But you’re right, it’s off topic.

Shaun, that is a very strange post and I still don’t really understyand what you are driving at except that it is somehow anti-Israel, but this caught my etye:

“why should, for instance, Ireland not mandate its youth to copulate with British and French women with a goal of creating an Irish majority in their areas?”

You must realise that Irish youth has been vigorously pursuing this project for years, with or without a mandate.

“why should, for instance, Ireland not mandate its youth to copulate with British and French women with a goal of creating an Irish majority in their areas?”

You must realise that Irish youth has been vigorously pursuing this project for years, with or without a mandate.

I’m Irish (tho born in the UK) so am very familiar with the “take their money, f*ck their women” line of convenient republicanism, not least because while my father propogates it, all his children, including me, were by Irish mothers….

It is true that Harry’s Place has been highly critical of named Islamist and jihadist groups and their extreme Left enablers. We have, however, always been strongly supportive of the rights of all people, irrespective of their ethnicity, culture and religion.

I think she’s upset with teh caption contest you ran several months ago!

I recognise you are 100% correct David T. The tone of the main contributors and owners of Harry’s Place are always remonstrating with posters who comments about Muslims leak in to the general. I believe that maybe 60% of the contributors to the Burqa debate were for a ban on the Burqa but that was clearly NOT HP’s line on the matter.

Your open posting policy is a great credit to the Blogosphere and its only a tiny minority who abuse it – and nearly always followed by other posters rebukes.

Compare with MPAC UK, a true hate site as evidenced by the threads started by main contributors. Their comments are moderated and STILL manage to express more hatred than the open posting at HP.

I regularly read Harry’s Place, and I work with Muslims, Islamic NGOs and Masjids, and if Lynsey German made an allegation of Islamophobia in my professional life I would sue her, and I would be confident that I would win.

There are clearly posters on this blog – and any blog – who do hold clearly racist views and use the anonymity of the blogosphere to make highly distasteful comments about all Muslims. I profoundly disagree with their views.

Like many posters, I have deep reservations about the actions of Islamists in the UK. This does not equate to an animus against all Muslims and I suspect German, Galloway etc are fully aware of this.

At a time when Anjem Choudhury and his followers are physically assaulting citizens in efforts to enforce gender apartheid in a public place, German is making a serious political error. A growing number of people recognise that the likes of Al Ghurabaa and Al Muhajiroun are a threat to social cohesion, including Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra, who has today criticised Choudhury for the public conversion to Islam of an 11 year old boy.

Under German’s criteria Mogra and others such as Dr Taj Hargey, Irshad Manji, Peter Tatchell, Rosie Boycott, and probably Sadiq Khan, would all be tarred as “Islamophobes” for any criticism of Islamism.

The hell with an apology. I want cash!!!

“Her perception that people of her political ilk are the underrepresented in the media….”

how many are there in her little political fringe groupuscle? 50- 150? What is that as a percentage of the population? Surely on those terms she is well over represented in the media? Certainly the SWP and ex SWP members are over represented on HP to my mind.

For the record, I am opposed to the burqa and the full hiljab and would oppose their being worn by anyone who is dealing with the general public. I think they symbolise a medieval view of women which encourages their subjugatioin and they hinder integration. If that means Lindsey German thinks I am a racist, bring it on.

Who cares about this stupid woman and her ill-conceived views? File it in the laugh and tear up basket.

I didn’t know Waynetta Slob had gotten into politics.

German’s accusation is totally unjustified, and you have every right to resent it. She – like many extremists on both sides – can’t tell the difference between being anti-Islamist and being anti-Muslim. HP’s regular posters are invariably enlightened and distinguish carefully between the two.

Having said that, the comments boxes here are frequently flooded by extremely nasty bigots who really do hate all Muslims. Their visceral expressions of chauvinistic hatred all too frequently seem to become the dominant theme in any discussion here. And to be honest, I think you’re far, far too reticent about tackling them. It allows people like German and Will Rubbish to claim you secretly agree with them.

Frankly, I’ve never understood why the extremely annoying and vacuous but essentially harmless Benji gets banned while a really nasty piece of work like John Palubiski gets to post comments unhindered (or for that matter a disgusting scumbag like Ken ‘The Exile’ Bell – but that’s another story…).

Having said that, the comments boxes here are frequently flooded by extremely nasty bigots who really do hate all Muslims. Their visceral expressions of chauvinistic hatred all too frequently seem to become the dominant theme in any discussion here. And to be honest, I think you’re far, far too reticent about tackling them.

And yet, from a leftist perspective, surely critique of the ‘opiate of the masses’ as Marx would have it, is justified. Abuse, slurs and insults are another matter but an opposition to rules based upon someone else’s belief in their ’sky fairy’ whick one may not neccessarily believe in seems axiomatic. I don’t believe in Bin-Laden’s ‘god’, or Netenyahu’s ‘god’ and yet I still have the temerity to have opinions about the things they believe their ’sky fairy’ has ruled upon. Shock horror, women and men should mix freely regardless of their menstral state. I must obviously be some kind of secular Nazi….

Benji was banned because he wouldn’t heed many, may warnings about trolling and continued to flood threads and derail discussions as a sort of sport.

Generally we take the view that adults can have a discusson without being policed. Nasty comments are either argued with ignored.

Anyone who confuses the comments section of a blog with a political platform is a bit mad. But then the SWP tried to ban its members using the Internet to communicate for years, so it is little wonder they don’t ‘get’ it.

I fully expect the DSTPFW concert party to latch onto this. Especially that strange cross between Tourette’s Syndrome and Terrorism who goes by the name of will. If profanity and ignorance were Olympic events, he’d be covered in gold. But they aren’t, and he isn’t.

For those readers who want to know what he is really covered in, here is the mystery voice:
——–
More of us than them
by Will, 27 June 2009
Posted at 2:00 | Comments(2)
cockney news
by Will, 27 June 2009
Posted at 1:21 | Comments(0)
Not Micky J related
by Will, 26 June 2009
Posted at 23:27 | Comments(0)
More news
by Will, 26 June 2009
Posted at 23:01 | Comments(0)
The News
by GRAEME, 26 June 2009
Posted at 14:02 | Comments(FIVE WHOLE COMMENTS!)
———-

Best keep it to ourselves though eh?

“…She knows that, as a matter of principle, I will not sue for defamation…”

Given what I have said about people wearing the burkha in the UK before (not on recent threads, but I’m sure the comments still exist) I very much am tempted to sue the utterly dishonest old witch.

Yes, German’s a silly old twat. As are her supporters. But really, I find it hard to believe that you care so pasionately about what she said at a stupid meeting full of stupid, irrelevant people. You’ve defended yourself here, outlined your own position, called German on her lies… isn’t that enough?

As for the burqa ban itself, I agree with David Herman (above) whose comments I think are worth repeating:

“I fail to understand why you would have an editorial position on the burqa – even more so why it would be against the French ban. The Burqa is a degrading manifestation of the culture of honour and shame that so blights women’s existence through large swathes of the Middle East. Do you have a similar position of female circumcision? Would you oppose a ban on female circumcision on the same grounds?”

I suspect that if challenged in a court of law to find proof of anti-Muslim sentiment by leading HP contributors, Lindsay German’s response would be remarkably similar to Blair re Iraqi WMD,

“Err, but I’m sure they must be there somewhere”.

David T,

Three things to ponder:

the SWP higher-ups must read HP;
unlikely they use email, it is a bit too radical for them;
if they did, then ask Mike Rosen, he’d know :)

as for contacting Lindsey German…do a Google search with the following:

“contact lindsey german”

remember the quotation marks

the SWP higher-ups must read HP;

mod, remember that Lindsey German is no longer an SWP higher-up, but simply a humble member subject to the firm but loving discipline of the central committee.

Re email address. I understand Ms German has a Facebook account if that is any help…

Gene,

You’re right, the SWP bosses probably have lackeys to collect the email and blame for any of their failures. As we speak she and Rees are probably planning their return to SWP stardom, pickaxes at the ready!

I might compile a list of people Harry’s Place owes apologies too. Off the top of my head it’d include David and Ralph Milband and anyone who speaks Arabic.

I don’t agree with Ms German. But it is true that your comment threads are often indistinguishable from those of a far-right hate site, and you don’t help yourselves with your frequent link-swapping with the blogs like Mad Mel’s & LGF, or when you plug vicious Muslim-baiting screeds from the likes of Andrew Bostom.

I’d regard it as a compliment also. In fact, that was my first reaction.

Completely tangential, but it’s ironic that you finger the left as ‘enablers’ of islamic extremists, but not the neoconservatives who took out Iraqi civil society so completely.

Oh god, the far left idiots have arrived. Plus the comment just before that, right at the start.

Marko in his standard, full-on rant mood:

the comments boxes here are frequently flooded by extremely nasty bigots who really do hate all Muslims.

Every single word above (well, with the exception of ‘the comments boxes here’) is untrue.

while a really nasty piece of work like John Palubiski gets to post comments unhindered

You don’t seem to get it, Marko: people who disagree with you are not the spawn of Satan by definition. JP criticises Islam, not Muslims. I know that this is a difficult concept, but Islam is an ideology and as such is open for discussion on a political board, however much this distresses you.

I have personally criticised Mad Mel on many occasions. I think she is completely bonkers and has gone off the deep end when it comes to Islamism (as well as virtually everything else).

I don’t link to LGF, although I think Charles Johnson is perhaps misunderstood because of the comments at his site. He has taken lots of criticism from the people like Andrew Bostom who present Islam as a dangerous monolithic faith unable to adapt to the modern world.

I personally thought the fact that Andrew Bostom was interviewed by Democratiya was extremely disappointing. I have a half-written post about it written about it, which I may resurrect if I get time. If he was to be interviewed, it should have been a much more challenging interview. I think Bostum is another individual who has gone off the deep end.

My views on the comments here are mixed. I think some of the comments and some of the regular commentators, are out of line. Some of them have a dangerous fixation, and ought to get a sense of perspective. I think those sorts of comments also prevent other people from commenting on the basis of the old advice about wrestling with pigs. I think that there are about 6-7 people responsible for about 90% of that crap – if they were culled, they wouldn’t be missed.

I have deleted what I have considered anti-Muslim bigotry, especially in thread drift but probably not all of it. This is for three reasons:

1. I’m a busy person. I find it hard to keep track of a 150 comment thread in a timely manner. If you are going to delete, you have to do it promptly. I struggle these days to get a post finished, never mind police the thread if some nutter starts bleating on about his pet subject.

2. By the time it comes to deletion, others may have tackled them with alternative views. Then I think it ought to stand, since the argument against them exposes them.

3. David’s point about deletions.

ref: “neoconservatives who took out Iraqi civil society…”

What Iraqi civil society? The national olympics committee?

The name Gary Day (who commented upthread) sounds familiar to me. He wouldn’t happen to be a federal New Democrat in Canada and a participant (and perhaps still is) on the federal NDP listserve, Mouseland, would he?

The person I’m thinking of was a Muslim convert who greatly admired George Galloway and I recall a particularly mawkish and fawning letter he wrote to the Gormless One pleading with him to reconsider his affirmative stance on legalizing Shariah based mediation tribunals in Ontario. The Gary Day I’m thinking of staunchly denied that any Palestinian school or curricula anywhere in the WB or Gaza, or any PA or Hamas TV stations ever inculcated hatred towards Jews. He might also have had a stint as a CUPE president of a library in Saskatoon, and I wouldn’t be all that surprised if he was also an admirer of Sid Ryan, a CUPE leader in Toronto and vociferous pro-BDS campaigner.

“I might compile a list of people Harry’s Place owes apologies too. Off the top of my head it’d include David and Ralph Milband and anyone who speaks Arabic.”

Very serious for a man whose blog tagline reads ‘Tampon Tea: a refreshing drink made from menstrual blood and boiling water’. If only those naughty HPers were as enlightened as tossers like you.

Larry – why are you getting offended on behalf of others? My husband’s first language was Arabic and, after reading this article, not only was he not remotely offended but feels he should consider paying the author royalties for the number of times he’s quoted the following from it:

“Not because of the strangest threat ever made in diplomatic history when King Faisal said to Kissinger in 1973: “If you occupy our oil-fields then we’ll eat dates and drink yoghurt”

Fair enough Neil D. But for all I know plenty of people in the SWP felt “disappointed” by the decision to invite Atzmon along. But if they don’t say anything about it out loud, then it’s a fat lot of use to anyone.

Perhaps Lindsey G will follow David T’s line, the last time he made an allegation which was subsequently demonstrated to be false: which was not really an apology, more of a fuck you.

And you can The “Fuck the Yids” Quakers to the apology list.

ahh the SWP and Atzmon?

would that be the same lot that invited him for FOUR years?

would that be the same lot that went out of their way to defend Atzmon’s racism? http://www.swp.org.uk/gilad.php

would that be the same SWP who can’t bear to admit they were wrong, and dare to highlight Atzmon’s racism as he rants on about “Jewish Bankers” etc???

Modernity, try reading what I wrote. I’m not disagreeing with you.

The fact that we don’t routinely delete Zin’s repeated lies about my position on the 2002 Venezuelan coup is another indication of how tolerant we are about comments.

And your reputation is further enhanced by having never threatened posters with banishment because they disagreed with your Obama-worship in the run-up to the POTUS elections. :-(

I rather think you won’t ban them in the future as elements of truth begin to permeate your exterior.

“But for all I know plenty of people in the SWP felt “disappointed” by the decision to invite Atzmon along. “

disappointed? is that classic English understatement or SWP weasel words?

The SWP hosted and willingly pushed anti-Jewish racism for FOUR years, and not ONE of their members made a stand on the issue.

That’s it.

Modernity, very good.

Now try reading the comment of Neil D which I was replying to.

Actually this could take all night, so let me break it down for you:

HP enthusiastically plugs a hate-filled anti-Muslim rant by Andrew Bostom. None of the editors or writers demurs from the published line that this is the bees knees.

Now, when pressed on it in a comments thread 6 months later, Neil says that he found the episode “disappointing”.

And I’m saying you wouldn’t put up with that excuse if it came from a member of the SWP, in a million fucking years.

“a disgusting kind of blog which is very very much against Muslims”.

Never heard of this person before coming to Harry’s Place. Could Lindsey German please return to the obscurity whence she came.

She, the German women is shit scared of HPs, as are the other so called “leftists” yes indeed, they are really, really scared.

Why? Very, very, very simple, the default position taken by the “Left” of crying wolf or as it is more commonly referred to these days as Islamophobia, racists, fascists, neo-cons or zionists (take your pick) at anyone who disagrees with their childish bullshit simply “Doesn’t work” in this place. The commenters, well most of them, are not stupid, you know, oh no, sorry you don’t know, do you.

Yes Indeed HPs has them rattled, I would take it as a compliment HP.

Maybe there is a God After All.

PS. To the so called “left” assholes, if you really believe this place is “Racist” then you really are part of the problem and not the solution, but then, I for one, know that already and thankfully many, many others are beginning to see it that way also. Doesn’t matter though does it? No of course not, you will still believe the brainwashed bullshit merchants of the far left because that’s what you do, sad, how very sad, but alas so very, very true.

Are her and John Rees a couple?

a) How on earth is having a negative opinion about a particular piece of clothing ‘anti-Muslim’? Garments do not practice religions.

b) For the record, I think that the StWC is a disgusting kind of organisation which is very very much against Israeli Jews.

There is a great deal of difference between a political party which says it is absolutely committed to anti-racism (the SWP) and a blog.

Let’s, for the sake of your argument, assume that HP is the worst possible blog then that would NOT justify, logically speaking, the SWP going “nah nah nah you’re as bad as we are.”

These are two discrete entities, HP and the SWP, they are NOT dependent on the other.

So if the SWP wish to invite an anti-Jewish racist, Gilad Atzmon, to their premier yearly event for FOUR years, push his anti-Jewish racism, defend him and later on keep silent about it, then it is their own fault, no one else’s.

Larry, could you also ask your SWP mates if they are happy that Jewish activists within UCU are leaving the Union as a result of the SWP’s shifty political scheming (a discriminatory boycott of Israelis) ?

So if the SWP wish to invite an anti-Jewish racist, Gilad Atzmon, to their premier yearly event for FOUR years, push his anti-Jewish racism, defend him and later on keep silent about it, then it is their own fault, no one else’s.

And I’ve disagreed with this where exactly?

Larry, could you also ask your SWP mates

I don’t have any.

Many protests in the Uk over the last few years have totally lacked the support of the “left.” I have photographed one protest after another and the so called ‘Left’ were nowhere to be seen. From Zimbabwe to Sudan through to the killing of thousands of Tamil civilians. Most recently we have Iran and we have seen how easy it has been for many of this ‘left’ to support a murderous regime.
The SWP,STWc and people like Lindsey German are part of the reason for this.
To look at these issues and the deaths of so many and to stay quiet is beyond any words I can think of. My disgust at these people is palpable.

Hilarious. Such a lack of self awareness. Cringeworthy and self important, hypocritical with an agenda that’s been washed up since shock&awe. . . HP, i mean, obnov.

“Cringeworthy and self important, hypocritical with an agenda that’s been washed up since shock&awe”

Agreed.

But forget Lindsey German. I want to know why a bloke names a blog after the female menstrual cycle.

There have to be easier ways of generating some visits to your blog;

MattG

“the comments boxes here are frequently flooded by extremely nasty bigots who really do hate all Muslims.”

Every single word above (well, with the exception of ‘the comments boxes here’) is untrue.

No, Marko is correct and, as usual, you are wrong Someone/Nearly Oxfordian/whatever you call yourself nowadays. You disagree because you are one of those people who flood the comments on here with naked bigotry and are the epitome of the “any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-Semitic.

There are a number of regular posters like you – you are one of the more hysterical and brainless ones, but you are not alone, and you and others like you have a tendancy to dominate comment threads and drown out the more reasoned posters

‘JP criticises Islam, not Muslims.’

The term ‘rose-tinted spectacles’ springs to mind…

‘I know that this is a difficult concept, but Islam is an ideology and as such is open for discussion on a political board, however much this distresses you.’

It’s one thing to criticise Islam. It’s another thing to demonise and incite hatred against ordinary, non-fundamentalist Muslims; people who do this are, as far as I’m concerned, to use your term, the ’spawn of Satan’.

Larry, could you also ask your SWP mates

I don’t have any.

Larry no mates eh?

Figures.

“the comments boxes here are frequently flooded by extremely nasty bigots who really do hate all Muslims.”

Well, I haven’t noticed them. Without being qualified to put words into fellow HP-ers mouths, I reckon our default position is:

Muslims who want to practise their faith freely, follow the “Five Pillars of Islam”, wear whatever they believe they should wear, and accept the principles of our society – fine.

Muslims who want to enforce their idea of the rules of their faith on others, demand areas in our country where their enforcers rather than our laws rule, and want our foreign policy to centre on facilitating religious tyranny and a second Holocaust in the Middle East – not fine.

I support Sarkozy’s ban on burqas. In fact I think he should go further and give them and their husbands “Republican weddings”

This is all very interesting, but I now can’t get the image of Rees and German having it off out of my mind. I didn’t realise they were a couple and now my mind feels somehow sullied.

Oh, and Larry Teabag is a cock.

And I agree with everything Marco says, except about Benji being banned, something I still give thanks for.

Marko’s right, less pandering to the likes of JP and the xenophobic ranters would make HP a nicer place, and probably enhance the discussions no end.

PS: I was against a ban on the Burqa too!

I agree Monty – what a backhanded compliment she has paid this blog!

I fully support Lindsay German’s right to wear a Burkha.

Does anyone here at HP disagree?

No? Thought so Sorted!

Modernity

You realise I am in Marko’s top 5 list of racists, so I don’t recommend his detection system. Just saying, even if I do so myself.

Harry’s Place is described by German as “a disgusting kind of blog which is very very much against Muslims”

That doesn’t make sense. HP is a blog, not a “kind of blog”.

Yours pedantly, Cabalamat

I am deeply proud today. Because the quote cited by the appalling L. German about Harry’s Place was mine. The fact that the paragraph from which it was cited began with “I am not in favour of the burqa ban” was of course ignored. I said that I didn’t want such statements to be banned by law, but I reserved the right to place my own interpretation on them, which might involve assuming the wearing of the burqa to imply support for the violent and terrorist forms of Islam, if not on the part of the woman concerned then on that of her family. And I ask you what other interpretation could be put on them. Fuck off Lindsey German you are a traitor. Sue me if you like and I’ll fight you to the House of Lords.

David T

Gene owes me an apology for falsely claiming that I have lied about his support for the 2002 Venezuelan coup plotters. He described them as victimised democract activists and posted about “how pleased” he was that coupster Machado, who personally signed the decree that abolished all elected institutions, was invited to the White House to meet with George Bush, the man who backed the coup.

This is your website. Gene is one of your editors.

So I expect an apology.

Marko Attila: “or for that matter a disgusting scumbag like Ken ‘The Exile’ Bell – but that’s another story…”

When did Ken last post here? As he went into hospital with a serious illness several months ago I think a decent restraint is appropriate (anyone with up-to-date information please post). I know Ken and he has some bizarre views but he is not a disgusting scumbag.

Nah Metta, you are not.

However, I think there are a fair few people hung up on immigration, Daily Mail type topics and such like. That’s not you, as far as I can see, but HP shouldn’t allow these xenophobes to dominate threads.

I tend to avoid many threads on HP as I know what Morgoth, Field and the other barking mad right wingers are going to say and it normally pertains to ranting on about Muslims/Islam, etc., and it is not very edifying.

Oh God not fucking Zin again. Talk about one-track minds.

PS:

Zin, the people of Iran need an apology from you and those lickspittles at 21stcenturysocialism, for your craven support of the status quo in Iran

What modernity said. Not holding my breath though. My line on Stalinists is exactly what it would have been in the last week of August 1939.

How on earth is having a negative opinion about a particular piece of clothing ‘anti-Muslim’? Garments do not practice religions. (Israelinurse)

Quite right these garments are the traditional dress of some parts of the Middle East and Afghanistan, and cultural not religous in origin. Just as circumcision is a cultural tradition. (Or bound feet were in China.) Neither burqas nor circumcisation are mentioned let alone mandated as a religious duty in the Koran.

But seriously who cares what Lindsey German thinks, she is given far too much importance here for someone with narrow views and little evidence of any ability to think logically or assemble a rational argument. Best Ignored.

“But seriously who cares what Lindsey German thinks, she is given far too much importance here for someone with narrow views and little evidence of any ability to think logically or assemble a rational argument. Best Ignored.”

I agree except for that last part. She is very stupid and can’t think. But she has taken me on and I’d be delighted to accept the challenge. Some of these fuckwits need to be exposed openly.

modernity

Will you condemn Gene for backing the coup plotters who overthrew democracy in Venezuela in 2002?

Yes or no?

Zin – do you support the overthrow of velayat-e-faqih and its replacement by democracy in Iran? Yes or no?

Gene owes me an apology for falsely claiming that I have lied about his support for the 2002 Venezuelan coup plotters.

If you think I’m making false claims about you, then sue me, Zin. Please.

This website demands an apology from Lindsey German. Yet an editor of this democracy-promoting website has openly backed those who overthrew democracy in Venezuela. When I pointed this fact out, I was falsely accused by this editor of lying, despite me providing the incontrovertible proof of his many posts.

So I expect an apology. Yet none has been forthcoming.

On what basis does HP demand an apology from German, when its editors refuse to apologise to me?

Hypocrisy Place, more like.

Well, modernity, it seems neither of us is going to get a straight answer.

Why should I sue you Gene? It’s more fun exposing you, and free to boot.

You backed the coup plotters in Venezuela, and you did it openly. It’s absoluetely bizarre for you to deny it, when the many posts you wrote in support of them are right here on your own website.

Denying the truth when your own words condemn you is truly bizarre. You are quite mad.

If you’ve since changed your mind, then say so. There’s nothing wrong with saying you made a mistake. But pretending you didn’t write what you wrote is completly bananas. Or are you suggesting that you didn’t write the posts posted under your name? Are there two Genes that post here? Have I mixed you up with the other one?

Zin, I’ll take Gene’s word over your’s anytime.

But let’s refresh people’s memory about the Counter-Revolutionaries from 21stcentury socialism and their love of the status quo in Iran:

“187. Was the election rigged? If so, then I’ve yet to see the concrete evidence.

If not, then the opposition is a minority and this is effectively an attempted coup. “We’ve been cheated”, becomes: “We are the cheaters”. This would put an entirely different complexion on events. Commenters would then have to support the opposition on the basis of something other than “democracy” and “where’s my vote?”
….Comment by Calvin — 20 June, 2009 @ 4:53 pm”

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4248

there’s plenty from the 21stcenturysocialism team, Noah and Calvin

“151.

Comment by Noah — 19 June, 2009 @ 12:48 am”

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4234

“161. apollo #155: “Why do you think that you’re in a minority, John? Do you hve any explanation as to why your ideas have achieved so little traction…”

Comment by Noah — 27 June, 2009 @ 6:45 pm”

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4270

Even the regular posters at SU blog were disgusted with this nauseating guff.

Here’s two posts of Gene where he backs a Venezuelan coup plotter.

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2005/06/09/chavez-opponents-meeting-with-bush-provokes-predictable-outrage/

In this one he writes:

Machado has already been charged by the Venezuelan government with treason for her alleged support for the short-lived 2002 coup against Chavez. The “evidence” seems to be that her signature was on a sheet of paper found at the Presidential Palace after the coup was defeated.

The “piece of paper” that Gene refers to is the coup decree that abolished parliament and the supreme court. The evidence (no need for inverted commas) is her signature on the decree. Forgery perhaps? Nope, the democracy lady has admited to the US media that she signed.

The very first post following Gene’s piece pointed this out, so even if he was unaware of the facts when he first posted, he certainly wasn’t thereafter. Yet the following week he was at it again:

Last week I posted about a meeting between President Bush and Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado which, I was pleased to note, infuriated the Chavez regime.

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2005/06/16/monitoring-bush-meeting-dissidents/

So let’s get this straight. Gene is “pleased” that a lady whom he knows signed a decree that abolished democracy is meeting with the president of the country that engineered and backed the coup.

Great. It couldn’t be clearer. Gene openly backs the coup plotters. His words, his posts.

And yet he has the gall to come onto this thread and pretend I made it all up. He says I “lied repeatedly” about what he wrote, when there is irrefutable proof that it is is he who is the liar! It’s lunacy. Totally bananas. And the sort of behaviour associated with a mentally ill person.

Either that, or there are two Gene’s: a coup supporting imposter who has somehow gained the access code to this website, and a truthfull Gene who never wrote these words and is being unfairly maligned.

Is that the story?

As It’s Wimbledon fortnight, I think a sporting analogy is called for. Game, set, and match.

Night night, bubble heads.

Zin -

From the link you provided:

According to another pro-Chavez website, Machado has already been charged by the Venezuelan government with treason for her alleged support for the short-lived 2002 coup against Chavez. The “evidence” seems to be that her signature was on a sheet of paper found at the Presidential Palace after the coup was defeated. Many others who undoubtedly did support the coup have not been charged, which suggests Machado is being singled out for her role as director of the election monitoring group Sumate.

In fact Machado has criticized the OAS for failing to oppose the coup.

Gene is right. You owe him an apology.

By the way, has Machado been brought to trial? If so, what was the verdict? Surely, she must be languishing in a jail cell given the airtight case against her? What was her fate?

Zin

Is that it? Is that your smoking gun?

I know a cry for help can come in many forms, but you are not making it easy for us to give you the help you need.

You are very difficult person to love Sin as you know, but you must learn compassion for yourself.

You are a child of the Universe no less than the stars and the trees, and though your brain is pulp today is the first day of the rest of your life.

Please try hard to get one.

Larry Teabag, I was hardly surprised to find, when I click through on your link, that you are an entirely shameless liar.

The link is of course to an HP post plugging an issue of Democratiya – which is a publication various writers at HP have regularly plugged. Andrew Bostom is one of 10 writers featured in that issue – and he is not even featured as a contributor but as an interviewer.

So the claim that HP has been plugging Bostom’s book is an outright deliberate lie.

Like wise is the characterisation that Neil D regretted the post plugging Democratiya – what he clearly said – for anyone with eyes to read – was that he thought that the interview that Democratiya conducted with Bostom could have been tougher and more probing of Bostom’s positions and he was therefore dissapointed with it. I think you know that perfectly well but your purpose of such brazen fraudulence on your part is not that you actually expect anyone other than the softheaded cultists of the far left rank and file to swallow it – but because it allows you slip in the premise that Bostom is in fact a virulent rascist who is beyond the pale without having such premise questioned. It is the old stalinist tactic of using hysterical and patently absurd accusations so that the basis on which the accusations are crafted does not get questioned.

There is a serious critique that can be mounted that Bostom gives to little space for counter currents and that he essentialises Islam. (an argument that is harder to make if you actually bother to read his books). And certainly there is an argument that he has a duty, as a leading anti-jihadist, to be forthright in standing against the entryism of the far right to that platform, and his silence and continued support for, say Jihadwatch, can be taken as a tacit acceptance of a fascist alliance.

But that is not your argument is it Mr Teabag? your assertion is that “HP enthusiastically plugs a hate-filled anti-Muslim rant by Andrew Bostom.” When in fact a) HP did not plug Boston, b) Democratiya interviewed him – which is very different from publishing someone and of course c) The interview is not a hate filled rant at all but about Boston’s argument that Islamic anti-Semitism pre-dated both Colonial involvement and the founding of Israel, laid out in scholarly detail. In so far as the subject of the interview is in fact the contention, supported by a good deal of scholarship from primary sources, that animus towards non-muslims and in particular the Jews has a history in the Islamic world that predates European Colonialsim and the establisment of Israel – you could say that the interview is about hate. But you and I both know that what you meant was that Bostom is a ranting frothing Islamophobe, but because you know that this characterisation is hard to sustain you slipped it in as a premise along with your brazen lies about HP’s endorsement of Bostom’s work.

Seriously mate – judging by your blog – you should be better than that – but maybe your whole performance is nothing more tha hit trolling.

On what basis does HP demand an apology from German, when its editors refuse to apologise to me?

On the basis that she has slurred every person who has ever written here as “being very much against Muslims” (an easily disproven idea) whilst you seem to think the entire website should apologise collectively for your imaginary ideas about what Gene has said in the past.

Honestly Zin you seem to be losing what is left of your sanity.

New balls please!

‘You realise I am in Marko’s top 5 list of racists, so I don’t recommend his detection system.’

Of course you don’t, Mettaculture. You racially abused me on the basis of my skin colour; you claimed that your darker skin colour meant I had no right to disagree with you in matters of race; you told me that, as an ‘Attila’, I should go back to Mongolia; and you think immigrants are corrupting white British culture.

So yes, I stand by everything I said about you.

‘I know Ken and he has some bizarre views but he is not a disgusting scumbag.’

I remember Bell called Oliver Kamm a ‘cockroach’, and on a subsequent occasion – and please excuse me for having to refer to something so ugly – insulted Oliver’s mother in the most revolting, misogynistic way, claiming he had trained her to suck his penis and swallow his semen.

I would never describe someone as a ‘disgusting scumbag’ on account of their having obnoxious views – even if they were a Nazi, BNP supporter or Milosevic supporter. But on the basis of what Bell said about Kamm’s mother, I think the term is entirely appropriate.

If you’re going to allow a comment like Bell’s to be posted, you may as well drop any pretense at comments moderation.

Patrickg @ 29 June 2009, 5:20 pm

“I didn’t know Waynetta Slob had gotten into politics.”

The thought occurs that you may have back-formed this one.

you and I both know that what you meant was that Bostom is a ranting frothing Islamophobe

Glad we agree.

Amused/Graham/Half Bob sucks up to Marko:

No, Marko is correct and, as usual, you are wrong Someone/Nearly Oxfordian/whatever you call yourself nowadays

I have no idea what you are going on about, and I very much doubt that you do.

You disagree because you are one of those people who flood the comments on here with naked bigotry and are the epitome of the “any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-Semitic.

You need remedial reading help, because I have never once said or suggested or implied any such thing.

As to naked bigotry, Graham, those who single out Israel for virulent, one-sided, totally ignorant and barely coherent condemnation, often with barely concealed racism as the obvious motive (German today, many others in the past, K Ronstadt is one example), they are the bigots. Correcting this tendency is called ANTI-bigotry. You should try it sometime. It’s highly revealing that you support those people and post vile nonsense about me. Actually, maybe you ARE K Ronstadt.

“Do you think that Israel has a ‘divinely granted’ right to Judea and Sumeria?”

Calling it Sumeria is one hilarious example of the ignorance I referred to. Thickos who have no concept of the Middle East set themselves up as commentators about it, about the evils of the Jews blah blah blah.
Idiots like German (both of them) should be pitied, I suppose.

I would never describe someone as a ‘disgusting scumbag’ on account of their having obnoxious views – even if they were a Nazi, BNP supporter or Milosevic supporter.

I would, Bell is a Strasserite. He may not know it, he may have reached there by a different route but he’s a bloody Strasserite.

Two pupils and their teacher were asked to remove Muslim face veils on a visit to a sixth form college in Lancashire.

At an open day held in Catholic St Mary’s College, Blackburn, the visitors were asked to remove their Niqab veils.

“There is a long-standing policy that people entering the site do not have their faces covered,” college principal Kevin McMahon said.

The students removed their veils but the accompanying teacher declined to and left the premises, he added.

A spokesman for the Ramadhan Foundation said the women’s decision to wear the veils should be recognised.

BBC News today

Master Bhate

1. Machado’s signature is on the coup decree, and she admits that her signature is genuine. That makes her a coup plotter. Obviously.

2. Despite being fully aware of this, Gene declared his full support for Machado in her bid to avoid prosecution, and presented her as a victimised democracy activist.

3. On the basis of Gene’s declared support for the coup plotters, I pointed out that… Gene supports the coup plotters.

4. Gene then claims that I am lying, even though all I have done is to repost his own words and provide the links!

5. Gene is a loony.

Johan W, I prefer disposing used up teabags in the compost and others may dispose them in the trash. What you have to wonder about is this Larry character who disparages others with falsehoods seemingly because he can’t or is unable to accept that his teabag has been refuse for quite a while now.

Amused/Graham/Half Bob sucks up to Marko:

Er what?

As to naked bigotry, Graham..

Er what again?

It’s highly revealing that you support those people and post vile nonsense about me. Actually, maybe you ARE K Ronstadt.

What? (For the third time?)

Please stop trying to drag me into your one man attempt to excuse the inexcusable. Having Lindsey German call you anti muslim is one thing – having a complete nutter decide that I am half the other commenters on the thread on the basis of the voices echoing in the vast emptiness of his cranial cavity quite another….

Actually I think “Me’s” 9.05 comment – seemingly based on the idea that I am an anti-semite (without the slightest evidence) is even more libellous and easily disproved than German’s original one.

Nutters to the right and nutters to the left!

By the way, has Machado been brought to trial? If so, what was the verdict? Surely, she must be languishing in a jail cell given the airtight case against her? What was her fate?

Chavez gave her an amnesty, along with all the other coup plotters.

Actually I think “Me’s” 9.05 comment – seemingly based on the idea that I am an anti-semite (without the slightest evidence)

You haven’t the slightest evidence that I consider you an antisemite. For all I know, you are the chief rabbi posting under an assumed name. Sacks is quite an unpleasant fellow, so that’s not nearly as far-fetched as one might assume.

Me, you’re just as unpleasant (and unwelcome) under your new identity as you were as Nearly Oxfordian and Someone. Please find somewhere else to vent.

Sacks is quite an unpleasant fellow, so that’s not nearly as far-fetched as one might assume.

What?

Zin,

has 21stcenturysocialism made its mind up on the elections in Iran, were they fiddled or not??? in your view?

And, while you’re here, Zin, what are the differences between Bin Laden and Guevara?

Revealing, isn’t it, that while potentially world-changing events are happening in Iran, Zin is devoting his time and effort to making false claims about things I wrote four years ago?

Gene, you’re such a yaaaaawn…

Are you saying:

a) That Machado is NOT a coupster, or

b) That you didn’t write two posts claiming that she was not, even though you knew she had signed the coup decree, or

c) Someone has stolen the access code to HP and is posting under your name

You’ve been exposed, matey. Stop making a fool of yourself. It’s embarrassing.

Hey, no ‘decents’ going down to the Honduran embassy for the emergency picket at 5pm? There’s tanks on the streets of the country’s capital you know, and thousands of working class people risking their lives opposing dictatorship… nope, thought not.

Gene,

any chance of you giving Zin a guest post on the topics of:

“No electoral fraud in Iran.
Why the protesters in Iran were really Titoist-fascist-Trotskiyte roaders.
They should have sent in the tanks.
Why President Ahmadinejad isn’t a racist.
Commandante Chavez says we must support Ahmadinejad.
Ahmadinejad is a hero of anti-Imperialism and deserves our support.
etc”

I would love to know, Gene, where in my 9:05 post I accused anyone of antisemitism.

You are right – it is in your 9.10 post where you call various people anti-Israeli bigots and then (apparently based on your delusions that I am “Amused” – to which I can only reply in my best Queen Vic voice “we are not”.. etc,) go on to say:

It’s highly revealing that you support those people and post vile nonsense about me. and then suggest I am one of these bigots (to wit KR.)

Its mad innit mate?

Get a grip.

Zin -

1. Machado’s signature is on the coup decree, and she admits that her signature is genuine. That makes her a coup plotter. Obviously.

Machado claims she did not sign the decree but rather a sign-in sheet. Now it’s possible that she’s lying, but it’s also possible that the government set her up. It wouldn’t be the first time the government used extreme measures to target critics.

2. Despite being fully aware of this, Gene declared his full support for Machado in her bid to avoid prosecution, and presented her as a victimised democracy activist.

He was right to present her as a victimised democracy activist because she was being victimized by the government. But I’m still not sure how reporting on her case and tweaking your nose in the process is tantamount to supporting a coup?

3. On the basis of Gene’s declared support for the coup plotters, I pointed out that… Gene supports the coup plotters.

Except that he did not offer support for the coup plotters. He reported on the case of a pro-democracy activist being bullied by the Chavez government. One does not equal the other.

4. Gene then claims that I am lying, even though all I have done is to repost his own words and provide the links!

He claims you’re lying because you are lying. The conclusion you drew from the material does not support the argument you’re making.

Chavez gave her an amnesty, along with all the other coup plotters.

That was mighty kind of him, but he didn’t need to, seeing as she was never convicted of supporting the coup. The one bit of information you conveniently ignore is the fact that the government failed to prosecute her. They dragged their feet until the point became moot. Innocent until proven guilty, Zin.

Now apologize to Gene, Mr. Tucker.

Oh poor Calvin, looks to me like the comment @ 8:51 pm is conclusive and Calvin Tucker has decisively been outed as a liar whose only opportunity to save face is to sincerely apologize to Gene. But I won’t hold my breath waiting for Calvin Tucker to do the honourable thing.

Has anyone ever seen Marko Attila Hoare and Alex Stein together?

Its just that the arrogance turning so rapidly into petulance either comes from the same person or is what they teach in schools these days.

You are such a card Marko!

Honestly I still cannot decide whether you are really incredibly thick or just incredibly arrogant and thin skinned (a terrible combination).

In fact I cannot really determin which of any discipline you calim specialist knowledge in because your words show a willful ignorance of; sociology, anthropology, archeology, linguistics, philosophy, theology, comparative religious studies, and psychology.

You also are completely ignorant of the historical and cultural backgounds of the majority of Muslims in this country and show no knowledge of either islam or islamism and you are completely incapable of understanding the islamist agenda behind the activist creation of the term islamophobia, and you continue to use it when even most Islamists have realised they have been rather trapped by their own litttle demon and so have been quietely dropping its useage.

You are dishonest at every turn and if you should once feel slighted you stalk these threads destructively accusing everyone with whom you disagree of being a racist and indistinguishable from the BNP.

You are actually worse than the iries or Flanker in this destructive and offensive ‘fighting talk’ of daring to accuse people of racism because they dare to disagree with your jejeune ‘working class chauvinism against middle class people (ie Me) is really just a form of racism.

You are dishonest because you know that I took the trouble to write to you personally explaing in exactly what I meant by the reference to Atilla) and telling you that it had exactly the same ethno-nationalist revivalist meaning as my own name.

You are quite ridiculous because still you claim to know something about nationalism. yet you have still not read Benedict Anderson’s ‘Imagined Communities’.

Perhaps you will never understand why Attila is a common name in Hungary and Turkey, when the Magyars are a Finno-Ugric people that were deffinately never ‘Huns’ and the Turkic Tuks are only tangentially ‘ethnically’ related to the Mongol peoples.

I have been to Mongolia BTW absolutely wonderful place and only someone who never read a word i wrote would think that urging someone to go was remotely an insult.

They really really would love you and your name would be awonderful introduction.

I met many Attila’s and Ghengises.

Go there and stop whining with your victim of oppression envy/Narcissism weird weird complex you have going.

I am sure you wouldn’t mind sleeping in a yurt (they are very cosy and you can drive in a Toyota Landcruiser to one, city dwellers have them like country cottages) and having Marmot for breakfast (all right but I have to confess I wish I hadn’t woken up to see them dangling from the rafters of the yurt).

Do something because you are a bore that wants to be oppressed by whatever, because you see why the disadvantaged and the discriminated against in the world should have any more right to be oppressed than you.

I am glad you keep a list of all the things I have abused you for, so heartlessely in my fascist racist way.

Please don’t let me stop you from wheeling out your little look how he oppresses me list, because it gets funnier and funnier.

Perhaps you would like to add arrogantist and stupidist to my crimes (and your very own index of oppression)?

Take care …..oh whatever!

Oh no now I am a whateverist as well.
people whwho have spent many years actually doing something about discrimination and equalituy
in any intellectual

Sorry, Mettaculture, but I really can’t be bothered to read through the whole of yet another of your interminable scrawls, so do forgive me if I don’t answer all of your points. I don’t think I did more than briefly skim those long-winded emails you sent me last year. I don’t think anyone much bothers to plough through your invariably boring, barely readable comments.

You are not someone with whom it is possible to have a civilised discussion, because lacking the literary and intellectual skills necessary to formulate a convincing argument, you will always abandon the debate and resort to personal abuse – skin colour, ethnic background, mothers – pretty much nothing is too low for you, is it ?

Though it is funny how desperately and insistently you try to patronise me intellectually, and try to assert, again and again, just how much more you know than me, and how much cleverer you are !

Only trouble is, I have had my research recognised, funded and promoted by some of the world’s leading centres of learning; my work published by some of the world’s leading academic publishers; my books invariably reviewed favourably by the leading academic journals in my field. Whereas you have no intellectual achievements whatever to your name, other than that you post comments on blogs. Comments full of spelling mistakes at that.

Accusing me of not having read ‘Imagined Communities’ :-))) really, dear boy. I’ve taught the history of nationalism to students at the University of Cambridge.

‘you calim specialist knowledge in because your words show a willful ignorance of; sociology, anthropology, archeology, linguistics, philosophy, theology, comparative religious studies, and psychology’

Do please list your own academic publications and qualifications in any one of these fields. Any one at all :-)

So when I see someone like you trying so hard to patronise intellectually a professional academic like me, all I can think is: ‘What a sad little wannabe – he must have a terrible intellectual inferiority complex.’

The only intellectual qualification you have is an MPhil in Verbal Diarrhoea.

You know my actual name try Googling it.

Theology I don’t have formal level degree or post graduate level qualifications from ‘prestigious universitie’ in that. all the other subjects I do.

As for ’spelling mistake’s oooh hit me with your pedants satchel one more time oooooh.

You do reveal perfectly, however why you never deem it necessary to actually engage in any intellectual exchange with the lower forms of life in blogolandia.

You obviously feel that the blog ‘hoi polloi’ should simply be grateful for your patronising presence.

As for ‘wannabe’ ha ha ha, no its more a case of been there done that.

Some of us, those of us who left know what a nasty little sanctimonious, shameless, mean and cruel little backstabbing world the life of the prestigious ‘professional academic’ is.

We know, as you probably are only just becoming fully aware, now you have left the post graduate funding womb of the Henry Jackson Society (or have you?) (prestigious? in your dreams sweetie darling) of how teaching at the ‘University of Cambridge’ only makes you sound prestigious to a naive outsider.

To the diploma for cash industry that you call professional academe, you are just one more, not particularly gifted or outstanding, highly derivative , ‘piece rate’ jobbing labourer trying to make ends meet.

You know when i was much younger than you I coordinated for a few years some UN multi centre world global research studies and i worked in the research division of the World Health organisation.

I have been responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars of funds much of it going to professional academics.

It was at times amusing but often completely unedifying watching ‘prestigious academics’ from prestigious academic centres of excellence competing (and offering me all kinds of ‘proffessional academic’ inducements) desperately for the even more prestigious and decideldy bankable imprimature of being an official UN agency accredited prestigious Collaborating Centre.

UN missions (yes we still call them that) to academic centres to see if they might qualify for collaborating centre status made the BBC expenses scandal look like a picnic in the park by comparison.

I was never seduced and never corrupted and can proudly state that I never unfairly favoured or blocked or overlooked genuine academic competence and conscientiousness, irrespective of what I thought of the person.

This even applies to you and i can see that in some areas you are clearly very able.

You are obnoxious in this forum though and given your readily articulated condescending snobbery, which has been pointed out by other commenters, on several occasions, the question has to be asked what purpose you think you serve?

Each time you have engaged in your peculiarly deluded, but spiteful, fantasy that I am a racist you have been told by staff posters at HP or long term regulars, quite categorically that I am not.

After your last ignoble efforts i was written to by a couple of people expressing dismay and remorse that you accused me of racism.

Its OK, I can take the absolutely gob smacking puerility of your attempted character assassination, only in academe is this pure poison of false accusation allowed to go unchallenged.

Here you make yourself look extremely silly.

But what is absolutely totally out of order with your behaviour and i am very disappointed that some let you get away with a pernicious crime infecting progressive discourse.

In conflating any distinction between someone who merely disagrees with your ludicrously childish and ill thought through preferred policy of ‘no categorical limits on mass immigration’ with actual violent and dangerous racists, by accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being indistinguishable from a member of the BNP, you reveal yourself as a fundamentally immoral person.

You accept no moral responsibility for your own words and their consequences.

The more that you hysterically and incontinently scream ‘racist’, triggered by God knows what psychological flaws you so obviously manifest, the more you both harden liberal opinion against caring any more, if everything they say is denounced as racist, and the more you leave the terrain to real fascists and Neo-Nazis and dangerous racists who will act on their evil views.

I don’t trust you. I believe that your notional ‘anti-racistm’ beingly purely rhetorical is wafer thin.

It encrusts your ego as an academics flag waving, a pompously paraded superior virtue, that is in fact a minimum job requirement.

You would wet your kickers before some seriously nasty Neo-Nazis so you absolve yourself of the need to fight real racists by fabricating targets that you can attack in what you think is a cost free exercise.

I have tried repeatedly to make peace with you, because i foolishly thought you were on the same side and I have an otherwise intact record of not making enemies of the good guys.

You are not interested and prefer to stalk these threads calling me a racist.

Now I find you are quite stomache churningly odious and make my flesh crawl.

This ability to makes yourself appear totally repellent has nothing to do with any inherent or fixed attribute that you may exhibit.

It is just you I find obnoxious.

The chosen and voluntary wretchedness of character that you have evidently put so much of your self regard into creating.

I hope you are proud of yourself. you are certainly your own greatest fan.

I am bored and i apoligse to HP commenters who must be even more bored.

I have a responsibility to HP so I will not address you directly again.

If you insist on hijacking threads to direct your skulking petulant ur sulk at me I shall post the comment.

>>Marko’s obsessive disorder again. Reply submitted to voluntary moderation in HP’s interests.<<<

Now take your puckered lips and cloistered sphincter and get thee gone you cloistermouth.

ps well you know my current actual professional name, it varies from other versions (oh ethnicity and realness) but you will have to make do with what you have if you wish to ‘discredit’ me further thus

‘Whereas you have no intellectual achievements whatever to your name, other than that you post comments on blogs. Comments full of spelling mistakes at that.’

ha ha ha ha ha what a total twat don’t worry everyone can see you clearly now.

Can Zin apologise to all of us at Harry’s Place for being a complete cunt?

Machado has admitted signing the coup decree. Her story, as told to Newsday is this:

“Asked why she was in the presidential palace hours after the coup, Machado insisted she was only accompanying her mother, who’d wanted to visit her “very good friend” – the wife of coup leader Pedro Carmona. As for her signature on the decree suspending or dissolving the Supreme Court, National Assembly and Constitution, Machado claimed she innocently put her name and national identity number on a blank paper she assumed was a reception sheet”

So what does this “democracy activist” do on the day of the coup? Does she protest outside the presidential palace? Write a letter of protest to the Guardian? Throw herself in fron of tank?

Nope, she does not.

Instead she saunters down to the illegally occupied presidential palace to pay a social call on Mrs Dictator, whom, she tells us, “is a very good friend” of her mother.

Now, I don’t know about you, but if one of my mum’s friends broke into Gordon Brown’s house at gunpoint and then invited me to a housewarming party, I’d probably give it a miss just is case anyone got the the wrong idea. You know how suspicious some people can be. But back to the story (and what a story it is!).

Coincidentally, whilst the democracy activist was drinking tea in Hugo Chavez’s living room with her mother and Mrs Dictator, there just happened to be a big meeting downstairs attended by Mr Dictator and all the coup plotters who were busy abolishing democracy.

But what of that embarrassing signature of hers on the coup decree that abolished parliament the supreme court and the constitution? Machado claims it was all a dreadful mistake. “I thought I was signing a reception sheet”, she protests.

It’s the sort of innocent little mistake any demcracy activist could make, isn’t it?

You try to a good daughter by taking your old mum to see one of her friends in the middle of a military coup, and before you know it, you are being accused youself of being one of the coupsters!

On the basis of this Machado’s convincing tale, I think we can all agree on the following slogans:

FREE THE NON-IMPRISONED DEMOCRACY ACTIVIST!

DOWN WITH THE CHAVISTA FRAME-UP!

DON’T SIGN IN AT RECEPTION!

SUPPORT THE RIGHT TO DRINK TO TEA WITH DICTATOR’S WIVES DURING MILITARY COUPS!

If she was guilty and the evidence was there to convict her, then why didn’t her trial commence? How is it that this enemy of democracy never went to trial?

That amnesty order sure was convenient. But for whom?

To bring this back, how does reporting on this woman (who we know has never been convicted of anything) make Gene a supporter of the coup against Hugo Chavez?

If she was guilty and the evidence was there to convict her, then why didn’t her trial commence? How is it that this enemy of democracy never went to trial?

Because the evil Hugo Chavez gave her an amnesty, along with all the other coup plotters. Why? Because they had already been exposed and then removed from all positions of authority and influence in the state. A political judgement was made that it was better to be magnanimous than to seek revenge.

how does reporting on this woman (who we know has never been convicted of anything) make Gene a supporter of the coup against Hugo Chavez?

On her own admission she was in the illegally occupied home of the elected president on the day of the coup, drinking tea with Mrs Dictator. And her signature is on the coup decree, for goodnessake!

Gene didn’t “report” on this lady. He ran a mini internet campaign on her behalf, in the full knowledge that she had directly and personally participated in overthrowing the democratically elected president, abolishing parliament, the legal system and the constitution.

Instead of condemning her involvement, Gene declared the coup plotter to be a democracy activist and wrote about “how pleased” he was that she was meeting with George Bush. Bush, as you know, openly backed the coup.

Gene’s claims to have opposed the coup are contradicted by his strident support for the people who carried it out.

Even you must see the contradiction here. It’s like supporting vegetarianism by eating a steak. Or promoting celibacy by having a shag.

Zin wrote:

Because the evil Hugo Chavez gave her an amnesty, along with all the other coup plotters. Why? Because they had already been exposed and then removed from all positions of authority and influence in the state. A political judgement was made that it was better to be magnanimous than to seek revenge.

They were punished before they were even tried? That seems a bit odd. There’s nothing magnanimous about punishing people while denying them their right to due process. Does justice not exist in Venezuela? Or does it only apply to Chavez and his supporters?

I mean surely the evidence was there to indict? Yet, no trial was forthcoming and the government cut its losses and issued a face -saving measure that would allow it to malign innocent opposition activists.

On her own admission she was in the illegally occupied home of the elected president on the day of the coup, drinking tea with Mrs Dictator. And her signature is on the coup decree, for goodnessake!

Being in the company of an alleged criminal does not make one guilty of a crime. That’s common sense, Calvin. And as I noted earlier, she argues that the paper she signed was not the decree but rather a sign-in form. Had she been given a trial, her claims could have been tested, but no such trial took place.

Why was her trial delayed? She obviously could have been tried before the amnesty order was issued, so why wasn’t she? Why deny her a chance to clear her name? And why was she singled out when others were not?

Maybe we should consult the Venezuelan Constitution:

Article 49
(2) Any person shall be presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

Machado is innocent until proven otherwise. Because she was never found guilty, the amnesty order would not have applied to her or any others. In fact, that order was a violation of their rights as enshrined in the constitution. That’s why it was a political rather than legal decision.

Gene didn’t “report” on this lady. He ran a mini internet campaign on her behalf, in the full knowledge that she had directly and personally participated in overthrowing the democratically elected president, abolishing parliament, the legal system and the constitution.

Two posts reporting on Machado does not a internet campaign make. Nor does it prove he supported the coup. If reporting on someone makes them a supporter of said person, than that would mean Harry’s Place is a supporter of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

Instead of condemning her involvement, Gene declared the coup plotter to be a democracy activist and wrote about “how pleased” he was that she was meeting with George Bush. Bush, as you know, openly backed the coup.

He cannot condemn her for something that was never proven. We went over this, remember? As for his comments about being pleased, here is what he said:

Last week I posted about a meeting between President Bush and Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado which, I was pleased to note, infuriated the Chavez regime.

He was pleased the meeting infuriated the Chavez government not that she was meeting with Bush. I have no doubt that he probably hoped it infuriated one Calvin Tucker, too.

Gene’s claims to have opposed the coup are contradicted by his strident support for the people who carried it out.

Not really, in fact, not at all. He has never expressed support for the coup or those who carried it out. He has been very critical of the Chavez government, which is enough to convict him it would seem. I have proven the extent of his support does not support the claims you are making. The sum total of your total argument is that we should ignore the facts and accept on faith alone that Gene and Machado are both guilty of crimes that have never been proven.

Bearing false witness is wrong, Calvin, please do the right thing and apologize to Gene.

The leader of the coup, Pedro Carmona, was never prosecuted either. Does that mean he didn’t lead the coup? In Chile, Pinochet was never convicted either.

You are being very very silly.

The coup leaders broadcast the coup ceremony on TV, they hugged and kissed the newly installed dictator. And just in case you think they were all actors disguised as coupsters, they signed (with their ID numbers) the decree that abolished democracy.

Machado joined the coup, rushed to the illegally occupied presidential palace, signed the decree, and then concocted what must be one of the most ludicrous excuses in international political history: “I was only there to drink tea with Mrs Dictator and I signed by mistake”

I mean, purleeze!

Not to prosecute the coup leaders was indeed a political decision. There were almost 400 of them, representing all sectors of the oligarchic elite, from the Catholic Church to billionaires, army generals, and US funded NGOs. The government decided to let them off, rather than to take them all on.

Lucky them!

(and you’re complaining about their good fortune!)

Mettaculture’s real name, btw, is [content deleted]. If he’s brave enough to abuse people on the internet, he’s brave enough to do so under his real name.