Double Standards, Anyone?

28 Jun

Every so often, I am ashamed of my country. This is one of those times.

It was reported two days ago that Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, two prominent American bloggers, were banned from the UK by the British Home Office. Ms Geller, of the Atlas Shrugs blog, and Mr Spencer, of Jihad Watch, were both deemed too dangerous to enter the UK – apparently because of anti-Muslim statements they made while in the USA.

I have a question for the Home Office.

Precisely why are Geller and Spencer considered too dangerous to enter the country when Sheikh Mohamad al-Arefe, a cowardly (1) Saudi preacher who has been encouraging young Muslims to head to Syria to fight against the regime, was allowed to visit London and spend time enjoying life in the capital, no doubt finding time to encourage British Muslims to leave the country and join the fight? Why is one hatemonger allowed to enter the country and two others (if we accept the Home Office’s apparent classification) barred? And, as far as I can tell, Geller and Spencer are far less dangerous to Britain or Muslims in general than al-Arefe.

While we’re at it, Mr. Home Office, I would like to know why Anjem Choudary still in the country? Doesn’t he count as a hate-monger?

The pronouncement of Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, merely adds to the stench of rat surrounding the whole affair. “The UK,” he informs us, “should never become a stage for inflammatory speakers who promote hate.”

Dear me, Mr. Vaz, have you not heard Anjem Choudary? Or are you too busy making a mockery of the principle of free speech(you did join a march for The Satanic Verses to be banned)? Or … are you too gagged by political correctness to apply your fine standards to the entire community?

I cannot help feeling that Geller and Spencer were right, in their response to the Home Office’s decision.

The nation that gave the world the Magna Carta is dead.

(1) I say coward, because instead of putting his money where his mouth is and going off to fight in Syria, he went to London instead. This is a common pattern among such people, including Osama Bin Laden who remained behind when he dispatched his mass murderers to America and then cowered in Pakistan until the US finally caught up with him. How many young fools, in the meantime, went off to die?

Advertisements

19 Responses to “Double Standards, Anyone?”

  1. Matthew W. Quinn June 28, 2013 at 1:46 pm #

    Let’s give bin Laden some credit. He did leave the palace in Saudi Arabia to go fight in Afghanistan in the 1980s and was even wounded in battle. Wikipedia lists one battle, while this one refers to multiple times.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=1jjLvDE5Fy8C&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=osama+bin+laden+wounded+in+battle&source=bl&ots=Y5mJpGFkUf&sig=o83OBjNGtw6fRA-nmVIR-3xcA4g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uYTNUfOtEam5ygGa1oCwCA&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=osama%20bin%20laden%20wounded%20in%20battle&f=false

    Just because a person is evil doesn’t mean every criticism hurled their way is correct. And although this point is moot due to bin Laden being, well, dead, if you have a negative impression of someone based on misinformation, you will underestimate them.

    The macro point still stands that jihadi preachers shouldn’t be given a free pass while those who complain about them get punished.

    • chrishanger June 28, 2013 at 3:57 pm #

      Most of the sources I’ve read (apart from heroic paens) pour scorn on OBL’s war experience in Afghanistan. However, he didn’t accompany the 9/11 hijackers (which was understandably impractical) nor did he join the defence of Tora Bora or anywhere else in Afghanistan. He fled and lived in relative luxury while his followers fought and died. Chris > Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 12:46:10 +0000 > To: christopher_g_nuttall@hotmail.com >

      • Matthew W. Quinn June 28, 2013 at 4:25 pm #

        What are these sources and how objective are they? One could write off the accounts of eyewitnesses I cited as the “heroic paeans” of jihadis, but on the other hand, one could criticize sources that “pour scorn” on him as propaganda intended to make him look like a massive hypocrite.

        http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/02/bin.laden.timeline/index.html

        This says he “personally fights” in Afghanistan.

        I haven’t read a whole lot about OBL’s Afghan experience, but *nothing* I have found depicted him as being a coward.

        Don’t worry. There’s plenty of other ways to “pour scorn” on him, like his porn stash.

      • chrishanger June 28, 2013 at 5:12 pm #

        Apparently the afghanis were very unimpressed by the ‘arab afghanis’. OBL did well in arranging money and food supplies, but he was apparently something of a prima Donna. Still, sources may well be vague or imprecise.

        Chris

        Sent from my iPad

      • Keith Douglas July 1, 2013 at 1:20 pm #

        I was under the impression that UBL was a logistics man (hence Al Qaida – The base) rather than a front-line fighter. If he ever ventured into the frontlines it was mostly for photoshots.

        As to the main crux of this article:The two bloggers, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, are coming to the UK with the intention of stiring up racial hatred inside the UK (ie what they say may have a detrimental affect on the health and wellbeing of British citizens in Britain).

        Whilst having Sheikh Mohamad al-Arefe in the country is nothing to be proud; he has come Britiain to stir up religious hatred in another country. That’s fine (in the eyes of the British Establishment) as it is upholding centuries of British tradition – Britian has long been that kind of safe haven.

      • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard July 1, 2013 at 1:35 pm #

        “with the intention of stiring up racial hatred inside the UK”?

        In other words, they are warning about the dangers of radical Islam.

        Since some British Politicians have said that Christians are a danger, then perhaps the UK should “ban” those British Politicians. [Sarcasm]

      • chrishanger July 2, 2013 at 3:12 am #

        I’ve quite a few politicians I would like to ban. Chris > Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 12:35:12 +0000 > To: christopher_g_nuttall@hotmail.com >

      • chrishanger July 2, 2013 at 3:15 am #

        He did logistics most of the time – he just wanted glory too. (I think that’s why so many REMFs make up stories about their daring deeds.) Chris > Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 12:20:10 +0000 > To: christopher_g_nuttall@hotmail.com >

  2. Matthew W. Quinn June 28, 2013 at 2:02 pm #

    I am in the process of writing a blog post in response to your blog post (which agrees with the whole “ban jihadi preachers” thing), but Anjem Choudary, regardless of how reprehensible his views are, is British-born. That’s an entirely different issue than foreigners, who a government can legally block from entering the country, recruiting for terrorist organizations and generally making themselves obnoxious.

    • chrishanger June 28, 2013 at 3:59 pm #

      Good point. I had misread the Wiki article. I stand corrected. I can still point to Abu Hamza. Chris > Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:02:48 +0000 > To: christopher_g_nuttall@hotmail.com >

      • Matthew W. Quinn June 28, 2013 at 4:30 pm #

        I’m reading over Abu Hamza’s Wikipedia article. He apparently got British citizenship after he married. However, his early life in Britain seems very anti-Islamist–not only does he describe Britain as a paradise, but he works as a bouncer at a “peep show” (I’m assuming some kind of strip club).

        Someone who starts preaching jihad straight off the plane is one thing, but Abu Hamza’s radicalization seems to have taken place in the 1990s with the Bosnian War, after he was a British citizen.

        Now we do have Abdullah el-Faisal, a Jamaican-born convert who was apparently too obnoxious even for British Salafists. Reading about his Wikipedia article, it seems he’s been deported from *multiple countries* for being a pest.

      • chrishanger June 28, 2013 at 5:10 pm #

        Deep-seated guilt complex, perhaps? Or maybe he just likes being important.

        My point, though, is that he has proved himself a danger and should be summarily evicted from the country.

        Chris

        Sent from my iPad

  3. Terry Edmunds June 28, 2013 at 4:45 pm #

    right on the button Chris…just this week we had a radical mullah visit the white house…the world is crumbling and cowardice reigns!

  4. Matthew W. Quinn June 28, 2013 at 5:21 pm #

    It seems I can’t reply to your replies, so I’ll post some tidbits here:

    1. OBL being a prima donna, that seems quite plausible. He was, after all, putting out lots of videos.

    2. Re: Abu Hamza and the peep show, apparently jihadists like to hang around Arab cyber-cafes where people sit with their backs to the wall (i.e. more tolerant of porn) to recruit teens feeling guilty about looking at porn. The “guilt complex” thing might be a very big part of it.

    3. Even if he is a menace, stripping someone of their citizenship is a very dangerous thing. How long until non-terrorist enemies of the government get disenfranchised and, deprived of this protection, Gitmo’d? Johnny Walker Lindh and (eventually) Jose Padilla got civilian trials, after all, while lots of AQ and maybe-AQ have been locked up indefinitely. Given he’s now a British citizen, I’m sure there’s something that applies to him. 🙂

    • chrishanger June 30, 2013 at 1:33 pm #

      I don’t know why that happens – normally, I just reply to the email I get. From what I recall (most of my sources are 7000m away, pretty much literally) OBL basically wanted to set up his own independent camp for his volunteers – and got his way too. Their one major attempt to attack the Russians was a laughable disaster and the Russians retaliated soon afterwards. Guilt does play a major role in recruiting terrorists, particularly the dumb foot soldiers. In my opinion, if you get citizenship it comes with a certain obligation to behave yourself. Hamza has NOT behaved himself. We could probably try him for treason if nothing else. Chris > Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 16:22:01 +0000 > To: christopher_g_nuttall@hotmail.com >

  5. mark June 29, 2013 at 3:27 am #

    And then there a international law on non citizenship. if you don’t have one you government must gift you one you must not be with out

  6. John July 5, 2013 at 12:19 pm #

    Whilst its wrong to ban them, don’t hold these 2 individuals up as representatives of free speech. All they do is incite violence and hatred. And given that we have a choice in them coming here, what exactly do we gain by letting them in?

    • chrishanger July 5, 2013 at 8:22 pm #

      I fail to see why we have to tolerate one set of hate mongers and ban another set … Unless, of course, one set of hate mongers Is considered acceptable.

      Chris

      Sent from my iPad

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: