The ban on Al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect
Well, I'm sure you'll all have seen by now that there's a ban about to be imposed on Al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect, two successor groups (which I'd always thought were one group under two "front" names, but hey, John Reid's more clued up than me, right?) of Al-Muhajiroun. Al-Ghurabaa were the ones on the tiny demo with the "Stick pins in the eyes of those who insult Islam" banners after 7/7.
Now, these are not nice people. They do promote hatred between Muslims and non-Muslims, they actually do "glorify terrorism", they do support suicide bombing, and they do publish deeply inflammatory material, which they propogate and distribute. They are in no way to be supported as "fellow anti-imperialists" or as any sort of progressives, by anyone who considers themself to be on the left.
But the idea that these posturing extremists, or their clownish leader Anjem Choudhury (who first came to my notice when he got his butt kicked by Tariq Ramadan and several others in a debate on BBC Newsnight a while back) are a threat to national security, is a nonsense. Aside from anything else, the security services plainly know exactly who they are, where they are, and what they do. Therefore the likelihood of Anjem and his chums - even assuming they did have the balls to do so - sneakily making bombs and detonating them without anyone noticing, seems to me very remote.
So, what's this ban really about? It's about gesture politics at its worst. The government need the population to believe in a massive and sinister ongoing terrorist threat in order to justify their whole security policy rationale, ranging from the raids on houses belonging to innocent UK citizens of Muslim religion and culture, to the war in Iraq (which was about stopping international terrorism, remember, at least after the "45 minute threat" proved to be a load of cobblers), to more general attacks on civil liberties like ID cards. And proscribing 300 losers who go on demonstrations wearing loo rolls tied to look like bomb belts, obviously makes for an ideal gesture.
Don't be fooled. Al-Ghurabaa are a nasty bunch, for sure. But they're tossers, not terrorists. And being a tosser shouldn't be an arrestable offence in a free country.
Now, these are not nice people. They do promote hatred between Muslims and non-Muslims, they actually do "glorify terrorism", they do support suicide bombing, and they do publish deeply inflammatory material, which they propogate and distribute. They are in no way to be supported as "fellow anti-imperialists" or as any sort of progressives, by anyone who considers themself to be on the left.
But the idea that these posturing extremists, or their clownish leader Anjem Choudhury (who first came to my notice when he got his butt kicked by Tariq Ramadan and several others in a debate on BBC Newsnight a while back) are a threat to national security, is a nonsense. Aside from anything else, the security services plainly know exactly who they are, where they are, and what they do. Therefore the likelihood of Anjem and his chums - even assuming they did have the balls to do so - sneakily making bombs and detonating them without anyone noticing, seems to me very remote.
So, what's this ban really about? It's about gesture politics at its worst. The government need the population to believe in a massive and sinister ongoing terrorist threat in order to justify their whole security policy rationale, ranging from the raids on houses belonging to innocent UK citizens of Muslim religion and culture, to the war in Iraq (which was about stopping international terrorism, remember, at least after the "45 minute threat" proved to be a load of cobblers), to more general attacks on civil liberties like ID cards. And proscribing 300 losers who go on demonstrations wearing loo rolls tied to look like bomb belts, obviously makes for an ideal gesture.
Don't be fooled. Al-Ghurabaa are a nasty bunch, for sure. But they're tossers, not terrorists. And being a tosser shouldn't be an arrestable offence in a free country.
posted by voltaires_priest at
9:26 AM
18 Comments:
depends how bad the tosser is. I would like a law banning the glorification of Richard Littlejohn.
I would like a law banning Alex Ferguson
Hey Morbs;
D'ya wanna go in my links list? I'll stick one in for ya, if you link back to me.
That article is daamn funny by the way ;)
I'm afraid I won't link to anything that links to Harry's Place
Why? I put up with people being in the SWP, Morbs... ye cantankerous little misery. And I've noticed you haven't let my comment through your site moderation, ye censorious little bleeder :D
LOL Lala,
Morbs finds Harry's place so offensive on behalf of Muslim people such as yourself, that he won't link to sites that link to it, even when their owners have made clear their disagreements with HP. You should be pleased that he cares so much for your potentially hurt feelings... oh wait, you're one of the owners of this site... does not compute... lol :D
Morbs, seriously now. Although I'd have to check it out, I probably don't agree with every dot and comma of the stances of any of the sites and organisations that this site links to. Lenin's and Meaders' sites being among those, as well as Harry's Place. But that isn't really the point.
Of course Harry's Place contains a lot of stuff that is, IMO, utter crap (primarily its support for the war in Iraq, and the right-wing nature of some of its commenters). But nevertheless it is one of the most-read political sites in the UK, and as such I link to it, because it provides talking points. Aside from anything else, if someone's writing stuff that I think should be disputed, I have to read it in order to be able to dispute it.
I think it should be obvious to you, that the political stance of this site is not the same as that of HP.
Not that any of that means you have to link to us of course, but I thought the point should be made clear.
VP
I have now read every single link on your site , in great detail, and am afraid they don't meet the standards of decency , propriety or toe the right line that we at Stroppyblog expect . we will have to remove you forthwith from our site.
We have standards (however low they may be :-))
What's the problem exactly?
Harry's Place is the most foul-mouthed, racist, McCarthyist piece of shit website I have ever had the misfortune to read. It's a shame so many people read it. It's the UK's Little Green Soccerballs website. It's not that there is some truth in a sea of shite, it's all a sea of shite. FACT. Plain and simple. Stop your internal dialogue (Bill Hicks joke.)
Mind you I'll reconsider what you said.
Hey morbo
I was just being sarky.
We all have different 'policies' on links. I'll have a look at your site.
Morb; I don't agree with the eusonites of "Harry's Place": but how, exactly are they "racist" or McCarthyist" (sic): please quote chapter and verse. Or withdraw that slander.
Morbs;
Wot, you've never read (for instance) Ann Coulter.com? ;)
On the serious side, I'm glad you're willing to brook debate on the issue, though.
Stroppy;
Stop parading yourself before me in that brazen fashion. My puritan morals are offended by thee :D:D:D:D
VP
I am shocked by this blog. I thought it was wholesome. The sort of place paddy the puritan would come. Where Yvonne Ridley is the pin up ....
"Yvonne Ridley"? Stop it, the mere mention of her name sends me into paroxysms of ecstasy...
VP
Its that glimpse of ankle isn't it....
Whoaar.
VP
I seem to have uncovered a slightly disturbing element of male lefties who are rather taken with the modest Ms Ridley and her ankles ;-)
You and Paddy the Puritan.
Actually I just want her for her money. And the odd free trip to Malaysia when she's on a junket with that right-wing chap from the USA wouldn't hurt either.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home