Admin; here's a section of a great post about arguing with Islamophobes. Please visit the blog to read the full item.
Why you’ll never win an argument with an Islamophobe
When I say win an argument, I mean actually prove them wrong and change their mind. There are obviously many reasons why this is so unlikely to happen, primarily due to the fact that prejudice of this nature is deep-rooted and engrained, and likely to be the result of parental or peer influence. In extreme cases it goes beyond casual racism and xenophobia, and is based on unpleasant political and ideological racial views.
Argue with an Islamophobe and you’ll consistently come up against the same obstacles every time. The first one is the claim that they’re not being racist, because ‘Muslim’ isn’t a race. Factually correct of course, but this is obfuscation and an excuse so flimsy that it’s transparent to anyone with an ounce of intelligence. Taking the EDL as an example, you don’t have to spend too much time watching footage of their demos and screenshots of their Facebook pages to realise that the word Muslim has simply replaced the word ‘paki’ as a catch-all term for someone of Asian or Arab descent. In many cases the word ‘paki’ is still used freely and unashamedly. If you analyse the accusations made and the language used, they mirror the age-old formula used by racists to demonise and dehumanise black people. They’re violent, savage, dishonest, lazy, thieving, misogynistic, they’re after our women etc.
The second obstacle you’ll encounter is the claim that they don’t hate Muslims, just Islam. They’ll tell you it’s a religion of hate, that it was spread by the sword, that the Qur’an and the examples of Muhammad teach them to kill non-believers, subjugate women, carry out jihad to gain global dominance and implement sharia law. They might even be able to recite a couple of misquoted, decontextualised extracts from the Qur’an or Hadiths to prove their point.
If you’ve done your homework you can counter every one of these claims using the same sources, and a bit of common sense. At this point it can go one of two ways. You could get called an appeaser followed by a few choice insults and the argument will end, which in itself is a victory. But Islamophobia has become a cottage industry run by some particularly devious and hateful people. At some point in the evolution of Islamophobia there must have been a realisation that misquoting, decontextualising and deliberately misinterpreting texts wouldn’t fool everybody, and could be countered by more knowledgeable opponents. They needed something else, something you can’t argue against, the ultimate get-out clause.
If you’re up against one of the more dedicated, conscientious Islamophobes you need to know two words. Dhimmi and Taqiyya. To be able to progress onto the next level and do battle with this more sophisticated foe, one must first learn about Dhimmitude and Taqiyya. Dhimmi is a personal favourite of Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs and SIOA. It’s a condescending insult that implies that a non-Muslim is being used as a doormat or being accommodating to Muslims. Implying that to oppose Islamophobia, or to actively support and sympathise with mainstream Muslims means that some form of coercion or manipulation must have taken place. Offensive not only to the accused but Muslims too.
To read the complete post please visit the great blog Tweets Rhymes and Life
Saturday, 9 April 2011
Leaflets to tackle online extremism distributed (UK)
Information leaflets and posters have been sent to every police force in the UK advising the public on how to identify and report offensive or illegal content.
The leaflets sent by the Home Office promote an online tool - which can be found on the Directgov website – which allows people to report material anonymously.
Security Minister Baroness Neville-Jones said that it is vital online extremism is taken seriously.
She said: “I want to encourage those who come across extremist websites as part of their work to challenge it and report it through the Directgov webpage.
“By forging relationships with the internet industry and working with the public in this way, we can ensure that terrorist use of the internet does not go unchallenged.”
Websites reported to Directgov via its online form are referred to the national Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit.
The specialist team of police experts work with industry and partners in the UK and abroad to investigate and take down illegal or offensive material if necessary.
In the last year, reporting through Directgov has helped the Government remove content which has included beheading videos, terrorist training manuals and calls for racial or religious violence.
Some of the successes reported by the Home Office include:
• removing a number of videos encouraging martyrdom operations that had been uploaded to a UK-based website;
• shutting down a website that provided detailed video instructions on bomb making; and
• removing a number of videos encouraging acts of terrorism from a social networking site.
By Dilwar Hussain , Policeprofessional.com
The leaflets sent by the Home Office promote an online tool - which can be found on the Directgov website – which allows people to report material anonymously.
Security Minister Baroness Neville-Jones said that it is vital online extremism is taken seriously.
She said: “I want to encourage those who come across extremist websites as part of their work to challenge it and report it through the Directgov webpage.
“By forging relationships with the internet industry and working with the public in this way, we can ensure that terrorist use of the internet does not go unchallenged.”
Websites reported to Directgov via its online form are referred to the national Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit.
The specialist team of police experts work with industry and partners in the UK and abroad to investigate and take down illegal or offensive material if necessary.
In the last year, reporting through Directgov has helped the Government remove content which has included beheading videos, terrorist training manuals and calls for racial or religious violence.
Some of the successes reported by the Home Office include:
• removing a number of videos encouraging martyrdom operations that had been uploaded to a UK-based website;
• shutting down a website that provided detailed video instructions on bomb making; and
• removing a number of videos encouraging acts of terrorism from a social networking site.
By Dilwar Hussain , Policeprofessional.com
Amnesty accuses Serbia of Roma discrimination
Amnesty International has urged Serbia to stop forcible evictions and “systematic discrimination” against the Roma as the Balkan country strives to comply with European Union social norms.
The Serbian government “has failed to comply with its obligations under international and regional human rights treaties to prohibit, prevent and end forced evictions,” says a report from the UK-based rights group to mark International Roma Day.
EU officials this week called for better treatment of the Roma in eastern Europe, most of whom live in illegally built slums and work in the informal economy.
Serbia, which is seeks to join the bloc, has lobbied hard in Brussels for official candidate status by December. Regional political problems – besides slowing down EU accession – have foiled efforts to keep track of Serbia’s Roma, thought to number about 500,000, or 7 per cent of the population.
People forced out of Roma shanty towns in Belgrade in the past three years include many who had earlier been displaced from Kosovo, the territory dominated by ethnic Albanians that declared independence in 2008. Others had been deported back from EU member states.
Dragan Djilas, Belgrade’s mayor, objected to paying from his city budget for new arrivals from economically moribund southern Serbia.
Amnesty criticised the city authorities for moving people to metal containers in isolated areas. Yet the containers, Mr Djilas argued, were far superior to shacks under traffic overpasses. He tried to link the new housing to mandatory school registration for Roma children.
Read more FT.com
The Serbian government “has failed to comply with its obligations under international and regional human rights treaties to prohibit, prevent and end forced evictions,” says a report from the UK-based rights group to mark International Roma Day.
EU officials this week called for better treatment of the Roma in eastern Europe, most of whom live in illegally built slums and work in the informal economy.
Serbia, which is seeks to join the bloc, has lobbied hard in Brussels for official candidate status by December. Regional political problems – besides slowing down EU accession – have foiled efforts to keep track of Serbia’s Roma, thought to number about 500,000, or 7 per cent of the population.
People forced out of Roma shanty towns in Belgrade in the past three years include many who had earlier been displaced from Kosovo, the territory dominated by ethnic Albanians that declared independence in 2008. Others had been deported back from EU member states.
Dragan Djilas, Belgrade’s mayor, objected to paying from his city budget for new arrivals from economically moribund southern Serbia.
Amnesty criticised the city authorities for moving people to metal containers in isolated areas. Yet the containers, Mr Djilas argued, were far superior to shacks under traffic overpasses. He tried to link the new housing to mandatory school registration for Roma children.
Read more FT.com
Dutch parliament likely to ban ritual slaughter next week (UK)
Despite protests from Jewish groups and an appeal to Liberal Prime Minister Mark Rutte, Holland is set to ban shechita, the Jewish ritual slaughter of animals following the Socialist party’s decision to support a proposal from the pro-animal party, the world's first such party to be elected to parliament in 2006.
The proposal, which claims that there is evidence that ritual slaughter causes animals unnecessary paid and suffering, is likely to get a majority of votes at the Dutch parliament next week, political observers said.
Both Jewish kosher slaughter and Muslim halal slaughter demand that slaughter is carried out with a single cut to the throat. In ordinary abattoirs, animals are usually stunned before being killed.
The extreme right Party for Freedom (PVV) led by Geert Wilders supports the bill out of its hostility toward the Dutch Muslim population. According to the press, Wilders has an interest in helping the bill pass because his party uses the "animal lover" tag as part of its pitch against Halal butchering.
However, Wilders casts himself as a friend of Israel and the Jews, and by supporting the ban vote he risks losing their support.
Most Dutch favor a ban but many centrist and religious parties feel the issue is a distraction from the more serious issue of abuses at regular slaughterhouses. One of the two members of the governing coalition led by Mark Rutte, the Christian Democrats (CDA), oppose the law out of fear for damage to the country's international image as a haven of tolerance for religious minorities.
Holland has a great tradition of tolerance and was one of the first countries in Europe to allow Jews to live openly with their religion in the 17th century.
The other member of the coalition, the liberal VVD party, has not yet determined which way it will vote.
Jewish and Muslim groups have called the initiative an affront to freedom of religion.
"I can speak for the Dutch Jewish Community and I think for the wider Jewish world, that this law raises grave concerns about infringements on religious freedom," said Ruben Vis, spokesman for the Netherlands' NIK, an umbrella of Jewish organizations.
"What's worse is that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that slaughter without stunning is more harmful or painful for animals," Vis of the CJO said.
In a letter to the Dutch Prime Minister ahead of the vote, European Jewish Congress (EJC) President Moshe Kantor said that the legislation would violate Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, namely the right to freedom of religious practice.
He also pointed out that Muslim ritual slaughter does not expressly forbid pre-slaughter stunning of animals, meaning that the legislation affects only the Jewish community and its slaughter of a couple thousand animals each year.
If the legislation passes, it would make Holland the first European Union country to ban kosher slaughter and it might have a domino effect threat in other parts of Europe.
New Zealand,, the Scandinavian and Baltic countries as well as Switzerland currently ban ritual slaughter.
Around 45,000 Jews live in Holland.
EJPress
The proposal, which claims that there is evidence that ritual slaughter causes animals unnecessary paid and suffering, is likely to get a majority of votes at the Dutch parliament next week, political observers said.
Both Jewish kosher slaughter and Muslim halal slaughter demand that slaughter is carried out with a single cut to the throat. In ordinary abattoirs, animals are usually stunned before being killed.
The extreme right Party for Freedom (PVV) led by Geert Wilders supports the bill out of its hostility toward the Dutch Muslim population. According to the press, Wilders has an interest in helping the bill pass because his party uses the "animal lover" tag as part of its pitch against Halal butchering.
However, Wilders casts himself as a friend of Israel and the Jews, and by supporting the ban vote he risks losing their support.
Most Dutch favor a ban but many centrist and religious parties feel the issue is a distraction from the more serious issue of abuses at regular slaughterhouses. One of the two members of the governing coalition led by Mark Rutte, the Christian Democrats (CDA), oppose the law out of fear for damage to the country's international image as a haven of tolerance for religious minorities.
Holland has a great tradition of tolerance and was one of the first countries in Europe to allow Jews to live openly with their religion in the 17th century.
The other member of the coalition, the liberal VVD party, has not yet determined which way it will vote.
Jewish and Muslim groups have called the initiative an affront to freedom of religion.
"I can speak for the Dutch Jewish Community and I think for the wider Jewish world, that this law raises grave concerns about infringements on religious freedom," said Ruben Vis, spokesman for the Netherlands' NIK, an umbrella of Jewish organizations.
"What's worse is that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that slaughter without stunning is more harmful or painful for animals," Vis of the CJO said.
In a letter to the Dutch Prime Minister ahead of the vote, European Jewish Congress (EJC) President Moshe Kantor said that the legislation would violate Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, namely the right to freedom of religious practice.
He also pointed out that Muslim ritual slaughter does not expressly forbid pre-slaughter stunning of animals, meaning that the legislation affects only the Jewish community and its slaughter of a couple thousand animals each year.
If the legislation passes, it would make Holland the first European Union country to ban kosher slaughter and it might have a domino effect threat in other parts of Europe.
New Zealand,, the Scandinavian and Baltic countries as well as Switzerland currently ban ritual slaughter.
Around 45,000 Jews live in Holland.
EJPress
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)