Here’s my post on this. Personally I think its time to draw a line under the specific argument, and to focus this back on the challenge of liberal arguments and methods for defending liberal democratic values.

I am glad Stephen Pritchard also went back to the Hassan Butt case. I hope other media organisations will also correct the record on that, as it ought to have been a cautonary case.

Beyond the narrow though valid defence of the Fabian reputation as democrats, I felt that the group of people responding to Nick’s column was trying to raise the broader issue of why more innovative liberal voices seem to get crowded out to the margins of public and media debate, even at the same time as there are loud complaints that these voices do not exist or are not speaking up, while anti-democratic voices like Hizb-ut-Tahrir and various other minority splinter groups seem to get a very large share of voice, because of the shock value that they provide.
http://www.nextleft.org/2009/04/observer-on-nick-cohen-and-fabians.html

I’m still a little hung-over and I might not be reading it right but that last sentence seems to be missing some words, Sunny.

Nevertheless, it is a shame Nick cannot engage in a proper debate other than accuse the left of being blind just because “noted lefties” such as the Queen, and then saying everyone is trying to censor him.

The first part (my emphasis) I agree with – the second part I am unsure of what you mean, Sunny.

Since when has the Queen become a leftie? Or am I that far out of the loop?

why more innovative liberal voices seem to get crowded out to the margins of public and media debate, even at the same time as there are loud complaints that these voices do not exist or are not speaking up, while anti-democratic voices like Hizb-ut-Tahrir and various other minority splinter groups seem to get a very large share of voice, because of the shock value that they provide.

There you hit it on the head, Sunder – getting a response after reading a paper/blog/anything where the reader goes “He/she made a good point – now where is the crossword?” or “Those murdering bastards – who is going to save us from the creeping fundamentalists that this shit government is allowing….etc”. The latter is what is wanted because people will prolly go read that column again. A moderate voice is not a ‘shock’ because it is moderate. Now, say if, moderate Muslims were to take to the streets and wave placards with “Death to [...]” on them – that kind of moderate voice would hit the tabloid front pages.

I’d say Muslims hate Hizb-ut-Tahrir more than the non-Muslims do. It’s a nasty little cult (in Britain anyway) that attracts weirdos and their views are paradoxical (such as opposition to democracy unless it suits them).

As for Maher, he’s an opportunist, who saw a niche in the market for government funding (being an ex-Islamist). I don’t see why the government needs to fund any policy group. Community based charitable initiatives- yes, but not large policy groups that claim to speak on behalf of Muslims when they don’t (The Quilliam Foundation comes to mind amongst others). If they don’t receive adequate funding from the Muslim community, it means that their existence is unnecessary.

Whoops, I’ve updated the wording – it was missing a few words.

Will, see this point by Nick Cohen himself:
https://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/03/18/what-planet-is-nick-cohen-on/#comment-38522

Re. Nick Cohen…

Are we not feeding the goat?

Can’t see what relevance he has to British political life any longer? He got one gargantuan thing wrong, and has spent the last 6-years having his little psycho-drama all over the leftwing media.

He has little useful to say. He writes crap, incoherent books. He dresses like a pretentious left-bank philosopher. And he clearly has alcohol problems.

I’ve never seen someone struggle so hard with their journey rightward. Okay, you’re now an awful sell-out who got into bed with a warmongering American elite, deal with it. And quick. We wont miss you, even though you want us to.

We should all agree he’s an egotistical prat, who’s gone a bit mad. Next!