While neither side would ever admit it, there is a certain symmetry between the Islamist far right and the British nationalist far right.’

Symmetry would imply equal but opposite but neither is the case.

They’re not opposite because they are both racist, homophobic and misogynistic; but they are not the same in that Copeland wasn’t trained and funded by other haters, nor was he lauded as a hero by any significant portion of white British people.

Nor are there equivalent mitigating circumstances cited on Copeland’s behalf (‘self-activated anger at British involvement in the invasion of Iraq seems the most likely explanation.’)

(And how come you get to use ‘nutters’ when people throw a hissy-fit at me using ‘retard’?)

They’re not opposite because they are both racist, homophobic and misogynistic; but they are not the same in that Copeland wasn’t trained and funded by other haters, nor was he lauded as a hero by any significant portion of white British people.

Khan wasn’t funded by other haters (there’s not even any credible evidence he was trained by them), nor was he lauded as a hero by any significant proportion of British Muslims.

like most orrible groups and political parties its not until the unpalatable start to make significant gains that emotions stir on a large scale. Imagine if n9s became popular, would we have to tolerate it? Firstly, most orrible groups modernize – so to speak – before capturing many hearts and minds, which makes it easier to tolerate them, but will an Islamist political party modernize in order to gain votes? That will be the real criteria of whether tolerance will be bestowed upon the Islamic far right. Secretly, it seems in the interests of democracy that we tolerate extreme views inasmuch as they remain unpopular and we tolerate the bnp inasmuch as they bend over backwards to pretend not to be fascist. Ideas will trump the bnp in whatever guise they take!

Btw, what is the picture of?

I have read Ed Husain’s book and found it a real eye-opener. What he describes – particularly the manipulation of the truth in the minds of the young – is really disturbing. But nonetheless, as you say, tolerating the parties that do it is probably the least worst option.
Question: will public political consciousness and critical thinking ever reach a point where everyone can see through the politics of hate? I’d like to think so but I doubt it…

I’m with Shatterface.

By describing Islamic extremists as “nutters” you are undermining the status of real nutters (the eccentric, mad or insane).

Just to make clear, the choice of headline was not mine.

Dave

My headline – I’m not sure how it’s a sideswipe at mentally disabled people, but I’ll change it.

I’m not really offended by the use of the word ‘nutter’, I’m just drawing attention to the fact excluding words of abuse derived from mental illness (‘nutter’) or lack of intelligence (‘retard’) severely restricts the terms of debate. A bit like saying you can’t call someone a cunt when he really, really is a cunt and no other word will do.

Anyway, Copeland is a paranoid schizophrenic (‘nutter’ in layman’s terms) and while I regard religion as delusional it’s not yet recognised as a mental illness.

There’s no equivalence. The rise of organised Islamism led to 7/7; the rise of the organised right gave us a couple of dodgy MEPs.

oh its only harmless colloquialism, I wouldn’t have even made the equation were it not for shatterface taking it up

I’m with Shatterface again and am amused by the totalitarian tendency

Language should be free of any restrictions. If I choose to describe Islamic extremists as “nutters” that is my right. If I choose to describe paranoid schizophrenics as “nutters” that is also my right.

It’s called freedom of speech. Whether I cause offence or not

I agree. You tolerate Islamists until they threaten violence. Of course, toleration does not entail giving airtime or even offering access to University facilities, and independent organisation have every right to exclude them.

I don’t think that Dave’s comparison of traditional left- and right-wing political organisation in students unions with Hizb ut-Tahrir is fair. The traditional organisations have/had a membership comprising one individual and a puppy; in some universities, even the SWP has struggled to sign up enough members to qualify for union funds. Hizb ut-Tahrir implied a membership of 8,500 in the UK at its peak, and here it is a youthful organisation.

Even so, leave all extremists alone until they are a genuine threat.

Tolerate, but mercilessly expose.

While keeping out the extremists from abroad.

It’s preposterous that anyone could seriously consider banning non-violent extremist groups. Arguably the idea that we should is a form of extremism itself.

13. Good point. The problem with muslim extremist groups was that they were not subject to examination and where appropriate, ridicule. The left have not stood up for a tolerant free democracy against those who wish to impose a religious dictatorship.

Too often, even where muslims running mosques wanted support from the councils( usually labour run and/or the police ) to help in their resistance to H u T and Al Muhajiroon; they received none. At Finsbury Mosque Abu Hamza physically took control. When the mosque’s committee went to the police and asked the police to remove Abu Hamza and his thugs they were ignored.

A professor of theology at Glasgow Uni, who was was muslim women went to on record as saying that Britin had to stop pussy footing around and start criticising these extremist muslim groups.

Whe it comes to honour murders and forced marriages, very few MPs apart from Ann Cryer of Keighley have taken these issues seriously and the only writer, is Yasmin A B Brown.

When Abu Hamza called Britain a toilet and many other extremists made criticism of this country;while receiving welfare payments, people should have told him to leave for a better place. In the Bedu tradition one offers food, shelter and protection to the traveller for 3 days. Britain has given food, shelter and protection to those who would harm it which far exceeds any code of hospitality of the Pushtun or Bedu. No Bedu or Pushtun code supports the guests
rights to cause harm or live in a way which is in contraventon of the customs of the host.

Noone apart from Civitas has looked at the literature sold in the UK and used in some schools supportig muslim extremism.

For the last 15 years anyone who has criticised muslim extremism has themselves been called islamophobic by the left wing . The extremists have been able to say to the moderate muslims “Look you are not receiving any support from the authorities. We are prepared to die for Islam but they are not prepared to do so for their decadent corrupt western democracy . Our faith is stronger than theirs and we will win.”

When Satanic Verses was published, the left wing totally failed to support freedom of speech. After hundreds of years of pushing back the censorship of the rulers of the State and the established Church, we allowed a few extremists to reduce freedom of speech, using far less force than used by the Nazis.

Tolerance is overrated, I used to tolerate all kinds of backwarts ideas, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc.

Best to not tolerate, best to challenge every step of the way and to educate whilst challenging.

When Satanic Verses was published, the left wing totally failed to support freedom of speech. After hundreds of years of pushing back the censorship of the rulers of the State and the established Church, we allowed a few extremists to reduce freedom of speech, using far less force than used by the Nazis.

That’ll be why it’s impossible to buy a copy of the Satanic Verses in a bookshop, and why Rushdie isn’t one of the West’s most feted (not to say omnipresent…) authors, then.

You may recall that Roy (Lord) Hattersley’s suggested “compromise” at the time was that a paperback version should not be produced.
What a brave man.

Daniel @16 – exactly.

What john b said – worth remembering next time Rushdie saunters on to the stage alongside Bono.

Anyway, I seem to recall the general right-wing pub-bore opinion back in the day was along the lines of “Why should we pay for his police protection? He should have known better ‘cos he’s one of them, innee?”

Of course that was a long time ago, back in the days before right wing pub bores started to pretend they’ve read Karl Popper and are all intellectual all that.

Well, if it’s in paperback the ‘wrong’ kind of people might read it. You’ll have women and servants reading ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’ next.

‘What john b said – worth remembering next time Rushdie saunters on to the stage alongside Bono.’

So, lot of fuss about nothing then? No translators killed or anything?

@21: Worst straw man ever.

“I am not aware of any direct linkage between Mohammad Sidique Khan and his fellow bombers and organised Islamism in the UK.”

There is a great danger here that you suppose you would know such information if it existed. The fact is that you probably would not. Such information would not be released until it could be handled in a way as to reduce the impact upon the populace.

The details will probably only be released when we are old. Give it forty years or more.

Remember: the media is a very easy thing to control. You don’t need to do it by bullying or D-notices, you just do it by omission, by keeping quiet, by not saying anything, by not telling the other 80 percent of the story.

16: Daniel:
aren’t you also guilty of playing down the Islamist problem, but pitching it in the same breath as rather different beasties:

You wrote: “…I used to tolerate all kinds of backwarts ideas, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc.Best to not tolerate, best to challenge every step of the way and to educate whilst challenging”

12 Charlieman

“Even so, leave all extremists alone until they are a genuine threat.”

So does that mean that your think Hussain is wrong to consider some of the Islamist groups a genuine threat?

Or would you say that Mohammed’s own words about violence and forcing non-Muslims to convert are a genuine threat?

Of a different kind to other religions?

Just Visiting:

No.

Daniel Hoffman-Gill: “Best to not tolerate, best to challenge every step of the way and to educate whilst challenging.”
What you’re describing, as far as I can tell, *is* tolerance. Intolerance, in this context, would be refusing to challenge and educate, but instead getting the extremist silenced and punished by the security forces for saying dangerous things.

I’m personally all in favour of tolerating non-violent extremism; it blunts the force of it. When you prosecute them for their ideas, all it does is “proves” to their followers that they must be telling the truth because “the authorities” are trying to shut them up.

Jungle:

If you class that as tolerance than fair play to you but I don’t.

Great.

“It’s preposterous that anyone could seriously consider banning non-violent extremist groups.”

I knew a students’ union officer who threw Al Muhajiroon out of their freshers’ fair. They responded by issuing a “fatwa” against him, saying it was the duty of all Muslims to kill him, and he had to live under police protection for months and then move house.

The next time he saw the guy was on TV from Pakistan, waving a Kalashnikov over his head and calling for the death of the infidel.

So I’m not sure they can exactly be described as non-violent.

Still – the same could be said of the BNP and other far-right groups who are up to their neck in organised criminality. I’m not sure at what point you can go beyond individual prosecutions and ban the whole organisation, and especially not if it’s seen to only target extremists of one stripe.

Obviously this happened to the various paramilitary terrorist networks in Northern Ireland but not to their associated political parties, and it’s arguable how effective it was.

Nonetheless, I feel that issuing death threats, even if they are not followed up, must surely go beyond the bounds of free speech for most people on the left at least?

Tolerate extremists? NO!

Never, never, never. Tolerance of extremists is not a good option. Why is Britain so stuck with its head in the mud, trying to tolerate everything and doing nothing? We must challenge those who wish to impose extremism on others…we cannot tolerate this kind of organisation.

Why don’t you go and read this – http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6565064.ece

This French woman points out that the liberal left, typified by the likes of this author of this article, are contradicting themselves. The French rather unsurprisingly are shocked by Britain’s attitude – the idea of equality is where no religion is given preferential treatment. Secularism is a must – religious behaviour is the concern of the individual, and where it comes into public life, it should be checked where it affects others. Extremism affects others, and should be challenged.

None of this ridiculously left wing drivel. This site is called liberal conspiracy, and it shames me. I am a liberal. Most people who write on this site are not liberal – you’re socialists. There is a difference. Go work it out, come back and post your inane left wing rants.

David: you do rather sound as if you’ve not read any comments or the post itself and just took the headline and ranted your own personal foilbles.

Which is a shame.