Julie Burchill forced to apologise for twitter comments , and pay out a fat wedge .

[Kevbad the Bad]

Ever been searched at an airport?

Yes, and in the street, and at gunpoint. Not a Muslim, though.

 

[ska invita]

Islam is not a minority religion everywhere in the world. In some parts it is definitely the majority, or only, religion. When it is, it can be very oppressive for non-Muslims and indeed for those Muslims who are deemed apostates or heretics. It shouldn't be left off the hook just because Islam is a minority religion here in Britain. At the same time I am not advocating senselessly attacking Muslim individuals or communities.
Anyway, and I could be wrong here, I don't think that Muslim communities are particularly oppressed here because of their religion but because of their skin colour or national origins. If I am wrong, please enlighten me how someone adhering to Islam is more oppressed than an atheist like myself.

muslims are a minority in the UK and experience discrimination in a variety of ways here, potentially including by military intervention of ancestral homelands depending on heritage. yes skin colour is a key defining factor, but skin colour as a factor intersects with many other variables - someone with the same skin colour and ethnic heritage may play cricket and vote tory and laugh along with racist comments they occasionally experience and not experience the hostility of a practicing muslim who has a beard and wears robes to mosque, for example.

Of course Islam shouldnt be left off the hook, thats what i was saying. I was making the point that a bit of sensitivity is needed so its not misconstrued as part of all the other oppressive attacks muslims might experience here in blighty.

 

[Spymaster]

I dont think theyre theories as much as "feminist literary interventions" for want of a better word IYSWIM
These events didnt happen, the original texts are what they are, but by retelling and reframing it it brings up interesting issues

It does bring up interesting issues but you have to conflate mulitple contexts to get these "interventions" to make any kind of sense in most cases that I can think of immediately. I'll google the stuff that SnG suggested later and see how other myths fit (or don't) within them.

 

[Treacle Toes]

muslims are a minority in the UK and experience discrimination in a variety of ways here, potentially including by military intervention of ancestral homelands depending on heritage. yes skin colour is a key defining factor, but skin colour as a factor intersects with many other variables - someone with the same skin colour and ethnic heritage may play cricket and vote tory and laugh along with racist comments they occasionally experience and not experience the hostility of a practicing muslim who has a beard and wears robes to mosque, for example.

Of course Islam shouldnt be left off the hook, thats what i was saying. I was making the point that a bit of sensitivity is needed so its not misconstrued as part of all the other oppressive attacks muslims might experience here in blighty.

Reminded me of reading about this:

Rafiq's claim against Yorkshire alleges he was given a racist nickname by his team-mates and that other racist comments were directed at players from an ethnic minority background, including the term "P***", with the phrase "go back where you came from" also used.

It alleges that Yorkshire failed to respect ethnic beliefs of Pakistani players and players of Pakistani descent, "including the non-provision of Halal food facilities and attempts to enforce the drinking culture of the club on them".

It is alleged that in one incident players and officials laughed in response to alcohol being thrown on a Muslim child at a match.

Azeem Rafiq: Former Yorkshire bowler files legal claim against club over alleged racism

Azeem Rafiq claims deep-rooted racism at Yorkshire left him close to committing suicide; Yorkshire say they take these allegations extremely seriously but add that it would be inappropriate to comment further as an independent investigation is still ongoing

www.skysports.com

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

muslims are a minority in the UK and experience discrimination in a variety of ways here, potentially including by military intervention of ancestral homelands depending on heritage. yes skin colour is a key defining factor, but skin colour as a factor intersects with many other variables - someone with the same skin colour and ethnic heritage may play cricket and vote tory and laugh along with racist comments they occasionally experience and not experience the hostility of a practicing muslim who has a beard and wears robes to mosque, for example.

Of course Islam shouldnt be left off the hook, thats what i was saying. I was making the point that a bit of sensitivity is needed so its not misconstrued as part of all the other oppressive attacks muslims might experience here in blighty.

I'm not trying to be pedantic or difficult here, but the beard and robes are part of cultural heritage, not an intrinsic part of Islam. Others from the same part of the world may dress similarly and get similar negative responses yet adhere to a different or no faith at all.
Yes, halal food might not be always readily provided, but neither is vegetarian or vegan or gluten-free.
I do agree that there has been more specifically anti-Muslim feeling in recent decades, coinciding with British involvement in Iraq in particular and the rise of Isis. But Asian friends of mine from Hindu and Catholic backgrounds have also experienced racism (surprise, surprise) - all down to their skin colour.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

If he wasn't, then who built that airport outside of Nottingham, eh?

Robin Hood built East Midlands Airport?

 

[Serge Forward]

I like and admire Danny, but it was very clear that he said something deliberately provocative to make his point.

Saying something 'provocative" is one thing and doing what Edie claims he did is another.

 

[danny la rouge]

There’s a number of things going on here. They’re getting confused in this thread because people do confuse them.

Within Islam, and the cultures espousing it as their religion, there is a lot one can and should criticise. As someone has already said (KillerB or littlebabyjesus I think), Muslim cultures are not a monolith. Within those cultures there are oppressions and debates. There are people fighting those battles and there are forces of reaction. The more literalist and fundamentalist interpretations of any religion are by definition more oppressive, authoritarian, reactionary and limiting. They tend to suck in reactionary currents from the traditional cultural milieu and use scripture to shore up those oppressions.

My mother has become a Wee Free in later years. This has seriously pushed her social conscience into the reactionary spectrum. When she brought me up, she was a socialist with what were for the time socially liberal values. Now, she has imbibed and internalised not only the Presbyterian reaction of the Highlands and Islands, but those contacts have opened her up to the views of the American Christian Right. She now has very different views on women’s role in the home than she had when I was a kid. This is not a good thing. This is not just a matter of “oh well, that’s her religion, leave her alone”. I’m sorry, but while I would not take her God away from her, I do challenge her views.

If we put Islam or Judaism inside a protected fence and say that because Muslims or Jews are discriminated against (which of course they are), then we abandon all debate within those cultures to the forces of reaction. We then may as well enforce blasphemy laws, which here in Scotland have only just been repealed.

Religion is not a special case. Religions are a series of philosophies. Philosophies are not untouchable. We cannot make them so because it would give offence. We do not have the right to be unoffended. If I am offended by equal marriage then that’s just fucking tough. Whatever my religion.

 

[Santino]

Saying something 'provocative" is one thing and doing what Edie claims he did is another.

Ok, I think he was being needlessly provocative, and using the concept of rape in a way that was intended to offend Christians.

 

[andysays]

I think that's underplaying what Burchill has done. It was an obsessive campaign against an individual and really weird sexual one at that.

Fair point, wouldn't want to downplay what Burchill did, was more focused on saying why what danny was doing wasn't the same

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, halal food might not be always readily provided, but neither is vegetarian or vegan or gluten-free.

Where you know there are likely to be Muslims eating, providing food they can eat is a basic courtesy, and very easy to do. I don't think that is too much to ask. Any hospital, for instance, will have halal options.

And in the specific case of cricket in Yorkshire, there are entire leagues of players of mostly Pakistani descent. The idea that it could be a surprise to find players who won't eat ham sandwiches is laughable. Offering such things to them is an act of deliberate, racist provocation.

ETA: And to be clear, in the specific case of cricket, this kind of deliberate, racist provocation does happen. Shameful but true.

 

[danny la rouge]

I like and admire Danny, but it was very clear that he said something deliberately provocative to make his point.

Yes I was.

 

[danny la rouge]

Saying something 'provocative" is one thing and doing what (edie) claims he did is another.

Don’t tag her, she said she wanted to leave the thread as it upsets her. That’s fair enough.

 

[danny la rouge]

Ok, I think he was being needlessly provocative, and using the concept of rape in a way that was intended to offend Christians.

I was pointing out the deep, deep engrained misogyny in many Bible stories and thereby in mainstream Christian morality. I picked one which it turns out I had a poor scriptural grasp of, but the point remains. The misogyny is there, and it has seeped down into even the more liberal interpretations of Christianity today. Indeed even this post Christian society we live in still struggles with those values it inherits from the Abrahamic past, for example women “asking for it” with “provocative” clothing or behaviour. That comes straight from those sources.

 

[killer b]

As someone has already said (@KillerB or @littlebabyjesus I think),

I sometimes feel a bit sorry for KillerB, who in the unlikely event of him ever logging back in here will find a deluge of alerts from people who were hoping to tag me. Then I read his single post here and don't care so much.

 

[danny la rouge]

I sometimes feel a bit sorry for KillerB, who in the unlikely event of him ever logging back in here will find a deluge of alerts from people who were hoping to tag me. Then I read his single post here and don't care so much.

My phone is determined to capitalise some things I don’t want capitalised. I apologise for dialling the wrong number.

 

[danny la rouge]

naah, I just think that - whether put in those crude four words or in fifty after a quibble and a caveat - it isn't really worth saying. It's, on a par with 'the Jews killed Jesus' or 'well, Hitler was a Zionist until he went mad and did the holocaust.' It wont win anyone over and is actually more likely to push them away.

I know we fundamentally disagree on these issues - and that doesn’t make you a bad person, just wrong - but try to focus on things I’ve actually said instead of getting wound up about stuff somebody hypothetical might have said sometime in history. I already took the piss out of you for association fallacy, but now you’re stretching it beyond breaking point.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

I was pointing out the deep, deep engrained misogyny in many Bible stories and thereby in mainstream Christian morality. I picked one which it turns out I had a poor scriptural grasp of, but the point remains. The misogyny is there, and it has seeped down into even the more liberal interpretations of Christianity today. Indeed even this post Christian society we live in still struggles with those values it inherits from the Abrahamic past, for example women “asking for it” with “provocative” clothing or behaviour. That comes straight from those sources.

The scripture isn't very clear (what a shock!) And Mary couldn't really have given her consent - she was probably about 13 years old and had been taught to obey men. A male angel told her she was going to have a baby. We are told that she was frightened. Then she submitted. Did she have a choice?

 

[danny la rouge]

The scripture isn't very clear (what a shock!) And Mary couldn't really have given her consent - she was probably about 13 years old and had been taught to obey men. A male angel told her she was going to have a baby. We are told that she was frightened. Then she submitted. Did she have a choice?

These are all good points. And whatever Luke says, what I was told in Catechism did differ, but I wish I’d picked another example.

 

[chilango]

What danny la rouge said, whilst undeniably provocative and no doubt offensive to many, doesn't come in the context of mobs of fascists marching around the streets beating up people who "look like Christians" chanting "Jesus is a rapist!" over and over again.

 

[8ball]

The scripture isn't very clear (what a shock!) And Mary couldn't really have given her consent - she was probably about 13 years old and had been taught to obey men. A male angel told her she was going to have a baby. We are told that she was frightened. Then she submitted. Did she have a choice?

I don't think angels are male or female theologically speaking, but agree we would be iffy these days on the quality of that particular consent.
I think if you dig into the Bible a bit, this doesn't even gently abrade the surface of the full extent of the misogyny in there, though.

As an aside, in the book of Zechariah there are a couple of angels that are described as female.

 

[Santino]

What danny la rouge said, whilst undeniably provocative and no doubt offensive to many, doesn't come in the context of mobs of fascists marching around the streets beating up people who "look like Christians" chanting "Jesus is a rapist!" over and over again.

Is the mob also burning a straw man?

 

[hitmouse]

Danny's point was obviously a crude provocation, but I don't think it's anything like equivalent to Burchill's racist attacks on Sarkar.

Kenan Malik makes the point that what's often called an offence to a community is actually a debate within a community, and I think that's something that has some relevance here. While we may choose to be atheists in the UK, the christian church still exercises a huge amount of political and social control and influence over the communities we live in. The christian church is in our schools, in our legislative chambers, on our national broadcaster. In Northern Ireland, women are unable to freely access abortions because of the enduring influence of the church.

Criticisms of and provocations against christianity by people living in the UK - and anywhere the church still exercises political and social control - are not lobbing bricks at an oppressed minority, they are attacks against a powerful institution.

But that's the thing innit, the Christian Church isn't a singular institution and hasn't been since at least 1054. So while I broadly agree with you there, I think it's very possible to do "provocations against christianity" that do function as lobbing bricks at an oppressed minority, especially in the NI context.

Robin Hood built East Midlands Airport?

Shit, I've now looked this one up and realised I was led astray by Nottingham's habit of sticking Robin Hood on everything. It was actually Doncaster airport that Robin Hood built, apologies for any confusion caused there.

 

[chilango]

Is the mob also burning a straw man?

In Danny's neck of the woods quite possibly.

 

[8ball]

Shit, I've now looked this one up and realised I was led astray by Nottingham's habit of sticking Robin Hood on everything.

He lives round the corner from me.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But that's the thing innit, the Christian Church isn't a singular institution and hasn't been since at least 1054. So while I broadly agree with you there, I think it's very possible to do "provocations against christianity" that do function as lobbing bricks at an oppressed minority, especially in the NI context.

of course. in the same way that it is possible to do 'provocations against Islam' that perform that function. For example, Julie Burchill.

But the point here is surely that it is also possible (and I would say necessary) to do such provocations in a way that performs a very different function.

 

[seeformiles]

One of my former flatmate's colleagues was tripping once and found god hidden away in a breadbin

I came across a friend of mine who was tripping on the beach. He was very indignant because a rock had just told him to get a haircut.

 

[8ball]

I came across a friend of mine who was tripping on the beach. He was very indignant because a rock had just told him to get a haircut.

You sure he said a rock?

 

[killer b]

But that's the thing innit, the Christian Church isn't a singular institution and hasn't been since at least 1054. So while I broadly agree with you there, I think it's very possible to do "provocations against christianity" that do function as lobbing bricks at an oppressed minority, especially in the NI context.

This is true, though the NI context you talk about is a conflict between two different strands of non-monolithic christianity. Both strands of which are currently voting to enforce (or at least not to challenge) abortion restrictions in the province.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Shit, I've now looked this one up and realised I was led astray by Nottingham's habit of sticking Robin Hood on everything. It was actually Doncaster airport that Robin Hood built, apologies for any confusion caused there.

As a devotee I regard this not so much as confusion as a provocation.