I'm white and working class. Mrs Hurrah is not white and is working class. ayatollah is a white middle class MUPPET.
What Now for the BNP?
- Thread starter intersol32
- Start date
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
It's for others to judge, but I'd say you've probably surpassed yourself there.
Cheers.
bignose1
Searchlight Spoiler
I think when it comes to surpassing oneself then youve won Olympic Gold on that. You bring shame on the anti fascsist movement, you besmirch its history with this pandering to the racist and fascists. Your ideology is poisonous and malign. And dangerous. You have no obligation now to antifascism so take your medal and fuck off. Your rhetoric is Strasserite. Thankfully in these places where you spout this nonsense you will have little influence bar a few cronies..a handful of sad men...thinking their still anti fascist heavy weights...when in reality your nothing.I await seeing your presence demonstrating against moqsues and lining up with the baying mobs at council meetings.... youll really do wonders for the proud legacy of Manchester Anti Fascism.
Oh yes I can hear it now...all the Searchlight bollox..but I tell you the many messages Ive had have fucked you right off....so go and reel out the same old shit...it doesnt work anymore. You should hang your heads in shame.
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Now that's a step up from "You spilled my pint"
love detective
there's no love too small
'overwhelming messages of support'
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
If (big if) you're correct that there is a culturally specific problem with certain communities with majority Pakistani populations (which is I assume what you're saying here, correct me if I'm wrong...), what do you suggest doing about it?
bignose1
Searchlight Spoiler
Yeah thats right.....and these cunts think they can swagger through anti fascist history like they fucking own it. And any one who dares show anything different is either a spy, coward, grass, lefty, muppet, fantasist, wanker( and thats just me.) Oh yes me old china (stu is it?)people who may not feel up to posting because of the shite they get off this gang ....agree with the fact that most decent anti fascists wouldnt touch its ideology with a bargepole. Dangerous stuff, but hopefully because of the calibre/numbers of people behind it mean its sufficiently fucked to cause any real damage.
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
Brilliant stuff. Your on a roll.
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
Yep, the silent majority.
bignose1
Searchlight Spoiler
No Im on Becks Vier premium...ice cold on the beach Gaz.
bignose1
Searchlight Spoiler
Yeah does sound naff Ive changed it
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
As Tommy Trinder would have put it: "You lucky people".
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
It's not so much a case of what you do - but what you don't do - you don't deny (uaf), you don't suggest it is all got up by the tabloids, (ayatollah), you don't try for mitigation by pointing the fingers at the victims, you don't try and censor debate (big nose) and you don't, at this late stage, address the question with 'a big if' (articlul8).
You don't in other words get locked in behind the 8 ball.
More broadly what is happening here is the erasing of the distinction between criticising minority's on egregious grounds, and the criticism of a minority on any grounds, fgm, for example.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
On the specific "cultural" issue? Someone, I think it was an article in The Guardian, asserted that grooming is "unheard" of in Pakistan? Don't know about that?
They also stated that a number of men (white males, apart from one Asian male) had been in court, convicted on similar offences to those in Rochdale, involving young, vulnerable girls and the media had largely ignored these. Although, it should be noted that these cases were all separate from one and other.
Denying that it happens? Clearly not. A crude attempt to shift the blame away from the men involved and blame the victims? No, the article condemned all the perpetrators. Blaming the media? Well, for ignoring the specific cases mentioned, yes certainly.
The question of what you do to address the abuse can't be avoided here, but those put forward aren't new; i,e to "counter stereotypes" and to 'stop the crimes happenning in the first place'. Well yes.
It is clearly politically inept to shy away from the "elephant in the room" - particularly when the person saying it is a British citizen, originally from Pakistan - that: "Asian men are disproportionately responsible for on-street grooming". He also goes on to state that: "There is no community where women and girls are not vulnerable to sexual attack and that's a fact." It is still a fact too that the majority of cases of sexual assault, including the Rochdale grooming offences, involve men as the perpetrators.
I'll go further and to say it's also important to expose those who seek to distort perceptions for their own agenda. Marai Larasi, a director of Imkaan and co-chair of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, warns:
They also stated that a number of men (white males, apart from one Asian male) had been in court, convicted on similar offences to those in Rochdale, involving young, vulnerable girls and the media had largely ignored these. Although, it should be noted that these cases were all separate from one and other.
Denying that it happens? Clearly not. A crude attempt to shift the blame away from the men involved and blame the victims? No, the article condemned all the perpetrators. Blaming the media? Well, for ignoring the specific cases mentioned, yes certainly.
The question of what you do to address the abuse can't be avoided here, but those put forward aren't new; i,e to "counter stereotypes" and to 'stop the crimes happenning in the first place'. Well yes.
It is clearly politically inept to shy away from the "elephant in the room" - particularly when the person saying it is a British citizen, originally from Pakistan - that: "Asian men are disproportionately responsible for on-street grooming". He also goes on to state that: "There is no community where women and girls are not vulnerable to sexual attack and that's a fact." It is still a fact too that the majority of cases of sexual assault, including the Rochdale grooming offences, involve men as the perpetrators.
I'll go further and to say it's also important to expose those who seek to distort perceptions for their own agenda. Marai Larasi, a director of Imkaan and co-chair of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, warns:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/09/rochdale-grooming-trial-race
malatesta32
Not Serb. No, Really!
please pass on our bestest regards to the guy. i love the fact he's got a fag on. great pix.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Abusive and predatory sexual (group?) behaviour is a problem which takes a variety of forms across a variety of cultures - street grooming is one form, online another, girls are also frequently group raped by drugs gangs (both majority black and of mixed ethnicities), its victims include men as well as women (endemic male rape of civilians by both government and rebels in DRC for eg.) etc..
Certainly you don't exonerate any particular community where this becomes normalised. But neither should you begin with an already demonised group and suggest they are somehow uniquely evil.
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
What do you mean by 'begin with'? That white paedos had a free pass until Muslims started doing it and sort ruined it for everyone else? In fact as is often the case there is some evidence to suggest that precisely because it was Muslims involved and thus deemed 'sensistive' by the powers that be, it was they who got the free pass.
Finally, is not that the Muslim gangs involved are uniquely evil, but nor is it, as the Islamphobia lobby would have it, that they are uniquely demonised either.
Quite right in part articul8, noone suggests that there aren't specific criminal gangs , who are Muslim in cultural background, who have engaged in criminal "grooming" of girls (and some boys) for prostitution purposes. However, we also have to remember, that most of these white girls were already abused by their white fathers and other family members (this is simply a well researched fact). also the majority of child/young people abuse rings in the UK are populated by members of the White community. To focus down solely on Muslim criminals,(and essentially ignore the others) as the BNP do, and as the IWCA appear to do too in their selective interventions on this issue, is simply to play the racist game of demonisation of an entire ethnic/religious community, to pander to , and justify, the broader bigotry of sections of the white community. Other than pogroming/exterminating and deporting these demonised ethnic groups, as a "Final Solution", this ongoing scapegoating and bigging up of problem behaviour by a minority of minority ethnic groups, has no outcome other than to divide the multi ethnic UK working class (Yeh Joe most of these Muslims are WORKERS too !) in the face of the bosses' offensive.
As Bignose quite rightly says, there is, and poisonously has been for years, a strong element of confused "Lumpen Strasserism" in the dishonest, pseudo radical, positions and attitudes of the tiny rump of ex-RA posting on these threads. It was always going to be a danger that if a group oriented its political activity entirely towards a romanticised "they/we are the only real workers" orientation on the Lumpen White Working Class, in direct non-socialist competition with the BNP, it would eventually itself take on some of the most reactionery views and false priorities rampant amongst this particular hyper-oppressed but often profoundly reactionery sub-set of the wider UK Working Class. Tragically, this appears to be what has happened. Socialists beware.
love detective
there's no love too small
putting aside the extraordinary length of the above sentence
i'm amused that for some time now on boards like this, the IWCA has been attacked for pointing out the latent/potential/actual reactionary threat from within a section of the working class (rather than pretending it doesn't exist like most of the left).
Now however, it appears that those who previously attacked the IWCA for doing this, are using that exact same analysis that they objected to of the IWCA to now attack the IWCA with
The difference seems to be though that for the IWCA this 'lumpen' element is a potentially (and existing) dangerous minority within the wider working class of all colours, for ayatollah on the other hand it appears to be the white working class writ large
Socialists be beware indeed
cantsin
Well-Known Member
I could be wrong, but of the 100''s of peados Ive read/heard about via the media over decades, I can't remember hearing references to the religion of the perps ever until the 'Muslims' , so there is a'unique' angle to their demonisation ?
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
[quote="ayatollah, post: 11397984, member: 50726[/quote]
"As Bignose quite rightly says..."
"As Bignose quite rightly says..."
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
In actual fact the media referred to them as 'Asian' to begin with anyway. It is Muslims who define themselves by their religion, that is the identity they choose for themselves. So it twists it more than a little bit to denounce the mass media for bringing religion into it - to say define the suicide bombers in any other way - when that is their reason for being - and then not being. Special pleading after the fact does no one any favours. It is in fact no more than an additional garland for the BNP et al
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
So the catholic priests evaded you?
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
There was little reference in reporting to religious background for offenders aside from where the crime was suppose to have a 'religious context' ie sectarianism full stop. Decades ago it was Asian or black or white.
At the same time there were few pressure groups amongst those from an Indian Subcontinent background that dwelt on being Muslim, by and large these groups were concerned with wider issues. Keen Malik looks at this in one of his books.
I suspect the whole cultural/religion labelling is actually not so much the result of some campaign to demonise anyone but ironically the result of pressure groups,' community leaders' and other people who find a niche in promoting the uniqueness of 'isms' in a political and financial context where class means nothing but 'isms' do.
cantsin
Well-Known Member
true, but Priests/ like Teachers , ie : person in authority/the institution in which they abuse, seems the focus there ?
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
'The institution in which they abuse' in commonly known as the Catholic Church.
Riklet
procrastinación
Primary identity:
[]Catholic Paedophile
[]Irish Paedophile
[]British Asian Paedophile
[x]Muslim Paedophile
[]Other Paedophile (please specify) _________
Since when did a load of blokes working in take away shops or whatnot who have done street grooming/abuse 'primarily identify as Muslim'? Where's the evidence for that? Seems total bollocks comparing it to institutional abuse within religious organisations or churches like with abuse in the Catholic church.
What context do people primarily identify by their religion and why? Is it a pressing priority here? I think lots of the IWCA type analysis of the street grooming stuff is good and avoids lefty hand wringing and those who won't focus upon the real issues but wtf, this focus upon 'Muslim' as a social/cultural category? Because that's how 'they' see themselves? That's total rubbish. It is in itself reverting to the identity politics and ethnic/religious pidgeon-holing and boxing that your position supposedly criticises.
...Unless i'm mistaken and this is an analsis of power, religion and cultural practises in general in terms of prospensity towards unequal power relations and the abuse that often results?
[]Catholic Paedophile
[]Irish Paedophile
[]British Asian Paedophile
[x]Muslim Paedophile
[]Other Paedophile (please specify) _________
Since when did a load of blokes working in take away shops or whatnot who have done street grooming/abuse 'primarily identify as Muslim'? Where's the evidence for that? Seems total bollocks comparing it to institutional abuse within religious organisations or churches like with abuse in the Catholic church.
What context do people primarily identify by their religion and why? Is it a pressing priority here? I think lots of the IWCA type analysis of the street grooming stuff is good and avoids lefty hand wringing and those who won't focus upon the real issues but wtf, this focus upon 'Muslim' as a social/cultural category? Because that's how 'they' see themselves? That's total rubbish. It is in itself reverting to the identity politics and ethnic/religious pidgeon-holing and boxing that your position supposedly criticises.
...Unless i'm mistaken and this is an analsis of power, religion and cultural practises in general in terms of prospensity towards unequal power relations and the abuse that often results?
Similar threads
- Poll
