Islamaphobia in Tory party?

[bitchstewie]

Dont like rolls said:

The "type" of people who become Conservative "activists"/members are not the same as the type that has become activists/members within Labour.

Ask why Momentum are a part of (and tolerated/encouraged by) the Labour Party, the BNP are not part of the Conservatives.

Is there a "type"?

You see the likes of Tommy Robinson and Britain First seemingly endorsing the Conservatives under Boris.

Now of course you can't choose who endorses you and it doesn't mean that the Conservatives are turning into the EDL or the BNP.

But it should raise the question "What are we saying or doing to make those sorts of people endorse us?".

[andy_s]

plasticpig said:

Do you believe there is any prejudice against Muslims in the Conservative party?

Internally I don't think there is anything systemic, I'm sure there are a few that go beyond the line of acceptability in some of their views but I'm not sure how that is manifested in terms of 'the party'. I would say the same about most cross-sections, bell curves and all that.
Ostensibly they have produced a wide range of MPs that appear to be fairly representative of the demographics of the country, or towards it at least; and more importantly organically, i.e. it doesn't appear to be 'quota filling' or window dressing.

If you mean 'Islamophobia' in general then I'm fairly certain there will be some bad apples, but I can also see that the description of 'bad apples' can also depend on how you define Islamophobia; is a criticism of the incompatibility of, say, Sharia Law with Western Law Islamophobic? Does this change if it is Tommy Robinson saying it or Maajid Nawaz saying it? Why is it OK for secular Islamic states such as Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia to ban the burqa/niqab while here even broaching the subject leads to vilification? Again, perhaps it is the motivation behind what is said rather than what is said that is the point of interrogation.
Muslims themselves are not a homogeneous group either, different sects and ideologies, politics and motivational forces are at play too, and it is where these distinctions and nuances are lost that real bigotry can flourish, either by deliberate will or by drawn impression.

After a life with a foot in each camp, having as many friends in the Islamic world as the Western, my sense is that extrapolating the extremes to define the whole is not only misleading but downright dangerous, but not being able to discuss issues that are in conflict with how we live in a tolerant, fair and free society - arguably unequalled in both time and place - can also be harmful.
A difficult balance in an age where, to use a metaphor, if you are not 'pro-celibacy', you are a rapist.

If next month it is revealed that there is some idea of endemic/systemic Islamophobia in a real sense in the Conservative party, I will be first in the queue to give them a shoeing over it.

[biggbn]

andy_s said:

Internally I don't think there is anything systemic, I'm sure there are a few that go beyond the line of acceptability in some of their views but I'm not sure how that is manifested in terms of 'the party'. I would say the same about most cross-sections, bell curves and all that.
Ostensibly they have produced a wide range of MPs that appear to be fairly representative of the demographics of the country, or towards it at least; and more importantly organically, i.e. it doesn't appear to be 'quota filling' or window dressing.

If you mean 'Islamophobia' in general then I'm fairly certain there will be some bad apples, but I can also see that the description of 'bad apples' can also depend on how you define Islamophobia; is a criticism of the incompatibility of, say, Sharia Law with Western Law Islamophobic? Does this change if it is Tommy Robinson saying it or Maajid Nawaz saying it? Why is it OK for secular Islamic states such as Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia to ban the burqa/niqab while here even broaching the subject leads to vilification? Again, perhaps it is the motivation behind what is said rather than what is said that is the point of interrogation.
Muslims themselves are not a homogeneous group either, different sects and ideologies, politics and motivational forces are at play too, and it is where these distinctions and nuances are lost that real bigotry can flourish, either by deliberate will or by drawn impression.

After a life with a foot in each camp, having as many friends in the Islamic world as the Western, my sense is that extrapolating the extremes to define the whole is not only misleading but downright dangerous, but not being able to discuss issues that are in conflict with how we live in a tolerant, fair and free society - arguably unequalled in both time and place - can also be harmful.
A difficult balance in an age where, to use a metaphor, if you are not 'pro-celibacy', you are a rapist.

If next month it is revealed that there is some idea of endemic/systemic Islamophobia in a real sense in the Conservative party, I will be first in the queue to give them a shoeing over it.

What a great post. Thanks for this

[jakesmith]

biggbn said:

It seems you are purposely missing my points here Jake. I specifically said whether it was 50 or 5000 that is to many people and specifically made the point about how the Tory party is perceived. If you do not wish to debate this that's cool. Some people don't even believe islamaphobia is 'a thing', perhaps you are one of those? If so I would genuinely like to debate this as many, including senior members of the Tory party disagree with that assertion, as does the editor of the Jewish Chronicle who recently apologised for any offence caused after they printed an article saying as much. (I'm not sure an apology was needed to be fair, we should always allow others to air their views lest we forget about the potential magnitude of the problem)

Jake, you do not seem keen on entering into a genuine debate about this, so I shall wish you good day and all the best and we can cross swords about other subjects at a later date, in the areas of the forum set aside for them, as I have no intention of retyping my points again and again in perpetuity. All the best fella. Enjoy your Sunday. Gbn

Edited by biggbn on Sunday 29th December 11:28

Thoroughly pleasant chap you might be, but please don’t dictate which threads I can and can’t participate in, thanks all the same.

50 people is 50 too many you say? I disagree there will always be weird freaks on the margins, in a large org. Nothing you can do (beyond Identifying and expelling them). Just look at the Labour Party, due to an unexpected chain of events they ended up running the whole thing (into the ground). Not whataboutery btw, just an example of something, before you have another go at me

[rscott]

jakesmith said:

biggbn said:

It seems you are purposely missing my points here Jake. I specifically said whether it was 50 or 5000 that is to many people and specifically made the point about how the Tory party is perceived. If you do not wish to debate this that's cool. Some people don't even believe islamaphobia is 'a thing', perhaps you are one of those? If so I would genuinely like to debate this as many, including senior members of the Tory party disagree with that assertion, as does the editor of the Jewish Chronicle who recently apologised for any offence caused after they printed an article saying as much. (I'm not sure an apology was needed to be fair, we should always allow others to air their views lest we forget about the potential magnitude of the problem)

Jake, you do not seem keen on entering into a genuine debate about this, so I shall wish you good day and all the best and we can cross swords about other subjects at a later date, in the areas of the forum set aside for them, as I have no intention of retyping my points again and again in perpetuity. All the best fella. Enjoy your Sunday. Gbn

Edited by biggbn on Sunday 29th December 11:28

Thoroughly pleasant chap you might be, but please don’t dictate which threads I can and can’t participate in, thanks all the same.

50 people is 50 too many you say? I disagree there will always be weird freaks on the margins, in a large org. Nothing you can do (beyond Identifying and expelling them). Just look at the Labour Party, due to an unexpected chain of events they ended up running the whole thing (into the ground). Not whataboutery btw, just an example of something, before you have another go at me

And again, Smiffy shows he's unable to follow his own advice. He prompted the creation of this thread by complaining about the Labour anti-Semitism thread was being taken off topic by mentioning Islamophobia in the Conservative party but gets upset when his equally off-topic posts are highlighted here.

[rscott]

bhstewie said:

Dont like rolls said:

The "type" of people who become Conservative "activists"/members are not the same as the type that has become activists/members within Labour.

Ask why Momentum are a part of (and tolerated/encouraged by) the Labour Party, the BNP are not part of the Conservatives.

Is there a "type"?

You see the likes of Tommy Robinson and Britain First seemingly endorsing the Conservatives under Boris.

Now of course you can't choose who endorses you and it doesn't mean that the Conservatives are turning into the EDL or the BNP.

But it should raise the question "What are we saying or doing to make those sorts of people endorse us?".

A clear statement that they disapprove of the endorsements and taking copying one of UKIP's rules (banning any former members of the BNP from joining them) would be a decent start.

Although that might be considered extreme when they have a former IRA member in the ranks ( and an official Conservative London borough councillor)...

[anonymous-user]

The worst part of success is being endorsed by nutters, ref Trump and BJ.

Don’t see why anyone has to re-justify their existence as a result of it though. That’s just hysterical.

[jakesmith]

rscott said:

And again, Smiffy shows he's unable to follow his own advice. He prompted the creation of this thread by complaining about the Labour anti-Semitism thread was being taken off topic by mentioning Islamophobia in the Conservative party but gets upset when his equally off-topic posts are highlighted here.

R-Stoat, I thought you had stormed off like a small child in a huff yet here you are yet again, attempting to antagonise me. It will not work as I am Zen like and in fact have just done some stretching only 15 mins ago.

I had the grace and warmth to welcome you back despite this slightly immature behaviour from you. Why don’t you show some humility.

There was nothing off topic about my post. I’ve tried to explain this a few times but you seem happier storming off, coming back etc than actually reading the words I have written.

I still welcome you back however but wish you would contribute at a more mature level and hope you can now settle down.

[Dont like rolls]

bhstewie said:

Dont like rolls said:

The "type" of people who become Conservative "activists"/members are not the same as the type that has become activists/members within Labour.

Ask why Momentum are a part of (and tolerated/encouraged by) the Labour Party, the BNP are not part of the Conservatives.

Is there a "type"?

You see the likes of Tommy Robinson and Britain First seemingly endorsing the Conservatives under Boris.

Now of course you can't choose who endorses you and it doesn't mean that the Conservatives are turning into the EDL or the BNP.

But it should raise the question "What are we saying or doing to make those sorts of people endorse us?".

errr, no it does not.

I hear Tommy Robinson does not agree that you should be killed, ???? WHY are you endorsing Tommy Robinson ?? Are you racist ?

[bitchstewie]

Dont like rolls said:

errr, no it does not.

I hear Tommy Robinson does not agree that you should be killed, ???? WHY are you endorsing Tommy Robinson ?? Are you racist ?

That seems a balanced comment.

When you have the likes of Robinson and Britain First appearing to explicitly endorse the Conservatives under Boris when so far as I know they haven't done so before it seems natural to ask why that is.

In the same way that people ask what it was specifically about Corbyn that meant that when he became leader antisemitism became an issue when it hadn't been before.

[Dont like rolls]

bhstewie said:

Dont like rolls said:

errr, no it does not.

I hear Tommy Robinson does not agree that you should be killed, ???? WHY are you endorsing Tommy Robinson ?? Are you racist ?

That seems a balanced comment.

When you have the likes of Robinson and Britain First appearing to explicitly endorse the Conservatives under Boris when so far as I know they haven't done so before it seems natural to ask why that is.

In the same way that people ask what it was specifically about Corbyn that meant that when he became leader antisemitism became an issue when it hadn't been before.

Nope, just ask yourself if you are happy with your own thoughts/plans/friends, you need to be comfortable in your own skin.

[rscott]

jakesmith said:

rscott said:

And again, Smiffy shows he's unable to follow his own advice. He prompted the creation of this thread by complaining about the Labour anti-Semitism thread was being taken off topic by mentioning Islamophobia in the Conservative party but gets upset when his equally off-topic posts are highlighted here.

R-Stoat, I thought you had stormed off like a small child in a huff yet here you are yet again, attempting to antagonise me. It will not work as I am Zen like and in fact have just done some stretching only 15 mins ago.

I had the grace and warmth to welcome you back despite this slightly immature behaviour from you. Why don’t you show some humility.

There was nothing off topic about my post. I’ve tried to explain this a few times but you seem happier storming off, coming back etc than actually reading the words I have written.

I still welcome you back however but wish you would contribute at a more mature level and hope you can now settle down.

I guess the child is the one who started the use of silly names for other posters, rather than address the points made.

No comment from you on the YouGov survey commissioned by Hope Not Hate which showed Conservative party members were more likely to believe myths about British Muslims (that areas of Britain operate under Sharia Law and that there are Muslim no go zones) than the average British citizen.

Surely that would be a good place for the party to start, if it wants to prevent what seems to be a small problem growing into a larger one?

[bitchstewie]

Perhaps the takeaway for Johnson is that actions have consequences and he might and should think very carefully about what he says from now on?

Johnson can't simply keep pulling the innocent "Who me?" face when he writes incendiary stuff and shock horror some pretty abhorrent people read it and start to think perhaps he's their boy so let's get behind him.

It really doesn't seem too much of a leap to see a link there.

Edited by chris.mod on Monday 30th December 15:43

[jakesmith]

bhstewie said:

Perhaps the takeaway for Johnson is that actions have consequences and he might and should think very carefully about what he says from now on?

You (Johnson) can't simply keep pulling the innocent "Who me?" face when you write incendiary stuff and shock horror some pretty abhorrent people read it and start to think perhaps you're their boy so let's get behind you.

It really doesn't seem too much of a leap to see a link there.

Too right I couldn’t agree more. He has been very foolish and exactly as you say there’s a chaos effect to saying things that rely on context that will not be given when the comment is looked to be exploited by fanatics on either side, the media etc. These comments can be very volatile and have severe effects.

This is what smooth operators like Cameron and Blair (setting aside WMD) truly got - I can’t recall any of them making a crass or ill judged joke, saying something nuanced, giving a controversial opinion in this way. Maybe they’re out there, maybe we live in different times, but I’m not aware of any off the top of my head.

[rscott]

jakesmith said:

Too right I couldn’t agree more. He has been very foolish and exactly as you say there’s a chaos effect to saying things that rely on context that will not be given when the comment is looked to be exploited by fanatics on either side, the media etc. These comments can be very volatile and have severe effects.

This is what smooth operators like Cameron and Blair (setting aside WMD) truly got - I can’t recall any of them making a crass or ill judged joke, saying something nuanced, giving a controversial opinion in this way. Maybe they’re out there, maybe we live in different times, but I’m not aware of any off the top of my head.

I'm sure that's why Boris didn't partake in many serious debates or interviews during the election campaign - his team will always have the slight worry he'll go off script and say something which can be used against him in the future.

[jakesmith]

rscott said:

I'm sure that's why Boris didn't partake in many serious debates or interviews during the election campaign - his team will always have the slight worry he'll go off script and say something which can be used against him in the future.

Well that and/or all the watermelon picanini letterbox stuff would dominate and let’s be honest it’s not a good look or something that many appreciate

It was the right strategy for him to duck them as it helped get the result he wanted but might sound the death knell for these things going forward as there’s a degree of brinkmanship about who will go first.

The stuff that has come out about him so far is far from ideal. I’m guessing all his previous content has been intensely searched by all sorts of parties, what’s the chances there’s even more st on him. On one hand I’d say likely. On the other- will it make a difference? It doesn’t seem to harm Trump, much to the disappointment of decent people around the world.

[biggbn]

jakesmith said:

biggbn said:

It seems you are purposely missing my points here Jake. I specifically said whether it was 50 or 5000 that is to many people and specifically made the point about how the Tory party is perceived. If you do not wish to debate this that's cool. Some people don't even believe islamaphobia is 'a thing', perhaps you are one of those? If so I would genuinely like to debate this as many, including senior members of the Tory party disagree with that assertion, as does the editor of the Jewish Chronicle who recently apologised for any offence caused after they printed an article saying as much. (I'm not sure an apology was needed to be fair, we should always allow others to air their views lest we forget about the potential magnitude of the problem)

Jake, you do not seem keen on entering into a genuine debate about this, so I shall wish you good day and all the best and we can cross swords about other subjects at a later date, in the areas of the forum set aside for them, as I have no intention of retyping my points again and again in perpetuity. All the best fella. Enjoy your Sunday. Gbn

Edited by biggbn on Sunday 29th December 11:28

Thoroughly pleasant chap you might be, but please don’t dictate which threads I can and can’t participate in, thanks all the same.

50 people is 50 too many you say? I disagree there will always be weird freaks on the margins, in a large org. Nothing you can do (beyond Identifying and expelling them). Just look at the Labour Party, due to an unexpected chain of events they ended up running the whole thing (into the ground). Not whataboutery btw, just an example of something, before you have another go at me

Could you point out where I dictate to you what threads to participate in Jake? For the life of me I can't remember doing so, nor can I, with the benefit of an enforced hindsight, see where this instruction has happened. I stated I, as in myself, would no longer debate this matter with you, which is a wholly different thing than you suggest.

May I say, however, your recent posts show you are now grasping the point I have been making, so perhaps we are not too far from sharing the same sheet music? Best regards as ever, Gbn

Edited by biggbn on Sunday 29th December 22:33

[jakesmith]

biggbn said:

Could you point out where I dictate to you what threads to participate in Jake? For the life of me I can't remember doing so, not can I, with the benefit of an enforced hindsight, see where this instruction has happened. I stated I, as in myself, would no longer debate this matter with you, which is a wholly different thing than you suggest.

May I say, however, your recent subsequent posts show you are grasping the point I have been making, so perhaps we are not too far from sharing the same sheet music? Best regards as ever, Gbn

You’ve said you won’t debate with me on this topic
That I’m not wanting a serious discussion about it
And now that you agree with my perspective on it
I don’t believe my view has changed on the topic!

Well, all’s well that ends well I suppose! And best regards to you too

[biggbn]

jakesmith said:

biggbn said:

Could you point out where I dictate to you what threads to participate in Jake? For the life of me I can't remember doing so, not can I, with the benefit of an enforced hindsight, see where this instruction has happened. I stated I, as in myself, would no longer debate this matter with you, which is a wholly different thing than you suggest.

May I say, however, your recent subsequent posts show you are grasping the point I have been making, so perhaps we are not too far from sharing the same sheet music? Best regards as ever, Gbn

You’ve said you won’t debate with me on this topic
That I’m not wanting a serious discussion about it
And now that you agree with my perspective on it
I don’t believe my view has changed on the topic!

Well, all’s well that ends well I suppose! And best regards to you too

All good brother man, am off to work, tis the season and all that, peace, Gbn x

[jakesmith]

biggbn said:

All good brother man, am off to work, tis the season and all that, peace, Gbn x

How was work pal, kick any bleedin’ heads in and confiscate a load of blow?