Thread: A Question of Question Time

23rd October: Jeremy Vine's programme, Radio 2:

Hundreds of e mails received; majority of which expressed some sympathy for Griffin because of his treatment on previous night's QT.

Callers generally expressed similar views; one stated -

"The audience was packed with ethnic minorities and left wingers, and none of the panellists were interested in debating the issues."

"You Gov" poll for Daily Telegraph, 23rd Oct:

22% of respondents said they'd consider voting BNP.
43% of respondents thought the BNP was"... right to speak for the white British".

Exactly the sort or response I predicted back on p18.

The BBC screwed up, & gifted Griffin/ BNP a major propaganda coup.

As I stated earlier, the reactions of the studio audience, & the opinions of those in Hampstead etc, are irrelevant to Griffin & Co. No surprise he commented after the programme that "London is no longer a British city". What is relevant, is how this whole fiasco might be viewed by some potential voters in, for example, Bradford, West Midlands, areas of London "saarf" of the River etc! The indications are that he's done himself & his odious minions no harm there...

Had the programme been conducted as per normal - ie questions on key issues de jour posed for the panel to answer in turn, I'm convinced Griffin would have exposed himself as the nasty little sh*t he really is. As it turned out, he's been able to garner a lot of undeserved sympathy; which'll be exploited fully via a formal complaint to the BBC!

Originally Posted by Steven_McLaughlin

Thanks for that Yellow Devil – a brilliant post and you certainly know what you’re talking about. I think the long-term key here is we’re just going to have to keep on talking and trying to establish some kind of middle ground and mutual respect. The strange thing is I actually don’t think the current political mainstream tactics (bury your head in the sand and pretend there isn’t a growing problem) are helping things; I think Muslims are feeling patronised and ordinary people are feeling alienated and made to feel like racist outcasts – so maybe more robust honesty and knockabout debate would establish a mutual rapport?

Cheers Steve - I think we're on the same wavelength. Sorry I didn't see your latest before posting my long-winded response... here's another one You've really got me thinking!

I think you're absolutely right - you have to keep talking to people. I always thought it was a mistake for the West to stop dialogue with Hamas for example. The thing is, if you talk to people, they sometimes say what you're not expecting. You can find what you have in common, what you disagree on and you can start to identify the real crazies that nobody agrees with.

In the Islamic tradition, scholars always used to meet face-to-face, if they could, to learn and discuss ideas, even if it meant travelling to the other side of the world. They didn't really trust things when they were written down - there was one scholar who was supposed to have learnt everything from books, and so he was always treated with caution. It's a very oral tradition. In the same way, you can't really rely on newspapers or the internet - I only ever learnt anything by listening.

There is so much that Islam and the West have in common - but the language we use is so different that we are only just starting to work it out, just like Nick Griffin admiring the Islamic banking system! I don't mean that one side is talking English and the other is talking Arabic or Urdu (although that may literally be the case). It's more that the way that Muslims express themselves by focussing on ideas that have their own specific meaning within the religion.

For example, Muslims talk a lot about the importance of 'patience' and fortitude in adversity. They talk about 'compassion' and 'mercy'. 'Justice' and the struggle against oppression is another key idea. And above all, there is the importance of 'good manners' at all times - especially in debate on difficult topics. As you say, they are powerful, even addictive ideas.

But I think to have British citizens who think in this way is a good thing - and it mirrors our own native traditions. These are all ideas taken straight from the Quran and experienced in the life of the Prophet Muhammad. Often Muslims will use the Arabic words for these ideas, even when speaking in English; they are instantly recognisable to them but mean nothing to non-Muslims. This disguises just how close the ideas can be.

One curious thing I noticed was that after spending a lot of time listening to Muslims and to Islamic TV and radio, it changed the way I used language - I started to talk and even think with distinctly Islamic ideas. Now imagine a Muslim who's grown up in this country - of course he or she will straightaway engage with ideas like democracy and human rights and the rights of women.

And you see it happening already - take just one example: a well-known activist organisation MPAC (you've probably come across them) campaigned for mosques to open up their doors to women. If you look at MPAC from the outside, it might appear to be your typical 'special rights for Muslims!' group beloved of ARRSE posters, but (as always) it's a bit more complicated than that. The young activists of MPAC (they tend to be in their 20s and 30s) were using a very British political response to a problem by door-stepping men coming out of the mosque, handing out leaflets and campaigning - direct action, in other words. This caused a lot of upset especially to older men brought up in different times and often in different countries who thought that young women shouldn't behave like this.

Now you and I might think - 'Great, another example of Muslims becoming integrated into British culture', but it's a bit more complicated still. For these young activists, they were acting in a profoundly Islamic way. They were asserting the rights of women to attend prayers - rights that should have come down to them from the earliest Muslim communities, but that were being denied by a South Asian patriarchal tradition without basis in true Islam.

This for me is just one example of how Islam and British culture can work together. I'm not talking about 'tolerating' each other (which has a hint of contempt - we don't like what you do but we will tolerate it). I'm not talking about 'respecting' each other either - that word has been used too often by our liberal elite as an excuse to cover up the uncomfortable truths you mentioned. I'm talking about how the two traditions can find their common ground and work together - that for me is the British solution which I think could be an Islamic solution too.

I am not a moral relativist - I know what terrible crimes have been committed, are being committed and will be committed in the name of Islam. I also think that we are in for some tough times ahead - but I want to suggest that there is an alternative future, that we (us and the Muslims together) can choose if we (and they) have the courage and the wisdom to do so.

The thing that scares me is if the Muslims start to 'get' it - and there are signs that some of them do so - but the non-Muslims don't, then that could be terrifying.

But to end on a cheerful note, the least-quoted verse in the Quran states:

'Not all of them are alike: of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) are a portion that stand (for the right); they rehearse the signs of God all night long; and they prostrate themselves in adoration.' (3:113)

From the Muslim perspective, this was a revolutionary idea - in the seventh century, when Europe was in the Dark Ages, Islam proclaimed that even among the Jews and the Christians there were righteous people, since 'not all of them are like'. They were not killing Christians in a holy war or banning Jews from their lands. Through the Quran, God is saying that you cannot tar everyone with the same brush; it is not simply a question of Muslims versus infidels. There are good people even among those who you might be inclined to distrust.

I am not suggesting that every single Muslim in the UK sees it this way, but it suggests to me that there are other possibilities within Islam. There is the possibility that it is not narrow or intolerant. When the young men you talked about are drawn to the hypnotic power of Islam, I don't think they are drawn because they see a way to oppress their women or wage war against the West. I think they see something of the power of the Quranic arguments in favour of justice and of a correct, natural way of life - what you and I might call 'family values'.

I believe - and I know a lot of Muslims think this too - that sometimes people who strive for those great ideals get carried away, sometimesly disastrously. This not surprising; non-Muslims have pursued important, wonderful ideals like democracy or human rights but with unforeseen, catastrophic results.

Nonetheless, when these energies are channelled in the right way, then I think you can see some extraordinary human endeavour - you must have met people like this in your neck of the woods. I have met some remarkable Muslims whose driving force was the faith. For example, very devout, practising Muslims doing human rights work in uncomfortable circumstances with unsympathetic regimes. They will show us that the mad-eyed fanatic living off benefits spending his weekends waving the placard 'Death to those who insult Islam' is the exception rather than the rule. His behaviour is, I would suggest, profoundly un-Islamic.

It is not sufficient to expect Muslims to understand us. They should make every effort to do so. But we also have a duty to understand them too. I think I do understand Islam a little bit more than I used to but that was down to luck and meeting some good people. I just wish some of our smug politicians and journalists would do the same - not just looking it up on the internet (!), not even just visiting the local mosque and 'engaging in dialogue' (whatever that means) but really sitting down and learning from people, not just telling them what we want. They have a lot to tell us.

Originally Posted by master-mariner

Question Time was a shambles and national disgrace, a kangaroo court staffed by Star Chamber hanging judges.

"Star Chamber"?

Originally Posted by Yellow_Devil

Originally Posted by Steven_McLaughlin

What Nick Griffin has touched on, is that the rise of far-right politics is NOTHING TO DO WITH SKIN COLOUR OR RACE – BUT ABOUT A TOXIC AND POISONOUS RELIGION THAT THREATENS US ALL – Jews, Hindus, Christians and non-believers alike.

I think that in the coming decades you’ll see a ‘rainbow coalition’ of different races, religions and cultures, all coming together to stand up to Islamic Fascism and Islamic racism against all other belief systems.

IT’S NOT ABOUT RACE; IT’S ABOUT RELIGION.

That is probably the key question that the QT panel failed to answer, even though Griffin raised it.

I tend to think that things are much much better on the ground than the media would have us believe. Based both on anecdotal evidence and recent work by researchers, it seems that there has been a sea-change within a lot of the Muslim community during the last five or ten years - and especially since 7/7.

7/7 was a massive wake-up call for British Muslims. In the past, a lot of Muslims - not all, but a lot - fudged on the issue of terrorism. It got conflated with ideas of 'righteous' jihads in Bosnia, Kashmir and Soviet-era Afghanistan. The insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq were - and to an extent still are - seen as justifiable resistance to foreign occupation. This created an environment where the 'crazies' - people spouting off about Sheikh Osama, Global Jihad and The Jew - would at least be tolerated or ignored.

But when terrorists struck London - and remember 2 Muslims were killed, and one of the bombs was at Edgware Road - the reality hit home for many, many people. THere has been a lot of soul-searching within the community and the kind of rhetoric heard in the 1990s - in some mosques and community centres - is much rarer nowadays. Some former extremists actually did a somersault and started working with the Home Office. Although there is a lot of suspicion of the PREVENT strategy, there was no shortage of volunteers to take up the funding and work with imaginative projects to try and keep young people away from the crazies.

It is a shame (but not surprising) that this has not been extensively covered in the media, so the British public hasn't seen these positive changes.

My bold

Utter bollox.

Warsi shot Griffin down in flames when he dared to talk this sh1t

Reading up on Warsi seems she's no better than the rest
Got hammered in the General Election when she stood in Dewsbury (lost by over 5000 votes)
Maigically after hanging round parliment in the mythical "Researcher" and "Special advisor" to Michael Howard she suddenly became a Peer
Managed to outrage Stonewall ( who hasn't though) by questioning Labours decision to lower the age of consent for Homosexuals

Also from Wiki

Other comments made by Lady Warsi have also provoked anger amongst gay-rights and anti-fascist campaigners, when she went on record saying that people who back the BNP, criticised for its racist and homophobic agenda, may even have a point. "They have some very legitimate views

Originally Posted by Booty

The English also know a bumbling fcukwit when they see one.

I know!

Jack Straw is such a loser!

Even some "Independent" journos are miffed:

http://indyeagleeye.livejournal.com/8663.html

Originally Posted by the_boy_syrup

Reading up on Warsi seems she's no better than the rest
Got hammered in the General Election when she stood in Dewsbury (lost by over 5000 votes)
Maigically after hanging round parliment in the mythical "Researcher" and "Special advisor" to Michael Howard she suddenly became a Peer
Managed to outrage Stonewall ( who hasn't though) by questioning Labours decision to lower the age of consent for Homosexuals

She also upset a lot of folk in Dewsbury when it was discovered that she'd lied in order to woo the older Punjabi voters. She claimed to them in her canvassing that she had had a traditional arranged marriage in Pakistan. Turned out to be a lie, her and her ex-husband met in a UK university, quite independently of their parents.

Not the worst of crimes of course, to be an 'arranged marriage' walt but I do take some of her other claims with a bit of scepticism.

Both her grandfathers may well have fought for Britain during the war as she claimed on the programme and good for them if they did. But I wouldn't swear it was true just because she said so.

Originally Posted by Tawahi-50

Originally Posted by the_boy_syrup

Reading up on Warsi seems she's no better than the rest
Got hammered in the General Election when she stood in Dewsbury (lost by over 5000 votes)
Maigically after hanging round parliment in the mythical "Researcher" and "Special advisor" to Michael Howard she suddenly became a Peer
Managed to outrage Stonewall ( who hasn't though) by questioning Labours decision to lower the age of consent for Homosexuals

She also upset a lot of folk in Dewsbury when it was discovered that she'd lied in order to woo the older Punjabi voters. She claimed to them in her canvassing that she had had a traditional arranged marriage in Pakistan. Turned out to be a lie, her and her ex-husband met in a UK university, quite independently of their parents.

Not the worst of crimes of course, to be an 'arranged marriage' walt but I do take some of her other claims with a bit of scepticism.

Both her grandfathers may well have fought for Britain during the war as she claimed on the programme and good for them if they did. But I wouldn't swear it was true just because she said so.

My bold, she didn't say both her grandfathers fought for Britian during the war. She said both of her Grandparents fought during the war, but never actually said what side.

I'm not saying they didn't fight for GB, but she never said they did either.

Originally Posted by Tawahi-50

Originally Posted by the_boy_syrup

Reading up on Warsi seems she's no better than the rest
Got hammered in the General Election when she stood in Dewsbury (lost by over 5000 votes)
Maigically after hanging round parliment in the mythical "Researcher" and "Special advisor" to Michael Howard she suddenly became a Peer
Managed to outrage Stonewall ( who hasn't though) by questioning Labours decision to lower the age of consent for Homosexuals

She also upset a lot of folk in Dewsbury when it was discovered that she'd lied in order to woo the older Punjabi voters. She claimed to them in her canvassing that she had had a traditional arranged marriage in Pakistan. Turned out to be a lie, her and her ex-husband met in a UK university, quite independently of their parents.

Not the worst of crimes of course, to be an 'arranged marriage' walt but I do take some of her other claims with a bit of scepticism.

Both her grandfathers may well have fought for Britain during the war as she claimed on the programme and good for them if they did. But I wouldn't swear it was true just because she said so.

She was quite 'clever' if you like though when challenged about gay marriage.

During that broadcast she strongly criticised the BNP, and when directly asked whether she was in favour of civil partnerships, replied "I think that people who want to be in a relationship together, in the form of a civil partnership, absolutely have the right to do that.

She's a lawyer and was saying that under the law they have a right whilst ignoring any moral aspect to that. This falls in with her asylum seeker comment.

Originally Posted by Booty

Originally Posted by Monty417

QT appeared to have been engineered to humiliate Griffin. That is my considered opinion, but it made him out to be a victim and the English have a habit of supporting the underdog.

He is used to speaking at closed BNP meetings, where his weird take on history and anthropology are never questioned. If he rarely exposes himself to public scrutiny, then what does he expect?

The English also know a bumbling fcukwit when they see one.

Yes, thats quite true, a lot of his meetings are with like minded knobbers, or people fed up with being fcuked over by Nu Lab. However, according to Wiki, he has been involved in debates at a number of Universities and I seem to remember that he was on the Andrew Marr show. As he's a Cambridge graduate, I doubt that he himself is in fact a bumbling fcukwit, rather an exploiter of fcukwits, racialists and the disenchanted. I consider it to be an indictment of this Government, in that the odious BNP has started to flourish and has grown in strength, since Nu Labs immigration and open ended benefit policies have well and truly kicked in.

If Labour and the Tories and that other bunch in the House of Commons had treated Immegration and Asylum seakers and had a grown up debate out in the open instead of calling anyone who mentions it a Racist Nazi thug then the BNP would still be stuck under their stone

Originally Posted by the_boy_syrup

If Labour and the Tories and that other bunch in the House of Commons had treated Immegration and Asylum seakers and had a grown up debate out in the open instead of calling anyone who mentions it a Racist Nazi thug then the BNP would still be stuck under their stone

In fairness to the Tories, they have questioned the Govt's immigration stance quite vigorously on occasion. They were of course shouted down as racists, as indeed were any others that dared to question St Tony's open to all policy. Now, people who can be bothered to keep up with the news, know that the shit has hit the fan, thanks to the week end revelation by one of their former advisers.

Thanks Yellow Devil, I am sure I agree with you,and tried to say something similar (in a much cruder way!)The current military mission will I'm sure eventually only be resolved by finding an Afghan centred solution which will of course be highly affected by Islamic and Tribal factors. I have no idea what that eventually will look like,but I am certain only full and frank communication and an honest acceptance of each parties true objectives has any chance of offering a route to a useful conclusion.I am now going to read your excellent posts again because I think there is much for me to learn there and I find myself encouraged to be finding a perspective that has broadened my insight and seems to offer hope.I just hope that the British Government can decide what it actually expects our forces to do,and then gives them sufficient support to do this as effectively,in as timely a fashion as possible for every one's sake.

If the BBC did in fact hand a PR coup to Nicholas "Call me Nick" Griffin, which I doubt, he demonstrated that he couldn't have handled it anyway! He was like Dan Parks, with a four man overlap...