EU Immigration Crisis Megathread

[Richard Hakluyt]

FWIW I believe that Khan is a moderate, he has a 10-year political track record that points that way, the "uncle tom" stuff looks more like pandering to extremists in a bid to get their support. I'm not sure that is any better, pandering of this type has got us where we are today, but it is different to being an Islamist.

In other news my opinion of the pundit Mehdi Hassan has recently risen, it was at an extremely low level, because of this piece in the New Statesman on anti-semitism within the UK's muslim community :

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2013/03/sorry-truth-virus-anti-semitism-has-infected-british-muslim-community

[Gups]

Btw, no thread on the London mayor office going to an anti-Israeli Islamist-apologist Muslim? Or after Ken Livingstone it's nothing new anymore?

He's not anti-Israeli or an Islamist-apologist. The Tories, in conjunction with sections of the press, tried to tar him with that brush but it did not stick because it isn't true. In fact, it appears to have backfired.

They accused him of sharing a platform, 10 years ago before he was a politician, with a radical Iman - campaigning for the release of a Gitmo prisoner. Unfortunately for the Tories, it turned out that their candidate had also hung out with the Iman, who happens to be a Tory supporter.


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2016/apr/14/london-mayor-goldsmith-attacks-backfire-as-repellent-imams-tory-links-emerge

[Gups]

FWIW I believe that Khan is a moderate, he has a 10-year political track record that points that way, the "uncle tom" stuff looks more like pandering to extremists in a bid to get their support. I'm not sure that is any better, pandering of this type has got us where we are today, but it is different to being an Islamist.

It's a pretty crappy remark by him but I don't think he panders to exremists. He campaigned for same sex marriages and has been prominent in fighting Livingstone and the anti-semites in the Labour party.

[Legbiter]

Demography is destiny.

[Richard Hakluyt]

FWIW I believe that Khan is a moderate, he has a 10-year political track record that points that way, the "uncle tom" stuff looks more like pandering to extremists in a bid to get their support. I'm not sure that is any better, pandering of this type has got us where we are today, but it is different to being an Islamist.

It's a pretty crappy remark by him but I don't think he panders to exremists. He campaigned for same sex marriages and has been prominent in fighting Livingstone and the anti-semites in the Labour party.

I'm hoping that it was just a one-off. I can't recall any other problematic instances off hand.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

and in the meantime Turkey takes another step towards dictatorship...

[Valmy]

It's a pretty crappy remark by him

That seems like an understatement to me. I cannot imagine a more horrible statement to demonize a community with. But maybe Uncle Tom is not the smear over there that it is here.

[derspiess]

Yeah, surely the upright Tories would never be antisemitic or racist.

Read most of the article, and I don't get how it's antisemitic or racist.

I'm not sure how the headline is even Racisz.

[Valmy]

I'm not sure how the headline is even Racisz.

It says Zionism Spicey. ZIONISM.

[Valmy]

Most. Overrated. Leader. Of. All. Time.

You have got to be kidding me. There are many more over-rated leaders than that guy.

[Martinus]

I think this is a good article about Sadiq Khan, that broadly conforms with RH's views (and comes from someone who can hardly be accused of being anti-Muslim):

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/08/the-secret-life-of-sadiq-khan-london-s-first-muslim-mayor.html

[Gups]

No, it's not about relativism. It's about rule of law. If you believe that everybody should have equal rights, then such rights should not be invalidated or restricted by violence - i.e. who has bigger numbers or shouts louder. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are not just for popular opinions and popular people - in fact, it is the most important to uphold them for unpopular opinions and people.

Voltaire was not a post-modernist relativist when he said "I disagre with what you say but I will defend to death your right to say that". He is exactly the Englightenment type postmodernists and relativists are rallying against.

Karl Popper said, "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

Well, paint me as pleasantly surprised that you have been reading Karl Popper.  I think you may be misapplying it here, (he was talking about philosophers not Muslims), and may have even gotten it reversed, but at least you are trying!

Uhm, no, he was talking about any groups that espouse ideology or philosophy that is contrary to open liberal society and wants to abolish it. In his time, such group were the nazis, but right now, at least in Western Europe, the most prominent group espousing such ideology are Muslims. Siegy used this quote perfectly a propos.

Incidentally, it's funny how you constantly shit on and are condescending to plenty of people here, while being possibly the most useless, parasitic and unproductive Languishite in real life. Say what you want about Siegy, at least he has done something for the society and/or country outside of his father's basement.

Help me out Marty. Are you a Popperian or a Voltarian?

[Martinus]

They are not mutually exclusive. Voltaire is talking purely about free speech and in this regard there should be no restrictions (other than "shouting fire in a crowded theatre"). Popper is talking about broader issues and this can be applied to government policy, such as tolerating certain acts (in the name of multiculturalism, for example), or immigration policy.

In fact, one of the best ways one can ensure that intolerance is not tolerated, as Poppers suggests, is to allow unrestricted criticism of it in the Volterian vein, rather than protecting it from criticism by various muzzle laws.

Edit: corrected a couple of typos.

[Valmy]

I think this is a good article about Sadiq Khan, that broadly conforms with RH's views (and comes from someone who can hardly be accused of being anti-Muslim):

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/08/the-secret-life-of-sadiq-khan-london-s-first-muslim-mayor.html

Well that is pretty horrifying. London has problems electing normal people mayor I guess.

[Gups]

I think this is a good article about Sadiq Khan, that broadly conforms with RH's views (and comes from someone who can hardly be accused of being anti-Muslim):

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/08/the-secret-life-of-sadiq-khan-london-s-first-muslim-mayor.html

Well that is pretty horrifying. London has problems electing normal people mayor I guess.

Is it really though? At best it's guilt by association.  Do we really expect aspirant politicians to refuse to undertake due diligence with everyone they share at platform with? We don't seem to apply this standard as a general rule.

I'm not a massive fan of Khan and I didn't vote for him but I'll judge him by his words and his actions and not by the words of some bloke he happened to speak at the same conference with him 15 years ago. Khan has consistently voted for secular measures such as gay marriages and against terrorism.