The Death Penalty – What’s All the Fuzz About?

[Gavin]

The Danish cartoons were a deliberate attempt to rile Muslims (which is about difficult as breathing at the moment, rendering it all the more pointless and stupid); this is about a woman who accidentally offended some fanatics' sensibilities, so it's not by any means comparable.

Furthermore, she's currently in jail, as a result of a sovereign country's laws, and crowds of thousands of people have called for her to be executed. I'd say that's a bit different from a few 'blog comments'!

And what's that about 'Islamaphobia'? Anyone who can't see that a very large part of the Islamic world is run by some spectacularly unsavoury people is deluding themselves, plain and simple.

Tea, this is the same thing. The Sudanese gov't is behind this, not because they really believe in the teachings of sharia, but because they want to send a message and drum up some anti-western demagoguery while they are under a huge amount of international and domestic criticism. And now because they've created this mob, they can also be the savior of this woman (why is she there? are we ever told? isn't it important? are you sure this is accidental? why are you so sure?) during the negotiation for her release which will no doubt occur within days, currying favor with the governments currently considering invading Sudan.

You are being willfully naive because you yourself are one of the "fanatics" this disgusting spectacle, of which both the Western media and the reprehensible Sudanese government are staging. You revealed your own fanaticism when you said Christians would never do this, which is an outrageous lie and shows your own bigotry: dozens of Muslim groups have condemned this action and made a lot of noise about it -- why? So spectacularly unsavory CHRISTIANS in enlightened places like the US and UK don't shoot them, beat them, burn down their homes and businesses like what happened after 9-11. You really stepped in some shit and showed your true colors with that post, I'm sure you wish you could go back and adjust that sentence so it's not so overtly racist, so I'm glad I quoted it for posterity.

What's the difference between a mass demonstration called for by gov't backed imams and seething hatred summoned up by the Western yellow press? Not much in my eyes, except the mouth-breathers calling for bombing and starving the Sudanese people (do you read what your countrymen think about these places or are you deluding yourself and pretending that the stated views of tolerant white Christian Britons don't matter) don't make such dramatic photographs as the dozen wackos with big scary ceremonial swords who managed to make it into every Western newspaper. You think calling for the extermination of "medieval savages" who have not done anything worth noting is not a death threat? One much more significant than that against one woman? Or is this just some empty righteous indignation on your part, something you deny to these dusky Mohammedan savages have the capability of engaging in?

"Anyone who can't see that a very large part of the Islamic world is run by some spectacularly unsavoury people is deluding themselves, plain and simple." Complete non-sequitur, does not excuse your racism at all. The people running many countries are quite unsavory, a fact that has little to do with Islam and everything to do with the geopolitical goals of the cabals that put them in power. But your crude ignorance only perpetuates this situation. As if you cared.

 

[Mr. Tea]

(why is she there? are we ever told? isn't it important? are you sure this is accidental? why are you so sure?)

Oh, I expect she's part of some horrendously sinister CIA/Mossad-sponsored plot to help a few kids in one of the world's poorest countries learn to read and write, but perhaps there's a perfectly innocent explanation after all...

You are being willfully naive because you yourself are one of the "fanatics" this disgusting spectacle, of which both the Western media and the reprehensible Sudanese government are staging. You revealed your own fanaticism when you said Christians would never do this, which is an outrageous lie and shows your own bigotry: dozens of Muslim groups have condemned this action and made a lot of noise about it -- why? So spectacularly unsavory CHRISTIANS in enlightened places like the US and UK don't shoot them, beat them, burn down their homes and businesses like what happened after 9-11. You really stepped in some shit and showed your true colors with that post, I'm sure you wish you could go back and adjust that sentence so it's not so overtly racist, so I'm glad I quoted it for posterity.

Fuck that, I said what I meant and I mean what I say.
Perhaps dozens of Muslims groups have condemned this because they genuinely think it's disgraceful. I certainly would like to think so.

What's the difference between a mass demonstration called for by gov't backed imams and seething hatred summoned up by the Western yellow press? Not much in my eyes, except the mouth-breathers calling for bombing and starving the Sudanese people (do you read what your countrymen think about these places or are you deluding yourself and pretending that the stated views of tolerant white Christian Britons don't matter) don't make such dramatic photographs as the dozen wackos with big scary ceremonial swords who managed to make it into every Western newspaper. You think calling for the extermination of "medieval savages" who have not done anything worth noting is not a death threat? One much more significant than that against one woman? Or is this just some empty righteous indignation on your part, something you deny to these dusky Mohammedan savages have the capability of engaging in?

What 'Christian Britons'? There are practically hardly any left, we're one of the most secularised countries in the world. And exactly where you get the idea that I've called for anyone to be "exterminated" (!) is totally fucking beyond me...where did I say this? Where did I say anything than any sane person could interpret this way?

"Anyone who can't see that a very large part of the Islamic world is run by some spectacularly unsavoury people is deluding themselves, plain and simple." Complete non-sequitur, does not excuse your racism at all. The people running many countries are quite unsavory, a fact that has little to do with Islam and everything to do with the geopolitical goals of the cabals that put them in power. But your crude ignorance only perpetuates this situation. As if you cared.

Ahh, so it's all Amerkkka's/The Wicked Wicked West's fault after all? Mystery solved, we can all go to bed now knowing that blame has been correctly apportioned and all is right with the world...

 

[Gavin]

Typical Tea defense: sarcasm, self-righteousness, weak attempt to pick apart semantics of statements that are unambiguous, ascribing of pathological motives to me which are not evident from my post, wild tangents, focus on insignificant details... anything but a confrontation with the content of what I've said and an attempt to craft a reasoned response to it. Is this the commitment to the truth we should expect in the scientific community?

Here, let me help you move this thread away from your obvious ignorance and on to an insignificant side issue, the religious makeup of Britain.

Religion In Britain
Census shows 72% identify as Christians

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293

Anyway, I have no desire to score points; if you don't care to respond to the content of what I've said, that's fine, I'm not going to argue with you. The posts stand for everyone else to read and I hope they aren't as willfully daft as you make yourself out to be.

 

[Mr. Tea]

People put 'Christian' down on census forms because they celebrate Christmas and eat chocolate at Easter. I'm pretty sure I don't know a single person who actually goes to church, prays or does anything remotely Christian. Blair's rather public Christianity is regarded by most people here as faintly embarrassing...

And I don't think your criticism of my defence stands up to much when you're making up stupid crap about how I want to "exterminate Muslims" or something. I mean, seriously, where did that come from? I might just as well call you "bin Laden's bitch" or something, is that the standard of debate you want on here?

 

[Gavin]

And I don't think your criticism of my defence stands up to much when you're making up stupid crap about how I want to "exterminate Muslims" or something. I mean, seriously, where did that come from? I might just as well call you "bin Laden's bitch" or something, is that the standard of debate you want on here?

That crap came from what I was referencing: the "death threats" against the Sudanese population posted all over the internet by people advocating military invasion, air strikes, and economic sanctions in response to this exaggerated brouhaha. Nothing you said explicitly, just what you implicitly support through ACTUAL STATEMENTS you made, which I've quoted and specifically addressed (the standard of debate I like to uphold). I'm sorry that's too obscure for you to figure out, but fortunately for you it's made a handy escape hatch from substantive discussion about this issue. Typical Tea.

Now, would you care to address this special predilection for irrational violence and hatred in Muslims that you brought up? Or should we continue to probe the depth of faith of the UK? Christians who call themselves Christian but aren't encompassed by "Christian" when you use the word "Christian" and other fascinating Tea manipulations. Quite the standard of debate. Truthfully I don't care to discuss this issue any more at all, but feel free to willfully misread my obvious sarcasm.

 

[zhao]

this is the truth:

"authoritarian regimes will use whatever means possible to enhance their legitimacy by appropriating or co-opting other social constructs"

Mr. Tea, prove that you are not the willfully ignorant and racist toddler-level debater that you seem to be in people's eyes, and respond to Gavin's main points. here, i will make it easier for you by summarizing:

• this spectacle is staged by both

1. the Sudanese government to provoke anti-west sentiments and

2. the west to incite Islamophobia.

• this manipulative propaganda (2 from above) is working on you and people like you, who

1. deny the obvious fact that it is propaganda, as evidenced by the following:

How is it 'propaganda' to draw attention to the horrifically unjust persecution of an innocent woman by religious fanatics?

2. hold deeply racist and prejudicial views, as evidenced by the following:

When was the last time there were mass protests by Christians - even those mental right-wing American ones - calling for someone to be KILLED over something as trivial as this?

(the answer, of course, is that it happens with such frequency that a death-threat toward a gay or abortion doctor is probably being made at this moment as you read this)

3. are frothing at the mouth with blind, self righteous anger, as demonstrated by words such as:

...the beliefs and actions of mediaeval-minded bigoted savages...

4. attribute injustice not to situations arising from complex geo-political histories involving conflicts between different groups, as Sloane pointed out, but to a false lump entity which you term "the islamic world" (again, see Sloane's quote), as shown by:

Anyone who can't see that a very large part of the Islamic world is run by some spectacularly unsavoury people is deluding themselves, plain and simple.

all of which is exactly the response this propaganda is seeking to generate.

_______________
and if you do not respond to these points with reason, you will prove yourself to be not only guilty of the above accusations, but also, as Nomadologist put it so eloquently, a moron.

 

[mistersloane]

Bit harsh I think. I don't really like getting involved but I think there's been a mis-reading of posts and people being too quick to respond.

I personally don't think saying that some of the fundamentalists are la-la is in any way wrong, cos they blatantly are, on all religious sides. I'd agree that the more interesting aspects though are the whys and wherefores of what gets represented, and why it is represented how it is.

I personally would like people to stop the individual attacks on here as well, it's stopping me enjoying being on here.

 

[Gavin]

Do you consider pointing out someone's racism or bigotry a personal attack? I was actually thinking about this last night. 'Racist' should denote merely someone holding racist beliefs -- if you show someone to have racists beliefs, they are a racist, plain and simple. But the word itself has become powerful beyond its meaning -- not because racism isn't reprehensible in itself, but because the term 'racist' has become a personal slur detached from the beliefs it signifies. So it's completely possible to point out someone's racist, bigoted beliefs, and even have that person acknowledge these beliefs, but once you use the word 'racist' a line has somehow been crossed, even though nothing in the substance of the debate itself has changed!

I've read this elsewhere as "the racist card" (a play on the "race card"): where someone with racist beliefs (in other words, a racist) can play the victim once someone calls him a racist in a debate, because the word itself has become so potent, and perversely, detached from what it actually means. Now it's like using a racial slur! In any case, I've tried to be more conservative with using the word, which really rubs me the wrong way -- but in this case, I think Islamophobia, a typical form of racism, was clearly demonstrated, and the term 'racist' warranted. I don't know Tea personally, I can only judge him on the content of his posts. If Tea doesn't like it, he is free to show me how the quoted statements are not racist, which I welcome.

My truck with Tea is not only his beliefs, but his maddening way of debating once you corner him: suddenly clear statements don't mean what they mean, all sorts of distracting flailing takes place, and then the discussion becomes a very boring game of points-scoring and irrelevant tangents. It's incredibly disingenuous to not engage with the substantive content of others' posts -- either defend yourself or concede the point, possibly change your mind about things. That's the point, right? To think about these things, not just bolster your ego. Other conservative posters at least make an attempt to debate the issues at hand, even if I disagree with them. And I usually learn something from those discussions, even if my worldview isn't shattered.

 

[Gavin]

Look at some of the things he says: offending Muslims (all billion of them?) as difficult as breathing? This is clearly an ignorant statement made by someone who's bought the media portrayal hook, line, and sinker without any critical thought. Someone who obviously knows no actual Muslims, yet feels free to make all sorts of blanket pronouncements about them. Someone who refused to consider the media's role in this affair, even though his entire view of Muslims has been shaped by teevee! This angered me incredibly and I feel justified in responding stridently.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

Bit harsh I think. [....] I personally would like people to stop the individual attacks on here as well, it's stopping me enjoying being on here.

I'm in full agreement with that mistersloane. Open debate where people hold quite radically different views is the whole fun of being here. But when it degenerates into this kind of vindictive nastiness its not much fun at all.

Zhao on Vimothy:

it's like finding out that the smelly guy who sits next to you at work is actually a child rapist.

Zhao on Mr Tea:

and if you do not respond to these points with reason, you will prove yourself to be not only guilty of the above accusations, but also, as Nomadologist put it so eloquently, a moron.

Translation: if you cannot/refuse to see this debate from my point of view then you are a

willfully ignorant and racist toddler-level debater

Although we can all get a bit heated, a certain few people have been well out of order recently with there aggressive dialogue. Are accusations of bigotry, racism and kiddy-fiddling really necessary?? They certainly don't play any part in a constructive debate.

 

[Gavin]

Although we can all get a bit heated, a certain few people have been well out of order recently with there aggressive dialogue. Are accusations of bigotry, racism and kiddy-fiddling really necessary?? They certainly don't play any part in a constructive debate.

BoShambles, what is the appropriate response to obvious racism? Pretend it's not what it clearly is so we can all get along? Isn't this the huge problem with racism today, that no one will confront it because they're afraid of upsetting the boat, and that people who do confront it are accused of whining or complaining?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Right, let's put it like this: there are threats made against people in America all the time by Christian fundamentalists, and sometimes those threats are carried through, but when that happens it is in contravention of the law. The legal separation of Church and State is enshrined (no pun intended) in the American constitution; I'm as disturbed as anyone is that people are attempting to undermine it (notwithstanding the fact that I don't have to live there), and I am well aware that many extremely unsavoury Christians hold positions of great power in the US, including the no. 1 job - but despite all this, the US is not a theorcracy. Yet.

This woman in Sudan, on the other hand, is in trouble because she has offended the state religion and therefore, by definition, offended the state itself, and has been arrested under Sudanese law. There is a fundamental difference between this and the independent actions of religious extremists in a legally secular country.

As to the media-spectacle element of this, I grant that there is inevitably going to be a lot of manipulative, excessively emotive reportage of this story, which if it whips up irrational anti-Muslim feelings is only going to be a bad thing for everyone, with the exception of the extremists on both sides, who thrive on this sort of thing. And before anyone calls me an extremist let me reiterate that I'm not calling for anyone to be "exterminated" over this, or for any reason! (And I've re-read your post, Gavin, and it still looks for all the world as if you're attributing such a position to me, personally.)
What annoyed me about the accusation from zhao that I was just flinging 'propaganda' was the source I'd posted the story from: not the Daily Mail, not the Sun, not Fox News, but the BBC; not usually a news source regarded as a Republican mouthpiece, right? And if the BBC can't report something like this without it being 'propaganda' and a 'media spectacle', then what is it meant to do? Simply not report altogether, for the sake of 'keeping the peace' and 'not making a fuss'?

Finally I'd like to state, without equivocation, that I do not hate Muslims and I do not have any special dislike of Islam that I do not feel towards any and all religions. I have colleagues, clients and friends who are Muslims, and I get on with them the same as with anyone. The things I have a problem with are theocracy, intolerance and oppression, which blight large parts of the world and, at the moment, seem to be especially prevalent among many Islamic countries. Of course, there are plenty of places (as mistersloane points out in the blog he's quoted from) that suffer these problems without being in the least Islamic, and you can look at Turkey to see how a country can have a majority Muslim population and be a secular democracy as well; and yes, America in particular helps to prop up a lot of nasty regimes, or at best simply ignore them when they don't have lots of juicy resources or geopolitically strategic importance. I'm aware, too, that a few hundred years ago it was Europe than was ruled by blind dogma while the Islamic world was a beacon of learning, culture and, for its time, political and religious tolerance. So I certainly don't think there's anything intrinsically 'savage' or 'evil' about Islam that isn't intrinsic, given the right (or rather, wrong) circumstances, to everyone. And for one reason or another, such cirumstances seem to be pretty widespread in the Islamic world today. The actions of Western countries (and others; let's not forget Soviet meddling, the marginalisation of India's Muslims...) are certainly answerable to some of this but by no means all of it, I think.

 

[zhao]

Although we can all get a bit heated, a certain few people have been well out of order recently with there aggressive dialogue. Are accusations of bigotry, racism and kiddy-fiddling really necessary?? They certainly don't play any part in a constructive debate.

i hear what you are saying. and you are right to an extent. i will try to tone it down.

i am the most "let's all get along" kind of guy in the book most of the time. after all i've been called a hippie on here many times.

but make no mistake: racists and supporters of mass-murderers like the bush admin. are my enemies in this life. and i will not censor exactly what i think about them, not here, and not in real life.

 

[zhao]

fair enough Mr. Tea. thanks for the response.

to be honest i don't think you are entirely a bad sort after all is said and done. maybe a little naive, maybe a little uncritical in your "going with the flow".

the same, however, cannot be said of Vimothy.

 

[crackerjack]

BoShambles, what is the appropriate response to obvious racism? Pretend it's not what it clearly is so we can all get along? Isn't this the huge problem with racism today, that no one will confront it because they're afraid of upsetting the boat, and that people who do confront it are accused of whining or complaining?

Except there is no obvious racism. Even here

offending Muslims (all billion of them?) as difficult as breathing?

you wilfully misconstrue Tea's original statement - the general observation that Muslims are more than typically tetchy about insults to their religion, which ought to be uncontentious in the light of recent history - and apply it to all Muslims, because you simply have no case.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Look at some of the things he says: offending Muslims (all billion of them?) as difficult as breathing? This is clearly an ignorant statement made by someone who's bought the media portrayal hook, line, and sinker without any critical thought. Someone who obviously knows no actual Muslims,

This is not true: see my previous post.

yet feels free to make all sorts of blanket pronouncements about them. Someone who refused to consider the media's role in this affair, even though his entire view of Muslims has been shaped by teevee! This angered me incredibly and I feel justified in responding stridently.

Oh alright, if I have to spell it out, I didn't mean all Muslims, I meant the ones you see on TV staging protests outside embassies and calling for people to be beheaded. They're on TV because they're there, in real life, to be filmed by TV crews and photographed by reporters, which is exactly what they want to happen, because what's the use in making a big fuss if no-one hears about it? Yes, I get information via the media; this is how people know about what's going in the world outside their own street.

 

[zhao]

Except there is no obvious racism. Even here

we live in an era of pandemic, pervasive racism. it is the underlying message in official party lines in America as well as Britain, and it is used to make possible war and the suffering of millions, all to further the agendas of a few.

racism is ubiquitous, and racist sentiments are largely unconscious, unrecognized, and is expressed without either the speaker or the listener being aware that a racist statement is being made.

but nevermind the more subtle kinds for now, it is OBVIOUS racism to insinuate that Muslims and/or Arabs are somehow less capable of reason, or more predisposed to violent behavior, practice a religion more oppressive, than anyone else. and both VImothy as well as (to a less extent) Mr. Tea have more than insinuated similar notions.

and if you choose not to recognize things like this for what it is, if you turn a blind eye to bigotry and prejudice, you yourself are siding with the racists, bigots, and in turn, murderers.

 

[Gavin]

you wilfully misconstrue Tea's original statement - the general observation that Muslims are more than typically tetchy about insults to their religion, which ought to be uncontentious in the light of recent history - and apply it to all Muslims, because you simply have no case.

No case? I would say the "Muslims more violent and irrational than Christians" would be quite a case, but Tea's revised his position to "religious more violent and irrational than secularists" which I have considerable less truck with.

What recent history would that be? Events in Sudan? Why should that reflect on Muslims worldwide as if they are some homogenous group?

These protests have nothing to do with "touchiness" and everything to do with a deliberate drumming up of demagoguery -- on both sides. Even the woman's lawyers say that. It's not even about a cultural faux pas. It's plain to see the yellow press is harping on this as a deliberate ploy to portray the protests in Sudan as the result of irrational backwards people, "medieval savages" as Tea put it earlier -- check out the screaming headlines on Drudge. It's playing to existing prejudices. And plenty of relevant information is left out in favor of sword wielding hotheads -- why is this woman in the Sudan, what is the nature of her work there? She doesn't have to be a Mossad agent for that to be relevant to the story, if indeed it is about a cultural misunderstanding. That's why it's important to read the media and TV critically. I don't know what these protesters "want" as far as media coverage, but I doubt they want what they're getting.

I think it's more valuable to examine why this situation is playing out in this way instead of smugly looking at another country as inferior.

 

[Gavin]

To me this is working to bolster the rationale for a "humanitarian" invasion of Sudan. The corporate media clearly support this.

 

[crackerjack]

What recent history would that be? Events in Sudan? Why should that reflect on Muslims worldwide as if they are some homogenous group?

Events in Sudan, the reaction to the Danish cartoons and comments by the Pope, to Salman Rushdie, to Theo Van Gogh and many, many more I could dredge up if I was inclined to search those right-wing sites you bang on about.

This doesn't make Muslims a homogenous group.

It does mean you should be able to state that criticising Islam/taking the piss out of Muhammad is far more likely to provoke a violent reaction than criticising christianity/Jesus without being accused of racism.

but nevermind the more subtle kinds for now, it is OBVIOUS racism to insinuate that Muslims and/or Arabs are somehow less capable of reason

Muslims aren't a race, Arabs are. Did Tea say Arabs are less capable of reason?