Kelvin MacKenzie cleared of breaking IPSO code

[Thunder Bolt]

Source? And is that Muslim figure correct (it's not the kind of thing I check regularly) too? If so, it indicates that those two religions cover over half the world's population.

Muslim figure is slightly higher at 1.6 billion.

Source 2012 http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/
although China is the most rapidly growing Christian belief system at the moment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-35900242

 

[SAC]

Kelvin MacKenzie is a c'unt.

Not to leave any doubt, I don't like him.

 

[Buzzer]

Two points:
1. RE point 2 from Quillam. Presumably those who are in favour of this are in favour of strict enforcement of 'laicity', i.e. no religious symbolism in the public sphere. This is French policy, whereas British 'liberalism' is not as prescriptive about what can -- or, more precisely, cannot -- take place in the public sphere. This, of course, presupposes that C4 News is part of the public sphere. This particular suggestion from Quillam is fundamentally against British liberal values.
2. In contrast to the previous post, much of the modern left had a distinctive view about what to do with conservative religions. For more extreme examples, see Pol Pot and the Bolsheviks, but even the milder variants thought that religion was either irrational or against the course of history.

Point 1 has been answered. And anyway, laicity would also prohibit overt wearing of crucifix necklaces or skull caps and I don't think there's many cases of people being oppressed into wearing those. I'm really not sure how you've made the leap from women wearing hijabs to this blanket ban of all religious symbols.

Point 2 is simply not true. Yes, the Left is very vocal against Christian and even Jewish conservative attitudes but has absolutely no clear answer to Islam and its followers. The response to crimes committed by newly-arrived Muslim immigrants in Germany and Sweden for example has resulted in absurd positions being held by politicians on the Left. In this country, we have a Left-wing who are extremely conscious of feminism, gay rights and the concept of male privilege yet refuses to acknowledge the very real problems that even moderate Islam has with how it views women, homosexuality and human rights.

 

[Brightonfan1983]

It's about a difference of opinion on religion and religious symbolism. I think that the process of freeing human beings from the oppression of social conservatism should continue. Not sure what you mean by the accusation of dog whistling but it sounds like a fancy new way of shutting down debate to re-enforce the dominant position of religious authorities.

Kelvin's done his job then hasn't he?

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Kelvin's done his job then hasn't he?

You seem to be making the assumption that I am stupid and influenced by Kelvin Mackenzie. Actually neither is true. I have very good reason to think it important that he was found innocent. You say that he should be condemned for the motives behind his words (see,I looked up 'dog whistling'). If found guilty then what or who next ? I could use the same words but for different reasons. Do you come after me ? What next, blasphemy laws ? Challenges to gay and female rights under the guise of religious rights ? You are doing the work of socially regressive religions. I'm not sure how old you are but these freedoms were only granted in recent times and in the face of opposition from religion. I don't care that my politics differs completely from Kelvin Mackenzie as in this case I 100% support his right to say those words.

 

[Machiavelli]

Point 1 has been answered. And anyway, laicity would also prohibit overt wearing of crucifix necklaces or skull caps and I don't think there's many cases of people being oppressed into wearing those. I'm really not sure how you've made the leap from women wearing hijabs to this blanket ban of all religious symbols.

Point 2 is simply not true. Yes, the Left is very vocal against Christian and even Jewish conservative attitudes but has absolutely no clear answer to Islam and its followers. The response to crimes committed by newly-arrived Muslim immigrants in Germany and Sweden for example has resulted in absurd positions being held by politicians on the Left. In this country, we have a Left-wing who are extremely conscious of feminism, gay rights and the concept of male privilege yet refuses to acknowledge the very real problems that even moderate Islam has with how it views women, homosexuality and human rights.

RE point 1: there's your problem; you're of the view that Muslims -- or Muslim women -- are oppressed, yet Christians and Jews aren't. Let's stick with Fatima Manja, are you seriously claiming that she's oppressed into wearing a hijab? And who has answered point 1 and, more importantly, how? The leap that you're unsure I've made surely relates to consistency.

RE point 2: it is the case, and was hardly disputed by @Neville'sBreakfast for instance. You're discussing contemporary examples in your response, whereas I was discussing examples from the twentieth century (hence Bolsheviks, Pol Pot) precisely when the left felt it had history and/or rationality on its side. That is very much a fringe position within the left (although the Trot entryists are trying to take it beyond the fringe) currently. It's very much in line with the historical determinism that you've accused me of, but you've displayed in several of your posts. In other words, the right have increasingly taken over the theoretical framework which the left has abandoned, the clearest example of which is There Is No Alternative (TINA).
And you'll see my view on your final point in the exchange that I had with [MENTION=17447]Bakero[/MENTION].

 

[Buzzer]

RE point 1: there's your problem; you're of the view that Muslims -- or Muslim women -- are oppressed, yet Christians and Jews aren't. Let's stick with Fatima Manja, are you seriously claiming that she's oppressed into wearing a hijab? And who has answered point 1 and, more importantly, how? The leap that you're unsure I've made surely relates to consistency..

I said nothing of the sort. I said that wearing a crucifix can in no way be construed as oppressive. Likewise if a Muslim wore a crescent brooch then that would also not be oppressive. We're talking about a specific piece of clothing here and you're trying to draw general sweeping conclusions from that. namely that I think ALL religious symbols should be banned because I may or may not find one specific item represents the subjugation of women and that I think only Muslim women are oppressed. Re. the latter, you are wrong and on the former even Nawaz agrees that the newsreader has the right to wear one, it's his very first comment on the issue. He doesn't agree with it but it's her right. I happen to agree with him. There's nothing consistent in your view.

RE point 2: it is the case, and was hardly disputed by @Neville'sBreakfast for instance. You're discussing contemporary examples in your response, whereas I was discussing examples from the twentieth century (hence Bolsheviks, Pol Pot) precisely when the left felt it had history and/or rationality on its side. That is very much a fringe position within the left (although the Trot entryists are trying to take it beyond the fringe) currently. It's very much in line with the historical determinism that you've accused me of, but you've displayed in several of your posts. In other words, the right have increasingly taken over the theoretical framework which the left has abandoned, the clearest example of which is There Is No Alternative (TINA).
And you'll see my view on your final point in the exchange that I had with @Bakero.

Of course i'm discussing contemporary examples. I was responding to your comment here:

In contrast to the previous post, much of the modern left had a distinctive view about what to do with conservative religions.

That's your claim. That the modern left has a distinct view about what to do with conservative religions. My answer specifically addresses that point. Yes, they do when it comes to Judaism and Christianity but they are clueless across the board about what to do with Islam. And the reason for this is that they have invested so much time and effort nurturing support from the Muslim community that they are scared to offend them and we end up with the type of intellectual contortions that see the Left campaigning about perceived rape culture on campuses and then excusing the very real rape culture of newly-arrived Muslim immigrants in Sweden.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

RE point 1: there's your problem; you're of the view that Muslims -- or Muslim women -- are oppressed, yet Christians and Jews aren't. Let's stick with Fatima Manja, are you seriously claiming that she's oppressed into wearing a hijab? And who has answered point 1 and, more importantly, how? The leap that you're unsure I've made surely relates to consistency.

RE point 2: it is the case, and was hardly disputed by @Neville'sBreakfast for instance. You're discussing contemporary examples in your response, whereas I was discussing examples from the twentieth century (hence Bolsheviks, Pol Pot) precisely when the left felt it had history and/or rationality on its side. That is very much a fringe position within the left (although the Trot entryists are trying to take it beyond the fringe) currently. It's very much in line with the historical determinism that you've accused me of, but you've displayed in several of your posts. In other words, the right have increasingly taken over the theoretical framework which the left has abandoned, the clearest example of which is There Is No Alternative (TINA).
And you'll see my view on your final point in the exchange that I had with [MENTION=17447]Bakero[/MENTION].

I struggle to understand the reaction of the Left to this issue. I'm not sure if it is enough to say they have abandoned the position as it seems more than that. When I read what people who claim to be on the Left are saying it seems to me that they have switched to the Right whereas I have remained unchanged. The dismantling of religious influence on our society was a hard faught battle which is under threat from Tory 'faith' schools and Labour/Liberal support of Islam. When I look at the political landscape I see three right wing parties determined to promote religious rights over all others. By doing this they are putting the rights of women and homosexuals under threat. You seem to have given this a lot of thought which I respect although we differ in our opinions. However what worries me is the kneejerk reaction of the young to this issue. Discussing this within my family it seems that uni students for instance have a fear of appearing racist which overrides all other views. They have been conditioned to think this way without analysis of the consequences of allowing socially conservative religion back into our society. We have seen it on this thread.
On a separate point I don't think it's the Trots that have stayed true to championing a progressive society free of religious oppression. In fact they are probably the most dramatic example of a shift to the Right on this issue. I don't think anyone can claim to be progressive if they support an idea that is regressive. This is not about supporting people's rights to practice religion. It is about supporting religion's right to exert control and this needs to be opposed.

 

[Machiavelli]

I struggle to understand the reaction of the Left to this issue. I'm not sure if it is enough to say they have abandoned the position as it seems more than that. When I read what people who claim to be on the Left are saying it seems to me that they have switched to the Right whereas I have remained unchanged. The dismantling of religious influence on our society was a hard faught battle which is under threat from Tory 'faith' schools and Labour/Liberal support of Islam. When I look at the political landscape I see three right wing parties determined to promote religious rights over all others. By doing this they are putting the rights of women and homosexuals under threat. You seem to have given this a lot of thought which I respect although we differ in our opinions. However what worries me is the kneejerk reaction of the young to this issue. Discussing this within my family it seems that uni students for instance have a fear of appearing racist which overrides all other views. They have been conditioned to think this way without analysis of the consequences of allowing socially conservative religion back into our society. We have seen it on this thread.
On a separate point I don't think it's the Trots that have stayed true to championing a progressive society free of religious oppression. In fact they are probably the most dramatic example of a shift to the Right on this issue. I don't think anyone can claim to be progressive if they support an idea that is regressive. This is not about supporting people's rights to practice religion. It is about supporting religion's right to exert control and this needs to be opposed.

The point I was trying to make is that the left during the twentieth century had -- or, more accurately, felt it had -- 'truth', rationality and history on its side, or some combination of those. It no longer has, or does (beyond the Trots and their permanent revolution). As it can no longer claim these, it is less secure in attacking other views as regressive. As @ThunderBolt points out, Christianity is on the march in China, which is hardly something that featured in Mao's cultural revolution.

One of the views of modernity, the modern period, i.e. the period that begins with the Renaissance, the rise of capitalism, and whose acme is the Enlightenment, was that science and critical thought would increasingly overtake and sideline religion. That happened for a long while, but the trend is reversing which is one of the things that concern you.

I am an atheist, and so am opposed to faith schools, nor do I promote religious rights. I dispute the fact that Labour and the Lib Dems 'support' Islam, neither do I. Islamophobia is widespread, in part fuelled by Islamic (which is by no means the only) terrorism, but also fuelled by the popular press. Much of this is also fuelled by Christian fundamentalists who have, to repeat, wreaked far more destruction on the Islamic world than Islamicists have on the west.

It's a good thing that the young oppose racism, which in my view is progress, although again I dispute that this overrides all other views. If it does, it might explain why politicians have dropped a barrel load of dung on them over the past few decades.

Finally, I really don't understand the distinction you're drawing in your last two sentences.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

The point I was trying to make is that the left during the twentieth century had -- or, more accurately, felt it had -- 'truth', rationality and history on its side, or some combination of those. It no longer has, or does (beyond the Trots and their permanent revolution). As it can no longer claim these, it is less secure in attacking other views as regressive. As @ThunderBolt points out, Christianity is on the march in China, which is hardly something that featured in Mao's cultural revolution.

One of the views of modernity, the modern period, i.e. the period that begins with the Renaissance, the rise of capitalism, and whose acme is the Enlightenment, was that science and critical thought would increasingly overtake and sideline religion. That happened for a long while, but the trend is reversing which is one of the things that concern you.

I am an atheist, and so am opposed to faith schools, nor do I promote religious rights. I dispute the fact that Labour and the Lib Dems 'support' Islam, neither do I. Islamophobia is widespread, in part fuelled by Islamic (which is by no means the only) terrorism, but also fuelled by the popular press. Much of this is also fuelled by Christian fundamentalists who have, to repeat, wreaked far more destruction on the Islamic world than Islamicists have on the west.

It's a good thing that the young oppose racism, which in my view is progress, although again I dispute that this overrides all other views. If it does, it might explain why politicians have dropped a barrel load of dung on them over the past few decades.

Finally, I really don't understand the distinction you're drawing in your last two sentences.

My last two sentences are the crux of my point. I have no issue with people practicing their religion quietly. It would be rather arrogant for me to have such an issue. As you rightly point out though I am concerned about the spread of organized religion (and the control they exert) and it becoming the norm to ask their opinion about the organization and rules of our society. I am seeing too much of the Muslim Council of Britain and the Church of England on the news and quite frankly I am concerned about their socially regressive views holding back our country. If you are correct about the reason for the Left failing to tackle religious conservatism then it is an abdication of the traditional role of the Left in sticking up for the vulnerable and exploited as religions are text book examples of attempts to control these groups. You can't get any more establishment than the insidious role played by Islamic scholars in Muslim countries and the historical role of the Church of England in the U.K. If we just give up challenging these people then they will only get stronger.
On a separate note it is worth looking at the reasons for the recent rise of religion. The spread of Islam for instance is
fed by emigration and oil money. Look at the influence of Saudi in the former Yugoslavia for instance. This is not some organic movement that is reversing history. Deconstructing the influence of religion still has the march of history on its side but more aggressive religion combined with the West forgetting the lessons of history is making it easier for the forces of regression. The Hijab is a relatively small issue but the rise of its wearing and asserting it as a 'right' is an example of this new found religious assertion.

 

[Buzzer]

Much of this is also fuelled by Christian fundamentalists who have, to repeat, wreaked far more destruction on the Islamic world than Islamicists have on the west.

I really get quite peed off with this specific example of whataboutery. It's completely untrue unless you really want to dredge up the actions of Christians nearly 1000 years ago, in which case we might as well blame it all on the Romans and their invasions into Europe and North Africa. Let's at least be sensible and keep the discussions post-Age of Enlightenment. Christian fundamentalists haven't held power in any major Western nation for hundreds of years - and yes, I include the USA in that statement. For sure there are a lot of American fundamentalist Christians but they don't and haven't ever exercised executive power. Thomas Jefferson made crystal clear the separation of Church and State in the First Amendment.

And you are also wrong to keep blaming the problems on Islamophobia. That word means an irrational hatred of Islam and its followers. For sure, this hatred exists but much of the warnings about the increasing pandering to an Islamic culture that is entirely incompatible with a liberal, secular and democratic West does not come from racists and religious zealots. It comes from right across the board of mainstream Europeans - from the German right, from the French left, from Hungarian centrists, from British Sikhs, from Belgian Jews, from Dutch gays, from Italian feminist authors and the list goes on. They are not driven by irrational hatred but by a very real and rational fear of the consequences of pretending that the incompatibility does not exist.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

So. . . . having read this increasingly nuanced thread . . . . is Kelving McKenzie the flappy mouthed **** I thought he was, 20 years ago, or is he in fact a statesmanlike shamen of discerning and thoughtful eloquence the likes of which the world can only genuflect in bedazzlement? I have my opinion, but shall keep it to myself, in case it triggers a long discussion on what type of material constitutes genuinine opression when woven into a hat worn mostly by women who respect themselves insufficiently go get a tattoo and bejazzle. FFS.

 

[Buzzer]

. . . . is Kelving McKenzie the flappy mouthed **** I thought he was, 20 years ago,

Yes. Completely. But thankfully we live in a country that still gives flappy-mouthed ***** the right to be flappy-mouthed ***** and also still gives other people the right to call him a flappy-mouthed ****.

 

[Machiavelli]

I really get quite peed off with this specific example of whataboutery. It's completely untrue unless you really want to dredge up the actions of Christians nearly 1000 years ago, in which case we might as well blame it all on the Romans and their invasions into Europe and North Africa. Let's at least be sensible and keep the discussions post-Age of Enlightenment. Christian fundamentalists haven't held power in any major Western nation for hundreds of years - and yes, I include the USA in that statement. For sure there are a lot of American fundamentalist Christians but they don't and haven't ever exercised executive power. Thomas Jefferson made crystal clear the separation of Church and State in the First Amendment.

And you are also wrong to keep blaming the problems on Islamophobia. That word means an irrational hatred of Islam and its followers. For sure, this hatred exists but much of the warnings about the increasing pandering to an Islamic culture that is entirely incompatible with a liberal, secular and democratic West does not come from racists and religious zealots. It comes from right across the board of mainstream Europeans - from the German right, from the French left, from Hungarian centrists, from British Sikhs, from Belgian Jews, from Dutch gays, from Italian feminist authors and the list goes on. They are not driven by irrational hatred but by a very real and rational fear of the consequences of pretending that the incompatibility does not exist.

I'm slowly (I am slow) coming round to the view that you wilfully misinterpret my posts. Your first paragraph is a case in point (which I'll address shortly), but it's far more in evidence in our previous exchange where I repeatedly indicated that I was speaking about the left in the past, using terms referring to the left in the past tense (just have a look at your comment where you claim: "Of course i'm discussing contemporary examples. I was responding to your comment here", and then paste my comment, which reads: "In contrast to the previous post, much of the modern left had a distinctive view about what to do with conservative religions. (my emphasis)"), examples from the past (Pol Pot, the Bolsheviks), and so on.

Back to your first point in this post: I wasn't referring to 'whatabouttery', nor even of Christian fundamentalism post-Enlightenment, but of Christian fundamentalism in the twenty-first century, which according to your rationale, doesn't even feature. Can I recommend that you pay closer attention to the gang (the neocons) that served behind George W Bush for two administrations, during which 'shock and awe' was unleashed on (the predominantly Muslim country of) Iraq? Their two intellectual masterminds were/are:
-- Leo Strauss, whose entire philosophy was pitched against modern (i.e. secular) values, and an aggressive reassertion of Christian values. He even had certain of the neocons as his students.
-- Samuel Huntington, who theorised The Clash of Civilisations, which the neocons (and I'm not forgetting Al-Qaeda here either, but then again, they were a relatively minor entity back then, with marginal influence) did their utmost to bring into being.

And as to your second point: I don't keep blaming problems on Islamophobia -- you're remarkably adept at trawling through my earlier activity on here; I reckon that I've mentioned it once on this board, but am willing to be proved wrong on this.
I agree about the diverse range that are concerned about the march of Islam/religion, but to return to my original entrance into this thread, I disagree that wearing the hijab is incompatible with liberal and democratic (if not aggressive secular) values, and this is far more in evidence in Britain than France, where they are more concerned with what goes on in the public sphere, whereas the British take a more 'liberal' or tolerant attitude to such things.

 

[Buzzer]

Leo Strauss died in 1973! So let's get this right. You're blaming a major part of the 2nd Gulf War on Christian fundamentalism because a Jewish professor who died 30 years before the war started was a big influence on some of the people in the Bush administration. Righto. And the other big player was Samuel Huntington who was, I believe was an Episcopalian and never ever a Christian Fundamentalist. The Clash of Civilisations that you quote deals with the ideas of competing cultures, not ideologies. I've read parts of it, not all but I do remember that point being writ large throughout. The title of the book is another big hint.

You accuse me of wilfully misrepresenting you. I think you need to go back and look at your definition of Christian fundamentalism and who are the fundamentalists because you've stretched it beyond breaking point and stuck it back together with sticky tape.

I stand by my point about the modern left and its approach to Islam. I think most neutrals when shown a sentence that included the phrase "the modern left" would probably think you're referring to nowadays. I'd be surprised if the immediate response would be "Oh yes - the modern left. That'll be Pol Pot and the Bolshevik Revolution."

Edit - that point about Islamophobia wasn't me trawling back through posts. It was in the very last post that you made before I replied and the same one that I part quoted. Here it is if you don't believe me.:

Islamophobia is widespread, in part fuelled by Islamic (which is by no means the only) terrorism, but also fuelled by the popular press. Much of this is also fuelled by Christian fundamentalists who have, to repeat, wreaked far more destruction on the Islamic world than Islamicists have on the west..

Now who's misrepresenting who?