There’s a thing called the British Muslim Awards, which I don’t think I’d heard of until now. But now I have. Why? Because they dropped the Quilliam Foundation as a finalist yesterday.
FINALISTS FOR THE ‘SPIRIT OF BRITAIN’ CATEGORY have been adjusted to the below:
Christian Muslim Forum
Muslim Jewish Forum
In light of recent activity, The British Muslim Awards, after careful consideration, have come to the decision that it can no longer promote the Quilliam Foundation as a finalist, and thus it’s nomination has been removed with immediate effect.
#britishmuslimawards
Bad, stupid, regressive move.
Well if you hadn’t heard of it till now can it be much of a loss?
But the “Spirit of Britain” is restricting free expression.
Anyone with the audacity to show a depiction of Mohammed is reflecting liberal, secular values, that even if articulated by British thinkers originally, have never been realized in that country or had majority popular support.
British and European leftists love to take a dump on American, but the only Western nation where Nawaz does reflect its “spirit” is the United States.
Pfft. Leftists and Islam in the UK; the Right and Christianity in the US.
Religion is afforded undue protection and censorious power globally, and only the specific flavour of the intersecting interests varies. We read plenty of stories where the religious in the US use their influence to disbar non-Christians/atheists/LGBT folk/liberals from participation.
These awards are not bestowed by or on behalf of the UK state – they are some obscure thing run by an Ethnic Promotions consultancy (who probably would quite like to be seen to sit on whichever side of the debate constitutes the largest section of their customer base).
Nice try at manufacturing a storm everyone, but they really don’t make tea cups this small anymore.
“Storm”? “Everyone”? *eyeroll*
Quite
Let’s see:
OP: I don’t think I’d heard of until now. But now I have… Bad, stupid, regressive move. Acknowledges obscurity of awards, points out – rightly – that it is anyway a bad, stupid, regressive act
Comment #1: acknowledges obscurity of awards, suggests that this is a trivial matter
Comment #2: [wrongly IMO] claims that it is apt that the Spirit of Britain is compatible with restricted speech; lauds US free speech culture
Comment #3: Mine; a comment on #2; acknowledges obscurity of awards
Comment #4: Yours; provocatively accuses others of whipping up a storm in a teacup
Comment #5: a comment on wrongness of #4
Comment #6: sarcastic agreement with #5
Comment #7: Probably mine, but one never knows whether someone else will have posted in the meantime; a comment pointing out that the only pointed attempt at a very provocative comment on this entire piece is your own and this one
“Storm”? “Everyone”? *eyeroll* – Quite – Indeed.
I want a darling little storm in a teacup to keep on my windowsill. I love miniatures!
@7 Can you provide any evidence of the majority of the Britain public supporting free speech not restricted by subjective concepts like insult, offense, hate, moral indecency, etc.? We know none of the political parties do, but can you show me people feel that way?
As for, exi5tentialist, you posture of smug superiority would hold water if past incidents involving depictions of Mohammed did not have dozens of bodies surrounding them. When someone threatens your life over depictions of Mohammed, it is no idle threat.
@7 Katherine Woo Once again I’ll just say the Muslim Association of Britain has not threatened violence and no amount of “in other words” misrepresentation is going to cast them in that role. I realise there is a big effort going on in these comments to fit the square peg of the MAB into the round hole of threats of violence. That effort is what it is.
Pot, let me introduce you to kettle.
This is like being told your movie can’t compete in the Razzirs.
@exi5tentialist, #10:
Incorrect, sir. The MAB has threatened to be inflamed by content that should not be inflamatory. This plays on stereotypical notions of other muslim riots in response to other cartoons. This is, however cloaked, a threat.
Shorter: this shit doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Don’t insult others’ intelligence by pretending it does.
I think a lot of people here are “playing on” stereotypical notions of violent muslims – then neatly turning it round to blame the MAB for that stereotype. For some islamophobes this is a multi-layered game of let’s pretend. I’m just stating facts. Fact is, the MAB have condemned violence, not threatened it.
I’m not insulting anyone’s intelligence, I’m just asking people to use it.
And really, there’s no need to call me sir.
No-one did that. MAB is leveraging islamophobia in order to present a threat. This press release isn’t released into a vacuum.
The two are not mutually exclusive. MAB has condemned violence toward muslims while it threatens violence to anyone who doesn’t let MAB get away with everything. Even were it the case that MAB was abhorring all violence, several organisations in history have stated “Violence is bad, but in this one case…”
By pretending the reference to inflamatory material isn’t a threat of riots, you’re assuming that everyone here has a memory that doesn’t extend back to the Jyllands-Posten debacle. Intelligence-insulting, truly.
Think of it as the kind of “sir” that a police officer offers to an especially annoying member of the public who insists on taking up their time with useless bullshit.
It took a bit of searching, but.. Here ya go, Ophelia!
@Medivh (15) Well I’ve actually read the MAB’s press release (you can find the link in Ophelia Benson’s article), which says, “The Muslim Association of Britain and many others in the UK, completely and utterly condemn the use of violence in any protest against those who (are) publically hostile to our faith;”
For someone to read that as a selective condemnation of violence toward muslims requires a conscious denial of reality. And to say that the MAB “threatens violence to anyone who doesn’t let MAB get away with everything” is just plain making things up. It comes from the same islamophobic space as suggesting that an expression of anger by MAB (describing how potentially inflammatory the Jesus and “Mo” cartoons actually are) is “really” a threat of violence It’s just a silly interpretation.
exi5 what the fuck are you talking about? Nobody mentioned violence until you did @ 10. Violence is not the subject of the post. Don’t change the subject. Don’t derail threads by changing the subject.
Comment 9? Or did those abstract bodies all die of spontaneous heart attacks? And is a threat to life not worthy of the v-word? What do you think, Ophelia Benson?
An accusation of “derail” sounds like you’re trying to trump up a charge or two against my posting record. I understand where you are coming from. If I am to be disciplined in some way, it cannot possibly be on the grounds of my opposition to your blatent islamophobia. You’ll have to find a pretext. Keep looking, I’m sure you’ll be successful in the end.
“trump up”? “disciplined in some way”? What ARE you talking about? I’m not the cops, you’re neither a perp nor a victim of police brutality. This is my blog. You post here if I allow you to and not otherwise. I don’t in the least have to “find a pretext.”
There is nothing “abstract” about the dozens of people killed surrounding the Satanic Verses and Danish Mohammed cartoons. There is nothing “abstract” about Theo van Gogh’s death, the man convicted of trying to kill the South Park guys, the woman who had to go into hiding over Everybody Draw Mohammed Day and on and on.
Or for that matter, when Lars Vilks (PBUH) had to fend off maniacs who tried to kill him with an axe or burn down a newspaper for a stupid cartoon, for cryin’ out loud! Not that I very much love Vilks, but he does put his bet where it matters. NOBODY gets a pass to harm him for free speech, however clumsy. Exit5, you really ought to cherish that ideal. (Unless the 5 stands for 5th column … Hmm, now there’s a Titanic thought … )
Thank you for the teacup storm G! (@ 16)
Lars Vilks? It was Westergaard who had the guy with an axe (while he had his little grandson with him, for extra thrills). Unless they both did, of course…
No, you are correct again. My mistake.
It doesn’t help when you don’t read things that contradict you, exi.
This is one such case. The statement of cartoons being inflammatory is not made in a vacuum. There is context that you are wilfully ignoring, and that you are assuming we’re too stupid to remember. Even when you’ve had no less than three people bring up separate parts of that context up. Frankly, it’s making you look stupid when you try to pretend the MAB is not threatening violence.
@Ophelia Benson
Yes, your majesty. You have the power not to allow ideas to be expressed – the very censorship you accused the MAB of (falsely).
Now you got anything to say about Comment 9? Or are you going to sweep under the carpet your false allegation that nobody talked about violence here before I did?
Islamophobes like you make me sick with your ducking and diving.
[OT + meta]
exi5tentialist @26, your baseless accusation of Islamophobia is only the most recent instance of your boorishness.
(Ophelia has been a much better host than you’ve been a guest]