Poll On Muslims Against Sharia

Earlier today I recommended the website Muslims Against Sharia. The site contains a series of polls that I think are well-designed with interesting questions, to be answered separately depending on religion. Some of the results are saddening, in the divides in understanding they show to exist.

However one was interesting and ran against the common claims of the Left to be champions of tolerance, and that was opinion of Muslims divided down by self-declared political group. Of course it is an internet poll, with the usual caveats for such, but interesting all the same.

The graph shows that while 37% of non-Muslims on the Left who answered ‘dislike or hate Muslims’ only 24% of non-Muslims respondents on the Right ‘dislike or hate Muslims’. While it is unfortunate that any large proportion of people feel like that about a group of strangers (I oppose Islamism as much as any, but that involves only a minority, and I have known Muslims it would be impossible not to like), it is telling that the left is more likely to prejudge a Muslim, especially when far more Muslims identify themselves as left-wing than right-wing.

Not Just in America

It is not just in America that left-wing racists beat up people with whom they disagree. Letters From a Tory has a tale of the fascists who claim to be anti-fascist.

I first read this story this morning in the Daily Mail (no I don’t read that rag, but i cannot remember the link to give a hat tip). That did not mention the previous protest that had gone off peacefully. However there is some evidence that this is not a classic BNP thugs baiting racial minorities, despite ‘speculation’.

• The group involved specifically states on the website that it is open to “…British people of various different colours/races…”. The BNP does not hide its opposition to non-white members.
• The police state that they have no intelligence of any link.
• A previous protest went off peacefully, and the protest arrangers’ website called for peaceful protest.
• An eyewitness suggested that the violence only happened when a “group of black and Asian people turned up”, so there is no evidence the anti-Muslim-fundamentalist group had any plans for violence.

Now I suspect that the group protesting had been infiltrated by racist thugs, probably of the BNP sort. Nasty people who should be arrested when they do commit crimes. However that is no reason not to let them protest. We don’t have to act on or even listen to their unreasoning complaints (against other races). We can even ignore those and choose to listen to their reasoned complaints, against Islamic fundamentalism.

On that score the target of the ire proved their case. The report talks of flag burnings, shows a picture of an Asian man tearing a Union Flag held by a protester. There is evidence of serious violence against the protesters by the attacking “anti-fascists”, but no evidence that the protesters caused any violence.

It is disgusting that Khalid Mahmood MP blamed the protesters, and had called for the protest to be banned, without any justification at all. As a Muslim MP, Mahmood should be setting an example, telling Muslims that they must accept British values of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

It seems that Unite Against Fascism, a socialist organisation, has become intolerant, violent and authoritarian. Ironic, since the original fascists were violent, authoritarian, intolerant socialist.

Update: Calling England has some of the more amusing background to this.

Update: Goodnight Vienna of Calling England in the comments gives a link to Gates of Vienna who has a left-wing Birmingham student thug’s personal account. It appears that Unite Against Fascism arrived early, looking certainly for confrontation and by strong implication looking for violence.

Update: it appears that the Guardian did have an article (I am not sure why their search did not find it). Typically the opening has an editorial slant that is not justified by the rest of the story. The headline is not about the violence of UAF, but claiming that the anti-fundamentalist group is planning more clashes. The article actually says they plan more demonstrations, gives no hint that there is any evidence they plan violence, and ignores evidence that the counter-demonstration caused the ‘clash’.

Not All Racists are White

This article in the Statesman about an incident in Austin has one interesting line, and the inanity of that line is skirted round, even while the article implicitly contradicts it.

Police have not classified this incident as a hate crime, said Austin Police Sgt. Richard Stresing, because hate crimes target an individual specifically because of an identifying characteristic, like race.

So it appears that Sgt Stresing does not consider a brick bearing the message “Keep Eastside Black. Keep Eastside Strong” thrown through the window of a young white child to “target an individual specifically because of … race”. That decision by the police is itself racist. The Statesman does not seem to criticise the decision, even while it continues with a discussion on hate crime, implying the reporter believed this to be a hate crime. The same happens in the UK of course, when a Muslim ‘randomly’ stabs two Jews.

Note that I do not like the labelling of hate crimes, but if police do it they must not discriminate in their labelling due to the race or religion of the perpetrator.

I have already mentioned a case of white workers being sacked in favour of less-capable blacks in the USA; in the same post I mentioned a black friend’s experience of his black friends’ racist opinion on racism.

President Obama and his friend, Professor Gates, both seem to have made assumptions about a police officer due to the colour of his skin. The fact that those assumptions appear to be incorrect (the officer in question is unlikely to treat blacks and whites significantly differently, as he was specially chosen to teach a course about racially profiling) is not really relevant. It was a racist assumption.

Years ago a friend of my sister’s was murdered. He was white, and he was killed by one of a small group of youths who were not white (their race is irrelevant). It happened within a couple of years of Stephen Lawrence being killed. Yet there was no national news coverage, even when the actual perpetrator was being hunted, even when it turned out that he had left the country to the homeland of his parents. He was a youth, almost certainly without the means to escape himself. So there was a strong suggestion of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, probably within his family or his community. Yet the media had no interest. The media that still have not stopped talking about Stephen Lawrence.

As I said before, the race/equality industry has had a role, but now there are better ways of dealing with racism. The acceptance of racism by non-whites while (rightly) condemning racism by whites is one of the failures of the equality industry. It is a very dangerous situation, which will stoke future tensions and encourage white racists. The traditional media are not helping much, and sometimes neither are the police.

Iranian Without Doubts

On the odd occasion I see a story that makes me certain I chose the right name for this blog. Harry’s Place has one such story, connected with the ongoing protests in Iran. A classic tale, like the Greek comedy Lysistrata, of a woman using her charms to try to stop unnecessary violence. The reason it failed on this occasion is that the man appears unable to conceive of the idea that he might be wrong. He is so certain that Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are right that the opposition must have fooled his fiancée. It seems not to enter his head that he might be the fool.

Of course he is a member of the Basij, part morality police, part volunteer paramilitary thugs for the revolution, but all Islamist. It is that oldest of reasons not to doubt, that most insidious of institutions, religion. The Faithful, as if blind faith was something to boast about, rather than the last refuge of the determinedly ignorant. Faith allows no doubts.

OK, I see the irony that the woman in question is of a conservative religious family; their folly does not alter my point.

I am pleased about the ongoing protest and defiance of Khamenei in Iran (sorry for the lack of posts – little is coming through in the news, and I have had no novel insight). Anyone of a libertarian political view can but hope that some real change comes of them. People will die, but we must remember how many more died for our freedom, and how much some of us value that sacrifice.

Update: I am uncertain about posting this link. Persians in general are such great people, I don't want readers to hate them. The Islamic revolution has twisted so much there, that is the target of my ire. I am not certain it even shows Iran, I am trusting the unknown source, although the point I make here holds whoever these people are, and I am fairly sure they are trying to follow Islamic law, Shariah.

Warning, do NOT look at this link if you have any faith in human nature, any respect for Islam or are at all sqeamish. It is truly horrible. Believers dispense justice in Iran to an eight-year-old thief. This would be impossible for any group of people with the capacity to doubt their own rectitude. Please doubt yourself.

My Doubts

Today I was reading in Little Green Footballs about the murder of Dr Tiller, an abortion doctor in the USA, and more specifically the response in blog comments from right-wing commenters. One struck me as particularly striking, "I haven’t the fainest doubt that he is,at this very moment,rotting in the very special place in hell that he so richly earned".

The part that made me notice this was that the poster claimed to have "not the fainest [sic] doubt" about something for which he can have no possible evidence. I realised then that a common theme through my philosophy, in science, in religion and in politics is doubt. I doubt that scientists who claim to say something definitive about a complex system like climate variation can justify their claims with the current evidence. I doubt that a disembodied force for which there is no evidence beyond the writings of superstitious, credulous people hundreds of years ago controls my life and the world. I doubt that simply borrowing money to spend on people deemed worthy by political elites, and giving central government more control will improve people's lives.

So I am scientifically curious although I believe the evidence where it is strong, I am an atheist although if someone gave me a reason to believe then I would have to reconsider and I am a fiscal, economic and social libertarian in my politics.

So I finally have a title for my blog. I hope someone will read it with the enthusiasm with which I read some of those on my blog roll. I hope that some who come will disagree with me, and post comments to that effect. That is a part of the doubt which I hope to spread to the world, because far more harm can be done by the man who has no doubts.