buy unique gifts at Zazzle
Wednesday, 28 May 2014
Pat Condell is clearly the comedian he claims to be
On his video “Is good to be anti-Islam” He cannot possibly be talking about Islam but about a caricature thereof. Now I am not denying that said caricature exists in the form of extremists but that goes for every single form of ideology in this world. He talks about the importance of a secular society. But the grandeur of a secular society is to have the mechanisms to allow space for anyone's system of beliefs as long as regardless of the belief one always acts within the law. Now Condell's argument is that most of Islam's doctrine falls outside the law specially if taken to the letter and put into practice; but the same goes for any Abrahamic religion or most ancient religions for that matter.
Mr Condell may argue that modern cases of religious fanaticism are unheard of among other religions but that is just the result of a media bias along with selective ignorance. Every idea, be it religious or not, is susceptible of being taken to the extreme by crazy individuals and as such if said extreme goes as far as to break the law then the responsibility should be individual and not collective.
Judging a group of 2.5 million people living peacefully under the law for the acts of a few hundreds of them is nothing short of prejudiced. He says Islam values are opposed to his, but in a perfect secular society there would still be opposed values to his: leftist values, multicultural values, feminist values, and so on and so forth.
I, for one, do not agree with the values of the so called chav community who traditionally support political parties such as BNP, EDL and only recently UKIP, yet I respect their system of belief as long as they abide by law.
There is nothing wrong about disagreeing with other people's ideas but there is something fundamentally wrong about singling out and pigeonholing an entire community by using a different set of standards than the one used to measure other similar communities. In fact I would agree with most of Condell's complaints if he applied those to all the communities in the UK because most of his complaints are not about Islam but about the worst side of human condition:
Separatism, supremacism, social intolerance, victimism, misogyny, homophobia, intimidation, censorship and constant threats of violence over social issues... all those things could easily apply to BNP voters or to Jewish far-righters without distinction.
On a side note genital mutilation is actively practiced within Judaism as well but Mr Condell is not interested in the whole truth but the truth that best suits his agenda same as when he argues against halal food while showing kosher in good light by using this word as a synonym of good when its slaughtering practices are most similar to those of halal, in fact halal is clearly inspired by kosher or vice-versa (one never knows).
So while I agree that all these things should be best removed from the framework of a modern society I do not agree, however, this removal should be one-sided as Mr Condell's seems to suggest
Incidentally As I was recording this video I read a news article about a UKIP councillor who had been suspended after only five days pending an investigation for alleged tweets he made about "poofs", "dykes" and "pakis" [sic erat scriptum].
How convenient this would be, I said to myself, if I wanted to ridicule and discredit an entire collective of human beings such as the UKIP, solely based on the radical views of one of them.
But upon further reflexion I realised that the real news was not in the comments for which this individual has now been suspended but the fact that apparently these took place back in February 2013. Therefore the news is it took almost a year and a half for the UKIP to do something about it and it was only AFTER the individual OBTAINED HIS SEAT for the party that the disciplinary action began.
Well, how convenient is that, the party gets to keep the seat won by a chap with such “interesting” ideas that, had they acted more swiftly he probably wouldn't have won it in the first place. How democratic is that? It certainly raises the question as to who won the seat: his radical ideas of “poofs”, “dykes” and “pakis” [sic], the UKIP or both?
But I am digressing
Back to Condell he talks about injustice, violence, oppression and other terrible things under Islamic ruling but there are some interesting facts about his view on the matter:
Iraq was a fairly Secular country yet a war was declared against it that has taken the lives of between 150.000 and 1,000.000 people.
Saudi Arabia is a country ruled by a system based on the Sharia but that is not a hindrance for them to become allies of those who waged war in Iraq, and so are Kuwait and other countries in the region
Syria was a fairly secular country with several religions co-existing in peace until the same coalition who declared war against Iraq decided to infiltrate the country with international groups of Salafist mercenaries
Then Mr Condell goes on about the historic negative influence of Islam but he forgets that if not thanks to Islam most of the Greek works would have not been preserved thus delaying western progress by thousands of years.
Mr Condell is nothing short of a comedian and a very dishonest pretext for a human being. His psychological warfare tactics target both the Skeptic community and the uncritical unthinking bulk of the far right in Britain and I do not believe this to be by chance.
There is a connection between the orchestrated campaign that brought down the BNP at the same time it empowered the EDL and in turn this was followed by the posterior demolition of the EDL and the rise of the UKIP transferring “quality votes” from the far right to the UKIP while cleaning the anti-Semitic chaff in the process
Posted by supercedure at 17:32