Harry’s Place

Some reaction to the publication of the BNP membership list:

Here is  a recent posting, from the UCU Activists List, by Mike Holmes. Mike Holmes tells me that he has “made libertarian waves on usenet and the web since 1987 and regularly posts under “A Friend of Fernando Poo” and “FoFP”"

Let Mike give the context:

This was posted after a disagreement on a trade union mailing-list. The number of emails generated by the spat had engendered the suggestion that the mailing-list itself should be regarded as a workplace and should therefore be free from “discrimination and harrasment”.  It was further commented that it was a healthy sign if there was “outrage at bigoted remarks not consonant with union principles”.  The latter being almost certainly directed at Mike’s statement that he’d once run a counter-demonstration to the “Sixteen Days” campaign

Mike responds: 

I was pondering much the same idea myself.  It’s an irony that I recently filled in an UCU bullying and harrassment survey.  I confirmed that colleagues don’t threaten me, shout at me, or call me names.  To be honest I couldn’t even imagine anyone doing so.  Little did I think that all I really had to do to experience it in its full glory was to join an UCU mailing-list.

I’m asked to become an UCU activist. I happily do so. I join a list of activists to see what others do and discuss. Sure enough, there’s some sensible discussion. It’s not long however until I discover that a group of Jews, or people who support Jews have stated they are leaving UCU as a result of a policy they regard as discrimination and
harrassment.

Worse, it’s not long before a member is (if you’ll pardon the expression) dancing on their graves and gleefully claiming what amounts to “Go. Good riddance. We’ll replace you with people more in alignment with our thinking, and more of them too!”
This confused me, and I began to ask why we had a policy on something as irrelevant to work as the Palestine/Israel question. It wasn’t long before the name-calling started. Then I discovered that there are folks working towards a law to enable every union (not just our own, that presumably wouldn’t be enough for them) to expel a minority for their
political beliefs. That would be BNP members for anyone who missed it.  I’d always known that the anti-fascist left had become ever more fascist themselves in their zeal, but it was my first up-close viewing of it.  The BNP have odious views but in a free society people are entitled to hold their own views without persecution.  It’s true that they’d most likely persecute minorities themselves, but copying them with the BNP as the persecuted
minority doubles the problem rather than reduces it.  Someone isn’t any less a fascist just because everyone shares their dislike of the folks they’re persecuting.

I’m a Libertarian.  I believe fervently in freedom of speech and of association. For everyone: Left, Right, Indifferent and for the BNP. Liberty isn’t divisible.  If one group can be freely persecuted then so easily can another when someone different is in charge.  The only real protection against persecution of minorities is liberty for all.

I then discovered we had an abortion policy, alienating yet another minority (or possibly a majority?) by forcing one set of people’s views on them by our union holding the opposite view in their name.  I questioned that, to more name calling, though I’d acknowledge some occasional rational discussion on that topic.

Then the list was spammed by an advocate of the Sixteen Days folks. Having fought them before, though not being particularly exercised about them at the moment, I posted to that effect.  Instantly I was called a “bigot” pretty much apropos of nothing except apparently not sharing someone’s politics.  Further explanation of my position regarding our counter-attack on would-be censors amongst the Sixteen Days people brought forth an accusation that I was “promoting child pornography”.There’s probably no single accusation right now in our society more likely to deprive someone of their job or indeed their liberty than that one and we all know it.  Yet someone, despite again us all knowing full well the untruth of it, felt free to hurl it into what is supposed to be a mailing-list of professional people, merely as a kind of throwaway debate tactic. The claim above is that this list is like a workplace.

OK, take a minute yourself and consider how you might feel if someone at work levelled that particular accusation at you. What would you do? How would you react were someone to thus accuse a colleague? Would you consider it harassment? Bullying? Something even worse? I note that nobody felt exercised enough to wonder if that might not be going too far.  Rather the opposite in fact: people wondered if I wasn’t “nit-picking at words” in my reply and began to mutter darkly of using their friends in high places to see if they could shut up those who don’t go along with the prevailing political opinion.  Many here say they don’t believe in censorship *BUT* (those who believe in censorship always have a “but”) apparently they really absolutely have to draw the line at people who disagree with them.

I came here to see what activists do and say.  I concede that I received the education I sought.  I’m sure I’ve only experienced a tiny part of that harrassment felt by the Jews and supporters who felt forced out of UCU, but I’m no longer at all confused about their reasons.  I have no doubt at all they were quite simply bullied out.  Just another minority to get rid of like the BNP supporters, no doubt by people who congratulate themselves regularly on their unwavering support of “minorities”.

I have scant doubt that if some seriously mean to do the same to libertarians (another minority, a small one, and possibly one limited to me) then they’ll drum up some way at NEC or whatever to do it.  It must be truly awful and terrible to contemplate that someone, somewhere, disagrees with one and yet remains on the list, or perhaps even in UCU.

Meanwhile I’ll fill in the form again and let UCU know that if they want to see bullying, they need to look rather closer to home. I’ve met some good people on this list (or perhaps more accurately off it) but there are certain of you, well, in the last couple of days I’ve discovered that I feel soiled even exchanging email with you. The kind of disgust that makes me want to wash my hands afterwards. That such people have reached the top of UCU makes me seriously wonder about its future and its worth.

Those are certainly not sentiments I ever had before entering this list. I thought we were in a union to help and support people in their problems at work.  Some seem instead to have turned it into a vehicle for their sundry political interests and vendettas by passing up motions until they’re effectively policy. Once they’re policy they’re apparently used to browbeat those who demur.

Don’t agree with them on abortion/Palestine/censorship? I think you’ll find comrade that the Party has ruled and you should now think in the way of the majority.  Though by “majority” here we mean a few activists who care enough to get their sundry agendas and pogroms passed up the line enough to have them made policy. And this irrespective of a tenous if that connection to the interests of the dues-paying members.

I had for the past 25 years naively believed I was a member of a trade union which welcomed all minorities and all political persuasions and gave them all respect. Instead I found a vipers nest of, yes, bigotry and childish name-calling. No, wait, not childish, but very serious name-calling and most likely libelous besides.

Thanks for the education folks. I’ll teach myself how to deal with the disillusionment.

Andy Newman writes:

There is no doubt that last night’s election result in the Mile End ward in Tower Hamlets was a very disappointing one, and stands in stark contrast to the brilliant win in the Shadwell ward just over a year ago.

Respect campaigners were expecting to do better, and to give Labour a run for their money - canvass returns and general impressions of the campaign were giving grounds for confidence. So there needs to be some calm reflection and analysis on why the vote was not higher.

There is no doubt that the accrimonious split with the SWP has left both sides weaker. but we should also be clear that George Galloway, Salma Yaqoob and Respect have built up some considerable political capital; particularly strengthened by the absolutely correct alignment with Ken Livingstone during the mayoral election. The challenge now is to see how that political capital can be built upon.

Mile End East by-election result:

Labour 1208
Conservatives 630
Respect 604
Liberal Democrats 110

Hurrah!

This is an alert from the Sanctuary for Jila, Emad & Aref campaign  

Jila  Kalkhoran her sons Emad and Aref Pirouzeh are nationals of Iran and residents of Middlesbrough; they are currently detained in Yarl’s Wood IRC and due to be forcibly removed from the UK on Friday 21st November on BMI Flight BD931 from London Heathrow @ 17:15 to Tehran Imam Khomeini International, Iran.

Jila, Emad & Pizrouzeh were ’snatched’ from their Middlesbrough home Wednesday morning.

Jila and her family became targets of violence and intimidation in Iran following her husband’s involvement in political activity proscribed by the Iranian government.  Jila’s husband Ali Pirouzeh was a journalist for a publication, which was critical of the Iranian regime’s record on women’s rights, poverty and religious rights.

Jila & the children came to the UK in October 2007 for a visit, fully intending to return to Iran. News from her partner in early 2008 said that the situation was getting worse and he advised her not to return to Iran. Jila made an asylum claim in March 2008. Jila’s husband was forced to flee Iran in June 2008 following a number of violent incidents against him and others. He fully intended to try and get to the UK to join is wife and children but only got as far as Holland, where he made an asylum claim which is still under consideration.

After claiming Asylum in the UK, Jila and her children came to live in Middlesbrough, where they have settled down to become much loved members of the community and a local evangelical Jubilee Church Teesside.  Jila’s Christian faith is her second well-founded fear of persecution. Jila and the boys have become Christians in the UK and regularly attend, and are actively involved in, the life of Jubilee Church Teesside.

In 2007 Amnesty International announced that it was concerned by the “rising tide of harassment of journalists and women’s rights activists in Iran by security officials.”  Such harassment included travel restrictions both inside and outside Iran, and arbitrary and indefinite detention in Iran’s prisons.  Journalists critical of the government have been accused by the Iranian authorities of “disturbing public opinion”, “propaganda against the system” and “publication of lies.”  Reporters Without Borders comments that “many journalists were also held in secret, without even basic rights” and media outlets sometimes face physical attack by government organisations and Koranic schools.

On 8.10.08 The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, Rt Hon David Miliband, MP, condemned a draft bill currently making its way through the Iranian Parliament, which would codify the death penalty for apostasy. David Miliband commented that he “deplored the way in which the Iranian Parliament is· now discussing a draft penal code that would set out a mandatory death sentence for the crime, quote unquote, of apostasy.” He went on to say that “If adopted, [the legislation] would violate the right to freedom of religion, which is also an important basis of any civilised society.”

The draft bill being debated in Iran was initially approved at a first stage vote by the Iranian parliament on Tuesday 9 September, with 196 votes for, seven against, and two abstentions. The bill, named the Islamic Penal Code, is currently due to be sent back to the Legislative Commission for amendments before being brought before the Iranian parliament for a final vote. http://dynamic.csw.org.uk/article.asp?t=press&id=789

All legal avenues have been exhausted. They are a charming family whose politeness and warmth has touched everyone whom they met.  Emad and Aref have taken part in a range of community youth activities, to which they contributed talent, enthusiasm and maturity beyond their years.  It would be tragic and an injustice if this family were to be forcibly removed to The Islamic Republic of Iran, a country from which they fled in fear of their lives.

Jila, Emad and Aref were detained for removal earlier this year due to a mistake in the asylum process, which was only; rectified at the last moment and they were released.  Now the family have been detained a second time for removal again on 21st November 2008, despite the fact that fresh evidence received from Iran concerning her husband’s case is currently being translated.

Local Middlesbrough residents are campaigning to keep the family in the UK.

What you can do to Help:

1) Please send urgent faxes to Nigel Turner, Chief Executive Officer BMI Airways, asking that BMI should not facilitate Home Office enforcement policies, using the attached ‘model letter’ (JilaEmadArefBMI.doc) you can copy/amend/write your own version, if you do so, please remember to include the following details:  Jila, Emad & Aref due to be forcibly removed from the UK on Friday 21st November on BMI Flight BD931 from London Heathrow @ 17:15 to Tehran Imam Khomeini International, Iran.

Fax: Fax:: 01332 854989  from outside the UK: + 44 1332 854989

Leave a complaint/concern

BMI Customer Relations: At BMI we are committed to our customers and value your feedback. You can leave a complaint/concern @

http://www.flybmi.com/bmi/en-gb/planning-and-information/customer-service/customer-relations.aspx

2) Ring BMI Head Office and ask to speak to the CEO, Nigel Turner (Tel: 01332 854000).  You probably won’t be able to speak to him personally, but you should be able to leave a message, at least to say that you have sent a fax.

3)  Please send urgent faxes/emails immediately to Rt. Hon.Jacqui Smith, Secretary for State, asking that Jila, Emad & Aref, be granted protection in the UK. Please use the attached ‘model letter’ (JilaEmadAref SJ.doc) which you can copy/amend/write your own version, if you do so, please remember to include their HO ref: K1279501.

Fax: 020 8760 3132(00 44 20 8760 3132 if you are faxing from outside UK)

Email: Privateoffice.external@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

Please let the campaign know of faxes/emails sent:

‘Sanctuary for Jila, Emad & Aref’

24 Oxford Road

Middlesbrough

TS5 5DZ

Tel. 079 1442 2994 / or 079 3238 4248

revol_tees@hotmail.com

For the first time, the Palestinian Authority has taken out advertisements in Israel’s Hebrew language press to promote the Saudi peace plan. The 2002 Saudi plan (in brief) offers diplomatic recognition of Israel in exchange for the lands captured in 1967, East Jerusalem and a “just solution” to the Palestinian refugee question. I don’t want to get into the details of the plan here, which broadly accords with what a majority of Israelis and Palestinians support, depending of course on your definition of a “just solution” for the refugees and the boundaries of East Jerusalem.

By going over the head of Israel’s fractious politicians, the PA has done something imaginative and productive, which hopefully will at least trigger debate. As the BBC reports:

The PA advertisement appears in the three main Hebrew dailies and is headed by the Palestinian and Israeli flags.

The text reads: “Fifty-seven Arab and Muslim countries will establish diplomatic relations with Israel in exchange for a full peace accord and the end of the occupation.”

The advert includes the full text of the seven-point initiative and is framed by the flags of 50 Arab and Muslim countries.

Mabruk!

This is a guest post by habibi

Azad Ali is the president of the Civil Service Islamic Society (CSIS). This is how the CSIS presents itself on its web site:

The Civil Service Islamic Society (CSIS) was launched in February 2005 and is a non-political, voluntary society, representative of mainstream Islamic opinion in central government. The Society works within the Civil Service framework of honesty, impartiality and integrity. It aims to build on common shared inter-faith values for the benefit of the Civil Service. The mission of the CSIS is to raise awareness of Islam, influence areas of interests and empower its Muslim staff by acting as a representative body of mainstream Islamic affairs. The patron and ambassador of the Civil Service Islamic Society is Sir Gus O’Donnell, Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service.

Azad Ali blogs here under the umbrella of the Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE).  The IFE is linked to Jamaat i Islami and the East London Mosque.

Take a look at Ali’s latest post, titled “Defeating extremism by promoting balance”.  It is an embittered call to Muslims to stand up for what he sees as a correct understanding of jihad: it is the struggle against “oppression” in religiously appropriate circumstances as well as inner purification.  In fact, he opens the post with some words from Huthaifa Azzam, son of Abdullah Azzam, a prominent “Afghan Arab” in the 1980s jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan, a mentor of Osama bin Laden, and a fanatical Jew hater.  Here’s a short video telling part of Azzam père’s story.

While discussing the theological contribution of Azzam fils, Ali cites this quote:

“If I saw an American or British man wearing a soldier’s uniform inside Iraq I would kill him because that is my obligation. If I found the same soldier over the border in Jordan I wouldn’t touch him. In Iraq he is a fighter and an occupier, here he is not. This is my religion and I respect this as the main instruction in my religion for jihad.”

For Azad Ali, apparently these are words of wisdom, for jihad must be reclaimed not from al Qaeda alone, who have bombed Amman, Huthaifa Azzam’s home, but Muslim peaceniks too:

There are a few Muslims who promote the understanding of the term Jihad in its comprehensive glory, one that reflects history as well as the practice of Muslims going back to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him.

There are multiple reasons for this, but primarily, in my opinion, it is to do with the restrictions (whether perceived or actual) placed on Muslims by themselves. Self-censorship has taken many Muslims to the point where you can almost feel the contempt they have for Jihad. We have had campaign after campaign that tells people Islam is peace, scholars, activists and droves of Muslims rush to let everyone know that Islam is peace.

Of course this action by the vast majority is noble and I am not knocking that – but I am concerned why they could not say Islam is about Justice – peace is related to Justice. What peace does a man have when he is oppressed? What peace does the soul have when it has transgressed Allah’s boundaries? Is it not said that Muslims are in the category of Nafs (soul) al-Lawamma (questioning/blame) and we aspire to be in the category of Nafs al-Mutma’innah (soul at peace)?By this approach we have caused disillusionment and in some instances radical and extreme reactions from within.

You may take Shaykh Anwar Awlaki as an example. Reading his blogs, one cannot help but feel his frustration at the constant denial of legitimate Islamic principles. Worse is the complete incompetence of some Muslims to distinguish between Jihad and acts of murder.

Though the wording is cautious, surely Azad Ali is citing Azzam fils as an example to follow precisely because he supports the murder – yes, it would be murder - of British soldiers in Iraq.

He does not say what British Muslims should do if jihad is an obligation.  Perhaps a civil servant could ask him.

This is very dangerous talk.   Supporting jihad in Iraq, or other “occupied” lands for that matter, is bad enough.  Worse, at home in Britain, is the conclusion the angriest young men who hear the likes of it may draw.  If the British army in Iraq is certainly a legitimate target, the state is its master, and voters and taxpayers choose the government and fund the army, why not mount attacks in the UK?  This is indeed a message that recurs in “martyrdom videos” of arrested British jihadis.

Note too Azad Ali’s citation of Anwar al Awlaki, an American Yemeni Islamist, in the quotes above.  Ali is fond of al Awlaki, calling him ”one of my favourite speakers and scholars” and saying “I really do love him for the sake of Allah, he has an uncanny way of explaining things to people which is endearing”.  In this post Ali is referring specifically to this hateful screed,  where al Awlaki claims America is at war with Islam “and not just against the so called extremists”; insists that Muslims have a duty ”to strive through Jihad to establish the Islamic Khilafah [caliphate]; and compares American Muslims who particpated in the presidential election to abused dogs that remain loyal to their “owners” only because they are given a bone once in a while.

In a related post on the American election, al Awlaki calls American Muslims who voted in the presidential election “house negros” and tells them “you will always be seen as the enemy and you will never be accepted unless you do one thing: give up your religion”.

Mr al Awlaki is, well, quite unbalanced.  So is anyone who admires him, such as Azad Ali, for example.

Turning back to Britain, Azad Ali thinks that the government’s domestic anti-extremism measures are bound to fail, and he says so, bluntly:

The millions pumped in by the government to ‘de-radicalise’ Muslims will be a complete waste and will not really achieve anything other than one or two headlines here and there. The real victory will come when we start promoting ‘balance’ in this matter (and in our religion) and not either of the two extremes.

“Balance”, as far as Azad Ali is concerned, appears to mean buying into Azzam’s conception of jihad in order to “defeat extremism”. What else, in practice, does Ali expect the government to do? To support jihadi politics overseas? To allow those who promote jihad into the UK?  To partner with organisations in the UK which are linked to jihadi parties, such as Jamaat-e-Islami and the Muslim Brotherhood?

If CSIS is to make a worthwhile contribution to anti-extremism campaigns, it needs a new president.

The trouble is, Azad Ali has made links with officialdom over many years, which puts him in a strong position when he pushes this dangerous and foolish agenda. See this description of his extensive dealings with various governmental bodies:

Azad Ali is married with 3 children and lives in East London; he has been a community activist for over 20 years. He is a presenter on Muslim Community Radio’s flagship show Easy Talk. Aziz is the former chair of the Muslim Safety Forum and currently leads on the Counter Terrorism work-team for the Forum, working with the Home Office, ACPO and Security Services. Azad is currently the President of the Civil Service Islamic Society and a Board Member of the London CrimeStoppers. He is also a Trustee of the East London Mosque & London Muslim Centre. He chairs the Muslim Council of Britain’s Membership Committee and is a member of its Central Working Committee. He is also the Vice-Chair of Canon Barnet School Board of Governors and Chair of the Saturday Islamic School Board of Governors. He sits on the Strategic Stop & Search Committee and Police Use of Firearms Group with the Met. Azad is also a member of the IPCC’s Community Advisory Group and the Home Office’s Trust and Confidence Community Panel.

As far as CSIS itself goes, many of its activities appear wholly anodyne to me. However, this year part of the proceeds of its annual iftar dinner were passed to Interpal (source here), a charity that is banned in a number of jurisdictions, although not in the United Kingdom. The dinner was attended by Sadiq Khan, MP, and Peter Lewis, head of the Crown Prosecution Service.

What a sad and mad state of affairs. Poor Britain. It needs and deserves much better when it comes to fighting and beating extremism.

Here are two articles that discuss Sharia courts in action. The first extract is from the International Herald Tribune: 

A Pakistan-born 33-year-old mother of five explained that her husband would beat her and her children. “He threatens to kill us,” she said, as her daughter translated from Urdu. “He calls me a Jew and an infidel.” Hasan told her to immediately get police protection and request an Islamic divorce.

Another woman, 25, wanted out of a two-year-old arranged marriage with a man who refused to consummate the relationship. Hasan counseled dialogue.

“Until we see the husband,” he said, “we can’t be sure that what you’re saying is true.”

There was also a seminar, chaired by Lady Butler Sloss, at which Sheikh Faiz ul-Aqtab Siddiqi of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal argued for the acceptance of polygamy:

Later, after a question from the floor, he clarified his position as being one of confusion as to why relationships such as extra-marital affairs should be recognised under English law, and furthermore how men could be permitted to marry other men, and women other women. He argued that if such relationships were not considered abhorrent, then current attitudes towards polygamy could not, and should not, be justified.

The main problem with using this argument in favour of recognition of polygamous marriages both inside and outside this country is that of proof as to whether these marriages have been entered into willingly and freely by the women involved. No one forces a person to have an extra-marital affair, or to enter into a civil partnership, but there is widespread evidence of the forcing of women into polygamous relationships in many religions and in many parts of the world. To compare consensual relationships with forced ones, whether physical or emotional coercion is used, is completely misguided.

Rosa Freedman relates the full story on CiF.

Despite the best efforts of Hugo Chavez, it seems the threat of a US invasion is not the number-one concern of Venezuelans these days.

Rather it is fear of violent crime. And Chavez’s failure to deal with it may be a factor in Sunday’s regional elections in Venezuela.

In Caracas, the vast majority of people live in fear of being victimized, pollsters and criminologists say.

Fifty-six percent of those recently polled by Datanalisis, a Caracas polling firm, said crime was their top concern, ahead of inflation and economic problems. And a poll by a well-known sociologist who studies crime, Roberto Briceño-León, showed that 64 percent feared being attacked in the streets.

Juan Forero of The Washington Post spoke with Miriam Sánchez, a resident of a Caracas slum. Unbelievably and horribly, four of her sons have been shot dead– three since Chavez took office in 1999.

Although previously a supporter of Chavez, she is now considering voting against his candidates in the election.

Though she acknowledges improvements spurred by the government’s generous social spending, Sánchez said she has little confidence that the streets will be getting safer anytime soon.

“I get angry because I feel that Chávez is the one to blame for everything that is happening because he is not watching out for Caracas,” she said. “He should be watching more television to see how much crime there is and all the killings there are.”

Forero reports that “for three years now, the government has kept homicide statistics secret, although the data are made public by crime research organizations and criminologists who receive the information surreptitiously from law enforcement sources.”

Venezuela was hardly a murder-free paradise before Chavez came to power. But in 1998, the last year before he became president, the murder rate stood at 19 per 100,000. By 2007 it had soared to 48. In that same year, in the ultra-violent United States of some Europeans’ imagination, the murder rate was 5.6– still too high, of course.

Is it unfair to compare Venezuela’s murder rate to that of the United States? Absolutely. So let’s compare it to another South American country with a reputation for unbridled violent crime– namely Brazil.

Over approximately the same period, Brazil’s homicide rate has held reasonably steady at between 25 and 30 per 100,000, and has declined somewhat. In Brazil’s largest city, São Paulo, homicides have declined sharply and in 2005 were actually below the national rate.

According to a report in The Economist, the drop is due largely to stricter gun control, better policing and changing demographics.

Forero reports Venezuela’s capital and largest city has an astounding murder rate of 130 per 100,000.

In Caracas, perhaps the biggest problem is the police, who are considered ineffective and brutal and sometimes are directly involved in crime. Concern over police prompted the government, under Interior Minister Jesse Chacón, to establish a commission to reform the police in 2006.

The commission, which included representatives of the business community, criminologists, neighborhood representatives and officials from the judicial sector, issued a report that highlighted police corruption and proposed reforms. But crime experts here said the findings were ignored after Chacón, who had championed the commission, was replaced as minister by Pedro Carreño in January 2007.

Instead, the government approved a law that will merge police departments into one national force under a central command.

So Chavez has been in power nearly 10 years. Thanks to (until recently) record oil prices, he has had huge amounts of money to deal with what is clearly a national crisis. Why hasn’t he?

Watch the video. Witness for yourself the way he whips up a crowd with violent antigay rhetoric like “”Faggots, I kill every one of them!” To cheers he urges people to drive “batty man” (gays) out of “our community”. Over the course of Bounty Killer’s tirade from the stage, he appears to blame “batty man” for everything from corruption of the nation’s morals to the country’s economic hardships. His 6 minute rant ends with more exhortations to kill, this time will added sound effects of gun shots. The crowd goes wild.

Perhaps you’re Jewish, Muslim, Sikh or Hindu. Perhaps you’re black, or Asian, or eastern European, whoever you are, imagine if someone who whipped up such violent hatred and prejudice against your community was coming to your town. How would you feel?

We live in a free country and enjoy freedom of speech. We are allowed to disagree - sometimes very robustly and even disrespectfully - over matters of politics, theology, philosophy and morality, or anything else. This issue is not about that. I would support Bounty Killer’s right to condemn homosexuality and to express his aversion to it, just as I would support anyone’s right to criticises other moral, religious, liefstyle, political, or economic stances, choices or ideas.

But to whip up this level of hostility and create such a potential for violence is inexcusable and unjustifyable.

Nevertheless, Bounty Killer has been granted a visa to perform in the UK and the Metropolitan Police have agreed to let this man’s concerts go ahead.

UPDATE:

It the first one wasn’t too much for you, here’s another one from Sumfest 2008:

There can be no doubt that this sort of thing is a standard feature of his concerts.