Ruth Kelly, the Communities Minister, recently announced that £5m of funding would be allocated to fighting extremism. It would be directed at local projects, which was interpreted as another slap for the MCB. In an Observer article last week, other groups were mentioned positively such as the "Muslim British Forum", which is presumably meant to be the British Muslim Forum.
The mistake hasn't been seized upon, but betrays the desperate groping at the centre of government for something resembling a strategy. I don't think the MCB should be overly concerned at being looked over. Rather, many have argued for ages that there is nothing more that the organisation can do with respect to the terror threat. Plausibly, all that can be asked for is to renounce the killing of innocents and say it has no place in Islam (which they have done), and to call for people to cooperate with the police and security services (which they have done).
But still, there is a call for some more unspecified nebulous action on the part of the MCB. So this sidelining of the organisation should come with a sigh of relief. A while from now everyone will find that the MBF or BMF can't do much more than the MCB could.
I'd also like to say a few words about the debate between Sunny Hundal and Inayat Bunglawala on Comment is Free. Hundal tried to push Bunglawala on what he should be doing about combating violent extremism. You can judge for yourself how it went - I guess it depends on how important you view the Iraq war and foreign policy as being with respect to the threat on the country.
But my observation is the contradiction in Hundal's philosophy. Just last November he launched the New Generation Network, much of which I actually agree with, even if I don't see it as quite the panacea to our problems that others do. It hit out at the strategy of successive governments in talking to "self-appointed community leaders". For too long these gate keepers had been relied upon to sort out their communities in a throwback to the colonial era. Minority groups should be seen as lobby groups, not representatives of millions of people.
Oddly, none of this applies for Sunny when it comes to Muslims and terrorism.
Miaow.
I'll try again. Yes or no answers will suffice, Osama.
Do you think Muslims should co-operate with the police and security services?
Do you still stand by the comments you made in Dundee where you said Muslims should resist and defy the SBCCU?
Posted by: johnmellor77 | 05 April 2007 at 11:35 AM
John, even the most rude journalists don't phone me up and ask random questions with no context. Now who the hell are you? If you ask me the proverbial do I beat my wife question, I'd say no. But the impression is left regarding why the gimp would ask such a thing. Now the answer to your question as I've alluded to is that I don't take back a single word of what I said, and you know I haven't, and it's pretty obvious I cooperate with the police if I have meetings with them. Now if you have any evidence to the contrary, apart from whatever you want to contrive which we've gone round in circles about before, spit it out.
Posted by: Osama | 05 April 2007 at 12:09 PM
I'll try and explain it as simply as I can because you are obviously losing the plot a little.
In this post, you say all Muslim groups like the MCB can do to combat extremism is say it is unIslamic and that Muslims should work with the police and security services.
Fair enough. That is one of your opinions.
In Dundee last year, when you were still working with the MAB, you told people to resist and defy the SBCCU, another of your opinions.
How can you stand by both these statements when they are so contradictory?
Now, I don't give a good goddamn if you are happy to meet with the police or not. I want to know why you're happy to do that but will tell the average Muslim to resist and defy them. Is it just because you're self-important? Is that not hypocritical? Or do you still maintain that defiance is the same as co-operation? Why should anyone - and I mean anyone - take you seriously when you are so blind to the obvious bullshit you spout? Essentially, your entire argument is this: "Just because I said people should follow the Prophetic example and resist and defy the SBCCU does not mean I was telling people not to co-operate with the SBCCU. Only someone who understands words could possibly think that!"
If you don't like being held to account for your drivel, why have comments on your blog? Just so Joe90 can tell you what a wonderful chap you are?
All I've done is ask you to clarify your position. The best you've been able to come up with in nearly six months is that you did not say the word "non-co-operation." Bravo - but sadly not a satisfactory answer.
Posted by: johnmellor77 | 05 April 2007 at 12:28 PM
All I've done is ask you to clarify your position
I love it when johnmouthoff tries to tell other people what it is they are trying to say, or what it was they said, especially when he ALWAYS uses dubious sources of information to do it.
This is from someone who is absolutely terrified to tell anyone what his own views are, in his own words - and is even terrified to give his own version of events, in his own words.
So john,
you would co-operate with the police and security services at all times and under all conditions would you?
I don't think there is a honest person of conscience, anywhere, who would agree to a statement like that, and being bound to it.
After all, given what we now know British state civil servants have been up to, illegaly, only a rabid brainwashed Murdoch-Blair lover like you would agree to follow your orders to the letter.
johnmouthoff,
would you assist in the kidnapping, raping, torturing and murder of innocent people just because the British state ordered you to?
Do you think there are times when the laws of the state shouldn't be followed (here's a clue - Hitler, Stalin, Blair's invasion of Iraq, illegal under international law)?
Let's see if john can live up to HIS own exacting high standards, the very ones he expects the rest of us to, and answer these same ethical questions which are no different from the ones he asks of Osama.
If you don't like being held to account for your drivel, why have comments on your blog? Just so Joe90 can tell you what a wonderful chap you are?
- always feel free to challange my facts, evidence, arguments john!
I know you would but you can't because they're correct - hence the only thing you can do is indulge in little childish extravaganzas and even cheesier cliche put-downs. Ooh, that hurt!
Posted by: joe90 | 05 April 2007 at 05:59 PM
"ALWAYS uses dubious sources of information to do it."
You are right, Osama Saeed is a very dubious source of information. You, incidentally, are so obsessed with the idea of false consciousness that you believe first hand accounts of an event - which I was at don’t forget - have somehow been doctored by Rupert Murdoch. Incidentally, for someone who believes nationalist parties are the only true opposition in the UK you’re awful quiet about The Scottish Sun cosying up to Alex Salmond. Does that make The Sun the paper of the opposition?
"and is even terrified to give his own version of events, in his own words."
My own version (the one corroborated by Scotland Against Criminalising Communities, The Courier newspaper and the English language) is that Osama Saeed told Muslims in Dundee not to co-operate with the police, that they should “resist and defy” them.
Osama’s version, corroborated by you, is that telling someone to resist and defy the police unit is completely different from saying they should not co-operate with said unit.
I think Osama Saeed is, at the very best, someone who doesn’t know what resistance and defiance actually mean. At the worst he is an outright liar and hypocrite. Can I be any clearer for you Joe?
"you would co-operate with the police and security services at all times and under all conditions would you?"
Never, ever said I would. Stop getting hysterical. What I did say was that Osama Saeed told people they should "resist and defy" the police, then tried to claim that what he had said was somehow misrepresented. I don’t see how this argument stands and have been trying to get him to explain his Orwellian doublespeak that defiance equals co-operation for months. He cannot do it, that’s why he gets so wound up.
"Do you think there are times when the laws of the state shouldn't be followed"
Joe, I know there's been a lot to take in so far but we're nearly at the end so try and follow this: I am not having a go at Osama for saying people should resist the SBCCU or that all laws should be obeyed regardless of their morality - I am having a go at Osama's refusal to stand by his words for more than 24 hours and the pathetic way he whined about his words being misrepresented when they clearly were not. Do you see the difference? Keep reading this paragraph over and over until you do please.
Now, on this post Osama says all Muslim groups can do to fight extremism is tell Muslims that extremist behaviour is unIslamic and they should work with the security services. Obviously, he said something very different in Dundee. What does he really believe? How can he not answer my questions with a simple “yes or no” and still berate Sunny Hundal for not answering his utterly facile point about the NGN?
Posted by: johnmellor77 | 05 April 2007 at 06:34 PM
"ALWAYS uses dubious sources of information to do it."
You are right, Osama Saeed is a very dubious source of information.
- still with the cheesy stale cliches john.
I thought you were questioning Osama and not relying upon him, or don't you know what it is you are doing now?
You, incidentally, are so obsessed with the idea of false consciousness that you believe first hand accounts of an event..
- so I take it, everything you are saying to me now , firsthand, is false consciousness and therefore I will have to believe it, john, is that right or wot?
How do you account for the fact that I don't believe you, firsthand?
Well, its all about 'corroboration' it seems.
Who to believe -
- EITHER johnmellor a proven liar who uses sources peddled by proven racist liars, ie Murdoch-type journalists out to smear anyone who doesn't follow Tony Blair's orders, especially if they happen to be British and Muslim
- OR the victim of racist smears, lies and innuendo of British corporate journalism and the British state's campaign of racist abuse and harrassment, on a par with inter-war Germany?
That's a hard one, isn't it?
Posted by: joe90 | 05 April 2007 at 07:00 PM
Not really: You're insane and Osama has never denied the quotes attributed to him in Dundee.
Posted by: johnmellor77 | 05 April 2007 at 07:17 PM
You still haven't answered my question john, posted at 05:59 pm above - which is the same ethical question you say Osama isn't answering.
As ethics work best when they are universal ie universal human rights, universal habeaus corpus etc etc -
- what is it you would say or do differently from Osama - does the state and its employees have the right to do anything and everything they bloody well please at all times, and do people have the right not to follow their orders, or wot?
#####################
Just to re-post a comment I inadvertantly addressed to a different thread -
http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2007/03/muslims_and_can.html#comment-65482730>Muslims and Canada
I didn't think you'd be able to live up to the standards you expect everyone else to, john -
that's pretty much your own standard.
Your behaviour and reply is as I already predicted, if you'll notice my argument.
After all (just to add some more rich texture to my views) you cannot remain consistent in your arguments if you don't speak your own views, in your in voice, using your own words.
You always borrow the views of others, and speak from behind them - hence, the only time you do speak your own mind you inevitably start to contradict yourself, left right and centre.
After all, if you do start to champion some lying journalist article peddled by some racist Murdoch hack, then it is guaranteed that you are going to make a public spectacle of yourself john!
#####################
Posted by: joe90 | 05 April 2007 at 07:38 PM
I'm insnae and osama's a liar -
- well fine, what are you doing talking to insane people and liars for - is there something wrong with you?
Posted by: joe90 | 05 April 2007 at 07:42 PM
Well ok john,
I'll re-state your point(s) -
Osama has contradicted himself.
The British press always tell the truth, leaving nothing relevent in or out of their news reporting.
The British police and security forces are perfect.
The British government aren't racist war criminals involved in the same crimes Hitler is guilty of.
Everybody should always follow their orders and not their conscience.
You are a model citizen who sleeps easy at night and would also assist in the torture, rape and murder of innocent people in any way you could, if ordered to do so.
And it's me that is insane.
Posted by: joe90 | 05 April 2007 at 07:56 PM
Good point Joe. Why am I wasting my time with morons and liars? I guess the simple answer is I'm a bit cruel and it's fun seeing you and Osama squirm.
If you weren't the moron you so kindly (whoops, accidentally!) proved yourself to be on the other thread, you would see I have answered all your questions quite succinctly and you, yet again, have failed to engage with any of the points I have raised.
Don't know what to say about your last post though...Is it time for your meds? I did say Osama contradicted himself but the rest is just your little fantasy I'm afraid.
Posted by: johnmellor77 | 05 April 2007 at 08:08 PM
Good point Joe. Why am I wasting my time with morons and liars?
- that's a rhetorical question which you've just answered. I thought that wasn't allowed in your context-less world, mr honest-broker?
Am afraid you are lying again john - I can't see a reply to the ethical question that you claim Osama has contradicted himself over.
If Osama has contradicted himself, which he hasn't, then how about people like you who lie when they claim to have answered the self-same question?
Please clear up the issue over whether you are a mendacious meretricious lover of fascist values, or not -
- would you follow your orders, no matter what the context or condition?
Posted by: joe90 | 05 April 2007 at 09:10 PM
Joe,
I'm not entirely sure what your latest post is about. Do you think proper sentences are fascist too?
My post from 6.34pm answered all your questions.
Posted by: johnmellor77 | 05 April 2007 at 09:23 PM
Classic johnmellor,
after trying to give people the run around, he's still at it!
Answer the question johnmellor77 -
- the question you claim Osama is contradicting himself over and which you claim does not need a context whatsoever -
- would you follow your orders, at all times and under all conditions?
A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice - after all, if you claim others are contradicting themselves, saying both 'yes' and 'no' to this selfsame question, then please clear the matter up - what is the real answer, what is the truth - it can be only one or the other, not both, so which is it?
Try using your own voice for once as well, no mis-directions and no pretending you don't know what is being said to you, no references to irrelevences - etc etc, on and on...
ps
more evidence just in of US (and by extension UK) concentration camps -
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/foreign/display.var.1309299.0.0.php>US agents ‘quiz terror suspects at secret prisons in Ethiopia’
from today's The Herald.
Of course,
johnmellor thinks there is nothing to worry our consciences about, when the state and its employees hide from public scrutiny and accountability, just as long as they follow their orders, then everything in the garden of western racist fascism is rosy!
After all, it's us westerners who are the morally advanced and the rightous. We always know what's right from wrong hence johnmellor's unambigious answer to a straightforward question.
Posted by: joe90 | 05 April 2007 at 09:50 PM
"would you follow your orders, at all times and under all conditions?"
No I wouldn't Joe, as I stated clearly in my earlier post as people who can read are well aware.
That, however, is not the issue.
The issue is Osama saying his words - that people should resist and defy the SBCCU - were somehow misrepresented when it was reported he urged non-cooperation with the SBCCU.
Now try and answer my question Joe90:
Are defiance and co-operation the same thing?
Posted by: johnmellor77 | 05 April 2007 at 10:10 PM
Under what conditions and under what context wouldn't you not follow your orders john - when would you not co-operate with police and security forces?
So you now believe there is a context to this question!!
- but previously you accused Osama of 'weasel' type words because he claimed, when it comes to question of ethics, context is all important (which it is by the way)!
So are you a 'weasel' johnmellor, or just a gimp for Blair and Murdoch, or both - or don't you know?
I can't believe you've answered a straightforward question with a straightforward answer - but then again, look at where it's now got you, contradicting yourself (as I predicted would happen when you used your own voice) and guilty of the very crime you accuse Osama of!
I didn't know you had asked a question john - but I'll stick to the usual dictionary definitions regarding 'cooperation' and 'defiance' - any problems, look up the dictionary mate.
all the best!
Posted by: joe90 | 05 April 2007 at 10:47 PM
Sorry john
but you've pique'd my interest.
How would you 'not follow your orders'?
How would you describe your behaviour, given that you think its very important in how you would describe yourself going about the process of 'not following orders'?
Would you describe yourself as 'not co-operating', 'resisting' or were 'being defiant'?
Obvioulsy, it matters a very great deal to you, so what's your answer and why?
Posted by: joe90 | 05 April 2007 at 10:59 PM
O lordy, it's like they came from outer space and took away all your brains. Two posts and you still can't tell me if you think defiance and co-operation are the same thing are not.
Posted by: johnmellor77 | 05 April 2007 at 11:31 PM
OR not obviously. Perhaps I've been infected with Joe's moron disease.
"Would you describe yourself as 'not co-operating', 'resisting' or were 'being defiant'?"
One final time Joe, Osama thinks co-operating is the SAME as resisting and being defiant. Do you think they're the same or are you just that little bit smarter?
Posted by: johnmellor77 | 05 April 2007 at 11:35 PM
Gosh johnmellor
you do like splitting hairs now, don't you - another one of your little meretricious obfuscating tricks?
I take it though, because you didn't mentioned it, that 'context' is everything - if you remember, you called Osama a weasel because he stated this truth?
Now you have replaced your original conerns with something completely different and are now trying to pretend this is what has been concerning you all along
ie dictionary definitiions of words relating the same human ethical act
A typicl johnmellor misdirection - or more probably, just the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about now, but are trying to pretend you do, by overt shows of aggression etc
So now you're trying to pretend that dictionary definitions and descriptions of the self-same human act, are in some way, what is important and that Osama has been abusing words in public!
What a strange fruit you are john mellor!
Please john, let me know -
- why does these different words, to describe the self-same human act, matter to you so much?
You do agree though, that you are now talking about something completely different - and that you have already conceded the truth of Osama's statement, that 'context' is important in human acts of conscience?
Or are you going to lie and contradict yourself (as usual) yet again?
Posted by: joe90 | 06 April 2007 at 12:25 AM
Posted by: johnmellor77 | 05 April 2007 at 11:35 AM
Miaow.
I'll try again. Yes or no answers will suffice, Osama.
Do you think Muslims should co-operate with the police and security services?
Posted by: johnmellor77 | 05 April 2007 at 12:28 PM
In this post, you say all Muslim groups like the MCB can do to combat extremism is say it is unIslamic and that Muslims should work with the police and security services.
Do you still stand by the comments you made in Dundee where you said Muslims should resist and defy the SBCCU?
Cooperation and non-cooperation depend on context when it comes to ethics, regardless of whether it is the police or your neighbours or whoever - this is, funnily enough, a universal ethical principle itself.
However I have to say that,
I have misread the word 'cooperation' for 'non-cooperation' sometimes - an easy thing to do given johnmellor's dishonest tactics - so no, 'defiance' isn't the same as 'cooperation', but that's obvious, why ask me, look up a dictionary.
Posted by: joe90 | 06 April 2007 at 12:48 AM
So if you tell someone to defy and resist something what are you doing vis-a-vis the concept of co-operation? Telling them to co-operate or telling them not to?
Posted by: johnmellor77 | 06 April 2007 at 07:40 AM
I thought you agreed that when it comes to matters of conscience it depends on context, as I have said and Osama has said (altho he is also alluding to his comments being taken out of context by corporate anti-journalists and their gimps, such as you) and which you agree on - or don't you remember?
Now if you want to go the whole hog and give me examples when people should cooperate with police and security forces and when they should not, then please feel free to bore me to death.
There are times when cooperation is appropriate (99.9999% of the time) and when it isn't, context is important as you have already agreed on -
- or are you contradicting yourself again, and just deliberately taking certain words out of their context, juxtaposing them together in a way that suits your facile argument, just to make it look like someone is a hypocrite (an old trick)?
Posted by: joe90 | 06 April 2007 at 02:43 PM
He said this the next day though:
“To claim that I advocated non-co-operation from the police is ridiculous,” he said. “The word non-co-operation is not there (in my speech) at all."
So Joe, in this context is he for co-operation or is he not?
Seems to me he's just a hypocrite.
Posted by: johnmellor77 | 06 April 2007 at 03:02 PM
Or you are,
how does someone put words in parenthesis in spoken speech?
Anyway,
you've already agreed that context is everything in ethics, so what is the context john,
apart from your own ethical context of using de-contextualised weasly words and being a gimp for psuedo-journalists?
Posted by: joe90 | 06 April 2007 at 03:37 PM