by Chauncey Tinker – 23 Jun 2018
Melanie Phillips gave a speech for The Speakers’ Action Group which was shared on Youtube in February. In the speech she spoke of her time as a journalist at The Guardian. She begins her speech with an account of a report from a fellow journalist at The Guardian who she says simply made up a story about the war in the former Yugoslavia. Some of her colleagues apparently raised concerns that the story was not factual, but these concerns were dismissed with the excuse that it didn’t matter because the story corresponded with the “broader truth”.
The recent protests by those calling for the release of Tommy Robinson were covered by the Guardian:
Protesters charged after pro-Tommy Robinson rally in London
Five police officers injured at protest in support of far-right figurehead jailed for contempt
Now, those who are familiar with Tommy Robinson’s career know well enough that the “far-right” label just doesn’t fit his views at all. There is a video from some years ago where members of the EDL including Tommy Robinson burn a Nazi Swastika flag. Of course I could point out once again that the phrase “far-right” is in any case a deliberately misleading misnomer, but we know that when the mainstream media use the phrase they are really trying to accuse a person of racism and xenophobia. Their use of the labels far-right and racist to describe those who, like Tommy Robinson, simply oppose Islam has been justified at length by articles in The Guardian dedicated to the subject, for example:
Islamophobia is real. Stop the obsession with semantics
It must be noted, however, that there are some who hide behind “criticism of Islam” as they attempt to legitimise their bigotry, such as author Douglas Murray’s theory that less Islam is a solution to terrorism.
Islamophobia as a term has become well established with this broader meaning of anti-Muslim racism
Of course we are already familiar with this tactic of broadening the definition of racism to include this made-up concept of “Islamophobia”. We have to respond in kind by endlessly pointing out to these knuckle-heads that ISLAM IS NOT A RACE. If we have concluded from reading the Islamic texts that the Islamic religion incites violence against us non-Muslims (as I have), then it is entirely natural and reasonable to want fewer of the followers of that religion in our country, race doesn’t even come into it.
The article quotes a recent report from the Runnymede Trust:
However, Islamophobia goes far beyond mere hatred. As the latest Runnymede report states: “Referring only to ‘anti-Muslim hate’ (or even ‘anti-Muslim prejudice and discrimination’) doesn’t fully capture the widespread (or structural) ways racial inequalities persist. It may also get things back to front: prejudicial attitudes about a group develop to justify the economic or political disadvantages experienced by that group.”
So presumably this means that if you dare to suggest that a disproportionately high percentage of Muslims in the UK are unemployed because of their own reluctance to get a job rather than because of discrimination against them, then you are guilty of Islamophobia? Islamophobes are it would seem from this not only guilty of “mere hatred” of Muslims, they are also responsible for Muslims’ poor economic performance and political “disadvantages” as well! Maybe I am misunderstanding however, it’s not really clear to me what that paragraph even means exactly.
Here is another article from the Guardian that is attempting to expand the definition of racism to include “Islamophobia”:
With our narrow interpretation of racism it’s too easy to deny that we are racist
The unique association of “racism” with only one chapter in the evolution of the many-headed hydra of race - 19th century “scientific racism” - makes it easy for us to deny that we are racist. No clearer can this be seen than in the context of contemporary Islamophobia with even those who advocate for a Muslim ban claiming “non-racism” because “Islam is not a race”.
Plenty of obfuscating words in the above article but still no explanation of how Islam constitutes a race though. It was written by an “academic” apparently, I do sometimes wonder about “academics” these days …
Following the above article about the Free Tommy Robinson protests, another article at The Guardian describes a letter from “MPs, union leaders and political activists”:
Far right reorganising for Tommy Robinson protests, say activists
It says Nazi salutes and Islamophobia were central features of the protest.
The article comes with a picture of protestors, two are holding up their hands but this looks like a gesture to people to stay back rather than a Nazi salute. I have seen quite a lot of footage of the protests and I have yet to see anything that actually looked like a real Nazi salute.
We have shared the next link before, but I include it again to illustrate my point – a video from Red Pill Phil showing the very centre of the protest in Whitehall. You would think that if Nazi salutes really were a central feature as claimed in the letter then they would be noticeable in this video:
ironically on this occasion bomb barriers actually help me to obtain amazing scenes
What you can see is a lot of people holding up smartphones to record footage of the day, that’s all (oh and lots of Union Jacks and England flags).
Finally the letter calls for:
“It is absolutely vital that all who oppose this come together in a united mass movement powerful enough to drive these new developments on the far right back.
Is it reading too much into this sentence to suppose that this is a veiled incitement to mass violent counter-protest? I think the authors of this letter imagine they are calling for something like a re-run of the famous Battle of Cable Street, but the problem is that people are being grossly misled here, the vast majority of the Free Tommy Robinson protestors are not far-right fascists at all, they are just ordinary British people.
Top of the list of signatories to this letter are shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott and shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, it is disgraceful that such high ranking members of the Labour party should be so blatantly miss-characterizing both Tommy Robinson’s views and those of most of his supporters, never mind that they should be seeming to call for violent opposition to a mostly peaceful protest movement. Estimates say the crowd was between 15,000 and 25,000 people, most of whom did not get involved in any disorder, and only 8 arrests were made out of that huge crowd according to the above article from the Guardian. Reports elsewhere also stated that though five police officers were injured, their injuries were not serious.
I’m rather conscious of the fact that we are repeating ourselves a lot on these subjects but thanks to the endless slurs and propaganda aimed against any critics of Islam we don’t I think have much choice but to keep repeating ourselves to counter the relentless lies and misinformation (and repeating ourselves again):
ISLAM IS NOT A RACE.
ISLAM INCITES HATE.
ISLAM INCITES VIOLENCE.
In summary then we see The Guardian staff have been working hard to broaden not only definitions of words but also to broaden the truth about those who hold anti-Islamic views to such an extent that well, I don’t think it really is the truth at all, do you?
Melanie Phillips’s speech at The Speakers’ Action Group:
How the media manipulates truth
Confusing Historical Parallels – Part 1
Kirsty Wark’s Cathy Newman Moment
What do you think? Is The Guardian fake news? Please leave a comment below.