The Moron Media Loves Anjem Choudary

Islamist┬áloud-mouth moron Anjem Choudary just loves publicity. He lives for the chance to say things in public that will in turn outrage morons of the “not at all racist, honest” Daily Mail and UKIP variety. Sadly for Anj, he has almost no supporters, and is basically a sad, pathetic nobody. How can he get publicity?

To the rescue comes (what seems like) the entire British media. His stupid face has appeared on TV and in newspapers. This doesn’t just apply to the usual shit-stirring suspects, but even includes the BBC and Channel 4.

All this appears to be based on the fact that Anjey-boy once (a while back, mind) met the morons involved in the murder of Lee Rigby in Woolwich. This fact has been used by Choudary to make himself feel all important, and by the media to build up a hate figure that will get their moron viewers/readers all stiff/moist with excitement/fear.

Given that there isn’t actually a story here, one suspects that the anti-Muslim brigade is simply using Anjey-boom to maintain the illusion of an “Islamist threat”, and whip up the racist swivel-eyed loon brigade into their Daily Hate with images of A BROWN MAN WITH A BEARD WHO SAYS HORRIBLE THINGS!

Any sign of an actual Islamist threat is so lacking that the poor morons at the Sun are reduced to running a story – an Exclusive no less – about Anjey-bollocks going to the shops and buying yoghurt! While dressed in a Muslim-type fashion! I blame Leveson – surely the Sun could find more interesting stories if they were allowed to hack celebs’ phones? The Choudary exclusive follows on from a pathetic sting where singer Tulisa was entrapped into helping a journo score some coke. It seems that the Sun can find no actual news to report any more. If it ever did in the first place.

With the moron media having set the agenda, morons have exploded onto social media demanding “action” against Choudary. They want him locked up! Or deported! The problems with these suggestions being a) Choudary hasn’t broken the law (I’ve never before noticed any reticence on the part of the authorities to arrest brown people on the slightest of whims), and b) He’s British.

Basically Choudary’s skill is to annoy and upset people by making annoying and upsetting statements. But if that was a crime, most of the EDL, much of UKIP and the bulk of tabloid journalists would be under curfew by now.

Let’s try to remember that we’re not supposed to be letting “extremists” undermine “our values”; and the most important of these values is supposedly free speech. I say “supposedly”, because the British establishment – under both Labour and Tory governments – seems to spend much of its time attacking free speech (as we learned again this week when a young Muslim Londoner appeared in court for tweeting a bad-taste joke).

Turning this pathetic, irrelevant individual into a national hate figure seems like just another way to get public consent for reducing our free speech rights even further. Far better to just ignore him, and be as consistent in genuinely defending our civil liberties as our leaders are in pretending to.

The “Evil Menace” of Page 3

Because nipples corrupt the morality of our youth. Or something.

It shouldn’t need stating that many social conservatives have a big problem with nudity.

Mankind did, of course, start out naked – and in the benign climate of the African tropics where we began, there was little reason to change that. But human expansion into colder regions required the invention of clothing (the needle and thread were invented in Europe around 15,000 years ago), and once invented, taboos began to develop around nudity, especially in Europe. It’s no coincidence that chilly Britain (and its diaspora in North America) still has problems with the public baring of female breasts.

When the British were finally reunited with their African cousins, 70,000 years after their ancestors had originally left Africa, they noted that nudity was commonplace. They of course concluded that this was due to Africans’ lack of civilisation, and set out to “civilise the savages” by persuading them to cover up. Later, the Victorians hid away nude artwork (or pornography, as its detractors might have called it), and the sight of a female ankle was met with disapproval.

The social and sexual revolutions of the late-60s to early 70s challenged British attitudes to nudity. The youth of that time challenged the attitudes of the conservative post-war generations; in 1970, The Sun newspaper began to print a daily topless photo on page 3; today, the very phrase Page 3 is synonymous with topless photography.

The Sun’s move was cleverly timed to capture the zeitgeist. The decision to publish topless photos was a radical one, and of course it was designed to cause controversy, which in turn would create publicity and drive sales. But the old British fear of bare breasts was never far from the surface, and Page 3 generated a moral backlash. Campaigners in the 1980s tried (and failed) to get it banned.

Now, in this newly conservative era, yet another campaign to end Page 3 has surfaced. This time, it comes armed with new language. Instead of screaming that the morals of Britain’s youth are under attack, the campaign wields its favourite buzzword: “objectification”. The benefit of objectification (from its advocates’ point of view) is that it’s effectively meaningless. The idea is that someone who opens The Sun and sees a topless woman thereby becomes corrupted to view all women as “sex objects”, and incapable of viewing women in other roles.

The problems with this idea are numerous: for a start, who says that a woman who poses topless is a “sex object”? The “objectification” brigade seem to have little respect for the women they pretend to defend. And do they really believe that the men (and, yes, women) who enjoy Page 3 are so stupid that, having seen one woman pose topless, they think all women must therefore do so?

“Objectification” only applies in sexual situations; it is a coded attack on sexuality. Just as the conservatives of Victorian times feared sexuality, and tried to suppress it, so the conservatives of today try to suppress sexuality, and rationalise their irrational fears by trying to find harm… harm that only exists in their fearful imaginations.

If there’s irony in “feminists” allying themselves with the religious right’s quest for “morality”, they fail to see it. They claim to disapprove of the way women are covered up in conservative Muslim societies, yet their own beliefs stem from the same basic idea: their reasoning may vary, but their dogma is the same: female flesh must be hidden from weak, stupid men.

The arguments used against Page 3 are beyond moronic. I haven’t yet seen a single intelligent attempt to explain the backlash, just angry shouts that “Page 3 is a backward relic of the 1970s” and similar (the depiction of naked women, by the way, has a far older pedigree than the 70s). And as for objectification – I’ve tried for several years to get a coherent explanation of how it’s actually supposed to operate, and have yet to see one (if you think you can remedy this, please do write it in the comments below).

The campaign has attracted pro-censorship morons from both left and right. When so-called Marxists find themselves in agreement with religious conservatives, they should perhaps decide whether their views are really about “protecting women from objectification”, or whether they’re not quite as radical as they think.

I should point out that I think The Sun, purchased by Rupert Murdoch in 1969, is a detestable rag, and I’m pleased to say I’ve never purchased it in my life. It has been guilty of frequent racism, homophobia and sexism. It helps spread right-wing, nationalistic propaganda through British society, and has been at the forefront of disseminating anti-EU lies. Nor do I find Page 3 interesting – its photography is dull, and its choice of models is narrow and predictable. But do breasts damage society? No more than ankles were a threat to the stability of Victorian Britain.

Sure, it would be nice if there was more diversity on Page 3 – why not feature men as well as women? How about trying out larger, older or disabled models? If The Sun still had the radical edge it did in 1970, it might be brave and try these things out. But The Sun, like its feminist opposition, has stagnated and become conservative over the past four decades. The inescapable fact is: Page 3 sells papers. If it didn’t, it would vanish.

We British find breasts fascinating only because our society has a taboo about the baring of them in public. When we finally outgrow that infantile fear, we will cease to find Page 3 interesting. Until then, nipples will equate to sales, and Page 3 will live on.

Drunken Brawl Excites Morons

Daily Mail Fail
News For Morons

Let me start with some background for people who have never visited Britain: we drink. A lot. And unlike our continental neighbours, who drink moderately most days of the week, we like to binge. This makes for busy times for the police and hospitals at weekends. In fact, if you’re an aspiring war reporter looking for experience, just head for any British town or city on a Friday night. But be careful out there.

Usually, this attracts little attention in the media. After all, it happens all the time, everywhere. But one particular brawl has excited the moronic end of the press, along with morons throughout the Twitterverse: a brawl that took place in the city of Leicester.

What Happened

A group of Somali women attacked a white woman; they claimed they were responding to racial abuse. The incident was captured on CCTV and the women were arrested, charged, found guilty and handed down a suspended sentence and curfew (for the worst offender) and community service for the rest.

Then The Media Got Wind Of It

Drunken brawls happen in every British city, every weekend. The unusual aspect of this was that it involved Somalis: almost all alcohol-related disorder usually involves white British people.

Being Somali, the women are also Muslim – although clearly are not practising Muslims. This helps expose the nonsensical far-right accusation that “Muslims refuse to integrate”. I personally know Muslims who drink and mix freely in British society; the EDL, BNP and other Muslim-baiting morons would have you believe that all British Muslim women wear burqas and “hate our way of life”. It seems that these young women actually like our “way of life” – perhaps a little bit too much.

The right-wing press, of course, sniffed a chance for Muslim-baiting. Rather than celebrate how well adapted these women had become to the British lifestyle, they ran headlines such as The Telegraph’s: Muslim women not used to drinking walk free after attack on woman. The only other papers to carry the story, with the same anti-Muslim spin, were the ultra-right-wing Daily Mail and Murdoch’s Sun. All three papers have great racist form. Oh, and StormFront, a Nazi site, also carried the story.

All three papers managed to mention the women’s religion in their headlines. Strangely, I’ve never seen a headline about Christian drinking violence, although this happens pretty much every day. The “walk free” part of the headline was used to imply that they were let off. This was misleading – as I’ve mentioned, they were found guilty and received similar penalties that anyone else would have done in the same circumstances.

And Then Twitter

The far-right BNP, EDL and their moronic online supporters wasted no time in spreading the story, twisting it more with each telling. What began yesterday as a regular Friday night incident for Leicester police, with a racial twist, is now evidence of a Jihad.

This is a perfect example of the race-hate machine in action: from the seed of any story comes another excuse to stoke up race hate among morons. The fact that around 99% of drunken, violent attacks in the UK are made by white people is irrelevant to them; they only need these isolated incidents to fire up their moronic followers into a frenzy of mouth-frothing hatred.

Viva July 13th!

If you travel in many countries, you’ll often find streets, bridges and squares named after calendar dates. Countries that have been through revolutionary upheavals tend to have key dates in their histories when everything changed – July 4th probably being the most famous.

We British don’t have such key dates in our modern history. Britain is unusual in that our revolutionary changes tend to be consensual, non-violent and gradual. We’re a nation capable of compromise, which can be frustrating, but makes us one of the world’s most stable societies. Following World War 2, the Labour government introduced the national health service, the welfare state, and began dismantling the Empire, with little other than grumbling from the powers that be. In the 60s, 70s and late-80s, we underwent social revolutions where successive generations used music, sex and drugs to challenge the previous generations’ attitudes. Despite stuffy politicians and media, we are among the most libertarian societies when it comes to sexual attitudes and drug use.

While our revolutionary neighbour and old rival, France, has stagnated back into conservatism, racial segregation and authoritarianism, The British people have thrown off the religious establishment, broadened free speech, and integrated immigrants who have changed our society (and for the better, despite what some conservatives will claim).

So because of the remarkably consensual nature of our society, Britain doesn’t have a calendar date to remember any specific moment when we stepped forward. Perhaps yesterday changed that.

In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher began courting the media mogul Rupert Murdoch. She began a trend; no leader of any major party has dared fear the wrath of Murdoch or his tabloid papers (specifically, The Sun and the News of the World) for over 20 years. In that time, Murdoch’s power has only grown – party leaders go to him on bended knee for his support at election time. When David Cameron became PM last year, Murdoch was the first visitor to Downing Street.

It turns out that the Metropolitan police have also been corrupted, with some/many working illegally for Murdoch’s interests.

Furthermore, our politicians and journalists have been painfully aware (as we now discover) of Murdoch’s ability to trash an individual’s reputation and career; so many have kept quiet for fear of retribution. When the Guardian began its brave investigation into phone hacking, it’s reported (audio link) that Rebekah Brooks (now CEO of News International) was asked how the story would end. She replied “With Alan Rusbridger [Guardian Editor] on his knees, begging for mercy”. This was more than a media empire – it was a power structure that could subvert both police and parliament. And yet we all watched as its tentacles began to spread everywhere, strangling our democracy and free speech.

And out of the blue, as a result of the phone-hacking investigation, last Thursday Rupert Murdoch announced the closure of the News of the World, one of Britain’s best-selling newspapers, in an attempt to stop the damage from spreading across his empire. Then yesterday, 13th July 2011 became a revolutionary moment: Labour’s newish leader, Ed Miliband tabled a parliamentary motion opposing Murdoch’s total takeover of BSkyB, Britain’s largest broadcaster. Amazingly, the Conservatives and other parties were forced to back the motion. And then Murdoch announced he’d be dropping his bid. By the afternoon, American politicians were calling for inquiries into the activities of NewsCorp, Murdoch’s US arm.

In the past day, I’ve heard Conservative politicians speak out for the first time against the way their party had become the political wing of Murdoch’s empire (one recent example: government attempts to cut prison populations were shelved after The Sun went on the attack against them). Of course we can be cynical; why didn’t anybody speak up before? The answer is often that our elected leaders are cowards, corrupt, or both – there are few we can be truly proud of. But cynicism can cloud the enormity of what just happened. Our elected parliament got off its knees and asserted itself. However little we like our elected leaders, they’re the best thing we have – certainly they represent us better than police chiefs and CEOs do. Parliamentary and police investigations are underway. Tectonic plates shifted yesterday, and only time will tell where that leads us – there are many revelations yet to come.

Difficult as it is, and however implicated some of our leaders are, this is a time to be non-partisan, at least for the moment. For the first time perhaps since the 1940s, our parliamentary democracy has flexed its muscles. Viva July 13! A very British revolution.