Back in the 1970s Harriet Harman and Jack Dromey enthusiastically backed PIE, a paedophile organisation, in lobbying for their right to abuse children. It was a phenomenon of its time; everyone had a right to everything, and keen young lawyers like Harman were there to promote them. There's no suggestion she favoured nonces over dope smokers, squatters or town centre Onanists.
Back in July I wrote a post that stands well, entitled "Islam is a religion of violence, but most Moslems are peaceful". I reproduce it below.
The point is, if Islam is a religion of violence, which it is, why should we permit the violent bits to be promulgated any more than we permit the promotion of paedophilia? If we regulate and classify sexual images and sexual stimulation, should we not also regulate and classify the Koran and its verses? Can it be right that a book that contains 160 or 170 or 180 verses encouraging Muslims to violence remains legal and unregulated?
If this seems radical, imagine looking back in 40 years time and viewing those who defend the unedited Koran's legality today in the same way we now view those defenders of paedophilia in the 1970s.
I've no concrete proposals, just that we should think about our continuing acceptance of a text that justifies the most horrendous crimes and violence. Should publishing or possessing a Koran that contains the 160 violent verses be made illegal in the UK? Or should we leave the Koran alone and just ban the Salafist Sunni Muslims from practice in the UK in the same way as Catholics were banned up to the 1870s and Scientologists are banned in some countries today? Or as true Liberals, should we not regulate anything at all, including the paedophiles?
Islam is a religion of violence, but most Moslems are peaceful
In the post below I wrote that the BBC were right to reject the PM's call for a change of name for ISIS but for the wrong reasons. The Tories were also right to pick up on the Nazi meme - the duty of the State broadcaster to the national interest overides any aesthetic desire for 'impartiality'.
It is a paradox that we have to accept that Islam is a religion of violence, bigotry and intolerance but that the vast, overwhelming majority of Moslems are peaceful. Thank you, Greg. And why is it that the combined intellects of the Conservative Party, the SNP and the BBC are unable to understand a matter so simple that the Speccie can explain it in a handful of words?
It has been the Speccie's Douglas Murray who has fearlessly done most to disabuse the nation of the nonsense of Islam as a 'religion of peace'. And it's the Speccie this morning that states clearly
To say that Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam is like saying Stalin’s Soviet Union had nothing to do with socialism, or the Inquisition had nothing to do with Catholicism. Islamic State has nothing to do with most varieties of Islam, just as Stalinism had nothing to do with most varieties of socialism, but Islamic State has everything to do with Salafist Sunni Islam, which has spread its ultra-puritan, ultra-reactionary literalist interpretation of the myths of early Islam across the world.
As the historian of the ancient world Tom Holland put it, when Islamic State fighters smash the statues of ‘pagan’ gods, they are following the example of the Prophet, who cleared the pagans from Mecca. When they proclaim themselves the shock troops of a would-be global empire, they are merely following the imperial pretensions of the early Islamic armies. When they execute prisoners of war, impose discriminatory taxes on Christians, and take the women of defeated opponents as slaves, they are doing nothing that the first Muslims did not do. As Holland neatly put it,
Such behaviour is certainly not synonymous with Islam; but if not Islamic, then it is hard to know what else it is.
So let's stop pretending that Islam is something it isn't. We're really grown-up enough to be able to handle this paradox; for Christians, it's 'hate Islam, love Moslems', and atheists and agnostics can condemn us both.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(NB This post has been checked for legality under the terms of s29(j) of the 2006 Racial and Religious hatred Act "Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.")