Profile: Maryam Namazie. In Defence Of Womens Rights.

by Indyhead Fri Apr 14, 2006 16:32

Tony I oppose Islamic fundamentalism no matter where it rears its ugly head. Womens rights in Iran are just as important as they are in Saudi. But this thread is about Iran. Why dont you post stories about Saudi an India? Why cant you accept that to some of us the fight for womens rights is important? That we wont put it aside, we wont be bullied by you. how would you like it if we disrupted your pro Aborigine work demanding that you immediately suuport the revolution in Nepal?

Someof us are anti Imperialists who oppose the US & UK but we also oppose the fasscist regime in Iran. Anyone who doesnt call for the overthrow of the Iranian Junta is complicit in the murder of socialists, trade unionists, gays, women. Why do you pick and choose in what you take from Amnesty & HRW? If you are not going to Make a constructive contribution to the anti war effort then please stay away. Why have you never attacked those on Indymedia who are pro war? Why are your attacks always on those who are involved in anti war activities? Thats why I think you are either an agent provocateur or an obsessive stalker.

by Tony Fri Apr 14, 2006 13:30

I hadn't intended to post again on this thread, but I followed the links kindly provided by Indyhead (I do that kind of thing).
I hope that in her/his zealotry s/he will find room for other stories on the same HRW site
For example:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/25/iran12535.htm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/13/global12428.htm

And how about posting some links to the HRW releases on the US's Islamic ally, Saudi Arabia? Or do they not count because of being a US ally (at the moment)?

by Tony Fri Apr 14, 2006 13:07

I had intended to respond to various posts, illustraing what I mean by my own involvement in the struggle for Noongar (aborigines from South Western Australia) rights, but given the obvious paranoia my posts are creating I'll desist.
Just to briefly explain why I concentrate on Islamophobia:
1) I live in Australia, not Ireland, and so don't know the ins and outs of the anti-war movement in Ireland
2) I have spent fairly lengthy periods in 3 countries with Muslim majorties, so Islamophobia is more vivid for me, and in addition I have acquired a reasonable knowledge of Islam
3) I think Islamophobia is the greatest danger the left faces at the moment
4) I repeat, at the moment. Here in WA there have been a succession of other dangers - for example, the demonisation of refugees from "communist" Vietnam by sections of the left a few years ago.

Indyhead, I am not a stalker. I'm sorry you think I am. Do you perhaps think I am an agent for Iran? Truly bizarre.
You'll be relieved that I have decided I will not make any more posts in this thread
If you still have doubts about my bona fides, you will see that on a different thread I posted my ISP email address

by Indyhead Thu Apr 13, 2006 18:23

Normally I will post either under my own name or nickname that Indy readers are used to. But I am a bit scared of this obsessive Tony. He doesnt go after the neocons or the war glory boys who regularly post on Indymedia instead he chooses to hound people who oppose the war but who also say 'Hey wait a minute! Theres something wrong with Iran as well! Godamn it! Theres something wrong with Islam!'

I have done a search and I might have missed something but I could not find a single instance of Tony supporting the anti war movement against the pro war lobby. Even pat c has published stories on an anti war or pro Palestinian theme but never has Tony come in and supported those stories.

Tony is a very strange fish and I wonder who is he really working for? It could be yet another case of divide and conquer, Tony being sent in to disrupt the work of consistent and ethical anti war activists.

I dont want Tony coming and disrupting my own stories so I will keep anonymous for the time being. But just to keep the pressure on Tony I will post stories from Human Rights Watch. Tony will of course denounce them as being in the pay of Condie.

(New York, March 16, 2006) – Prison officials in Iran have repeatedly threatened to execute a sympathizer of an armed opposition group during the Persian New Year holidays that begin on March 21, Human Rights Watch said today.

Valiollah Feyz Mahdavi is a 28-year-old sympathizer of the Mojahedin Khalq Organization, which the government has outlawed. The authorities arrested him in 2001 and charged him with the crime of “armed resistance against the state.” Mahdavi’s trial did not meet international standards for fair trial because he was denied access to a lawyer. The court sentenced him to death, and he is now being held in Gohardasht prison in Karaj.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/03/15/iran12998.htm

Netherlands: Threat to Return Gay and Lesbian Iranians
HRW Letter to Minister Verdonk
On behalf of Human Rights Watch, I am writing to protest your proposal to lift the existing moratorium on the deportation of gay and lesbian asylum seekers to Iran--and to object in the strongest possible terms to any actual resumption of expulsions of gay and lesbian asylum seekers to Iran.
March 8, 2006

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/03/08/nether12776.htm

Iran: Alarming Increase in Executions
Outlawed Opposition Member Put to Death
Hojat Zamani, a member of the opposition Mojadehin Khalq Organization outlawed in Iran, was executed on February 7 at Karaj’s Gohardasht prison, Human Rights Watch said today, after a trial that did not meet international standards.
February 27, 2006

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/02/27/iran12724.htm

by Tony Thu Apr 13, 2006 16:47

It's too late here to respond to Tank Girl's comments (10.45 pm) - I'll try to respond tomorrow (family tragedy)

by Tank Girl Thu Apr 13, 2006 16:07

Tony, the left do oppose sati, but it is illegal in India and not even Hindu Fundamentalists support it. These murders of the widow are almost exclusively carried out for economic reasons by relatives of the deceased husband. The various Communist Parties in India are in the forefront of tackling this.

The fact that a Mogul Emperor was among the first to oppose this centuries ago is indeed fascinating. But it is not relevant to this story which is about an Iranian Communist and her struggle for womens rights and democratic rights. Its been suggested that you write a piece on sati but I think you should do a bit more research first.

Its a pity that same Mogul Emperor dodnt do something about Islam and the way it treats women. Women and gays are murdered in Iran every day by the mullahs and no amount of spinning by Tony is going to change that.

What you see in Tony is the naked face of the SWP, they are usually a bit more clever in how they couch thing. When a motion in support of womens rights in Iraq was proposed at a PB4P meeting recently the SWP members present supported it (Tony would probably condemn them for doing so). But the SWP then ensured that the motion passed would go no further. Tony rants and rants yet the evidence is there on this thread about the SWP and Respect threatening Peter Tatchell and mocking death threats made against him by Islamic fundamentalists. Was any action taken against Yusef(the guy who threatened Peter Tatchell)?

Tony had the nerve to post links to Amnesty above. I have some Amnesty links about Iran also. Well he cannot now say that Amnesty are supporting the US here, or will he?

Iran:Further information on medical concern/ possible prisoners of conscience/ Fear of torture and ill-treatment
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130342006?op...G-2MD

Iran: Incommunicado detention/ Fear of torture and ill-treatment/ Possible prisoners of conscience
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130392006?op...G-2MD

Iran: Further information on fear of torture and ill-treatment / incommunicado detention and new concern: Death Sentence.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130332006?op...G-2MD

Iran: Imminent execution/unfair trial: Valiollah Feyz Mahdavi (m)
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130322006?op...G-2MD

Iran: Further information on Imminent execution, Fatemeh Haghighat-Pajouh. Fatemeh Haghighat-Pajouh was sentenced to death for the murder of her husband. She alleged that her husband was a drug addict who had tried to rape her daughter from a previous marriage, who was 15 years old at the time. Apparently he had previously told her that he had lost the girl in a gambling match.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130312006?op...G-2MD

Iran: Further information on: Medical concern/Prisoner of conscience/Incommunicado detention: Akbar Ganji (m)
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130292006?op...G-2MD

Iran: Further information on Fear of torture or ill-treatment/ incommunicado detention/ possible prisoners of conscience
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130272006?op...G-2MD

This just goes back as far as 20 March 2006. Dont be fooled by Tony, Iran is a Fascist State.

by Emily Thu Apr 13, 2006 15:37

You are truly sad if you get your information from Wiki only. Can you find any Hindu clergy who currently support the idea of Sutee? It is illegal in India. However the stoning to death of women is legal in Iran. You attack those who criticise Iran for this and smear them as Islamophobes and supporters of the US.

You are a supporter of mass murder of women and gays. If you are so interested in Sutee and India why dont you write an article about it? It has nothing to do with this thread.

by Tony Thu Apr 13, 2006 15:29

Emily, don't dabble in facts. Stick to accusations. You deny that the dreadful custom of Suti is specifically Hindu. A quick google shows:

The Tradition of Sati in India

by Dr. Jyotsna Kamat
First Online: August 15,1997
Page Last Updated: March 29,2006

Sati (Su-thi , a.k.a. suttee) is the traditional Hindu practice of a widow immolating herself on her husband's funeral pyre.

"Sati" means a virtuous woman. A woman who dies burning herself on her husbands funeral fire was considered most virtuous, and was believed to directly go to heaven, redeeming all the forefathers rotting in hell, by this "meritorious" act. The woman who committed Sati was worshipped as a Goddess, and temples were built in her memory.

And who opposed the custom? From Wikipedia -

"As Islam established itself in the subcontinent, their opinion of sati changed to regarding it as a barbaric practice. The earliest known governmental effort to halt the practice were by Muslim rulers, including Muhammad Tughlaq."

Is it relevant to the demonisation of Islam? Well, of course it is. Why is there not an equal protest by Western "leftists" about Suti?

Again you have responded to carefully (though not necessarily very articulate) arguments by invective. If only one Indymedia reader starts to notice this descrepancy, I will be satisfied.

Sickened - please do me the courtesy of reading what I say. Nothing excuses attacks on women, gays, or any other opressed group. Yes, indeed Trotskyists (but almost certainly no one with your politics) spoke out about Stalinism. How you leap from that to two wrongs making a right is beyond me.
What matters is the political conclusions you draw from recognition of Stalinist atrocities or Islamist atrocities. The hard fact is that many people use them to align themselves with their own ruling class. That is exactly what some people on the fake left are doing now, either through malice or ignorance.

by German Linsey Thu Apr 13, 2006 15:20

"..the hue and cry about Islam and brutality against women..."

You'd swear women's rights were a shibboleth or something.

by Emily Thu Apr 13, 2006 14:55

This thread is not about India its about Iran. Sutee is certainly a terrible thing which faces some Indian women. But it is not religion based, it is not endorsed by any Hindu clergy or underpinned by Hindu religious jurisprudence. Islam does endorse the murder of women and gays. If you wish to write about Sutee then why not start a seperate thread about it?

You are just repeating yourself above. All of your 'questions' have been answered. If you think that Tatchell was not mocked and threatened by the SWP and RESPECT (its above, I wont repeat it) then I can only presume that you do not understand the English language.

I have seen your links before. None of them back up your points. You are certainly a sad person if you believe it is wrong to raise the issue of womens liberation just because the US are threatening Iran. It is you who are on the side of the mullahs who murder women and gays.

by Sickened Thu Apr 13, 2006 14:51

"What I want to point out is that the hue and cry about Islam, and brutality against women happens to coincide with the needs of the US and its allies for propaganda to justify its wars."

This is really disgraceful stuff.
All the hue and cry about human rights abuses in the Soviet bloc turned out to be that - human rights abuses. Two wrongs don't make a right. And there was a time when your ilk knew something about this. This lesser evilism nonsense should not be tolerated by anybody. I suppose the Iranian bus workers were a tool of US imperialism.

by Tony Thu Apr 13, 2006 14:40

Apologies if I've spelled the word wrong - I've seen various tranliterations.
What I want to point out is that the hue and cry about Islam, and brutality against women happens to coincide with the needs of the US and its allies for propaganda to justify its wars.
Where is the outcry against the continued practise in India of the horrific Hindu "custom of Suti?
Could it be that, at the moment, the US is in alliance with India? Could it be that if and when the US wants/needs to make war on India, there will be a sudden upsurge in horror at Suti?
The death rate for widows as a result of Suti is STILL 30,000 a year. This neither excuses, nor negates, the brutal treatment of women in some Muslim countries. It is the discrepancy in the attitude of many of the left in western countries that is need of explanation.

by Indyhead Wed Apr 12, 2006 17:31

I cannot get my head around your argument with Pat C - are you saying that Socialist Iranian women exist who are opposed to womens rights and think that sexually adventurous women should be stoned to death?

If such creatures exist then kindly quote them. I have to admit that I would find it hard to reconcile such views with socialism. If not then please stop spouting nonsense. I am happy to read about the sruggles of an Iranian Communist Feminist but I dont want to read any more of your reactionary nonsense which you try to dress up as being somehow left-wing.

by Emily Wed Apr 12, 2006 17:21

Your questions have been answered; examples of the SWP and Respect attacks on Peter Tatchell have been provided and it was SWP members who posted the links to the Lenin blog. You have not supplied any rational reasons as to why Maryam should be regarded as Islamophobic, unless you think that arguing for womens rights is Islamophobic.

You have opposed the raising of demands for womens rights and gay rights in Iran. You have called those who raise this issue Islamophobic. Your vision of an ideal Iran seems to be one where sexually active women and gays face death. That makes you a misogynist and a homophobe.

by Tony Wed Apr 12, 2006 17:12

So Emily, perhaps you will reply to the questions I posed to Pat C.?
"Pat C carries on as though all left-wing women from a Muslim background agree with Namazie. On a different thread I provided links to the writing of a socialist Iranian woman. Of course Pat C. doesn’t lower himself to read people who don’t agree with him.

Pat C accuses me of “Misogynistic and Homophobic bile”. How quaint to use capital letters. He has said the same sort of lies before. I challenged him them to produce one single example (a direct quote, not something filtered through his own “translation”)

He couldn’t do it. I repeat the challenge. Or should I write “I Repeat the Challenge”?"
I respond with facts and reasoned debate - you, Emily, respond with invective

by Emily Wed Apr 12, 2006 15:48

Tony has regurgitated the same stale old line once more. I reckon he does not bother to even read any responses to his eqaculations. The Lenin Blog link was posted twice, in both cases by guys identifying themselves as SWP members. As well as the mocking of Tatchells life being under threat that was illustrated on the Lenin blog Pat C also gave a link to and quoterd from an article where a leader of RESPECT had actually threatened Peter Tatchell and attempted to incite violence against him.

So you have a problem with Maryam being called by her given name, well she does not. Nor does she think she is the equivalent of Marx or Lenin, or Goldman or Luxemburg for that matter. Which of her politics or views do you disagree with? Do you think that Women in Iran are not entitled to dress as they like, to wear the hijab if they wish, to discard it if they wish? To have a free sex-life outside of religious control without facing death, do you wish to deny that to Iranian women? Do you think that Iranian people, men and women should not have the right to elect a Government free of religious control?

It would be interesting to find out what you think about democracy in Iran.

Of course others disagree with Maryam, if they did not then they would all be in the same political party. But what are their disagreements? You have not itemised them. If they dont support womens rights then they could hardly be either socialists or feminists. What kind of an Iran do they want?

I will not use capitals but I do think you are a misogynist, you have called an Iranian Communist an Islamophobe just because she has campaigned for womens rights. You also deserve to be called a homophobe as you have constantly mocked any efforts to expose the mass murder of gays in in Iran. It does look as if you are on the side of the islamic clerics against women, gays and socialists.

by Emily Tue Apr 11, 2006 18:10

You still are spinning. You got on to these guys because they were saying the cartoons were religiously offensive rather than racist. No matter how hard you spin, you can even whirl like a dervish, you cant change that reality. You are the SWPs Alistair Campbell and you have been caught out.

Yes theres talk of nuclear missiles and you are doing a lot of it. But I dont see what that has to do with an Iranian Communist standing up for Democratic Rights in Iran or why the SWP have to diss her.

by Indyhead Tue Apr 11, 2006 17:35

Brian you did not answer the question which were put to you. Your answer came across as written mumbles. But using a scalpel of logic and peeling away the fudge you seem to be suggesting that only conservatives or sectarians would have published the cartoons. The reality is that they were published by regular contributers including Redjade.

by pat c Tue Apr 11, 2006 17:30

" The third post (yours) in a thread initiated with a long rant (from you) launches right in to the 'bow down to the mullahs' bullshit which you seem unable to get out of your system."

Not a rant merely standing up for womens rights and gay rights. the SWP used to that once.

"What I did find there is that a number of individuals were patient enough with you, despite your hostility, to provide you with a series of links to substantive pieces outlining the SWP's positon on socialism and the rise of political Islam."

there ios no point in writing theoretical articles on islam when in practise you side with the mullahs and see the raising of womens rights as being divisive.

." In any case, your approach to religion and the problem of how to win religious believers to a different way of seeing the world is infantile in the extreme--it all comes down to ranting and denouncing. "

calling for womens rights and gay rights to be respected is hardly infantile. calling for the seperation of church and state is not a rant.

"The Lenin quote may sound like ' verbiage' to you (though I doubt you read through it) but others more open-minded out here will find some important issues to consider in it, I'm sure. "

You think you are proving something by using a long quote from Lenin?

You havent addressed the issue of how Iranian Socialist Feminists are Islamophobes. Why do you call them that? Whats wrong with saying that Women in Iran & Iraq should have the same rights as women in the west? give me a reason why they shouldnt.

nor have you addressed the threats to Peter Tatchell. SWP members mocked Tatchell because he had gotten death threats from Islamists. A leading member of Respect called for attacks on Tatchell.

Finally it comes to the question of the Iranian Theocracy. Do the SWP call for its overthrowal? It doesnt look so.

by BK - none Tue Apr 11, 2006 17:14

Pat:
Like Tony, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and followed the link you provided back to-- well, mainly your own undocumented hyperbole. Its the last time I'll do it. The third post (yours) in a thread initiated with a long rant (from you) launches right in to the 'bow down to the mullahs' bullshit which you seem unable to get out of your system. What I did find there is that a number of individuals were patient enough with you, despite your hostility, to provide you with a series of links to substantive pieces outlining the SWP's positon on socialism and the rise of political Islam. You have very obviously never reciprocated the gesture by reading even a single one of these. When I made reference to your ignorance above, I was not assuming that you were ignorant because you were incapable of lifting yourself out of that state. From a distance it looks more like laziness, or perhaps you are just more comfortable in rant mode. In any case, your approach to religion and the problem of how to win religious believers to a different way of seeing the world is infantile in the extreme--it all comes down to ranting and denouncing. The Lenin quote may sound like ' verbiage' to you (though I doubt you read through it) but others more open-minded out here will find some important issues to consider in it, I'm sure.

Emily:
I'm glad that you believe you have a life. Forgive me for assuming otherwise, but it was only because the only three posts I've ever seen from you out here are all snide attempts at smear. You should probably check the thread on Slugger if, as you suggest, you are really not aware of the context of my communication with MAC. It is not quite so cloak-and-daggers as you have asserted. Confronted twice in public with a distorted representation of the MAC's position, I thought it worth checking. Vey simple, really. But as an activist in a period where we all face a very serious military, even nuclear, threat, you might find better things to do with your precious time than indulging in sectarian gossip.

Redjade:
Legitimate question. I'm not a regular contributor out here. I was unaware that Indymedia had published any of the cartoons, but then my understanding of Indymedia is that it is a site where all sorts, including some very right-wing, pro-militarist, and racist individuals come out here often, and even initiate threads. Many of the other contributors are simply out for the gossip and the sectariana. I expect(ed) better of The Blanket, which calls itself a 'journal of protest and dissent,' and which explicitly invokes the memory of the hunger strikers in its masthead, etc.. I think it played a mostly positive role in the run-up to the Iraq war, and thought that it might play an important and constructive role in pulling together the left in Belfast. I no longer believe that it can play a role in doing so (or even that the editors desire that it should), and not only because of the cartoons issue. Its a talking shop, basically, and most of those who contribute these days are not activists of any stripe, nor do they share any coherent political outlook or aspiration.

by pat c Tue Apr 11, 2006 14:48

I really feel sorry for you, you must have a sad life if you have to come on to Indymedia to attack an anti War activist because he also stands up for Womens rights and Gay rights. What motivates you?

If you have any quotes from Iranian Socialists and Feminists which are opposed to fighting for Womens and Gay rights then please supply them. The Iranian Islamofascist Regime must be overthrown. Overthrown from within.

Actually the alcohol inspired rantings of a self confessed drunkard like yourself doesnt really matter.

by pat c Tue Apr 11, 2006 14:43

Hers some more about SWP and "respect" attacks on Peter Tatchell:

"Needs a good slap in the face to help him figure out what he stands for and whom he represents. Maybe he should attempt arresting Mugabe again, that would be worth seeing...

Time he realised his craving for attention will not in any way help the gay community and so him and his queer campaign army should pack their bent bags and head back to Australia."
Jan 6th - Jan 12th 2006 DesiXpress

Adam Yosef. Former Press Officer Respect.

DesiXpress later apologised for Yosefs remarks: "We would like to apologise to Peter Tatchell and the gay community for the offence and distress caused by comments written by Adam Yosef. mnAs a publication we do not have any prejudicial views against the gay community and the comments which appeared were personal opinions of Adam Yosef and do not represent the views of the publication.”

********************************************************************

Heres a response from Peter Tatchell to the SWP:

"Bizarre, upside-down politics
Peter Tatchell responds to the implied SWP charge of racism and islamophobia against him and Outrage

This allegation is nonsense. Only a very small minority of Outrage’s campaigns involve tackling homophobia in the black and muslim community. All these campaigns are in direct solidarity with black and muslim gay people against their straight oppressors - religion and ethnicity are not factors.

Then there is the false charge that we challenge black and muslim homophobia “despite [gay groups] based in these communities strongly opposing such an approach”.

Our campaign against reggae singers who advocate the murder of gays and lesbians was in conjunction with the Jamaican gay rights group, J-Flag, and the Black Gay Men’s Advisory Group in London. When we tackle homophobes within the muslim community, it is at the behest of our own muslim members and with the support of lesbians and gays in the wider muslim community."

Full article at:
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/602/respect%20tatchell.htm

*************************************************

Heres another article which deals with the SWPs love affar with the Iranian Islamofascists:

"Far left collusion with Islamo-fascism

Welcome to the new medievalism that is modern Iran, where the
barbarism of Sharia law holds sway, and where superstitious, bigoted clerics have the power to decide whether people live or die for the most trivial offences. Women are threatened with lashing for
"misplaced smiles" that arouse "satanic desires" in men. Last year, 14 year old Kaveh Habibi-Nejad was flogged to death in the town of
Sanandaj for "eating in public" during Ramadan.

Franco's Spain and Pinochet's Chile were tea parties by comparison to Iran's Islamist bloodfest. Since the ayatollah's seized power in 1979, nearly 100,000 Iranians have been murdered - including socialists,trade unionists, communists, feminists, journalists, students, lawyers, writers, doctors, human rights activists and religious and ethnic leaders.

In the four months following the June election of hardline President,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, over 80 people are known to have been executed or sentenced to death. Under Iranian law, girls as young as nine and boys as young as 15 can be hanged. So far this year, seven children have been executed. "

Full article at:
http://www.kargaran.org/international%20labor%20solidar...3.htm

***************************************

More on threats to Tatchell and even an Islamic discussion on the most appropriate method to kill him at:

www.workersliberty.org/node/view/5028

www.workersliberty.org/node/view/3688

by Indyhead Tue Apr 11, 2006 14:13

Like Redjade I am interested in Brian Kellys views on Indymedia publishing the cartoons of the 'prophet'. Does Brian think Indymedia is racist for doing so and are Indymedia pursuing a rightwing agenda? Perhaps in Brians mind Indymedia.ie are even part of the US drive for war against Iran. But we will never know what truly goes on inside Brians head unless he deigns to answer the questions put to him.

by pat c Tue Apr 11, 2006 14:03

What exactly is your point?

I have made it clear about 100 times that I oppose US Imperialism. Opposing US Imperialism does not mean that I have to bow down before Mullahs and attack women and gays. You are ignoring the fact that Islamic Regimes deliberately target independent women and gays and execute them. Your question about how many women and gsays were killed by US Imperialism is both meaningless and irrelevant . Its worse actually because it puts you on the same side as the Mullahs.

So you think Maryam is an Islamophobe. Well you would obviously know more about the situation in Iran than an Iranian Socialist Feminist. She argues for Womens rights, so hey that proves shes an Islamophobe! She wants a Secular Socialist Iran, that proves shes on the side of the US.

Tony, in past postings here you have admitted that you have been drinking whilst doing so. I can only presume that you were drunk when you posted that incoherent tirade above. It is truly the inane ramblings of a confused and tormented mind. If you must spew forth such Misogynistic and Homophobic bile then please do so on Perth Indymedia.

Hers the stuff on Tatchell you missed. Its belittling and mocking the threats against Peter.

"The only thing he was roundly welcomed for was his denunciations of Islam, in particular his claims that "Muslim leaders" had issued death threats to the family of a liberal imam in order to prevent him from attending the Peter Tatchell Human Rights Fund. Evidence for which came there none - Tatchell has made this claim a couple of times before. He never specifies who these "Muslim leaders" are, although he has implied that they are "members of so called moderate, mainstream Muslim organisations"."

If Peter Tatchell is murdered by Muslim maniacs then his blood will also be on the hands of the SWP.

by Tony Tue Apr 11, 2006 13:42

As usual Pat C. has failed to find sources for his claims. He even cites his own words as proof of...his own words.
I unearthed the Leninology link, after a bit of searching. "Lenin" does indeed seem to be a member of the British SWP. However he did not "mock the fact that Tatchell had received death threats". He a) was clearly referring to Tatchells entirely unsupported claims about some Muslem identity, not threats to Tatchell himself. and b) "Lenin" denied that this was a "fact".
However he did describe Pat C.'s mentor as an Islamophobe. I read some of her wrtings, and agree with Lenin.
The rights and wrongs of the SWP aren't my concern.
What does concern me however is Pat C's islamophobia and misleading use of misquotes.
I note that (Brian Kelly?) with whom Pat C was debating asked him to settle the matter by what seems like a reasonable demand
Kelly(?) says
"Apparently the clarification was not enough. Here's how I propose we settle it. 1) Provide myself and other readers here with the source and quote by which you claim that your hero was labelled an 'Islamophobe.' 2) show us the source for your assertion that SWP members find it funny that Tatchell is under threat. Quote it for me please."
Pat C did manage to find an SWP member who describec the WCPI woman as an Islamophobe. However he failed completely to provide evidence for 2).
I should add that it is obvious to me that the Leninology blog is generally written in a knockabout, humorous style - this seems to apply to every posting. Seems Pat C can't recognise jores when he sees them. Or perhaps he wants to censor jokes...
It's also obvious to me that the Leninology blog is not an "official" SWP source, and I could find no links to it on the Irish or British SWP sites. Pat C. obviously wants to impute "official" status to what seems to me a jokey individual blog.
By the way. I can't answer that I am not now, nor have ever been, a member of the Communist Party, but I can say that in relation to the SWP.
Pat C.doesn't care that he is acting as a stalking horse for US imperialism with his absurd Islamophobia.
A brief search, by the way, showed that the Islamophobia site Pat C linked to has an article about a gay Muslem group, which it says (and it produces direct quotes to support the claim, unlike Pat C) is welcomed as an ally by the Muslem Council of Britain
I have challenged Pat C before to answer this question -
Which regime has killed most gays and women since 1979 (the year that the Shah of Iran was overthrown), the US or Iran?

by pat c Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:29

If you want to have a rational debate then you are not helping things by referring to "my ignorance". Just because I disagree with you does not mean that I am ignorant of your policies; on the contrary, I just disagree with them. There is no point in having fine theoretical articles on political islam if in practise you surrender to the Mullahs at every opportunity.

As you well know Maryam is an Iranian Communist and is opposed to any US aggression against Iran so I cannot understand why you would mention tactical nukes unless its an attempt on your part to smear Maryam and her comrades.

As for the diverse make up of the 12 signatories, that is hardly surprising. Its a single issue campaign, the 12 unite around that one issue and have different beliefs on other issues. The SWP are well used to operating in single issue campaigns such as ANL , IAWM, RESPECT etc. In thjose campaigns the SWP will work together even with capitalists to achieve a common aim.

I find it hard to believe that you are unaware of the British SWP attitude to Maryam, they hound her and representatives of the Organisation for Womens Freedom in Iraq. The SWP call them Islamophobes. Why? Because these Iranian & Iraqi Socialist Feminists say that Women in Iraq & Iran should have the same rights as women in the west. This does not go down well with the Islamists in RESPECT.

Anyway, I posted a report on the Freedom of Expression March:
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75089
and it was attacked (perhaps unwisely) by SWP members. Go to the links and you will see that Maryam is described as an Islamophobe and you will also read the SWPs mockery of the death threats against Peter Tatchell.

"More here
by Dan Dangler - caucus of cosmic absurdists Mon Mar 27, 2006 20:46
Excellent well resourced anti-islamophobia site here http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/

More leninology (Blog by British SWPer) here at http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/

correction on link
by John - Islamophobia watch Ireland Tue Mar 28, 2006 08:16
Alternative report link should read http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/03/behead-those-who....html "

Heres another piece on a public meeting where a liberal muslim was intimidated out of speaking by Islamists:

"Peter Tatchell expressed his disappointment at the absence of Dr Yusuf: “I was looking forward to giving a platform to a liberal Islamic clergyman. Sheikh Yusuf is afraid of very serious retribution to him and the ones that he loves. The threats came from people who are members of so called moderate, mainstream Muslim organisations. This shows the scale of the threat from even these moderate groups."

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75124

by Emily Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:16

'Emily:

I'm amazed that anyone with a life would take the time to follow the thread of my brief conversation with the MAC. No doubt you know the context, but others here won't. The fact that you didn't explain that context suggests strngly that you are only out for the smear. And hiding behind anonymity to boot. '

I certainly have a life and I am prepared to sacrifice some of my valuable time to expose you as the charlatan you are. The context is quite clear to anyone who goes to the link. Your Muslim mate had quite clearly said the cartoons were offensive from a religious point of you. This did not suit your world view so you got on to this descendant of Edwars III to get him to change his story. You arent fooling anyone. The only one spreading smears is you.

Anonymymity? My given name is Emily so I am not hiding behind anonymity anymore than a lot of SWP members who post here. Most of them dont even give initials.

by Brian Kelly - none Mon Apr 10, 2006 19:19

Pat C.

I attempted to set you right on the 'Islamophobe' nonsense in my very first post, but it is clear that you are not only comfortable in your ignorance but determined to remain that way. Up to you. I said explicitly that I thought your hero, along with all those who signed the so-called 'Manifesto,' is 'profoundly confused' about a number of urgent issues, and if you've had a chance to read Seymour Hersch's piece in the New Yorker, where he tells us that tactical nukes are on the table for the coming war on Iran then you will have some idea what I mean.

Apparently the clarification was not enough. Here's how I propose we settle it. 1) Provide myself and other readers here with the source and quote by which you claim that your hero was labelled an 'Islamophobe.' 2) show us the source for your assertion that SWP members find it funny that Tatchell is under threat. Quote it for me please.

Emily:

I'm amazed that anyone with a life would take the time to follow the thread of my brief conversation with the MAC. No doubt you know the context, but others here won't. The fact that you didn't explain that context suggests strngly that you are only out for the smear. And hiding behind anonymity to boot.

The conversation with the MAC came out of Anthony McIntyre's assertion on BBC radio that the MAC had denied there was a racial element to the cartoons controversy. This was raised again by 'Reader' on Slugger, and so I thought it worth checking. Anyone is welcome to check the thread on Slugger if you are hopeful that the episode contains all the intrigue that 'Emily' suggests. I fear you will be disappointed.

by Observer (From there) Mon Apr 10, 2006 13:35

"A little-commented-upon addendum to the Danish cartoons farrago occurred a couple of weeks ago. Danish cleric Imam Ahmed Akkari, author of the dossier that stirred up global protests, was secretly filmed threatening to blow up the leader of Denmark's Democratic Muslims organisation, Naser Khader.
Owing to his moderate opinions, Khader was already under police protection. Akkari has since explained that the death threat was meant as a joke. It's nice to see that a man who thought a cartoon bomb was no laughing matter has regained his sense of humour when it comes to bombing a real-life opponent."

by Emily Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:12

Brian Kelly got a bit upset when he found out that some Islamic leaders were saying that the cartoons were not racist but were an attack on religion. You can find out how Brian got a representative of the Muslim Action Committee to change his tune and say that the cartoons were racist if you go to the URL .

by pat c Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:38

a lot of verbiage from you but little content. members of the SWP also provided links to blogs where they attacked Maryam as being an Islamophobe and to entries where the SWP mocked the fact that Peter Tatchell had got death threats from Islamists. So the SWP think its funny that a fatwa has been issued against a Gay Rights activist. If Peter Tatchell is murdered then his blood will also be on the hands of the SWP.

You dont really deal with the issues of Womens rights Gay rights or democratic rights. Do you believe that women and gays in Iraq and Iran should have the same rights as they would in the West? Do you believe that the media should be censored by religion in both the west and East?

This is a fundamental question, freedom of the press. Its not even a socialist demand, its a basic bourgeois liberal demand as is the seperation of Church and State. It now looks as if the SWP no longer believe in seperation of church and state or of freedom of the press. I wonder if the Catholic church were annoyed with a cartoon would the SWP go on a jihad? Do the SWP call for the banning of The Life of Brian? If not why not? Many christians are offended by this film.

theres no point in referencing SWP theoretical articles on Islam when your reality in action is to bow down before the mullahs and abandon basic democratic rights. brian, I'll believe in your sincerity when you condemn those SWP members who think its funny that Peter Tatchell is under an Islamic death threat. I'll believe in your sincerity when you stop describing Iraqi and Iranian Socialist Feminists as being Islamophobes when their only crime is to stand up for Womens rights, Gay rights and democratic rights.

You seem to have a problem with the word Theocratic, well that word aprtly describes Islam. Islam as a religion has no conception of the seperation of Church and State, in effect the logical end product of Islam is a Theocracy. Wherever islamists have acheived opower they have introduced the Sharia in various forms. In countries like Iran that means that women who have sex outside of marriage are hanged or stoned to death, gays are thrown off a height or are hanged.

The Iranian Theocracy which murders women and gays in this fashion must be overthrown. Since 1979 4,000 Gays have been "executed" by the Iranian Junta. This overthrow must come from within. That is why it is important for socialists to support Iranian oppositions like Maryam and the Workers Communist Party of Iran.

In 1982 when the British invaded the Malvinas/Falklands the SWP opposed British Imperialism but they simultaneously called for the overthrow of the Argentian Fascist Junta. The majority of the Argentian population were and are Catholic but this did not cause the SWP to moderate their criticism of the Catholic Clergy and Hierarchy.

This is a similar situation to 1982. There should be absolute and total opposition to US and British Imperialism and any attempt to invade or bomb Iran. However the Iranian regime is a despotic Theocratic junta, it should be overthrown and socialists in the West should support Iranian socialist forces who are fighting the mullahs to establish a Secular Socialist State. There should be no kow-towing to Islam: stand up for seperation of Church and State. Stand up for Womens, Gay and Democratic Rights.

by redjade Mon Apr 10, 2006 00:25

Brian Kelly: 'the notion that The Blanket's decision to run these cartoons sdhould be seen as some courageous stand for freedom of speech is laughable.'

Brian, some of those same cartoons were also published on indymedia.ie by its readers and contributors. Do you condemn Indymedia, as well? Or is publishing freely here different than The Blanket?

Should taboo cartoons be banned only in Denmark?

by Brian Kelly - none Sun Apr 09, 2006 21:15

...as those who refuse to see.

Pat:

Problem is, I've got your number, Almost every thread that you've launched or participated in over the past while has been a one-person rant against the SWP. On one recent thread at least three people provided you with links to material that outlined the SWP's attitude to Political Islam, to the Iranian regime, to the situation of women under Islamic rule. You've obviously never bothered to read any of it. Instead you persist with the same schoolyard antics you've always pursued out here.

Lenin identified the problem in the pseudo-radical approach to religion that you (anmd the pro-war liberals) advocate in words that are as relevant today as they were early last century:

'It would be a profound mistake to think that the seeming "moderation" of Marxism in regard to religion is due to supposed "tactical" considerations, the desire "not to scare away" anybody, and so forth. On the contrary, in this question, too, the political line of Marxism is inseparably bound up with its philosophical principles.

[Marxism] is...relentlessly hostile to religion.... But the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels goes further.... We must combat religion that is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of Marxism. But Marxism is not a materialism which has stopped at the ABC. Marxism goes further. It says: We must know how to combat religion, and in order to do so we must explain the source of faith and religion among the masses in a materialist way. The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching, and it must not be reduced to such preaching. It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of religion. Why does religion retain its hold on the backward sections of the town proletariat, on broad sections of the semi-proletariat, and on the mass of the peasantry? Because of the ignorance of the people, replies the bourgeois progressist, the radical or the bourgeois materialist....

[T]his is not true,...it is a superficial view, the view of narrow bourgeois uplifters. It does not explain the roots of religion profoundly enough; it explains them, not in a materialist but in an idealist way. In modern capitalist countries these roots are mainly social. The deepest root of religion today is the socially downtrodden condition of the working masses and their apparently complete helplessness in face of the blind forces of capitalism, which every day and every hour inflicts upon ordinary working people the most horrible suffering and the most savage torment.... "Fear made the gods." Fear of the blind force of capital blind because it cannot be foreseen by the masses of the people; a force which at every step ...threatens to inflict, and does inflict "sudden", "unexpected", "accidental" ruin, destruction, pauperism, prostitution, death from starvation. Such is the root of modern religion which the materialist must bear in mind first and foremost, if he does not want to remain an infant-school materialist. No educational book can eradicate religion from the minds of masses who are crushed by capitalist hard labour, and who are at the mercy or the blind destructive forces of capitalism, until those masses themselves learn to fight this root of religion, fight the rule of capital in all its forms, in a united, organised, planned and conscious way.

...A Marxist must be a materialist, i.e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i.e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could. A Marxist must be able to view the concrete situation as a whole, he must always be able to find the boundary between anarchism and opportunism (this boundary is relative, shifting and changeable, but it exists).

For anyone out here who does read, and who might be interested in a short piece on the Bolshevkis and their approach to Islam, follow this link:

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenu...=8689

by pat c Sun Apr 09, 2006 16:24

" the notion that The Blanket's decision to run these cartoons sdhould be seen as some courageous stand for freedom of speech is laughable. It is instead a capitulation to the racist terms of the debate framed by the right-wing establishment, an establishment committed to dragging us all into their 'long war' for 'civilization.' "

It is no such thing, it is standing up for womens rights, for gay rights and for democratic rights. rights that the swp have ditched in their stampede to cosy up to the mullahs. do you think maram is a racist or an islamophobe?

how can it be islamophobic or racist for an iranian feminist socialist to say that women in iran should have the same freedom as women in the west?

how can it be islamophobic or racist for an iranian feminist socialist to say that freedom of the press should not be subverted by the wishes of religious fanatics?

the swp have taken sides. they have sided with the misogynist and homophobic islamists against socialist women in iraq and iran.

by Brian Kelly - none Sat Apr 08, 2006 22:27

Pat:

Ho hum.

For a non-believer, you seem to have ingested lots of dogma over the years: "SWP and their lackeys"??? Is that a hangover from the Little Red Book, or do you talk like that in the pub as well? It strikes me as being in the same category as AM's foaming at the mouth over marxist 'paper-sellers', or his foray into run-of-the-mill red-baiting on air several weeks back.

As one of the signers of the Open Letter to The Blanket and formerly an enthusiastic and fairly frequent contributor to it, I think you have seriously misrepresented our position. I wouldn't label McIntyre an 'Islamophobe,' though his penchant for describing the diverse worldwide Muslim population as 'theocratic fascists' may end up pushing him into that category. Ditto with Carrie Twomey, by the way, whom you have strangely omitted from your eulogy.

The thrust of the argument is this: the cartoons were originally published by a right-wing Danish newspaper that has been at the center of a racist, anti- Muslim and anti-immigrant campaign supported by right-wing and far-right parties. This is indisputable. Google around enough and you will find reams of very credible evidence of this, including reports from the main anti-racist organizations in Denmark. Their 'commissioning' by an editor with very prominent neo-con sympathies, a devout anti-communist these days singularly obsessessed with the 'Muslim immigrant threat,' had nothing to do with free speech, women's liberation, or bringing enlightenment to the 'backward races,' to use an earlier, (more honest) time-honored colonial rationale. Why any journal that invokes the memory of the hunger strikers would stoop to touch this rubbish is beyond me. But then I think Anthony is a pretty confused individual--someone who presents himself as the courageous, go-it-alone dissident but who never really writes or says anything even mildly discomforting to the status quo.

And what about that Hubert Humphrey quote so prominently displayed every friggin' week on The Blanket? Doesn't anyone know that the man proposed the lifting of habeus corpus and the construction of concentration camps in the US for leftists in the McCarthy period? Or that he was the hatchetman sent out by the Johnson adminstration to cut down the civil rights movement at the '64 DP convention? Bizarre stuff. Can't say I know Carrie.

The signatories to the Manifesto are a mixed bag: some flaunt their left-wing 'credentials,' others have supported jihad in a different context (Afghanistan), or were led by their 'anti-totalitarianism' to back the Contra war against Nicaragua, or are prominent members of right-wing European parties and prominently identified with a campaign against immigrants led by the right and the extreme right.

What they have in common, and what you, as the classic embodiment of a 'narrow bourgeois uplifter' ( to use Lenin's apt description) is profound confusion about where the real threat to freedom, including freedom of speech, emanates from in the very dangerous world we find ourselves in. In that context, a context where Muslims are relentlessly demonized by the establishment right across Europe and beyond, and where such demonization is being used to sell extraordinary rendition, concentration camps, the mainstreaming of torture, chemical warfare, and even potential deployment of nuclear weapons (presumably to 'save' Iranians oppressed by the mullahs), the notion that The Blanket's decision to run these cartoons sdhould be seen as some courageous stand for freedom of speech is laughable. It is instead a capitulation to the racist terms of the debate framed by the right-wing establishment, an establishment committed to dragging us all into their 'long war' for 'civilization.'

by pat c Fri Apr 07, 2006 19:05

well it is a long article so short is relative.

sorry for forgetting the link.

by whatlink? Fri Apr 07, 2006 17:45

Yes Pat, a link (and a SHORT summary) would be useful. That is the purpose of other press.