Time to take a day off from the thrill ‘n’ spills of World Cup footBALLS and turn instead to another of this blog’s obsessions …
Yes it’s Tuesday, which means our old friend Farooq Siddique has his ‘A Muslim in Bristol’ column in the Evening Cancer.
And today folks the dazzling analyst manges to conclude everybody in the country – except him and presumably his mates natch – is a racist.
This, it seems, has got something to do with the media, who he complains have reported white supremacist terrorist incidents differently to Muslim terrorist incidents.
And he continues, “the media is simply reflecting the natural bias in a general public, more willing to read stories about a particular crime depending on the colour and creed of the perpetrator.”
See? QED. We’re all racists.
Now the obvious response to this might be to point out that yer average Cancer reader isn’t a news editor so what the fuck has it got to do with them what’s in the newspapers or on telly?
Aren’t the people who produce the shit responsible?
Indeed a wag might even point out that Siddique’s the media tart who writes for these racist media organisations for money so he’s the one helping to actively promote their ‘racism’ and sell their papers, not us.
But this is the kind of logic you get when you spend too much time hanging around with superannuated liberal higher education moralist types isn’t it?
Basically it’s: “The media are obviously racists. So I work for them and get paid for it but you ‘re all racists for reading it. OK?”
Siddique then goes on to hammer his brilliant point home by comparing the coverage of the recently convicted “Techno Terrorist”, Bristol’s Andrew “Isa” Ibrahim with the conviction of white supremacist terrorist Neil Lewington.
Both were lone nutters trying to kill people argues Siddique quite correctly. But, he thunders, why did Ibrahim get front page coverage and not Lewington?
Um? Perhaps it had something to do with the highly newsworthy fact that Ibrahim’s conviction is the first based on information to come from a Muslim community?
But why let simple news values and a positive Muslim story get in the way of your fixed beliefs?
He’s making a fair enough point.
“In raids on more than 20 properties in the past six weeks, police found more than 300 weapons and 80 bombs including rocket launchers, grenades, pipe bombs and dozens of firearms.”
If that’d been Muslim fundies there’d have been a media storm of unprecedented size, tanks rolled out at Heathrow and demands in Parliament to shoot some Brazilian electricians just in case.
A small army of the master-race getting rounded up barely seems to rate a mention.
Meanwhile you just prop up a straw man:
“Basically it’s: “The media are obviously racists…”
And then flail around trying to knock it down.
Did Farooq shag your girlfriend or spurn your advances or something?
Still don’t get it. He works for the racist media but I’m the racist?
Farooq is arguing the media covered the white supremicist arrests differently from arrests of Muslim fundies.
It’s an argument he’s clearly entitled to make in a newspaper column. What do you expect him to do – write it on a postcard and mail it to you?
He then speculates vaguely about whether this is due to a bias in the media or if the media are reflecting a bias in society.
I dunno why this has got you all excited, TBB, and bandying around hysterical screams of “he’s calling us all racists” and whatnot. Clearly the arrests of the master race and Muslims have been treated differently and speculating about why this is is fair enough. But then you’ve always had a hard-on for knocking Farooq. I suspect you’re his most avid reader. Quite likely his only avid reader.
I disagree with the points he’s making, by the way. Neil Lewington got a lot of coverage considering he was a saddo who got pissed on a train and his so-called tennis ball bombs were hopeless. About the same amount of coverage as our own Andy Ibrahim who seems to have made a rather more practical device.
I feel the reason the arrests of right-wingers got less coverage is the police are deliberately playing it low key. If you read one of the original articles, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6638139.ece, there’s a distinct tone from the cops they don’t want to hype it up, possibly for operational reasons as they’re still rounding people up.
Well for starters he is, which is bollocks. And why shouldn’t people take offence at being called racists for no apparent reason?
Or should we all just passively accept the judgment of some arsehole from the establishment?
More importantly for all his trendy anti-racism and anti-thism and anti-thatism he’s basically got a conservative position.
Newspapers and broadcast media are controlled either by powerful corporate and business elites (Murdoch, Rothermere, Desmond etc) or by powerful Oxbridge establishment elites (BBC, Guardian etc).
Logically, the content of the media is entirely the responsibility of these elites and they should be held accountable for it, not the population at large.
The weasel claim that these poor little powerful elites are forced into their political positions by the masses is absurd. It completely gets them off the hook.
In fact – I apologise – Siddique’s position is not conservative it’s downright reactionary.
Siddique is well dodgy. There’s an interesting article here that he pops up in because his homophobia and 9/11 conspiracy theories brought him together with Tony Gosling, a former Green Party crank with similar views:
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/10/29/green-ink-green-men-green-lizards/
“There’s an interesting article here that he pops up in because his homophobia…”
Except it’s bollocks of course.
In 2005 a group of Muslim parents complained about a couple of gay books for children in Easton schools.
Bristol City Council withdrew the books as a temporary measure.
Following a discussion with the BMCS representing the parents (a muslim group facilitiating some muslims engaging in a debate – how terrible), BCC and LBGT groups their was an amicable resolution and the books returned to the school.
This then loops from blog comment to blog article to blog comment and becomes a blunt statement:
“Siddique is well dodgy. There’s an interesting article here that he pops up in because his homophobia…”
The only link with Gosling I can find is Tony stuck his nose into the debate at some point. Hardly makes the hairy nutcase Siddique’s best buddy does it.
I pretty sure Gosling bats for the other side, by the way, although I can’t remember why I think that.
Get Out I see you are using the Lib Dem tactic of attacking the Green Party at any opportunity even when there is such a thin link its unbelievable tenuous. I seem to remember that Gosling was kicked out of the Greens anyway.
The ‘incident’ at the Bannerman Road and Easton Primary Schools took place in 2007.
And there was a lot more to it than “a couple of gay books for children”.
There was actually a 28 month research project from the University of Sunderland called “No Outsiders” being conducted, which was basically a big experiment on young kids that the authorities had failed to tell parents about.
http://www.nooutsiders.sunderland.ac.uk/
It’s a complicated one but I don’t recall Siddique’s role being especially homophobic (not in my book anyway).
???? i dont understand
Oh yeah, I got the year wrong. Not sure why, no matter.
“It’s a complicated one but I don’t recall Siddique’s role being especially homophobic (not in my book anyway).”
Aw, for goodness sake TBB can’t you manage to say “Siddique is not homophobic”? It seems the least you could do seeing as there’s not a shred of evidence of any expression of homophobia on his part.
You can’t, can you? You have to hedge it about with two – not one but two – conditional statements.
Ok, so you’ve previously said Farooq Siddique is a terrorist supporter. You’ve called him anti-semitic. Now you’re saying you think he’s a bit homophobic and other people might think he’s seriously homophobic.
All completely unfounded attacks on a bloke who hangs out with rabbis and christians, encourages and is proud of his community’s role in preventing terrorism and generally appears to be genuinely working hard to promote good relations between Muslims and the rest of the community. As well as promoting his own ego but that kind of goes with the territory of wannabee local bigwigs.
What I don’t get is why there’s a campaign against Saddique. His Evening Post articles are routinely dull and uncontroversial just like pretty much everything else they publish. The BMCS is a dull and uncontroversial mini-quango like a thousand others in the city. So why the campaign against the guy?
I think our politics are substantially at odds.
Pulls up chair
Eats popcorn
Might be a long wait. Can’t really be arsed to argue with a stopper over some 9/11 troof idiot.
“A stopper”?
Least you can do is explain your obsession with Siddique, TBB. Is it that he’s got a column in the Post and you haven’t?
Perhaps you were at school together and he’d shake you down for your lunch money?
Or did he live upstairs from you and play loud music at all hours?
C’mon, it’ll be good for you to let it out. It doesn’t seem to be a political thing unless it’s politics with a small ‘p’, some squabble within a party I know nothing about.
Have a read:
https://thebristolblogger.wordpress.com/?s=farooq+
I think he’s a dangerous looney who shouldn’t be getting access to public funds or mainstream media platforms.
Sigh… let’s have a look then.
Is Farooq Siddique a dangerous looney?
Dates as per The Bristol Blogger’s articles rather than Siddique’s Post articles they are often a response to.
21 July 2009.
Siddique has a rambling and poorly constructed article in the post. It’s hard to be sure what he’s saying. I think he’s arguing the mainstream media is biased against Muslim terrorists compared to right wing terrorists because people prefer to read stories about Muslim terrorists.
I’ve read similar articles by Jews, Blacks, Palestinians, men, women, Labour, Liberals, Tories, football fans, gays, lesbians, bi’s, trannies, trainspotters and all over the years. The worst offenders are Labour and the Tories, in my opinion, who all regularly whinge the media is biased against ’em.
So, so far no signs of dangerous looneyism on Farooq’s behalf. Just an alarming inability to string a coherent argument together and a tendency to moan about media bias a bit just like everyone else.
30 June 2009
Farooq writes article about Michael Jackson. TBB has a go at Farooq for, er, not writing an article about Iran.
One of the more baffling attacks on Siddique from TBB.
Is not writing an article about Iran a sign of being a dangerous looney? Well… probably not.
10 February 2009
TBB is upset that £50,000 of council money has been given in grant to BMCS.
The only interesting line is by TBB:
“This means Farooq will be perfectly placed to flog his view to the city’s receptive liberal establishment that Muslim radicalism is entirely the fault of the UK’s foreign policy and has nothing whatsoever to do with certain strains of Islamism that are surprisingly easy to come across in the UK.”
It’s not clear why the TBB ascribes this view to Farooq. Certainly as far back as 2007 Siddique has been campaigning against radicalisation in the Muslim community:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7023869.stm
or:
“The changes in the way Muslims are seen post 9/11, and how they see themselves, has led to this drop in expectations, says Siddique, and a lot of work on all sides is needed to change this.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bristol/content/faith/2004/03/11/911.shtml
As ever, a moderate to the core, Siddique doesn’t blame either side. He appeals to the wider community to be more tolerant of Muslims and to Muslims to stop blowing themselves up in public.
And hey, for these blandishments he’s got £50,000 of council tax payers money. He’s not looking like a dangerous looney, more like a career moderate who knows which side his breads buttered on.
25 January 2009
Siddique attempts to explain a previous article where he compared Israel’s actions in Palestine to the holocaust. He comes across as a bit of a prick. A lot of other people from all sides of the political spectrum at around the same time were making the same, unhelpful, comparision.
So Farooq isn’t the world’s best writer… but we knew that already.
20 January 2009
Farooq Sidiqque appears on a stage with a Respect person, a BCC councillor and some lefties. TBB does a thorough and well-deserved demolition job on Yvonne Ridley, the Respect person and then tries a guilt-by-association smear on everyone else present by fails to make it stick.
Obviously, not being present at the meeting I dunno what Farooq said but I’d put a tenner on it being something vague, moderate and saying we all need to work together a bit more. ‘Cos that’s all he ever seems to come out with.
13 January 2009
Farooq compares the attack on the Gaza strip to the Warsaw ghetto.
For once Farooq manages to string a sentence together fairly clearly but fuck it, it’s always a mistake to mention the Nazis. TBB doesn’t hesitate to make a mountain out of this non-existant molehill.
Oddly enough, this is the only time Farooq uses a Nazi analogy. TBB will later claim he does this obsessively.
No evidence of dangerous looneyism that I can see. Still, a learning experience for Farooq – never mention the Nazis, especially in the I/P context.
4 December 2008
I’m bored now. When do I get to the dangerous looney stuff?
Farooq correctly identifies it’s unlikely the Mumbai attacks were carried out by British muslims – which had been reported at the time.
TBB misses the point spectacularly and rants on about Siddique “…aggressively slagging off India!”.
Nope. No dangerous looney stuff yet. Just TBB looking a dick, which is becoming a bit repetitive at this point.
16 September 2008
Ah – at last! Farooq writes a truther column. TBB rightly shreds him for it.
It’s not clear to what extent Farooq goes for the troofer rubbish, it seems this is the only time he’s talked about it in public.
Obviously the dyed-in-the-wool 911 conspiracy nuts are the full belming looney deal complete with tin foil hats. They’re not dangerous so much as annoying.
So a sign of looneyism on Farooq’s part, but not of being dangerous. And possibly the responses to his column made him realise the truthers are the arsewipes of the known world and he’s decided not to go any further down that path. Let’s hope so.
27 May 2008
Farooq’s column in the Evening Post says that Muslims suffer after terrorist attacks in the UK. Which is undeniably true. The original article isn’t available online so i can’t see exactly what he says.
Even TBB doesn’t manage to make this into anything dangerously looney, simply describing it as insensitive or at most deliberately offensive.
4 March 2008
TBB calls Farooq an islamo-looney and rants incoherently a bit. It’s not clear why. Farooq doesn’t think Danish newspapers should have deliberately publish cartoons offensive to muslims. TBB for some reason heads off into the hinterlands of IP with a rant about Hezbollah with no apparent connection to anything Siddique wrote.
11 February 2008
Hmmm… Farooq (in his second column for the Post?) does the IP holocaust thing. TBB rips him for it.
30 January 2008
Farooq – in his first column for the post – does the IP holocaust thing! Oh dear, silly boy. TBB goes a bit menty about it.
Well, that was fun. Not.
So, Farooq has three times used the IP holocaust metaphor and published one truther column.
Not great, but if that’s the most the Bristol Blogger’s picked up on in a year and a half of obsessively reading Farooq’s columns well, that doesn’t make him a dangerous looney.
Against that you’ve gotta put Farooq’s consistent, sustained campaigning against Muslim extremism, his building of links with Jewish, Christian and other groups in the Bristol community, his complete opposition to violence and terrorism.
Personally I think Siddique has a few chips on his shoulders about Israel. That’s a price well worth paying to have a Muslim community leader working against extremism and violence in Bristol.
He is certainly not a dangerous looney as claimed by TBB. He’s very much a moderate who, from everything he writes and every stance he’s taken, is completely opposed to violence.
That’s a really good argument well made Inks, it’s just a shame you couldn’t have used it when we had a similar disagreement, choosing instead to become abusive and accuse me of supporting the BNP (which I do not). Or do you save the incoherent, gibbering rage for your close friends?
(what am I saying – he doesn’t have any!)
I did.
Repeatedly.
Endlessly.
I listened to you.
You did not listen to me.
Yeah, whatever. Thing about Farooq here is that he’s just called me and everybody else I know a racist. And that pisses me off, even you don’t go around saying that EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD AMA RASIST ZOMG!1
Also, it’s inaccurate. That nazi tennis ball-bomber did get front-page coverage. His scowling, pasty face was plastered all over the ‘papes, and about time that some of that crap got a bit of exposure too. People would think twice about supporting the BNP if they realised that they were supporting a terrorist organisation.
You can forget about Farrooq’s establishment mates outlawing those fuckers- so who’se the big RASIST now huh Farooq? Your Oxbridge pals who run the country, or the everyday normal people you accuse so lightly of “bias”?
What a slimey little toerag he is.
Perhaps you should read Farooq’s article before randomly spouting gibberish?
At most he indicated he believes the public prefer to read stories about Islamic suicide bombers than right-wing bombers.
Hardly a reason to go all frothing at the mouth and raving insanely about racism.
Indeed, you indicate you agree with his point – that right wing extremists should get more media coverage.
So, er, why the rage? You actually agree with him.
But that particular right-wing extremist DID get a lot of media coverage. His whole column is a fat lie from beginning to end!
http://www.hurryupharry.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/whitebomber-headlines.jpg
http://www.hurryupharry.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/whitebomber-sky.jpg
http://www.hurryupharry.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/whitebombernews.jpg
It’s not even original. It’s a ripoff of Mehdi Hasan’s whining:
http://www.newstatesman.com/2009/07/muslim-terrorism-white-british
Because his whole column is a lie from beginning to end. Niel Lewington got tons of coverage, front page on the national press, the lot. (I linked in my last post but the computer ate it, will try in a moment.)
In fact it’s not even original as a peice of grievance-mongering; it’s a straight ripoff of a piece Mehdi “athiests are cattle” Hasan wrote in the New Statesman.
This guy’s an asshole, pure and simple. He takes good news, ie that muslims helped bust a terrorist plot and that Nazi bombers are finally gettting the exposure they deserve, and turns it into shit by telling out and out lies.
Those links:
http://www.hurryupharry.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/whitebomber-headlines.jpg
http://www.hurryupharry.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/whitebomber-sky.jpg
http://www.hurryupharry.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/whitebombernews.jpg
Mehdi Hasan :
http://www.newstatesman.com/2009/07/muslim-terrorism-white-british
“The reality, however, is that you’ve probably never heard of Lewington (who denies all eight charges of terrorism) because he is not Muslim, or black, or of Asian origin. He is white.”
Hear that? You’ve NEVER EVEN HEARD of the tennis-ball bomber, because YOUR’E ARE ALL RASISTS!1!1! belm!
An interesting discussion. If I may digress one moment to return to renegade ex-leftist Tony Gosling: Inks quite correctly identifies this individual as a “hariy nut” and definately not someone whom Farooq Siddiq or anyone else would wish to be associated. Inks, however, also suggests that Gosling himself might be gay. This is most unlikely, unless Gosling is truly self-hating and repressed. His despicable website has numerous links to unhinged anti-gay diatribes (along with the better reported anti-Semitic ones) and his ideological cohorts are predominantly anti-gay and anti-feminist.
Oh, that. Inks thinks everyone’s gay. Or autistic.