The irrationality of the EDL
A further post regarding the English Defence League. There’s a young man called “nemisis” frequenting the EDL forum, who continually makes the same irrational mistakes. Not only that, the EDL moderators encourage him to do so.
“nemisis” is unable to understand that one can criticise a text without criticising either its author, or anyone else who happens to have read it. Any first year philosophy undergraduate can tell you that an argument ad hominem is fallacious. After all, it says nothing about the validity of the author’s argument, or the truth of any assertions she has made. If one wants to comment on a particular text, then obviously one must study the actual text and analyse it properly, before setting forth one’s own argument about it. This can (and should) be done without considering either the author, or anyone else who happens to have read the text in question.
This fellow “nemisis” repeatedly argues that if one criticises a text, then it necessarily follows that one has feelings about anyone who has read the text, and who considers it to be important, well written, or even true.
But this does not follow. To say that if one criticises a text, then one must experience certain emotions about other people who have read the same text, is simply not true. Every time “nemisis” makes that assumption, he makes a simple logical error.
A few years ago I decided to take a degree with the Open University. This had nothing to do with the work I was doing, I just thought it would be entertaining (and possibly interesting.) In the course of those studies I wrote several essays on John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty.” I felt no emotion of any kind about Mill (who is long dead) as I did so. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
Isaiah Berlin used the term “negative freedom” to describe a certain kind of personal liberty. The term refers to the range of possible choices available to someone. As Berlin put it, this can been seen as the number of doors open before you. (Whether you walk through one of those doors is up to each individual.) This understanding of personal liberty is often used to frame a response to the following kind of question: “What is the area within which the subject – a person or group of persons – is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons?” (Berlin, “Two Concepts of Liberty”.)
John Stuart Mill argued that a person’s negative freedom should be comprehensive enough to let them do anything they liked, so long as they aren’t hurting anyone else. Mill wrote that, “… the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” (Mill, “On Liberty”.)
To any sane, free thinking citizen of the UK, it is a matter of considerable interest, and of legitimate concern, if a non-Western ideology is deliberately introduced into British culture in a way that causes other limits to be placed one one’s negative freedom. We have already seen what this could mean. Throughout Europe, Robert Redeker, Michel Houellebecq, Oriana Fallaci, Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali have all been prosecuted, or threatened, for expressing their honestly held opinions. If such an ideology is slowly being absorbed into the cultural fabric of the UK, then trying to understand that ideology, and the demands it could make upon the people of Britain, is a rational exercise. And to that end, studying the texts which provide the foundation of that ideology is simply good practice.
One need not experience powerful emotions to engage in such a project. Studying different texts then writing a little bit about them is an interesting intellectual exercise. One may believe that one’s negative freedom should not be limited by the state, just because an alien ideology demands it. But one can argue for the preservation of one’s negative freedom in a rational way, as Mill himself did. Naturally, one’s argument will stand or fall on its own merits.
When “nemisis” is confronted by this sort of thing, he invariably asserts that the author experienced a powerful emotion as they sat at their laptop. There is absolutely no basis for saying this. Secondly, “nemisis” assumes that he knows which particular emotion they experienced. He has no basis for saying that, either.
It’s all irrelevant anyway. Talking about the (unknowable) emotions of someone has no bearing whatsoever on whether any assertions they have made are true, or whether an argument they have put forward is valid. To claim that because someone writes about the Koran, they “hate” other people who have a different opinion about the subject matter, is obviously a fallacious ad hominem assertion.
By definition, such fallacious remarks have no bearing on what is actually being discussed. But they’re not meant to. They’re meant to silence someone. The other claims usually employed for this purpose (as well as saying that one “hates” people) are that one is a “fascist” and a “Nazi”. Such irrational claims are commonplace on the EDL’s website.
Playing devil’s advocate, could it be said that I am here engaging in an ad hominem attack against poor “nemisis” instead of addressing what he actually has to say? No. For in response to an argument that American writers such as Bruce Bawer and Robert Spencer should not be censored either because they are American, or because they criticise the teachings of Islam, all that “nemisis” did was put forward the fallacious arguement [sic] that I must not be British (which is false, as well as irrelevant). When “nemisis” was confronted with Islamic teachings from that religion’s holy texts, in response to his mantra that “moderate” Muslims exist, all he could do was what radical leftists have done for years, and try to smear anyone who questioned the beliefs he thinks his “tolerance” is based on. All “nemisis” has for an arguement [sic] when his core beliefs are questioned is fallacious ad hominem attacks (the same as his comrades at the UAF). Those are what I have addressed here.
The moderators on the EDL forum are also obsessed with demonstrating their “tolerance” by forbidding free speech. According to the EDL moderators, the fundamental beliefs which the radical left insists everyone must hold cannot be questioned in any way. When someone like “nemisis” deals with legitimate concerns about the possibility of working with “moderate” Muslims by engaging in the radical leftist tactics also used by people in the UAF, and the target of his ad hominem abuse points out to the moderators what “nemisis” is doing, and asks them to do something about it, then it is the target of those radical Leftist smears who is banned from the EDL website.
For all their talk about the UAF, and how they want to get “radical” Islam “off the streets” (whatever that even means), the EDL are interested in the same things that their supposed adversaries are interested in. They don’t want Islam to be discussed honestly and fearlessly, not on their website anyway. For example, they want writers like Robert Spencer to be smeared on their website, so that anyone coming there without any knowledge about Islam won’t read Spencer’s books. The EDL just want everyone to join hands and sing that there are “moderate” Muslims in Britain, although no one at the EDL can say what a “moderate” Muslims is. They can’t say what a “moderate” Muslim could do that they can’t do themselves. They can’t say how they would make sure a “moderate” Muslims was really “moderate”. And they have absolutely no idea how to deal with the very real possibility that such a person might not stay “moderate” for very long, if they saw something they didn’t like. Anyone who does not simply tow [sic] the party line and sing along when the EDL demands it is smeared, and if they show the moderators that they understand what is going on on, then they’re swiftly banned.
After all, subversive thought cannot be allowed. In the EDL, purity of thought is paramount. They pretend to be diametrically opposed to the UAF, but in reality they are the other side of the same coin.
English Defence League
A lot has been written about the English Defence League recently. Some articles in the national press have labelled the group as racists, or as football hooligans who are looking for trouble. I’ve spent some time on the EDL website recently. In my opinion, anyone who is concerned about Islam in Britain today, and who is looking for a way to express their concerns, would be well advised to steer clear of the English Defence League.
One of the significant failings of the EDL is their inability to effectively counter any negative press. In order to refute the continual allegations that they are “Nazis” they need to employ someone who is able to write accurately about the history of WWII, so they can release an authoritative and unequivocal condemnation of the immoral acts perpetrated by the Nazis.
The EDL have also failed to explain clearly why they even exist. If they want to be seen as more than young lads who enjoy a good punch-up at the weekend, then they need someone who is able to write accurately about Islam and its history, so that they can say exactly what it is they find problematic about Islam in Britain today.
The best they can do in order to respond to the assertions that they are “Nazis” and “racists” is try to create the illusion that they are in league with “moderate Muslims”. One user on the EDL website in particular has tried to enforce purity of thought on this issue. This rather odious fellow, who calls himself “nemisis” [sic], takes after Parson’s daughter in Orwell’s famous novel, “1984″. He’s abnormally concerned with what other people are thinking. Since he doesn’t want the EDL to be associated with Nazis, he believes that anyone who doesn’t “tow [sic] the party line” of the EDL must be a member of that “other” group: they must be a Nazi. Such illogical thinking is clear evidence of an immature, untrained mind. This is the calibre of person in the EDL today.
This fellow “nemisis” kept insisting that there were “moderate Muslims” in Britain. He started numerous threads on this topic. I asked him: So what? He couldn’t provide a coherent answer.
I argued that there was no point in engaging “moderate Muslims” in “dialogue” since the British government had tried to make that policy work, with far more resources than the EDL could ever have. And one can hardly call that policy a success. After all, the EDL exists. There’s no reason to think that the EDL, with less resources and far less expertise to draw upon, would be able to succeed where the British government has already failed.
Some people on the EDL website tried to argue that there were “moderate Muslims” in the UK but since they are so psychologically “moderate” they won’t stand up for themselves. So, I wondered, what good are they to the EDL?
Some people argued that there are “moderate Muslims” who are afraid to speak out because the “extremists” within the “Islamic community” would harm them if they did so. I asked if anyone on the EDL website thought they would be acting in a good way, morally speaking, if they asked a “moderate Muslim” to do something which they knew would put them in mortal danger? No answer.
I asked what a “moderate” Muslim could do that the EDL couldn’t do themselves? Maybe all these fit young blokes who speak about fighting for Eng-er-land really need a “moderate” Muslim to come along and give them a pat on the back so that they feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
I reminded “nemisis” that two English hoteliers were recently charged after defending their own (Christian) religious beliefs in front of a Muslim guest in their own hotel. Perhaps “nemisis” would have considered the Muslima to be a “moderate Muslim” – up until the point when she decided to ruin an English couple’s livelihood and have them formally charged? That is to say, maybe “nemisis” thinks she was moderate, then she wasn’t. Or maybe she always put her religion first, but just didn’t have the opportunity to inflict her beliefs on others. And when she saw that she had a chance to punish Christians for expressing their own religious beliefs, in their own premises, in their own country, then she revealed herself. Maybe this would be the case with any other “moderate Muslim”. How would “nemisis” be able to tell? Poor “nemisis” almost had a meltdown when he tried to fit this real person into his theory about “moderate Muslims”. He couldn’t say if he thought she was moderate, if she was still moderate, if he would have asked her to join the EDL, what he would like her to do, why the EDL would need her in the first place … It was amusing to see “nemisis” struggle to cope with reality.
People like “nemisis” and “Really” had no response to any of the previous points. None. In their worldview, everything is simple. Anyone who questions them when they start talking about the existence of “moderate Muslims” is guilty of thoughtcrime, and must therefore be a supporter of one of the most evil men in history. People like “nemisis” and “Really” are obviously idiots. But that’s the calibre of person you will find in the EDL today.
When it comes to explaining what it is about Islam they are protesting about, the EDL are utterly incompetent. The best that “nemisis” could do when I asked him how he would define a “moderate Muslim” was to say that they were less extreme than an extreme Muslim. This isn’t helpful. And if anyone wants to learn more about the Islamic faith and its history, there are plenty EDL supporters ready to smear authors like Robert Spencer and Bruce Bawer. (After all, they’re American, don’t you know?) One particular user, who calls himself “Land of my Fathes” repeatedly engaged in ad hominem attacks aimed at Spencer, despite being unable to show that anything he said about the author was true.
In light of the fact that people like Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Oriana Fallaci, Michel Houellebecq, Robert Redeker and Salman Rushdie have all been persecuted for speaking about Islam, and the EDL has said it is against “radical” Islam, it was surprising to see the EDL letting people like “Land of my Fathes” smear Robert Spencer on their own website. Then again, according to PC doctrine, anyone who discusses Islam honestly is, in a way that has never been made clear, guilty of racism. Thoughtcrime. There are several people on the EDL website who have successfully assimilated this PC idea, and they spend a great deal of time trying to prevent anyone from educating themselves about Islam by reading authors like Spencer. Despite the EDL’s fine words, despite posing with fancy black sweatshirts so they’d look windswept and interesting, the fact is they participate in a corrupt and intellectually dishonest form of censorship.
Soon after I began posting on the EDL website, Trevor Kelway (one of the EDL leaders) emailed me and asked if I would like to write articles for them. But I won’t be doing anything to support the EDL. There are one or two thoughtful, well educated people on the EDL website, but all too often, the rantings of the ignorant take precedence.
There are too many people involved with the EDL who can’t even spell argument (yes “nemisis”, that means you), never mind construct one. The moderators of the EDL website are in thrall to these people too. Neither group has the slightest idea of how to cope when someone points out the flaws in their thinking. If you do that to people like “nemisis” on the forum, you’re called a Nazi, and if you do it to a mod, then you’re banned. So if that’s your level, go ahead and sign up.
But if you want to sit down and discuss serious issues in a rational manner, then the EDL is not for you.
labour lied
Well the cat’s out of the bag now. A former government man, Andrew Neather, has admitted that the Labour government deliberately introduced a policy of mass immigration, and deliberately refused to discuss this with British voters.
The catastrophic nature of this secret policy is twofold: The country has changed, possibly irrevocably, due to this decision by Labour politicians. What’s more the secret nature of their decision and their reluctance to discuss what they were doing openly is completely contrary to the principles of democracy and freedom of speech.
Sources: Daily Mail, The Telegraph, Sky News.
suspected al qaeda nut arrested at nuclear facility
French authorities have arrested an engineer working at the CERN nuclear research lab on suspicion of having contact with the Al-Qaeda Islamist network, officials connected with the case said on Friday.
Source: France 24
Christopher Hitchens in Australia
Christopher Hitchens is due to speak at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas tomorrow at the Opera House in Sydney. Should be a good event!
Source: Sydney Morning Herald.
Man charged in London
A man named Amir Ali has been charged the by Metropolican Police with “the intention of committing acts of terrorism or assisting another to commit (such) acts.” He has appeared at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London, and was remanded in custody to appear at the Old Bailey on October 16th.
Source: AOL News.
Patrick Swayze dies
Patrick Swayze has died at home, with his family around him. Swayze recently filmed the TV series “The Beast” while still battling pancreatic cancer. One of the producers said in an interview that everyone involved with the programme was aware that they were working in the shadow of a tremendous act of courage. Swayze will be sadly missed.
Source: Sky News
eight years on …
Britain, two generations hence, threatens to become a mere camp site for 77 million people of many races, for whom this represents a mere place to sleep, eat and make money.
A sobering article from Max Hastings, writing for the Mail. See link.
tough on crime? not on your life
Gordon Brown told Labour’s 2007 conference that any foreign nationals who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder would be deported once they’d done their time. It’s now being reported that Jack Straw let three such murderers back out on to the streets. So either Brown was lying, or Straw is the biggest sap on the face of the earth. Tough on crime? In control of immigration? Well, Jacqui Smith did try to stop Geert Wilders from travelling to the UK …
Source: AOL News.
