Blogcritics Comments on Thinly Veiled Islamophobia

Comment by interfaccia on Thinly Veiled Islamophobia

Sat, 17 Feb 2007 00:18:18 EST

Lavoro grande con il luogo! Siete il padrone!

Comment by Jamie Stern-Weiner on Thinly Veiled Islamophobia

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:32:56 EST

"I still think you sound like a High-School debating captain." So you keep saying, but I don't know why. What do you want me to do with that? Fine, maybe I do, so what? Comments like this are just meaningless. Anyone can say them. Look, I can too: S.T.M, get off your high moralising horse for a second and consider the real issue. You sound like my janitor. It doesn't mean anything, so let's stick to the issues. "The two things are very much related, in that the wearing of head and body coverings by muslim women is largely a dictate brought about by the mores of muslim men." I don't see how that follows at all. Something can only be a dictate if it involves coercion. In this country, most women who wear the veil do so out of choice. So there's no dictate. Furthermore, because British Muslim women who wear the veil do so out of choice, they are able to give reasons for why they made that choice. And I haven't heard any woman say she wears the veil because she wants to surrender herself to the 'mores of muslim men'. "This skewed thinking, too, has no place in modern Britain ... or modern anywhere, for that matter. The full veil is medieval in its conception and does nothing for the rights of women." Well, to be fair, I think that it is a bit unreasonable to expect a piece of cloth to do something for 'the rights of women'. It's a piece of cloth! And as I said, I would have thought that freedom of expression is a very liberal, progressive value, and one I most certainly want to see in modern Britain. "And as Jack Straw has said, it may even encourage racism." Yes, he said that, and I explained in the article why I disagree. Yes, in order for racists to be racist, they need to have something to be racist about. In this case it's the veil. But in the battle between Islam and Islamophobia, or Judaism and anti-Semitism, or any group against any discrimination, who's side should we take? Should we combat the veil-wearers, the Jews and the minorities or should we combat the racists? The answer seems clear to me. "And BTW, the children at that Church of England school (the other part of this drama) did complain that they couldn't hear their teacher from behind the veil." All the newspaper accounts I've read of the story say the children didn't complain, and that she taught them unveiled. She only put on the veil when a male member of staff was present. But anyway, as I've said, the principle is that people should be allowed to do whatever they like so long as it does not harm other people. So if, in this case, the children's education was harmed by her wearing the veil, then she should either take it off or quit. But we're talking about in principle here. Just like even thought I may be against, for health and safety reasons, construction workers wearing stilletos, I am not against stilletos in principle.

Comment by S.T.M on Thinly Veiled Islamophobia

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:24:56 EST

Jamie: I still think you sound like a High-School debating captain. Get off your own pedestal for a moment and consider the current stink I have been discussing with you in relation to the wearing of both the hijab and the veil. Hilaly, in Australia, believes that unless women cover themselves, and stay in their homes "covered", they are making themselves targets for rape. In essence, he was quite clearly commenting on the long sentences handed down by the courts in the past couple of years to some horrific incidents of gang rape by separate groups of muslim men and boys (who it must be said are not the only males serving rape sentences in Australian jails). The two things are very much related, in that the wearing of head and body coverings by muslim women is largely a dictate brought about by the mores of muslim men. The full veil takes it all one step further, and has no place in the modern world. It is up to us to fight anachronisms such as this, and the skewed thinking that goes with it, rather than "Brtitish values". One comes from liberal, free thought ... the other from a school of thought that would have us turn the clock back many, many hundreds of years. This skewed thinking, too, has no place in modern Britain ... or modern anywhere, for that matter. The full veil is medieval in its conception and does nothing for the rights of women. And as Jack Straw has said, it may even encourage racism. And BTW, the children at that Church of England school (the other part of this drama) did complain that they couldn't hear their teacher from behind the veil. I thought the fact they gave her a job in the first place and agreed to her wearing the hijab showed how much Britain is not any longer a racist society. There have been the usual "scratch the surface" whispers, but let's look clearly at this: This is a religious Anglican school that hired a muslim teacher, for heaven's sake. The only problem they had was with the full veil, which she didn't wear or mention at the interview. She's fighting it in court, of course, and the British taxpayer once again will be funding it. The whole thing's absurd and another bloody-minded exercise in boundary pushing to see what the reaction will be.

Comment by Jamie Stern-Weiner on Thinly Veiled Islamophobia

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:52:19 EST

I don't see how you can reconcile yourself with that notion, but I also don't see how it's relevent here. Who, exactly, is proclaiming that your friends and family are worthless? As you said, in some countries women are forced to wear the veil. That's terrible, and the thing that's terrible about it is not the veil, but the coercion. In this society, there are women who wear the veil out of choice, and so there is no coercion. Hence, it's not terrible at all. So who exactly do you feel is 'going out of their way' to proclaim your friends and family worthless?

Comment by tina on Thinly Veiled Islamophobia

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:28:14 EST

I don't have to like the veil. I have some treasured friends who because of lifestyle choice, genetic inclination, social situations or one of many other reasons, could ligitimately be put to death in countries which allow the shiria to be the foundation of their legal systems for not better reason than mohammed says this or that is bad. So in choosing to dress in this way, and be percieved as a pious muslim, the people who do this are also aligning themselves with some aspects of islam which I abjure. Can someone help me reconcile myself with the notion that I should stand up for someone who seems to be going out of their way to proclaim that some of my friends and family are worthless.

Comment by Jamie Stern-Weiner on Thinly Veiled Islamophobia

Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:41:56 EDT

STM: "My ancestry as a Briton goes back thousands of years and I resent people who want to take advantage of that history and that very liberal society of which I am part (and not just because of a piece of paper informing me I'm a citizen), to tell me that I should reassess what my values are." Unless you feel that the length of someone's 'ancestry' in a certain place determines the value of their opinion, that's completely irrelevent. No-one is demanding you reassess anything. Has anyone tried to force you to wear a veil? The only one telling other people to reassess their values is you. "But when people are taking advantage of that, perhaps it's time to tell them where to get off." Do you call exercising those rights 'taking advantage of them'? If you disagree with people who exercise those rights, you are, in effect, disagreeing with the rights themselves. Why would I respond to Shiek Halily's comments? As I said in my reply, I can't see how its at all relevent to this discussion. A woman choosing to cover her face with a cloth is completely different from a Shiek going around saying that women who have been raped deserve it for the way they have been dressing. One is an expression of progressive and liberal rights, the other is a stupid idea that should be debated in public to show how stupid it is. I can't see your point. Ruvy: You're doing your usual thing, where if you have nothing to say about the actual article, you launch into a long analysis about me as a person - an impressive feat, considering all you know of me are the articles I have published here. Invariable, you conclude that I hate myself because I'm Jewish and that I have betrayed my 'brethren' and my Jewishness. Yawn. Firstly, I was not brought up in Israel - I left when I was three. Since leaving, I have not spent even one second looking into Judaism and its rites, because it doesn't interest me. I care very much about my own values, some of which include the right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Where I feel they are being violated, or are in danger of being violated (as here), I try to speak out. It's quite simple. This article had absolutely nothing to do with Jews, Jewishness, shofars or Israel, which is why I didn't, and won't, waste any time talking about those subjects. And if you read above, I think you will find it is others making a 'stink' out of British values, not me. I think the whole idea of 'British values' is anachronstic and nonsensical.

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem on Thinly Veiled Islamophobia

Thu, 26 Oct 2006 03:08:27 EDT

You know, Jamie, I can scarcely believe what I read from you! The original article defending the use of the veil is something I would expect from Jamal, a fellow writer for Blog Critics Magazine. He lives in Britain and is a Moslem, and this is an issue that could legitimately concern him. You take up the cudgels for Moslem women to wear the veil - this, in spite of the fact that Moslems, when they get pissed off at Jews like you, call them their dogs, (al yahud kalabna) and usually follow such a demonstration of sentiment with some kind of violent rioting behavior. So your attitude could be taken as the sign of the liberal minded fellow - until you say (comment #41) that "until you mentioned it in this article, I never heard of a shofar." You grew up in Israel and you never heard of a shofar, Jamie? What insular rock of secular ignorance was your family hiding under there? Did they hate Judaism that much that you learnt nothing of it while living there? When I gave you the opportunity to defend the right of a fellow Jew to worship in his own homeland when persecuted by police, you shrugged it off with all the ignorance of a dumb Hiloni (Hiloni means "helenist" or secular; not all Hiloni in Israel are dumb)) with no education at all except video games and TV. I know that you are not that stupid. And even a dumb Hiloni in Israel, snigger as he might at religious Jews, knows what a shofar is. Jamie, you argue at these issues like Mistress la Spliffe says you do, with no feel for them at all. And while you make an awful big stink about Britsh values, you don't give a damn about your own - the ones you hide and run away from. And you argue your points like a debate captain sitting on the pointy end of a pencil trying to get marks for skill, like Stan Denham describes you. The two of them have got you described like a red nosed shilling (go ahead, look it up, you might learn something - both about coins and authenticity) and that is no compliment.

Comment by STM on Thinly Veiled Islamophobia

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:28:10 EDT

Actually, I have every right to say whatever I want (within reason). In my view, what I say IS within reason and very moderate compared to some of the blithering nonsense thrown up around this stuff. And sadly, British common law often foolishly dictates bizarre scenarios that give rights to people who don't want us to have any under their world view of what is right and wrong. Yet that being the case, all I'm saying here is that it differs from mine. My ancestry as a Briton goes back thousands of years and I resent people who want to take advantage of that history and that very liberal society of which I am part (and not just because of a piece of paper informing me I'm a citizen), to tell me that I should reassess what my values are. The values that are important to me are compassion, tolerance, freedom of speech and the right to a fair go. Everyone is Britain has a right to expect those things. But when people are taking advantage of that, perhaps it's time to tell them where to get off. I notice you didn't respond to my comment about Sheik Hilaly's comments, which also included a line about women wearing skimpy attire being akin to an abandoned, uncovered "piece of meat" - in other words, I presume, help yourselves. He asked, if cats came and ate it, whose fault would that be ... the meat or the cats'. Although that is in Australia (Australian common law is virtually identical to British common law, so the same arguments apply) it is these kinds of attitudes, particularly among some (not all, by a long shot) muslim men, that are where the problems are arising. It is right for us to question this stuff. In my view, the wearing of the full veil is dictated by the mores of muslim men, rather than women. But that's another agument.

Comment by Jamie Stern-Weiner on Thinly Veiled Islamophobia

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:15:09 EDT

"I have every right to define what British values are, as a holder of dual citizenship, in the same way that muslims have every right to define what muslim values are (God knows they DO let me know)." Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. It is your citizenship that gives the right to define for yourself what British values are. Just like those veiled women, who also have British citizenship, have a right to define for themselves what British values mean to them. Neither of you have the right to impose on each other your own interpretations or definition of what constitute 'British values'. The only universal British values are those enshrined in British common law. "People just get sick of the bullshit, mate." I don't see how your story was relevent. Perhaps it was to illustrate that people connect, falsely, extremism with things like the niqab or hijab, and so eventually they just get 'sick of the bullshit' and say 'to hell with it all'. But the connection is false. "Not a problem, but marking yourself out as an adherent of radical muslim though - which is really what a full veil signifies - is in my view an exercise in pushing the envelope to see how far you can go before you start pissing people off." What, you think that really Muslim women are just sitting around joking, seeing how far they can push it before being told off, like naughty schoolchildren? Come on. The full veil doesn't signify extremism, except in instances where it has been forced on the woman. Where a woman is wearing it out of choice, it is a symbol of freedom of expression and religious freedom, two values which I would have thought are very Western and progressive. "It's not blind tribal/racist stuff. It's just railing against the double standards of people who think they can do whatever they like." First of all - what double standards? Secondly, its not that they can do whatever they like. They are bound by the law, as is every other citizen. What you seem to object to is that, as with every other citizen, they also get the right to wear whatever the hell they want, so long as it doesn't harm other people. "It's more like, we invited you into our home but you keep shitting on the carpet. All I'm saying is, use the toilet please like everyone else." That's a nonsense. Just for a start, it is their home as much as it is yours. They are British citizens, as are you. And just as they can't say, 'we're inviting you in to our home, so do as we tell you and cover yourself up, because we feel "uncomfortable" looking at bare flesh', so you have no right to say the exact same thing to them.

Comment by S.T.M on Thinly Veiled Islamophobia

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:32:08 EDT

Jamie: For God's sake grow up. You are starting to sound like a high-school debating captain who's just sat on the pointy end of a pencil. I define "the buggers" (and as you know, in the UK it's a term that's in general usage to describe anyone who's annoying you) as muslims who are pushing the boundaries of what others will tolerate (in a very tolerant society), not as a perjorative term for muslim women. I have every right to define what British values are, as a holder of dual citizenship, in the same way that muslims have every right to define what muslim values are (God knows they DO let me know). Here's an example: today in Sydney, which also has a very large muslim population, the Sheik Hilaly, the local muslim leader, has said that western women who wear skimpy clothes are responsible in some if they are sexually attacked because they invite it by their dress. It's not the first time he's expressed such sentiments. This is a city where the past few years in the courts have seen some dreadful gang rapes by muslim boys and men on local girls (most were girls, rather than women). Of course, in once case the men involved blamed "cultural differences". The evidence painted it differently. It is part of the reason why simmering tensions spilled over into rioting at the beach last year (sparked by some lebanese boys who bashed up a lifesaver who told them to behave). People just get sick of the bullshit, mate. As I've said, wear the hijab if you must. I have just driven my daughter to school in a very anglo suburb of Sydney and passed a woman wearing the hijab. Normally, were this debate not taking place, it wouldn't even have registered. Not a problem, but marking yourself out as an adherent of radical muslim though - which is really what a full veil signifies - is in my view an exercise in pushing the envelope to see how far you can go before you start pissing people off. We are among the most tolerant societies on the planet, yet even in these places there is a backlash. It's not blind tribal/racist stuff. It's just railing against the double standards of people who think they can do whatever they like. It's more like, we invited you into our home but you keep shitting on the carpet. All I'm saying is, use the toilet please like everyone else.

Comment by gonzo marx on Thinly Veiled Islamophobia

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:00:37 EDT

Richard in #40 sez... *Are you paranoid of xenophobic racists, like myself, who wear your kind of insults as a badge of honor?* well now, no need to be paranoid when the individual proudly asserts that they are a xenophobic racist so, nothing to be paranoid about... "know your Enemy" Excelsior?

Comment by Richard Brodie on Thinly Veiled Islamophobia

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:54:05 EDT

Tell me Jamie, aren't you just a little bit jealous (not to mention ashamed) that I am still free to express a non-politically correct point of view, while you and your fellow Britons have frittered away that right for yourselves?

Comment by Jamie Stern-Weiner on Thinly Veiled Islamophobia

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:03:17 EDT

M. La Spliffe: It's all that should matter. Obviously, as you point out, some people think that other things matter, like whether or not they feel 'uncomfortable'. I think they're wrong, and I've tried to explain why in the article. I think I am engaging with the question as it stands. I have given my answer to such questions as 'is wearing the full veil a barrier to integration/a mark of separation?', 'should women wear the veil?', 'should women have the right to wear the veil?', 'should Jack Straw have said what he did?'. I think those are the important questions, and I have tried to answer all of them. Richard: You're obviously not being serious, and I'm not going to waste any more time answering you.

Comment by Richard Brodie on Thinly Veiled Islamophobia

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:58:45 EDT

let's assume that wearing a full veil means a teacher can't give a lesson as well, and so children's education suffers, because they can't see her face or whatever. Then teachers should not be allowed to wear veils. In a way, wearing a veil could be advantageous to a child's education. Facial expression is often used as an effective way of communicating disapproval - as when a child might want to express his opinion that multiculturalism is a crock of shit. In this case he could avoid being quite so brainwashed, if a veil concealed the teachers frown! I would not support the right of a chef to work naked, because it would be unhygienic Not if he didn't piss in the soup! if a couple wanted to just take a walk in the park completely naked, then I would have no problem with that (unless it is illegal, in which case I would have a problem with them breaking the law.) Well hopefully Europeans will make wearing veils in public illegal, as a prelude to kicking the Mulsims out of their countries completely - well, not literally kicking them out, but offering irresistable repatriation incentives, a la the BNP's sensible proposal.

Comment by Mistress La Spliffe on Thinly Veiled Islamophobia

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:57:46 EDT

"All that matters is that wearing the veil does not intrinsically harm anyone, and so women who choose to wear one should not have to deal with people constantly 'tut tutting' and demanding they remove it." Except, obviously, that's not all that matters, or this wouldn't be an issue. And what you say several times doesn't get any closer to right each time. I like the fairness and removal of your non-religious point of view, Jamie, but you're just not engaging with the question as it stands.

Comment by Jamie Stern-Weiner on Thinly Veiled Islamophobia

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:47:59 EDT

The vast majority of the backlash against Straw, what little there is of it, is not because people think he didn't have a right to say what he did, but because they thought it was irresponsible, opportunistic, cynical and, well, wrong. "You're treating this issue like someone who doesn't know or care anything about the varieties of faith, so why you're arguing about how you think the interpretation of religion works when it comes to a faith as coherent in its precepts as Islam, I've got no idea . . . I'm not arguing about how interpreting religion works. I can't think of a more boring subject to talk about. It's just that several times now you have said that Islam doesn't command women to wear the veil, and so this is a cultural as opposed to a religious issue. I've said that, in fact, the women themselves see it as a religious issue and there is debate in the Islamic community about whether Islam requires the veil or not, and so this is most definitely a religious as well as cultural issue. I've also said several times that whether or not it is a religious or cultural or both issue doesn't matter even one iota. "Finally, if these women didn't have to provide a defence or motives, why appear on Question Time to talk about their religious motives for wearing the veil?" Because people keep asking them, demanding them even, to give reasons, and so they chose to. But they didn't have to. My point is that whether or not any of us approves or disproves of a woman's reason for a wearing a veil doesn't matter. All that matters is that wearing the veil does not intrinsically harm anyone, and so women who choose to wear one should not have to deal with people constantly 'tut tutting' and demanding they remove it.

Comment by Mistress La Spliffe on Thinly Veiled Islamophobia

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:40:54 EDT

Good god, Jamie, I don't care what you said about Straw. I'm talking about the reality of the backlash against him. You're treating this issue like someone who doesn't know or care anything about the varieties of faith, so why you're arguing about how you think the interpretation of religion works when it comes to a faith as coherent in its precepts as Islam, I've got no idea . . . Finally, if these women didn't have to provide a defence or motives, why appear on Question Time to talk about their religious motives for wearing the veil? In a participatory society we have to explain and defend our motives all the time. Especially when the actions that come out of them make other groups in the society uncomfortable.

Comment by Jamie Stern-Weiner on Thinly Veiled Islamophobia

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:30:37 EDT

M. La Spliffe: "These women are going beyond the demands of religion in wearing a veil over their face." But they would disagree with you. And, since religion is open to interpretation, there would be little way of proving that either one of you were right. "Using religion as a motive and defence for doing so - well - it's lousy theology and I don't see why it should be respected as theology." But no-one's using it as a defence. It is, for some, a motive - but they don't need to provide a motive or a defence. No motive is needed. All that matters is that some women want to wear veils, which are instrinsically harmless. "I also respect Straw and any other non-Muslim's right to talk about being uncomfortable about having a face-to-face conversation with a veiled woman without being treated as though they're pissing on a whole religion." I absolutely support the right of Jack Straw to raise the issue, although I think he was wrong to do so. And I've never said that by doing so, he was "pissing on a whole religion". Richard Brodie: "emember, these are situations in which you advocate Muslim women being able to appear with their faces completely COVERED." No, that's false. I don't think women should be allowed to wear veils wherever. For the sake of argument, let's assume that wearing a full veil means a teacher can't give a lesson as well, and so children's education suffers, because they can't see her face or whatever. Then teachers should not be allowed to wear veils. I've never said otherwise. Likewise, I would not support the right of a chef to work naked, because it would be unhygienic. The principle that we should apply to it all is this: people should be allowed to do whatever they watn as long as it does not harm anybody else. But, for example, if a couple wanted to just take a walk in the park completely naked, then I would have no problem with that (unless it is illegal, in which case I would have a problem with them breaking the law. But I don't think it should be illegal).

Comment by Richard Brodie on Thinly Veiled Islamophobia

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:08:08 EDT

Heathlander says: I have absolutely no problem with nudists whatsoever. I don't either, as long as they confine their disrobing to private places. But we're talking about PUBLIC places here, aren't we? So be clear with us. Do you have absolutely no problem WHATSOEVER with nudists going around completely naked in public, and nudist TEACHERS having no clothes on while in front of a classroom of children? Remember, these are situations in which you advocate Muslim women being able to appear with their faces completely COVERED. Your answer will tell us whether my analogy fails or not - i.e. whether your advocacy of multiculturalism is hypocritical.

Comment by Mistress La Spliffe on Thinly Veiled Islamophobia

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:04:50 EDT

Alright. These women are going beyond the demands of religion in wearing a veil over their face. They're choosing to do something Allah, as such, never asked them to do and that the women in Mohammed's family probably didn't do. Using religion as a motive and defence for doing so - well - it's lousy theology and I don't see why it should be respected as theology. It would be like a Christian thinking Jesus didn't want him to drink carrot juice. That would be madness - unless the Christian came from a culture where botulism ran rampant and over time it had got easier to teach children carrot juice was evil, rather than carrot juice used to give you botulism. The difference is, Christians can get away with writing a new book or starting a new church to enshrine such things. Muslims can't because of their relationship with the Koran. They don't have a religion you can make up as you go along; they have one remarkably coherent text that is open to interpretation, and basta. This DOES tie into the present veil debate with Straw. I doubt his motives; I think he's a policial opportunist playing into British fears by stirring up anger; but he's arguing from a cultural perspective (veils make it hard for me to communicate one on one) about a cultural construct (I wear a veil to preserve my modesty) which doesn't make complete sense in the society where it is being carried out (one where men are dissuaded from assaulting women by a more or less functioning rule of law - maybe a little less in Yorkshire). So, while I disrespect Straw's motives, and I feel women should be allowed to wear little seal pup bikinis in front of their classroom if they damn well want to, I also respect Straw and any other non-Muslim's right to talk about being uncomfortable about having a face-to-face conversation with a veiled woman without being treated as though they're pissing on a whole religion.

Comment by Jamie Stern-Weiner on Thinly Veiled Islamophobia

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:44:22 EDT

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Many of the women who I've heard speaking about why they chose to wear a full veil (for example, a lady spoke about it on Question Time on Thursday) say that they were it out of choice, to get 'deeper' into their religion. It's a religious as well as cultural matter. (Of course, all this is irrelevent in terms of the actual veil debate, but nevertheless I can't see what you're going on about...)

Comment by Mistress La Spliffe on Thinly Veiled Islamophobia

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:41:23 EDT

Jamie, my point was that your point wasn't really a point. Islam is more open to interpretation than most people feel it is, but the decision to wear a veil is far more cultural than religious because of the way Muslims' relationship with the Koran is supposed to work. This remains true no matter how arbitrary a set of fairy tales you, personally, consider religious faith to be.

Comment by Jamie Stern-Weiner on Thinly Veiled Islamophobia

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:32:15 EDT

M. La Spliffe: my point was that a) there is a debate about whether Islam demands the full veil and b) religion is completely arbitrary anyway. There's no difference between someone saying they believe their religion commands them to wear a veil and someone believing it doesn't. Religion is a personal thing - all religions are completely open to interpretation, as history has shown. zingzing: Let me clarify. Of course STM can produce his own personal definition of what he feels makes British culture. Every one of us can do so. But the only collective British culture, the only 'British culture' that everyone has to share in, is that which is enshrined in law. And although each of us may have our own ideas about what consitutes 'Britishness', none of us should expect anyone else to pay any attention to them, except when they cross into those basic, collective values enshrined in law. The whole idea of a British culture is pretty antiquated, and I can't see what useful purpose it now serves (except in the sense of those basic values enshrined in law).

Comment by Jamie Stern-Weiner on Thinly Veiled Islamophobia

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:25:18 EDT

Richard Brodie: you're being hysterical. I feel no need to waste my time arguing with someone who, when he looks at a Muslim, thinks they are trying to take over the world, and runs home to make more babies to ensure this doesn't happen. Ruvy: why do you always try and turn everything onto back onto the subject of Jews being hard done by? This was an article about the veil debate, and about rising Islamophobic hysteria in Britain (typified by the shrill Richard Brodie). I'd never even heard of a 'shofar' until that article. Where is the relevance?

Comment by Richard Brodie on Thinly Veiled Islamophobia

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:22:04 EDT

paranoid much? Your core vocabulary consists of three words: "xenophobia", "racism", and "paranoid". Are you paranoid of xenophobic racists, like myself, who wear your kind of insults as a badge of honor?