Proportionality

[Roy Twing]

1. I don't remember anyone arguing that violence and terrorism was not connected to Islam. A very perverted idea of Islam, but an idea none the less. The dispute has been about the significance of Islam in the child sex abuse. By the way, I don't fall for the line that because those offenders tried to use it in their defence, so it WAS connected. That's just someone trying to find something , anything, in mitigation.
2. I'd be happy to listen to the programme, if you would tell me where to look. Perhaps in return you will try listening to the new series of More or Less which quietly deflates quite a lot of standpoints? More or Less was broadcast a few times during the referendum and it completely undermined the £360m/week stuff. It's a pity more people were not listening.

1. I haven't the time or the patience to go over all of this with you again for the umpteenth time. Your blind spot is impossible to defeat.

2. You need to go to the LBC website and search for o'brien's podcasts - I think the one in question is dated 17th August (nawaz is standing in for O'Brien)
I will listen to the more or less thing out of courtesy, when time permits. But as m4rkb has said, a report by the staunchly anti-brexit BBC is hardly going to be unbiased, so expect a derisive (but justified) review.

[Hillman avenger]

Which is my point.
If you take the referendum it was the only place where you could judge the "facts" both sides threw at us.

[Ralph]

1. I don't remember anyone arguing that violence and terrorism was not connected to Islam. A very perverted idea of Islam, but an idea none the less. The dispute has been about the significance of Islam in the child sex abuse. By the way, I don't fall for the line that because those offenders tried to use it in their defence, so it WAS connected. That's just someone trying to find something , anything, in mitigation.
2. I'd be happy to listen to the programme, if you would tell me where to look. Perhaps in return you will try listening to the new series of More or Less which quietly deflates quite a lot of standpoints? More or Less was broadcast a few times during the referendum and it completely undermined the £360m/week stuff. It's a pity more people were not listening.

1. I haven't the time or the patience to go over all of this with you again for the umpteenth time. Your blind spot is impossible to defeat.

2. You need to go to the LBC website and search for o'brien's podcasts - I think the one in question is dated 17th August (nawaz is standing in for O'Brien)
I will listen to the more or less thing out of courtesy, when time permits. But as m4rkb has said, a report by the staunchly anti-brexit BBC is hardly going to be unbiased, so expect a derisive (but justified) review.

The BBC aren't staunchly anti Brexit. Just in the last couple of days they've been caught out pushing Brexit propoganda as a top news story.

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/uk/ ... it-claims/

[colinthewarriormonkey]

I rather like Maajid Nawaz. I wish they'd put him on at 1 pm instead of that fucking ghastly Fogarty woman.

I always switch off when she comes on.

[Ralph]

I rather like Maajid Nawaz. I wish they'd put him on at 1 pm instead of that fucking ghastly Fogarty woman.

I always switch off when she comes on.

Agreed. Nothing against her. The show's just a bit dull.

Edit - I have got one small thing against her. She is a strike breaker.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/ ... SApp_Other

[Roy Twing]

Which is my point.
If you take the referendum it was the only place where you could judge the "facts" both sides threw at us.

Not sure I follow your logic - you are saying that an evidently pro-remain 'news' medium is the best place to equally judge both sides of the debate?

[m4rkb]

I rather like Maajid Nawaz. I wish they'd put him on at 1 pm instead of that fucking ghastly Fogarty woman.

I always switch off when she comes on.

Agreed. Nothing against her. The show's just a bit dull.

Edit - I have got one small thing against her. She is a strike breaker.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/ ... SApp_Other

It's rapidly getting to the point where our only hope of sensible debate is through rational people like Nawaz who come from ethnic backgrounds. The exact same points he makes when made by white people are somehow deemed racist. All is not lost just yet and I'm going to make an obviously racist point right here: Some decisions need to have white people excluded for the benefit of general society . Not all white people of course, just blinkered progressives. I'd be glad to swap every white progressive in a position of power for sensible BME thinkers like MAajid Nawaz and many more from the black community. Trouble is that crop would be picked by white progressives and they'd actually be Islamists or BLM supporters so as not to be Islamophobic or racist.

[Ralph]

I rather like Maajid Nawaz. I wish they'd put him on at 1 pm instead of that fucking ghastly Fogarty woman.

I always switch off when she comes on.

Agreed. Nothing against her. The show's just a bit dull.

Edit - I have got one small thing against her. She is a strike breaker.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/ ... SApp_Other

It's rapidly getting to the point where our only hope of sensible debate is through rational people like Nawaz who come from ethnic backgrounds. The exact same points he makes when made by white people are somehow deemed racist. All is not lost just yet and I'm going to make an obviously racist point right here: Some decisions need to have white people excluded for the benefit of general society . Not all white people of course, just blinkered progressives. I'd be glad to swap every white progressive in a position of power for sensible BME thinkers like MAajid Nawazand many more from the black community. Trouble is that crop would be picked by white progressives and they'd actually be Islamists or BLM supporters so as not to be Islamophobic or racist.

You're not in a position to swap anyone m4krb. Get over yourself.

[Ralph]

From Maajid Nawaz Wikipedia

Nationalism and far-right movements

According to Nawaz, nationalism hinders the fight against Islamist extremism, and democratic states must adopt a transnational outlook to combat this challenge. He also termed nationalism a corrosive ideology that led to two World Wars, and advocates a citizenship model for states which is based on allegiance, instead of race or religion. Nawaz is also a critic of far-right movements that have emerged in Europe, and accuses them of harbouring disdain for ordinary Muslims. According to him, far-right xenophobes and Islamists agree upon one thing: the impossibility of Muslim and non-Muslim cohabitation in Europe. As a solution, he proposes the assertion of liberalism which can shine through the fogs of these extremes.

In a CNN interview, he condemned Donald Trump's remarks about banning Muslims from entering the United States. He explained that when leaders pump up their followers by promising them utopian visions, and then fail to deliver on those promises, followers take action into their own hands. He expressed his concern that disappointed followers of Trump will "end up joining fascist or far-right groups" and take matters into their own hands against the eight million Muslims in the United States".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz

Can't help feeling this doesn't quite fit with the views of the right wingers on here. Seems closer to my view.

[Roy Twing]

From Maajid Nawaz Wikipedia

Nationalism and far-right movements

According to Nawaz, nationalism hinders the fight against Islamist extremism, and democratic states must adopt a transnational outlook to combat this challenge. He also termed nationalism a corrosive ideology that led to two World Wars, and advocates a citizenship model for states which is based on allegiance, instead of race or religion. Nawaz is also a critic of far-right movements that have emerged in Europe, and accuses them of harbouring disdain for ordinary Muslims. According to him, far-right xenophobes and Islamists agree upon one thing: the impossibility of Muslim and non-Muslim cohabitation in Europe. As a solution, he proposes the assertion of liberalism which can shine through the fogs of these extremes.

In a CNN interview, he condemned Donald Trump's remarks about banning Muslims from entering the United States. He explained that when leaders pump up their followers by promising them utopian visions, and then fail to deliver on those promises, followers take action into their own hands. He expressed his concern that disappointed followers of Trump will "end up joining fascist or far-right groups" and take matters into their own hands against the eight million Muslims in the United States".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz

Can't help feeling this doesn't quite fit with the views of the right wingers on here. Seems closer to my view.

It does.
He's wrong.

[m4rkb]

He's allowed his view. I've no argument about that but I generally disagree with it. He's rational enough to debate the issue properly though so does not allow any valid issue to be excluded from the debate as progressive lefties do all the time. His view of liberalism probably isn't this new kind but the old style classical liberalism which most people from all backgrounds largely believe in as well.

The fact he offers an alternative view and is prepared to debate it is still a step forward from trying it with progressive types. At least a proper, open debate can be had.

[m4rkb]

It seems old Maajid agrees with my previous comments about the progressive left no longer being liberal.

I'm afraid it's another finger in your ears job for you lot who will pretend not to have watched it and require the rest of us to precis it for you. Maybe you haven't got the time to watch it or the dog needs taking to the vet so you missed it.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/m ... r-liberal/