Friday, April 10, 2009

HATEWATCH: Tim Blair's buddies inadvertently accuse Jews of belonging to an "intolerant faith" ...

I've said and written this many a time. The prejudicial rhetoric used against certain minority groups today is merely a repetition of the prejudicial rhetoric used against other minority groups in times gone past. In the years leading upto the Holocaust, the European and Western far-Right imposed their uncontrolled and unmedicated hate toward anyone they deemed Jewish. Today they do the same against anyone deemed Muslim.

The regular band of nutbags that surround Daily Telegraph opinion editor Tim Blair are typical examples of this phenomenon. Even before his blog was hosted by the Tele, Blair allowed a host of racist commentary onto his site, including this classic about Rupert Murdoch's daughter.

Being hosted by a major newspaper appears not to have lifted the standards of comment at Planetim. Blair couldn't help but comment on the Royal North Shore Hospital beat-up, claiming that the hospital chapel had been "de-Jesused".

Aiming to avoid conflict and anger, the Royal North Shore Hospital has instead increased it.

But anger among who? It seems the only angry people are some of Tim Blair's cyber-nazis. Here are some of their rants:

kae replied to kae
Thu 09 Apr 09 (06:45pm)

We want a separate place.
We want you to abide by our rules.
We need to have special concessions because of our religion.
We need special food.
Why don’t you treat us the same as everyone else?
Before anyone bags out Jews and Jewish food requirements, just remember that Jews have never expected KFC, Maccas, et al, you and me, to change to suit them.

Aiming to avoid conflict and anger, the Royal North Shore Hospital has instead increased it.
It’s worse than that.
Why would a person of one faith be offended by seeing the religious symbols of another faith?
The only reason could be that their own faith is intolerant of others.
So, the question is: What is the hospital doing, validating and encouraging intolerant faiths?
Brett_McS of Newcastle (Reply)
Thu 09 Apr 09 (12:30pm)

John E replied to Brett_McS
Thu 09 Apr 09 (02:39pm)

Indeed, Brett.
It actually highlights the deep-rooted insecurity of these other, intolerant faiths.
For if their followers are so secure in their beliefs, they would surely not feel threatened or offended by the religious symbols of other faiths.

Hey, Tim.
On the evening news tonight no mention was made of who might be offended by crosses and bibles. In fact the news reader talked about the move without once mentioning Muslims.
kae (Reply)
Thu 09 Apr 09 (06:39pm)

OK, you know you have screwed up when the Muslims appear more tolerant.
pgrossjr (Reply)
Fri 10 Apr 09 (03:45am)
Yes, these intolerant people who want to support religious separatism, who impose their intolerant religion on us. Who are these nasty devious ugly despicable people with their intolerant religion? Why kind of foreign Middle Eastern force is at work here? What kind of people would support a hospital chapel being "de-Jesused"?

Well, you'd have to have read the hard-copy version of Sydney's Daily Telegraph on Thursday 9 April to know the answer. On page 2, health reporter Kate Sikora writes:

The Australian/Jewish Affairs Council [sic.] supported the hospital, saying more people would be likely to use the chapel.

Bren Carlill, a policy analyst, said some from other religions might be offended.

"The fact that they are willing to go to such lengths to encourage religious communities to worship is great," he said. "There are people from lots of different groups who almost like getting offended - and then there are the other people who don't get offended."
So which nasty evil foreign intolerant separatist group supports such actions and has earned the ire of Tim Blair's buddies for having a hospital chapel "de-Jesused"?

But don't dare describe Tim Blair as a racist. He doesn't need to be. His commenters to it all for him. Tim just moderates it all.

UPDATE I: In case it matters, Bren Carlill happens not to be Jewish.

UPDATE II: As if to confirm the above, Tim Blair doesn't hesitate to source a story from neo-Nazi Sheik Yer'mami. It's not the first time Blair has used the "Yer'mami News Network".

And what kind of material does Yer'mami publish? Well, his website currently carries this poll:

Are you convinced now that Obama is a Marxist Muslim?

°No way!

°More Marxist than Muslim

°More Muslim than Marxist

°Muslim ueber alles!
Thus far, out of 50 votes, 17 persons have voted Obama is more Marxist than Muslim while another 17 have voted him more Muslim than Marxist. 12 have voted he is Muslim ueber alles. It would be interesting to know which way Tim Blair voted.

And read this extraordinary gushing tribute to Austrian neo-Nazi politician Joerg Haider from Yer'mami. Here's what Ha'aretz has to say about Haider:

He commended the Third Reich's employment policy, called SS members "decent people," compared the Jews' deportation during the war to the expulsion of the German Sudetens and described the extermination camps as "punishment camps."

... he said that "every foreigner, even if he's a criminal, receives more government support than an Austrian pensioner," or "it makes no difference whether it's a Romanian pickpocket or a Socialist finance minister who's taking the money out of your pocket." Or, "did you know that under Socialist rule, a black African with a fashionable suit and a state-of-the art cell phone can sell drugs unhindered?"
What delightful sources the opinion editor of the Daily Telegraph has.

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf

Bookmark this on Delicious


Get Flocked

VIDEO: US conservatives still talking Turkey over the "Judeo-Christian" nation ...

Some alleged conservatives in the United States are getting their nickers in a knot (or should that be knickers in a not?) over President Obama's remarks at a joint press conference with his counterpart in Turkey. It seems some are still peddling this myth that there is such a thing as a Judeo-Christian tradition.

In Australia, conservatives have also been peddling this myth of our country being founded on "Judeo-Christian values". Peter Costello has made such claims from time to time. Including during a speech he made to a crowd of Pentecostal Christians at Scots Church in Melbourne in 2004.

If the Arab traders that brought Islam to Australia, had … settled or spread their faith among the Indigenous population, our country today would be vastly different. Our laws, our institutions, our economy would be vastly different.

But that did not happen. Our society was founded by British colonists. And the single most decisive feature that determined the way it developed was the Judeo-Christian-Western tradition. As a society, we are who we are because of that tradition … one founded on that faith and one that draws on the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Indeed he's right. Arab traders didn't bring Islam to Australia. Indonesian fisherman did. But they didn't come here to preach and conquer but rather to trade with local indigenous people in the Northern Territory. And these Indonesian fishermen kept trading up until the early part of the twentieth century when their centuries-old trade was stopped by legislators in Adelaide behaving in an allegedly Judeo-Christian manner.

But what of this whole idea of Judeo-Christian values? When did they come about? And what role, if any, did the "Judeo" bit play in the 18th century? At this point it might be appropriate to plagiarise myself:

Costello’s 2004 speech suggests only the traditions of British colonists mattered. Australia’s first few fleets consisted of a handful of English free settlers accompanying shiploads of convicts of various faiths - Jews, Catholics, Muslims and a smattering of perhaps reluctant followers of the Church of England.

Costello’s much touted Judeo-Christian culture wasn’t exactly alive and well in England. Both colonists and convicts would have been aware of the passing of the Jew Bill through the English Parliament in 1753, allowing Jews to be naturalised by application to Parliament. Mr Costello’s ideological ancestors, the Tories, opposed the Bill, claiming it involved an “abandonment of Christianity”. Conservative protesters burnt effigies of Jews and carried placards reading “No Jews, no wooden shoes”.

Jews were forbidden from attending university and practising law in England until the mid 19th century. One can only imagine the prejudice the 750-odd First Fleet Jewish convicts faced from English jailors brought up in such an anti-Semitic environment.
These considerations would apply even more in the United States, where the Founding Fathers deliberately avoided any mention of a religious qualification for public office.

Anyway, watch a Republican chap try and resurrect the Judeo-Christian myth in the context of Obama's recent comments in Turkey.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf

Bookmark this on Delicious


Get Flocked