Pharyngula

Posted by: kodyfrog | July 29, 2009 1:31 PM

good post, but I don't think this type of liberal attitude is as prevalent in the USA.

Posted by: Janus | July 29, 2009 1:40 PM

Islamonausea. Brilliant!

Posted by: Doosh | July 29, 2009 1:45 PM

When did Condell become a raving lunatic?

His criticisms would be a little more palatable if he didn't paint his opponents as idiotic strawmen. I guess I'm just blinded by my hatred of America.

Posted by: Anon. | July 29, 2009 1:50 PM

Stefan @ #2

The stereotype he paints of yellow-livered Brit middle classes (aka enlightened liberal intelligentsia) giving way to Islamobollocks is spot on.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 29, 2009 1:55 PM

On one hand, he's mostly right, Islam and other non-Western cultures deserve to be criticized (seriously, how many of us think Native American morality is/was appropriate?).

On the other hand, you really can't demand that everyone adopt a Western morality immediately. Especially when we demand respect for sovereignty and the like, well, we can't just go into Saudi Arabia and force them to give up their anti-woman measures.

Yes, criticize Islam and the rest. But there has been too much imperialism in the name of "improving" attitudes of other cultures. India was colonized partly in the name of getting rid of the oppression of women (sati (suttee), notably), and that really wasn't doing Indians a favor.

But sure, the deference to "other cultures" that ignores the dignity of individuals is tiresome and counterproductive.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Doosh | July 29, 2009 1:56 PM

So Condell is railing against all the hate mail he's received. In a video format, we the audience have no opportunity to hear or read for ourselves whether any of those criticisms have merit or not. How brave and edgy.

Posted by: Meno | July 29, 2009 1:59 PM

But... But.. How will christians make the "you yell at us but not islam" argument now?!?

Oh, wait, they'll just make an excuse like that he's british, and therefore irrelevant.

And for self-proclaimed "enlightened one," #2, there is a vast difference between head coverings and burkas - you aren't born into being a nun. If you choose to be opressed, let's call it an S&M fetish and leave it at that. The optimal solution would be all religions to quietly fade into historic anecdote altogether, so neither coverings are relevant, and burkas, veils, hippie flower crowns and the like could be worn, say, as halloween costumes. However, that's not going to happen any time soon.

...too bad...

Posted by: aratina cage | July 29, 2009 2:04 PM

I haven't gotten much into it, but right away: red flags. The "liberal left" he is describing sounds nothing like the liberal left I know in the U.S. I don't think it means the same thing between Britain and the U.S.

Posted by: Hairhead | July 29, 2009 2:07 PM

Some police forces in the UK are considering special headgear for female police officers only to wear when they have to enter mosques.

"Fuck that shit." is what I would say if I were a female police officer subject to that. I would say, "I am a police officer FIRST, and allowing pious religious nutjobs to discriminate against me and NOT my fellow officers who are males is letting religion into the State. Religious persons who commit crimes are not allowed to choose the judge of their preference (white, black, male, female, religious, non-religious), nor their jury, nor the police officers who enforce the law and investigate offences."

Fuck me, I could go on, but the point is clear -- the burqa, and Islam's attitudes towards women, gays, non-Islamic, and the non-religious are simply NOT COMPATIBLE with a progressive, equal, peaceful, humane society.

Posted by: J. Allen | July 29, 2009 2:12 PM

The message is pretty good once he gets past the anger towards his opponents. I kept an open-mind and his description of the burka as a symbol of rape is powerful.

That said I wonder if he's not giving the issue proper historical perspective. Liberal culture has a tendency to destroy conservative culture. Who is to say that the next generation of westernized Muslims will not turn on their parents? It's happened to every culture beforehand.

We should be concentrating on catalyzing this natural process of assimilation. Maybe banning burkhas would be a step in that direction, but it won't be the only step, and probably not a necessary one given what other groups have overcome in the past.

Promoting secular humanist culture on all fronts would in my opinion be the strongest weapon. The louder we yell the more minds will be reached.

I think Pat is trying to shake us up, and I give him credit for that. Regardless of a ban on the burkha, criticism of it is certainly needed en masse.

Posted by: protocol | July 29, 2009 2:16 PM

When the Taliban took over Swat Valley and started burning girl's schools, and lifting up the girl's burkas to throw acid in their faces, why didn't we think of the poor men, of how devastating it was to their sense of themselves and to their God to see girls going to school? If we had been more tolerant, we would have been able to understand their point of view.

While it is very brave to condemn other peoples' crimes (and don't get me wrong, the Taliban are barbarians of the first category, in my opinion), i think it is even braver to contemplate our own responsibility--being citizens of a democratic state--in the role that our government played in supporting the Taliban throughout the late 80s and 90s, and then again by bombing the crap out of Afghanistan and driving the population in the arms of the retrograde Taliban (over the objections of actual feminists of Afghanistan--not comfortably ensconced feminists of the West--such as RAWA). You can understand why some people would see the sudden concern for Afghan women as basically a rationalization of less exalted behavior and motives (btw, check out the RAWA website; they oppose both foreign troops and the Taliban).

Oh, btw, I would like to see the video where Condell condemns the the British and American governments for helping to mobilize support for the antediluvian groups and ways of thinking he so righteously condemning.

Posted by: AdamK | July 29, 2009 2:20 PM

I watched the previous video as well. Condell is raving, but he's no lunatic.

The positions of British and American societies with regard to Muslim immigration are different. The political spectrum is different as well. Condell's language sounds like right-wing nuttery to American ears, but I have a suspicion he's not addressing Americans. Perhaps he's not aware that the US is the center of the earth.

Posted by: E.V. | July 29, 2009 2:21 PM

He backed up his reasoning. It's a valid but uncomfortable viewpoint. The Burkha and it's attendant misogynistic culture is an issue right up there with female "circumcision" (clitoridectomy) and any other human rights abuse given a pass as cultural/religious belief, as if so many fellow liberals assume "The Prime Directive" isn't a work of fiction.

I'm not completely on board, but I don't think Condell is necessarily wrong or a raving lunatic because he doesn't toe the "c'mon ya'll - let's live and let live and then sing Kumbaya" party line. With a slight grimace and a heavy sigh, I know he approaches a Lou Dobsian-esque tone but Condell isn't a xenophobe and, y'know, it's not illegal or in poor taste to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater if the theater is actually on fire.

Posted by: Hank Fox | July 29, 2009 2:26 PM

Good one, Pat! Keep it up.

Posted by: Sonja | July 29, 2009 2:27 PM

I think this is more prevalent in Europe. In America, we have a tradition and expectation that, in a generation, immigrants will become part of our great melting pot or be "Americanized". In Minneapolis (where I live), there will be a new immigrant influx from some country (currently Somalia).

The role of the Minneapolis "liberal elite" is to treat these new immigrants with respect, learn about their culture, and then turn them into a voting bloc for the DFL (Democratic Party of MN). As this process goes, the immigrant community in turn learns about the democratic process, door-knocking, endorsing conventions and how to run for office and gain power at City Hall. I have already been to several DFL conventions where each candidate tries to prove their greater ties to the new Somali community. This is a mutually-beneficial relationship -- and it works the same in all American cities and with all immigrant groups. The children of these immigrants will be almost indistinguishable from other Americans.

I don't think Europe has this kind of established cultural-integration process in place or has needed to have it.

Posted by: Lynna | July 29, 2009 2:30 PM

From "In Her Place" by S. T. Joshi (male author):

For millennia, religion was used to bolster the suppression of women's rights. As Eleanor Flexner wrote long ago, 'Next to common law, the most potent force in maintaining woman's subordinate position was religion.' Since the major scriptures of the world were written at a time when women's inferiority on many levels was assumed without question, it is no surprise that nearly every sacred text embodies restrictions upon women's sphere of action that now seem preposterous and absurd.

Posted by: advertisinglies | July 29, 2009 2:31 PM

This is the first I've heard of this guy and at first I was put off by him as well. I distinctly thought "I don't care what people think about this guy, he just seems defensive" but after he got through all that, he started making some very good points about extreme liberalism. I think what he's specifically talking about is more applicable to Britain of course, but I can look around my stomping grounds of the states - the extremely liberal Seattle area - and see indications of what he's saying.

I don't know that I agree completely, but this fellow definitely made some compelling points.

Posted by: Lynna | July 29, 2009 2:35 PM

From Ayaan Hirsi Ali's "The Caged Virgin":

The value attached to a woman's virginity is so great that it eclipses the human catastrophes and social costs that result from it. Muslim girls are told that 'a girl with a ruptured hymen is like a used object.' And an object that is once used becomes permanently worthless... Moreover, if defloration occurs outside wedlock, she has dishonored her family to the tenth degree of kinship. Other families will gossip about them. They will say that the family is known for its loose women who throw themselves away to the first man who comes along. So the girl is punished by her family...

When it concerns their sexuality, men in Islamic culture are seen as irresponsible, unpredictable, scary beasts who immediately lose all self-control upon seeing a woman. This reminds me of an experience I had when I was still quite young. My grandmother had a billy goat. We were playing in front of the house, and in the evening, just before it got dark, all the goats in the neighborhood returned home in a long procession. It was a charming sight. But as soon as Grandma's billy goat saw the other goats, he galloped over to them and mounted the first goat he could get hold of. We children thought this was very cruel. When we asked Grandma what her goat was doing, she answered that it was none of her business: if the neighbors didn't want their goats to be mounted, they should lead them home along another path. Islam represents its own men as though they were like that billy goat; when Muslim men see an uncovered woman, they immediately leap on her. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy; a Muslim man has no reason to learn to control himself. He doesn't need to and he isn't taught to. Sexual morality is aimed exclusively at women, who are always blamed for any lapse.

From a very young age, girls are surrounded by an atmosphere of mistrust. They learn early that they are untrustworthy beings who constitute a danger for the clan. Something in them drives men crazy... for this reason girls have to cover themselves, make themselves invisible. And for this reason they feel constantly guilty and ashamed, because it is almost impossible to live a normal life and be invisible to men.... Not only is their external freedom to choose where to go or where not to go inhibited, but so is their inner freedom...

Posted by: Shane | July 29, 2009 2:41 PM

I agree with the American versus non-American liberals. Canada's Conservatives are roughly equivalent to America's Democrats. Canadian Conservatives would never dream of seriously messing with Canada's public health care system. Or, for example, on gun control, the Conservatives are trying to abolish the long-gun registry (which is fairly widely perceived as being a waste of money) but would never touch the handgun registry or Canada's strict system of licensing and background checks.

In Canada, we have the Liberal party and the ultra-left NDP which have no American equivalence. It is this kind of political party which tends to ironically be too tolerant towards cultural and religious intolerance that he is railing against.

Posted by: Smidgy | July 29, 2009 2:44 PM

Sorry, most of this guy's stuff I agree with. Here, there's one thing he's way off on. Forcing Muslim women who choose to wear a burqa to abandon it is as abhorrent as forcing women who don't want to wear one to do so. It should be their choice. It's their body, they should be free to expose as much or as little of it as they want. Of course, if the reasons they give for wearing a burqa simply don't make sense to me, I should be free to say so, but they also have the freedom to ignore me, if they so choose. He addresses this by equating this with 'walking around naked' or 'wearing a ski-mask in a bank' and says that 'you wouldn't get away with it for very long'. However, this completely fails to address the question of 'should you?'

It's much the same way as with ultra-religious Christians - they're free to believe in their magical Sky-Daddy, 6000 year-old Earth, etc, etc, and I'm free to say they're batshit insane for doing so.

Posted by: Cimourdain | July 29, 2009 2:46 PM

Good ol' Pat! The man rules. He's spot on here; as can be confirmed by guys like Nick Cohen, David Aaronovitch, Christopher Hitchens who have observed, in the immortal words of Martin Amis, that the liberal left is up the arse of people who want them dead.

For Godwin and others acting shocked, schocked let me provide the appropriate soundtrack:

"It's my party and you'll cry if I want to, you'll cry if I want to..."

Posted by: Dan from Manitoba | July 29, 2009 2:59 PM

I'd have to agree with many posters here that while the whole concept of the burqa is abhorrent (I think Pat hit the nail on the head in describing the reason for it), I would definitely disagree with him that wearing it should be banned.

Where security and employment are concerned, secular reasoning should trump religious beliefs. I believe you should be allowed to wear a burqa if you choose, but you should also expect to have to lift the thing should you need to be identified. Likewise, if you work in a hospital and refuse to expose your arms so you can wash them properly, then you should find other employment. Sanitation trumps your own personal religious beliefs.

Secular concerns aside, banning the right to wear a burqa is anti-religious and anti-freedom.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 29, 2009 3:01 PM

Turned off when I heard the words "politically correct".

Also, why is it that some see the need to dish out every harsh word they can think of every time someone disagrees with them. I mean calling a creationist a lying dirtbag is perfectly appropriate, but I don't see why a group of people have to get this thrown at them because they expressed a fairly moderate viewpoint on a piece of clothing.

Posted by: Logicel | July 29, 2009 3:07 PM

Oh, fuck yes, the burqa (where the woman's face is covered) should be BANNED in western cultures. Enough of this fucking double standard. Men are not allowed to cover up their faces, why this kowtowing to religious and cultural crapola when women are involved? We are talking about a human HAVING TO COVER UP HER FACE (not her body).

I loved this vid by Pat, thought it was his best. He is more a feminist than most feminists (male or female). He sure as hell should be angry at fuckers who dither about banning the fucking, facial-covering burqa. And as having lived in both America and Great Britain, he is spot on on the lily-livered liberal left who willingly sacrifice their own principles because they are too confused to see that they are destroying the very principles they support. And, yes, there are pockets of that kind of leftist liberal in America also.

Thanks, Lynna @35 for reminding what a feminist Ali is: "Not only is their external freedom to choose where to go or where not to go inhibited, but so is their inner freedom..."

Posted by: Chris H | July 29, 2009 3:10 PM

Doosh wondered: "When did Condell become a raving lunatic?"
About a year ago.

"His criticisms would be a little more palatable if he didn't paint his opponents as idiotic strawmen."

That is the only thing he has been doing for over a year now. At first it felt refreshing but now his repetition makes me sick.

And PC-fanboys: no I'm not going into "but he has a point" debates. Fortuyn, Palin, Wilders sometimes make a point but their overall approach was/is plain annoying and beyond help.

Posted by: False Prophet | July 29, 2009 3:12 PM

@RodeoBob #26:

He says he's not racist, but against Islam. I hear the North Irish aren't racist, just against Catholicism. The Spanish Inquisition? Purely theological, no racial elements at all!

No, he's not racist. Racism is judging or oppressing people based on their racial or ethnic origins: something beyond their control. (So the Northern Irish are racist against--other Irish?) Criticizing Islam and Catholicism is criticizing adults for a conscious choice--i.e., why are you adhering to these demonstrably wrong and even toxic ideas?

Posted by: Doosh | July 29, 2009 3:14 PM

Good to have so many demonstrations of Pat's point on hand...

Yes, Cimourdain. Pat's "point" being that mean, anonymous liberals disagree with him. Well played.

Posted by: Tommie, Sweden | July 29, 2009 3:14 PM

Not that I don't agree with him most of the time but Pat Condell is an Islamophobe, no doubt about that. He's an islamophobe in the sense that he thinks militant islam the greatest threat against european liberty and democracy. Something I find absolutely silly. He's starting to reek of fanatisism to me. There are aspects of some islamic cultures that I find have caught authorities off guard, specifically their treatment of women, but it's nothing we're not catching up to or will not be go away with coming generations, I think. Pat needs to chill the fuck down.

Posted by: Cimourdain | July 29, 2009 3:19 PM

Gregory,

Actually Pat Condell reminds me of Victor Klemperer. He's a Jew who survived the Reich and he remarked that, given supreme power of Germany, he'd let all the ordinary Germans go and even a lot of the Party - but he'd hang every intellectual in the country and the Professors three feet higher out of grounds of general hygene.

I know exactly how he felt. Mobs march down the street calling for the next Holocaust - nothing happens. Pat Condell calls for banning the Burka - everyone's shocked, shocked.

Even those leftist liberals that admit grudgingly that the "next Holocaust" types are little much, are against actually doing something that would work.

Chris H, here's an idea: instead of bitching about Geert Wilders, how about moving to Holland, getting into parliment, and actually doing something?

Posted by: E.V. | July 29, 2009 3:20 PM

His criticisms would be a little more palatable if he didn't paint his opponents as idiotic strawmen."

The sarcasms and invectives of the young polemic.

Posted by: B. Scott Andersen | July 29, 2009 3:22 PM

After eight years of Bush, I'm just happy to hear anybody who can speak in whole sentences.

Europe (and especially France and the UK) have an immigration issue with accompanying culture-clash that is causing quite a stir. There has been pressure to have separate courts under Sharia law as a parallel to the regular justice system, for example.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

If this were happening here, in the US, it would be interesting to see whether the speaker would be considered off the rails.

Posted by: E.V. | July 29, 2009 3:25 PM

I wondered when the lily-liberal apathetic politically correct aholes on this blog would alienate me enough to stop coming here.

Posted by: dinkum | July 29, 2009 3:29 PM

WTF? Did I miss something?

Posted by: False Prophet | July 29, 2009 3:32 PM

@Shane, #37

In Canada, we have the Liberal party and the ultra-left NDP which have no American equivalence.

Let's be fair: the federal Liberals are centre-right economically and somewhat left socially, though I find they tend to wash their hands on social issues until the Supreme Court of Canada makes a ruling, then throw up their hands and say "what can we do?" Remember, we have legal abortion and same-sex marriage in this country because of the SCC, not because of anything our thumb-sitting Parliament did.

It is this kind of political party which tends to ironically be too tolerant towards cultural and religious intolerance that he is railing against.

A lot of this, especially among the Liberals, is pandering to ethnic communities for votes. Even the Conservative party does this, e.g. when they tried to get conservative-minded Muslim and Sikh voters on board against same-sex marriage. But I think there is a large knee-jerk tolerance crowd in the NDP, which is another reason I can't vote for them.

Here in Ontario, I've found Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty largely impotent and misguided. He spends a lot of time passing nanny-state legislation to save us from ourselves while not dealing with our real problems, and has only survived politically because the other parties keep pushing idiotic platforms. But for me, his one redeeming moment came when a group of Muslims asked for the right of Shariah-based religious arbitration in family court cases (a move opposed by Muslim feminists, among others). A former NDP attorney general recommended extending this same right to Shariah-based arbitration that other religious groups including Catholics and Jews had possessed since 1992.

McGuinty's response was to outlaw all religious arbitration in Ontario family courts.

Posted by: E.V. | July 29, 2009 3:33 PM

I think some examples of what Pat's pissed off about showed up in the comments, and L's breaker blew.

Posted by: JThompson | July 29, 2009 3:35 PM

Awesome. I think I speak for everyone that falls into a racial minority when I say we truly appreciate an old white man telling us what to do.
How could we ever know what Real Racism is without an old white guy to tell us. Plus he tells us what Real Sexism is for all the women, so they're not confused anymore.
/s

Condell's been getting progressively closer to the American Right with every video he puts out. He even mentioned "Muslims wrote in to agree with me!" in one video...which smacks of "Lots of gay/black/hispanic people agree with me when I claim they're the scum of the earth!" that the right trots out so often over here.
He may not be an actual conservative, but he sure likes their stupid arguments and strawmen.
Should I mention again how awesome it is to see a white male exercise their privilege and tell minorities what racism is and women what sexism is? Probably not, no matter how much it pisses me off.

Posted by: andrew_seeking | July 29, 2009 3:37 PM

Certain practices of religion are harmful, and certain practices are harmless. Why should we force a person to discard and not wear a piece of clothing that they feel it is right to wear?

Note to Condell: there is a difference between this and allowing Sharia law in Britain, if that's what has really got your fire up, and it should as Sharia law is harmful to women. It could have been implemented in Ontario through a loophole in the arbitration act, but was shut down by the Premier. So now, if Islamic tribunals are to go through in Canada, it would have to pass the muster of the Canadian Charter of Rights of Freedoms (which it wouldn't have). the most vocal opponents? Various Muslim groups and Muslim woman's groups.

Now, if a woman wants to discard her burkha, and is threatened by her community for doing so, we should protect her. We can encourage Islamic elements of society to integrate over time.

But banning a piece of clothing itself? that just seems inconsequential.

Posted by: E.V. | July 29, 2009 3:40 PM

We seem to have another Christopher Hitchens in the making.

(KOAN: Does an uncontroversial dissenter, alone in the woods, make any social impact?)

Posted by: Molly, NYC | July 29, 2009 3:44 PM

His ideas aside, why is Condell identified as a comedian? Does anyone actually find this Johnny-One-Note funny?

Generally, when religionists claim that atheists are smug, preachy and dogmatic, it's a ridiculous projection. But every stereotype, no matter how bigotted, has someone who's its living embodiment, and in this case, it's Condell.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | July 29, 2009 3:49 PM

Whether Hitch is disingenuous or not on the issue of the freedom of women around the globe, it's hard for anyone to be totally correct on nearly any position. After all, is it not disingenuous on some level not to recognize that, as repulsive and violently totalitarian as groups like the Taliban are, are they not recognized as being uniquely capable of keeping things running for the peoples they oversee? The same for Hamas and the Palestinians. Palestinians want peace but Hamas until recently has shown its capability for acting in the most direct best interests of Palestinians (at least from the perspective of the Palestinians themselves). In these examples, is it not disingenuous to say they do their peoples a very tragic disservice, when these same groups keep services running and help get food to families? As the saying goes, one man's madman is another's freedom fighter.

This, again, is certainly not to condone groups like the Taliban. The acid attacks on young girls anger me so greatly for their randomness and sheer maniacal violence on innocents. But vis a vis the discussion and Hitchens, even the best minds out there can't be right 100% of the time.

Posted by: JThompson | July 29, 2009 3:56 PM

@Molly: He's had some kind of funny stuff in the past...nothing spectacular, but some that was pretty amusing.
Lately he's taken the White Man Being Persecuted By Liberals bus and refuses to get the hell off.
So he's not funny anymore, just sad.
Most of his recent videos could easily be a four second clip of him, red in the face, screaming "Get those fucking mooslims off my lawn! Goddamned liberals!" and amount to about the same thing.

Angry and funny works extremely well for some people, Lewis Black and George Carlin being good examples. For others, the anger overtakes the funny until the funny is gone.

Posted by: Jafafa Hots | July 29, 2009 4:07 PM

"Men are not allowed to cover up their faces, why this kowtowing to religious and cultural crapola when women are involved?"

We're not? Well shit, then the cops around here aren't doing their duty, because I never get any hassle all the times I wear my balaclava when biking in the cold, and stopping off at stores...

And of course there's the knit masks all the men wear around here in winter.

Posted by: Knockgoats | July 29, 2009 4:10 PM

The facts that Islam is false, misogynistic and repulsive, and that Islamism is dangerous, should not obscure the fact that Pat Condell is a racist arsehole - Michael@68 is exactly right, racism is about ethnically-based scapegoating, and this rant was exactly that: we're being "invaded" by evil alien forces, those who disagree with him are "pimps", "haters of America", "self-haters", etc.. Condell may dislike the BNP, but they love him. Those Americans who have noticed the similarity of his rhetoric to the US batshit right, but excused it on the grounds that "Europe's different so he's probably OK" are right on the first count, and dead wrong on the second.

To those impressed by this guy, ask yourself: if you were one of the oppressed Muslim women forced into a burka that he pretends concern for (and yes, they are oppressed, and the burka is a horrible thing), would you feel safer or more threatened as a result of hearing Condell's rant?

If you actually want to help oppressed British women from Muslim backgrounds, support one of the organisations such as Southall Black Sisters , or Women Against Fundamentalism , which are led by such women (among others), and which campaign against both sexism and racism. No such suggestion in Condell's video, no suggestion that such oppressed women might want to act for themselves, and that his audience might help them directly. Now, why might that have been?

Posted by: earthbound01 | July 29, 2009 4:16 PM

Posted by: Cimourdain | July 29, 2009 3:28 PM

"For all those who think Pat Condell is tilting at Straw Men:

http://nickcohen.net/2007/12/02/why-does-the-left-support-the-far-right/

Essay by Nick Cohen - a proper, principled Leftist, btw."

Granted, there are as many liberals that you can quote saying ridiculous things as conservatives, it's not hard to get quotes from people in crowds saying "america should bomb themselves."
So, yeah, idiots.
but the thrust of this article seems to be that liberals for some reason love and want to become radical islamists.
srsly?
Now as a secularly minded liberal, I don't feel much like converting to Islam. Nor do most of my liberal friends. Most of them are secular or have stayed with the religions of their birth. Please forgive me if I express some incredulity at the idea that liberals all love Islam.

As for the motivations projected onto Islam for the events of 9/11-
The clash of civilizations idea is based on the premise that the earth isn't big enough to hold both the west, and militant islam, so one will be wiped out. If you ascribe to that, then 9/11 was an inevitability perpetrated by evil, conquest minded men. When asked point blank about why he thought we were attacked, President Bush said something like "they hate our freedom."
I put that on the same level as "America should bomb themselves."
I wouldn't pretend to understand what possessed Bin Ladin (an heir from a wealthy saudi family) to take up arms against the united states, but from what I've read of what he's posted, it seems like he is reacting against Western involvement in the Arab world. I'm not going to go into a detailed account of the West's adventures in the Mid-East, but I think I can uncontroversially say that there are some episodes that leave us looking somewhat villainous.
Is acknowledging that Bin Ladin might have legitimate reasons to want to fight us the same as being up his arse? Yeah, I don't think so.
In fact, I think it's dangerous to assume that he's a villain and a ghoul that wants to destroy freedom. I think if we looked at what his actual motivations are, we might be a lot better in actually stopping him and his movement.

Posted by: blahface | July 29, 2009 4:16 PM

This guy reminds me of that guy on the Daily Show who hated gays. “I’m not homophobic; I’ve got homonausia – because I’m sick of them.”

I’m no fan of Islam, but this guy is just a nutcase. Seriously, banning the burqa? What the hell? Should we also ban the bikini because it represents the objectification of women? High heels do permanent damage to women’s feet and women are under pressure to wear them so they look better to men. Objectively, banning high heels makes more sense than banning a burqa – why isn’t Pat railing against high heels

Posted by: quisquose | July 29, 2009 4:18 PM

I work in a Muslim area of a UK city.

10 years ago I had never seen a niqab/burqa, but now when I go to buy my sandwich at lunchtime I will see a dozen. All of the women wearing this garb will be 30 at most, but more likely late teens or early twenties. Usually 2nd or 3rd generation Muslim, they will often be with their mothers who are more modestly dressed.

Definitely dressed to make a rebelious statement about political Islam, I had always assumed that this uniform would eventually fade into the history of fashion as with the rebelious uniform of the punks of my youth.

But yesterday I saw the first young girl, not yet of school age, wearing a niqab and this disturbed me.

Ban it, no, but be forced to respect it, absolutely not. There are attempts in the UK to give this uniform special privileges, and this has to be resisted.

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 29, 2009 4:18 PM

http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1010625

If anybody wants to know what I was referring to.

Posted by: AdamK | July 29, 2009 4:18 PM

Here in America we don't allow some random separate set of laws to operate within our own.

I take it you're not from Utah.

Posted by: jennyxyzzy | July 29, 2009 4:31 PM

For those that feel that the wearing of the burkha should be a personal decision, let me tell a little story about something that happens to me all the time.

I live in northern Europe, but as an Australian, I grew up wearing sunglasses every single time I set foot outside during the daytime. But if I'm seated outside at a cafe with friends, they regularly ask me to take my sunglasses off, so that they can see my eyes. I do so - I certainly don't respond with a tirade about how wearing sunglasses is my choice etc etc.

The thing is that we have certain expectations about social interactions that items of clothing such as burkhas (or indeed sunglasses) get in the way of. That makes it no longer a question of just personal choice, but also of societal expectations. I wonder how many people have actually tried having a discussion with someone wearing a burka. It is extremely disconcerting - not only can you not see the eyes, but you can't even see facial expressions.

Add to this the fact that the burkha is clearly sexist, and I strongly feel that this is something which our society doesn't need, and that we should react against. Maybe not with laws, because that would be an attack on civil liberties, but we should, as Pat has done in his video, make it clear to all those that wear the burkha, and their families, that we find the custom socially unacceptable.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | July 29, 2009 4:35 PM

There is a lot to dislike in Islam. Its misogyny is even worse than most Christian cults and about as bad as the Hasidism. Condell is right to point this out and right to condemn those who would excuse Islam's misogyny as a cultural imperative.

Condell fails in threatening to rip off burkas. They make him angry (and the reason for his anger is understandable). However, his anger is not a good reason to deny someone the right to wear certain clothing. If a Muslim woman in Britain (or anywhere else) refuses to wear a burka and certain clerics complain about it, these clerics should not be allowed to force the woman to wear a burka. Likewise, Condell should not be allowed to force a woman not to wear a burka.

Posted by: Cimourdain | July 29, 2009 4:37 PM

Ah, well, look who's here: one of the main members of the Jihadi Intestine Moutineering Association. Good to see you KG.

earthbound, yes, that qualifies as being up bin LAden's arse. His reasons for Jihad have been spelled out. It's that Saudi Arabia is too liberal. It's that the genocide in East Timor was stopped. It's that Spain - Spain - is free of Islamic rule. It is, in short, Islam, only Islam, nothing but Islam.

I notice, though, that AdamK has offered a nice alternative to being honest about Islam: a good sniiger about Utah. You know, the State that's so dumb it took home the Nobel Prize for Embryonic Stem Cell research and is one of the world leaders in genetics. Yeah, let's all snigger about Utah - so much easier than being honest about Islam...

It gives me moderate consolation that, by the laws of history, the pseudointellectuals here are all destined for oblivion, leaving no trace except derision in the history books.

Posted by: Lynna | July 29, 2009 4:40 PM

This is an excerpt from the link given @61:

There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men. Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons. The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts. In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment. In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations. Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance. Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”

Posted by: Lynna | July 29, 2009 4:44 PM

More excerpts from Ayaan Hirsi Ali's "The Caged Virgin"

Muslim families regard violence against women as something that women themselves provoke because they don't follow the rules. The family and the social environment do not disapprove of it. They reason that if your husband hits you, it must be because you had it coming to you. Western neighbors, family members, and friends don't believe that the mistreatment of women is an acceptable educational device...

My sister and I were still very young when we began to notice that we were always told to respect our brother. He was only ten months older than I, but we realized that only boys count. A Muslim woman's status depends on the number of sons she has. When people asked my grandmother how many children she had, she would answer: 'One.' She had nine daughters and a son... To maximize their potential as producers of sons, girls are taught from early on always to conform... You should always be patient, even when your husband demands the most dreadful things of you., You will be rewarded for this in the hereafter. But the reward itself is small. Women can look forward to dates and grapes in paradise. That is all.

Posted by: Jack | July 29, 2009 4:45 PM

Oh... and on Condell as comedian? With these videos, he isn't trying to be. He's deadly serious about his hatred for religion. Sure, he slips one or two good cracks in now and then but he isn't trying to do stand-up. I've seen him when he was a full-time stand-up comic, back in the eighties/nineties. He wasn't the best I've ever seen (hell, I saw Eddie Izzard when he used to MC the "Screaming Blue Murder" club in Wimbledon!) but he was pretty funny. Trust me, he isn't trying to do stand-up here.

Posted by: AwesomeRobot | July 29, 2009 4:49 PM

jennyxyzzy, well most of us who think banning the burqa is a dumb idea agree that making women wear a burqa is sexist. I guess I'm speaking for other people here without their permission, but what the hell.

Many other commenters have agreed we should give the burqa no special treatment. Sharia law should not take over western law, etc. Yep.

The difference is people are asking you to remove sunglasses while they talk to you, not calling on parliament to ban them. It IS a personal choice.

Lots of things are sexist, but we don't ban them, we ridicule them and hope we can convince people to shun them. Sometimes we win and sometimes we don't.

Posted by: DaveL | July 29, 2009 4:49 PM

Pat really needs to be consistent with his analogies.

He draws a direct comparison between swastikas and KKK robes to illustrate the offensiveness of the burkha, but when freedom of choice is brought up, he tries to compare it instead to public nudity or wearing a ski mask into a bank.

No, it's not like going around naked or wearing a ski mask into a bank. It's like a nazi armband or a Klan robe, both of which are offensive in the extreme and perfectly legal to wear in public.

Posted by: Tom | July 29, 2009 4:52 PM

@ Gary #74
Muslims are in the picture in Europe at this point because they cause trouble here. Muslim youth burning cars in Paris suburbs, Muslim youth terrorizing the neighborhood in the Netherlands, radicalized mosques in England, generally certain subcultures of non-Western, predominantly Muslim first and second immigrant populations are not adapted well in Europe. This is causing an overreaction in some people, like Pat.

I liked Pat's videos when he started, I thought they were funny and gave some valid criticism. Nowadays, has gone off the deep end in my opinion. Where are you going to stop in banning clothing that people want to wear for religious reasons? Sure, if women do not want to wear a burka, make sure they aren't forced to. But I find the banning of it coming a bit to close to a police state. I would agree with a requirement for identification, ie lifting it up so law enforcers or people in banks can check your identity, but not a total ban which he seems to be promoting.

It seems to me that his earlier cries for freedom of religion are quite contradictory to his current cries for banning the burka. In his previous video he tries to defend himself against that accusation, but in my opinion he doesn't quite succeed.

Also, in his previous video on this he argues that he wants the Burka banned to increase female emancipation in Muslim religion. My fear is that such a policy would work exactly opposite, with females not leaving the house anymore if that policy would be in effect (forced or not).

Posted by: Smidgy | July 29, 2009 4:54 PM

jennyxyzzy #97:

I live in northern Europe, but as an Australian, I grew up wearing sunglasses every single time I set foot outside during the daytime. But if I'm seated outside at a cafe with friends, they regularly ask me to take my sunglasses off, so that they can see my eyes. I do so

Which is your choice. To not do so would be an alternative choice, which you would be free to make.

The thing is that we have certain expectations about social interactions that items of clothing such as burkhas (or indeed sunglasses) get in the way of. That makes it no longer a question of just personal choice, but also of societal expectations. I wonder how many people have actually tried having a discussion with someone wearing a burka. It is extremely disconcerting - not only can you not see the eyes, but you can't even see facial expressions.

Add to this the fact that the burkha is clearly sexist, and I strongly feel that this is something which our society doesn't need, and that we should react against. Maybe not with laws, because that would be an attack on civil liberties, but we should, as Pat has done in his video, make it clear to all those that wear the burkha, and their families, that we find the custom socially unacceptable.

That's fine and well, but if those who wear the burqa wish to ignore the fact you find them wearing the burqa 'socially unacceptable', they are free to do so, and I would object, quite strenuously, to taking that choice away from them - for much the same reasons I would object if someone started dictating to me what I wear.

Posted by: Hank Fox | July 29, 2009 4:57 PM

Logicel #47 said: Oh, fuck yes, the burqa (where the woman's face is covered) should be BANNED in western cultures. Enough of this fucking double standard. Men are not allowed to cover up their faces, why this kowtowing to religious and cultural crapola when women are involved? We are talking about a human HAVING TO COVER UP HER FACE (not her body).

I think the same thing. I'm pretty sure it's actually illegal for me to walk around wearing a mask in public here in the U.S. Certainly if I walked into a bank with one, I'd get arrested, possibly risk getting shot.

I know for a fact it's illegal here to have vehicle windows tinted to a certain opacity, and you can't even wear a hat when you're having your driver's license photo taken.

If nothing else, I think there's an issue of equal rights. If I can't walk around wearing a mask over my face (or a shroud over my whole body), why should someone else have that right?

Seriously, it’s fine to be sensitive to cultural issues, but when that culture intersects with mine, I have to assert that I, too, have a culture, and in my culture, the ideal is that none of us have special rights over the rest. (This position is the very foundation of a lot of my objections to Christianity.)

We’ve fought long and hard for those equal rights, and we’ve never yet completely succeeded. It’s waaaay too soon to be backpedaling.

Given a choice in U.S. (or state) law that nobody has the right to cover their faces in a burkha, or that everybody does, just off the top of my head, I'd probably rather live under the first one.

There was a federal appeals court ruling not long back in which a California elementary school was required to allow young Sikhs to wear knives to school.

Say what you will about cultural sensitivity, unless the court was ruling that ALL young boys are allowed to wear knives to school, the court was essentially enshrining religious/cultural privilege, of one group over another, into law.

There is never any circumstance in which I'd believe that was right.

Posted by: Stu | July 29, 2009 5:03 PM

Ah, well, look who's here: one of the main members of the Jihadi Intestine Moutineering Association. Good to see you KG.

earthbound, yes, that qualifies as being up bin LAden's arse.

Goodness gracious, someone page Dr. Freud, stat!

Posted by: Fatpie42 | July 29, 2009 5:07 PM

Rodeobob:
"I hear the North Irish aren't racist, just against Catholicism."

*BEEP!* Sorry, bad analogy. I know what you were trying to say, but this example doesn't work.

The problem in Northern Ireland is that, unlike in the rest of Ireland, Northern Ireland (which is still part of Britain) mainly consists in Protestants. However, the claiming that the Northern Irish are against Catholics is to suggest that Catholics cannot really be Northern Ireland. Imagine, for example, the following phrase:
"Texans aren't racist, they are just against black people."
The problem with this phrase isn't just that it proposes that all Texans are racist, but that it suggests that 'real' Texans aren't black...

(And then there's the issue of the IRA in Northern Ireland who can hardly be claimed to be a passive and persecuted minority group.)

Perhaps a better example (and rather more poignant considering the subject matter) is:
"The BNP aren't racist. They are just against immigrants."

Posted by: Knockgoats | July 29, 2009 5:18 PM

Fatpie42@121,
Actually, most northern Irish Protestants have traditionally regarded themselves as British, not Irish; so among them, anti-Irish and anti-Catholic prejudices could not be distinguished. At the height of the troubles, it was said, and apparently this was really the case, that if you declared yourself an atheist in northern Ireland, you would be asked whether you were a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist.

Posted by: Jack | July 29, 2009 5:24 PM

Knockgoats - I didn't hear anything racist in this video. What were you referring to?

Posted by: AwesomeRobot | July 29, 2009 5:29 PM

Posted by: Rob C | July 29, 2009 4:57 PM

Look, the assertion that all cultures and all aspects of cultures should be respected simply because they are cultures is illogical and ridiculous. Should Soviet or Nazi "cultures" be respected? Cultures can be wrong, stupid, cruel, laughable, and ridiculous every bit as much as individuals can be. Yes, this includes western culture and its various sub cultures."

NO ONE IS ASSERTING THAT WE RESPECT THE SEXIST BURQA.

We should ridicule it, we should write articles arguing for Muslim women to throw them off, we shouldn't give it special privileges on photo ids or when a cop needs to check someone's expression to see if they've been driving drunk or whatever other crazy things you can think of people in burqas might get away with.

But we can't ban it. Not in Britain, not in Canada, not in the US. Not without losing a little piece of what makes us a free society.

Posted by: earthbound01 | July 29, 2009 5:38 PM

@#101
1. Making some effort to understand the real motives for al qaeda's actions is not supporting them. In fact, I think taking president Bush's word that they "hate freedom" and other pablum has done more harm than any liberal could have in the "war on terror"
2. I'd like to know where you got that about bin laden's motives.

Posted by: Knockgoats | July 29, 2009 5:41 PM

Jack@125,
The "many people feel we are being invaded" stuff for a start. The accusation that those who disagree with him are "self-haters". Both straight out of the BNP shit-stirers handbook. The "we have nothing to apologise for" - not the phrase as a whole, but the "we". Who is that "we"? Those of us who really belong here of course. As Michael said, racism is about defining outgroups by their origin.
Then the absence of any consideration of what might actually be done to help the women for whom he expresses concern, let alone to help them help themselves: they are not seen as people he might actually want to help in a practical way, let alone as potential political actors. As I said before, if you were a woman forced to wear a burka, would Condell's video make you feel more or less safe?

Sure, Condell's not going to say "I hate Pakis", he may well believe he's not a racist; but you can't necessarily take someone's word for that, even if they mean it.

Posted by: E.V. | July 29, 2009 5:46 PM

Hey, don't forget about the guys. They are having their genitals ritualistically mutilated too.

Posted by: Gorogh | July 29, 2009 5:53 PM

btw, is there any actual sociological, social psychological or similar research done on why women wear this?

Faith?

Force?

Fashion?

Has anyone mentioned that bizarre beauty contest they seem to have had in Saudi Arabia recently? (sorry, could not find any English article on that...)

Posted by: Gorogh | July 29, 2009 5:55 PM

Proponents point to the fact that the circumcision of women existed in the period before and during Muhammad's time, and that the Prophet Muhammad did not explicitly prohibit it...

This is bizarre. Wonder what else should be mandatory by that logic.

Posted by: MW9 | July 29, 2009 6:00 PM

@Richard #62, Condell's previous video was titled "Ban the burka" and argued that position pretty unambiguously.

I've been a fan of Condell's videos for some time. I have chalked up his special vehemence against the encroachment of radical Islam partly to his specific experience of living in Britain.

His last two videos though, especially the most recent one, have made me rethink that. As someone who in the past has found himself in essential agreement with just about everything Pat says, I was puzzled at his flimsy argument for banning the burka. Surely he gets that this is a free speech issue? (see PC's video "Free speech is sacred" made just a few months ago). Pat hits the nail on the head describing the backward, violent, sexist meaning of the burka, but the burka isn't the cause of what's wrong with radial Islam, it's just a symptom. Controlling what people wear is what backward cultures like radical Islam do. Why does Pat want to stoop to their level? If he wants to demonstrate that a culture that reveres free speech is superior to its alternatives, I can't think of anything more counter-productive than to encroach on the free speech of those you're trying to convince. You completely undermine your credibility, and solve nothing.

My theory on the latest video is that Condell realized he went off the rails trying to argue for banning the burka from the mail he got, but he can't bring himself to admit it. This seems consistent with his personality; I can't imagine him saying "I was wrong" about anything (unsarcastically, anyway).

Posted by: Gorogh | July 29, 2009 6:09 PM

@E.V. #140, granted that

It's not the desecration of a cracker/anti burkha brouhahah; it's the cancerous dogma behind the religious doctrine versus basic civil rights beyond the closed doors of the Church/Temple/Mosque. No religious law in the free world should trump Federal/Sovereign law.

the question remains on whether to ban a piece of clothing is in accordance with named federal/sovereign law. If the burqa violates the law, ban it. If it doesn't, you cannot ban it - even if it stands for tolerance of fascist ideologies, for you cannot ban tolerance/opinions per se.

Posted by: E.V. | July 29, 2009 6:15 PM

If it doesn't, you cannot ban it - even if it stands for tolerance of fascist ideologies, for you cannot ban tolerance/opinions per se.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 29, 2009 6:19 PM

I know if male circumcision is brought up it will open a whole new can of worms (in this case, grub worms in turtleneck sweaters) that will derail the thread.

hahaha

Posted by: Rose Colored Glasses | July 29, 2009 6:25 PM

Having sharia courts is as batshit crazy as having arsonist courts or pedophile courts.

Posted by: SC, OM, Blogmistress | July 29, 2009 6:29 PM

Thanks so much, KG.

Good night!

Posted by: Cimourdain | July 29, 2009 6:35 PM

Nick Cohen makes a very important point. Because the Western left is in bed with chaps like Yusuf al-Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood (think Ken Livingstone, just one example), they have turned their backs not just on the liberals and reformists from Arab and Muslim countries, but on the socialists and communists that they would have once had the character to defend as allies. One thing Nick Cohen is rightly fed up with is the way that the Western left has decided to sell out and spit on the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the IRaqi Communist Party, both of which may have wonky politics, but have first-rate records of civil stuggle.

Posted by: Fatpie42 | July 29, 2009 6:42 PM

Knockgoats:
"The "we have nothing to apologise for" - not the phrase as a whole, but the "we". Who is that "we"? Those of us who really belong here of course. As Michael said, racism is about defining outgroups by their origin."

You hit the nail right on the head, but I don't think it's easy for many people to understand it.

Are you British yourself? When I raised the issue of Pat Condell's racist sentiment on livejournal, some suggested that perhaps the reason why it was difficult for some people to understand it is because of the difference in political climate between the UK and the US. What strikes me immediately as the anti-immigrant sentiment of the BNP (or, at very least, the Daily Mail) does not seem so obvious to those who haven't seen those same tricks used less subtley.

This is my original article:
http://community.livejournal.com/atheism/2088574.html

P.S. On the Northern Ireland thing, I think we are pretty much on the same page. I just thought it was a bad analogy for the current issue. The reference to protestant and catholic atheists comes from an anecdote by Quentin Crisp:
"When I told the people of Northern Ireland that I was an atheist, a woman in the audience stood up and said, "Yes, but is it the God of the Catholics or the God of the Protestants in whom you don't believe?"

Posted by: SC, OM, Blogmistress | July 29, 2009 6:56 PM

Many thanks for the linkage, Lynna! :)

The point I tried to make earlier was that we (all of the first world nations) should have been working to help women of Moslem faith long before (and perhaps, instead of) spending our money on war. Maybe we would have gotten more bang for our buck that way.

I don't want to try to speak for protocol, but I think her/his point was that "we" and "help women" are both very broad categories. Helping women can mean anything from spreading the word about, listening to, working with, supporting democratic women's groups (as the video suggests, and KG has given more practical tips for in another context) and the kind of paternalistic treatment of women that ignores them as political actors, disparages them, and even seeks to limit their freedom. As KG says of Condell:

Then the absence of any consideration of what might actually be done to help the women for whom he expresses concern, let alone to help them help themselves: they are not seen as people he might actually want to help in a practical way, let alone as potential political actors.

And the "we" that means mainly governments shows that the US government has been concerned with "helping" the women of Afghanistan only insofar as it could use them cynically to give its imperialism a humanitarian or liberating guise while continuing to act in ways that sabotaged their efforts and amde conditions worse. (I don't think everyone is so cynical, of course - I think a lot of well-meaning people have bought into the idea that the invasion of Afghanistan was in part seeking to help women there, and believe that it has done/is doing so.)

Posted by: Lynna | July 29, 2009 7:04 PM

The worst attitude, and the one that I encounter most often, is one of indifference to the conditions Muslim women face.

Because I find this indifference so inexcusable, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who raises the issue -- and this goes for Pat Condell. He is flawed, his presentation is flawed, and as some have pointed out, even his attitude toward Muslim women may be flawed. Nevertheless, he is paying attention... and that is so much better than indifference.

Posted by: SC, OM, Blogmistress | July 29, 2009 7:15 PM

The worst attitude, and the one that I encounter most often, is one of indifference to the conditions Muslim women face.

Because I find this indifference so inexcusable, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who raises the issue -- and this goes for Pat Condell. He is flawed, his presentation is flawed, and as some have pointed out, even his attitude toward Muslim women may be flawed. Nevertheless, he is paying attention... and that is so much better than indifference.

With all due respect, I think this is a mistake. He shows no signs of having given a shit about the conditions Muslim women (or women living in predominantly Muslim cultures) face, of giving a shit now. He doesn't talk about these conditions in this video; he seems merely to want to use women as a symbol of some Islamic invasion, not treat them as real people with real problems capable of making decisions and worthy of consulting in regard to the issues they face.

I think an immense amount of skepticism is called for in cases like this.

Posted by: E.V. | July 29, 2009 7:21 PM

Perhaps I'm wrong but I view Condell's antagonistic hyperbole towards "Liberals" as just that - a hyperbolic rant against accomodationists and antiboat-rocking pacifists. Our Congress is full of them on the Democrat's side of the aisle.

He's explained the meta-argument against the burkha in two different videos. Is he a racist or is he simply anti-religion of Islam? Can one not be antisemitic but still be against Judaism as a religion or is race/creed inseparable in these cultures?

Posted by: not a gator | July 29, 2009 7:31 PM

@116

School performance != intelligence
(if intelligence is defined as an overall aggregate of cognitive abilities)

Having worked closely with Blacks, Whites, Hispanics and Asians, you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that Whites are smarter than Blacks, or that Asians are geniuses, or whatever. Now, do some Asians have a culture that encourages them to work really hard (even on subjects they have no talent for), which might lead to higher grades? Why yes, yes indeed! I've known quite a few Chinese who were complete f***ing idiots but still managed to be successful because they worked their tails off.

Seriously, there is no way you can convince me at this point that Whites are smarter than Blacks. The world is full of dumb people. Just because you have a college degree and work in an office does not mean you are smart. Perhaps slightly cunning, especially if you manage to get one of those work-for-2-hrs-BS-with-coworkers-for-6 kind of jobs... yes, I'll go along with animal cunning, hrm.

Posted by: Dexter M. | July 29, 2009 7:33 PM

Once again Pat Condell has hit the nail on the head. I think the his main point is that a sizable percentage of liberals, are so scared to be called racist or islamophobic that they shy away from calling a spade, a spade. Making women wear a burka, is wrong. It's goal is to separate women from society. And in many muslim countries that's fine, because it isn't like they have many rights to exercise. Religion or "culture" isn't a good reason to deny women basic human rights, and the main effect of the burka is to keep women out of public life and in the home cooking and cranking out kids. Condell isn't being gentle or tactful, but he is being brutally honest.

Posted by: Bobber | July 29, 2009 7:57 PM

I enjoy a good Pat Condell rant as much as anyone - which is to say, he's a rhetorical bomb-thrower, and even though I may not agree 100% with what he has to say, he at least gets the scrum going.

On this topic, though, I think he's too easily falling into the trap of the right-wing idealogues who use such things as defense of women's rights to excuse their imposing a particular set of cultural mores onto a population that has ascribed to a different set of cultural mores. There are practical reasons to oppose particular cultural or religious practices; there are practical ways to address those, without using the draconian methods of the state, and issuing statements awash in "us vs. them" terminology. If you are really concerned about the status of women in Islamic nations, then work to provide those women in those nations with the ability to speak for themselves. Why should they (or any other genuinely oppressed segment of any non-Western society) have to trade their old oppressors for new ones? And be assured, unless you are willing to listen to what people's real concerns are, rather than dictate solutions for what you perceive their concerns to be, you are more than likely acting as an oppressor.

Off-tangent post ended. Please return to your normal Pharyngula programming. ; )

Posted by: E.V. | July 29, 2009 8:00 PM

Is Condell singling out those those liberal critics who have called him strident and an Islamophobe just as many of us have singled out Mooney and Nesbitt? Does Condell's anti-"radical Islam" stance (his words) equate with "New Atheists" and their unwillingness to sit down, shut up & play nice in the face of a theocratic agenda bent on abusing those deemed blasphemous and immoral?

Posted by: Adam M | July 29, 2009 8:08 PM

This video is great.
It's about time we started hearing some rational non apologetic views about Islam.
Thanks.

Posted by: Daniel Fincke | July 29, 2009 8:19 PM

While Condell's attack on multiculturalism is too broad and at times his rhetoric is cringe-inducingly counter-productive, I do share his essential worries that a significant and powerful portion of the liberal left is dangerously accommodating of Islamism out of an inflated fear of chauvinism.

But I also suspect he overlooks the degree to which the left is playing a shrewder strategy of not antagonizing the religious moderates who are the most essential allies in any long term, effective strategy for defusing the power of extremism. I share Condell's fear that constant placating and accommodation of intolerant religion lets its influence spread. The recent outlawing of blasphemy in Ireland, the disgusting accommodation of the Muslims who protested Danish cartoons several years ago, and the outrageous UN resolution protecting religious people from perceived insults and blasphemy are dangerous signs that the attempt to suppress counter-religious rhetoric has only emboldened and legitimized aspects of the extremist, theocratic dimension of religion, rather than helped tug the moderates further to the left. It's backfired and in part legitimated religiously right wing lines of thought to moderates, even as it may have kept those same moderates away from the farthest right wing extreme.

So, while I think the left is less genuinely supportive of religion as a whole and is more strategic and pragmatic in its sometimes obsequious deference to religion which demonstrates a desperation not to offend, nonetheless, the consequences of giving credence to the gripes of theocrats is often to legitimize them and backfire attempts to liberalize the moderates through appeasement. So, even though, I wish he was less acerbic I tilt towards sympathy with Condell.

Posted by: Jack C | July 29, 2009 8:29 PM

I'm all for exposing the stupidity of all religions, including islam. I'm all for ensuring equality for those women oppressed by islam. However, this guy has the same gift for hyperbole and alarmist fear mongering as people like Bill o'reilly. There isn't a tsunami of muslims that's going to take over western Europe and instate sharia law in the next decade or so, that's just fear mongering.
Where there is immigration there's always a blending of cultures. Why should I believe that as the descendants of islamic immigrants acquire more education and more wealth and become farther removed from the culture of their grand parents that they'll still be fanatical about taking over western Europe from us infidels.

Posted by: E.V. | July 29, 2009 8:39 PM

Jack C:
Did you actually listen to the video or are you just adept at false equivalences?

Posted by: Nith | July 29, 2009 8:57 PM

There's a pretty obvious gulf between Pat's British audience and American readers here.

The sort of leftism which reflexively bows to Islam as a symbol of non-Western resistance to imperialism/America is very much in power here. One of the largest non-mainstream parties is called Respect and is a ridiculous coalition of (white) socialists and fundamentalist Muslims.

And of course critism of Islam has recently been written in to law on par with racial abuse.

Also, the claim that European Muslims will just settle down and integrate after a few generations hasn't borne out well here. It's a common observation that the second and third generation are far more devout than their poor economic migrant fathers. 'My Son The Fanatic' was a great film about this.

Posted by: E.V. | July 29, 2009 9:26 PM

(I thought the "actually, we're all one race" thing was settled.)

Posted by: MadScientist | July 29, 2009 9:38 PM

OK, so I'm not kicking myself for watching Condell (should I call that a miracle?). Now if he'll only talk that way about christianity too rather than going all soft on them.

I agree with most of what he says in that rant, especially how morons call you "racist" for criticizing islam - as if islam were a race. That's not even getting into the ridiculous notion of 'race' which is a historical and persistent lie.

Posted by: Scott M | July 29, 2009 10:04 PM

I usually agree with Pat's perspective on religion, but I'm getting rather tired of his "liberals who hate America" rants. When he gets on one of these jags he sounds like he's approaching the territory of Rush Limbaugh.

Maybe he's referring to some group in the UK, but I generally consider myself a "liberal" as do many of the people I interact with to one degree or another. In no way do I or anyone else I know embrace this "appeasment" attitude Pat is describing, and I have heard very few people espouse this kind of nonsense who aren't from some sort of crazy fringe or another.

The name of the person who said this escapes me, but somewhere in my memory I remember someone saying "America does not want war, but we do not want peace-at-any-price." Contrary to what many conservatives seem to believe, liberals subscribe more to this than the total pacifism Condell seems to be on about.

If a culture or brand of politics (I don't really care which side of the spectrum) comes along that activey tries to dominate everyone else then I am opposed to it. This includes radical Islam.

I am not, however, among those who gleefully paint all of Islam with the same insane brush. I am quite aware that there are plenty of reasonable, sane Muslims (mostly living in the West), and the burka is an article of clothing embraced only the by most conservative, misanthropic, and aggressive sub-sects.

"Multiculturalism" is another word that I'm getting tired of hearing get smeared. The ideal of "multiculturalism" is an understanding that there are cultures different from us with different values and that *reasonable* efforts to reconcile those differences is generally preferable to conflict. It does not, as Condell seems to like to claim, mean rolling over for anyone or letting oneself get stepped on for the sake of peace.

I am aware that Muslims have somewhat different values than we do, but I do not advocate Sharia courts, banning posters of dogs or food with bacon on the off-chance that someone might get offended. (I'm with Richard Dawkins on this one. "So what?") Nor do I demand that others do so as well. If there is somebody in a position of authority who does demand these things, then I'd want them out of office just as much as I'd want a Creationist of an Board of Education, an Earth Liberation Front member in charge of city planning, or a vocal PETA member to run a zoo.

I don't know who or what these cowards he's talking about are, but this liberal is certainly not a part of this sort of idiocy...and as I said, I am getting tired of being painted with this kind of brush.

Posted by: AndrewB | July 29, 2009 11:27 PM

Hey E.V. since you brought up circumsion I was was wondering what you think of this article?

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090702_designer_vaginas_is_female_circumcision_coming_out_of_the_closet/

Posted by: Rufus | July 30, 2009 12:01 AM

Ban the burqua? What a fucking stupid idea. Laws that allow the government to choose how people can and cannot dress DO NOT INCREASE FREEDOM. They decrease it. Duh.

Posted by: maxamillion | July 30, 2009 1:17 AM

#17 Some police forces in the UK are considering special headgear for female police officers only to wear when they have to enter mosques.

WTF?
Time for some Fahrenheit 451 when that day comes.

Posted by: Ema | July 30, 2009 1:26 AM

Woo! Well said!

Posted by: Will | July 30, 2009 2:02 AM

Oh no, Condell isn't a racist. It's just coincidental that he plays directly into the hands of the other totalitarian organizations in the West - the kind that sees Islam and says that "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

Yes, fundamentalist Islam is a threat to freedoms, and no quarter should be given to those seeking to impose Sharia or adopting separate laws. That said, we also face a real threat from extremist right-wingers - some racist, some merely imperial - who truly do wish to embark on a crusade against the Muslim world.

Both sets of fanatics seek genocide and complete elimination of the other race- excuse me, culture. We must not kowtow to either. And as for the bigger threat, guess which group has more political influence in the West right now?

Posted by: eddie | July 30, 2009 2:39 AM

From my local paper this morning;

A M I N I S T E R on L e w i s
suggested yesterday that
a tornado which struck the
island could have been a
punishment from God.
The Reverend James Tallach
criticised Monday’s “gay wedding”
on the island and the decision to
allow Sunday ferry sailings, and
said: “No good comes out of
defying God’slaw.”
The tornado, which came ashore
at Stornoway ferry terminal, tore
up trees and damaged roofs and
cars, but no one was hurt.

Posted by: eddie | July 30, 2009 2:45 AM

A M I N I S T E R on L e w i s
suggested yesterday that
a tornado which struck the
island could have been a
punishment from God.
The Reverend James Tallach
criticised Monday’s “gay wedding”
on the island and the decision to
allow Sunday ferry sailings, and
said: “No good comes out of
defying God’slaw.”
The tornado, which came ashore
at Stornoway ferry terminal, tore
up trees and damaged roofs and
cars, but no one was hurt.

Posted by: Cimourdain | July 30, 2009 2:54 AM

Am I the only one who remembers Muslims marching through the streets promising the next Holocaust? Or that they have just gotten away with another genocide? (Thanks, UN fetishists; real good work there?).

Ah, well. Nothing must upset boundless tolerance and howling ignorance.

If it matters though, many of the most ferocious critics of Islam are its apostates, or those - like Brigitte Gabriel - who have seen its horrors up close in distant lands that the modern left doesn't care about.

Posted by: Ron Sullivan | July 30, 2009 3:01 AM

Forcing women to wear burkhas = giving women orders.
Forcing women not to wear burkhas = giving women orders.

Same old shit. "Chicks up front!"

Posted by: Erik | July 30, 2009 3:36 AM

What if women were coerced to wear hand cuffs? Chastity belts? Would there be much tolerance for those? I doubt it very much. The only difference between those and burkas is subtlety, and not much at that.

If burkas are such acceptable things, why don't muslim men wear them?

Posted by: Cimourdain | July 30, 2009 3:50 AM

KG, as I said, I don't think you're smart enough to know when you're lying. Look up the "Incitement to Religious Hatred Law".

Posted by: Cimourdain | July 30, 2009 4:12 AM

Ignoramus. The act was passed precisely because the incitement to racial hatred law didn't cover Islam. Do go back to playing with your wood blocks dear.

Posted by: Knockgoats | July 30, 2009 4:20 AM

Cimourdain,

Nith said:
"And of course criticism of Islam has recently been written in to law on par with racial abuse."

As I said, and as reading the law confirms, that's false, as in not true. You're a racist, homophobic liar and a goalpost-shifter.

As to whether the law should have been passed, no, it shouldn't. For one thing, because of the opportunities it gives to racist liars like you and Nick Griffin to play the victim.

Posted by: Sigmund | July 30, 2009 4:37 AM

Can I be allowed to Godwin this thread by pointing out the unfortunate position of the play button in the middle of the video makes the enraged looking Mr Condell look rather similar to a famous Austrian historical figure (and not Arnie or Bruno).

Posted by: Frank | July 30, 2009 5:06 AM

I wonder what liberal left meetings this guy attends where they praise Allah and force their women to wear burkas? Most godless liberals I know (including myself) think Islam is just as stupid as Christianity, or any other religion for that matter.

Posted by: Cimourdain | July 30, 2009 6:25 AM

Sigmund,

Funny you should mention that. I was just thinking how the posters here reminded me of the kind of pansy-left that Orwell described, who were first at Hitler's feet when he came to power, and then were just too gutless to do anything against him. "Like sugar in the kidneys of a diabetic".

I'm reminded of Klemperer's apposite comment...

Posted by: Sigmund | July 30, 2009 7:16 AM

I would agree with #208 Legal-Theorist above regarding the UK situation. I lived there for a number of years and while there are a small number who would fall into the type criticized by Condell, they are in no way representative of the population at large.
In my own native Ireland, on the other hand, we have the horrifying reality of the Green Party, currently in government as part of a coalition, passing legislation outlawing any statements that are thought offensive by religious people.
Its commonly known as the 'Irish Blasphemy Law' but that's a misnomer since it makes it sound like an old style 'do not take the name of the lord in vain' type law.
In fact it's entirely based on the thoroughly modern concept
of not saying anything offensive to religious sensibilities - since these are so much more important than other sensibilities (like basic human rights, equality, scientific fact, political viewpoint etc).
Its an 'Enforced Accomodationism' law.
Coming soon to a legislature near you (if you're not careful).

Posted by: Cimourdain | July 30, 2009 8:17 AM

THank you Daniel, for getting it.

Posted by: Zxcv | July 30, 2009 9:37 AM

@Hyperon,

Black colleges are *historically* black colleges. They don't exclude people of other races, and whites can get affirmative action scholarships to attend them.

American liberals don't defend segregated schools. That's for libertarians and conservatives.

Posted by: Cimourdain | July 30, 2009 9:59 AM

More from Nick Cohen:

Making friends with your enemy's enemy is a familiar tactic, but it is not as uncomplicated as it seems. More often than not, you have to betray your old friends when you conclude your pact. The organisers of the anti-war demonstrations and their friends treated Iraqi left-wingers like criminals because they refused to take up arms against the Americans as the script of the rich world's left said they must.

Instead of supporting the far right, the uppity natives said they wanted to escape from al-Qaeda and the Ba'ath and to participate in free elections. Iraqi trade unionists in particular were met with the most implacable hatred. At the 2004 European Social Forum speaker after speaker supported the "resistance". No one booed when one said that those who questioned the motives of the suicide bombers who were murdering daily (mainly Muslim) civilians were guilty of "anti-Islamic racism". They dismissed the leaders of the Iraqi left as "quislings", even when they were men such as Hadi Saleh. The left would once have hailed him a hero for risking his life for the welfare of humanity. Saleh was a printer and trade union organiser whom the Ba'athists arrested as soon as they came to power in 1968. He sat on death row for five years. They let him go, and he fled to Sweden with his wife. Like many in the Iraqi Communist Party, he lost his faith in Moscow after it cut deals with Saddam and started a long journey towards constitutional politics. He had to live with a constant fear of assassination. Saleh opposed the war of 2003, but returned home after it was over. From next to nothing he and his comrades built a mass movement in the face of the indifference or hostility of the Americans, who were so lost in conservative dogma they didn't grasp that free societies and free trade unions go together. They came for him, of course. The professional nature of the torture wounds on his body suggested that "they" were Ba'athist secret policemen rather than Bin Ladenists. When he was dead, they took his union records to give them the names of more people to kill.

I've never felt as ashamed of my trade of liberal journalism as I did at the time of his murder.

Posted by: Hyperon | July 30, 2009 1:37 PM

It's not obvious why "multiculturalism" should be seen as something positive which we should strive to enforce. Culture is merely a collection of ideas. What to think about them is very much up for debate. If someone thinks chop-sticks are inferior to knives and forks, he is entitled to that opinion. That opinion by itself presents no evidence at all that he is racist or a bigot.

"Diversity" is another dirty word. Surely if we're not racists, then the "fair" distribution of black and white employees will follow? Why do we have to consciously promote "diversity"? If the number of black employees in a certain line of work isn't representative of the black percentage of the national population, how do you know (without intensive further investigation) that this is a sign of discrimination as opposed to dozens of other, far more charitable explanations?

So, I follow Condell in being suspicious of anyone with a penchant for throwing around words like "multiculturalism" and "diversity". Without further information, I would think it more likely than not that such a person is simply trying to show off.

Posted by: Hyperon | July 30, 2009 1:51 PM

Yes, I'm British. That's partly how I know what a racist arsehole Condell is - the style and content are entirely familiar, and remarkably similar to those of the BNP leader, Nick Griffin. Even our leading Nazis (no, I'm not saying Condell is a Nazi or fascist) don't tend to be frank about their racism these days, at least in public. The BNP's main line these days is anti-Islam, and it has even started "reaching out" to Hindus, Sikhs and Jews, although this has generated internal opposition from the less tactically sophisticated membership.

If we had no information about the BNP beyond that it is anti-Islamic, we would not be able to say that it is a racist party. Naturally this isn't the case.

So, in short, you're hopelessly confused. Your fault, not Condell's.

Posted by: Timothy (TRiG) | July 30, 2009 2:10 PM

It's generally considered a good idea for civil disputes to be settled outside the legal courts. This is called arbitration. Sometimes, the parties may agree beforehand to accept the decision of the arbitrator. This is called binding arbitration.

From a right-wing, "everyone stands on their own two feet" perspective, Sharia courts are uncomplicatedly a good thing.

From a left-wing, "but are people being pressured against their will by social factors?" perspective, the issues around Sharia courts are a little more complex.

The fact that most right-wingers don't like Sharia courts is a good indication of how uninformed right-wingers tend to be.

TRiG.

Posted by: Knockgoats | July 30, 2009 2:41 PM

If we had no information about the BNP beyond that it is anti-Islamic, we would not be able to say that it is a racist party. Naturally this isn't the case.

So, in short, you're hopelessly confused. Your fault, not Condell's. - Hyperon

No, I'm not. I argued Condell to be a racist on the basis of his rant, and indeed of very specific features of it. Go back and read what I wrote. The comparison to BNP rhetoric was a minor point, but illustrates that his failure to say "I hate Pakis" or similar is not proof that he's not racist, because leading known racists in the UK don't either in their public statements. Got it now?

Posted by: E.V. | July 30, 2009 3:13 PM

Hey E.V. since you brought up circumsion I was was wondering what you think of this article?

Posted by: E.V. | July 30, 2009 3:52 PM

Sorry Nick G & S.C., I respectfully disagree. I asked a sincere questions @#161 ©. How are Condell's views against his critics different from PZ'scriticisms against those that throw the "New Atheist" bomb (when focusing solely on ideology)? Are race and ideology in theocratic societies so enmeshed that they are inseparable and therefore will always provide them with a defensive cry of "racism" to use as a shield when their ideologies are criticized? Xianity/Catholocism now is largely multiracial through assimilation/conversion. Islam converts tend to be those whose ancestors would have been Islamists by region if not for mitigating factors, i.e. conversion/assimilation by Xian(Protestant)/Catholics through conquest, slavery or evangelism.
The key to whether Condell is a racist conundrum seems to be whether he is condemning Islamism in toto or just radical /fundamentalist Islamism. If all religions are somewhat poisonous, are some sects more toxic than others? And again I ask, are "race" and ideology in theocratic societies so enmeshed that they are inseparable and therefore will always provide them with a defensive cry of "racism"

Posted by: Cimourdain | July 30, 2009 4:04 PM

HyperonM/b>,

Can I try and make it easy? Imagine that the good Professor had posted Bill Maher's latest rant against american Christianity. Would there be scores of idiots complaining about prejudice and bigotry?

The question answer's itself, does it not? I think I can say this with some justification; if you look at the Amsterdam thread, you'll find people expressing opinions that are the rough equivalent of calling Arabs goat-fuckers. No complaint.

Posted by: Rob C | July 30, 2009 5:51 PM

"NO ONE IS ASSERTING THAT WE RESPECT THE SEXIST BURQA."

As I said in my post, many people and organizations on college campuses are insisting that we "respect" the burqa, and a lot more, simply because they are part of a culture. I think the people who wrote to Condell were complaining because he did not respect the Burqa.

But, a bigger problem is that you think you can speak for everybody, or who exactly? And, shouting (or all caps) does not help your point.

Posted by: AndrewB | July 30, 2009 6:42 PM

Thanks E.V. for answering my question I was baffled when I read that article.

Posted by: bilbo | July 30, 2009 11:25 PM

There's liberal, and then there's freaking crazy liberal.

This guy's a good example of the latter.

Posted by: Jim1138 | July 31, 2009 5:18 AM

Want to see some of Pat Condell's feedback?

Pat Condell Feedback

Posted by: Cimourdain | July 31, 2009 7:22 AM

Toby,

Most Muslims who come to Europe are seeking a better life.

True only up to a point, Lord Copper. Something like 36% of British Muslims think that anyone leaving the faith merits death. 40% want Shariah to become the law of the land in Britain.

Now that's technically a minority, but consider two other facts: first, this is the number that will admit that to pollsters. The second is that 72% of young Muslim men want homosexuality re-criminalized.

I feel a song coming on:

"Oh, out went Islamophobia and in came homophobia
And in came islamotolerance and out went women's rights..."

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | July 31, 2009 7:49 AM

There are many things Professor Myers and I disagree upon, from the existence of God to the matter Of Sarah Palin. There is one thing we agree upon, and that is the harm religion in its various forms has caused. Harm caused by religious practices and beliefs, and by the institutionalization of aberrant social behavior. The fact a religion is the religion of others does not excuse it from criticism and condemnation. In so far as Islam as currently practiced supports and enables misogynistic behavior makes it as open to condemnation as Christianity ever is. Equal justice under the law means one thing, that the law of the land applies to you as much as it does to any other person. If you think that a law is wrong, then you get that law repealed instead of crafting an exception for yourself.

Posted by: bonze | July 31, 2009 9:29 AM

Knockgoats: Alan Kellogg,

I see you've joined the liars pretending that anyone objecting to Condell's racist rant is an apologist for Islam.

It's a real tribute to the evolutionary potential of language that a "racist rant" can include a denial of racist belief, the statement "We're all one race", and a denunciation of the BNP as... a "racist party": "I'd rather drive a garden fork through my own foot than vote for the BNP."

Not-A is A when we apply the advanced logics of postmodern theory to an assertion, revealing that a "simple" "straightforward" statement is in fact its exact opposite after analysis shows that it is in reality an examplar of the obfuscatory power of hegemonic discourse. Ta-da!

Posted by: Knockgoats | July 31, 2009 10:30 AM

Knockgoat's beef with Condell and I is that we take a third world religion to task. Only first world religions -Christianity and Judaism for example- can be faulted. - Alan Kellogg

My beef with you is that you're a liar. My first comment on this thread, #85, begins:

"The facts that Islam is false, misogynistic and repulsive, and that Islamism is dangerous..."

And for Knockgoats; has it ever occurred to you that saying that members of one group cannot be held accountable for what they do because of what they are is a racist as any other form of stereotyping?

Yes it has. That's why I never say anything of the kind, liar.

Posted by: Knockgoats | July 31, 2009 11:02 AM

Incidentally, the claim that "We're all one race" is false, although it may often be made with good intentions. Race is a social not a biological category; but being assigned to a racial category makes a big difference to your life in most societies, and most societies have at least some official recognition of such categories. If racism ceased to exist, these categories would lose their importance, but until it does, they are all too real for those in the less privileged ones.

Countdown to some liar or idiot distorting what I've just said to claim I'm racist begins... NOW.

Posted by: Cimourdain | July 31, 2009 11:31 AM

KG

My beef with you is that you're a liar. My first comment on this thread, #85, begins: "The facts that Islam is false, misogynistic and repulsive, and that Islamism is dangerous..."

You're an idiot if you take a denial of Islamaplogia at face value - hey, didn't we just hear something like that?

Anyway, nothing Pat says would be considered shocking to, say, Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Ali Sina...

Posted by: Cimourdain | July 31, 2009 2:39 PM

KG,

That's easy to answer. "We" refers to the brotherhood of infidels - that is, atheists, agnostics, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Taoists, etc. I know you're not used to thinking in terms of a group that includes people from far away places with funny names, but that's the definition.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 1, 2009 7:07 AM

Condell's a racist

With the caveat that I'm not in the UK and I realize the sensitivities there might be different, I would still like to point out that I do not quite see how Condell is a racist KG.

I think I've watched most of his recent vids, and what he seems to criticize is muslims trying to establish islamic law and lifestyle in a western european country, instead of abiding by that country's law, as would be expected of you and me were we to live in Saudi-Arabia etc.

So no,if a muslim in the UK beats his wife/child and is called out on that, if a muslim medical student in the UK complains of racism for being critisized for not washing their hands in an OR before a surgical procedure on religious grounds, then I think people should have the guts to stand up to them and tell them that such behaviour is not tolerated in this society.
Which is what Condell is trying to get across I think.

Posted by: Dan | August 1, 2009 9:53 AM

@KG,
"we"? -- anyone who feels resonance with what Pat say, something out of his control. It's also ambiguous, and you are asking the wrong question.

Worse is your accusation that it refers to some who feel they "really belong". There's no evidence that Pat thinks that.

But I will ask you this: how do you want to set the norms of your society? What are the absolute minimum conditions for you? What do you do if someone wants to subvert that?

Note that your principles may not be tied to specific values, but perhaps processes, like democracy.

Unless you are an anarchist, there will be some principles you abide by. And that is your "we", if you like.

Posted by: Timothy (TRiG) | August 1, 2009 12:27 PM

Two points: 1 and 3.

I'm not sure how that happened.

Preview is my friend.

TRiG.

Posted by: Hoshi | August 12, 2009 12:18 PM

Hi guys. Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Help me! Help to find sites on the: Bathroom cabinets designs. I found only this - modern bathroom vanities and cabinets. On friday, august th, at am and is filed under vanity. Wood is popular, and oak is back in force which seems to offer kind of a calming experience, giving a back to nature feel. Thanks for the help :-(, Hoshi from Cuba.