You are here

The far-out Far-Left: a response to Hilary Aked

The far-out Far-Left: a response to Hilary Aked

Guest post by Charlie Klendjian

 

You know you’ve made it when a well-known journalist devotes an entire article to you.

 

Unfortunately I’m still waiting for that moment so until then I’ll have to satisfy myself with this piece about me on the “Ceasefire” website written by Hilary Aked, a qualified journalist and PhD student researching the “UK pro-Israel lobby” (Israel being that sole, wretched, secular liberal democracy in the madness of the Middle East which is surrounded by countries and terrorist organisations hell-bent on wiping it off the map, in the name of nothing do with Islam. But I digress.)

I was fighting the urge to respond, especially after my friend Anne Marie Waters had done such a fine job of dismembering a piece Aked had written about her at the beginning of the year. You can read more about their exchange on the Harry’s Place website and you can judge for yourself who came off better.

But as you have probably gathered by now, in the end I just couldn’t resist the temptation to swat away Aked’s latest piece of homework. I also felt I should exercise my right to speak about Islam whilst that right still exists, theoretically.

(And by the way, I also recommend this excellent piece by Sam Westrop: “The New Racists? David Miller, Hilary Aked, Kevin MacDonald”.)

 

Dear Ms Aked

 

I stand by everything I have said. I will not retract what I have said and nor will I apologise to you or anyone else who chooses to be upset by any words, opinions or facts they don’t like. If you don't like any words I have said then stop reading or listening to them; it's fairly simple really.

I stand by everything I have said apart from my condemnation at the Speakers Corner event of “sharia welfare in controlled councils”. These words don’t make any sense because I fluffed my lines. It happens to the best of us.

I was meant to be expressing my concern that a British school had based its child welfare policy on sharia. Assuming like me you care for the well-being of children then you can read more about that particular multiculturalism horror show here  (warning: make sure none of your far-left or anti-Semitic (sorry, “anti-Zionist”) friends see you click on a Daily Mail link because they might accuse you of being a racist nationalist Islamophobic xenophobic capitalist Zionist imperialist bigoted colonialist right-wing Tory).

Are you at all concerned that a school in the United Kingdom made its child welfare policy sharia-compliant? Or are you more concerned that people like me are extremely concerned about that and seek to bring it to public attention?

May I propose something? If you have not already done so, please take the time to visit Speakers Corner in London to see just what an unpleasant and physically intimidating environment it is for anyone who dares to challenge sharia.

If you had included in your piece a link to the full video of the Speakers Corner event, with all the speakers, your readers would also have heard a speech by a brave young Muslim lady who agreed to speak at that event, and whom I am in awe of. Your readers would have seen this brave lady sadly cut short her talk (8min 30sec) about her backstreet, caustic soda sharia divorce because she was crying so much.

Why didn’t you use the video which included the Muslim speaker? Was it too inconvenient? Don’t you have any sympathy with her?

Sadly, a number of Muslim men in the crowd weren’t at all concerned about the dreadful experiences of their fellow Muslim because they were too busy repeatedly calling people “racist” and “Islamophobic” (more about “Islamophobia” later), in the style of a parrot. They were also more interested in mocking the appearance of the brave Muslim lady who was recounting her terrible experiences whilst struggling to hold back her tears than they were in offering her any kind of support or sympathy.

In the video that you did link to in your piece, you would also have heard one of the speakers – a white, English atheist who was constantly being called “racist” by Muslims in the crowd – explain (9min 15sec) how she had taken into her house a Somali Muslim who was living in fear of death for defying her own family. You would have heard her explain why that poor Somali lady’s fellow Muslims, from Pakistan, didn’t want to take her in to their house: it was because they didn’t want to share with a Somali. Quick-fire question: in this story, who’s the racist?

If you had attended the event you would also have seen a young Muslim man who was very supportive of what we were saying and who we encouraged to step up to formally address the crowd himself. Sadly he didn’t want to do that because he felt too intimidated – not by us, but by his fellow Muslims. The organisation Hate Not Hope, I mean Hope Not Hate, portrayed this very friendly encounter in their recent report as me and others “confronting a Muslim who objected to their speeches” (page 17). That was a vicious and defamatory lie, as was much else in that “report”.

And had you been there on the day you would also have seen a number of young Muslim men “accuse” me of being Jewish and “accuse” me of drinking alcohol. I am not Jewish, but I do drink alcohol (ice-cold Keo beer from Cyprus, if you’re buying).

At the time of writing, being Jewish or drinking alcohol are perfectly legitimate endeavours in an advanced, civilised, western secular democracy like the United Kingdom, but in many Islamic states they would pass for extreme sports. Having a pint in an Islamic state can even give a new meaning to the phrase “going on the lash” (relax: I’ve linked to The Guardian this time, just for you).

And had you been there on the day you would also have seen me ask a number of young Muslim men if I should be killed for drawing a picture of Mohammed. Strangely enough, considering this is such a simple question (well it is to me), I didn’t get very simple answers. Some of them told me it was “complicated”. Do you think the question of whether someone deserves death for drawing a cartoon is “complicated” too, Ms Aked?

And had you been there on the day you would also have seen a couple of young Muslim men very subtly but not completely accidentally brush their shoulder against mine as they walked past me.

I hope I have managed to paint a colourful canvass of a very action-packed Sunday afternoon in Hyde Park. It was sure livelier than sitting on the sofa and watching Songs of Praise.

I imagine that absolutely nothing I have described to you about Speakers Corner bothers you in the slightest because as far as I can see, you have chosen to expend significant energy challenging those who challenge sharia rather than those who advocate and practise it.

If you were at all concerned for the welfare of Muslims – and I am, which is why I choose to incur a non-trivial security risk as well as perpetual character assassination for speaking out against sharia (feel free at this point to call me racist, patronising names like “white saviour”) – then you would actively challenge sharia yourself. You would actively challenge blasphemy and apostasy codes; you would make it as easy as possible to talk about Islam rather than as difficult as possible; and you would readily acknowledge the awkward, narrative-busting fact that the greatest threat to Muslims is sharia and other Muslims (closely followed by apologists for sharia and those who make it their life’s work to try and shut down discussion).

Congratulations on shoe-horning a mention of the evil Norwegian mass-murdering terrorist Anders Breivik into your piece. It’s almost like you were suggesting there might be some form of connection between Breivik and me on the basis that monster spoke about Islam and so do I. Perhaps this is what passes for “investigative journalism” these days?

Well allow me to undertake a little “investigative journalism” of my own. Bear with me because I don’t have any formal qualifications in this area. I’m always keen to develop new skills though. I’m a really fast learner.

I notice from your Twitter profile picture that you wear clothes.

Are you aware that Adolf Hitler also wore clothes?

Other unpleasant individuals who have worn clothes include Joseph Goebbels, Josef Mengele, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-un (“Crazy Kim”), Emperor Palpatine, Saddam Hussein, Dirty Den, Col. Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, Idi Amin, and – to come full circle – Anders Breivik.

I have now established a clear connection between you and Anders Breivik. Will you now write a piece about yourself, asking yourself to retract your clothes, asking yourself to apologise for wearing clothes, and asking yourself to disassociate from yourself?

You have expressed concern that I may have breached the criminal law. Breaching the criminal law is of course a very serious matter. If you believe that I or anyone else has committed a crime then the sensible thing to do is report your concerns to the local constabulary. In a democracy the law is enforced by the police. If you believe the matter is an emergency there is even a free telephone number you can ring. Most children of kindergarten age know this number: it is 999 (nine, nine, nine).

Finally, I must echo Anne Marie’s sentiments in asking – 50% out of genuine bewilderment and 50% out of sheer head-banging exasperation – why you don’t condemn the same Jew-hating, gay-hating, apostate-hating, infidel-hating, women-enslaving, vagina-butchering, Holocaust-denying, sharia-advocating, theocracy-implementing, freedom-crushing, democracy-overthrowing people that we condemn. Is it because you agree with them and/or wish to make allies with them? Or is it because you are scared of them? If the former, I find that stomach-churning. If the latter, I find that understandable but I politely suggest you at least pluck up the moral courage to admit your fear.

And as Sam Westrop mentioned in his piece, can I ask why you call moderate Muslims “native informants”? Whose side are you on?

I won’t answer all the questions you emailed me because a) I can’t be bothered, b) I don’t particularly like you, c) I don’t owe you any explanations, and d) this piece is long enough already and I now risk boring my readers, but being a kind-hearted young man I will answer a few questions you had previously put to me.

Who funds the LSS?

As you know, I recently left the LSS, primarily because of the security consequences to me of being associated with the now-cancelled Mohammed cartoon exhibition (I’m feeling a bit better now, thanks for asking. I really appreciate your concern.)

In any case, it’s none of your business who funds the LSS. But I’ll give you some clues: it’s not Anjem Choudary, Lutfur Rahman, George Galloway, Hope Not Hate, Hamas, or any of Osama bin Laden’s wives.

But seriously, and childish quips aside, there’s absolutely no need for you to lose sleep: the LSS is not funded by “Zionist” bankers, Mossad, or Benjamin Netanyahu either.

Who funds Sharia Watch UK?

Dunno. SWUK is a completely separate organisation to the LSS. Who funds it is none of my business.

What’s your association with SWUK?

Because I am lucky to have a brain which is in more or less full working order, I support SWUK’s stated objective of seeking “to document the advance of sharia law in Britain, the methods by which this advancement occurs, and the groups and organisations which promote it”.

I am also on record as speaking at SWUK’s launch in the House of Lords and contributing to their launch report.

Given sharia’s truly dreadful human rights record and its incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights (as determined by the highest court in our land, the then House of Lords), I happen to think that every sane adult – and probably many children – should be able to support SWUK’s stated objective too.

This doesn’t mean I agree with every single SWUK dot, comma and apostrophe, past present and future. There are plenty of organisations I give my overall support to, such as Index on Censorship, the Guild of Fine Chocolate, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, and the English Tiddlywinks Association (ETwA), without agreeing with every single thing they do, or even knowing every single thing they do, or knowing who gives them the folding stuff.

What’s your association with Anne Marie Waters?

You’re sounding like an ex-wife now. You must be the jealous type.

Anne Marie is a very good friend. I respect her willingness to observe and state facts about Islam in the face of physical danger and incessant smearing.

What is your understanding of the term “Islamophobia” and what is your position on it?

Finally, a good question. How long have you got? I’ll be brief, ish.

“Islamophobia” is a sinister, intimidating and career-threatening political term designed to shut down discussion of Islam by equating scrutiny of a set of ideas (Islam) with racism/discrimination/hatred towards Muslims (the latter being immoral and often unlawful, and which I condemn unreservedly).

In the UK, if I criticise Islam or sharia, or if I sketch a cartoon of a gentleman with a beard and I give him the name “Mohammed”, I will be summarily convicted of “Islamophobia”.

But if I board an aeroplane from Heathrow to Saudi Arabia and then I do precisely the same things whilst standing on the tarmac in the lovely Riyadh sunshine there’s a realistic possibility I’ll be accused not of “Islamophobia” but of blasphemy, and that I’ll be executed – not by a deranged and bloodthirsty lone wolf but by the full force of the Saudi state machinery implementing its depraved sharia law.

“Islamophobia” is a grown-up word for blasphemy, but if sharia addicts and their appeasing apologists went around the UK accusing people of blasphemy they wouldn’t be taken very seriously, would they? Why? Because blasphemy was wiped off our statute books in 2008 (thank God). So the addicts and apologists need another word to cower people into silence. Step forward…“Islamophobia”.

The term “Islamophobia” represents a very successful attempt to fuse together ideas with people in order to equate criticism of ideas with the infringement of people’s rights.

There’s a problem here, though, and it’s a rather ginormous one: rights aren’t for ideas, they’re for actual human beings. If I criticise or ridicule a political party’s policy X, I am in no way infringing the rights of its supporters, and nor does it follow that all its supporters necessarily endorse that policy. Sadly, many people, and my guess is that you are one of them, will not apply this simple reasoning to Islam. Hence this dumb word used by dumb people, “Islamophobia”.

I hope this answers your question. And I hope I haven’t said anything blasphemous, I mean Islamophobic, in this answer.

With very best wishes.

 

Charlie Klendjian

P.S. This “investigative journalism” stuff is addictive. I see that Spinwatch, who you write for and where your piece about me also appeared, and Spinwatch’s sister organisation Public Interest Investigations are funded by the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Cordoba Foundation. As you probably know, the founder of the Cordoba Foundation, Anas Altakriti, has said: (page 13, first paragraph) “Calls for an Islamic state* by some corners should not scare us** nor should it bring about a negative reaction***”

 

* Which would inevitably mean full-blown sharia law: civil, criminal, family, the full bells and whistles

** Oh yes it should

*** Oh yes it should