Baroness Warsi taking advantage of her position

[GORGEOUSX]

In thinking that it hasn't taken Baroness Warsi long to take advantage/abuse? her position by saying that she wants to fight bigotry towards Muslims.

Of all the causes she could have used her position to put her weight behind, I'm dismayed that she has chosen this one.

Perhaps Baroness Warsi will suggest to her fellow muslims that they should have a bit more tolerance of non-muslims around their own dinner tables and then maybe the media wouldn't be so quick to describe them as moderate or radical.

YABU. The whole point of having people in politics from all religions/races etc is that everyone gets representation. If she is perceiving a trend against Muslims in society, and she wants to speak against it, why on earth is it "abusing her position" to do so?

YABU

Do you have a link?

Have a

Have you ever experienced prejudice or racism? Clearly not. It's vile and it is a problem for some people in this country. It should be addressed.

today's Independent

GORGEOUSX - ridiculous argument. You'll find no harsher critic of extremist Muslims than Sayeeda Warsi.

She's perfectly entitled to articulate the views with which you disagree just as you are to ignore them (or, as you have chosen to do, draw attention to them on a public forum).

Are you sure you have the right definition of 'taking advantage of a position'?

Cause you've come across as a wee bit ignorant in your OP there.

i think Warsi is right, although it pains me to say that of any tory!

I think the notions of 'moderate' and 'extremist' muslims are incredibly unhelpful. They've become meaningless terms; media shorthand.

Let me just get this straight. Are you complaining about someone utilising their political position to oppose discrimination?

What on earth is going on at the moment??

OP YABU, and nuts.

Do you believe that any bigotry is ok? Why shouldn't it be talked about? Muslims, more than any other group, get lumped in with extremists. When they are far from the only group to have extremists.

If she were a Christian complaining about, say, the recent case of the hoteliers who got fined, would you have expressed your OP in anything like the same terms? I doubt it.

As I see it, Warsi is not cynically promoting her own religious group, she is standing up for a principle. Good for her.

Slightly odd post OP. When so many people have complained about the peers being detached from normal life, hidden away in Westminster grooming their ermine, isn't this what we want to see?

Imagine the headlines: BARONESS ABUSES POSITION BY CAMPAIGNING AGAINST BIGOTRY!!!!

Actually, I don't think YABU. It's that classic "free speech not hate speech" argument. You can't have free speech if you ban hate speech, and free speech is one of our most precious rights. Whether you find people talking about a dislike for a particular group or phenomenon distasteful or not is irrelevant. It's nothing to do with baroness warsi what people talk about at their dinner parties. People have a real panic button about Islam which they don't have about other religious or political groups like Christians or conservatives and I can assure you i've been at social events when both have come in for a bashing!

There is also the point that Islam is the only religion actively planning to blow up bits of Britain that we know of. Mi5 foiled a scheme to blow up st Thomas' tower and big Ben on Christmas day. OF COURSE most Muslims don't condone this kind of action, but that doesn't mean we aren't allowed to talk about a threat that is very real, for fear of offending people who have nothing to do with it. If warsi had written her article about Tory bashing, would anyone have batted an eyelid? I doubt it.

It's a waste of her political influence IMHO to try and raise awareness of people exercising their right to talk about something that makes them uncomfortable. There is no such thing as "free speech as long as no ones feelings get hyrt"

"There is also the point that Islam is the only religion actively planning to blow up bits of Britain that we know of."

You do realise that the IRA act under the disguise of Christianity don't you? I'd say they've been pretty active at blowing up bits of Britain for a while now.

Would you blame their actions on their religion? Or on the more realistic basis that it is to do with land - but tangled up with religion? (Which incidentally is the same reason the extremists act on)

Needle:

"The European Union's Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2010 states that in 2009 there were "294 failed, foiled, or successfully executed attacks" in six European countries. This was down almost one-third from the total in 2008 and down by almost one-half from the total in 2007.

So in most of Europe, there was no terrorism. And where there was terrorism, the trend line pointed down.

As for who's responsible, forget Islamists. The overwhelming majority of the attacks 237 of 294 were carried out by separatist groups, such as the Basque ETA. A further 40 terrorists schemes were pinned on leftist and/or anarchist terrorists. Rightists were responsible for four attacks. Single-issue groups were behind two attacks, while responsibility for a further 10 was not clear.

Islamists? They were behind a grand total of one attack. Yes, one. Out of 294 attacks. In a population of half a billion people. To put that in perspective, the same number of attacks was committed by the Comite d'Action Viticole, a French group that wants to stop the importation of foreign wine."

From here

When the IRA were at their destructive peak I believe- although I was too young to really be aware of it, so please excuse me- that there was widespread condenmation from all quarters. IRA plots haven't been headline news for a while.

That's beside the point. I'm not saying that I approve of islamophobia, of course I don't, my point is that it is people's right to talk about whatever they like at their dinner parties, to use warsi's own example. You can't legislate for opinion. Otherwise where do we draw the line? People are no longer allowed to voice a disapproval of, say, abortion for fear of upsetting those who've had one? Free speech is the most precious right of a civilised society.

"i may not approve of what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it" (voltaire)

LadyBiscuit thank you very much for the figures, I appreciate it. My point is still about freedom of speech though, would you condemn people talking about how they disapproved of the basque separatist movement, just because not all separatists are terrorists? Or is discussion of left wing politics to be banned for fear of upsetting non-homicidal socialists?

The fact that plots such as the one planned for Christmas day were foiled, by the way, doesn't make the fact that they existed any less frightening.

"When the IRA were at their destructive peak I believe- although I was too young to really be aware of it, so please excuse me- that there was widespread condenmation from all quarters."

Of their branch of Christianity or of the IRA?

Because that is the point I was making, there is nothing wrong with disapproving of extremists, there is no need to disapprove of the religion they hold as they are not representative of it (hence the extremist title)

True.

But one still has the right to disaprove of a religion on pretty much whatever grounds you want, whether that religion has a terrorist offshoot or not. Scientology, for example- no one objects to widespread condemnation of scientology. My objection to what baroness warsi said is that it simply isn't her place or that of any politicians to tell people what to think or talk about among their friends.

Well, unless what you're talking about is your plot to blow people up...

Its just cause and effect. If people speaking for your religion blow the shit out of stuff and your communities refuse to integrate on any meaningful level, people are going to generallise and not like you.

Have the Hindus and Sikhs also passed the 'dinner table test'? I think not.

We are a very accepting culture in the UK, but our patience can wear thin just like everyone elses.

I don't see how what she said is in any way seeking to repress freedom of speech. She is attacking prejudice against Muslims as wrong. If that is anti-freedom of speech then so is the expression of any opinion.

Frankly, the argument that something is 'anti-freedom of speech' is the new cry to end all debate on a topic, just like 'Fascist!' was in the 80s.

My point is that few other groups enjoy the widespread condemnation of criticism afforded to Islam. Expressing disapproval of the religion instantly earns one the label of "racist" or "bigot". No group should be above criticism, and, as I said before, its none of baroness warsi's business what people talk about over dinner, unless she's been invited, that is. You can't campaign against freedom of opinion on the grounds of hurt feelings.

People really need to stop using that Voltaire line in defence of ignorance.

I think Baronesss Warsi is right. I grew up with what I always thought were liberal parents - judgement of others on the basis of colour or religion would not have been acceptable. Somewhere along the line both parents have become seriously anti-Islam, believing all Muslim people are rabid fundamentalists intent on destroying Western society. They believe all those stupid tales of banning of Christmas and cribs because Muslims might be offended, my mother is convinced any woman marrying a Muslim man is doomed to have her kids snatched and hidden in a North African village, it goes on.

A supposedly educated colleague of mine recently spend an entire flight from Stockholm glaring at a middle-eastern looking fellow passenger - why? I quote - 'he's obviously Muslim and he has a laptop'. Yeah clearly a member of Al Quaeda so, no chance he was just a regular guy on a business trip.

Here in Holland a racist rightwing creep called Geert Wilders has managed to get himself into top level government - his anti Islam platform (and not much else) is clearly acceptable to many.

How did we let this happen? I'm behind people like Baroness Warsi, 100%.

Religions can't plan anything. They are abstract belief systems.

People plan things. Sometimes these people have religious beliefs.