First posted: 7th May, 2010
Adrian Goldberg knows as well as anyone else that a belief in tolerance does not extend to tolerating the intolerant. If you tolerate the intolerant, then tolerance may well be squashed. Thus we have many Islamists and Muslims preaching to us about tolerance (of them) but not themselves believing in it. Adrian Goldberg simply joins this hypocritical chorus of Islamists and Trotskyists. (Who do the same with human rights law and international law, which are very un-Islamic.) So it was not ‘a bad day for tolerance’, as Goldberg puts it. By highlighting the danger of Islamism and radical mosques the EDL secured a victory for tolerance. The exact opposite of what Goldberg claims in his topsy-turvy article.
The same type of argument applies to Goldberg’s feeble attempt to out-English the English Defence League by saying that the EDL ‘appears not to value’ the ‘freedom of worship and expression’. Yes it does. That’s why it is fighting Islamism and militant Islam. Mr Goldberg, show me an Islamic or Muslim country which values the freedom of worship and expression. Not Saudi Arabia. Not Iran. Not the Sudan. Not Somalia. Not Egypt. Not Afghanistan. Not Gaza. And not the Pakistan than would have been the cultural and religious home of the Dudley super-mosque had it been given the go-ahead.
So yet again Goldberg gets all his arguments the wrong way around. The fight against Islamism is a fight for 'the freedom of worship and expression'. No amount of curry dinner parties served to Goldberg will change that and neither will his friendship with the IslamoTrot Salma Yaqoob. So don’t try to out-English the English Defence League, Mr Goldberg, you will only embarrass yourself.
It is also funny hearing Goldberg suddenly becoming all Thatcherite when he argues against the very ‘English value’ of demonstrating. Suddenly he’s worrying about the effect on local businesses and the cost to the taxpayer. That’s very funny. Goldberg isn’t usually against protests and the spending of taxpayers’ money. No. Only in the case of EDL demos. Isn’t this the very same Goldberg who was in support of all the demos in Birmingham in favour of Hamas in Gaza and against the Israeli state? Hasn’t he also supported Stop the War demonstrations in Birmingham?
So these demonstrations are OK because they concur with Goldberg’s leftist proclivities. EDL demos are not-OK because they don’t concur with Goldberg’s leftist proclivities. Goldberg’s logic is painfully simple and obviously biased.
Goldberg even managed to find one person in Dudley who was against the EDL. That shouldn’t have been too hard for him. The EDL has never claimed that every single person in Dudley supports them. Not everyone single person in Dudley supports the Labour Party or the Conservative Party. So what? Not everybody in Dudley is in love with Respect and Yaqoob as Goldberg is. So what? Goldberg’s anti-EDL ‘David’ is not going to have a profound effect on the EDL or on anything else. He even quotes this ‘David’ as saying: ‘I get on with my Asian neighbours…’ Yes? And your point is? I have got on with my ‘Asian neighbours’. That doesn’t stop me telling the truth about Islamism or militant Islam. Even if my Muslim neighbours supported West Brom and loved EastEnders, that wouldn’t make Islamism or militant Islam any better. These are facts about individual Muslims who may have these redeeming features in spite of Islam, not because of it.
What about the non-Muslims who don't get a good response from their ‘Muslim neighbours’? The ones who are beaten up by Muslim gangs in Bradford, in Blackburn, in Burnley, in Glasgow, in Rochdale, in Keighley? Why doesn’t Goldberg interview one of the many victims of Muslim-gang violence - which is getting worse by the day? If only Goldberg would take off his ‘diversity-dream’ spectacles. But he can’t. He makes a living from Embracing Diversity and creating Community Cohesion. The only problem with Diversity is that it is not really diverse at all. It is Muslims versus non-Muslims. The only problem with Community Cohesion is that there is no single community and there is no cohesion. They are only words. Clichés. Little tricks to stop thought and any criticism of this rigid PC status quo.
Goldberg then has the cheek to say the EDL’s rooftop protest was ‘something of a damp squib’. If it was a damp squib, perhaps that’s because there are too many regional journalists like Goldberg who are utterly afraid of upsetting the PC status quo and thus possibly losing their jobs for being Islamophobic or being Bigoted Racists or Fascist Bigots. That is, regional journalists who either daren’t tell the truth or who are fans of groups like Respect, UAF, etc., as Goldberg is. In any case, it wasn’t a damp squib. The protest was well featured on many American websites. But American websites won’t count for Goldberg and his type because, along with Israel, America is Satanic and Neo-Con or Neo-Liberal or some other leftist cliché. So yes, I agree, there was a local ‘media blackout’ largely because of small-minded people like Goldberg. And there was an election on.
Goldberg critically lists the other Muslim or Islamic things which the EDL is against. He said it includes ‘a ban on halal meat, closing down unregulated Islamic schools, and removing Sharia Law from the UK’. Yes? Does this mean that Goldberg is in favour of these things? Does that mean that he is in favour of unregulated Islamic schools? He is in favour of halal meat? He is in favour of Sharia law in the UK? And, finally, he is in favour of the burka (sic)? At least now we know have far the rot has gone in leftist circles. Next thing these leftists will be asking for their own crucifixion, something that Hamas has recently ‘voted’ to reinstate. One can only hope.
*) The guilty article by Goldberg: