UCD Choose 2 Islamists for Debate

oceanclub

Saw this on the MPAC website:

http://mpac.ie/2010/01/26/ucd-debate-tonight/

"That This House Believes Women’s Rights trump Religious Doctrines."

The pro side of the debate includes an ex-Muslim, Maryam Namazie, and Azar Majedi, an Iranian whose religion I'm not aware of, but I would assume from her writings she is no longer a practising Muslim.

On the anti-side is the notorious Anjem Choudary, and Eoin Whelan of MPAC.

So the debate is essentially drawn up as between ex-Muslims and Islamists, with no average Muslims taking to put forward their voices.

I've warned a long time back that the self-promoting MPAC are putting themselves forwards in the media as the true voice of Irish Islam, and this debate is another example of how much success they are having.

P.

wes

They seem to have picked 2 extremes, and I doubt they will get anywhere in the debate.

It is surprising that UCD would give a platform to the fringe lunys of MPAC.

oceanclub

wes wrote: »

They seem to have picked 2 extremes, and I doubt they will get anywhere in the debate.

It is surprising that UCD would give a platform to the fringe lunys of MPAC.

The problem is that, to a lot of people, these aren't considered fringe loonies. I had an online chat with an producer who made a documentary about the head of MPAC; she didn't regard him as particularly different to the average Muslim, and was completely non-plussed when I sent her links to some of his opinions.

P.

panda100

wes wrote: »

They seem to have picked 2 extremes, and I doubt they will get anywhere in the debate.

It is surprising that UCD would give a platform to the fringe lunys of MPAC.

Debating societys in UCD always choose the most extreme people, particularly when it comes to womens issues. I always remember asking to take part in a debate on 'Women and Porn' as the auditor of UCD Students against Sexism. I was denied the chance to take part as there was a pornstar and uber anti-porn feminist invited to speak instead.
The societys are always trying to drum up attention for themselves by any means possible, so instead of having a genuine debate they go for fringe extremists who go round in circles and the debate goes nowhere. Law soc once invited LePen over from France to debate the Lisbon Treaty :rolleyes:

Its also a bit unfair to just target Islam when it comes to religious doctine and women, especially in this country where the Catholic Church still has no Godly legitimate reason for women not to become priests or be apart of church heirarchy.

wes

oceanclub wrote: »

The problem is that, to a lot of people, these aren't considered fringe loonies. I had an online chat with an producer who made a documentary about the head of MPAC; she didn't regard him as particularly different to the average Muslim, and was completely non-plussed when I sent her links to some of his opinions.

Well, that pretty bad then, I taught the ramblings of MPAC would be enough for most people to figure out that they are very mucha fringe.

Panda110 wrote: »

Debating societys in UCD always choose the most extreme people, particularly when it comes to womens issues. I always remember asking to take part in a debate on 'Women and Porn' as the auditor of UCD Students against Sexism. I was denied the chance to take part as there was a pornstar and uber anti-porn feminist invited to speak instead.
The societys are always trying to drum up attention for themselves by any means possible, so instead of having a genuine debate they go for fringe extremists who go round in circles and the debate goes nowhere. Law soc once invited LePen over from France to debate the Lisbon Treaty :rolleyes:

Yeah, the whole thing does smack of trying to drum up publicity.

Son Of A Vidic

I just had a quick look at the MPAC.ie website, read the 'who they are' page, it seems reasonable enough. So why is there a bias amongst posters here against them? the one thing I couldn't see was what does MPAC translate to? Sorry for going of post i'm just curious to find out why they are regarded as 'extreme'

oceanclub

medicman2009 wrote: »

I just had a quick look at the MPAC.ie website, read the 'who they are' page, it seems reasonable enough.

Um, perhaps you should read some of their articles first?

http://mpac.ie/2009/10/25/implementing-shariah-%e2%80%93-a-patriotic-duty/
http://mpac.ie/2009/11/04/justice-paedophile-to-be-crucified/
http://mpac.ie/2009/10/11/the-prohibition-of-imitating-the-kuffar/
http://mpac.ie/2010/01/05/malaysia-stamps-out-filth-of-immorality/

(The last one is particularly disturbing, with the head of MPAC claiming he would like the opportunity to whip young people after religious trials)

P.

EireMuzzie

wes wrote: »

Well, that pretty bad then, I taught the ramblings of MPAC would be enough for most people to figure out that they are very mucha fringe.



Yeah, the whole thing does smack of trying to drum up publicity.

Why would you say they are 'fringe' WES? They appear very mainstream to me and MedicMan 2009 has suggested the same. Could you point out what 'ramblings' you have an issue with?

wes

EireMuzzie wrote: »

Why would you say they are 'fringe' WES? They appear very mainstream to me and MedicMan 2009 has suggested the same. Could you point out what 'ramblings' you have an issue with?

Perhaps you should read the links provided by oceanclub, they back up what I said very clearly. MPAC Ireland are very much a nutty fringe, who are just shouting very loud and taking in the gullible.

ChocolateSauce

They had to pick Islamists; moderate Muslims (by reasonable definition) would be in favour of women's rights, and so there'd be no debate.

irishconvert

wes wrote: »

Perhaps you should read the links provided by oceanclub, they back up what I said very clearly. MPAC Ireland are very much a nutty fringe, who are just shouting very loud and taking in the gullible.

Wes, while I think the guy who runs mpac appears to be a bit of an attention seeker and sh1t stirrer, what they actually say in their articles (at least the ones I've read) does not go against the Qur'an and Sunnah. However the way they are creating division and tension between Muslims and non-Muslims and even within Muslims is not good at all and not in the spirit of Islam. I am always very suspicious of anyone who tries to create division among Muslims and wonder what this guy's real motives are.

ChocolateSauce

irishconvert wrote: »

Wes, while I think the guy who runs mpac appears to be a bit of an attention seeker and sh1t stirrer, what they actually say in their articles (at least the ones I've read) does not go against the Qur'an and Sunnah. However the way they are creating division and tension between Muslims and non-Muslims and even within Muslims is not good at all and not in the spirit of Islam. I am always very suspicious of anyone who tries to create division among Muslims and wonder what this guy's real motives are.

I'd rather they be upfront about it than try to build bridges on faulty foundations. At least with this site you get what you see, as opposed to moderate Muslim councils in western countries which feel the same way as these guys but talk about tolerance and respect.

EireMuzzie

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I'd rather they be upfront about it than try to build bridges on faulty foundations. At least with this site you get what you see, as opposed to moderate Muslim councils in western countries which feel the same way as these guys but talk about tolerance and respect.

I tend to agree with this post. Those who speak of moderation and building bridges are usually the ones who have compromised in one way or another. At least MPAC aren't in the business of pulling the wool over people's eyes.

oceanclub

EireMuzzie wrote: »

I tend to agree with this post. Those who speak of moderation and building bridges are usually the ones who have compromised in one way or another. At least MPAC aren't in the business of pulling the wool over people's eyes.

Building bridges is wrong. There you go: MPAC's philosophy in a nutshell straight from the horse's mouth.

P.

ChocolateSauce

oceanclub wrote: »

Building bridges is wrong. There you go: MPAC's philosophy in a nutshell straight from the horse's mouth.

P.

Compromising your beliefs is wrong, especially when is cosmetically improves relations between two groups of people while actually planting the seeds of deeper problems.

oceanclub

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Compromising your beliefs is wrong.

Please prove it is impossible to build bridges without compromising beliefs. Millions of inter-religious marriages including mine would appear to prove you wrong.

P.

ChocolateSauce

oceanclub wrote: »

Please prove it is impossible to build bridges without compromising beliefs. Millions of inter-religious marriages including mine would appear to prove you wrong.

P.

I'm not talking about personal relationships here- that is the business of the people involved, and at that level compromise and co-operation is good.

I'm talking about governments compromising values like freedom of speech in the name of co-operation. I'd rather not cooperate with Muslims who want impliment Sharia law in the west- I don't respect their beliefs, and I claim my right to tell them I don't. When western governments bend over either backwards or forwards to accomodate Islam (in particular- it isn't the only thing I'm talking about, but it is the biggest one, and also the topic in this forum), they compromise themselves and by extension us.

They appear to be fostering a happy and peaceful society where people with different beliefs can get on, but what they are in fact doing is telling one part of society they cannot criticise another. In Britain in particular, this is a huge and growing problem. They are allowing a situation to develop where an ever larger part of society wants to destroy the right of people to live how they want and to force them to live by god's law, and where the people who do not want to live by god's law aren't allowed to criticise those who do in public.

I don't like Islamists; I think they are a threat to civilisation; but in a way I respect them; they are honest about their intentions, they say what they believe, and they don't compromise their beliefs because they are afraid of how they look. My real problem is with the multiculturalists and moral relativists who allow the Islamists to set themselves up as an oppressed minority whose faith you might offend. These people also think the Islamists' views are abhorrent and wrong, but they tolerate them and accomodate them because they want to be seen to be forward thinking and liberal. In otherwords, they will look on as evil is done and do nothing because of some misguided notion that respecting diversity is more important than calling a fish a fish.

It is analagous to two men walking past a man stoning his wife to death for adultry; the first says "well in that culture it is acceptable to do that", and the second rescues a woman from a would-be murderer.

Which of those men walking past is an amoral coward?

oceanclub

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

My real problem is with the multiculturalists and moral relativists who allow the Islamists to set themselves up as an oppressed minority whose faith you might offend.

I have no time for Islamists either. But just to be sure, you do distinguish between Islamists and muslims?

I mean, currently in this group, no-one is talking about stoning. The current area of discussion was allowing bearded men to be in the Gardai. Personally speaking - and I speak as the owner of a goatee here(*) - I don't see how allowing men with hair on their chins to be policemen compromises liberal Western democracy.

(*) A typical liberal compromise between beard and no-beard.

P.

ChocolateSauce

oceanclub wrote: »

I have no time for Islamists either. But just to be sure, you do distinguish between Islamists and muslims?

I do. In a nutshell, an Islamist is anyone who wants to replace (in whole or in part) or run concurrently the law of the state with the law of the Quran. In Britain, this accounts for almost half of Muslims.

I mean, currently in this group, no-one is talking about stoning. The current area of discussion was allowing bearded men to be in the Gardai. Personally speaking - and I speak as the owner of a goatee here(*) - I don't see how allowing men with hair on their chins to be policemen compromises liberal Western democracy.

(*) A typical liberal compromise between beard and no-beard.

P.

As the owner of a goatee myself, I wouldn't have a problem with guards with beards for secular or religious reasons. However, I do have a problem with the law/rules not being applied equally; if a cop may wear a beard and turban for religious reasons, you must also allow a cop to wear the same for non-religious reasons. In practice, you can't have cops being allowed to wear what they want, and so I feel that something like a turban must be barred.

Butchers do not bar vegetarians from being butchers; vegetarians exculde themselves because they believe killing animals is wrong.

The police to not bar people of any religion serving, but if a person's religion requires them to do something which is not allowed on the force, then unfortuately their religion bars them from being a police officer.

If an exception is made for religion in one area, then an exception must be made in other areas, until the exceptions pile up and you have a situation where the law/rules is not applied equally in all cases, where people can arbitrarily be treated differently from others, and where anyone can argue that their religion is being oppressed if it is not accomodated. The only viable solution is to not give any religion special treatment, or a religious viewpoint precedence over a non-religious viewpoint.

I'm interested in equality and freedom. By giving Islam special treatment (mainly out of fear), we are planting the seeds of a future takeover of secular freedoms by religious conventions.

Instead of saying "Well I don't agree, but to each his own, eh? I know you hate my beliefs, but I'll do my best to live beside you in harmony", I'd rather be frank and say, "you are welcome to your beliefs, and welcome to them in this country, but I don't like them and if you can't stand my way of life you can go somewhere else".

oceanclub

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I'm interested in equality and freedom. By giving Islam special treatment (mainly out of fear), we are planting the seeds of a future takeover of secular freedoms by religious conventions.

Well, just to note that the beard thing isn't just an Islamic thing; it also prevents Sikhs from joining the Gardai and armed forces as well.

You seem to be advanced a "slippery slope" argument - that any compromise on either side inevitably leads to one side giving in. It's thinking like that kept Northern Ireland's communities at loggerheads with each other for 80-odd years. I'd rather that the same thinking isn't applied here.

P.

ChocolateSauce

oceanclub wrote: »

Well, just to note that the beard thing isn't just an Islamic thing; it also prevents Sikhs from joining the Gardai and armed forces as well.

Sorry, it was actually Sikhs I was alluding to, I should have mentioned it.

You seem to be advanced a "slippery slope" argument - that any compromise on either side inevitably leads to one side giving in. It's thinking like that kept Northern Ireland's communities at loggerheads with each other for 80-odd years. I'd rather that the same thinking isn't applied here.

P.

That's a fair enough point, but the issues are different. The issue then was ultimately about nationality to either one of two democratic free nations. This is about whether a country will remain a democratic and free nation, and so far the slope (in Britain in particular but also in other countries, notably the Netherlands) has been slipped down more than I feel comfortable with, and the pace is picking up.

Civil liberty is not up for compromise or negotiation under any circumstances, least of all fear.

oceanclub

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

This is about whether a country will remain a democratic and free nation, and so far the slope (in Britain in particular but also in other countries, notably the Netherlands)

What in particular about these countries makes you think they are no longer as democratic and free as they were?

P.

ChocolateSauce

oceanclub wrote: »

What in particular about these countries makes you think they are no longer as democratic and free as they were?

P.

Many things, but (to cite a few examples) when people like Geert Wilders are being put on trial for offending someone, when a Christian couple are charged with a crime because they told a Muslim woman the headscarf was oppressive, and when tens of thousands of Muslims take to the streets of London waving placards demanding those who offend Islam be butchered (but non-Muslims who take to the streets at anti-Islam rallies are villified, arrested and calls made to ban them), I think something is seriously wrong.

A healthy free democracy doesn't have masses of people demanding the death of democracy, and it doesn't try to stop people from assembling for any cause. (A healthy and free democracy doesn't try to ban the Burka either- but the French wouldn't be reacting this way if they didn't perceive a threat to their liberty).

irishconvert

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

When tens of thousands of Muslims take to the streets of London waving placards demanding those who offend Islam be butchered

Tens of thousands of Muslims did not call on those who offend Islam to be butchered. I recall one or two people held up such placards but to say tens of thousands did is an extreme exaggeration.

If you post any more rubbish like this posted you won't be posting on this forum again..

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

(but non-Muslims who take to the streets at anti-Islam rallies are villified, arrested and calls made to ban them), I think something is seriously wrong. .

Oh please, any right minded person can see this protest was organised by people who obviously hate Muslims and was condemned by may organisations (the majority non-Muslim mentioned in this article)

oceanclub

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Many things, but (to cite a few examples) when people like Geert Wilders are being put on trial for offending someone

I disagree with his trial as I haven't seen any evidence that his speech incites against people rather than a philosophy/religion. (Not that I don't think he's a twat, but Voltaire and all that.)

(Just to add that I'm open to correction on this point. I really haven't followed the Wilders thing that much.)

when a Christian couple are charged with a crime because they told a Muslim woman the headscarf was oppressive

Ah, c'mon. That isn't the full story. The woman in question was staying in the couple's hotel. When she came down for breakfast dressed in a headscarf, they started to abuse her, calling her a terrorist among other things (as confirmed by another couple there).

If a hotelier or any other business I was frequenting decided to verbally abuse me for any reason, I'd make a police complaint. Verbal abuse isn't freedom of speech.

and when tens of thousands of Muslims take to the streets of London waving placards demanding those who offend Islam be butchered

As Irishconvert says, quite an exaggeration. This is kinda proving my point - I'm sure there were a number who had such signs, but you're basically saying that all Muslims offended by insults to Islam are a single bloc.

So while I disagree with the Wilders' trial, you haven't really shown that UK democracy (or Dutch, for that matter) democracy is really in imminent danger.

At the end of the day, this isn't a Muslims vs non-Muslim issue. It's a religious extremist vs the rest of us issue. (In India, currently, Hindu extremists are burning down cinemas simply because a Muslim actor said it might be nice for the Indian team to have some Pakistanis on it.)

P.

irishconvert

ChocolateSauce, take a week off for breach of charter, rule 1. You were warned.

I Drink It Up!

oceanclub wrote: »

Building bridges is wrong. There you go: MPAC's philosophy in a nutshell straight from the horse's mouth.

P.

Ha ha well said Sir!

I Drink It Up!

oceanclub wrote: »

Building bridges is wrong. There you go: MPAC's philosophy in a nutshell straight from the horse's mouth.

P.

Those morons with the signs......"behead those who say Islam is violent"...there were not 1000's but they were accompanied by 1000's of people. And the signs were self-contradicting anyways.....it's like saying "Shout at people who think I am loud".....they gained very little ground those people.:(