View Single Post
Old 6th May 2012   #524
moth's Avatar
Originally Posted by punkture View Post
er what?

sorry that video answers very little.
It seems to me it answered the question asked.
Originally Posted by punkture View Post
If he knew nothing about the man then his publishing of a bloody great big dossier defending the man after bigging him up in public so much obviously shows that he did it for nothing but a promotion of his own 'multi-ethnic' sensibilities. It put him on the big stage and it appealed to certain parts of the electorate. He didnt even for a minute consider whether it was appropriate to promote such a horrific scumbag, and then defend him to the hilt in full public.

Its all about Ken
Surely if he was just shallowly trying to promote his multi-ethnic credentials he'd stay well clear of anything controversial; he'd just be kissing brown babies and eating spicy food. I think he got tangled up in all the controversy because it was a genuine attempt at political engagement.
Originally Posted by punkture View Post
That in my mind is divisive and a disgraceful way for an elected politician in our country to behave. Apparently you think its fine though and that answer to a question in a press conference is easily enough. Weak
He didn't just answer a question in a press conference though, as you point out he also produced a dossier explaining his position.

But maybe you're counting Ken Livingstone's dossier as discredited and so a further failure to be atoned for?

OK, so most of this story was new to me and i'm playing catch-up. It seems to be:
(For years?,) Quaradawi had been coming to Britain and saying moderate things when talking in English.
Livingstone invited him to conference on religous tolerance.
A dossier was circulated claiming that when speaking arabic in other countries, Quaradawi supports unacceptable positions on anti-semetism, homosexuality and womens rights. (I haven't yet found this original anti-Quaradari dossier.)
Ken responded with another dossier - the press release page is here:
the links to the actual content are broken now, but google found the dossier here:

Peter Tatchell's response to Ken Livingstone's response is here:
and again the links to actual content (a 10 point rebuttal) are broken, but google found me
Which is a 10 point rebuttal, so possibly the same one? All its links to primary sources on are broken too, but assuming galha are who they say they are (or at least were - they don't seem to have done anything for a while) i can probably trust they were acurate.

I've only had time to skim through all this content so far, but basically both sides are accusing each other of distorting things and making stuff up or using sources that have done that. As i don't speak arabic and so much seems to be slipping from the Internet's mind, i'm not able to satisfy myself of the facts.

Ken's dossier says:
- Quaradawi is the target of a smear campaign designed to make him look much more radical than he is, and so scupper any engagement between moderate islam and western politics.
- Dispite the differences between main-stream islam and the progressive west, it's better to engage than square up for a clash of civilisations.

The rebuttal mostly just attacks Ken's first point with more specific examples of things Quaradawi has said. I don't have the time or language skills to assess Quaradawi's postion for myself. (Should i trust the translated subtitles of your video? The man clearly says 'hitler', but beyond that, how faithful are they to his actual meaning and the context of his words? Who made the video and what's their angle?)

The israeli - palestinian conflict is nasty and bitter with no easy answers and not much moral high ground. Ken has a position on the issue so becomes infected by it's division. Does Boris have a view on it?
  quote   reply