Guardian

Comment is Free moderators delete my comment pointing out the moral hypocrisy of Medhi Hasan


In a recent CiF Watch post I demonstrated the hypocrisy of New Statesman senior editor Medhi Hasan who, in a recent CiF piece, How the fear of being criminalised has forced Muslims into silence“, Sept. 8, sanctimoniously condemned post 9/11 bigotry against Muslims.

I noted that Hasan is on record referring to atheists who don’t believe in Islam as immoral, lacking intelligence, and similar to “cattle”.

Prior to my CW post, I made a similar point beneath the line in Hasan’s CiF commentary.

 

CLICK TO ENLARGE

My comment eventually garnered more than 40 recommends before it was deemed inconsistent with Guardian “community standards”.

My comment wasn’t in any way ad hominem, and merely noted Hasan’s own words to demonstrate that he has absolutely no credibility when it comes to condemning intolerance. When you refer to non-believers as “cattle” you do more than merely demonize them, you suggest that they are subhuman.

So, please tell me, what possible justification was there for CiF moderators to delete my comment?

 

26 replies »

  1. I am assuming, Adam, that yours is a rhetorical question. The Guardian/CiF are megaphones for Islamism and as such can and will be held responsible for their part in the promotion of that vile ideology in the UK.

    You know as well as I that in the inverted/(perverted?) moral universe that the Guardian inhabits, terror supporters and thugs are given columns and people who support them are allowed to do so without let or hindrance, murderers are lauded, and all are praised and protected while they spew their filth and poison the air, whereas even reasoned criticism of their views, with proof as you have offered, is absolutely verboten.

    And squatting among them, like monstrous poisonous toads are Mehdi Hassan and other representatives of Islam in the UK and elsewhere, aided and abetted by the newspaper editors and others they have bought or otherwise coerced. That is the parsimonious explanation for most of the media appearing to have taken leave of its collective senses. Much as I would like to, I can’t believe that everyone in the Guardian, the BBC, the whole government is totally insane.

    • Perhaps not but you should reconsider as to whether most of them might be, at least in the Groan and the BBC. I have just looked at the posts here and Serendipity’s below, about Mehdi Hassan’s behaviour when his off the wall views were politely confronted on Sunday Morning Live today, fairly leapt off the page.

      I, too, watched that programme. I was disgusted that the chair was so ineffectual (whether deliberately or because she simply didn’t have the courage to put the nasty little tick in his place) as to let him clang on in the arrogant, ignorant and dismissive way he did.

      But that cloud had a silver lining, I think, given that Mehdi Hassan’s behaviour may have been in no small way responsible for the way the vote panned out. Perhaps that was an indication that people in the UK are getting sick and tired of people like him ranting (and he did rant) about how poor conditions are for Muslims when they so plainly are not.

  2. They probably deemed “the notion that you’re some sort of progressive is simply comical” to be “offensive”. Post it again without that, they’ll have absolutely no excuse that way.

    • But it’s not just Adam Levick’s extremely pertinent post that got whacked.

      Several posters attempting to draw attention to Mr Hasan’s eccentric on-line homilies, even without directly linking, quoting or otherwise being beastly to the poor fellow, have had their comments enter the Bermuda Triangle.

      I’m wondering if Mr Hasan commands direct powers of censorship and banning over debate upon his own material, or whether it’s the moderators being extra zealous on his behalf.

  3. Adam: The Guardian with all its hypocritical, dishonest and apparently illegal behavior (see their role in Wikileaks scandal), is the poster child for what’s happened to the Left in recent years, so it’s hard to be surprised by their censorship of anything that doesn’t jive with their politically correct fascism.
    Since many of their officially approved p.c. positions are unsustainable and unsupportable by truth and facts, they have degenerated into people who practice everything they claim to despise–closed-mindedness, censorship, disregard for fact and truth, and obviously bigotry.
    This is indeed a sad devolvement of Liberalism, which ostensibly was originally about trying to save the world through education and openness.

  4. A shitty rag does NOT need any justification for anything that it does,that is the very reason that it is a nasty racist shitty rag….

    On that thread a lot of posts were deleted,no need to guess whose posts were deleted.

    When you get a rag run by the head honcho (a limo socialist) who makes no about bones about being anti Israeli,Zionist,Semitic,US,and hires his own dumb daughter who is thick and has a dumb hairdo,to do the moderation, then don’t expect anything from these pigs………

  5. Al Neuman – Adam: The Guardian with all its hypocritical, dishonest and apparently illegal behavior (see their role in Wikileaks scandal), is the poster child for what’s happened to the Left in recent years, so it’s hard to be surprised by their censorship of anything that doesn’t jive with their politically correct fascism.

    The extreme left Al. The extreme left.

    I am left and appalled by The Guardian and its faithful followers.

    Just appalled.

    But I am still ‘Left’.

  6. ” I can’t believe that everyone in the Guardian, the BBC, the whole government is totally insane.”

    Why not? Mass hysteria and delusion are not all that uncommon – in fact they may account for all sorts of events from the recent street riots to middle class love-in of Downton Abbey.

    • Frankly not that different from many mass hysterias, e.g. Nazi Germany, Iran’s early support of their “Revolution”, and Obama’s election!

      Emotions always trump logic.

  7. The grounds for scrubbing it (not the reason for doing so) are, i think these: Hasan was quoting the Koran. You or I could do the same without expecting to be tarred by it’s brush.

    So it was a technicality – we all know that Hasan’s views chime with the Koran, but he doesn’t say so implicitly in the segment you pasted.

    • And yet polite requests for the context of Mr Hasan’s sermon upon those Koranic admonitions also met with summary deletion.

      Indeed it seems to be taboo on CiF to draw attention to Mehdi Hasan’s (repeated and public) citing of specific passages from the primary text of his chosen religion — passages which appear to display contempt for atheists and other non-muslims.

      Until we get a fuller account, it’s quite right and proper to keep pulling him up about it, especially when he starts editorialising about ‘demonisation’ and ‘intolerance’ creating a chilling effect!

      So keep the pressure up: even if it does mean deleted posts, a spell on the CiF naughty step or banning.

    • zeitgoose why could you or I do the same (ie quote from the Koran) without expecting to be tarred by its brush?

      Might it be because being intelligent people who think for ourselves we could just as easily put our quotation in context and say that we couldn’t buy into such things wholeheartedly in this day and age? If we would feel the need to do that, given what we were quoting, why should we not expect the same from Hassan? Why should Hassan be excused from intelligent, sensitive behaviour just because of what you call a “technicality”?

      Nowhere did Hassan provide any caveats in respect of the insults to non Muslims. Indeed given the tone of voice which people have already mentioned, and the context in which he spoke and the audience to which he tailored his speech, and given his behaviour on Sunday Morning Live on 11/9/11, I doubt that it would ever have occurred to him. He is the archetypal “Right Man” as described by A E van Vogt who reacts with bombast and bluster when he feels under threat.

    • Sarah: These Guardian people are pathetic and the ultimate hypocrites. In their insane zeal for political correctness, they pursue their arrogant agenda with an almost religion fervor, condemning (and deleting) any and all who vary from their mindless way Leftist script.
      Ironic that ultralibs like these Guardian types claim to be all about honesty, transparency, intellectualism, tolerance, etc., etc., but have truly lost their way by violating every one of their own principles.
      Sad indeed.

      • I think I was deleted because I linked here and restated the point that it was ironic that fair comments were being deleted when Hasan’s article was partly about not feeling you could speak freely.

  8. When Hassan said that, wasn’t he imitating/mocking the very people he was criticising in the rest of the video? If you quote that as his opinion, isn’t that misleading? Isn’t that why the quote was deleted?

  9. Sorry, he does appear to mean it, but it is only 45 seconds in a 45 minute talk which is extremely critical of Muslims and the Islamic world generally. And is strictly relevant to the case?

    If the Quran says unbelievers a like cattle, surely a Muslim is allowed to discuss or expound upon such a passage without being regarded as a bigot. The bible says some pretty objectionable things too. Does that mean devout Jews or Christians must necessarily be bigots?

    http://hurryupharry.org/2009/07/24/medhi-hasan-exposed-part-i-%E2%80%93-atheists-and-disbelievers-are-%E2%80%9Ccattle%E2%80%9D-and-%E2%80%9Cof-no-intelligence%E2%80%9D/

    • Does that mean that he should do that and not dare to disagree with it?

      Jews and Christians are allowed, encouraged even, in this year of grace 2011 to have their own opinions without fear from their religious leaders that their religion will be fatally undermined.

      Why do you think Islam is so different, conchovor? Why cannot it allow debate or reasoned criticism of some of its extremely violent instructions as to how Muslims are enjoined to behave, because their prophet did?

      Why are they the equivalent of Tinker Bell in Peter Pan, who says that unless everyone believes in fairies, fairies don’t exist? Do Mohammedan leaders believe at base level that unless everyone believes that their swivel-eyed prophet was supreme then their belief is worthless? What does that say about their social, cognitive and mental development?

    • That’s as may be, but from his voice Hassan seemed to be very emotionally invested in what he was saying.

      Do you have the link to the rest of the talk, so that we can decide whether or not we agree with you? If so, please post it here.

  10. conchover – Yes he does say so entirely sensible things in the video. But I still think you are being too kind to him – I remember I thought I was going to react more or less in the way you are before I watched and then thought – no, it’s more than that, he’s implying that he has internalised that way of thinking about atheists. This is a useful discussion.

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/7696

  11. Mehdi Hassan is very big on the sort of belligerent self-pity which goes with accusing others of anti-Muslim bigotry, accusations which are not widely held among the wider community to which he claims to belong, and shouting down any opinions which appear to give the lie to his perceptions. The following is cross-posted from another thread and shows his true colours shining through. Apologies for the length of it:

    The part I saw of Sunday Morning Live, on the BBC on 9/11 was topical enough. It addressed, albeit in a very surfacey way, the notion that Muslims feel victimised in the UK. Of course they do, and far too readily than is good for them or us, and the Beeb trotted out the usual suspects to display their misplaced outrage. To add what little weight there was to this notion we also had as one of the guests our old mucker Mehdi Hassan – and to balance him (and believe me it took some effort) Peter Hitchens and another man with an American or Canadian accent, a Jew as it turned out, but whose name I didn’t catch. Viewers were invited to vote about whether Muslims are indeed victimised in the UK.

    Mehdi Hassan behaved throughout like the ignorant, thuggish boor he has shown himself to be in the past – over talking and interrupting and raising his voice whenever any of the speakers disagreed with his belligerent and self-pitying point of view. He seemed not to realise that by doing this he undermined his own argument and his dignity as an alleged (self) important spokesman for Muslims. Of course, according to him, the west is to blame for radicalisation of Muslims. Of course, as a result of 9/11 and 7/7, Muslims are victimised in the UK and elsewhere. Then Peter Hitchens said, (when, that is, he could get a word in edgewise), that if that was the case why are so many Muslims wanting to immigrate to the UK?

    Then Hassan clanged on about Islamophobia and what is allowed to be printed in newspapers about Muslims (although he had earlier admitted that if anyone had bombed his house he would probably want to take up arms against them, peaceable little chappie that he is, thereby undermining what he had said earlier in the programme as a representative of the Muslims in the UK, about the equivalent of peace, love and light from Muslims). The Jewish contributor (far too) respectfully disagreed with him and reminded the audience of the increase in antisemitic attacks in the UK since 9/11 and 7/7. He suggested that Hassan open the pages of the Guardian or the Independent to see and antisemitism in the cartoons. Of course to Hassan that didn’t count he dismissed it with a snort.

    The clincher came with the vote. Over 70% of those who voted disagreed that Muslims were victimised in the UK. To their credit, Hitchens and the third panellist made no capital about this, but our friend Mehdi Hassan looked as though he had been forced to swallow a brick as the programme ended.

  12. Storm in a teacup, Adam. If you read a wide range of CiF articles, you will know that posts like that about an author’s background or previous statements are generally nipped in the bud.

    Not that I don’t consider Hasan a complete tosspot, mind.

  13. I watched Medhi Hasan on the Susanna Reid discussion programme on BBC 1 TV yesterday morning. He comes over as a smug, bullying character who doesn’t like anyone else around him having their say if it doesn’t agree with his own views.