On 31st October 2009, thousands of Muslims from up and down the country plan to converge in the heart of Central London in a spectacular procession to make their demands for the overthrow of the British establishment clear.

At the time of writing, that message, which was posted on 4 March 2009, is still on the website of Islamist nutjobs, al-Muhajiroun. But a few days ago they added another message, in the form of a press release, saying that it had

become apparent that certain right-wing/anti-Islamic organisations had become intent on preventing the march from going ahead, using threats of physical violence, including bomb and death threats to any member of the Muslim community who happened to attend the march.

In light of this, organisers of the March4Shariah campaign, after careful consultation, have decided to relocate the march in favour of securing the safety of the hundreds of Muslims who may have attended the march to voice their support for the Deen of Haq (Truth).

Well, I’ll be blowed! The Islamist warriors who, earlier this year, had bravely stood protected by police officers on a Luton pavement and screamed abuse at the 2nd batallion of the Royal Anglian regiment’s homecoming parade, chicken out after a few anonymous hotheads threaten them? I mean, hello! What did they expect? That they could march through London slagging off the country that has given them the freedom to do so and that nobody would mind?

I wonder if they thought we wouldn’t notice that the proposed “thousands” who “planned to converge” on London had, nearly eight months later, shrunk to “hundreds” who “may have attended” if only those nasty men hadn’t been all horrid and started threatening people. Not that I would ever, of course, condone the threatening of any sort of violence against anyone. Indeed, normally I wouldn’t hesitate to condemn such behaviour. But in this instance the condemnation sort of sticks in my throat and I can’t quite bring myself to voice it, for some reason. I don’t even know if these threats actually took place and, if they did, whether they were the real reason the march was cancelled. Who cares?

On Saturday, I was delighted to join Muslims, ex-Muslims and others in a protest against al-Muhajiroun.

The occasion was even more enjoyable knowing that the “spectacular procession” the Islamists had boasted of had been, let’s say, re-invented as a secret rally somewhere away from the public eye. Did it take place at all? I’ve no idea. To be strictly truthful, I admit I was a tiny bit disappointed not to get any photos of the nutjobs in their fancy dress costumes.

In order to comprehend just how batshit insane these people are, I recommend watching a bit of the video of the press conference that accompanies the latest press release and learn how only Allah can legislate and any Muslims in parliament or the House of Lords are not considered “true believers” because they have taken the role of legislator on themselves. The nutjobs also share some of their vision of how the UK will look under Sharia.

The pic is of Stringfellows nightclub with a police notice across it saying ‘closed’. The pink advertising board in front of it says, “Women’s college coming soon.”

Got it? Strip clubs and nightclubs (the same thing, as far as they are concerned) will be closed because they are disgusting places where women are exploited. UK under Sharia will be a an official ‘no fun’ zone and women will be educated separately.

It’s easy to snigger but it’s not their lunatic vision for the UK that matters rather than the fact that Sharia Law is creeping in and affecting the lives of people in this country and not in a good way, whatever the nutjobs might claim. At the launch of the One Law for All campaign at the House of Lords back in December last year, we heard disturbing stories from a Muslim woman about women in her community in the North of England appealing to religious tribunals over forced marriages and domestic violence only to be told to stay with their husbands and, believing that the Sharia court had the final say on the matter, that’s what they did. It doesn’t matter what rights women may have in reality if they don’t have the freedom — and in some cases the language — to access them.

The self-styled anti-fascists of the ultra left, by the way, don’t seem to have a clue about this. A typical view is expressed on this forum:

The threat of sharia is a bogey man to whip up people on the far right to support racist policies…The BNP and scummy little tory rags like the Sun, the mail, the telegraph make up stories about Muslims to help the right wing grow and to divide the working class.

On facebook, a page appeared advertising a Protest against March4Sharia and the EDL! It including a long diatribe explaining that the involvement of BNP members in the English Defence League (EDL) “reveals their true agenda; they are racists. Wherever such forces find room to organise, they pose an immediate physical threat to ethnic minorities, asylum seekers and others.” They also include a more reasonable point about how the dangers of the Islamists are exaggerated by the press and by the far right but, viewed as a whole, the piece gives the impression that these people neither know nor care that much about Sharia in Britain. The point that you don’t have to be a radical islamist to take advantage of Sharia law and that it’s enough just being a violent husband in a close-knit Muslim community anywhere in Britain, is lost on them. What the loony left seem to want is any excuse to go out and confront people they perceive to be right-wing racists or fascists. Whether such people are indeed racists or not, doesn’t seem to concern them in the slightest.

But the most disgusting thing about them was their disdain for the protest I joined myself because, according to them, the Muslims (and friends) for Secular Democracy,

in addition to failing to mention the English Defence League, essentially waves the Union Jack and endorses the British legal, political and social status quo. We do not believe that bourgeois liberalism can effectively challenge the growth of either Islamism or fascism, both of which feed off the social decay and despair of British society today.

I don’t know what became of the planned protest from the loony Trots because they never showed up. Perhaps they couldn’t get permission. They weren’t missed.

The 40 or so supporters of the EDL who did turn up to oppose Al-Muhajiroun seemed amiable enough. I eavesdropped on an interview with one of them in which he gave the standard EDL message that they are not racist, they welcome anyone of any race or creed who opposes Islamic extremists. It would appear the EDL have a tiny number of black and Asian supporters and on their website forum I’ve seen people they would describe as “moderate Muslims” warmly welcomed and encouraged to join. The accusations by anti-fascist groups that the EDL are a nazi organisation with links to the BNP are beginning to sound tired and a bit desperate.

The EDL who emerged earlier this year out of spontaneous protests in response to the Al-Muhajiroun demo in Luton, is not (as yet) a membership organisation. It doesn’t have a constitution or policies as such. It is just a loose association of working class and overwhelmingly male “supporters” and, having been observing them pretty closely for a couple of months now, I surmise that they include some people who are BNP sympathisers and many who are not. The BNP have publicly disdained them and threatened their members with disciplinary action if they attend EDL events.

The EDL focus is not on race but on Islamic extremism and the threat to British cultural heritage and way of life, which they seem to think is a lot greater than it is — thanks, no doubt to people like the Archbishop of Canterbury. The (self-appointed, it seems) EDL leaders are making every effort to package the group as a multiracial one and appeals for people to behave nicely are circulated before every demo, a number of which have taken place so far in several of Britain’s cities. (Behaving nicely in EDL terms means not shouting abuse at innocent spectators in hijab, or making seig heil salutes. It doesn’t preclude them shouting E-E-EDL and sounding like a bunch of lobotomised apes).

As I said in an earlier post, the most objectionable thing about the EDL is not their politics but their puerile nationalism. Frankly, most of them don’t have the brains to be political thinkers and that lack of cerebral power is something they have in common with both the BNP and the UAF, as far as I’m concerned. Sometimes it’s hard to tell which group’s supporters are the biggest overdosers on stupid pills.

In stark contrast, witness the wit and intelligence of the British Muslims for secular democracy as evidenced by this short promotional video for Saturday’s protest:

Finally, here’s a reminder:

Saturday 21 November 2009
Time: 1200-1400
Venue: North Carriage Drive, Hyde Park, London (Closest underground: Marble Arch)

“Show your opposition to Sharia Law and all religious based tribuanls….Demand one secular law and universal rights.” More here.

Related posts by skepticat:

EDL, UAF…WTF?

Loony Islamists mistake Humanist centre for Mosque

No Sharia: One Law for All!

Anyway. Aware that the messages of the newly emerged EDL (which seems to have evolved from a group calling themselves Casuals United) and the Stop Islamification of Europe group (SIOE) have resonated with at least a few nice, respectable, secularist folk, I decided to take a closer look at what they and their opponents are about.

As a former card-carrying Communist who participated in demonstrations against the National Front in the late 1970s, the UAF might seem the natural choice for me. I certainly applaud anyone who stands up to be counted in opposition to the British National Party who, in spite of their protestations of respectability nowadays, remain inexorably racist, judging by their website.

However, a skim through the UAF website flags up a disappointing inability on this group’s part to distinguish between the BNP and others who are protesting about radical Islam. They are all fascists, as far as the UAF are concerned; they are all racist hooligans and bigots with “links to the BNP”. A recent demonstration in Harrow by SOIE is described on the UAF website as a protest by “racist bigots including the BNP-linked English Defence League”. In fact, the EDL made it clear on their website that the Harrow event was nothing to do with them. Furthermore, prior to the demo, the BNP National Organiser, Eddie Butler, announced that,

It will be a disciplinary offence for British National Party members to associate or participate in any event or activity organised by the English Defence League or hold membership of the English Defence League.

The reasons for this proscription are that the English Defence League, through its activities, brings nationalist and patriotic politics into disrepute. If the English Defence League is not instigated by and its activities are not encouraged by the state (which it quite possibly is), then the track record of this organisation shows that it is run by people who will only bring discredit and probable arrest for anyone who attends its events.

LMAO at the “encouraged by the state part”. I wonder if Butler thinks the moon landings were a hoax, that Princess Diana was deliberately murdered, etc., etc.

(Edited to add a link to this risible thread from a fascist forum revealing what BNP supporters really think of the EDL.)

For their part, the EDL leaders are trying very hard to send out a message that they are not racist and I can’t see anything on their website to indicate that they are. Their members’ forum, for example, carries this warning: The EDL will not tolerate any racist or Islamaphobic behaviour on this forum. We are against Islamic Extremists and all that they stand for, but do not want innocent Muslims being victimised or abused.

Of course, if you hold up placards in city centres saying ‘no more mosques’, this might just be interpreted as victimising innocent Muslims, especially those who don’t have a mosque to attend anywhere near them and would quite like one built.

Says the EDL National Organiser, Trevor Kelway:

Our message is very clear – Remove Islamic Fundamentalists from our streets, and Remove ALL practice of Shari’ah Law in England.

Source

The EDL welcomes anyone, so they claim, as long as they share their opposition to Islamic fundamentalism.

‘Black & white unite,’ said one of their placards at their 8th August demo in Birmingham. ‘We hate Nazis as much as we hate Muslim extremists,’ said another. In this vid, a group of masked EDL supporters — including a couple of black guys — are shown burning a nazi flag. In the subsequent interview they defend their sinister head attire by comparing it to the burkha (a good point, I think but not articulated strongly enough by their spokesman) and they reiterate that they are not racist, they are simply against “Islamic extremism”.

Just what bits of the religious and cultural practices of Muslims might be acceptable to EDL members is not clear but I suspect the answer is none. While they shout for the removal of terrorists from our streets, it seems that all Muslims who dress the part and who identify as Muslims above all else are regarded with suspicion by EDL supporters and I think this conflation of issues is part of their image problem. They just not very convincing as anti-racists. A quote from its forum (actually posted on the SDL (Scottish) section) is fairly typical of the views expressed there:

Any right thinking person on this Planet can see that Fanatical muslims are whipping up hate against the rest of the world. they want to convert us or kill us. their teachings come from a book wrote in barbaric times. if the 50 million plus non muslims of this country do not stand up to these nutters soon those Barbaric times will return. the muslims will not try and live peacefully along side us once they have enough of them living here to fight us.

Of course, they’re not paranoid or anything. Their output and strategy of holding public demos with provocative placards appears to be a kneejerk reaction that can contribute plenty to the tensions caused by any rise in radical Islam in this country but nothing towards a workable solution to the problem. For all their protestations, the EDL come across as anti-Muslim, which is bad, as well as anti-Islamism, which I support.

As for the UAF, it seems to consider any opposition to alien religious and cultural practices to be racist and they apply the label to any group their Muslim supporters feel threatened by. And I think the same can probably be said for Searchlight, an organisation I’ve always respected but who this week emailed readers of its Hope not Hate blog, mobilising them to oppose the EDL demo in Manchester and calling them,

a violent group of anti-Islamic football hooligans who are hell bent on whipping up interfaith tension through violence and intimidation…In truth, this isn’t about religion. It’s about figures on the far right trying to create fear and tension within and between communities – and then capitalise on this division.

Scepticism makes a party pooper out of one. If I’d received that email when I was twenty, I would have swallowed it whole. “So it’s not about religion! It’s about dividing and ruling communities! Yes, yes, of course it is. If you say so it must be true!” And I’d be all fired up to get out on the streets and yell, “Nazi scum!” at them, buoyed up by the heady feeling of solidarity with my hundreds of unwashed comrades who stand beside me doing the same thing.

But nowadays, with a bullshit dectector that has spent more than 30 years in development, I can but ask: Where is the evidence? What does the sender of this email know that I don’t and how does he know it? We are not given this information, either in the email or in the webpage it links to. The only evidence I’ve seen on what the EDL might have been planning are emails sent by their National Organiser to people registered on their internet forum. Here’s an extract:

We have been informed that the UAF and their friends plan to disrupt our demonstration in whatever way they can (goes to form really!)

DO NOT REACT TO THEM.

It is their sole purpose to be, how do i put it, a pain in the Arse!

They will try to disrupt our 2 min silence for our Troops, our National anthem, everything. Let them. We are going to show the world that we are the peaceful protesters that we say we are on Sat, no exceptions. The Worlds media are going to be present, and i mean crews from New Zealand to America will be there. Do NOT react to any intimidation whatsoever, just act as if they are not even there.

Remember, we are a peaceful Protest community against the un-opposed rise of Radical Islam in our Country. We need to show the world what pack’s of animals we have to contend with just to speak up against this in our “Democratic” Country. The press are waiting to portray us as the animals, do not fall for the UAF’s provocative tactics, lets show the World the UAF for what they really are.

So, to all who want to say enough to the rise of Radical Islam in this Country, be in the above locations on time, or you will find yourselves forced to the other side of the fence, or away from the demo by the Police.

(Contrast this with a report by a member of the opposition on what happened from their perspective and spot the irony.)

At the time of writing, I haven’t seen any more videos of today’s demo but, according to this televised report from the Islam news channel about the Birmingham demo in August, the EDL supporters were relatively peaceful and civilized, in stark contrast to their opponents in the UAF, whose numbers were inflated by a couple of hundred of young Muslims and who behaved like Unhinged Aggressive Fuckwits. Some of them we see rampaging through the streets, while others are shown beating the crap out of some poor sod.

Such behaviour is not likely to be of concern to the UAF, whose purpose, according to their website is simply to alert “British society to the rising threat of the extreme right, in particular the British National Party (BNP), gaining an electoral foothold in this country”. A laudable aim, indeed, and I wish they’d stick to it but their response to the EDL indicates they are motivated less by a wish to defend human rights than by a wish to defend Islam in Britain from any perceived threat, real or imaginary. It’s the UAF’s culturally relativistic perspective and the inhumanity implied in it is that persuades this veteran anti-racist against giving the UAF the time of day.

I’m not naive, however, and although I currently feel able to defend the EDL’s stated objectives from the charges of racism and fascism, I’m not suggesting that none of the people who turn up to EDL demonstrations are racist or bigots or BNP voters — I bet loads are. I’ve seen some (questionable) evidence of one or two people who might be EDL supporters giving nazi salutes.  The EDL’s National Organiser has friends on facebook who just happen to have identical names to people on the BNP membership list that was leaked in November 2008. Others adopt cunning pseudonyms like A.N Englishman and Wewantour Countryback.

Many others use their (presumably) real names and nail their ‘patriotism’ to the mast by sporting the St George’s flag for an avatar. Patriotism is big thing for the EDL website and I know patriotism isn’t racism — I’m quite patriotic myself and not racist at all. But when it’s an obsessive patriotism, when it’s the thing that you most want people to know about you, when you sport a frigging flag for your facebook avatar rather than a pic of yourself, your family or even your dog, it actually seems quite intimidating and divisive. Like the burkha. Really, the EDL reminds me of those Muslims who wave their religion like a flag in my face. The UAF and the EDL are two rival tribes, both locked into a confrontational mentality, which prevents them from playing nicely together and trying to engage with each other like sensible grown-ups.

Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire.

The quote comes from Winston Churchill’s ‘Finest Hour’ speech on the eve of the Battle of Britain, which has been chosen by the EDL as the soundrack of their promotional video on the front page of their website. The vid itself is of a series of photos of the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings and EDL demos.

I have great affection for and pride in this country and its people but I also feel a modicum of guilt and shame for its darker side —  both historical and present day —  and I would usually distance myself from displays of jingoism. It’s not England, as such, or “Christian civilisation” or “our own British life”, I want to defend but the liberal democratic traditions, secular culture and scientific worldview that are the legacy of the Enlightenment. For all I may defend them from the rantings of the wild-eyed trots of the lunatic fringe, I do see an ideological link between the EDL and the BNP and that link is not fascism but nationalism — something I also abhor. That’s why this patriot would steer clear of the EDL. That and the impression that a lot of them seem a bit thick.

Edited to add this video, which underlines my point.

EDL escorted to Victoria Station

I’ve had less time to look at SOIE but what I’ve seen so far is a group who decided it would be an excellent idea to commemorate 9/11 by staging some sort of pathetic protest outside a mosque near where I live. That’s right, a mosque — you know, one of those places where some of the ordinary, peaceful British citizens who happen to be Muslim go to worship their god? I mean, for crying out loud! What exactly was the point? I know the excuse was the — so far unconfirmed — rumour that the mosque is to be the location of a Sharia court (and I won’t be in the least surprised if this turns out to be true) but my question is really about what the protesters expected to achieve by such provocation?

In contrast to the EDL’s more confused message, the SIOE makes it crystal clear that all Muslims are the enemy. From its website,

SIOE, does not accept the notion of moderate Muslims. This makes SIOE different to all other anti-Islamist groups who only oppose Islamist “extremists”.

Well that’s just idiotic. Moderate muslims exist, whether or not SIOE accepts the notion of them. I number moderate Muslims amongst my friends and acquaintances. What’s more, although SIOE proclaim racism to be the lowest form of stupidity, on its website appears the following exortation:

If people are inclined towards the BNP, NF, EFP or any other political party who seem to do nothing other than ride on the backs of other organisations’ efforts, merely for their own publicity, or try to infiltrate groups that actually do something then please join these parties and motivate them to actively do something themselves. Just don’t tell those who are actually doing something their efforts are useless then spoil it for them by promoting these parties on videos of events organised by groups who have nothing to do with the BNP, NF or EFP etc.

So racism is the lowest form of stupidity but people should join established racist organisations and try to get them to “do something themselves”.  OK, got it.

While I can understand and to some extent share the anger that draws people to groups like the EDL and the SIOE, I believe their provocative tactics and sloganeering will make them the unwitting recruiting sergeants of militant Islam and I hope secularists and freethinkers and anyone else who is horrified at atrocities committed by Muslims — be they acts of international terrorism or private so-called ‘honour killings’ of young women — and angered by the importation of backward, divisive and oppressive religious and cultural traditions, will steer well clear and lend their support instead to intelligent, progressive initiatives like the One Law for All Campaign against Sharia Law in Britain and the Council of ex-Muslims. You don’t have to be an ex-Muslim to join!

Finally, a date for your diaries:

Saturday 21 November 2009
Time: 1200-1400
Venue: North Carriage Drive, Hyde Park, London (Closest underground: Marble Arch)

“Show your opposition to Sharia Law and all religious based tribuanls….Demand one secular law and universal rights.”  More here.

A demo motivated by concern for human rights not nationalism. Be there if you care about human rights…but, whatever side you’re on, leave the flags and inane slogans at home, please.

As a result of the meeting I attended — a precious hour and a half of my life that I’ll never get back — I have resolved, firstly, not to bother attending any more CHG meetings that are addressed by religous speakers and, secondly, to join the National Secular Society.

The event was a debate between humanist philosopher, Nigel Warburton and Hamza Andreas Tzortzis who, like his friend Adam Deen,  about whom I have written two posts already, describes himself as an ‘intellectual activist’. And like Adam Deen, it’s hard to imagine anyone less intellectual.

Listening to him speak, it soon dawned on me that of the three following possibilities, one was definitely true:

1. Adam Deen has adopted Andreas Tzortzis as his mentor and copies everything he says and does.
2. Andreas Tzortzis has adopted Adam Deen as his mentor and copies everything he says does.
3. Deen and Tzortzis are both products of some sinister cloning process.

I’m inclined towards the third option. If they are not literally clones, they do appear to have undergone some kind of redaction programme that has cruelly stripped them of whatever critical thinking skills they might have possessed and programmed them to spout the exact same nonsense in the exact same way. As I have already written extensively about Adam Deen, I’m tempted just to point readers to my posts about him with the advice that everything I wrote about Deen applies equally to Tzortzis.

One of the strategies of the How to claim to be a Muslim intellectual activist and keep a straight face! training programme undergone by both Tzortsis and Deen is to quote-mine extensively from just about anyone as long as they sound vaguely important. Tzortzis took this strategy very seriously and rolled out one quote after another in quickfire succession. No doubt many of these quotes were very interesting but, as he rattled them off so quickly, I’ve no idea what any of them were or who said them. This hardly matters because the object of the exercise, of course, is simply to give the impression that the speaker has actually read widely and understands his material. Nobody was fooled (except, perhaps, the small number of Muslims in the audience) and, as someone pointed out, anybody can find quotes to support their point of view but they do not an argument make. I’m sure these speakers are fully aware that a live debate is different from an academic essay and that quotes and statistics are lost on a live audience.

The debate topic on this occasion was, Is Religion A Force For Good Or Evil?. In the merficfully short time he had available, Tzortzis referred to several “fallacious claims against religion” and presented what he presumably thought was a watertight rebuttal of each of them. For example, against the “fallacious claim” that religion is divisive, he argued that “Islam preaches tolerance and compassion”. So the Islamists I had witnessed bullying and harassing people at the Conway Hall the previous evening (see my last post) were not being aggressive thugs, they were being tolerant and compassionate. Their leader, who criticised British society for being “dirty” and had previously defended the murderers who bombed London in July 2005 and blew 52 innocent people to bits is undoubtedly a very tolerant and compassionate man. He just got bad publicity, right?

On the “fallacious claim” that religion causes violence, Tzortzis simply argued that secular ideologies had been the source of more violence. Personally, I’m not aware that anybody  has ever denied the violence perpetrated in pursuit of communism or whatever but  highlighting it does not address the very real issue of people being blown up because they happened to be born in a different culture and were raised worshipping a different version of the sky-daddy or none at all. As the very tolerant and compassionate Anjem Choudary said of the 7/7 bombings:

At the end of the day, when we say “innocent people” we mean “Muslims”. As far as non-Muslims are concerned, they have not accepted Islam. As far as we are concerned, that is a crime against God.

You can’t get much more tolerant or compassionate than that now, can you?

Tzortzis also  helpfully pointed out that there were statistics to show that religious believers were happier and gave more to charity and who can argue with statistics? What he singularly failed to address was the question of all the horrible things done in the name of religion. In fact, he seemed to be in denial about them. When they were raised by Warburton and by members of the audience he dismissed them as “presuppositions”. A question from an audience member asking that if religion is not to blame for the bad things done in its name, how can it take credit for the good things, was also ignored.

As with the Andrew Copson v Adam Deen debate, it was apparent that Warburton and Tzortzis were unable to get on the same page. Warburton had obviously gone anticipating genuine dialogue to take place, Tzortzis had gone there simply to preach. Warburton was later criticised by some humanists there as being far too conciliatory but I don’t particularly agree with this criticism. Warburton talked intelligently and stayed focussed. At the very outset he said he thought the debate topic was a false dichotomy, that there were some benefits and some negative consequences of religion and that not all religions were the same. But he didn’t pull his punches when listing the vile things that religious people do: child abuse, the murder of  Theo Van Gogh, genital mutilation of women, homophobia all got mentioned but Tzortzis simply wasn’t prepared to acknowledge that these have anything to do with religion and as long as religious people try to slither out of facing up to them, there can be no useful dialogue with them.

Certainly nothing useful came of that meeting and feedback from those attending was uniformly negative. A few examples:

Has Tzortsis never heard the famous phrase “Lies, damned lies, and statistics”? Warburton didn’t take the easy ‘religion=evil’ stance, but I felt that his conciliatory approach was lost under the bludgeon of Tzortsis’ simplistic ‘religion=good’ version of Islam….The meeting ended with one member of the audience virtually equating homosexuality and paedophilia and whilst I understand Warburton’s answer that we should debate these ideas rather than rely on dogma, I felt this questioner was let off lightly, and his unpleasant ‘slippery slope logic’ left unquestioned and unchallenged.

The 6 young muslims sat next to me, who seem to have been there at Tzortzis request, appeared to pay no attention to the debate but managed to time their homophobic and ill-informed islamic propoganda statements perfectly to avoid any serious challenge. I can only applaude Nigel Warburton for attempting to answer, and was equal not surprised to notice Tzortzis make no attempt to challenge them. It was disappointing to see someone of Tzortzis apparent distorted views allowed a platform in this group and more so to have allowed the representative of Dialogue with Islam to wander around taking photos until my partner challenged him.

The Muslim speaker preached more than he debated. Guaranteed to make hackles rise, but this was, after all, a dialogue with Islam. We surely weren’t surprised by the dogmatic assertions and claims to objective truth mystically secreted in obscure quotations…

Indeed, I wasn’t surprised that during the discussion period Tzortzis lost the plot, went off-topic and starting parroting the same poppycock about objective morality so beloved by Adam Deen (and the Christian evangelist William Lane Craig, whose exact turns of phrase Deen likes to emulate). The Deen/Tzortzis indoctrination programmme sees the issue of objective morality as a kind of virility test. As I said in another post,

In Adam’s view, if you aren’t prepared to nail your colours to the mast and declare child abuse, say, to be objectively morally wrong, then you are effectively saying that it might be OK in certain circumstances. Therefore, however decent and moral we seem, at heart we are no better than child abusers.

They think that believing in God as a source of objective morality keeps you on the right track, whereas those of us who realise that  morality is a product of human nature and experience will point to the monstrous things done by religionists in the name of their religion as giving the lie to that notion, only to hear religionists deny these things have anything to do with religion. And so we reach deadlock. End of dialogue, such as it was.

Everything Tzortzis said, I could take with a pinch of salt until the point when he started telling us that our views were “inconsistent with an atheist viewpoint”, an accusation he repeated several times evidently without realising quite how ignorant and pompous it made him sound. Just like Adam Deen, Tzortzis is simply not interested in hearing in what humanists think or believe. Their indoctrination programme has told him what the “atheist position” is and what we actually say can be safely disregarded.

In case anyone thinks I’m overplaying the similarities between Tzortzis and Deen, consider this: In my second post on Adam Deen, I said that Deen sneeringly pointed out that, according to atheists, “human beings are just the accidental by-products of an evolutionary process”. Tzortzis said exactly the same thing. He used the same words and the same tone. In that other post I quoted Deen as saying, “when a fighter bomber bombs an entire community and a whole community is killed, all that’s really happened on an atheistic perspective is a realignment of molecules.” Again, Tzortzis said exactly the same thing. Bloody hell, they’ve got a script! Shouldn’t someone whisper to them that to qualify as an intellectual, you actually need to be an original thinker not a mindless moron that parrots empty arguments that a child can refute?

I deeply regret not just walking out the minute Tzortzis decided to start insulting us in this way and the implication that atheists don’t see people as anything more than a block of molecules is about as insulting as anyone can get though Tzortzis is evidently too lacking in human empathy and understanding to appreciate this. That was an hour and a half of my life I wasted listening to someone who wouldn’t know a rational argument if one sat on his face and sang ‘Hello Dolly’. But the worst thing is that I declined to attend a demonstration for human rights outside the Iranian Embassy because I really wanted to have this “diaologue” with Islam.

I’ll know better in future.

Some recommended websites:

Council of ex-Muslims
IslamWatch

Apostates of Islam
FaithFreedom.org

And here’s an interesting post from another blogger who’s met Tzortsis: More than I could chew?