.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Rantings of a Sandmonkey

Be forewarned: The writer of this blog is an extremely cynical, snarky, pro-US, secular, libertarian, disgruntled sandmonkey. If this is your cup of tea, please enjoy your stay here. If not, please sod off

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Sounding like republicans...

Oh boy! You know it's getting pretty bad when the europeans start sounding like republicans. Muslims who wish to live under a system of sharia law should leave Britain, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality suggested yesterday. The chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality said that. Please note that. LOL

Speaking in the wake of demonstrations against Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad, Sir Trevor Phillips said those living in the UK had to accept that British values include a commitment to freedom of speech, even if that means offending people.

"What some minorities have to accept is that there are certain central things we all agree about, which are about the way we treat each other - that we have an attachment to democracy, that we sort things out by voting not by violence and intimidation, that we tolerate things that we don't like," he told ITV1's Jonathan Dimbleby programme. "Short of people menacing and threatening each other, we have freedom of expression. We allow people to offend each other."

[...] He rejected the idea that British Muslims should be allowed to live under sharia law in their communities. "I don't think that's conceivable," he said. "We have one set of laws ... and that's the end of the story. If you want to have laws decided in another way, you have to live somewhere else." Nice! See where saying shit like that gets you? Britain, love it or leave it!


At 2/28/2006 04:54:00 AM, Blogger programmer craig said...

India allows Sharia courts to operate with legitimacy. And then the world gets international incidents because Indian courts pass a death sentence on Danish nationals, who live in Denmark, for things they did in Denmark. That were perfectly legal in Denmark.

If you want to live under Sharia law, you're an idiot. But besides being an idiot, you are not welcome in the western world. You *are* welcome in India. So, move to India! Problem solved.

At 2/28/2006 05:22:00 AM, Blogger Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

First: WELCOME BACK!!!(My wife and I play a game called 'Scrabble Blast' on our computer, which has this little figure doing handsprings and cartwheels when you make a good word. I would have attached a scene of it if I knew how to show how I feel seeing the new posts.)

HOWEVER, maybe you can explain one thing to me, why so many Middle Eastern bloggers who take solidly liberal positions on Democracy, Freedom of Speech, freedom from Religious interference in people's lives, etc, at the same time buy into the idea that it is REPUBLICANS that support these things, and that liberals and Democrats, somehow, oppose them.

It's simply noy so, historically or currently.

(I'll get back on this later, as I was posting this, I found I have to take care of personal things. But I'd love to debate this on your forum, with, maybe, Nadz taking the other side.)

At 2/28/2006 06:54:00 AM, Blogger Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

A few comparisons between Democratic/Liberal positions and Republican/Conservative ones:
(And yes, before you ask, there ARE fatheaded liberals and honorable Republicans, but I am discussion the majority of both)
It is Republicans who have demonstrably attempted to challenge voters at polls who would vote against them, and usually these challenges are on a racial basis, The Liberal position is that everyone should vote.
It is Republicans who for years have equated dissent, particularly in War time, with treason, who have favored censorship in media of -- very mild -- sexual matters. The Liberal position is in favor of free speech, period. (It was the Liberal group, the ACLU who supported the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie, the liberal commentator Deborah Lipstadt who, despite her own experience with him, protested against David Irving's sentence. It was the Conservative President who questioned the appropriateness of J-P publishing the cartoons.)
The Conservatives have been strong supporters of the Religious Right, opposed to evolution and in favor of creationism, supporters of the idea that the US is a "Christian nation," opposed to gay rights, in favor of school prayers being imposed by the state. The liberals are secularists.
The Liberals -- admittedly in some cases belatedly -- opposed the use of falsehoods to support the War in Iraq, the lack of any idea what we should do next, the failure to properly arm and supply our troops, the uter chaos our intervention has caused because we don't understand the situation, or understand how to present democracy so it is attractive. (Even then, we certainly celebrated the end of Saddam -- who the Republicans had supported against Iran in the 80s)
I don't know how much concern you have with domestic social issues, but I can go on and on about corruption, about the sacrificing of any other program to the idea of giving the rich tax breaks, etc -- yes, even the War effort has suffered from this.

Sam, if you get C-SPAN.org, watch the morning hour in the House of Representatives, and listen to the Republican and Democratic speeches, and then rethink your position.

At 2/28/2006 07:34:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Sandmonkey.

Am I mistaken if I read your “Sounding like Republicans” like you disapprove, when Sir Trevor Phillips says people wanting to live under the Sharia law have to find it elsewhere outside Brittan? Also it seems that you think it’s odd that a man, who is chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, is saying something like that. I sure don’t. If a group of people, minoraty or not, black, white or yellow wants to live by religious laws, where an Imam, priest or pope messures out the punisments or decide how people should live, I agree absolutely with Sir Trevor Phillips – leave Brittan. It has nothing to do with racism, but with common sense, and also I think its commen sense, that people in his posision not have to agree in everything, which comes from minoraties, just because they are minoraties???.
If you are shia, and do something that - in the eyes of the in that area ruling imam – is wrong, then you risk to have 10 blows with a stick if he is in a good mood, 20 blows if he is in a bad mood. How can this be accepted in a contry, where it is against the “political” law to punish anyone by beating???

Sandmonkey, if you were a political factor in UK, what would YOU say to imams / people, who want to introduce Sharia law in Brittan?


At 2/28/2006 08:03:00 AM, Blogger elengil said...

I think like many religious kooks, they don't want to live under religious law, they want everyone *else* to live under religious law.

That's why the psycho's in the UK (etc) rally and rage against the cartoons. If they wanted Sharia, they'd move to Saudi Arabia. But they don't want it imposed on themselves, just on everyone else.

At 2/28/2006 08:13:00 AM, Blogger elengil said...

by the way: 7:34 AM, Anonymous...

I think Sandy was in fact praising the minister for his words, as well as pointing out that it is no longer being viewed as a 'racist' issue if the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality is announcing it.

For too long such statements have been viewed as racist when they are no such thing. It is not about the religion but.. obviouly.. about the political laws of a nation.

It is not racist to tell any group not wishing to live under the laws of a nation that they are then not welcome in that nation.

I daresay if Sandy was in the UK and speaking to those groups, he'd tell them they're all retarded and move to Saudi Arabia where they can live happily under opressive regimes and religious impositions.

At 2/28/2006 08:32:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Have you been drinking alcohol or worse - aren’t you alone?


At 2/28/2006 09:39:00 AM, Anonymous Mohamed said...

Prup, you said "Middle Eastern bloggers who take solidly liberal positions on Democracy, Freedom of Speech, freedom from Religious interference in people's lives, etc, at the same time buy into the idea that it is REPUBLICANS that support these things, and that liberals and Democrats, somehow, oppose them.", well, don't worry Prup, those who buy into the idea that the republicans are really for freedom and democracy and peace, are very few ( Sandmonkey's a strange anomaly), any person with one single neuron left in his brain knows that liberals (which doesn't mean the democrats neccessarily) are for democracy, freedom of speech, peace, love and understanding while the conservatives and republicans are, to rephrase your opinion in more impolite terms, are war and hate mongering lying ignorant racist religious fanatic sobs, people who have much more in common with the taliban and other fanatics through out the world than they have with Jefferson and Franklin.

At 2/28/2006 10:43:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Jim Crow Laws. Created by? Democrats.

The attempt to silence the Swift Vets and an Entire TV company?

9 out of 10 violent acts against people and/or locations in the last election?
By Democrats.

The Civil Rights Act?
97% of Republicans voted for it.
80% of Democrats (and this is After a bunch of racists left the party. Don't say much, do it?)

The Original Civil Rights Act in the late 1800s?
Originated by Republicans.

Not to mention outright Lies like Bush being held responsible for not signing Kyoto. Not after 100% of Democrat Senators voted against it (joining their more sensible brethern on the Right), and then Clinton said not another word about it for three years... knowing full well what it would do to the economy if he had put it into effect. (note: good article about this just this week, on TechCentral. Europe is paying thru the nose for Kyoto)

And the list goes on. And On. And On...

At 2/28/2006 11:22:00 AM, Blogger waterdragon52 said...


The "Gruniad" on-line didn't feature a picture, so, in case you aren't aware, not only is Sir Trevor the chairman of the Antii-RAcism committee, he's also black.

At 2/28/2006 12:04:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Hello Waterdragon!

This Republican backs Mr. Trevor in full ;) I am wondering what kinds of demeaning, derogatory, destructive, demonizing things the Left is saying about him these days.


At 2/28/2006 02:21:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What people think they can emigrate to another country, another society and be able to impose their own laws? Arrogance supreme. I agree with this person in Britain....hit the road jack, and don't you come back, no more, no more, no more, no more....


At 2/28/2006 03:46:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

At the beginning of the week both the Australian Prime Minister and the Treasurer said the same thing. The usual suspects started howls of protest but got nowhere..people have had enough of their shit. Of course the fact that all these leaders are saying this is proof yet again of the Jewish conspiracy. Yawn, f*****g yawn.

At 2/28/2006 04:14:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Islam is a religion, so critics may be bigots and intolerant but they are not necessarily racist. That requires a racial criticism rather than one regarding religion.

Britain is a democracy with laws that reinforce their way of life and reflect their culture. Should you be living in Britain and it does not suit your beliefs or state of mind then you are not forced into staying. You are welcome to leave.

Nowadays I think the reverse is also true. Most countries would be proud to have someone move to their country if that person subscribed to the laws of that country and their way of life.

At 2/28/2006 04:40:00 PM, Blogger Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

To him who chose not to identify himself at 10:43:

I don't mind fair, or even mildly unfair criticisms, but you demonstrate enough knowledge that your comments can be politely described as disingenuous. As you know damn well, after the Civil War, the entire white South joined the Democratic party rather than 'the party of Lincoln." The Democrats only began to become the liberal party with the election of FDR, and even as late as JFK there was a split between Northern liberals and Southern conservatives -- most of whom continued to be reelected long enough to become committee chairmen. Howrad Smith of Virginia was particularly obstructive on civil rights matters. The Republican party was also well mixed, with a number of good, moderate Republicans and a number of totally Neanderthal conservatives, but the racists WERE in the Democratic Party -- through the time of the Civil Rights Act.

The first Democrat to turn Republican was Strom Thurmond, yes, before the Civil Rights Act. But the massive shift of 'conservative Southerners' (read racists) happened after the Goldwater election. (Goldwater had voted against the Civil Rights Act, but for principled -- though wrong -- reasons, but he didn't chase away racist supporters.)
The white South shifted, to where it is almost entirely Republican -- though many of them have come to terms with the existence of black voters.

As for the Swift Boat people, there was no attempt to silence them just to call them liars, as they were. There WAS an attempt to prevent a broadcasting company from presenting a two-hour biased political screed pretending to be a documentary on the night before the election, when no response would be possible.

Can you document these supposed 'attacks' on voters? I can document the attempts of Republicans to remove black voters from the rolls in many places, and there is an argument -- I'm not sure if I am convinced -- that this won Ohio and the election for Bush.

Mohamed, you overstate a bit in your description of Republicans. There are still a few honorable members of the party, including liberals, moderates, and even conservatives. (Collins, Snowe, Specter, Chafee, Lugar, Hegel, even Grassley are honorable men, to limit my list to Senators. I might not agree with them on a lot of things, but I respect them.) And, sadly, Sandmonkey isn't an anomaly among ME bloggers. Freedom for Egyptians and Nadz are two I can think of immediately who buy into the Republican myths.

At 2/28/2006 10:04:00 PM, Anonymous Elora said...


If you want to mention Democratic attempts at silencing, you would do well mentioning some of the horrific Republican ones as well.

Like the My Lai massacre cover up, spearheaded by our very own Colin Powell.

At 3/01/2006 06:34:00 AM, Anonymous Kjartan said...

If I was, say, an egyptian, I would not care too much, whether democrats or republicans supported freedom of speech in the US. I would care, who supported freedom of speech in the middle east. And it does seem to me that that party is the republicans, correct me if I am wrong.

The peoples of the former east bloc countries also tended to be rather fond of Reagan and Mrs Thatcher for much the same reasons

At 3/01/2006 10:18:00 AM, Anonymous Mohamed said...

Prup, out of your republican list, the only one I agree with you on is Chuck Hagel, plus John Mccain and John Sununun ( It really beats why they're even republicans).
Regarding the other right wing egyptian bloggers you've mentioned, I've never tried freedom for egyptians (name's too melodramatic for me, and to be fair, Mubarak with all his fallibilities acknowledged is not a Stalin or a Saddam, not even close, which the name of her blog implies I persume), as for Nadz, I read what she wrote only once, and couldn't come up with any other conclusion other than she's a clear cut nut job, try TomanBay and Highlander and OneArabWorld, they're quiet reasonable.

At 3/01/2006 12:41:00 PM, Blogger Steven said...

This guy is a star, thanks to him I can still say that I am a happy Brit!!!


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home