Archive | Social commentary RSS feed for this section

General Election Special: Boris Johnson Smears Jeremy Corbyn and is Spectacularly Caught Out

28 May

Take note of the screenshot here.

Screen Shot 2017-05-28 at 15.27.09

[Published 28 May, 2017]

For those who are either unaware, do not know, or particularly care, Boris Johnson is, miraculously, the current British Foreign Secretary.

Let’s briefly go through the backstory leading up to this momentous calamity before explaining the point of this blog article.

Before Theresa May was Prime Minister, it was Boris Johnson.

After David Cameron stood down – to effectively cut and run before his expenses, offshore investments and private donors could be made public once he became an ordinary MP again – Johnson (Cameron’s Etonian school chum) was briefly made Prime Minister before he also cut and ran.

This left the reins to Theresa May; in what some would describe, as the poison chalice, of managing the Brexit negotiations.

To utilise another apt analogy: Johnson left May holding the baby, so-to-speak.

Typical of so many men really!

Just so you get the measure of this oafish, crass, and incompetent buffoon – yes, Johnson, like so many other men – is that oblique and cowardly.

Fast-forward to the last 24 hours, and in his usual audacious and clumsy manner, Johnson wades in feet first and is promptly handed his ass to him after being caught red-handed in an orchestrated smear campaign of the Labour Leader, Jeremy Corbyn, by posting the following on Twitter:

“I genuinely think it is important people know Corbyn claimed in recent days he never met the IRA. You cannot trust this man!”

This, do not forget, is within 24 hours of Krishnan Guru-Murthy, on Channel 4 News, spectacularly exposing a clueless effort by Sir Michael Fallon, another Tory minister, who has previously been exposed for his links with Syrian Leader, Bashir Assad, also trying to smear Jeremy Corbyn, by attributing comments that were actually made by Johnson to Corbyn.

As Guru-Murthy slapped down Fallon, Johnson did not reckon on the savviness and intelligence of the general public, and so they gave him a similar slap down.

As noted in the following screenshot of a post by @ChrisMcCusker67, Johnson’s smear of Corbyn, as a traitor and enemy of the British people, was an out-and-out lie and factually wrong.

Screen Shot 2017-05-28 at 15.49.18.png

Another Twitter user, @nickh1877, was also quick to point out that Theresa May has met with the IRA.

Screen Shot 2017-05-28 at 15.48.58.png

To be clear, Corbyn only met with members of the IRA after the peace process negotiations had begun. Any and all meetings with the IRA, prior to the start of the peace process in Northern Ireland, were conducted by Tory ministers.

Some of those meetings were conducted in secrecy.

So, ask yourself, if anyone is an enemy of the people and a traitor, who is it?

It is certainly not Corbyn. In fact, Corbyn only became involved in the peace process at the request of Mo Mowlam. 

That said, if the path to peace and conflict resolution indeed must come through “jaw-jaw and not war-war”, to quote Winston, can we really blame Corbyn, or label him a traitor or an enemy, even if there were evidence that he had met with sitting members of the IRA?

The truthful answer is a resounding, NO!

It appears that the Tory campaign to win the General Election 2017 is genuinely on its last legs and that they are willing to try anything, including throwing the kitchen sink at Corbyn, a long with any decency and integrity, in order to do so at all costs.

Can Corbyn win? Yes, he can!

Will Corbyn win? Well, that is entirely up to you guys!

Remember: This election is not about the British people; it’s about keeping a Tory government in power for the next 20 years.

Just think about that for a moment: A Tory government for the next TWENTY years!!? 

Stay woke, people!

Author: Jason Schumann

Doh! UK Zionist Lobby Exposes The Zionist Lobby

24 Jan

 

Earlier today, on the 24 January 2017, the Times of Israel published an article penned by Justin Cohen, one of its News Editors.

The article concerns the recent 4-part undercover documentary conducted by Al-Jazeera; to expose – what can only be described, as the seriously seditious activities of Shai Masot at the behest of the Israeli government – to undermine British politics and democracy – including attempts at removing political opponents, like Sir Alan Duncan and Jeremy Corbyn – who are deemed to be obstacles and therefore incompatible with Israel’s aspirations and long-term goals.

Despite a public outcry and requests made by members of opposition parties – thus far, the PM, Theresa May, and the rest of her government – have categorically refused all calls for a public inquiry into the extent and scale of the role of Israeli government, its officials, actors, and diplomats, attempting to subvert and influence British democracy, favourably to Israel’s goals.

It is self-evident in Cohen’s article, that neither members of the UK Jewry, nor the Israeli government itself, are particularly happy about Al-Jazeera’s far-reaching expose of the tactics that the Israeli government is willing to employ and the lengths it is willing to go in order to push its expansionist agenda.

When Al-Jazeera’s expose was first aired – many (if not all) members of the Jewish diaspora, were unequivocally dismissive, and frankly insouciant – about the gravity of such nefarious interference of a foreign state (Israel) in another state’s (UK) sovereign powers – to independently and democratically, determine what its approach to and its foreign policy should entail. I dare say some were even apoplectic.

After Shai Masot was caught out in his candid admission of state-sanctioned and funded covert operations, to undermine British foreign and domestic policy, a prominent member of the UK Jewry, Jonathan Hoffman – who is a former Bank of England official – recently saw fit to use his own influence, to complain to members of the UK Parliament and House of Commons – seeking that Al-Jazeera be reprimanded for exposing something that is in all our interests to know and be aware of.

And guess what happened, folks?

Yes, you guessed it right!

The British government, like a compliant and pathetic lap dog rolling over on its back for its master, has happily kow-towed and will consider acting on Hoffman’s demands for it to reprimand Al-Jazeera.

(Now just for clarity, Theresa May, please remind us who your ‘Mamma’ is?)

 

Recently, Mr Hoffman, has let it be known, that anyone who speaks out against what many consider to be a rogue and terrorist state, its plans for expansion, or its human rights abuses, should automatically be considered an enemy of the Jewish diaspora and Israel itself.

Hoffman has made clear (in a recent Facebook post) that all dissenters should be discredited by “shining a light on the dissenter”, as opposed to “whispers to discredit them”.

(It appears that Mr Hoffman has since deleted or altered his Facebook account, attempting to disprove that he made these comments, but screenshots were obtained, prior to deletion).

You can also see Jonathan Hoffman in action here:

 

If, for some bizarre reason, you do not consider Mr Hoffman’s efforts to be a clear example and therefore somewhat of a confirmation of the existence of the Israeli/ Zionist lobby in action and its efforts to influence foreign democracies in its favour, one might wish to have a rethink about that.

Clearly, Mr Hoffman’s personal interventions, as a respected member of the Jewish establishment in the UK, to seek punitive measures against Al-Jazeera – for merely exposing the truth regarding Israel’s sedition – should be considered nothing short of an attempt at coercion or undue influence. In the very least, ‘crying foul’ or claiming ‘but that’s not fair’, when you have been caught out doing the deed.

In the last few days the Campaign Against AntiSemitism (CAA), a so-called UK-based charity, that is known to use legal means to silence Israel’s critics, has also decided to flex its muscles, by lodging a formal complaint against Al-Jazeera with the Broadcasting Regulator, OFCOM.

Amongst many other accusations, CAA’s complaint claims that Al-Jazeera’s expose is “mendacious”, “inaccurate”, amounting to “unfair treatment” (of Masot?), and even “promot(ing) incitement”. CAA is also seeking to force or impose upon OFCOM for it to use and adopt a definition of antiSemitism that is widely disputed, because it infringes on universal rights of free speech, expression, assembly and protest.

In making these complaints, the wider agenda of Hoffman and CAA here, is, once and for all, to finally criminalise any and all criticism of Israel’s persistent human rights abuses and illegal occupation of Palestinians and further expansion into settlements. All of which, not doubt, could not happen without the direction, influence, and input of Israel itself.

Talk about shooting yourself and your cause in the foot, by trying to silence critics and, in actuality only serving to prove the ‘conspiracy’ of the ‘Lobby’ to be true by your own actions and interventions, Mr Hoffman and CAA?

Now, if you are reading this and you are in any way concerned – as any vaguely intelligent person should be – regarding any foreign state unduly influencing your own government’s sovereignty, you should sign this petition.

It seems clear and simple: Zionism is racism and a truly subversive element in world politics, that may well be to the detriment of all humankind!

 

Regards,

Jason Schumann

Xxxxxxx

 

Does the Zionist Lobby Really Exist?

20 Dec

 

Ask yourself, does the Zionist lobby really exist?

If it does, is it Jewhate or antiSemitic, to say that it does?

In short, the answer is both ‘Yes’ to the first part; and ‘No’, to the second!

Yes, the ‘lobby’ does exist; and ‘No’, it is not – by any means – antiSemitic or Jewhate (as it should be called), to say so!

The very fact that members of the Global Jewish diaspora, Zionists and supporters of, and the Israeli government itself, are currently applying strong-arm and subversive (international) pressure; to silence – any and all – dissent, and criticism against the state of Israel – via means of lobbying sovereign governments – and; more recently, bringing private prosecutions, against historical revisionists, or those who support the BDS movement and/ or who condemn or challenge Israel’s war crimes against Palestinians – is, frankly, evidence enough.

That these ‘nefarious’ groups and individuals – who, less than 100 years ago, sought to lobby the British and US governments, to support the legitimisation of the illegal annexation and occupation of Palestine (via the Balfour declaration and Havaara agreement) – and then the subsequent lobbying of the United Nations; to decriminalise Zionism, as a form of racism – as was led and orchestrated by B’Nai B’Rith, the oldest advocacy organisation for Jewish supremacy – is an anathema, and further evidence of their existence and such activities.

To be clear, it was European Jews who set up the world’s modern banking system- yes, of course they along with other (non Jewish) merchant financiers and ‘nobles’ – who funded the beginnings of global trade, British imperialism and also supported the continuation of slavery and two subsequent wars in 20th century Europe.

(Note: Until the establishment of the modern banking system, money lending was forbidden by Christians and Muslims).

 

Indeed, it was none other than a singular, profiteering, Nat Meyer Rothschild  (one of the founding fathers of Zionism and the establishment of Israel) and a family member and business partner – one August Belmont, also Jewish, of German origin – who, via the Rothschilds’ New York office – vehemently fought against the British government and Abraham Lincoln, to abolish slavery – in order to protect the former’s financial and business interests.

In case you are somehow – stupidly, and bizarrely, ignorant and unaware – it was, in point of fact, only because of successive boycotts of the sale and purchase of goods, like cotton and coffee – that the slave trade; and subsequent indenture system, of Afrikans – ever came to an end. It was Nat Rothschild himself who raised the finances to compensate – yes, ‘compensate’ – slave and plantation owners.

(Oh noes, boycotting Israel, for its crimes against humanity, is antiSemitic. Cough)!

 

As Jonathan Hoffman, a former Bank of England official, recently stated in a Facebook comment;

“Why shout when you can whisper”.

 

This quote, by Hoffman, is apparently a tactic used by Court Jews (Marranos); on how to ruin, and to condemn their critics and perceived enemies.

On the contrary, Hoffman actually believes:

“shining a sunlight on such dissenters”,  rather than whispers about them.

How noble of him!

 

(Note: No one, should ever doubt the suffering of Jews; certainly not me, as I am an individual of Afrikan and Jewish ancestry. I regularly receive abuse (on social media) for being ghey – mostly about my HIV status – and the fact that I am also often called a ‘nigger’ and a ‘self-loathing Jew’ (due to my Grandfather’s heritage) – you can guess who abuses me for the latter)!

 

Aside, in the UK, the organisation, recently founded and run by one Robert Festenstein, of Jewish Human Rights Watch has failed, miserably, to outlaw the BDS movement, as a valid form of freedom of expression, and dissent against criminal regimes, like Israel.

Similarly, the woeful Campaign Against AntiSemitism (CAA), led by the odious, spot-nosed and vexatious Gideon Falter, has so far, failed – despite his/ its continued efforts to suppress freedom of speech in the UK – and has had to resort to private prosecutions, in order to criminalise any form of public dissent against Israel.

I, am now apparently one of its targets. Needless to say, any claims or charges laid against me, will ultimately fail; as I can substantiate everything I say!

(Because of his threats against me about the fact that I dare to have the affront to make a challenge against him and speak out against the lobby; Gideon has decided to target me. It is because of these threats that, he is now subject to civil and criminal complaints, for harassment).

Gideon’s so-called ‘charitable’ organisation, is nothing more than a sham, attempting to subvert UK law, by means of bullying, threats, and coercion. This fact has been reported to the Charity Commission.

Any further attempts (by Gideon, CAA, or its ‘volunteers’) to harass or vilify me will be dealt with, severely.

Only recently, Gideon’s CAA, applauded Theresa May’s decision, to suggest that criticism of Israel, is antiSemitic; and therefore a punishable offence.You can see a link on their website and Facebook page.

This would be like allowing the government of Saudi to go unquestioned, regarding the cluster bombs it has used (that are in fact supplied by the UK) to target innocent Yemenis; or Mugabe’s regime, and its efforts to silence his critics and oust White Afrikans, from their adopted and purchased lands in Zimbabwe. Equally, allowing the faux White Helmets (founded by a British military officer) – or Syrian Observatory for Human Rights – to even remotely pretend that they are in any way humanitarian in their purpose.

As for the Community Security Trust (CST) – another nefarious organisation – which is currently being investigated by the Charity Commission, HMRC, and other public bodies – for its financial irregularities, which is also accused of having links to Mossad. CST uses its position to influence and leverage funding from the British government, at the expense of other minority groups who have suffered greater harm and abuse.

For example, in March 2016, CST secured £13.4m of taxpayers’ funding, to secure Jewish schools and places of worship. Yes, the Jewish community has and continues to be targeted by certain pervasive elements, but the vast majority of CST’s figures, for recorded abuse and attacks, have taken place online.

This is insignificant, in comparison to the murders, attacks, and abuse of other minority groups. Have any of these groups received any (UK) government funding or support? The answer is, NO! So why should CST and members of the Jewish community receive special protection? The narrative is simply; “We are the only ones who are being oppressed and discriminated against; We are the Chosenites”!

All of the above organisations have active and professional business links, to the Israeli government and politically active B’Nai B’Rith, as well as the World Zionist Organisation, which was founded and is run by Eitan Behar.

Here is what Eitan has to say about criticism of Israel on the WZO website:

“Our multilingual team of interns uses social networking to monitor, track and expose Antisemitic statements and expressions. We aim to give people like you the tools needed to counter and report anti-Jewish bigotry wherever and whenever it occurs. As proud Jews and Zionists, we publicly act to confront prejudice and demand an end to hateful messages.”

 

Interestingly, the pernicious and racist, Ambrosine Shitrit, of the socalled antihate org,  Eye On AntiSemitism, recently posted on social media, that she had a meeting with Eitan Behar, to discuss combatting valid criticism of Israel.

The purpose of her meeting with Eitan Behar was to discuss strategy to target individuals, like myself, and how to lobby and influence the UK government to criminalise holocaust revisionism/ ists, and the boycotting of Israeli goods.

She is quite blatant about her efforts on social media, and so is her hatred of Muslims and Palestinians. All information of these efforts is available on her Facebook pages and the World Zionist Organisation website.

Mrs. Shitrit has also posted numerous defamatory comments about me and even resorted to setting up a fake email account in my name. She is also a fan of the banned Pam Geller and other alt-Reich club members; and has an unhealthy interest in myself and Alison Chabloz, who is now subject to a private prosecution brought by Gideon Falter and CAA to silence freedom of speech in the UK.

Today, and with the blessing of our co-opted governments, the Zionist lobby, is attempting to stifle our freedom of speech. Indeed, it is Zionism, that; in part, promotes dislike of Jews. Why? Because since its inception, Zionism has always served to establish, create, and legitimise a state ofIsrael and its occupation of Palestinian lands and illegal settlements.

By which I mean, by any means necessary!

As noted by Theodor Herzl:

wp-1482356908867.jpg

Or a quote by Maurice Samuel, in his 1924 ‘You Gentiles’, in which he states that ‘Jews are the destroyers’… and that: ‘Nothing that you (Gentiles) do will meet our needs’.

This isn’t evidence enough of the Zionist lobby’s existence?

Go and search out the fly-on-the-wall documentary, floating around on Youtube, in the which the director of ADL National says to camera:”How do we use the myth of the lobby without confirming its existence”. Then he laughs.

As Chair, Gideon’s CAA, along with other pro-Israel voices, have successfully lobbied Eric Pickles, MP and the British government to adopt a new, more stringent definition of antiSemitism, which states that, boycotting Israel and criticising Israel should also be considered antiSemitic. In law, it has no legal basis, but has been issued as guidance to the UK Crown Prosecution Service.

It would be in breach of Human Rights law if it were ever applied.

You can see evidence of Gideon’s efforts, here.

If this isn’t further evidence of lobbying for ‘self-interest for and by a particular group’, what is?

Here, in this following link of a speech given by a UK Peer, in the House of Lords, you can hear how the Zionist Lobby physically beats dissenters unconscious, ladels persistent and false accusations of antiSemitism, and proactively seeks to damage individual careers and reputations.

 

If you speak about it in reference to Zionists or Jews, you are automatically accused of antiSemitism. This is part of their strategy. I referred to it above, from a quote by Jonathan Hoffman:“shining a sunlight on such dissenters”.

It’s called character assassination and, more covertly, ‘full spectrum dominance‘ – which is a form of control, that is more often than not – used to humiliate, defame, ruin and ostracise individuals, who dissent or deviate from the norm of the tripe that we are spoon-fed on a daily basis.

Here’s Gideon’s CAA encouraging (((its))) supporters to ruin the respected Jewish journalist, Mira-Bar Hillel:

 

As referenced above, on its website, the World Zionist organisation clearly states that it will circulate information and expose individuals to its global networks.

Shining a light? Whispers? Are you getting this now? And its somehow antiSemitic or an expression of hatred of Jews to say the lobby really exists, really??

 

Note: I have never disliked or expressed hatred towards Jews, but they, like Shitrit, have and continue to do towards me. I find the abuse I regularly receive, gut-wrenching and profoundly frustrating, but I will stand by their right to say it (about me), unless it breaches my privacy, copyright, or it is incitement.

All of these matters against several individuals are currently under police investigation.

 

Regards,

Jason Lee, of the family: Schumann

 

Special Note:

This article has not been published to condemn Israel or Jews. Israel and Jews have a right to self-determination and a homeland; just not at the expense of Palestinians.

That said, no one is exempt from valid criticism for human rights breaches. I fully support the right of Israel to exist.

All comments, images, and other information posted in this blog, are in the public domain and believed to be a matter of public record. I, Jason Lee, of the family: Schumann, believe and assert that the contents herein, have been posted in good faith, in the belief that they are true and not in any way specious or false.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Donald Trump: A Walking Disaster

9 Nov

When I say disaster, I mean it!

Trump is a documented serial bankrupt, an alleged paedophile and rapist, an out and out racist and homophobe, and a proud misogynist who even lusted after his own daughter on live television.

I don’t need to back up any of these claims, as the evidence is already out there.

Trump won because those who voted him in — largely White, uneducated, gun-toting, religious rednecks and coffin-dodgers — did so, to stick one to the establishment and on a clearly racist anti-immigration ticket.

This was coupled with the outrage of the bible-bashers upset with LGBTI rights laws, Muslims, the Black Lives Matter movement, and the economic woes of every day batshit American lives. 

The right-wing media gleefully did its part to feed into and stoked much of this hatefilled and vitriolic clusterfuck.

Like the humorons who voted for Brexit in the UK with their ‘little island’ mentality who are supporters of racist UKIP et al, the Moricons — by which I mean wilfully moronic, fuck-nugget Americans, in case you don’t understand what the term implies — who voted for Trump see themselves as having more rights and privilege over anyone else they do not consider one of them.

Want examples?

The KKK, the American Nazi Party, and the White Nationalist American Freedom Party, all endorsed Trump, as did the many evangelical organizations.

Well, here is what Trump is going to do, or seek to do:

  • Repeal equality laws for Black and other minority people, including the LGBTI community.
  • Strengthen religious freedom to discriminate against each of the above groups.
  • Repeal Obama’s healthcare bill that currently protects 62 million people on low incomes.
  • Forcibly deport and intern Latinos and Muslims.
  • Introduce greater protections for law enforcement officers who shoot down unarmed members of the public to allow them to escape scrutiny and justice in many cases.
  • Remove the rights of Native Americans to protect their homelands and property, which will include sending in military to forcibly remove them, even in a body bag.
  • Increase pollution and global warming by removing current legislation and granting no strings licenses to big corporations to produce more coal and frack without any consideration to local residents or the environment.
  • Make abortion illegal, even for rape victims, in favour of demented fucktard Xtian zealots.

With Trump in the driving seat of one of the world’s leading and most powerful economies, these are just a few of the things that are likely to get the go ahead.

Don’t even get me started on the American economy. It’s already on its arse; by which I mean dirt broke. Yes, that’s right, America is bankrupt; both morally and financially! Not a pot to piss in! Tanking! Living on borrowed time!

Doubt me?

In case you were wondering, there are now more than 10 major American cities that have filed for bankruptcy since Wall Street and lacks financial control caused the 2000, 2007 & 2008 crashes that resonated across and still impact on the world to this day. Many other American cities are in prolonged deficit and the housing market is still on its arse.

America is the most indebted country in the world, to the tune of 19,643,000,000,000 dollars. That is more than all the other most indebted countries in the world combined. Its trade deficit is equally as bad, and there is nothing Trump can do.

What about checks and balances, you may ask? They won’t work. America’s political system of lobbying, bribes, and favours, is one of the most corrupt in the world. Besides, Trump’s supporters and the humorons who voted for him would lynch him if he doesn’t carry out his promises.

Only today, on the announcement of his election, the dollar dropped again. It will drop further. The example below is proof.

[Image via Twitter]

World markets have also slumped but are recovering, unlike America.

Yes, America, you can expect recession and a deep depression like no other! Ultimately, Americans will suffer more than they have ever before. The rest of the world will also feel it but will recover more quickly.

Trump’s only solution is quantitative easing, which will devalue the dollar further, thus increasing inflation, damaging the markets such as structured products, depressing interest rates which impacts on savings and pensions, and international trade.

(China has previously stopped exporting valuable minerals to the U.S. due to its quantitative easing program).

Already world leaders are sending warning shots to Trump.

As my neighbour’s 11 year old daughter said today: “Mummy, the world is doomed! What are we going to do? Can someone assassinate him?”

Despite my equally negative views of Hillary, I would have to agree with this girl’s conclusions.

America is well and truly fucked!

By Jason Schumann

When Freedom of Speech is Forfeit: A Road to Equality and Tolerance

29 Nov

The view of many Westerners is that it is a given right that they be permitted to say what they like about anything and anyone; and should be permitted to do so without hindrance or interference from the state. From religion, to culture, politics and humanity. Quite clearly, this is largely due to the increasing prevalence of devices such as secularist ideology, societal fragmentation, the rise of social media, and greater social and cultural freedoms.

These individuals, more often than not, internet trolls and libertarian types, who espouse such views to attack anyone and anything- with their growing sense of social disobedience and dissociative individuality- are quite happy to post cruel images and comments of Jews, Muslims, women and others online- without thought or consideration for the morality of what has been posted or offence or intrusion caused. They are more than content to incite, promote and instil indifference, hate and intolerance in the rest of us. They say it is their right to cause such offence- to stir up tensions; create discord; and ferment cultural, religious and ethnic divisions- because secular society and political freedom affords them this right. I say otherwise.

I, myself, occasionally swear; because I can and that is my right. But there is a difference and swearing to express outrage or emphasize a point is a world away from deliberately going out of one’s way to cause offence and believing it is right. We are all free to challenge or criticise… and even mock those with whom we disagree; or swear at those who insult or offend us. That is a right we all deserve; that should not be challenged or controlled by the state, or its institutions. Of this, there is no doubt.

The issue is, when the right to freedom of speech crosses an important line of social conduct. What is crossing a line? Crossing a line is the deliberate vilification, harassment, intimidation, incitement or humiliation of another, because they can and not because it is right or called for. But some of these individuals think it is perfectly acceptable to libel someone or speak in a derogatory fashion; that may be either racist, sexist or homophobic. These individuals think it is totally acceptable to denigrate and ridicule anything or anyone… because of their belief in freedom of speech. They believe it is perfectly acceptable to perpetuate social, cultural, religious and ethnic stereotypes that entrench our divisions and create and maintain difference and discord.

What they are blind to see or refuse to accept, is that their firm belief in freedom of speech, is often demonstrably detrimental to the society as a whole and demonstrates a complete abandonment of moral compass, mutual respect and coexistence and our increasing intolerance of one another. This is a retrograde step for any progressive, inclusive and tolerant society.

Note to these trolls and libertarians: Your freedom of speech is forfeit when you entrench or create division; attack anyone without justification; smear people; and prevent humanity reaching a peaceful and mutually acceptable point of progression where we, humans, can exist without hate or inequality. This benefits us all, so to hell with your freedom of speech. There is no such thing without respect and consideration to the rest of us. Your ‘right’ harms us all and holds us all back in seeking global, peaceful coexistence.

Author: Jason Schumann.

Jack Wilshere Debate: Can Foreign Football Players and Sports People Represent England or Other National Teams?

11 Oct

As reported in the media, Jack Wilshere, English football midfielder, 21, recently said: “If you live in England for five years it doesn’t make you English.” His comments were made in relation to the number of foreign players who currently play in English football and his (Wilshere’s) belief that ‘only’ ‘English-born’ players should have right to represent England in its ‘national’ football team. There are no immediate or further reports about whether Wilshere was also referring to the number of foreign players in English football in general. Though, one could argue; that this is clearly a reasnonable assessment of his views to make. His comments have sparked some debate about culture and national identities and equal outrage in both the media and society; particularly in relation to race and ethno-cultural relations; what being English and English identity actually means, and whether there are too many foreign players playing in English football.

Let’s break down and analyze Wilshere’s remarks shall we: “If you live in England for five years, it doesn’t make you English.” Wilshere was referring to the number of years it takes for a foreign player to be considered to represent the English national squad. It also makes clear that he believes no-one- whether a football player or not- can and should ever be permitted to call themselves English if they have lived in England for 5-years or less. From this, we can also reasonably assert that Wilshere has (his) personal views about the number of other ‘foreigners’ who were not born in England, but have settled in England and contribute to English society. His statements about ‘Englishness’ could be considered to be a rather nationalistic, in this respect.

In a way though, he is right… to some, limiting degree. The fact is, that living in England for 5-years does not necessarily make you English. Why? Firstly, one has to define and associate one’s identity (and national allegiances) as such. Secondly, one has to be accepted as being or identifying one’s self as English. However, because those who consider themselves ‘rightfully’ English- as Wilshere does- Wilshere says it is unacceptable and we (immigrants and foreign residents) cannot be- simply because of our birthplace. A rather xenophobic and hateful stance in my view. At worst, Wilshere’s remarks are indeed akin to xenophobia… in the least, a stupid and ill-considered rant. Far from attacking Wilshere, my view it that his stance clearly appears to me that of an individual who is either intolerant of immigrants and foreigners- who do not have equal rights to play national football in their resident or adopted country- or that he himself is struggling with his own identity issues because of the presence of foreigners in what he perceives to be his country. I will leave you to make your own minds up.

As with Wilshere’s view of residency and status; it still appears that there are many racist elements within English society; particularly within football, and from more intolerant sections of society, who clearly consider themselves as having more rights than immigrants who have adopted England as their home.

Sadly, we ‘foreigners’ and ‘immigrants’ can ‘only’ call oursleves ‘British’, because we are not permitted to call ourselves ‘English.’ Even that is a privilege for some of us. The important thing to remember, is that we are who we believe and assert ourselves to be; not who others (like Wilshere) say we are, and/ or would tell or attempt to dictate us to be. Wilshere, in my view, is a firmly in the closet of xenophobes, but hides himself from being open and direct!

For further thoughts on identity, please refer to this article: English and British Identity.

Author: Jason Schumann

Golden Dawn: Greek Fascists and Murder

4 Oct

 

 

 

 

 

Image

There is absolutely no doubt that Golden Dawn is a fascist organization and just one of many Far Right groups across Europe that appear to be on the increase. Its history dates back to the 80’s when it was established by a group of Far Right supporters with military junta connections and who launched Chrysi Avgi magazine. The current Golden Dawn ‘party’ is evidently nationalistic and racist in its membership, following the ideals and admiration of Hitler and has 18 seats across the Greek parliament. Golden Dawn’s infamy has come to prominence in the world press after the assassination (by one or more of its members) of the rapper, Killah P.

Killah, whose real name was Pavlos Fyssas, was murdered because of his views and activities in protesting against the growing fascist sentiment in Greek society. As a consequence, the Government has been forced to act and has made a number of high-profile arrests of Golden Dawn’s membership, including several members of parliament and the party’s Head, Nikos Mihaloliakos. The BBC reports that Nikos Mihaloliakos has been remanded and that several other members have been charged or released on bail (with conditions).

In a recent blog I came across its author, Simon Darby, contests that the Greek government are ’rounding up at gunpoint’ Golden Dawn members and that this is a form of fascism? Oh, please, Simon Darby! Really? Are you serious? Rounding up those who are believed responsible for murder and corruption- at gunpoint- is fascism now? How do you suggest the police go about arresting individuals they believe to be violent extremists… with a pair of pink furry handcuffs and a ‘please come with us’?

Darby also tells us that Golden Dawn are hardly the BNP. Does he have first hand knowledge of this? Is this an admission that the BNP is far worse, Simon? I suggest they are the same in their fascist views and as abhorrent as each other. Fact is, Simon Darby is acting like an apologist for the Far Right. Self-evident, really (See my note below). Darby rambles on about how he believes the Greek government itself is illegitimate and ‘a totally corrupt and discredited regime.’ No, Simon, that was the previous government and Greek society in general. This Greek government- despite its faults, including any current corruption there may be and the diversity of political opinions of its parliament- is in fact a reforming government. Albeit, a government that is being squeezed by the EU and Germany into slashing public spending and instigating massive reforms to taxation and internal markets.

The ‘swindle’ and ‘greedy corporate/banking tyrants and a criminal ruling class’ Darby refers to are not this Greek Government. This Greek government has been elected to undo the damage of years of corruption, tax avoidance and criminality by all Greeks. Simon Darby already knows that Golden Dawn is a well documented, violent, facsist organization. No such organization or any individual proselytizing any such views has a rightful place in any inclusive, tolerant society or government. If Simon Darby is implying otherwise, I suggest he take a look in the mirror and think back to World War II. Never, ever, again, Simon Darby! Never!

A note to readers of this blog: Simon Darby is himself a member of the fascist British National Party.

Author: Jason Schumann

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Darby

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24359282

http://www.simondarby.net/2013/09/fluid-mechanics-and-greek-cradle-to.html?m=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_%28political_party%29#Allegations_of_Nazism

An Email to Ambrosine Chetrit: Detailing Her Lies and Smear Campaign About Me and Others

2 Oct

@RealMrsShitrit, aka Hasbaroid troll, Ambrosine Shitrit of @YadbYadUK just doesn’t know when to drop it and move on, so here is another email I have had to send her as a final warning.

Note: The email below has also been sent to a very helpful DC at the Met police.

Sent on 18 June 2014

Subject: CEASE AND DESIST NOTICE

from: Jason Schumann

2:51 PM (1 hour ago)

to: ambrosine, bcc:

Ambrosine,

Smearing me again??

Yes, I am fully aware that you and Nick the Toad have been suggesting on the twittersphere that I am @PreventW.

However, you know this is entirely untrue, yet it suits you to continue with your campaign to silence your critics and those of Israel, such as I am.

The only reason you are doing this, is in the pathetic and malicious attempt to goad Shaista Gohir to go to the police to make what would be an entirely false report about me.

I say to you again, @PreventW is NOT me, nor do I know who is behind the account.

I am asking and strongly suggesting that you desist and move on from our past disagreements, you pernicious and evil troll.

If you continue with your smearing of me and efforts to silence me, I will go to the police again, and this time, I will bring criminal charges against you. I will also bring a civil suit against you. And, believe me, the dirt I have on you, I give my word I will bankrupt you and your family.

Please NOTE: I have bcc’d this email to an officer in the Met. I am also publishing this email on my blog about you, alongside the other emails that I have published on it.

Make sure you pass this on to the Toad, Andrea and Sheryl. Oh, and remind Toad, I still have screen shots of him saying that he intended to visit my home and attempt an assault on me.

For the last time, stop your smearing of me and jog on!

Sincerely,

Jason Schumann

Further to today’s smears by Ambrosine Shitrit, here is an updated response to the depths of her relentless campaign to silence others in an email sent to her on 13 December 2013 at 18:00:

Here is a link to Mrs Shitrit’s smears and attempts to obfuscate compliance with the EU Data Protection Directive as the proprietor of a website processing personal data: http://t.co/0JIi2K3Q4c

Dear Mrs Shitrit,

I have today learnt that you have made several serious and defamatory accusations against myself.

First, you have accused me of misusing your personal data. This is clearly untrue and a serious allegation, for which I request a full apology and retraction from you.

As has been made clear to you on previous occasions, your personal details, including your home address, email and phone number, are freely available online and can be located here: http://who.is/, for example.

As you can see, the link clearly provides confirmation that you are the registered domain owner of yadbyaduk.com and how that person can be contacted. Insofar as I am aware, it is a legal requirement (by international intergovernmental agreement) that all registered website/ domain owners have their registration details made available in the public domain.

Therefore, any suggestion by you or one of your cohorts that I have published or misused your personal data, is clearly unfounded and a blatant and malicious attempt by you to smear my name and character. I am also aware that you have used this same tactic against Tell MAMA which, again, is a further example of the depths of your wickedness and attempts to discredit decent, right and proper individuals who truly make an active and positive contribution to society and social difference.

I am given to understand that your accusations may stem from the fact that you may have received communication from the UK Information Commissioner’s Office regarding YadbYad’s compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998 and malicious and unlawful collection and processing of personal data. If this is true, that you have received communication from the UK Information Commissioner’s Office regarding such matters, that I, myself, am aware that you have previously maliciously reported Mr Mughal, Mrs Brown and Mrs Cook to CST, making false and libellous accusations that these individuals are in any way antiSemitic, is clear and definitive proof that YadbYadUK is indeed processing personal data unlawfully and for malicious purposes.

I would remind you, that the Data Protection Act places a requirement on organisations, institutions, public authorities and companies to process data lawfully and sensitively. I say again, clearly, as you are the registered owner of the YadbYadUK website, you have not done so. I would also add, that you, via the YadbYadUK Twitter account, have tweeted that visitors to the site are required to login. What information they must provide in order to do so, I do not know. What I do know, is that this is further evidence of data collection by YadbYaUK, with no mention of how such information is stored, used or processed.

Any suggestion that the UK Information Commissioner’s Office, as per a tweet from the Yad account tweeted earlier today, has obtained your personal details unlawfully, is preposterous and ought to be fully retracted.

Regarding the Yapbyapuk account, I confirm to you now herein this email that I have nothing to do with this account and I do not nor have I ever had access to it. Here again, you continue to behave in a malicious attempt to defame and smear decent individuals.

Please consider this your final warning, as you are again requested to cease and desist from such smears with immediate effect.

Sincerely,

Mr Schumann.

Email Regarding Email Mrs Shitrit’s Smear Campaign, dated Wednesday, 2 October 2013 14:49:

Dear Ambrosine,

Yesterday evening, you or one of your cohort had my twitter account suspended simply because I called you all out for your lies and hypocrisy and swore at you, due to your constant efforts to smear and discredit myself and others.

I do not know whether it was you who was on the YadbYad account yesterday at that particular time, but I do have several screen grabs confirming a ‘mass block and report’, to have my account suspended. I have no doubt that you are the one who instigated this harassment against me, as you own (and set up) the YadbYadUK Twitter account and you are the named registrant of the YadbYad website. You and Sheryl McNaught both claim to be pro free speech, but then you have me mass blocked?? Because I challenge you? What vile hypocrites you both are!

Do you remember when you (both) accused me of being Richard Armbach and got one of your lapdogs to phone my home and threaten me, pretending to be from CST? Yes, I do. I (subsequently) contacted CST and they confirmed it was not them or me. Sheryl has since tweeted to me that it was (all) a joke? Well, I didn’t not find it a joke. That is why I returned to twitter. So, all the shit I now bring you, is of your own making.

Not only have you actively attempted (to) threaten and to put a stop to mine or anyone else’s freedom of speech who challenges or disagrees with your view, but you persist in labelling (myself and others) as sexist, racist, antiSemitic and rapists. None of which is true, of course. But it suits you to repeat such claims and accusations, especially because of your (MrsShitrit’s) libel case with TellMaMa (and its Director).

Speaking of which, I have no doubt it is true that you have libelled (the Director of) TellMaMa, because I have screen capped some of your libellous tweets referring to HNH and TellMaMa as having links with terrorist organisations. In the case of Sheryl, your comrade; on no less than eight occasions did she libel TelMaMa. I know this because I screen grabbed every single tweet and passed on to TellMaMa’s Director. The only reason Sheryl isn’t now being sued, is because she cried poverty and claimed she is in receipt of state benefits. My assumption is that a cost benefit analysis was (conducted) as to whether the cost of (legal) fees would outweigh (the) damages she would have to pay.

Returning to your references and labels of me being sexist, racist, antiSemitic and a rapist; your statements are (not only) factually untrue, (but) damaging to me and therefore libellous. As such, you will from this moment on CEASE and DESIST from referring or making (such) statements about me (…..). If I see one more tweet from you, Yad or your cohorts even suggesting that I am any of these things, I will bankrupt you and your family. On that, you have my solemn word. Note: I NEVER break my word!

In reference to claims that I am a rapist or threaten rape, you are well aware of the circumstances. You know full well that I was trolled, and continue to be trolled by multiple twitter accounts (relentlessly) to this day; that my personal data has been published on various websites and that my family have been harassed. You also know full well that the comment of rape was deliberately taken out of context and used to smear me. You know I am homosexual and as a ‘gay, married man’ (as I am), I cannot commit an act of rape against a woman and no court of law would ever pursue a case against me (nor have I ever had any contact from the police about), because (it) is clearly not feasible that I could even contemplate committing such an act. You are also aware that I was active with the fbrape campaign and continue to support @EverydaySexism.

That you constantly call me sexist is also wrong and again intended to smear me. You do so quite deliberately, in the sad hope it will somehow help you in your defence of the libel claim brought against you for your smears of TellMaMa (and its Director).

Yes, I swear; but when I do refer to someone as a bitch, I use it against both men and women. In your case, I believe you are a schemer, hateful, conniving and spiteful. I do so because your behaviour is abhorrent and so is that of others (like you). Notice I only use such terms when someone is attacking me online, spreading untruths and misinformation, being malicious or spouting offensive racism.

Re (your claims of me being) racist, you know I am black. Therefore, I can only be racist or prejudice in the same (way) as racism, if the person is not black. My reference to Chris Brown, to which you refer to accuse me of racism, was an angry comment I made because, as (he is) a man who beats women, makes him worthless in my eyes. It shames me therefore that he denigrates my (heritage), (my) community (and the struggle and hate my community have experienced throughout history). This is clearly not racism and you, Sheryl and others (know it, but) have deliberately taken this out of context and used to your advantage (in attempting to smear and discredit).

In fact, it is you who is the racist. Your reference to ‘Tutu being antiSemitic’, ‘Damilola Taylor’s father being on the gravy train’, ‘Mandela being a terrorist’, ‘steering clear of Muswell Hill after the racist arson attack (because of the Muslims and antiFascists who might be protesting there)’, suggesting ‘Guantanamo is a good idea’, joking about ‘(a) Palestinian being killed by a rock that bounced off a car’? Yes, you are (the) racist (not me!) and I have all the tweets to confirm this. You also call me antiSemite? Check my surname, hon. (It is Jewish; as was my Black, S. Afrikan Grandfather!) Yes, I call you a Zionazi; because you are a zealous nationalist, who is intolerant of anyone who is not Jewish and does not agree with you. You have even applauded maiming, death and torture in your tweets. That you would allow the torture, imprisonment, displacement and subjugation of Palestinians makes you a Zionazi. That you libel Lee Jasper (Yes, I made him aware!) and that you suggest Mehdi Hassan has contacts with Hamas, clearly makes you the racist and a Zionazi. You are clearly an intolerant, rightwing nationalist… in my view. Your associations with Geller, Murray et al confirm this. I am only intolerant of haters, such as yourself, which is why I swear at and challenge you. You seriously need to check yourself and have a long, long look in the mirror.

Oh, and what about your media campaign to discredit HNH and TellMaMa? Yes, I know you instigated everything in the press; as a direct consequence of the libel proceedings issued against you. Raheem and Marcus have both confirmed as much. Not only this, but you then write to CST accusing Ev of being antiSemitic, which you then leak to @_NewseXtra and is published online and you do not even have the decency to retract? You are so lucky Ev isn’t suing you, because you are truly vile and disgusting, which is why I pity you so much! Claiming you were hacked and reporting TellMaMa to the police for it? Pfft! Absolute bollocks, you lying bitch! I pulled your details from a web search.

You should know that I will be airing a radio show about you and YadbYad and what you have done and how malicious you are. It will be entirely factual and based on your own tweets, that I have screen grabbed. You are welcome to come on and defend yourself… just reply to this email.

One last thing, as YadbYad is an organisation, i) can you please confirm whether it/ you are registered under the Data Protection Act to collate personal data; ii) what data you hold about me; iii) if and to whom you have disclosed mine and others’ personal data and; iv) whether you have sought consent to hold others’ personal data YadbYad hold?

Feel free to inform your solicitor of this email. I would love to see you in court 🙂

Look forward to hearing you.

Kind regards,

Jason Schumann
Aka @debatingculture

Addendum: New Email to Ambrosine Chetrit, dated Thursday, 3 October 2013 14:30:

Dear Ambrosine,

Here’s is the blog link to the email I sent you: https://debatingculture.wordpress.com/2013/10/02/an-email-to-ambrosine-chetrit-detailing-her-lies-and-smear-campaign-about-me-and-others/

I have made a couple of amendments/ additions, which is why a tweet linking the blog was deleted.

You are free to ignore or take what ever action you feel necessary. I am quite happy for you to pass on my details to your lawyer; but it won’t get you anywhere, because I have not said any thing that isn’t true.

Your right to reply stands and I am happy for you to defend yourself and YadbYad on my blog and my radio show. Your choice.

What you do not have a choice in, is my request for you to confirm whether YadbYad is registered under the DPA98, which is a legal requirement for any organisation collating any data in which an individual is personally identifiable. Please therefore respond to questions already set out in my initial email below. If you fail to do so, I will be lodging a complaint against you and Yad with the UKICO.

One last thing; I don’t mind you insulting me or calling me names but don’t you, Sheryl or anyone who operates the YadbYad twitter account, EVER call me sexist, a rapist, paedophile or racist, EVER!

I trust I have made myself clear?

Enjoy your day!

Kindest regards,

Jason Schumann.

Author’s Notes:

1. This was an email sent to YadbYad UK and Ambrosine Shitrit earlier today (02 Oct. 2013).

2. The content and claims detailed are entirely factual and based on tweets by YadbYad UK and Ambrosine Shitrit over the last 12-months.

3. Where brackets appear () the text in between represents an addition to the original email, either to correct an error or make further emphasis.

4. Mrs Chetrit knows where I am if she wishes to try and sue me.

5. Jason Schumann (me) is currently studying for his MSc in European Law & and is also an advisor to the Anna Lindh Foundation, and a recognised expert of EU Copyright and Data Protection Law.

6. Some names have been removed at request.

7. If Mrs Chetrit wishes a right to reply, I am happy to oblige her.

Media Representations of Crime and Cultural Stereotypes

29 Sep

This blog is in reference to an article published in the Sunday Times on the 15 September 2013, by Camilla Cavendish.

In the article, Ms. Cavendish wrote about the horrific failings to protect Daniel Pelka, the little boy, who was beaten and starved to death by his parents. And who would have probably survived his horrendous ordeal, if Coventry Council’s Social Care Child Protection team had properly carried out their duty to protect him from the harm inflicted upon him by these wicked and pitiful excuses for parents.

In the article, Cavendish makes particular reference to the fact that Daniel’s parents are Polish.

What relevance does the fact that his parents are Polish, you may ask? The answer, is none! That Cavendish was quick to point this fact out, only serves to smear and damage relations between the English and Eastern European immigrants.

Although, I believe unintentional on Cavendish’s part; making reference to the ethnicity or cultural identity of an individual or individuals charged with a particular crime, only serves to perpetuate cultural and ethnic stereotypes. The only exception to making such a reference, is when identity is indeed relevant to the crime; which in this case, it is not.

Cavendish is not the only journalist guilty of this cultural stereotyping. In fact, most journalists do so. Whether intentional or not; I do not know. But, the fact of the matter is, perpetuating cultural and ethnic stereotypes is the outcome, when making reference to an ethnic or cultural identity when identity is not relevant to a particular crime, is damaging to intercultural relations and therefore society as a whole.

It is like saying that all members of the clergy or paedophiles; or that all Muslims are terrorists; or that all football goers are racist hooligans; or that all Black people are muggers; or that all unemployed people are work-shy. Do you get where I am going with this?

All media and journalists have a duty to report the news, but they should do so morally and with consideration to the negative impact their reporting has, or may have, on a particular ethnic, religious or cultural community.

If the media and journalists continue to perpetuate such stereotypes, the misinformed sheep and incapable of society- who continue to believe everything that they read in the newspaper or hear on the tv or radio- without scepticism or independent thought to challenge- will never change their views of those who are culturally or ethnically different. This does not sit well for society and certainly not for inclusion, participation and acceptence of those who are somehow different.

If, as a society, we wish to effect change and aspire to greater equality in challenging prejudices and discrimination, we must remember this. However, as readers and viewers, we also must take responsibility for the media that we digest daily. Sadly, for many of us; this will not happen, because we are more inclined to follow and be led than challenge and lead the case for change. Unfortunately, such unthinking and reckless reporting only serves to breed mistrust. There is much evidence to support the view that a large proportion of people do believe what they read and hear in the media. It is not just a case of the great unwashed, but the great brainwashed, falling into the abyss like lemmings of the cliff. Sad times.

Author: Jason Schumann

Cultural Analysis, Debating Culture, Freedom of Expression, Ethics of Journalism, Moral Panic, identity, Human Progress, Media, Crime and Ethnicity, Politics, Stereotypes, Daniel Pelka, Camilla Cavendish, Sunday Times News Review, racism,

The Niqab Debate: A Religious Right or Cultural Freedom

24 Sep

The wearing of the niqab has been debated in Europe for the last two decades. More recently, it has become the topic of political rhetoric of the Far Right and Liberal society. Some of the more serious issues around Muslim women wearing face-coverings, such as the niqab, are as broad as matters that focus on ‘gender quality’, the ‘perceived Islamization of Western identities’, ‘security risks’ and ‘threats of terrorism’, as well as the perceived coercion of some Muslim men in more strict, patriarchal societies, such as in Wahabist countries like Saudi Arabia. In contrast to the religious conformity of some Middle Eastern countries- where wearing face-coverings is often proscribed and enshrined in law and obligatory in most aspects of daily life- in European nations, individuals enjoy relative religious and cultural freedom and the law tends to focus on social conduct rather than religious observance.

In Europe, it is those who say that they align themselves to the views of liberal and secularist society, who believe that antiquated notions of patriarchy and gender inequality, are valid reasons for being prescriptive in regard to the wearing of the veil in public spaces. The argument goes, that prescription should apply if wearing the veil appears to disempower a Muslim woman’s right to self-determination, autonomy and full participation in mainstream society (See Dr Sarah Wollaston, MP’s recent tweets, September 2013).

In a particular reference to young girls in school; Wollaston, a Conservative MP, suggests that she believes the veil is a barrier to communication, which can drastically affect equal participation in ‘an open, modern society’ and that schools have a duty to prepare young people for participation in wider society. In analyzing Dr Wollaston’s comments further, it could also be argued that by suggesting that young girls should not be wearing the veil in schools; young girls are placed at a disadvantage and may be ill-prepared for participation in society- which, if that was the intended meaning of the comment- could also mean Wollaston’s comment is biased to a more feminist viewpoint- and the wearing of the head or face-covering is not conducive with an ‘open, modern and secular society’- in which men and women are equal. However, the fact is, that many women who do wear the veil, choose to do so to set themselves apart from the mainstream of society, in asserting their own sense of identity in affirmation of their Islamic commitment. Interestingly, it is women who account for the majority of Muslim converts in the UK.

In Europe, it has long been the tradition of separation of state and religion. Religion is considered a private matter that should not enter into the public sphere. The French ban on the veil wearing in public; for example, is a clear delineation and an assertion of secularism over freedom and right of religious expression. Indeed, former president, Nicolas Sarkozy is on record as having stated publicly, that the veil has no place in French society. Other European countries are to follow suit, and I have no doubt that this will result in further marginalization of the Muslim presence in Europe; and entrenchment of a perceived persecuted, minority consciousness. That more and more women are choosing to wear the head-coverings, would seem to suggest that they are happy to live outside apparent models of uniformity.

But it is members of Far Right organizations, who have hijacked the niqab debate and assert that Muslims must always conform to Western notions of society and cultural identity. They (the Far Right) argue that this is because Europe is slowly being Islamized, that Muslims are synonymous with terrorism; and therefore, pose a security risk to the safety of Europeans. It is those linked or associated with the Far Right, such as UKIP, the BNP, EDL, and the PVV, who also perceive Islam as a threat, considering the veil ‘an affront to European values’ and identity. Tommy Robinson, after his recent departure from EDL, restated his view and belief that the niqab should be banned in all public places. This conflict, represents a modern power struggle to suppress Islamic identity in general, and protect an increasingly, fragmented European/ Western conception of identity.

Let’s just make it clear here; the Qur’an states that ‘both’ men and women should cover their modesty. As Ramadan (2004) noted, modesty is one of the three major endeavours of Islamic thought. The Qur’an, however, does not state specifically how and to what extent the body should be covered, only which parts of the body should be covered. Importantly, this does not include mention of covering of the face or the hair. The covering of head and face, is a modern interpretation that and; until recently, was largely influenced by male-led interpretations of religious doctrine. Of course, we can add to this, the influence of male conceptions of gender-roles.

This is in no way meant to imply that this is a Muslim issue. As in Western societies, we need only look to the Church of England as an example; and its view of the role of women in religious practice. We can add to this, Western, male notions of women looking pretty and attractive when wearing high-heels, bonnets, mini-skirts, corsets, and other items of adopted, female regalia. Even the way men and women button their shirts differently and the colours and patterns of their clothing. These examples represent some of the parallels that may be drawn between all males- in every society- concerning how all men believe women should dress- and their views on the positions and roles and entitlements of all women within any society.

I fully agree, however, that wearing the niqab or burqa, is and should always be a matter of personal choice- without undue male influence- in the same way as wearing a bra or low-cut dress. In my own view, of which there is much evidence to lend support, it is Western governments and individuals who now seek to dictate how Muslim women should dress, and less so Muslim men living in the West. It is also one of proscribed conformity to Western values, with the tiresome, default excuse constantly regurgitated by us Westerners, is that Muslim women are suppressed by Muslim men, because of the perceived male influence in the way Muslim women dress. There may be some element of truth in this in more closed and less integrated European Muslim communities- and some Muslim countries- but it is clearly evident that such views have changed significantly. Interpretive reasoning and a redefining of cultural and religious identity in a European/ Western context have influenced this change.

I do agree that one of the key exceptions to choice, occurs when the individual meets or represents the state and there is a need to affirm, approve or establish identity in order to justify our presence or viewpoint, and for security purposes. I also agree that there are some elements and individuals within Muslim communities who pose serious security risks and threaten Western society through attacks on our public spaces and the taking of lives. This means- and I support this view- that any women wearing a head-covering should be required to identity themselves and affirm their identity in an identifiable manner; whether at an airport, in a court of law, or at a police station. This is clearly a given, and Muslims should in no way perceive that this is a threat or discriminatory.

We should also consider the human element- the social interaction- the fact that we gauge trust and honesty, compassion and other emotions from gazing upon the face and into the eyes of an individual. This is not to say; however, that because some women choose to cover their faces, that they are any less human or sincere. The very act of putting on and wearing the veil requires great resolve in the face of adversity. It is truly an expression of Muslim cultural identity, which is increasingly worn by more and more women as a form of empowerment. Remember: something is only ever sexist and oppressive if we allow it to be. As Rose Kinchen notes, in the Sunday Times News Review, 22 September 2013, the fear and hostility towards the presence of Muslims is increasing symbolized by the wearing of the veil. She also asserts that it is often terrifying for women who wear face-covering due to the abuse and degrading treatment they receive from passersby.

What we must never do and should be extremely careful of is not to create further cultural and religious divide. If we traverse this route, we are at risk of denying all fundamental rights, instead of protecting them. This will lead to totalitarianism and sweeping powers of the state to dictate and control all aspects of our lives, whether we are Muslim or not. And then we will be just like countries such as Saudi Arabia. Ultimately, any state imposition of such uniformity and conformity; in a socalled secularist society, is hardly a free and open secular society.

Author: Jason Schumann

%d bloggers like this: