The first sitting U.S. president to address hate group

Original post by Dez

I googled the name (which you misspelt, btw) and it turns out he's a Lib Dem politician? Why would I care about a third-rate politician from a has-been political party? More to the point, what on Earth has his views got to do with Trump heading a hate group convention? :erm:

He once stood for Parliament as a Lib Dem yes, but that isn't the reason for his prominence. It is a sideshow.

He is one of the most influential and articulate opponents of political Islam on the planet. World famous. Why do you think the SPLC condemned him in the first place??

Listen to him debate on You Tube. As a former Islamic terrorist himself he completely understands the mindset and is a very compelling speaker.

One thing h is not, however, is an "anti Muslim extremist." That is the point.

Reply 22

username1738683

12

Original post by Dez

This doesn't make it right for the POTUS to give a speech to them.

Who the hell are we to decree what is right or wrong for any POTUS to speak to, it is an internal affair for americans to tussle with and we can all either agree or disagree with things but... you guys talk as if invested with some divine power to tell the whole world what is right and wrong. The american electorate is there to put them through Judgement Day at the next ballot, that's Democracy. Nobody over there is concerned with what we think.

By all means, do go on...

Reply 23

Original post by zhog

Who the hell are we to decree what is right or wrong for any POTUS to speak to, it is an internal affair for americans to tussle with and we can all either agree or disagree with things but... you guys talk as if invested with some divine power to tell the whole world what is right and wrong. The american electorate is there to put them through Judgement Day at the next ballot, that's Democracy. Nobody over there is concerned with what we think.

By all means, do go on...

Absolutely. The TSR Social Justice crowd encapsulated.

They froth at the mouth at the President of a foreign country addressing a conference of his own supporters.

And think that the fact a few kids on a student website stamp their little feet makes any difference to anything.

Reply 24

yudothis

Original post by luq_ali

Thanks, and I also like talking with you. Opposing or different views are good things when they are towards dialogue, learning and discussion.

I think the best starting place for views on The Family Research Council is to start here:
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/family-research-council

Groups like that are not about dialogue and learning...

Reply 25

username1738683

12

Original post by generallee

Absolutely. The TSR Social Justice crowd encapsulated.

They froth at the mouth at the President of a foreign country addressing a conference of his own supporters.

And think that the fact a few kids on a student website stamp their little feet makes any difference to anything.

I often get the feeling in here that some people truly don't get Democracy. It simply doesn't compute, their strident intolerance attests to it.

Reply 26

Original post by generallee

Describing the "Values Voter Summit" as a "hate group" as the SPLC does, is very much "distorting the real world."

This organisation doesn't buy into the whole transgender bathroom, boll ocks, that's all.

It's nothing to do with transgender bathrooms. The only time the two articles OP cited mention it is in reference to Trump, not the FRC (the Values Voter Summit is an even, the Family Research Council is the organisation), while the SPLC profile on the FRC doesn't mention the issue - indeed, it barely mentions transgender issues at all; their main reasoning given for listing the group is its homophobia.

the SPLC is laughed at in the US.

Only other left wing loons takes them seriously.

If that was true, Nawaz being named on an SPLC list wouldn't have been news, and righties wouldn't moan about them all the time.

Indeed, people moan about the SPLC precisely because it is taken seriously. Nawaz even made this point when interviewed by The Atlantic about his listing.

The SPLC significantly impacted the field of American civil rights law (the idea of defining some organisations of "hate groups" in itself was basically the SPLC's) and became the go-to source on domestic extremists for academics, reporters and even sometimes government agencies. These aren't the signs of an obscure fringe group. Sure, they've been criticised for several years now (including by left-wing writers) for i) exaggerating the size of, and threat posed by, extremist groups in order to get more money, and ii) abusing their reputation by expanding their focus into more dubious groups and people. Which are fair points, and doubtlessly the SPLC sometimes does dumb things, like listing Nawaz (though while he still appears from an article from about year ago, he seems to have been quietly removed from the active database). But that doesn't automatically make it completely useless as a source. Indeed, with the partial exception of the ADL, no-one has really made it as an alternative source for the issue, have they?

Reply 27

Original post by generallee

And think that the fact a few kids on a student website stamp their little feet makes any difference to anything.

[video="youtube;0AzCfckVi0A"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AzCfckVi0A[/video]

Reply 28

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by generallee

And think that the fact a few kids on a student website stamp their little feet makes any difference to anything.

Yet you grace us with your opinion on such matters.

Reply 29

Dez

Original post by generallee

He once stood for Parliament as a Lib Dem yes, but that isn't the reason for his prominence. It is a sideshow.

He is one of the most influential and articulate opponents of political Islam on the planet. World famous. Why do you think the SPLC condemned him in the first place??

Listen to him debate on You Tube. As a former Islamic terrorist himself he completely understands the mindset and is a very compelling speaker.

One thing h is not, however, is an "anti Muslim extremist." That is the point.

I really don't give a damn what this guy has to say about religion. Or anything else, for that matter.

Original post by zhog

Who the hell are we to decree what is right or wrong for any POTUS to speak to, it is an internal affair for americans to tussle with and we can all either agree or disagree with things but... you guys talk as if invested with some divine power to tell the whole world what is right and wrong. The american electorate is there to put them through Judgement Day at the next ballot, that's Democracy. Nobody over there is concerned with what we think.

By all means, do go on...

It is the job of the POTUS to represent all US citizens and support their best interests. All citizens, not just the people who happened to vote for him. Speaking at the conference of a hate group who actively campaigns against a section of the US populace having the same freedoms as others is not supporting citizens' best interests.

Reply 30

Original post by anarchism101

Which are fair points, and doubtlessly the SPLC sometimes does dumb things, like listing Nawaz

It is more than that. Yes it was incredibly stupid, but it indicates the lacuna in the eye of a wide swathe of the whole western left (including many lefties on TSR).

Islamism is not an ally for soi disant "progressives." Unless you regard the imposition of Sharia, progress. The moral and political view of Nawaz's opponents is viciously reactionary, off the scale right wing, and cynically using the western left for its own ends. It is an existential threat, actually.

In describing Nawaz as an "anti Muslim extremist" (and worse, refusing to back track when challenged by him on it) they are explicitly supporting the Islamist narrative that all "secular" Muslims like Nawaz are not just non Muslims, (on which I don't see how the SPLC can have a theological view) but "anti Muslim."

They are Lenin's "useful idiots." Being stupid is forgivable, being dangerous isn't.

Reply 31

Original post by generallee

It is more than that. Yes it was incredibly stupid, but it indicates the lacuna in the eye of a wide swathe of the whole western left (including many lefties on TSR).

Islamism is not an ally for soi disant "progressives." Unless you regard the imposition of Sharia, progress. The moral and political view of Nawaz's opponents is viciously reactionary, off the scale right wing, and cynically using the western left for its own ends. It is an existential threat, actually.

In describing Nawaz as an "anti Muslim extremist" (and worse, refusing to back track when challenged by him on it) they are explicitly supporting the Islamist narrative that all "secular" Muslims like Nawaz are not just non Muslims, (on which I don't see how the SPLC can have a theological view) but "anti Muslim."

They are Lenin's "useful idiots." Being stupid is forgivable, being dangerous isn't.

That may well be true, but regardless of whether it is or not, I don't see how it impacts on whether the FRC, a group listed by the SPLC many years before Nawaz was ever mentioned on their website, belongs on that list.

Reply 32

stoyfan

Original post by generallee

Yes, and that is a great system, one of many in which America is superior to us. Repealing our ridiculous hate speech laws can't come soon enough for those of us who believe, as most Americans do, in free speech.

Brilliant, and whilst you are at it lets protect the Islamic hate preachers because free speech!

Reply 33

AperfectBalance

21

I honestly dont trust the splc, they mobilise and try and shut down opinions that they do not agree with, most of the "hate" groups are not actually hate groups. Let us see what is actually said during the speeches and make our opinions then.

Reply 34

username1738683

12

If this hatred is real, it has to be accepted it isn't confined to the Right. Personally, I see much more animosity on the Left and this thread is a good example of how we can talk about 'hate groups' for hours without producing a graphic description of anything we can really talk about. It is loosely slung at the Right as a rudimentary tool made up of all the usual ingredients, the hijacking of the moral ground, the demonising of your opponent, the attempt to make every issue non-debatable on that basis alone, anyone in the UK denouncing the absolute racket the asylum system has become will have the Left camped outside or smash your windows.

What the far-left want on top of all that is to legitimise their hatred above that of anyone else, a perception that parts of the media disseminate in a way we can only wonder if unintended. By routinely referring to everyone in Charlottesville as Nazis, a small child would easily gather who the goodies and the baddies are. It isn't objective journalism, it is either sloppy or malicious. Trump was right, there were fine people on both sides and equally reproachable ones.

Reply 35

Original post by anarchism101

That may well be true, but regardless of whether it is or not, I don't see how it impacts on whether the FRC, a group listed by the SPLC many years before Nawaz was ever mentioned on their website, belongs on that list.

It is true, I think we both know that. :smile:

Clearly the stupidity (or worse) of the SPLC over Nawaz doesn't ipso facto invalidate their assessment of the FRC but it does go to their credibility.

And credibility is everything to a Human Rights Group. As Iago says:

"Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed."

The association between Amnesty International and Cage, for example was immensely damaging for the former, and they had to disassociate from it to retain its reputation.

The SPLC has refused to do that over Nawaz. So far at least. Until it does people like me will use it as a stick to beat it. Well, people even more cynical than me. :biggrin:

Reply 36

Original post by generallee

It is true, I think we both know that. :smile:

No, I think it depends on how many of the kind of men who are potentially near becoming Islamist foot soldiers are actually likely to read a long in-depth SPLC article?

Clearly the stupidity (or worse) of the SPLC over Nawaz doesn't ipso facto invalidate their assessment of the FRC but it does go to their credibility.

And credibility is everything to a Human Rights Group. As Iago says:

"Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed."

The association between Amnesty International and Cage, for example was immensely damaging for the former, and they had to disassociate from it to retain its reputation.

The SPLC has refused to do that over Nawaz. So far at least. Until it does people like me will use it as a stick to beat it. Well, people even more cynical than me. :biggrin:

Amnesty took five years to break links with CAGE after the initial controversy, which was always more about Amnesty violating its principles by associating a bit too closely with Moazzam Begg and Co., rather than inherently compromising its factual research (as Gita Saghal said, Begg being an unsavoury individual who Amnesty should have kept a bit more distance from did not in itself mean he wasn't a legitimate source).

And ultimately, Amnesty is still a go-to source, and probably still has the slight edge on its main competitor Human Rights Watch, as it's pretty much always had. SPLC similarly remains for the most part the go-to source for information on hate groups, along with the ADL. Given Nawaz no longer appears on the active hate groups and individuals list, if he's never mentioned again it'll likely be remembered as no more than a brief lapse of judgement. Apart from by the American right-wing commentariat who already had a political bone to pick with the SPLC and have done for years.

Reply 37