He would shut her up if he could
RT talked to Maryam Namazie and Mohammed Shafiq yesterday. It was quite a disgusting display by Shafiq, and at the beginning even by the presenter – Shafiq would not stop interrupting Maryam.
Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, and Maryam Namazie, human rights activist, discussed the issue of Sharia law practices in Britain.
Mohammed Shafiq said that there are no Sharia courts: “They are Sharia councils, where people on a voluntary basis can go to get advice and get recourse according to Islamic principles.”
He added that every person of any religion is free to do that.
However, Maryam Namazie, human rights activist, said the UK government should reach a position where any type of religious arbitration, when it comes to family matters shouldn’t be allowed. She believes that it is “fundamentally discriminatory against women.”
According to Namazie, there is legal cover for Sharia courts.
“The Sharia councils call themselves courts; those who are presiding over them call themselves judges; the Muslim arbitration tribunals are using the Arbitration act,”she told RT.
Shafiq argues that politicians such as Theresa May and Prime Minister David Cameron have been employing a policy of targeting Muslims. “This is a part of neo-conservative agenda,” he says.
He believes this rhetoric comes in a climate of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred, which is perpetuated by the politicians, people in media, and other commentators. Shafiq says they demonize Muslims and their way of life.
At about 3:30 the presenter interrupts Maryam which he did not do to Shafiq.
At 4:30 Shafiq starts ranting at Maryam, accusing her of attacking Islam, constantly obsessing about it. At 5:50 he interrupts her. Then he interrupts her a second time to tell her to get a life, throwing her off stride for a second. Again @ 6:34.
The presenter interrupts saying can we give Mohammed a chance to respond! When Mohammed has repeatedly interrupted Maryam, which she did not do when he was talking. It’s incredible.
Then Mo responds and this time Maryam pays him back in kind. She had to, because he wasn’t going to let her talk without interruption, so she had to interrupt him right back, or he would have had an unimpeded chance to talk while she never did.
At 8:55 the presenter interrupts Shafiq (finally!!) to let Maryam respond. At 9:34 he interrupts her when she’s been responding to the presenter’s question for about 20 seconds. He simply will not let her talk.
At 10:18 Mo says “can I get a word in edgewise?”!
The curious question for me is, was the moderator doing this because she was speaking against Islamism, and therefore being a western imperialist? Or was he interrupting her because she is a woman, and that’s what men do to women? I suppose both wouldn’t be unacceptable as an answer.
I frankly think a _lot_ of bullshit hides under ‘voluntary’ when it comes to religion…
As in: sure, it’s ‘voluntary’… but you’ll be shamed, shunned, treated as an outcast if you don’t go along. ‘Voluntary’, except it wasn’t all through your childhood and sold endless abusive nonsense about hellfire, so you’ve internalized it to the point you get a twitchy terror at striking away from it. ‘Voluntary’ in theory as far as more liberal minted members of the faith claim to be, but hey, what can ya do if more psycho types are also around whose sanctions for apostasy may extend through murder… That’s not _us_, they’ll claim, and how is that our fault; we do _assure_ anyone there should be no compulsion… If you get a mite nervous
‘Voluntary’ but we get to tell our children what’s what, too bad for them if they never escape it…
‘Voluntary’, in short, but hah, not really, and actually we pretty much know it’s not, but really don’t care. The whole damn thing is built around various petty, miserable tyrants, real and imaginary, so being obnoxious, pushy shits until people give us what we want is pretty much What Would Beatified Figure X Do canon. Voluntary, sure, and apologies if you sprained anything while we weren’t really twisting your arm.
( … childhood, during which you were sold… )
I can no longer watch videos in which grease-ball Islamists mimic the language of progressivism and feminism and even enviromentalism to promote their theocratic-fascist agenda.
The solution to this is very simple. Whether we call them courts or councils, those operating them should be charged with practicing law without a license, and then given very hefty fines, if not jail terms. Almost the entire Islamist game plan is predicated on keeping women isolated, illiterate and marginalized. They must never be given a voice. If we can wrest control of these women away from the Islamist patriarchs, then their emancipation will follow.
However, there simply isn’t the political will in the UK, or in deed any where else in Europe or America, to undertake such a mission for female emancipation.
And feminists themselves ( with SOME exceptions) have consistently steered clear of the whole issue for fear of being branded islamophobe or bigot, and so they leave all the heavy lifting to ‘natives’ like Maryam.
From where I stand it looks pretty hopeless, especially when you think that many are Saudi-funded.
And Boy! Don’t we just love those Saudis.
http://nypost.com/2016/05/24/sneaky-schumer-added-loophole-to-halt-911-saudi-suits/
God damn it, John – for the third time – would you please stop with the Trump-style racist language? “grease-ball” for fuck’s sake – STOP THAT.
On the other hand thank you for the news item, which I didn’t know about.
That term is not at all racist. It was used in gangster movies from the thirties and forties.
It means a ‘lowlife’, and that’s what people like Shafiq are.
We’re not in the 30s and 40s. And who says that’s what it means? And how is that not racist?
At any rate – this isn’t optional. Don’t use loaded language of that kind here (and don’t play innocent – you can’t not know how “grease ball” would come across).
So the term is loaded, racist?!
It alludes to behavioral/personality traits only and not to any particular race or creed.
In Canada it’s considered an insult along the lines of ‘liar’, ‘idiot’, Imbecile’ etc.
It’s not a cuss word, merely an insult.
Yes, it’s loaded as in racist. It suggests physical distaste. “Greaser” – that can be a fighting word. I didn’t say it was a cuss word, and anyway since when do I object to cuss words?! I use them all too lavishly myself, so why would I do that? Yes, a white person calling a non-white person some variation on “greasy” is loaded at best.
Uh, yeah, more specifically than I realized:
Hmmm, I wonder if any of the characters represented Italians etc? I wonder what attitudes towards Italians and other swarthy Mediterranean folk were like back then?
Context, it matters.
I shall hang myself out a window over the Thames and do an “Archie Leach”