Amazon.com Widgets

Friday, June 22, 2007

Stephen Pollard pointed out the other day that Lord Ahmed, Britain's first Muslim Peer, had been speaking out on the Rushdie Knighthood (now taken place): Lord Ahmed: at it again. Pollard quotes The Sun:

Labour Lord Ahmed, 48, said Verses triggered “violence around the world”.

Prize-winning Rushdie was forced into hiding for ten years when Iran issued a fatwa against him in 1989.

Lord Ahmed added: “Honouring a man who has blood on his hands goes too far.”

"Blood on his hands." My my. The inversion of reality here is profound, isn't it?

Today, LGF has a quote of Ahmed's from the Telegraph: UK Labour Peer Compares Rushdie to 9/11 "Martyrs":

“This honour is given in recognition of services rendered to Great Britain,” he said. “Salman Rushdie lives in New York. He is controversial man who has insulted Muslim people, Christians and the British. He does not deserve the honour.

“Two weeks ago Tony Blair spoke about constructing bridges with Muslims. What hypocrisy.

“What would one say if the Saudi or Afghan governments honoured the martyrs of the September 11 attacks on the United States?”

Ahmed is the man who has previously invited notorious anti-Semite Israel Shamir to speak at the House of Lords, as well as met with a suspected Al Qaeda member who he invited in. See previous:

British anti-Semitism Watch
Pollard calls out Lord Ahmed
Lord Ahmed -- NPR gets it right
Lord Ahmed and his Guests

3 Comments

I'd like to understand the meaning of the use of the word "martyrs" by Lord Ahmed. Is he using it ironically? Or straightforwardly?

Your point is a good one, but however he meant it, I would say he used it "inadvisedly."

I left this comment at Stephen Pollard's site but since you mention it...
Nazir Ahmed appearing on France 24:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJdpknCqItM

4:24 into the program:

"Say for instance, the man who was refusing to acknowledge holocaust in Austria and who was sentenced to prison. Say if he was knighted, just tell me how our Jewish friends would feel..."

9:55 into the program:

"Tell me, why didn't you defend the man who was denying holocaust in Austria? Why didn't you come on tv and debated why is he being sent to prison? Not that I'm supporting it by the way. i'm just talking about the principle..."

A few points.

Firstly, he has the chutzpah to use the Holocaust to push his agenda after inviting a neo-Nazi to speak in the House of Lords.

Secondly, he pretends to care about his Jewish "friends'" feelings after inviting a neo-Nazi to speak in the House of Lords.

Thirdly, and I'm not sure of this; I'm not a native English speaker. In both cases he says 'holocaust' without using the definitive article which, to me at least, implies that he's not being entirely respectful of his Jewish "friends", to put it mildly (in addition he also referred to "those who deny the Armenian *alleged* genocide (4:45)).

If that's not an example of a dishonest scum, I don't know what is.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Search


Archives
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]