January 18, 2022 - 10:00am
When the identity of the British-Pakistani man who took four Jews hostage in Texas was released, I buried my face in my hands.
Last June, the Jewish Chronicle published an investigation into Urdu-language anti-Semitism on YouTube. Hundreds of hours of the vilest Jew-hatred is freely accessible on the video sharing platform, we revealed, racking up millions of views.
In one particularly vivid clip, the Pakistani broadcaster Zaid Hamid said: “Hitler was an angel, the way he took action against Jews, the way he killed Jews.” In another, Imran Riaz Khan, a television personality with 1.6 million followers, said: “[The Jews] lobby a lot in America and have strangled America, have it totally controlled.”
It was only after some weeks of foot-dragging that YouTube finally removed the specific videos on which we reported. But it did not shut down the channels of Zaid Hamid and Imran Riaz Khan. It did not pledge to root out other Urdu anti-Semitic material, or improve filters to prevent it appearing in future. It did not even provide us with a comment.
This matters. Of the homegrown Muslim terrorists that have committed atrocities in recent years, a large percentage has come from the British Pakistani community, many of whom are Urdu speakers.
The ringleader of the 2017 London Bridge terror attack, Khuram Butt, is the clearest example. The Isis supporter, who was involved in the killing of eight people, was radicalised partly by YouTube videos, including those by the British Pakistani hate preacher Anjem Choudary.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe cricketer Azeem Rafiq being another prime example (although he is generally portrayed only as the victim rather than also the perpetrator of racial abuse)
It’s truly remarkable how left wing ideologues have adopted Muslim bigotry on anti-semitism in the U.K. to the extent illustrated with the Rafiq case where anti Pakistani racism is unforgivable and requires sackings and career cancellation but anti-semitism can be forgiven with an apology.
I still can’t get over the fact the British establishment won’t acknowledge the Pakistani anti-white racism and misogyny that resulted in thousands of white teenage girls all across the country being subjected to extreme sexual abuse by Muslims from Pakistan in the main.
I always make it my business to point out to officials that the phrases “Pakistani paedophile grooming gangs” and “systemic anti-white racism” are 100% accurate and factual.
‘British terrorist Malik Faisal Akram’
Mm hmm.
A bit odd, eh, that it’s not Trevor Ian Smythe?
Reminds me of the American president Barack Hussein Obama.
Hardly a good comparison. Obama had an nth-generation American mother and lived in a country that prides itself on assimilating immigrants from all over the place. Obama compares better to Winston Churchill (American mother). He is certainly more American than the British athlete Mo Farah is British.
What country are you referring to? The one that assimilates immigrants from all over the place? Indonesia?
Haven’t you heard–the “melting pot” is dead. It’s been replaced by the “salad bowl,” where all the ingredients remain distinct. No more assimilation. Racist.
I was taught the “mixed salad” analogy in US grade school, many years ago. The idea was the whole thing, taken together, was delicious….
Who actually enjoys salad? Weak lefties and blue haired screechy vegans
The analogy is ‘layered’
Silly unnecessary comment Hersch !!
I am a muscular, meat-eating leftie, and I hate salad on the whole. Which label would you put on me? Seems I don’t exist in your world.
A muscular Penelope? Well I’d assume you fall into the trans category
Another silly comment ! Perhaps you are in the wrong news site ??
Yes, delicious as long as whites didn’t intermarry with blacks, and blacks were kept in their subordinate economic place…to serve their white masters…
You’re mixing up three different things.
Melting pot refers to societies where lots of different races and cultures mixed and interacted freely and equally. Mediaeval Islam in the Middle East encouraged this from time to time under enlightened leaders. Modern London fits this description too.
Assimilation refers to a national governmental policy where new immigrants are required to forsake their original culture entirely and take on the culture of their new country. This cannot properly be called racist, since one cannot by definition throw off one’s race. Race is genetics, heredity, what one is born with. Assimilation is actually ethnocentric, referring to culture, which, no matter how deeply inculcated, is optional. One can throw off one’s culture, or modify it in whole or in part.
Salad bowl is a very dubious term. It seems to refer to societies where different races and cultures occupy the same territory but are not allowed to mix. That brings to mind not just Southern US states, but Apartheid South Africa. This could properly be called racist, as you say.
The multiculturalism debate has become mired in confused terminology, political correctness and sloganeering, to the point where it is difficult to have a decent debate on the subject. It is—or was—supposed to represent an open, free middle ground between the two extremes of assimilation or salad bowl. To this extent, it represents a political version of polyglot, but in practice the term has applied to newer, less established social mixes.
Where modern multiculturalism went wrong was in confusing the inherent equality of all individual human beings qua human, with the evident inequality of cultures, where some are nearing their peak, others are in decline, some progressive and forward-looking, some backward-looking and conservative, some based in the individual, others in the group, some with established religion, others secular, and so on. So we end up with the absurd situation where one is not allowed to criticise or compare and evaluate the merits of different cultures. This is the intellectual failure which is causing dissension and conflict in the modern West.
It’s curious how Obama never mentions his mother but devotes his book to his father. Revealing, I would say.
What an astonishing comment–astounding in its ignorance! Barack Hussein Obama DID NOT have a mother, in the conventional sense, as he descended straight from heaven fully formed. Did you not know? A clue was in the way his base (the media) covered him–I mean worshipped him.
Mate, I dare say you suggested that Barack Hussein Obama was human. Racist!
Ha ha 🙂
Mea maxima culpa.
Yes, Barack Obama was the American president. Are you, too, a white racist?
Cheers, Penny: are you finished being a Band Aid for Stillwater and now trolling here?
Racist? Fair play–give it a go!
Either you’re a citizen or you’re not. You can’t hide behind “he’s not really British”. If you allow hundreds of thousands of people of a completely different outlook and culture inside your borders, don’t demand they assimilate, don’t expect them to subscribe to your culture and traditions, or even your language, and let them form enclosed, semi-autonomous communities, you own their actions.
Maybe ! It wouldn’t surprise me if this man is a dual national, holding both a British and Pakistani passport. He may have been born in the UK, he may have lived his entire life in the Uk, but culturally he may have seen himself as more Pakistani, or Muslim Pakistani. The crime that he has committed would certainly suggest that he more culturally aligned and motivated by his Pakistani/Muslim roots than any pervading British sensibilities. To suggest therefore that his identity is ‘British’ is rather perverse. He might have been, more accurately, described as ‘Muslim’, in the same way that somebody, from the 30’s and early 40’s motivated to persecute and kill Jews in Germany might be better described as a Nazi rather than simply a German.
‘Dual” passports can be ‘sticky’ no?
I don’t agree with the concept of dual citizenship. Pick a side.
I have dual Anglo/Canadian citizenship. HM the Queen is my monarch twice over, and I am very loyal. I don’t really see the necessity to pick a side.
Why don’t you agree with dual citizenship?
Whatever his citizenry- to me he’s not British. End of.
Unfortunately for you, the term British encompasses citizenship. It is not purely ethnic or racial. We grew out of that tribal stuff. Or most of us did.
True, but it is not limited to citizenship. ‘British’ may be understood, by different speakers and in different contexts, to refer to culture, values, loyalty, outlook, behaviour, and so on.
As Hersch Schneider notes in this string, for example, it is entirely possible to acquire Spanish citizenship without becoming Spanish in any other sense.
I have known people who (by accident of their own or a parent’s birth) have citizenship of a country whose language they cannot speak and where – if they ever visited – would be perceived as foreigners.
You’d be right that we’d own their actions if we had done the things you have described voluntarily, with our consent.
We weren’t told, we weren’t consulted, we didn’t vote for it. How is it our fault?
He’s a Pakistani that was granted British citizenry. If I live in Spain for five years and become a resident, do I go around calling myself Spanish? I could, but I’d be laughed at.
When a ‘trans woman’ officially changes his sex, to me he is still a man, and always will be. The ridiculous legalities of our time are irrelevant to me.
America has an answer for exactly the situation that you describe. If someone is obviously NOT an American in every cultural way yet somehow has a blue passport, the person is invariably described as an “American citizen.”
“Malik is an American citizen.” Adding the word “citizen” on the end is to address the surprise that is or will be felt, and really to emphasize his “otherness.” It is the equivalent of saying “Of course Malik is NOT an American, but he somehow scammed the system into allowing him to claim he is,” which is ridiculously easy, by the way.
I am heartened that there is this debate over one’s identity here–a topic of great interest to me–and I have repeatedly suggested that UnHerd do a piece on the citizenship of MM and her moron ginger husband and their spawn. If members of the British royal family are English, British, citizens of the UK–someone help me out here–does this apply to MM? Why has she not been forced to surrender her American citizenship? Why is she lobbying the American political system as an unregistered agent of a foreign power?
Not sure that I toatally agree. If a person lives in England, say, is naturalised (or born) British, whose first loyalty is to England, and accepts the laws of the land, then I would regard that person as English (and British) no matter his or her race or religion.
Of course you don’t have to totally agree–I welcome the debate. What I am against, among many other things, is the concept of dual citizenship. Some here, I think Francis MacGabhahn, said “You’re either a citizen or you’re not.” Maybe. Not quite sure I agree. Lady Ghislaine is a citizen of the US, France, and the UK. I’ve rarely heard her referred to as “American socialite Ghislaine Maxwell.”
The concept of dual citizenship is crazy at times. China does not allow it, but it does seem that having Chinese parents makes the Chinese government consider you loyal to China forever. (See, AMERICAN FACTORY, a very interesting take on China and Chinese investments abroad). And how can one be both British and Iranian at the same time, as some hard cases of Iranian “British” citizens married to real Brits being held in Iran.
I would welcome the views of UnHerd commentators on this. Anyone else interested? So far I have been informed mostly by Shappi Khorsandi, a unique and great resource to the UK.
I agree, dual citizenship makes no sense to me either. I can understand, to a certain extent, not wanting to completely forget your original home-land and wanting to keep in touch with some of your old cultural ideas, especially for first generation migrants. My mother-in-law was Polish-German and she was part of a Polish friendship group in the UK, but living in England since 1946 she considered herself English, In fact, when visiting Germany one time she was mistaken for English as, much to her chagrin, they said she spoke German with an English accent. However, her children , i.e. my husband and his brother, do not think of themselves even the slightest as being German or Polish.
You could argue that it should not be allowed, but it is (and as an EU citizen living stably in the UK I shall probably have it pretty soon). Clearly nations accept that you can have some kind of split/partial allegiance, and people have the right to sign up to it.
I doubt I should ever root for Britain when playing against my birth country – but fortunately it is rather unlikely that there should ever be a war.
I wonder if citizenship should not be possible for a 1st generation immigrant, only something they can proudly bestow on their integrated native born children so long as they’ve done nothing to have their residency revoked. It would certainly force a degree of integration as you’d have fewer rights and you’d have to prove yourself worthy by being law abiding at the very least.
Good Idea – probational citizenship. The politicians wouldn’t such a good idea with somebody elses bargepole.
In Australia we have permanent residency. This offers an option of proceeding to full citizenship should the person desire it, but it does not make this compulsory.
I think many other countries have this system or something similar.
As an Australian living in UK I gained “Leave to Remain”. As a Commonwealth citizen I could vote and become an MP. However am now a dual citizen.
When I came to England as an Australian, I was entitled to vote – even choose an MEP, Voting is one of citizenship’s core rights. I could also become an MP
My wife rightly pointed out I have two homes. So I decided to formally commit to the UK by becoming a dual British-Australian citizen. This involved swearing an oath to the Queen who is, of course, also Queen of Australia.
Her head is on both country’s coinage. Australian military, Parliamentary Members and new citizens all swear an oath to her.
I come from a country with shared language and many cultural references, brothers in arms, Westminster style governance and Common Law. We have the same favourite TV programmes. European settlement was founded from the UK.
Are you seriously suggesting that now, say, ANZACs and Canadians, should have fewer rights if we become dual British citizens?
Are the values and any differences in the societies of our birth countries really so “other” that we should have lesser rights as dual citizens to those born here?
Your concept doesn’t include any room for mutual cross-fertilisation in a positive, enriching sense. I think you are arguing for assimilation, where the original culture is annihilated.
I entirely agree. Citizenship should mean something. It’s about loyalty – ego would you fight for in a war, which national sports team do you cheer for etc. It’s not about conveniently collecting passports. Or shouldn’t be.
Don’t forget the ‘stick’ that “The Chingford Skinhead” got for suggesting that very thing in public, even from MPs in his own party..
It’s about loyalty.
It’s about a great deal more than loyalty. Sports fandom is ethnic and tribal; that’s not citizenship.
Citizenship is about an entire set of understandings about what it means to live in a democracy of free and equal citizens.
Furthermore, citizenship does not necessitate an either/or choice. It is not an inward-looking exclusive concept. Quite the reverse. By freeing people from limiting ancient bloodline allegiances, it enables them to move, mix and associate more widely with their fellow human beings.
I have dual UK/Canadian citizenship. I don’t really see how this is an issue, seeing as these are two culturally very similar countries sharing the same head of state, to whom I am very loyal.
…these are two culturally very similar countries
This is not quite the key point. The point is to have two mutually compatible citizenships, i.e. from full, free, open democracies of equal citizens. This is really about an advanced political system more than just a culture, although of course the political system ultimately grows out of the background culture.
Failing this, the so-called “citizenship” must be deemed to be incomplete, only partially evolved. Mixing fully developed citizenships with those still having learner plates on, is where the trouble starts.
You say you are against dual citizenship. But you don’t say why. You simply say it’s crazy at times. You mention Ghislaine Maxwell, China and Iran, but don’t actually say what your problem is with these three instances.
Here’s my comment:
China
China is one of those societies, another being Pakistan, which has not yet managed to outgrow its tribal, hereditary, bloodlinked characteristics. Like not a few other countries, it has assumed the outer trappings of a modern state, but it is not a modern state in the western sense of the word.
Chinese cultural and political life are not distinct. Chinese life is ruled by ancestor worship, which is a form of race-based tribalism. That is why traditional Chinese do not marry out.
When the government speaks of “harmony” it means total assimilation to Chinese (Han) culture for any ethnic minority within its borders. Even its borders are not those of a modern state, since they are aligned with the imperial reach of the nineteenth-century Ching Dynasty at the height of its power, which in turn continued much older conceptions of the “Middle Kingdom”.
Dual citizenship
For the reasons given above, it is inauthentic to criticise the entire concept of dual citizenship because an individual holder of both British and Iranian citizenship appears to portray a situation with “crazy” characteristics.
The problem here is obvious: you are comparing apples with pears, two citizenships which are not at all alike. If Iranian citizenship were the same as a Western democratic citizenship, the political problems would never have arisen. It is not dual citizenship here which is causing the problem, it is the fact that Iranian citizenship is still partially tribal in nature. It is not fully democratic, which is to say, it is an imperfectly evolved imitation of western democratic citizenship, one which has not yet succeeded in separating the individual qua citizen from their ethnic background. In the case of Muslim countries, religion makes the situation more complex, so we have a religious-cum-ethnic background, where the religious component has remained entangled with tribal ethnicities instead of freeing itself from them.
In the case of dual British-Chinese or British-Iranian citizenships, I would not accord them full status. They are not double, more like one plus a limited, partial second one. Perhaps we could say, British citizen with limited residency or partial citizenship rights in the second country?
So is there a good case for full dual nationals? Yes, most certainly: dual citizenship where both sides are full modern democracies. In this case, the second, and third, citizenship represents a genuine broadening and growth of the individual’s horizons. This is forward-looking progress towards the universal human ideal.
I hold dual UK/Australian citizenship. I have no problem whatever with encompassing both nations within my personality. I feel richly privileged to have been able to pick and choose, selecting the best of each country while having the right to criticise its more backward aspects.
Such a shame they both can’t deport you….
The majority disagrees with you.
Do you get a kick out of being rude and ill-mannered? Do you use it as a substitute for being able to say anything worthwhile?
How do you discern ‘first loyalty’?
Who they root for in football matches?
I know it when I see it?
I was thinking more cricket matches. Although, on second thoughts, I can understand not rooting for our present team.
LOL. I still root for England anyway. Supporting our losing teams is part of the experience
Even as a Scottish child in Lanarkshire back in the seventies I used to support England at cricket, which was often delusional. Now I’ve lived in England for 40 years, and I support England at everything, including against Scotland.
I actually find it difficult to accept immigrants, usually Pakistanis and Indians in England, still supporting their country of family origin even when they have been born in England.
They have had to bridge a far wider cultural gap than that you bridged between England and Scotland.
But don’t confuse tribal ethnic loyalty with modern political citizenship. They are not at all the same thing.
Fine if Indian and Pakistani immigrants want to support the team from their culture of origin. But the question you do need to ask is, to what extent have they understood and embraced the full democratic values entailed in British citizenship?
Maybe it isn’t such a wide cultural divide, but I think you underestimate it. I used to have to listen to my grandad slagging off the Protestant players for Celtic for them losing, as I (a Protestant) had to sit there listening to him. That’s pretty serious bigotry.
Yup I don’t need to be told I’m British, I just am. It’s in my blood and guts and there is no confusion or divided loyalties.
Be clear: you are speaking of your ethnic, blood-and-soil tribal allegiances. That’s the level on which you “know” you’re British.
It is very important that you understand that is not the same thing as citizenship, which is a political system belonging to the modern nation state.
I am a dual national and definitely do not feel divided or confused. On the contrary, I feel lucky and enriched. I am big enough to handle both comfortably. I wish I had more citizenships! That would be great…
The difference between you and me is personal. It has nothing to do with citizenship.
When I lived in a religiously sectarian Scotland as a child, where you supported Glasgow Celtic or Rangers depending on your ‘pretend’ faith (and I lived in the ‘divide’), I hated the bigotry so much that I always wanted both teams to lose, against anyone. And I loved teasing one side by supporting the other.
But I was still a Scottish patriot.
I empathise. I’m a dual English–Australian national, and right now I think their governments are both so bad all I want to do is swap for something better.
Compared to other governments I think we’re doing ok in the U.K. and Oz overall, and ok is all I hope for in a government.
To put it crudely, if it comes to an armed conflict which side are you rooting for. More nuanced though would be in things like diplomacy do you want your former or current country of residence to benefit (preferrably both would). I can understand that at times you may not want your current country to win a shooting war if you honestly believed that she was so morally wrong (this was the case for some Germans in WW2), but this would be because you fervently desired the best for her, not because you supported the other side.
Yes exactly!!
I was being a bit cheeky below, but one real way of measuring this is the names these people give their children.
If an African family comes to France and names their kid Pierre, that is a sign that they would like him to succeed in French society.
Similarly if a Pakistani family comes to the UK and names their child Malik Faisal, it suggests that their loyalty is not the UK, not to integrating or assimilating, but to take advantage of the West while remaining loyal to their ancestry.
As is the case with Barack Hussein Obama, I simply cannot overstate what a provocative act it was for his white mother to name the child Barack Hussein Obama in 1961. Barry spent much of his life running away from the name, calling himself Barry, and other variations. It was not cool, but then one day, it was, and he embraced it. Complete and utter fraud!
You don’t have to. Why limit yourself?
The country you would fight and die for.
Yes I agree. It’s a culture and loyalty thing to me, not a race thing.
Thank you, Linda, for the voice of reason and dignity in the midst of all this racist pigswill.
I gave you an uptick, but no one would ever know, because Unherd likes red downticks without comment and encourages minority views to be drowned out in the majority noise.
There is no scam involved. Those are the rules, and a US passport gives certain rights and responsibilities, whatever your culture and sense of identity. It makes more sense to accept that the typical case involves not just the citizenship but the culture, the sense of identity, childhood experience etc. – but that there are a certain number of less typical people who are American, British, etc. for some purposes but not for others. Much like an adoptive mother is still a kind of mother.
My favourite example is the Right Honourable Sir Michael Kerr, brother of Judith Kerr. High Court judge, Atlantic Star, and wartime RAF fighter pilot. Most people would probably accept him as fully British, even British enough to lead a war veteran’s parade. Despite the fact that he only came to Britain in 1935, became naturalised in 1946, and was a stateless German Jew all through the war.
With respect, I disagree. You are completely wrong on every level, but especially your contention that “There is no scam involved.” To become an American one must renounce any and all allegiance to any foreign country/potentates–don’t know the exact language but you get the idea: renounce ALL previous allegiances. Anyone who is eligible for dual citizenship and naturalizes (becomes an American) is committing perjury.
That’s one point. A previous commentator talked about accepting the law of land, learning the language, accepting and abiding by social norms–what if you have NO INTENTION of doing these things? Then you are a scammer, and should be hunted down and removed like rabbits in Australia, pythons in the Everglades, etc….
You have a very naive view of the world. DK used to function because the people were Danes. Now it functions must less well, because it has been invaded by scammers who don’t look like Danes, don’t act like Danes.
The UK has already surrendered. It’s capital has been taken–without a shot being fired–by scammers who are not English, not British, not European, who do not have English values, English norms, and in many cases English language.
These “New Danes” don’t drink like Danes either.
Can’t speak for the US, but in the UK all you need is to promise to be a loyal subject of HM the Queen. That I can do – and no mention of either respecting the Prime Minister or cheering for the UK at football. Then there are my children, or others in the same situation. Grown up in one country, accultured to another at home. If you insisted on full, unidivided loyalty they might end up stateless. I am not an uncritical fan of unlimited immigration (nor are most of my compatrtiots in Denmark), but as long as people follow the rules for getting citizenship you cannot blame them for the result. If you do not like the consequences, blame the people who made the rules.
I absolutely blame the elites who made these rules, but I also blame scammers. I see your point, and the elites get most of the blame….
…the typical case involves not just the citizenship but the culture, the sense of identity, childhood experience etc.
You have hit on the key point in this whole debate. There is near complete confusion running through the posts here between citizenship on the one hand, and culture/ethnicity/race on the other.
We can’t have a worthwhile debate without separating these two things, and understanding the different function each serves.
An example may serve to highlight the difference. A person can be a bad citizen by being too lazy to get out and vote. Or by not bothering to check out the credentials of the person h/she votes for. Or by switching off from civics and politics altogether and not participating in the democracy. All the while, that same person could be the most loyal member of his/her culture, volunteering to provide services to other members of the ethnic community, observing the religion, etc.
In other comments here, I have tried to draw out the fact that many nations’ “citizenships” are not real citizenships at all, but only partially evolved, limited “citizenships” still not properly separated from earlier tribal/ethnic/religious loyalties, and hence not really evidencing a modern nation state.
Thanks for your excellent comment.
Thanks – but I think we disagree on one point. I do not think your concept of citizenship exists anywhere outside Platos world of pure forms. It seems that in practice democracies only work if the people involved feel that they belong together as one group, which requires some sense of common identity around some shared things. Witness how multinational dictatorships tend to break up when they become democracies and the minorities suddenly have to fit into a demos centred around a different group (Yougoslavia, modern Syria, Iraq, Austria-Hungary, even Denmark in 1848). It follows that the tribal, cultural, religious etc, common points are actually part of what holds nations together. It is not simple of course – the US seems to have managed very well based on a shared position as a superpower, a shared commitment to being a land of opportunity for (almost) everyone and some degree of common myths, culture and patriotism. And I agree on your analysis of China. But the tribal, shared-culture aspects *are* part of what makes you a citizen, not just the formal membership of a democratic system.
Yes, point taken. I was simplifying to try to get across a crucial distinction between modern western citizenship and ancient heredity.
I think we have to regard it as very much still a work in progress. The old blood ties continue to provide the glue, as you say, while the newer consciousness gradually establishes itself.
But we can see new glues gradually being developed out of the chemistry of the modern nation state. In this respect, I actually see the new nations such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand—and the US as you say—leading the way. We share the bringing together of multiple diasporas with an indigenous population, and have been forced to come up with new shared ideals to hold the project together. In Australia, the new glue is the idea of the “fair go” for everyone—we’re all in this together. The shadow here is rampant greedy aspirational individualism, where everyone gets on with their own life, hoping like hell it’s not going to impinge on the guy next door. In this respect, we have lost some of the proactive European approach to sharing, to our detriment.
But as I said, it’s all still in flux.
MM and her moron ginger husband and their spawn
What a discourteous, deeply offensive thing to say. Frogs spawn. MM is not a frog. And Prince Harry, whatever else he might be, is not a moron.
Thus is just sickening, full on, hate-filled abuse. Shame on you!
I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it.
Prince Harry not a moron? Are you serious?
SInce Prince Harry is clearly not actually a moron, we must assume you mean it colloquially, as a put-down. As abuse. As I said.
Yes, I’m serious that I do not consider Prince Harry to be a moron, “colloquially speaking”.
First because I do my best not to abuse other human beings and reduce them to a caricature by slagging them off with gratuitous one-word tags. If I have objections to the person they are, the things they believe or do, then I try to explain what these things are, and why I object.
But Prince Harry is not the main focus of discussion around this Unherd article. Your reference to him and Megan was an off-the-cuff gratuitous insult. Uncalled-for. So why make it?
You say you ‘meant it’ and ‘stand behind it’ with reference to Prince Harry. But why not actually tell us what you think makes him a ‘moron’ and why you’re mentioning him and Megan in this context? Then we might be able to assess what you say on its merits.
Failing that, the tone of your comment suggests you just want to arouse readers’ uncritical emotions in a group-think negative pile-on: “Let’s all hate Megan and Harry!”.
But there’s something darker at work here. I note you did not take up my criticism of your reference to Megan and “spawn”. How cowardly to say “MM” when everyone knows whom you mean. And how revolting to use the word “spawn” in relation to birth of a human child.
There are shades and shadows in this comment of yours redolent of Nazi doctrines of white supremacy, and their associated use of terminology for non-whites and other proscribed “impure blood”, which reduced those others to the status of subhuman animals. The consequence of that removal of human status was the Holocaust.
Did you intend Unherd readers to unconsciously absorb this sort of hatred?
If not, perhaps you can tell us why you chose to use that word “spawn” instead of the normal “child” or “baby”, and what exactly you meant us to understand by it?
The correct term is citizenship, not citizenry.
Residency is not the same thing as citizenship. If you were a resident of Spain, one might expect you to go on calling yourself British (or German?). But if you became a Spanish citizen, that is different. You would then be Spanish, maybe dual Spanish/British if you had dual citizenship.
I take the point of your comment as a whole.
But the problem is that the ‘you‘ tends not to be the people of a country, but politicians who are acting in direct and deliberate contradiction of their people’s wishes.
[Just for example, a newspaper item found on a quick internet search: ‘The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.’]
Yes, like him or not, he is British. Are you a white racist who believes only white people can be British? And the nineteen other upticks who really like your racism? Are they white supremacists too?
Did anyone call Gandi, Nehru or Jinna racist because they ended British rule in India? In a few weeks one of midnight’s children may well be the next PM of Britain..
Are you a ‘white supremacist’ when you regret your people losing their country?
I don’t think “my people” are losing their country.
That’s because I don’t identify with other people on the basis of their race, tribe, or ethnicity.
On an individual level, I identify with other individuals who are warm, loving human beings with good morals and who behave ethically. I like a bit of educational polish and cultural refinement, but it’s not essential.
On a political, social, cultural level, i identify with those countries that have achieved the status of modern, open liberal democracies comprising free and equal citizens.
What I fear is the loss of human progress and advanced civilisation. Those things do not align to any one race, culture, religion. But on the whole western democracies are well ahead of the rest of the pack.
Penelope, you’re an Australian.
The aborigines are an example of people who lost their country. They are a minority; their votes don’t decide anything.
White Australians are not “my people”. Nor are Aboriginal Australians “my people”.
As I said, I do not identify with people on the basis of their race, ethnicity or religion.
Aboriginal Australians are a numerical minority whose votes on their own don’t decide anything. But they are a culturally powerful force exerting beneficial, strong influence in the fields of ecology, conservation and climate change. They form political alliances where their votes do decide things. In this, they are similar to the Greens.
I don’t define myself by my Australian citizenship, nor by my UK citizenship. As a human being, I am bigger than that.
Don’t call them British Muslims, they are Pakistanis who happen to have settled in Britain.
They have no interest in British culture or indeed indeed the British way of life. Many 2nd generation women still speak no English because they never leave their own communities.
This is becoming an increasing problem for Britain but, the first thing we can do to find a solution is to accept that the vast majority are NOT British Muslims.
With respect, I disagree with your second paragraph. They do seem to have an interest in young English girls, whom they consider slags, and sexually abuse them in massive numbers for long periods of time.
Didn’t the police in the North admit that they were afraid to intervene–despite knowing what was going on–for fear of being seen as racist?
Same with the Ariana Grande security guard who saw something but DID NOT say something for fear of being seen as racist.
Is anyone here remotely surprised by this? When I read news reports about how Britain and France have rising levels of antisemitism the implication is often that the locals are neo Nazis and we’re all just horrible racists. The truth is that increased antisemitism correlates directly with the increased Muslim population. We all know it’s true but the powers that be just won’t say it out loud so throw the rest of us under the bus as ‘British’ antisemites. The Left always sides with the Islamists on this too. But again, if it’s the left, somehow we must be mistaken, it must be the Tories’ fault somehow. I’m sick of it.
Touche!
Malik Faisal Akram. In what way is he British, at his core?
Answer: In no way. And the same would be true if his passport was American, Australian, Canadian, etc… These are extremist Muslims with loyalty to radical Islam, yet they walk among us and carry our passports!
Sometimes some brief thing you see on television sticks in the memory.
Mine is from roughly forty years ago. A young Muslim woman was being interviewed, and was asked what being British meant to her.
She replied that ‘British’ meant nothing to her other than a word in her passport: her loyalty was to the ummah, the worldwide community of the adherents of Islam.
And that’s the problem, right there.
The key point was that this took place 40 years ago! The elites did not hear her, did not take her seriously, or didn’t care. But millions more like her–some perhaps a bit better, many perhaps a bit worse–have infiltrated the West while keeping their loyalty to the ummah!
QED.
Spot on!
This is because the Guardian and BBC liberal types in the UK have for years been spewing out false narratives about victimisation of Kashmiri and Palestinian muslims. And playing a victim has been a profitable endeavour for muslims who are not citizens of oil rich Arab states.
The Pakistani community in the UK has to be told a number of home truths:
-no anti-jewish words or actions, here.
-no gang rapes of white, black, Sikh girls…
But it won’t happen, will it? Why? Because the UK is not a serious country. If you have immigrant communities, they have to be told in no uncertain terms what the local rules of the game are.
Figures. Big Tech is left wing, left wing is anti-Semitic, YouTube is Big Tech, therefore YouTube is anti-Semitic.
Whatever else don’t take a logic exam
And here is another suprise… today is Tuesday…
I commented in the UKMail about the UK being a breeding ground re: Pakistani Islamic violence and I was censored : )
Surprisingly no one has yet commented on the author’s message which is twofold.
The first true message is that there are a lot of Pakistani and Pakistani origin men who are anti-Semitic. Fairly uncontroversial.
The second message is ”more pressure needs to be brought to bear on internet giants like YouTube, which all too often provide the platforms that lead to murder.”
The two vile anti-Semitic messages quoted are as follows:
“the Pakistani broadcaster Zaid Hamid said: “Hitler was an angel, the way he took action against Jews, the way he killed Jews.” In another, Imran Riaz Khan, a television personality with 1.6 million followers, said: “[The Jews] lobby a lot in America and have strangled America, have it totally controlled.”
The first message is undoubtedly anti-Semitic and in so far as it endorses the killing of Jews probably should not be hosted if all other enthusiastic endorsements of killing particular ethnic groups are banned. Of course, its publication has the advantage of identifying extremists to the authorities.
However, the second message merely states that Jewish people lobby a lot in America – which is true the Jewish lobby is very active in lobbying in favour of Israel,- which of course they are entitled to do. It goes on to assert a rather exaggerated assessment of the success of this lobbying which is simply a matter of opinion.
Personally, I don’t regard Riaz Khan’s Views about Jewish lobbying as something that should be censored by YouTube simply because it complains about Jews any more than I would want YouTube to censor similar complaints about Muslim Pakistanis.
What do others think?
Try Melanie Philip’s website, and subscribe to her free emails. Today’s email is about this very issue; the inherent anti-sematism in much islamic discourse.
Melanie Phillips is an interesting writer but my point was not about the widespread anti-Semitism of Islamic discourse but the call for censorship the author was promoting which seems to have passed by everybody commenting.
YouTube has dollar signs for pupils: they only see what profits them!
The UK family left a sincere apology for his actions on Facebook but later deleted it. I wonder if their community was demanding that it was removed. He buys a gun on the street! Mental illness did not prevent him from travelling to Pakistan and then the UK. He was demanding release of a female terrorist inprisoned in Texas . Security agencies surely have a lot to answer for.
You can see where Youtube priorities lie can’t you. Mention Iver***tin or query the risks of repeated vaxing and the video is removed overnight but spew hatred of Jews and no one flicks an eyebrow. It is shocking that Youtube allows these video’s to be viewed. How on earth did this creature get into the US? How can the FBI make such an obviously flawed statement-‘nothing to do with the J***sh community’. You can call this guy crazy all you like but his hatred of J**s, published online and in religious groups, makes it clear he aimed his terror at them specifically.