Social The Southern Poverty Law Center Has Lost All Integrity, Yet More Profitable Than Ever Before.

Atheists Outraged by SPLC Branding Atheist Critics of Radical Islam 'Anti-Muslim Extremists'

img.jpg
Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch parliamentarian, gestures as she speaks at the European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium

Sam Harris and several other prominent members of the atheist community have condemned the Southern Poverty Law Center's recent decision to brand atheist authors critical of radical Islam as "anti-Muslim Extremists."

Harris, who himself has written books, articles, and made numerous commentaries on the dangers of Islamic extremism, described the SPLC's move as "unbelievable," and retweeted several messages by other atheists and supporters who also could not understand why Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz have found themselves of the "extremist" list.
As the SPLC notes in its report, Hirsi Ali is a Somali-born activist who says that she suffered female genital mutilation and fled civil war in Africa, but questions key parts of her persecution story, and argues that "she now positions herself as an ex-Muslim champion of women's rights, her anti-Muslim rhetoric is remarkably toxic."

SPLC also brands Nawaz as a former radical who uses his experience to "savage Islam," and also accuses him of fabricating parts of his experience in order to present a negative image of Islam.
Hemant Mehta of The Friendly Atheist blog noted that both Nawz and Hirsi Ali believe that Islam is "uniquely problematic compared to other religions," and have encouraged moderate Muslims to help steer the religion in the right direction.

Mehta wrote that the SPLC's decision to brand the authors as "anti-Muslim Extremists" makes him wonder "why anyone should take the SPLC seriously at this point."

He added: "If criticizing religious beliefs makes them extremists, then it won't be long before other vocal atheists end up on that list too. And make no mistake, that's what Nawaz and Hirsi Ali are doing. That's all they're doing. They're not anti-Muslim; they work with moderate Muslims. They're critical of the worst aspects of Islam."
Sarah Haider of Ex-Muslims of North America noted that both Nawaz and Hirsi Ali have been targeted by radicals and threatened with violence for speaking out against real extremists, and warned that the SPLC's decision will make it even harder for critics to speak out.

"Already, too few are willing to stand up to religious privilege for the sake of human rights. When that privilege belongs to a religion whose followers include some ready to die (and kill) for the honor of their faith, activists face devastating costs," Haider wrote.

"This report is an example of the careless, reactionary response by the American media (on both the right and the left) to the challenge posed by this religion."
George Yancey, professor of sociology at the University of North Texas, has accused the SPLC of failing to use objective criteria in determining which organizations should be labeled a "hate group," however.

"The subjective nature of the criteria for determining a hate group provides a conceptual structure more vulnerable to social bias than an objective criteria applying to groups across a wide political, cultural, and religious spectrum," Yancey wrote in a 2014 study.



Atheists Start Petition Against SPLC Branding Atheist Critics of Radical Islam 'Anti-Muslim Extremists'

Atheists have started a petition against the Southern Poverty Law Center's recent decision to brand atheist authors critical of radical Islam as "anti-Muslim extremists," with author Sam Harris calling the organization's decision "dangerous and disgraceful."

"Please sign and retweet. The recent actions of the @splcenter are dangerous and disgraceful," Harris wrote on Sunday with a link to the Change.org petition.

"By including liberal reformists and human rights activists in its list of 'anti-Muslim' extremists, the Southern Poverty Law Center has effectively chosen to silence and ignore many very important voices from whole groups of marginalized people, and in doing so, are inadvertently accepting the most hardline and fundamentalist interpretations of Islam which chooses to remain divorced from liberal and humanitarian values," explains the petition.

The SPLC, which lists a broad range of people, including some Christian conservatives, on its list of individuals it finds to be extremists, released earlier this month a report in which two ex-Muslim atheists, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz, found themselves accused of "anti-Muslim rhetoric" for criticizing radical Islam.

The SPLC also says in its Field Guide that media organizations often turn to "Anti-Muslim extremist groups" for commentary on issues such as national security, immigration and religious liberty, but missing from their coverage is "critical contextual information about their defamatory and false rhetoric."

In another tweet, Harris said that accusing critics of "Islamophobia" is both "reprehensible" and "reprehensible," however.

Nawaz explained in his own words in an article for The Daily Beast that he is a "liberal, reform Muslim."

"I have survived violent neo-Nazi racism and served as a former War on Terror political prisoner in Egypt, witnessing torture," he wrote.

"Yet, in a trip that takes us through the looking glass, the largely white American non-Muslim 'progressive' leadership at the pro-civil liberties group Southern Poverty Law Center has just published a 'journalist's field list' naming me as an 'anti-Muslim' extremist."

Nawaz said that he is the target of Muslim extremists who want him dead, and noted that close to 6,000 Muslims in Europe have been influenced by real extremism and have left to join the Islamic State terror group, which plans and carries out mass terror attacks "with military precision."

"Meanwhile, from the comforts of sweet Alabama comes this edict that liberal Muslims working to throw open a conversation around reforming Islam today are somehow to be deemed 'anti-Muslim extremists,'" he accused.

A separate article in the Wall Street Journal argued that the American left is trying to stigmatize Muslim reformers.

"The unstated premise of the report is that criticizing Islamist movements, ideologies and regimes, and Islam itself, is the same as hating Muslims," the article positioned. "If the Western left believes this, then already-embattled reformers in the Muslim world will be even more isolated."

Others, such as Hemant Mehta of The Friendly Atheist blog, wrote last week that the controversial decision makes him wonder "why anyone should take the SPLC seriously at this point."

"If criticizing religious beliefs makes them extremists, then it won't be long before other vocal atheists end up on that list too. And make no mistake, that's what Nawaz and Hirsi Ali are doing. That's all they're doing. They're not anti-Muslim; they work with moderate Muslims. They're critical of the worst aspects of Islam," Mehta wrote.

 
Last edited:
Atheists Start Petition Against SPLC Branding Atheist Critics of Radical Islam 'Anti-Muslim Extremists'

img.jpg




http://www.christianpost.com/news/a...-radical-islam-anti-muslim-extremists-171200/
Awkwardly written article. Maajid isn't an atheist, but is planning on pursuing legal action against the SPLC. Good on him. They lost any legitimacy in my eyes when Ayan Hirsi Ali made their list. I wasn't sure if it was because of incompetence or in pursuit of an agenda, but either reason shows they can't be trusted.

I'll be interested in seeing how this unflattering spotlight shown at them effects their reputation and usage by the MSM.
 
Conservatives fight back against Southern Poverty Law Center’s arbitrary ‘hate group’ label
By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Thursday, June 29, 2017

Richard_Cohen_c0-1-594-347_s885x516.jpg

Richard Cohen of the Southern Poverty Law Center

As far as conservative organizations are concerned, being labeled a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center isn’t just annoying — it’s dangerous.

Gunmen have twice targeted conservatives specifically cited by the SPLC for hate: Republican Rep. Steve Scalise, who was shot June 14 by a fan of the SPLC Facebook page, and the Family Research Council, whose security guard was wounded in 2012 by a man who said he found the FRC on the SPLC’s list of “anti-gay groups.”

So when GuideStar USA, a self-described “neutral” database of nonprofits, decided this year to slap the SPLC’s “hate group” tag on 46 groups, including the FRC, conservatives declared enough.

“Southern Poverty Law is an arm of the left,” said Jerry Boykin, FRC executive vice president, who joined 40 other conservative leaders in a June 21 letter to GuideStar. “To use their data is just incredible, particularly when the results can be exactly what we experienced at Family Research Council when we had a shooter.”

After initially standing by the SPLC tags, GuideStar CEO Jacob Harold agreed Tuesday to remove the designations, citing a commitment to objectivity as well as “concerns for our staff’s well-being.”

He said some employees had faced harassment.

At the same time, he said the charity tracker would continue to provide SPLC data to interested parties.

“We will continue to make this information available upon request to anyone who seeks it,” Mr. Harold said. “And we are actively exploring how else we might be able to share information on those groups that abuse nonprofit status to advance an agenda of hate.”

That wasn’t enough for the Liberty Counsel Chairman Mat Staver, who announced Wednesday that the group had filed a lawsuit against GuideStar for what he described as its “reckless defamatory and harmful political labeling.”

“The only purpose of providing the SPLC false and dangerous ‘hate group’ label is to inflict reputational and financial harm to Liberty Counsel,” Mr. Staver said. “GuideStar has lost all credibility.”

The SPLC rushed to GuideStar’s defense, saying, “We stand ready to support our designation of Liberty Counsel as a hate group.”

“Liberty Counsel is a group that has consistently called LGBT people ‘immoral, unnatural and self-destructive,’” said SPLC President Richard Cohen. “It has a track record of attempting to criminalize homosexual conduct and to legalize discrimination against the LGBT community.”

With more than 2 million profiles, GuideStar has billed itself as the “world’s largest nonprofit database,” but conservatives said the episode has raised troubling questions about whether the charity tracker harbors a political agenda.

Philanthropy Roundtable’s Karl Zinsmeister, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, took the SPLC to task this year, calling its extremist list a political tool, not a “Consumer Reports guide,” and describing the organization as a “cash-collecting machine.”

Mr. Harold acknowledged that the SPLC has been accused of political bias and being “too focused on fundraising,” but he concluded that “no data source is perfect.”

He said GuideStar’s concern lies with combating those who “abuse nonprofit status to spread hateful rhetoric.” He defined hate as the attempt to “denigrate or marginalize a group of people based solely on their identity.”

“We have seen overwhelming evidence that hateful agendas have been pushed by individuals within nonprofit organizations,” Mr. Harold said. “There can and must be a debate regarding how we define ‘hate,’ but we do believe it is within GuideStar’s mission to help the public understand how its philanthropic dollars are used.”

The right has long decried the SPLC’s “guilt by association” approach, in which major conservative organizations such as FRC are listed as “hate groups” alongside extremist outfits like the Ku Klux Klan and Westboro Baptist Church.

The groups flagged by GuideStar included white supremacist Richard Spencer’s National Policy Institute as well as leading conservative nonprofits like the Alliance Defending Freedom, Eagle Forum and Federation for American Immigration Reform.

Among those signing the letter urging GuideStar to stop using the SPLC labels was former Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese.

The SPLC was hardly discouraged by GuideStar’s decision to take down the tags.

“We appreciate that GuideStar will continue to provide information as to whether the organizations they rank are designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center,” the center said in a statement.

“At a time when hate groups increasingly present a mainstream veneer, the public deserves such information,” said the SPLC. “We respect that GuideStar is reassessing how to make that information available.”

Mr. Cohen had previously condemned as “sickening and cowardly” the attack on Mr. Scalise, during which the gunman, 66-year-old James Hodgkinson of Illinois, also struck a congressional staffer, a lobbyist and two Capitol Police officers.

“We’re aware that the SPLC was among hundreds of groups that the man identified as the shooter ‘liked’ on Facebook,” Mr. Cohen said in his June 14 statement. “I want to be as clear as I can possibly be: The SPLC condemns all forms of violence.”

Mr. Harold described GuideStar as nonpartisan, but critics have questioned his political leanings. He was previously affiliated with the Rainforest Action Network and Greenpeace USA, and donated to President Obama’s campaign in 2011 before starting at GuideStar in 2012.

Mr. Harold posted a photo of himself on Twitter at the Jan. 21 Women’s March holding a sign that said, “It turns out that facts matter.”

“Which is perfectly OK as long as you don’t portray your organization as a neutral organization,” Mr. Boykin said, “and that’s what he’s trying to do.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/29/guidestar-removes-hate-group-tags-on-nonprofits/
 
NGO financial monitor GuideStar may resume using Southern Poverty Law Center's 'hate-group' label



The world’s largest financial monitor of nonprofits’ finances, which began applying a left-wing organization’s “hate group” label to some conservative nonprofits but stopped after a backlash, may soon resume the controversial practice.

Earlier this month GuideStar, which monitors the finances of more than 1.6 million NGOs and nonprofits, began adding the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) hate group labels to more than 40 nonprofits.

But after an outcry last week from 41 people, most affiliated with conservative groups, who signed and publicly released a letter blasting GuideStar for using the SPLC’s labels, the group pulled the labels. But the group implied it was open to reverting back to using the designation after it studies the issue.

They said the SPLC classifications are biased against conservative groups and that -- solely because of views that SPLC deems as opposite of theirs -- many peaceful organizations were inaccurately lumped with ones that actually promote violence.

They assert that SPLC turns a blind eye to nearly all leftist groups that have been linked to hate-fueling activities and violence, and has no warning labels about them. They are concerned that as the most influential source for information about charities, GuideStar’s use of a list that targets only groups that lean conservative and that are peaceful could end up costing them donations.

“It’s a vicious way to smear people by lumping them in with genuinely nasty groups,” said Scott Walter, president of Capital Research Center, a conservative think tank that monitors nonprofits. “I prefer that they not use anybody’s list. But at the barest minimum, if they’re going to use something from a highly ideological group like the SPLC, GuideStar should also ask conservative groups to draw up [hate-group] lists.”

On Monday, GuideStar said that after the many complaints it received about the SPLC’s list and approach for labeling a group as one that encourages hate, it was temporarily suspending the annotations. It also cited threats against its employees as a reason for taking down links to SPLC.

“It is a growing concern in the nonprofit community that there are some groups who use a nonprofit designation to advance hateful agendas,” GuideStar said in a statement to Fox News. “We’ve begun to engage the community in a conversation to figure out how we can best go about the process of identifying organizations that use the nonprofit form for this reason. Through these conversations, we hope to find a productive means to serve all the people who use GuideStar Nonprofit Profiles as a valuable resource for reviewing nonprofits’ missions, operations, goals, and results.”

Asked what the next step is and when it will happen, GuideStar said: “The timing of the next series of changes is dependent on the outcome of our conversations with the nonprofit community.”

SPLC, meanwhile, downplayed the move by GuideStar in a statement to Fox News.

“At a time when hate groups increasingly present a mainstream veneer, the public deserves such information,” the organization said. “We respect that GuideStar is reassessing how to make that information available.”

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/2...ern-poverty-law-centers-hate-group-label.html
 
Last edited:
No, they've lost all moral authority. They also put Maajid Nawaz on their "hate" list. Go ahead and listen to him. Tell me where the "hate" starts:



Basically, they have squandered nearly a half century of civil rights struggle-- including the sterling reputation gained thereof-- in service of partisan hackery.

NGO financial monitor GuideStar may resume using Southern Poverty Law Center's 'hate-group' label





http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/2...ern-poverty-law-centers-hate-group-label.html

*Edit* Well, you beat me to it, apparently.
 
Charles Murray of the Bell Curve? I guess he's racist in the sense that he acknowledges that there are differences in IQ among races but I mean they're not even researching people anymore if he's supposed to be a white nationalist.
 
The SPLC is essentially a hate group itself and has been for some time. Back in the late seventies and early eighties it was an essential organization in the struggle against the Klan and for equal civil rights for blacks in the USA. By the mid eighties, its mission changed so abruptly that the entire legal staff (of a legal organization) resigned in protest.
 
I’m A Muslim Reformer. Why Am I Being Smeared as an ‘Anti-Muslim Extremist’?
By Maajid Nawaz

161029-Nawaz-column-tease_z70j3y

I am a brown, liberal, reform Muslim. I have survived violent neo-Nazi racism and served as a former War on Terror political prisoner in Egypt, witnessing torture. Yet, in a trip that takes us through the looking glass, the largely white American non-Muslim “progressive” leadership at the pro-civil liberties group Southern Poverty Law Center (SLPC) has just published a “journalist’s field list” naming me as an “anti-Muslim” extremist.

Through the counter-extremism organisation Quilliam that I founded, I have spent eight years defending my Muslim communities in Europe, Pakistan and beyond from the diktats of Islamist theocrats. I have also argued for the liberal reform of Islam today, from within. But, in a naively dangerous form of neo-Orientalism, the SPLC just arrogated to itself the decision over which debates we Muslims may have about reforming our own religion, and which are to be deemed beyond the pale.

Let us call it “Islamsplaining.”

In a monumental failure of comprehension, the SPLC have conflated my challenge to Islamist theocracy among my fellow Muslims with somehow being “anti-Muslim.” The regressive left is now in the business of issuing fatwas against Muslim reformers.

It’s not as if there’s any shortage of Muslim extremists who want me dead. They exist in numbers so plenty that former jihadists have even taken to calling in to my live LBC radio show to confess to once having made plans to assassinate me. Europe has witnessed around 6,000 of our fellow Muslims leave to join ISIS. Here in Europe, amid jihadist assassinations and mass terror attacks planned with military precision, we truly are in the thick of it. Meanwhile, from the comforts of sweet Alabama comes this edict that liberal Muslims working to throw open a conversation around reforming Islam today are somehow to be deemed “anti-Muslim extremists.”

To be forced to defend oneself—again—is an inherently undesirable position to be in. Many have already admirably come to my defense, and more are no doubt forthcoming.

But there are certain things that are too important to leave to others. To be able to successfully do what I care deeply about — working toward the emancipation of my Muslim communities from the oppressive yoke of theocrats — it is crucial that reforming liberal Muslims like me are not smeared as “anti-Muslim.” After all, it is in the theocrats’ interests to have us labeled so. It is only they who argue that any internal criticism is but heresy. In a Muslim version of the Inquisition, the punishments meted out by these jihadists to Muslims they accuse of “heresy” are by now so well known that they require no introduction.

Another set that benefits from the smear that reforming liberal Muslims are “not Muslim enough” are the often xenophobic, sometimes racist, but always anti-Muslim, bigots. By advocating that every Muslim is a jihadist in waiting, and must be expelled from the West, these bigots suppport the very religious segregation that Islamist theocrats call for.

ISIS has called this “eliminating the gray zone.” We reforming liberal Muslims and ex-Muslims who sit between Muslim and anti-Muslim bigots disrupt the narrative of both these extremes. It is no surprise then that as well as being attacked by Islamists, I have been labelled a closet jihadist by people like Glenn Beck on Fox News, and on various other anti-Muslim online platforms. Imagine for a moment how besieged we reformers feel.

Anti-Muslim extremists often complain that there are no “moderate Muslims” challenging extremism. Then liberal reform Muslims and ex-Muslims stepped up to this challenge, only to be labelled as “anti-Muslim” extremists by those we had hoped were our allies, and who we now call the regressive-left. They are those who talk of progressive values: feminism, gay rights and free speech, and who criticise Christian fundamentalists within their own communities. A long time ago, we liberal reform Muslims had high hopes for this group. Just as they challenge the conservatives of their own “Bible belt” we thought they would support our challenge against our very own “Qur’an Belt.” How wrong we were.

Too many on the left not only abandoned us, but took to openly attacking us for advocating these very same progressive values among our own — extremely socially conservative — communities. Ironically, my life epitomises every one of the grievances the regressive left pays lip service to when refusing to entertain rational conversation around Islam. I have faced violent neo-Nazi racist hammer and machete attacks. I am a jailed survivor of the War-on-Terror torture era in Egypt.

Unlike many of these first world keyboard virtue-signallers, I can instinctively identify genuine anti-Muslim bigotry and discrimination. This bigotry must be challenged, alongside the bigotry peddled by Muslim theocrats.

But the solution cannot be to stare too long into the abyss, becoming the very Nietzschean or McCarthyite beast we seek to defeat.

As well as opposing left-wing UK government ministers who’ve supported ethnic and religious profiling, I have opposed President Obama’s targeted killings and drone strikes. I challenged U.S. Rep. Peter King in the UK Parliament on his obfuscation and justification for torture. I have repeatedly spoken out against extraordinary rendition of terror suspects and against detention without charge of terror suspects. I have supported my political party, the Liberal Democrats, by backing a call to end the UK’s Schedule 7, which deprives terror suspects of the right to silence at our ports of entry and exit, something I have personally been subjected to while having my DNA forcibly taken from me.

I have criticized the UK government’s counter extremism plans where I think they are too state heavy, and I have called for their reform where needed. I have spoken out repeatedly against Trump’s populism. I have argued in favor of a motion that Islam is a religion of peace, at an Intelligence Squared debate in New York. And I hosted Morgan Freeman in a New York mosque. I have battled racist callers to my national LBC radio show who advocate mass deportation of ethnic minorities. On that same show, I have defended my fellow Muslims from bigots who think we are all here to “take over”.

Anderson Cooper has said that mine is a “voice I urge you to hear.” 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl considers my story “absorbing” and my work “important”. Kate Allen, UK head of Amnesty International has said my life involves “a passionate advocacy of human rights” and that she “was moved beyond measure.” Former UK Prime Minister David Cameron sought my advice regularly while in office. And against this assault by the Southern Poverty Law Center I have the support and acknowledgement of the UK's only watchdog against anti-Muslim hate run by Muslims themselves, Tell Mama UK.

And despite all this, white non-Muslim self-appointed inquisitors at a civil liberties organisation somehow found it acceptable to list me as an “anti-Muslim Extremist”.

But think about it.

If despite the above, and the fact that I have memorised half of the Qur’an, whathope is there for an “unknown Mo” who wants to push back against extremism within his community? Such silencing tactics work.

I am no “anti-Muslim” extremist. I am not your enemy. What I do require is your patience. For it is due to precisely this concern of mine for universal human rights for Muslims, that I vehemently oppose Islamist extremism and call for liberal reform within our communities, for our communities. For we Muslims are the first victims of Islamists and Muslim fundamentalists. I am no Muslim representative. I am no religious role model (yes, I had a bachelor’s party) but I am Muslim. I am born to Muslim parents in a Muslim family. I have a Muslim son. The “Muslim experience” of liberal, reforming and dissenting Muslim and ex-Muslim voices is every bit as valid, every bit as relevant, and every bit as authentic as anyone else that is touched by this debate. We exist. Allow us to speak. Stop erasing our experiences.

Beyond that, just as one does not need to be brown to discuss racism, one does not need to be Muslim to discuss Islam.

If there was anything we liberals should have learnt from McCarthyism, it is that compiling lists of our political foes is a malevolent, nefarious, and incredibly dangerous thing to do. And this terrible tactic, of simplifying and reducing our political opponents to a rogue’s gallery of “bad guys,” is not solely the domain of the right. As the political horseshoe theory attributed to Jean-Pierre Faye highlights, if we travel far-left enough, we find the very same sneering, nasty and reckless bullying tactics used by the far-right. Denunciations of traitors, heresy and blasphemy are the last resort of diminutive, insecure power-craving fascists of all stripes. Compiling lists is their modus operandi.

In today’s climate of vigilante violence, far-right and Islamist terrorism, being included on such lists can forever change the lives of any one unlucky enough to be deemed from high above as “anti-Muslim.” Unaccountable—but never mind for they are righteous—leftists are conferring upon themselves the power to irrevocably alter people’s lives at the click of a mouse button, at the expense of we who live this struggle.

This particular list also makes a major category error, as these white American leftists conflate genuine (according only to my own humble view) anti-Muslim bigots with academic, journalistic and intellectual critics of Islam—including beleaguered ex-Muslim voices like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Unlike Ayaan, they have never had to suffer the quadruple discriminatory pressure of appearing Muslim, brown, female, and losing one’s faith. I call these the minority within Muslim minorities.

And setting aside my disdain for naming any individuals on lists, to include me alongside Pam Geller is patently absurd. Pam Geller furiously opposed the Park51 Manhattan mosque project. I supported it. Pam Geller supported the anti-Islam British protest group EDL. By facilitating the resignation of its founder Tommy Robinson, I helped to render it leaderless until it practically fizzled out. Pam Geller has “expressed skepticism” about the existence of Serbian concentration camps. I have repeatedly referred to the genocide in Bosnia as having been a primary factor in my own anger and radicalisation as a youth. Pam Geller has called for Islam itself to be designated a “political system”, and to lose its constitutional rights as merely a religion. I am a Muslim who set up an organisation that campaigns to maintain a separation between Islam, and the theocratic Islamists who seek to hijack my religion. Need I go on?

It’s not as if SPLC’s methodology in naming individuals as “anti-Muslim” has been flawless until now. In October 2014, the Center posted an “Extremist File” that included Presidential nominee Dr. Ben Carson. The SPLC had to later issue an apology. It is for this reason I can proudly say that the only list I have ever been erroneously accused of producing, was a collection of Islamist groups’ names—not individuals I hasten to add—that I disagreed with yet pushed the government not to ban. And they listened.

There is no “good way” to compile lists. Jihadist terrorists in Bangladesh also had a list. This appeared in 2013 and named 84 “atheist bloggers”, in other words secular free-thinkers. By the end of 2016 ten of them had been assassinated. Such a fascist tactic had been mirrored by a UK-based ‘anti-fascist’ group, Hope not Hate. In 2013 ‘Hope not Hate’ compiled a similar list that included the Danish author, journalist and Islam-critic Lars Hedegaard. He was later subjected to an assassination attempt, too.

No. Nothing good ever comes from compiling lists. And so I say to the Southern Poverty Law Center: You were supposed to stand up for us, not intimidate us. Just imagine how ex-Muslim Islam-critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali must feel to be included in your list of "anti-Muslim" extremists. Her friend Theo Van Gogh was murdered on the streets of Amsterdam in 2004. And back then there was another list pinned to Theo’s corpse with a knife: it too named Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/im-a-muslim-reformer-why-am-i-being-smeared-as-an-anti-muslim-extremist
 
Last edited:
Yeah the SPLC completely lost me in the last year. Their idea of hate speech has become absurd. I think Majid Nawaz isn't quite the hero he's being made out to be (gut feeling, he's a bad guy)- but what he is doing is important, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali is above reproach right now. And ffs, leave Charles Murray alone.
 
They must consider Sam Harris to be Satan himself.
 
Yeah the SPLC completely lost me in the last year. Their idea of hate speech has become absurd. I think Majid Nawaz isn't quite the hero he's being made out to be (gut feeling, he's a bad guy)- but what he is doing is important, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali is above reproach right now. And ffs, leave Charles Murray alone.
I don't have any illusions of Majid being any sort of an angel, and the same goes for Tommy Robinson. More so for the latter, yet I think the service they provide to be more important than any misgivings I have.

^ empty post saying I agree.
 
They Brushed Off Kamala Harris. Then She Brushed Us Off.
By AYAAN HIRSI ALI and ASRA Q. NOMANI | JUNE 22, 2017



Last week, Senator Kamala Harris, a Democrat from California, made headlines when Republican senators interrupted her at a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee while she interrogated Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The clip of the exchange went viral; journalists, politicians and everyday Americans debated what the shushing signified about our still sexist culture.

The very next day, Senator Harris took her seat in front of us as a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. We were there to testify about the ideology of political Islam, or Islamism.

Both of us were on edge. Earlier that day, across the Potomac River, a man had shot a Republican lawmaker and others on a baseball diamond in Alexandria, Va. And just moments before the hearing began, a man wearing a Muslim prayer cap had stood up and heckled us, putting Capitol police officers on high alert. We were girding ourselves for tough questions.

But they never came. The Democrats on the panel, including Senator Harris and three other Democratic female senators — North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp, New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan and Missouri’s Claire McCaskill — did not ask either of us a single question.

This wasn’t a case of benign neglect. At one point, Senator McCaskill said that she took issue with the theme of the hearing itself. “Anyone who twists or distorts religion to a place of evil is an exception to the rule,” she said. “We should not focus on religion,” she said, adding that she was “worried” that the hearing, organized by Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin, would “underline that.” In the end, the only questions asked of us about Islamist ideologies came from Senator Johnson and his Republican colleague, Senator Steve Daines from Montana.

Just as we are invisible to the mullahs at the mosque, we were invisible to the Democratic women in the Senate.

How to explain this experience? Perhaps Senators Heitkamp, Harris, Hassan and McCaskill are simply uninterested in sexism and misogyny. But obviously, given their outspoken support of critical women’s issues, such as the kidnapping of girls in Nigeria and campus sexual assault, that’s far from the case.

No, what happened that day was emblematic of a deeply troubling trend among progressives when it comes to confronting the brutal reality of Islamist extremism and what it means for women in many Muslim communities here at home and around the world. When it comes to the pay gap, abortion access and workplace discrimination, progressives have much to say. But we’re still waiting for a march against honor killings, child marriages, polygamy, sex slavery or female genital mutilation.

Sitting before the senators that day were two women of color: Ayaan is from Somalia; Asra is from India. Both of us were born into deeply conservative Muslim families. Ayaan is a survivor of female genital mutilation and forced marriage. Asra defied Shariah by having a baby while unmarried. And we have both been threatened with death by jihadists for things we have said and done. Ayaan cannot appear in public without armed guards.

In other words, when we speak about Islamist oppression, we bring personal experience to the table in addition to our scholarly expertise. Yet the feminist mantra so popular when it comes to victims of sexual assault — believe women first — isn’t extended to us. Neither is the notion that the personal is political. Our political conclusions are dismissed as personal; our personal experiences dismissed as political.

That’s because in the rubric of identity politics, our status as women of color is canceled out by our ideas, which are labeled “conservative” — as if opposition to violent jihad, sex slavery, genital mutilation or child marriage were a matter of left or right. This not only silences us, it also puts beyond the pale of liberalism a basic concern for human rights and the individual rights of women abused in the name of Islam.

There is a real discomfort among progressives on the left with calling out Islamic extremism. Partly they fear offending members of a “minority” religion and being labeled racist, bigoted or Islamophobic. There is also the idea, which has tremendous strength on the left, that non-Western women don’t need “saving” — and that the suggestion that they do is patronizing at best. After all, the thinking goes, if women in America still earn less than men for equivalent work, who are we to criticize other cultures?

This is extreme moral relativism disguised as cultural sensitivity. And it leads good people to make excuses for the inexcusable. The silence of the Democratic senators is a reflection of contemporary cultural pressures. Call it identity politics, moral relativism or political correctness — it is shortsighted, dangerous and, ultimately, a betrayal of liberal values.

The hard truth is that there are fundamental conflicts between universal human rights and the principle of Shariah, or Islamic law, which holds that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s; between freedom of religion and the Islamist idea that artists, writers, poets and bloggers should be subject to blasphemy laws; between secular governance and the Islamist goal of a caliphate; between United States law and Islamist promotion of polygamy, child marriage and marital rape; and between freedom of thought and the methods of indoctrination, or dawa, with which Islamists propagate their ideas.

Defending universal principles against Islamist ideology, not denying that these conflicts exist, is surely the first step in a fight whose natural leaders in Washington should be women like Kamala Harris and Claire McCaskill — both outspoken advocates for American women.
We believe feminism is for everyone. Our goals — not least the equality of the sexes — are deeply liberal. We know these are values that the Democratic senators at our hearing share. Will they find their voices and join us in opposing Islamist extremism and its war on women?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/opinion/kamala-harris-islamism-senate-hearing.html
 
Last edited:
They Brushed Off Kamala Harris. Then She Brushed Us Off.
By AYAAN HIRSI ALI and ASRA Q. NOMANI | JUNE 22, 2017
















https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/opinion/kamala-harris-islamism-senate-hearing.html


Yea they only want to hear what "marginalized people" have to say until they say something that goes against whatever narrative or ideology they're pushing. It seems pretty clear to me that there's some pretty heavy Islamist influence with the Democrats just like there is with the Liberals up here. Good on the NYT for publishing this.
 
@Arkain2K I just want to give you props and say thank you for your threads, they are updated, informative as well as with good breakdowns of the essentials!
 
I think we need the expert opinion pf @Jack V Savage here. I believe I have seen him cite the work of SPLC in the past.
 
Of course Charles Murray is not a white nationalist. His own children are biracial.

He is however a "leftover" from pre-SJW MIT, which was once seen as a safe haven for true scientific research before succumbing to the same cafe-pseudontellectual disease as the Ivys.

With that said, it's a word game. They don't sincerely believe Murray is a white nationalist, but they wish to channel political anger at his field of study (IQ and its relation to socioeconomic success) against whiteness (the ideological bedrock of Marxist "privilege theory"), therefore he is an obvious target for radical organizations like the SPLC.

As they've already been allowed to portray "white nationalism" as the sole taboo form of nationalism, they can then attach any rogue intellectual to the label and expect mob retaliation.

Nobody in that audience has read a word of Murray's research. None of them have a plausible alternative to genetic determinism.

Ask them what their specific concerns are regarding white nationalism: Generally they have none.

Knowing that, ask them about their hostility towards Charles Murray: "He's a white f****g nationalist!" (No he isn't, but this is still a fun social experiment).
My current girlfriend is half American Indian, and I had a black girlfriend a few years ago, but that didn't stop me from apparently being a white supremacist. I don't even know what it takes to be a white supremacist, but I think just being white is close enough.

I don't think anybody ever took the Southern Poverty Law Center seriously. I think the Young Turks source it a bunch, but that's about it.
 
I was labeled a neu-racist Commie-Nazi by SPLC years ago.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,074
Messages
55,465,952
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw
Back
Top