One Week on Parler

Tags

2020 election, Ann Coulter, biden, Israel, n word, parler, trump, Twitter

There is a need for platforms like Parler, the free-speech friendly Twitter alternative recently pulled into the media spotlight for hosting disenfranchised Trump supporters.

There is obviously a limit to what can be said on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and probably even WordPress. Sophisticated algorithmic mechanisms already exist to filter out content featuring contentious words; not only deliberately unpleasant terms like ‘n*gger’ or ‘k*ke’, but also controversial or misused ones like ‘Zionist’, ‘globalist’, among others; the aim being to provide a safe, friendly space that people of all stripes can use for work or pleasure.

But as these platforms have grown, so has their political and strategic value; and with politics comes passion, and with passion inevitable offence. Donald Trump, whose social media accounts are both an asset and a liability to the websites hosting them, has attracted a flood of both pro- and anti-MAGA voices to Twitter, Facebook and YouTube in recent years, ruining them for some, improving them for others. Now, for the former at least, after a contested and fraught election, the official effort to regulate information has become intolerable. Migratory waves to Parler flow thick and fast.

Entirely out of curiosity, I signed up for an account last week. This is a kind of review.

As I mentioned, Parler is modelled on Twitter, and has a similar concept. You broadcast your opinions, post links, pictures, etc. and other people react to them – liking them, commenting on them, or ‘echoing’ them, which is the same thing as retweeting. Like Twitter, you have a username and an @-name; you collect followers, and can receive private messages. On first glance, the only obvious difference – apart from the content of the posts – is the colour scheme, which is paper white and cherry red.

The content is certainly different. Not surprisingly, but still strikingly. The atmosphere is like that of a political club.

As soon as the account had been activated, my automatic ‘hello’ post received automated comments and welcome messages from various official pro-Trump accounts. I was invited to ‘Stop the Steal’ and pledge my support by texting ‘Trump’ to a (now familiar) mobile number.

I decided to explore just how committed the platform was to freedom of speech. I typed the ‘n word’ (though rather more explicitly) into the search bar above the news feed. Sure enough, the word was present – in usernames, bios, posts and memes. There was a user called ‘Certified N*ggerologist’, for example; another called ‘n*gger1488’, and so on. I then tried ‘Zionist’, expecting – foolishly, it turned out – to find a wealth of anti-Semitic and conspiratorial sentiment. But though there were examples of this, the majority of hits were older American Trump supporters proudly self-identifying as supporters of Israel. The difference between this place and 4chan’s /pol/ became clearer.

Looking around at the users, the majority of which were American seniors, I felt a definite sense of unease and out-of-place-ness. There was truth to be found, yes – and even genuine insight; but also a constant, nagging contradiction. Here was freedom of speech expressed as marching uniformity. Something seemed to have gone wrong.

Parler is far from a cult forum. It was certainly never designed to be one. But the automatic messages I received from the Trump campaign at the beginning of my experiment, together with the insularity of the userbase, do not bode well for its promise of greater ideological variety.

On Twitter, the right is persecuted by the left. Liberal users routinely report conservative accounts, paying Stasi-like attention to the language of any post they disagree with. On Parler, at least presently, it appears the right has made a Twitter for itself, flipping the tables. Here it is liberal users who are swarmed and berated (though, notably, not reported).

You would be correct to point out this may only be temporary. Parler is a Trump app at the moment because Trump supporters are the people taking advantage of it; but nothing is preventing left-wing or middle-ground users migrating there as well. A free speech forum will be what users make of it. No more. No less.

My concern is that the owners of Parler are already comfortable with the idea that Trump loyalists are (and will always be) its bread and butter. I am worried that the app will remain a ‘Twitter for MAGA people’ – a safe space where they can agree with each other in peace, protected from opposing views.

***

Donald Trump is the not the arguments he made on the campaign trail, nor the energies conjured up or released by his movement. He is an odd person, with absurd idiosyncrasies. It is vitally important that the cause of truth, no matter how much the president has done for it, does not become the cause of Trump. Truth is eternal and perfect. Trump is temporary and flawed.

One of the most disturbing impressions Parler made on me is the idea that for millions of otherwise balanced people, a meaningful distinction between Trump and truth no longer exists. For such people, if Trump goes down, truth will follow. If Trump wins, truth triumphs likewise. Any evidence or argument against Trump is untrue by definition, and by the same logic, any argument for him is unquestionable fact.

I am confident that if the president suddenly switched places with Biden on any issue, even a sacred cause of the right, a good number of his supporters would follow him regardless. Criticism of his defection would be ‘fake news’, blasphemy, heresy. The divine mystery of the president’s ‘4D chess’ would be deemed beyond the ignorant critic’s intellectual capacity.

Consider the plight of the long-suffering paleoconservative Ann Coulter, who has done more than most to support Trump when it counts. For nearly four years now, the New York columnist has been trying to separate the causes of Trump’s election from the character of the man himself. For Coulter, immigration, elitism and future demographics were the underlying factors of the Great Revolt of 2016, not the quirks and talents of Trump alone.

She continues to receive great vitriol for this claim: “What happened to you, Ann?” – “I used to be a fan. Sad you’ve sold out to the fake news media!” Etc.

But Coulter, like a small number of others, criticises Trump from the right, and with a greater goal in mind – the preservation of a first-world America. Trump could reign for another thirty years and not save the country she values; because Trump is not the goal. And the goal matters more.

David

Advertisement

Some Thoughts on Donald Trump

Tags

America, Ann Coulter, Defend the modern world, Donald Trump, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Twitter, United States, us election

Donald Trump lies. A lot. Media commentators complain about this, not because they’re corrupt, though they are that, but because he lies. A lot. I didn’t think hard enough about this when I wrote in support of his candidacy in 2016, or at least not hard enough about how much it might annoy me.

Truth is the most important concept in human thought, in life itself. Without it fixed securely in view, we are ever heading in the wrong direction. I hate dishonesty more than any political figure or doctrine; and so to advise the reader to vote for Trump again would need to be justified differently.

Most of Trump’s lies are entirely unnecessary. He has a fanatically devoted base, as well as a functioning cult of personality. He has no need to lie. He knows what his base want, and he wants it too. The feelings of the opposition should be of secondary importance.

But that isn’t the way Trump works. Those who warned previously of his narcissism and insecurity were not exaggerating. He wants praise from everyone. He would like as much to be regarded as a great feminist as a great conservative. The ‘great’ part is all that matters. As the exasperated Trump advocate Ann Coulter pointed out recently, “It’s all about him.”

Lying as a public figure makes it difficult for friend and foe alike. To speak in defence of a Trump pronouncement too often proves a wasted effort. As soon as you have finished agreeing with him, he retracts the point, or even denies saying it at all. There is comedy in this. And it’s not always funny.

Trump ultra-loyalists, who find nothing degrading in tidying up his babble into coherence it doesn’t merit, embarrass themselves rather too much. When there is no Trump regime to speak of, or to defend, their reputations will be in tatters – and quite rightly.

So what to do with the ‘mad king’ who nonetheless faces the right way on most of the vital issues facing a great country? I am not American, so this is not my responsibility, but I feel compelled to say what I think I would do.

A few points:

I do not believe any resident of Honduras has a God-given right to American hospitality. Immigration law should be enforced. A wall would help, but doesn’t seem likely to come.

America has too many problems within its borders to go on military adventures without good reason.

Europe, which is my responsibility, can ultimately benefit from Trump’s isolationism. It is high time European powers set about building a military force capable of defending our beautiful continent. We cannot rely – and should never have relied – on American military charity. While we should be as friendly as possible with our natural ally, we must be our own guarantor.

Kamala Harris, who is obviously more dynamic than her senior running mate, is the personification of money politics. She offers a return to a corrupt norm, never desirable in the first place.

Finally, though Trump’s lies are infuriating and demonstrate a real lack of respect for his supporters, old media forces are ultimately more damaging to truth than he is.

Only Trump’s most intoxicated supporters believe he tells the truth all the time. But the slippery and clever deceptions of the mainstream press are held as credible by the majority of educated people. They do not lie outright, as Trump does, but they do evade certain topics, keep attention off uncomfortable but important realities, de-platform dissident men, and drive at untruth, even if not all the way.

In conclusion, Trump may well be the best option on the ballot this time around, but that should depress, not enliven. I look forward to a time when someone more professional and straightforward promises the same renewal.

David

Ann Coulter: “In Trump We Trust”

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, Ann, Ann Coulter, ann coulter in trump we trust e pluribus awesome, Barack Obama, BBC, Books, carlson, Civilisation, Coffee, Coulter, Defend the modern world, DTMW, Europe, Facebook, interview, Islam, Islam and the West, london, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, United States

The beautiful and tack-sharp Ann Coulter continues to rise in my estimation. Here, the long-legged conservative goddess discusses her latest book “In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome”.

D, LDN

Trump’s Best Speech (So Far)

Tags

2016, 2016 American elections, America, American Liberty, Ann Coulter, Barack Obama, BBC, chances, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, clinton, Coulter, Defend the modern world, Democrats, Demographics, Donald Trump, DTMW, election 2016, electoral college, Email, EU, Facebook, GOP, Hillary Clinton, Internet, odds, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, republicans, trump, trump chances, trump odds, Twitter, United States

ICYMI, this was Trump’s best speech of the campaign so far. He placed his candidacy in the broader historical moment, justifying the extraordinary nature of his platform.

D, LDN

A Better Proposal

Tags

2016, America, America 911, American Liberty, Ann Coulter, ban american entry, Cameron, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, CNN, Coulter, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Donald Trump 2016, donald trump islam, donald trump muslims, DTMW, Facebook, Fox News, hannity, petition, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, reaction, Rihanna Muslim, trump facebook, trump tie, trump tiw, trump twitter, UK, United States

I can’t recall any statement in modern history making waves higher than those generated by Donald Trump’s Muslim comments this week. From the moment the proposal left his snarled lips, the entire world has been ideologically drunk, stumbling about with no sense of proportion, history, law or context. The New York Times described the outrage directed at Trump as ‘withering fire’. The UK papers called it a ‘perfect storm’ and ‘political sensation’. In the Guardian, the normally level-headed Gary Younge reacted by saying that ‘bigotry’ (presumably he meant anti-Islam sentiment) is now ‘out, loud and proud’ in both politics and society. And so on..

As far as I have noticed, the only major political commentator to approve of Trump’s proposal is (the ever-dependable) Ann Coulter, who tweeted ‘Go, Trump, Go!” and went even further by suggesting the policy should cover all foreigners.

What actually was the idea? Well, there have been many myths advanced about what Trump actually said and meant, either to make it seem better, or – more commonly – to make it seem worse, but put most basically, Trump suggested that all Muslims be barred from entering the United States until ‘(America’s leaders) figure out what is going on (with ISIS, terrorism etc…’. At first the billionaire seemed to maintain that this would apply even to Muslim-Americans serving in wars abroad after their term had been completed, but this aspect has since been removed.

This isn’t a crazy idea, at least from a European perspective. The reason hell broke loose is because America is not Europe, and America’s Muslims are not like Europe’s Muslims. While the latter are the result of recent immigration (and a smattering of conversions), the former have a complex and native root that would be difficult or impossible to cleanly excise. Many American Muslims are Black Africans, and Black Africans are generally considered to be as American as apple pie. Given this reality, it came as little surprise to see the prodigious employment of a certain boxing legend on social media following Trump’s announcement. Indeed, were there still people not yet primed to what was going on, they might have honestly surmised that Muhammad Ali had perished, such was his ubiquity on the internet last Tuesday evening.

My own reaction to this announcement has been ambivalent. I salute and congratulate Mr Trump on his boldness, his daring and his commitment to the Western World and the preservation of its culture. But the prospect of a wholesale ban on Muslim travel is utopian. However happy the proposal’s consequences might be, it flies against the complexity of the world as it is, as well as against the realities of the United States itself. In the globalised world, it remains necessary that certain people from non-Western nations travel to the West (and vice versa). Muslim businessmen, diplomats and government officials require access for official functions – functions which are essential for the United States’ economy and for the furtherance of its global agenda. If the Muslim travel ban was implemented, the United Nations would have to be moved outside of the US – drastically diminishing the country’s soft power and shifting the political emphasis to Europe. For these (and many other) reasons I do not believe Donald Trump’s proposal is workable at the present moment. Nonetheless, the proposal is far from ‘mad’, and Mr Trump did not deserve the orgiastic right-wing back-stabbing of the past 7 days.

In my humble opinion, a more workable proposal is that advanced by many ‘radical’ parties; namely, that while (some) Muslims should be allowed to travel to the West, these must never become Western. Western citizenship should not be bestowed on any non-native person of Islamic faith. Ever. Period. The risks are too high, and the benefits are too inconsiderable for the admission of Muslims into the Western organism to make sense.

I am aware that the announcement of this policy would cause as much or more controversy as the one Trump announced, but reactions are inevitable and we have to do something.

We cannot de-Islamise Muhammad Ali, but we can make damn sure the current inhabitants of the Islamic world do not become permanent inhabitants of Boston, New York, Washington, Paris, London and Madrid.

D, LDN

Could a Country De-Islamise Itself?

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, Ann, Ann Coulter, ann coulter trump, ann coulter twitter, BBC, big bang theory, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, convert, coulter quotes, Counter-Jihad, declaration, Defend the modern world, deislamise country, Egypt, Facebook, Iran, Islam, Islamic world, Islamism, Lebanon, policy, policy policy, Turkey, Twitter, we should invade their countries, wordpress, world

Iconoclastic commentator Ann Coulter once made headlines by suggesting that “(America) should invade (Islamic) countries, kill their leaders and convert the people to Christianity.”

Her idea – if it was really an idea – was promptly laughed out of court, as well as being branded an example of a corresponding American ‘fundamentalism’ by the apologist Left. I can’t really argue with that response. If an operation such as Coulter proposed were in any way feasible (or affordable) it would surely be the most worthwhile and benevolent action by a nation in human history. Sadly, it isn’t feasible, nor is it affordable.

Despite that, the idea that a Muslim country can be de-Islamised is not political science-fiction. There are isolated examples which may allow for it, owing to unique historic factors and local ethnic aspirations. I am frequently presented with the idea that Iran (Persia), Egypt, and Syria all have ancient identities which precede the Islamisation of their territories by Abu Bakr and his marauding armies, and for which they might be willing (if presented with the right amount of Western encouragement) to trade their rotten Islamic present. How might this be achieved?

The most notable case of a country attempting to rid itself of the strictures of Islamic doctrine is that of Turkey in the time of Ataturk. Although rarely explicit, Ataturk had little affection for the Islamic religion (or at least its social application) and his bold, sweeping reforms severely curtailed the faith in Turkish society. Ataturk (and his supporters) wanted a secular, Westernised Turkey; one that would bare little to no resemblance to the Ottoman Empire – with all its fanaticism and slovenly Eastern habits. The reforms so implemented were successful and would go on to secularise and partially Europeanise the Republic for over 60 years, before being rapidly reversed by the AKP party of Tacip Erdogan, a self-confessed Islamist and dedicated Sunni.

Turkey’s experiment with modernity was destined to fail all along. Despite their genuine desire to Westernise, the Turks remained overwhelmingly Muslim in allegiance, having Islamic funerals for the dead, Islamic rituals for the young and a large Crescent despoiling the national flag. Turkey did not de-Islamise because there was never an intention of de-Islamising.

A comparable experiment in Westernisation took place in Iran before the revolution. Backed by American and British leaders and inspired by the example of Ataturk, the authoritarian ‘Shah’ Reza Pahlavi enacted massive social reforms aimed at liberalising and modernising Persian society. In the urban elites this was a roaring success. Young middle and upper class urbanites fully adopted the freedoms of the modern world, celebrating the diminishment of Islamic authority. The descendants of these people are now largely living in the West, having fled the country after the Islamic uprising of 1979.

Why did that uprising occur? For many reasons, but one of the most essential is that a nation is not its elite. Working and lower-middle class Iranians (especially those from impoverished backgrounds) were not ready for such rapid change. When the rabble-rousing populists of revolution appeared, they thus found a sizable number of henchmen willing to topple the ‘arrogant’ pro-Western elite. The rest is history.

These days, the Iranian diaspora (descendants of the Iranian upper classes) assures the West that the next attempt at Westernisation will succeed. They may be right, they may be wrong. It will be a while before we can know one way or the other.

In Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia, Syria and Algeria, the middle and upper classes are also secular. They too dream of civilising their respective countries; that is, bring the general population up to their own level of personal development. Yet as with Iran, the majority of Egyptians (excepting Christians), Lebanese (excepting Christians), Tunisians and Syrians are uneducated, jobless, illiterate, and supremely devout in their attachment to Islamic consolations. The elite can wish away the days and months, but nothing will change without a long, difficult and expensive process of public education and social reform.

De-Islamisation (of countries, societies, races) is not an impossible prospect. It may happen at some point in the future. But at the moment it is simply utopian, and as likely as the elimination of tradition from any nation, Islamic or otherwise.

D, LDN

Israel and Ann Coulter

Tags

America, American Liberty, Ann Coulter, ann coulter Jews, ann coulter outburst, ann coulter twitter, anti-Semitism, Civilisation, CNN, cnn debate, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Facebook, Fox News, Israel ronald reagan, Jews, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, reagan, rebublican, republican megyn kelly, Twitter, United States

As I have written on this blog before, the US journalist/polemicist Ann Coulter is someone I hugely admire. Her wit, incisiveness and bravery set a standard to which most cannot aspire to meet. Her books, such as the most recent ‘Adios America: The Left’s Plan to Turn America into a Third-World Hellhole’ represent an essential, clear-eyed view of the American political scene and are well-worth seeking out, even if you live outside of the United States.

With that said, I must offer a word of admonition following Coulter’s latest controversy. As you may already be aware, Coulter sent out some highly inflammatory tweets during the second CNN Republican debate, most of which involved Jews and Israel. Here they are:

“How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?”

“I like the Jews, I like fetuses, I like Reagan. Didn’t need to hear applause lines about them all night”

“Cruz, Huckabee Rubio all mentioned ISRAEL in their response to: ‘What will AMERICA look like after you are president”

“Boy were they wrong @ Jewish influence! I complained about pandering on Israel (Reagan & abortion) & haven’t heard a thing about it!”

Coulter’s outbursts have attracted much ire from both the right and the left. Of this ire, only that from the right is worth considering. As someone who watched the debate, I can report that very little time was given to discussing Israel, and while the country did come up, it was in response to questions over foreign policy (specifically Iran).

Coulter’s mistake is to consider the concerns of Israel as distinct to the concerns of America and the West. Israel is an integral part of the West, and shares many of its anxieties. Viewed in that context, Ann’s complaints are null and void.

D, LDN

The Pleasures of Realism.

Tags

America, American Liberty, Ann Coulter, Beck, Black Lives Matter, Christianity and Islam, Civil unrest, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Facebook, Intervention in Muslim countries, Islam, Liberal delusions, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Rodney King, TheBlaze, Trayvon Martin, Twitter, United States, USA

One of the joys of being politically incorrect, of being a free-thinker, someone who yields always to the best available evidence is that every day one gets to watch those who think otherwise make exotic mysteries out of obvious truths.

The quote below was shared on my facebook news feed by a liberal contact who is otherwise quite rational. The last time I looked, it had received over 12,000 ‘likes’ and many thousands of adoring endorsements.

“Wow, I wonder why so many cops in so many different cities treat Black People the same way. Almost like there’s some kind of systemic issue.”

To a stodgy, heavy-footed mind, I suppose the logic rings out as perfectly tuneful. Why are police officers so committed to arresting, tackling and disarming black people at a greater rate than other ethnicities? And on a repeated, nationwide scale? Just what do police have against black people?

This reminds me of the pleading of Leftists in defence of our Muslim friends . “Why are we disproportionately taking military action against Muslim countries, as opposed to others?”

“What does the civilised world have against Islam?”

To rent the curtain sustaining both mysteries, let’s deal with these in order – firstly, Black people (on average) commit more crime than any other racial group. This is why there is more police action against Black people than members of other races. This is also why there is more police brutality against Black people than against other races. Since there will always be bad apples in a national police force, and given the greater priority that force is compelled to give to one race, it is statistically more likely the bad apples will fall on them.

Secondly, the Muslim world is the most corrupt, idiotic and barbarous division of the Earth’s landmass. Over 90% of major terror attacks worldwide are committed by Muslims, and Muslim countries accommodate a similarly large percentage of the world’s paramilitaries, dictatorships, civil wars and genocides. That is why the civilised world is compelled to intervene in Muslim countries more than in others.

To concede these things is not to deny that Black Lives Matter, because they do. I love Black people, and I hope that by understanding the root cause of their present misfortune they can take an axe to it. Muslim lives matter too. A child brought up in a Muslim family deserves my sympathy rather than my hatred. But he/she also deserves an honest explanation as to why the Tomahawks and JDAMS seem more naturally attracted to her/his patch of living space than to others.

To avoid any charge of Eurocentric bigotry, I will add that American Caucasians are more likely to be paedophiles than other divisions of the US population (and this is calculated after groups are levelled in size). White people are also fatter on average than other races. They commit more crimes in the area of fraud and finance than any other group, and so on.

As a general principle, reality is a relaxed and pleasure-filled domain. The muscle-tensing stress of having to avoid obvious facts is absent here. One can simply bathe in the unspoilt sun of what is actually taking place. To know why things happen the way they do is at once uplifting and consoling.

The red pill is a euphoriant.

D, LDN.

Nobody’s Fool: Appreciating Ann.

Tags

Adios America, America, America 911, American Liberty, Ann, Ann Coulter, Ann Coulter Fox News, Barack Obama, BBC, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Coffee, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Fox News, How to talk to a liberal, Immigration, Mexico, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Rihanna Muslim, United States

Conservative pundits in America are frequently the subject of international ridicule. Judged to be theatrically insincere, eccentric and overdosed on faith, they rarely find an audience outside of their land of origin. Glenn Beck and his style have few fans in French or German conservative circles. Sean Hannity is not a household name in Finnish or Scottish right-wing society, and so on.

I can appreciate the reasons for this. American discourse is unusually brash and provocative, often quite deliberately so. Even if it were attempted, I doubt a weak-tea BBC Newsnight-kind of discussion would attract much attention there. American media is about viewers and advertising. A viewership on the scale required by sponsors can only be earned with fireworks, red cloth and bulls.

But this doesn’t mean that some American conservatives do not have real talent underlying their cable news methodology. One pundit in particular deserves a far more cosmopolitan – or any rate more international – audience than she seems at present to attract.

Despite acres of print arguing otherwise, Ann Coulter is not a ‘joke’ or a ‘novelty act’. She is admittedly a woman, and a blonde, long-legged one at that. I don’t doubt that some of her fanbase are motivated by apolitical factors. But I am not one of them.

I read Ms Coulter’s columns for their dark humour and cutting insight. She is gifted with a rapier wit, Adderall-sharp mind and her knowledge of the gut-workings of the Washington machine is unparalleled. Let me illustrate this with some well-known quotations:

“Muslims are the only people who make feminists seem laid-back.”

“Since Adam ate the apple and let evil into the world, deranged individuals have existed. Most of the time they can’t be locked up until it’s too late. It’s not against the law to be crazy — in some jurisdictions it actually makes you more viable as a candidate for public office.”

“Liberals have managed to eliminate the idea of manly honour. Instead, all they have is womanly indignation.”

“One hundred percent of terrorist attacks on commercial airlines based in America for 20 years have been committed by Muslims. When there is a 100 percent chance, it ceases to be a profile. It’s called a ‘description of the suspect.'”

Some stuffy types might call this tone populist or dumbed-down, but that’s really quite unfair. It is actually the appropriate tone to use when discussing any kind of absurdity. When reality itself becomes self-satirical, mad to the point of losing insight, then the most accurate descriptions of it can only be phrased in comic language.

Humour is also a good means of getting a point across. Where would the anti-Islamisation movement be without the black comedy of Mark Steyn, for example? Some facts are so dark that one must one dust them in irony or laughter to make them palatable.

We are living in a world of beheadings, gays thrown from rooftops, forcible limb amputations and organised political rape. Most people would impulsively avoid knowing about these things. It’s all just too grim and defies too many human assumptions.

But we can’t ignore them. To put our fingertips in our ear canals only guarantees our destruction. The screams have to be heard. And I applaud and value people like Coulter for providing realism with the consolation of wit.

D, LDN.

Gay Marriage in Saudi Arabia: Prospects and Obstacles.

Tags

Ann Coulter, BBC, Defend the modern world, Executions, Fox, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, Gulf, Inside the Kingdom, Jeddah, Muddy Waters, Persian Gulf, Princess, Redeye, Religion, Right is Right, Riyadh, Riyahd, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Kingdom

As I write, the passage of the Gay Marriage bill in Saudi Arabia still hangs tensely in the balance. Opposition from the religious establishment shows no sign of relenting with peaceful protests held overnight in Jeddah and Riyadh.

Meanwhile, supporters of the bill have delivered a petition with over a million signatures to the office of domestic affairs in Jeddah. The government has promised to consider both sides carefully.

Divisions between the two sides have been civil but impassioned and both feel strongly that they are on the brink of triumph.

Abu-Majid, a prominent advocate of gay liberties and executive of Saudi Gay Empowerment Committee (SGEC), said to reporters:

“This is obviously very tense. It’s also hugely exciting. The vote could go either way but I have faith it will be in the right direction: Forward. This is a chance to show the world the true progressive spirit of the Saudi people. Our values can help to lead the world.”

Meanwhile, across the ideological barricades, Sheikh Mohammad Sulayyil claimed his camp was the better placed to succeed.

“We represent the conservative majority in this country” he said “.. the silent majority, who oppose the desecration of marriage but are too polite to make their voices heard. We are a progressive, friendly society, but this is one step too far.”

Asked whether he harboured any hostility toward homosexuals (a frequent allegation by the SGEC), Sulayyil responded resolutely; “Of course we don’t. You cannot hate anyone in Islam. We love and care for homosexuals. We wish only that they respect our believes as well as their own.”

Despite observers predicting a close result, the ‘yes’ faction has easily been the most high-profile to date, with celebrities from throughout the Kingdom lining up to demonstrate their support for the bill. The 30 year old Lesbian actress Aafreeda Aftab has spoken at rallies up and down the country, accompanied by such LGBT superstars as Mohammad Badaidah, Abdul Laqiya and Osama Bin Haroum.

Some events in support of the bill have more dramatic than others. Laqiya and Haroum courted controversy by French-kissing in Medina during the Hajj season. Some clerics deemed this to be inappropriate behaviour and letters of complaint were written to various elected officials. Both actors may face a small fine if officials concur with the motion.

Within religious circles the debate has been particularly profound, with liberal and female imams taking a cautious stand in favour of tolerance and hard-line clerics stating frank opposition.

One thing is clear. Whichever way the result goes, the bill threatens to redefine the traditional identity of this gilded Kingdom and cause waves through the settled political landscape.

D, LDN

(That my satire here is almost see-through exposes how alien the Saudi world is to the one we inhabit).