When Guardian a Journalist wrote an article based on an interview with Maajid Nawaz, titled How a former- slamist became David Camerons anti extremism adviser? Maajid Nawaz was not happy and he & his friends resorted personal attacks on the writer. He looked for help and it it was Nick Cohen who came to the rescue. He wrote this this article in support of Maajid.
Nick Cohen also wrote this about Mo Ansar during campaign of harassment against him. The latest smear
propaganda was directed at a Channel Four News reporter. The right wing Guido
Media started the smear campaign which was, not unexpectedly, picked by the Daily
Mail and others. Channel Four News is an independent programme which, compare
to other mainstream news outlets, reflects the diverse nature of the British
Society. Furthermore, Channel Four News anchor Jon Snow, for his support for
the Palestinian cause, is a thorn in the sights of the Israeli lobby. So this
non story provided a perfect opportunity to these people to attack both.
Thankfully story about the Channel 4 news
reporter was a damp squib as was the programme headed by Trevor Phillips.
However, these people are determined to continue even after seeing public disinterest in their propaganda. They endlessly accuse people of antisemitism while denying Islamophobia. Despite their false rhetoric of antisemitism, we have seen people electing the new Labour leader and recently saw students electing new President of NUS. The hypocrisy is that they themselves continue to spread Islamophobia and often dismiss peoples genuine grievances concerning racism and inequality.
Following was written some years ago.
Recently Tom Holland tweeted this:
Following was written some years ago.
Recently Tom Holland tweeted this:
but
when asked about his own views he did not respond. These people with little
islander mentality probably understand that Muslims are not going to change
their religion so what they are indirectly saying is that no Muslim refugees
and probably suggesting deportations. Would these people agree with China that
Christianity isn’t compatible with communism or Muslim nations of Middle East saying that Christianity
and Judaism isn’t compatible. Would these people accept brown
Christians from the rest of the world who likely to have fundamental and conservative
beliefs.I think not so why say these things which incite and encourage Islamophobia.
While Tom claims to be expert on Islam and supports interventionalist policies, he says that he is not knowledgable enough to support investigation into the alleged abuse by French soldiers, in the Central African Republic. This issue including beasting of young girls has been covered by the News Channels and Papers. Even if he was ignorant of the issue, he could have googled it as he is always on the internet. This shows the double standards of these people.
Tom Holland’s Twitter activity includes daily
tweets about Islam/ Muslims and of course about Mo Ansar. Such tweets are then
retweeted, liked and commented by an army of trolls. Any objections/ comments on
these and other Islamophobic rhetoric, coming from new atheists such as Sam Harris, Ayaan H Ali, Far right, is dismissed by these people as just words which don’t kill people. They claim they are just criticising a religion. The reality is
that you can’t separate religion from the followers, thus this daily rhetoric
encourages and incites hatred and violence against Muslims. This point that words don't kill people has been made by many public figures including Ian Dale of the LBC radio, BBC's Andrew Neil etc. Andrew Neil used it again in response to Ken Livingston's remarks that American Presidential candidate Ted Cruze is as fundamental as the Taliban. Incidentally same defence has been used by the Serb war
criminal, Radovan Karadzic, that he wasn’t a violent person and that he did not
kill anyone. That is why I think that the alleged comparison of Tom Holland and other Islamophobes with Breivik was wrong. A better comparison would have been with Radovan Karadzic.
It is not just the personal grievances that
motivate Tom Holland and friends, they also want to protect people like Maajid
Nawaz and want to give them unopposed platform to speak on matters of Islam/ Muslims. It doesn’t matter to them and the media broadcasters that these people
have no credibility in the mainstream ordinary Muslim communities. Their support
and protection of these assets doesn’t come without quid pro quo and Maajid dually obliged by
declaring no such thing as Islamophbia.
In 2013 Maajid Nazwa’s Quilliam Foundation
was in trouble as it had lost the government funding. In contrast Mo was
filming a documentary for the BBC, with the ex head of the EDL, Tommy
Robinson. Tom Holland and his co conspirators plotted to undermine this documentary. It is becoming clear that
financial incentives were used to lure Tommy Robinson away from the documentary. At the time Tommy was also experiencing financial
difficulties and facing a criminal case for fraud. Next thing we saw was that
Tom Holland sitting alongside Maajid Nawaz and Tommy Robinson claiming that
Tommy had seen the light and Maajid seemed an uneasy participant in this
charade. However, times have changed and despite Tommy now leading the Anti Muslim organisation Pagida UK,
Maajid still follows him on Twitter. In my view Tom Holland is as much responsible for
this failure to de-radicalise Tommy Robinson as Maajid and Quilliam are.I say that because you can’t expect Tommy Robinson to renounce his
anti Muslim/ Islam rhetoric while Tom and others continue to spread the anti Islam/ Muslim rhetoric. Maybe de-radicalisation was just a smoke screen to make him look respectable. Otherwise, the Jewish Chronicle would be interviewing him or the Harry's Place presenting him at the Oxford Union and Douglas Murray writing supportive articles.
There are many co conspirators in the campaign of harassment against Mo including Maajid, David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen,etc. but the following people are at the forefront; Tom Holland, Jeremy Duns and Nicky Campbell. Jeremy Duns has written couple of blogs which are popular with the Islamophobic community. This may turn out to be his most recognised fiction as its free. In recent days we have seen Jeremy and his followers back slapping after the blog got a mention in the satirical magazine, Private Eye. This is probably the only time his work has been mentioned in any reputable publication.
The tweets below show how they conspired and the “methodology” used to allege sock puppetry by Mo. As Paul Varity in his tweet says that the allegations are based on inference only as only twitter knows if people have more than one account and how many accounts from one IP address
Mo Ansar says that he has blocked all of these people for their abusive behaviour and sometime misogynistic comments about his wife. So question arises that despite being blocked, how Tom Holland, Jeremy Duns, Nicky Campbell and others are able to view and comment on Mo’s tweets. As it happens I have been blocked by most of the Quilliam lot, Tom Holland, Jeremy Duns, Nicky Campbell, etc. Twitter does not allow me to follow them or view and review their tweets. Only way round was to open a second account. Therefore, I opened a second account but left enough clues for people to identify me. Some people were able to work it out and blocked the second account as well. One person who failed to spot this was the spy fiction writer and self declared sleuth, Jeremy Duns. He thought my second account was another of fictional sock puppets of Mo. He is not the only one, Nick Cohen also accused me of being Mo Ansar. They are now using accusations of sock puppetry to silence others.
Mo’s tweets also suggest that he has blocked
countless trolls because of continuous harassment. Therefore, only people who
could continue to monitor his twitter activity would be newly created accounts.
So who is creating these egg/ anonymous accounts? Tom Holland says, and probably
Jeremy Duns and Nicky would say the same, that only reason he is able to comment
on Mo’s tweets is that other people forward him those tweets. This is a hypocritical
defence, as only people supplying would be annonymous trolls or sock puppets. After making allegations of sock puppetry, as a matter of principle, they should not be
entertaining anonymous troll accounts. They should not be communicating, following, retweeting or commending commending them
for their harassment activities, but they do.
After the popularity of his blog about Mo and
new found notoriety Jeremy Duns embarked on spreading rumours about other
accounts as being sock puppets of Mo. One person, Anne Fields, has borne the brunt of
his belief that she is Mo. She is pursued daily by Jeremy, his friends and an army of trolls with these accusations, without shread of evidence. This is not sleuthing but harassment, plain and simple. Often this harassment turns into ugly misogynistic comments. Sometimes you wonder that, in his pursuit of a confession from Ann that she is Mo, Jeremy will do anything including setting up sock accounts. I have come across several suspicious accounts but one anonymous twitter account under the handle of “That Flashing”
looks and acts like a sock account. This account has followers including Jeremy Duns. The account follows people
suspected of being Mo that means it is following 4 accounts named Ann or Ann
Fields. I believe other people followed by this account are suspected by the account holder as accounts of Mo. Probably because they interact with him or retweet him. Yours truly is also being followed by this account. This account boasts about having several accounts probably to follow Mo and others "suspected" of being Mo There is another account in the name of Alan Walker and has 22 followers with Nicky Campbell being his first follower. This account also mainly concentrates on Mo and Ann’s twitter activity while following various other Muslim and anti Muslim accounts. Can I make a bold claim like Jeremy Duns and declare these accounts as being sock puppets of Jeremy Duns and Nicky Campbell. Yes I can, but I won’t and let others make their own inferences.
No comments:
Post a Comment