bwfleabanner28a.jpg

« An appeal for new information | Main | Chak No 477 »

July 23, 2005

Trainee journalist

The Guardian fires Dilpazier Aslam from its trainee journalist scheme, purportedly for his membership in the Islamist political party, Hizb ut-Tahrir. A Home Office briefing note describes the group.

The note says of the organisation that it is "an independent political party that is active in many countries across the world. HT's activities centre on intellectual reasoning, logic arguments and political lobbying. The party adheres to the Islamic sharia law in all aspects of its work."

The note adds: "It probably has a few hundred members in the UK. Its ultimate aim is the establishment of an Islamic state (Caliphate), according to HT via non-violent means. It holds anti-semitic, anti-western and homophobic views."

The problem is not that the Guardian has fired this trainee journalist presumably due to public pressure and not, one assumes, some facts of his resume. The problem is not that the Guardian editorial board is apparently incapable of the two minutes Googling effort it took people to discover the repellent associations of the author of this poisonous screed (for which incompetence the Guardian Media section blames... the blogosphere). The problem is that they should have chosen to publish Dilpazier Aslam's article in the first place.

The article is not contaminated by association with its author. The article is contaminated by the ideas it represents. It is these views that are inherently disturbing and offensive, views the Guardian chose to publish less than a week after mass murder in London including the murder of another, less "sassy", trainee Guardian journalist on the Underground a mile from the Guardian offices. To fire a man, who had presumably fit right in, only at the moment his inevitable assocations make his tenure uncomfortable is the height of hypocrisy. The Guardian stills owes us an apology not for hiring a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir but for agreeing with him.

But now the Guardian has raised the subject, let's see what the Hizb ut-Tahrir website has to say (in English). One thing is clear: no non-Muslim may have authority over a Muslim and hence no democracy may be considered a legitimate government. Indeed, no government except the Caliphate is legitimate and no law except religious law. Lest anyone think Muslims are alone in this sort of misguided wankery best to review Dominionism.

Posted by Ghost of a flea at July 23, 2005 09:41 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.ghostofaflea.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4282

Comments

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in. Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?