Guardian censorship - continued

The Guardian makes much of its moral and intellectual superiority. It claims to be open, a supporter of liberal western Enlightenment values, evidence-based claims, and, of course, free speech.

For many years I have been commenting under the name of Physiocrat, mostly about economic policies but on a range of other subjects too. I have carefully avoided being offensive, even when I have received offensive responses from other commentators. The number of topics open for comment has been steadily decreasing in recent years and is mostly confined to topics like the weather and the state of the railways. However, I was surprised to see that the message above has been appearing under the few articles which remain open for comment, and I enquired of the Guardian what was the reason. This was the reply.

“Your account was banned after multiple spells in premoderation. A lot of your comments could be interpreted as Islamophobic.”

The first point is untrue. My comments were pre-moderated on one or possibly two occasions in a period of ten years or more. The second point is more interesting. “Could be interpreted as Islamophobic” sets a very high bar – so high, in fact, that the slightest criticism of Islam would fail the test.

It is evident that Islam is regarded by the Guardian as exempt from any criticism. Given the volume of postings, it is reasonable to assume that there is a well organised campaign to seek out all adverse comments about Islam and report them. Shame on the Guardian for caving in to the pressure. Yet Christianity, and Roman Catholicism in particular, however, and quite rightly, is a free-fire zone. The same applies to Zionism, even though a preoccupation with the wrongdoings of the Israeli government is an indicator of anti-semitism. Never mind that Islam comes with antisemitism built in or that Iran’s enmity with Israel is derived from a theological view that the Mahdi will come when the last Jew must be killed. These things must evidently not be mentioned.

As I discussed a couple of months ago in another blog, Islamophobia is an invented word, and a fundamentally dishonest one; a phobia is an irrational fear. Living in Sweden as I do, I encounter and talk to many people from Moslem lands. Many are non-Moslem refugees who are dismayed to find the people they fled from have followed and are now their neighbours. They are unanimous in relating the difficulties they have experienced, for generations. This is what The Guardian does not want brought into the open. The disproportionate number of Moslems in British prisons is a taboo subject. Concerns about this matters are real fears, not phobias. ‘Islamophobia’ is a term designed to shut down discussion and tar any critic with the racism brush.

Rational fear of Islam has already transformed European politics; the Guardian editorial staff have seemingly not noticed and made the connection. It was a major influence in the Brexit referendum result. It is a major factor in the rise of parties such as Sverigedemokraterna and AfD. It is sad that the Guardian of all newspapers should be blocking off public debate in this way. When the voices of reasoned argument are silenced, holding the lid down will bring about the very thing we most fear. Shutting down public debate is feeding rumour and extremism.

Shame on the Guardian for folding in the face of Islamofascism.