The double standards of Matthew Parris
by Scoop Shachtman, 1 December 2007
This week on Radio 4, Any Questions included Matthew Parris. His responses to two particular questions revealed a common double-standard in liberal thinking (with a small l, Parris being an ex-Conservative MP). The first:
Is it ever wrong to name a teddy bear Mohammed?
Well it’s wrong to do anything that offends people, so it was wrong to call the teddy bear Mohammed.
The second, following his approval of the appearance of Nick Griffin and David Irving Oxford Union on the basis that they would be unable to answer difficult questions, and that preventing them speaking works in their favour, was a follow-up question by the moderator of the discussion.
Is there anything which you think is outside those terms of reference, any so ghastly it can’t be spoken in public?
I don’t think so. I wrote a column for the Times the other day talking about the Muslim Woman Malik. Miss Malik’s poem for which she’s about to be sentenced in a few days time under the prevention of terrorism act. She wrote poems glorifying Muslim bombers, murderers, and freedom fighters. They were stupid poems, but I don’t think he was acting to assist terrorism. I believe in the freedom of speech and if we think our way of life is worth pursuing against intolerant people and against fundamentalists then I think we should be able to practice what we preach.
Parris believes in the freedom of speech, including holocaust denial, but draws a line at offending certain groups of people he is willing to infantilise. His comments about Malik are also ignorant of the facts, her conviction did not concern her poetry, but the possession of material likely to help terrorists.
The Mujaheddin Poisoner’s Handbook, Encyclopaedia Jihad, How To Win In Hand To Hand Combat, and How To Make Bombs and Sniper Manual were found on her computer.
The court heard Malik joined an extremist organisation called Jihad Way, set up explicitly to disseminate terrorist propaganda and support for al Qaida.
Saturday 1 December 2007 at 22:01
I read that Parris column, it was two Saturdays ago and I was disgusted. I only calmed down when I remembered he was a shallow Tory who has the brains of a gnat.
Saturday 1 December 2007 at 23:29
Given that Paris does, in fact, do something - a number of things - which are offensive to jihadists, he’s a fine one to talk.
Malik was arrested in an operation involving another man, who was trying to board a plane to Pakistan, with a large sum of money in cash, and “survivalist” equipment. They were arrested together, as she was in touch with him.
I don’t know whether her rhymes about the need for courage while decapitating somebody were the subject of these emails: but if they were, then it is clear what sort of a relationship this was.
Saturday 1 December 2007 at 23:31
Parris is an ignorant arsehole - but then his columns have never contained nothing more than incoherent whining. He is the Times’ equivalent of Seamus Milne, with a smaller brain.
Saturday 1 December 2007 at 23:38
Parris also came out with this: “anything that causes offence is obviously wrong” - an utterly absurd position, and one that makes one wonder about his capacity for reason. I’ve always thought him rather a drip (that is a sort of small “wet”), a bit like Simon Jenkins, but slightly more frivolous. I rarely read his column. The Shame-us jibe is a little unkind, though.
Saturday 1 December 2007 at 23:48
I’ve always despised him ever since I first heard of him. That would be the occasion of his attempt to live on the dole in Newcastle for a whole week! … if my memory serves me correctly. Twas for some pseudo-documentary dressed up as vicarious entertainment. He had previously - and famously stated that living on the dole was not a hardship. After his week on the pretend dole he was a quivering wreck. He’s never recovered.
Saturday 1 December 2007 at 23:49
The thinking of Parris is redolent of that of the QT panel when asked about Rushdie’s knighthood. However on that occasion, Christopher Hitchens was on hand to deliver a devastating put-down to Shirley Williams, who had fallen victim, like far to many of our elite, to moral cowardice.
Saturday 1 December 2007 at 23:57
Yes Alcuin — we posted the Youtube of the Hitch on Question time — see…
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gEVA4EAP_S0
Sunday 2 December 2007 at 1:28
Ace!
Remember before the internet existed when entitled lightweights could boost their caring credentials with this kind of two-faced, consequence ignoring, inconsistent, analysis free, rote liberal shite to their heart’s content without the faintest prospect of being pulled up on it in public?
Sunday 2 December 2007 at 1:45
Yes — I do Scratch. Pity we aren’t the fucking Huffington post tho!
(reader numbers are alluded to above — the quality you get here is far superior!)
Sunday 2 December 2007 at 18:42
The West and all its values are doomed.
Why I want to have kids, I don’t know.
Monday 3 December 2007 at 11:13
The West and all its values are worth fighting for. I had never heard of Parris but the first statement is so bedwettingly craven I consider myself lucky up to now.
Loved watching Hitch again.
Monday 3 December 2007 at 11:51
Doomed!
Tuesday 4 December 2007 at 2:15
Since that link got messed up by the Trotometer:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2983714.ece