Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Bigot is Not Guilty


It seems that even the Fundamentalist Far Right can be unfairly treated by the Courts and the Police. On the face of it, the quashing of the conviction on appeal of Newham Christian Peoples Alliance (CPA) Councillor, Simon Ademolake (very far right), of assault on Police and Court bailiffs, is somewhat surprising. Especially given that the judge in the original trial clearly expressed the view that Ademolake was lying and that this Christian Councillor choose to evidence without swearing on his bible?

However, the legal system has decided that he is not guilty and can leave the court “without any stain on his character”. So he is obviously sweetness and light.

I’m not going to comment about the circumstances about this case (Court admin cock-up?) but I think that anyone with slightest bit of honour would actually resign as a Councillor over this issue (no matter what else - he clearly broke the law of this land and failed to pay his fines when he should have).

However, his CPA leader (they have 3 seats on Newham Council), Alan Craig, is obviously keen to keep Simon on in order to continue his crusade against non fundamentalist Christians, gays, Muslims and rest of us who have stone hearts that need ripping out.

What on earth did Newham do so wrong as to deserve having both Alan Craig’s Fundamentalist Christian and George Galloway’s Fundamentalist Muslim bigots as opposition Councillors? I blame Thames Water?

15 comments:

marshajane said...

JG"on in order to continue his crusade against non fundamentalist Christians, gays, Muslims and rest of us who have stone hearts that need ripping out. "
Dont forget the fetishists the cpa in last weeks papers attacked the excel center for holding a fetish fair " These fetishests will be walking our streets looking at our children"

As i said to you in an email though the cpa are using this to there advantage with leaflets claiming the police assaulted SA and the Labour Party are kicking a man when he's down. Which isnt done in the east end don't cha no

John Gray said...

Quite right Marsha, I must admit that I think "our” kids were probably safer in the Excel Centre than being at a service given by Cllr Alan Craig (in the spiritual sense of course).

Yes (this is now twice I have agreed with you! Don’t tell Andrew) the Labour Party are obviously kicking a thug when he is down. Unlike the CPA themselves who were so sure that SA was innocent that they didn’t go and select another potty candidate to replace him did they ?– surely not!

marshajane said...

JG (This is twice I have agreed with you! Dont tell Andrew)

Don't you mean I shouldnt tell Linda - dont want you cast aside for agreeing with the wrong sort now do we :)

John Gray said...

You don’t have tell anyone Marsha –RS know everything!

Red Maria said...

I'm not sure that Simon Ademolake is a "fundamentalist" Christian. I think you're using the word, without being clear about its meaning. Bad idea.

John Gray said...

Hi Red Maria

Thanks for the advice – I went to the AskOxford site and looked up “fundamentalist” (see result below)

“a form of Protestant Christianity which upholds belief in the strict and literal interpretation of the Bible. 2 the strict maintenance of the ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion or ideology”.

So I must admit that when you consider what the CPA has done in my part of London in recent times and the common place understanding of the term, then I think that its meaning is appropriate? Perhaps, I should make it clear that not all Fundamentalist Christians would deliberately stir up racial and religious hatred for political gains, in the way that the CPA leadership have done? However, I would have thought most readers would understand that.

Interesting that the dictionary only mentioned by name “Protestant Christianity” and that you only questioned by use of fundamentalist to describe SA. Do you think the term was correctly applied to the “George Galloway’s Fundamentalist Muslim bigots”

Red Maria said...

The AskOxford site does not give a comprehensive, or even particularly clear definition of "fundamentalism".
Biblical literalism is a characteristic of Protestant fundamentalism and one reason why there is therefore no such thing as say, Roman Catholic fundamentalism.
But not only is the belief in the literal inerrancy of every word in scripture not subscribed to by all Evangelical Christians by any means, Biblical literalism is being muddled with doctrinal orthodoxy. As Karen Armstrong has pointed out, the loaded word "fundamentalist" is frequently erroneously used as a synonym for orthodoxy.
Having taken a look at the CPA website, I see no evidence whatsoever of their being "fundamentalists", rather they seem on the whole to be pretty standard, orthodox Evangelical Christians.
The word "fundamentalist" is also often used in a perjorative sense to imply backwardness. Again, this is misleading. Karen Armstrong argues persuasively that fundamentalisms are innovative forms of faith. She points out that the Ayatollah Khomeini was so religiously radical, his transformation of Shiah Islam from a quietist to a revolutionary faith overturned centuries of religious tradition and shocked the mullahs.
To answer the question about the Muslims associated with George Galloway, I presume you are referring to the MAB and MCB, again, I'm not sure that either of these groups can be usefully described as "fundamentalist".
On the whole I think the word "fundamentalist" is a problematic one and best avoided in political discourse.

Anonymous said...

Red Maria...."the word fundamentalist is often used in a perjorative sense..." are you for real Maria?
You need to get out more! Cor..get a life, honey!

John Gray said...

Hi Red Marie

I think that you are being a little bit too sensitive about the term “Fundamentalist”. I am not applying it to the many sincere, decent ordinary people of faith. It is a democratic imperative that people are entitled to live their lives according to their faith and believe want they want to believe. Subject, to the law of an elected Parliament.

Rather to fanatics and extremists, who do things such as deliberately scaremonger and tell lies about the building of mosques and who picket primary schools because they dare to celebrate non-Christian religious festivals.

I do prefer the Oxford Dictionary definition, it seems quite apt. I also think that there can indeed be Roman Catholic fundamentalists – I’ve met them!

Red Maria said...

No, you haven't met any Roman Catholic fundamentalists, I'm afraid. They don't exist. There is no such thing as Roman Catholic fundamentalism. That you say that you have met examples of this mythical species confirms my suspicion that you are using the word "fundamentalist" to denote orthodoxy.
I suspect also that you are using the word in a fairly meaningless fashion as a perjorative term for something - anything - you dislike. Hence your comment that you don't apply the term to "ordinary sincere people of faith", though how you distinguish between them and the out-of-the-ordinary and insincere is by no means clear. Neither, for that matter is ordinariness or sincerity a defining characteristic of either the fundamentalist or non-fundamentalist believer.
There is, of course, nothing unduly sensitive about insisting on semantic precision. The word "fundamentalist", like the word "Protestant" or "Catholic" does mean something quite specific. There's a noticeable tendency for people (you are not alone) to overuse the word, misuse it and drain it of all meaning.

Anonymous said...

Red Maria....do you live on your own, work for the local council, read the Grauniad,and are a member of your local library (and Amnesty International). You have a cat, ride a bike and last year you went to the Glastonbury festival. You could go for a curry with John but you are a vegetarian...and of course John has a soft spot for two shags Prescott. Is this you? Are you beyond redemption?

John Gray said...

Hi Red Marie

Please ignore Anon who is obviously trying to wind you up. But I am sorry, I don’t agree with you. I have met Roman Catholic fundamentalists who follow the Oxford dictionary definition of “2 the strict maintenance of the ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion or ideology”.

Now I accept that you disagree with this definition. But this is the Oxford dictionary, and as said I have met in my time, a few extremely unpleasant and bigoted people, who happen to be Roman Catholics, and who excuse their personal inadequacies by claiming biblical and/or papal justification.

These people would be just as horrible if they were Proddies, Hindus, Muslims or atheists.

I have also meet “decent (you left this out) ordinary sincere people of faith” who hold views which I happen to think are wrong. However, these are people whose decency, sincerity and humanity are I think beyond doubt. They will have strong religious convictions, but they are not bigots or fascists (nor fundamentalists).

Red Maria said...

John, the problem with your relying on the askOxford definition, which as I pointed out earlier, is neither comprehensive nor particularly definitive, is that what you term "the strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines etc" is a straightforward description of orthodoxy, not of "fundamentalism".
Given that one of the hallmarks of Christian, that is Protestant fundamentalism is biblical literalism, it is axiomatic that there is no such thing as Roman Catholic fundamentalism. It just doesn't exist.
A Roman Catholic who you happen to dislike is not an example which meets the definition of fundamentalism. Again, this shows that you are using the term "fundamentalist" in perjorative rather than technically accurate sense. The problem with that is that the word "fundamentalist" becomes nothing more than a catch-all term of abuse and loses all meaning.

Anonymous said...

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...blah, blah, blah, blah

John Gray said...

Hi Red Marie

I am afraid that we will have to “agree to differ” on this issue. I freely admit that I am no bible scholar. But I am not sure that biblical literalism is actually necessary for fundamentalism? However, I am surprised that you feel confident enough in your opinions to criticise the Oxford dictionary defination?

Yes, I do use the term fundamentalist in a pejorative sense. Again, we differ but I see nothing wrong with that? Sometimes I have been known to be even ruder!