Irony of Brick Lane Demo

Keith | 31.07.2006 09:37 | London

all-male demo against woman's book that highlights the marginalisation of women. Irony lost on protestors.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5229872.stm

Note ladies were not present because they have to stay at home and look after the children and the husband's guests.

Ahem. And the book is stereotyping and deffamatory? I think not.

Keith

Comments

Hide the following 6 comments

That 'Brick Lane demo' was a Guardian-organised event, surely!

31.07.2006 14:48

Reading the post by 'Keith', it is obvious that the line the Guardian have published thus far, is taking root.

It is marginal, of course, that the camapgn in the community has not been reported at all in the way that the Guardian has highlighted things which do amount, on the face of that presentation, to the community being unrepresentative.

Salman Rushdie, the Guardian must be very pleased with that swift achievement of such a permanent distortion of what the East End has been calling for.

Guardian - an observer

?

01.08.2006 09:25

With grammar and spelling that bad, you must be Khoodeeelaar!!!! Am I right? I'm right aren't I?

Keith

the guardian is the spelling error symbol - remember Grauniad?

01.08.2006 11:17

You must be alan rubbisher or some such nutter, 'Keith'.

guardian-an observer

I bet it is

01.08.2006 13:30

That posting did seem very familiar in style...

It was good to see that the campaign organiser backed down over the daft threat he made in the Grauniad to burn the book because that would have been embarassing. And if he didn't make the threat, he should sue.

But I'm confused by this continuing paranoid suggestion that the Guardian was responsible for the protest or that they are somehow in league with Salman Rushdie (whose only involvement, so far, has been to write two letters *criticising* the paper for articles it has paid a reporter and Germaine Greer to write about the Brick Lane row).

M Haque / an-Observer and others complain that the paper makes out that the community is angry about the book then also complain when Rushdie and co say the reaction has been exaggerated. Which version is correct? They seem contradictory.

Norville B

guardianista

01.08.2006 15:50

Keith keith
you have no teeth
you are a leech
you make a screech
but not on a beach
out of reach
of da community
da brudders
in da pay of da Guardian
in a nice office

m haque

Alan Rusbridger, Lindsey McKie and Ann McHardie obliged to tell truth

02.08.2006 13:32

© Muhammad Haque / CDCEEL 2006

Each of those Guardian controllers,. has made at least one damaging contribution the defamation of the community in the East End of London in the past 30 years.

I am intrigued by the Guardian’s decision to get so involved in the invention of a phantom 'campaign' bent on 'burning [a] book' while they have continued to refuse to publish the facts of our campaign, our aims, campaign activities and demands or programmes.

They have lied. Plain and simple.

They have actively worked to create a phantom in place of our ongoing camapgn.

The implications for reporting and journalism of this episode of the Guardian's fabrications are far deeper and wider than may have been recognised so far by those who have taken a very predictable bias, prejudice and attitude of pro-racist hostility n the main in their adverse comments against the community.

We are holding seminar on the subject on 20 August 2006b and are asking Alan Rusbridger and Lindsey McKie and Anne McHardie to attend.

Unless they will invent a phantom seminar or similar before that so that the Guardian can then run it as a story stating that our seminar is 'part of a violent programme' against media distortion, bias and downright lies and lung.

PS

I have not been writing any of those lines that someone has been posting with a clear intention to suggest that I have been.

London
1328 Hrs GMT
Wednesday 2 August 2006

© Muhammad Haque / CDCEEL 2006
mail e-mail: cdceel@yahoo.co.uk