Monday, 4 November 2013

Somebody called Andy Newman has been writing about me

Guest post by Anne Marie Waters
Somebody called Andy Newman has been writing about me. Apparently, not for the first time. I am not inclined to respond to disingenuous nonsense but as Howard has asked me to, for that reason I will.
Where to start? Newman has decided to be “charitable” to Nick Cohen for accurately describing me as a campaigner, with One Law for All, who opposes sharia law in Britain. Cohen, he claims, was wrong to say that Newman is on the wrong side of the struggle between religion and women’s rights. Why? Because I have resigned from the Labour Party. No, I don’t see the logic either. But logic is not the point here. Dishonest attempts to discredit me are the point here.
I left the Labour Party out of principle. I was not, unlike so many, prepared to sell my soul for a seat. I am quite convinced that Mr Newman and his ilk (henceforth referred to as the totalitarian left) struggle to understand such a notion. I am equally convinced that they struggle to understand the fact that I am consistent in my opposition to misogyny and religious brutality. I do not make exceptions for people depending on their skin colour – I am not a racist, nor do I patronise or expect a lower standard of behaviour from people of a certain ethnicity; unlike the totalitarian left.
Of course, as it typical, Newman hasn’t actually addressed any of the points I make in my resignation letter to Labour, only where it was printed; a free speech publication – another idea that is lost on the totalitarian left.
Of course he doesn’t address my points because he is unable to, he knows perfectly well that every word I have written is true. He points to the fact that Dispatch International was launched at a conference for free speech and human rights. Yes it was. He has a problem with these; that is the issue.
The launch was attended by Fjordman; I personally don’t know this person so I can’t comment, but Newman goes on to claim that Fjordman was a major influence on Anders Breivik. This appears to the extent of his criticism. Staggering! No doubt Newman makes the same associations between hate-preaching Imams and Islamist terrorists (but I wouldn’t bet on it).
As if his dishonesty isn’t demonstrated enough, and as if to confirm the fact that he can’t dispute anything I have written, Newman takes his attempts to discredit me to depths even I didn’t expect. He cannot quote me directly, so guess what he does? That’s right, he quotes somebody else who happens to have been published in the same place. Do I really need to go on? Can people not see through this?
He then talks about my activities on Twitter. What a sad existence the totalitarian left must lead. This “soup” person thinks we should all go through everyone’s twitter account to make absolutely sure that they’ve never written anything with which we do not 100% agree. How infantile. Does he also ask to know the political views of every stranger he meets before deciding whether or not to be polite to them, or engage in discussion? Because of course it goes without saying that any differing view, any variety in perspective, is absolutely disallowed on the totalitarian left. There will be uniformity, and only uniformity. That is the totalitarian way.
Perhaps I haven’t been clear about this so let me reiterate: I will not be told by self-appointed and self-aggrandising petty little Twitter police who I can or cannot communicate with. Others may be petrified of people who don’t share their tiny worldview 100%, and viciously reject all such people, I on the other hand am a grown-up.
This stuff is nothing new. This trickery by the dishonest hard-left comes as absolutely no surprise. They know full well that they cannot dispute the arguments being made, they know they are defending the indefensible and in this case, they know they have allied with brutal Islamists and are forced now to try to distract from that fact. They cannot deal with the truth so they do their utmost to discredit those who speak it.
Newman finally patronisingly advises Mr Fuller to distance himself from the “far-right” of Dispatch International. Oh what moral superiority! He of course will never look at his own movement and the associations it has made with the real far-right – the far-right that is Islamism – as that would never do. That would involve honest self-reflection and such a thing is disallowed on the totalitarian left.
People like Newman won’t address the issues raised in relation to multiculturalism in today’s Britain for two reasons: 1) they caused it, and 2) they don’t care.
Young girls having their genitals butchered, forced in to marriages, forced in to subservience by sharia law; this doesn’t bother the totalitarian left. Actual human suffering doesn’t matter to them, what matters is theory and political ideology. It is all a university debate. Human beings are of no concern, what matters is hatred of America and bringing down capitalism which of course is why they make such suitable bedfellows with Islamists.
If a few people get stoned to death in the meantime, so be it. It’s still better than capitalism, right Andy?


  1. I am no fan of Socialist Unity, and share Anne Marie Waters' concerns about human rights and theocracy, but criticisms based on platform sharing and links are - not uncommon in the blogosphere. I suppose I am somewhere between Anne Marie Waters and Andy Newman - I did not disagree with his original post about her candidacy in Brighton anything like so sharply as others did, but I agree with AMW's criticisms of the totalitarian left.

    1. Anne Marie Waters replies:

      Sarah, I know that criticisms re links etc are not uncommon but that does make them right. I will be held to account for my own words, and only my own words. I am highly unlikely to agree with every word on Dispatch International (indeed, I do not read every word on Dispatch International) - I do however support its goal, which is to promote freedom of speech. I support free speech irrespective of whether I agree with what is said. Do you think that Douglas Murray (say) agrees with every word written in the Daily Mail or the Spectator, or Polly Toynbee every word in the Guardian? This is absurd. These so-called criticisms distract from the important issues; instead of talking about real human rights abuses such as sharia law, we instead focus on who writes where, or who follows who on Twitter. I think this is dangerous and I am taking a very deliberate stand against it."