The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

This forum is for collecting the interviews of Tommy Robinson, for the purposes of analysing the dialogue, finding questions that went astray, spotting dirty tricks that were played on him, and making suggestions of improved ways of responding or attacking.

This room is just for specific comments on the dialogue and interview as a dialogue skill.  Therefore, the interview will often be cross-posted from the UK Room, where members can just comment on the event in a general way.

Tags: -, Analysis, Dialogue, Interviews, Robinson, Tommy, and

Views: 285

Replies to This Discussion

Bill O'Reilly interviewing Tommy Robinson

http://joshuapundit.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/the-edls-tommy-robinson-...(J+O+S+H+U+A++P+U+N+D+I+T)

Comments

I think O'Reilly gave him a nice treatment.  Its his role to challenge the guest, so that the viewers do not think they are being propagandised.  O'Reilly spoon fed just the right allegations to Tommy, he gave good responses, but he missed a few, so that's why it didn't come across so well. 

For example, O'Reilly's question about why does the government not do anything, saying they are afraid doesn't make sense, Tommy could have shifted into co-operative Dialogue, teaching mode, something like this.

Please understand that in terms of the problem of political Islam, the US is about 20 years behind Europe, so its difficult for you to relate to and imagine our circumstance.  We have a large, powerful and well organised contingent of Muslims in the UK, and they are able to pressurise the government through lobby groups and the threat of mob disorder.  But you can relate to it if you think about profiling at airports, for example.  Even though the US government would like to clamp down on terrorism and the hassle of flying, and even though I'm sure many people would love it if they could take non-Muslim-only flights, you are "afraid" to offer that.

When queried about use of the word Christian, he could have said its an inexact phrase in the rush of speech.  Tommy is not a Christian, but he used it to refer to Western values.  Those values in this case are Secularism, meaning the separation of Church and State.  That is a process we completed hundreds of years ago, but it is a process that Islam has never started, and which it refuses to even consider, on pain of death. Then:

You are guilty of a double standard.  You accuse me of Islamophobia, just because I use the word Christian as a shorthand for Western values. You are attacking me for using a word offensive to Muslims. But you are not holding Muslims to anything like that standard.  Muslims can reject integration into the secular state, insist that their political values and laws are superimposed on the rest of the dirty Kuffar cattle and say that those that don't accept this will be executed - and yet its my words that you pick on.

I may not be the perfect protagonist against Islam. Actually we did have one, Pym Fortyn, but the Muslims and Leftists got him killed, so you'll have to make do with me.

I haven't killed anybody, like the Muslims and Leftists have, although my words do "offend" them.  But if you attack me for the latter, without putting it in the context of the former, you show once again your double standard.

You are attacking the person that is trying to stop the despicable acts of some Muslims.  Like hundreds of Muslim men grooming young girls for sex and destroying their lives.  Like attacking and beheading those that are giving their lives to protect our country (Lee Rigby is only one of many attacks).  Like cutting off the clitoris's of young girls, and not a single arrest so far in the UK.

When you nit pick for flaws and faults in my approach, you are protecting and supporting those that commit all those despicable acts, therefore you are complicit in, and guilty of, those acts.  Have you no shame?

Interview with Tommy Robinson on Radio 4.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22852764

EDL leader: It's not going to end pretty

Six Islamic extremists were jailed for up to 19 and half years each on Monday for plotting to attack an English Defence League rally.

The English Defence League's initials were scrawled on the mosque that was burnt down in north London last week and the Met Police has said there has been a rise in Islamophobic attacks following the Woolwich murder.

EDL Leader Tommy Robinson told the Today programme's Sarah Montague: "Our tactics are completely questionable... But what choice do we have?"

He said that he "utterly condemns" a violent act "by anyone" but also admitted that he had been "arrested for assaulting someone" after they had given a Nazi salute.

He said that he wanted "all aspects of Sharia outlawed" in the UK and explained that the idea that EDL initials were written on a mosque by his members "seems ridiculous". 

I am not aware of any other interviews with him, on the day that 6 muslims were sentenced to 100 years for their plans to kill and maim 100s on an EDL demo.  Nothing about the failings of the police/security services in intercepting/arresting the terrorists.

Compare how little air-time Tommy has been given on this issue, with the media falling over themselves to give air-time over the last 16 months to Fiyaz Mughal and his despised grievance-mongering organisation.

Comments

The BBC interview had quite a few dirty tricks in it (CODA level 3). Tommy let quite a few of them go, when they could have been turned into a win.

1. Nazi Salutes

This one (from the text) is so bad its comic:

He said that he "utterly condemns" a violent act "by anyone" but also admitted that he had been "arrested for assaulting someone" after they had given a Nazi salute.

Prior to this she was pestering him to say that he would get rid of all Nazis, as if she didn't believe him. So to convince her that he was serious, he said that he'd even been arrested for getting at someone who did a Nazi salute.  So he's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.  That was time to switch to adversarial mode and attack her hypocrisy.

2. Face Coverings

In the interview, they questioned at length about banning the Burqa, which Tommy agreed with, saying all face covering would be banned.  The interviewer then attempted to show contradiction by pointing out that EDL members wore face covering at some demos.  Tommy responded with a level 1 answer giving reasons why they did that (to protect themselves against threats of violence and job loss).  She then needled him about the contradiction till he effectively admitted defeat and said he'd ask people to remove face masks in future!  I haven't got time to type in everything that has gone wrong in this exchange, so I'll be brief.  

(1) He should never agree to removing face coverings if it is not against the law.  That is playing into the hands of her and her Ansar, who will then photograph the members, identify them (Alinsky technique), then get them fired from their jobs; publicise their addresses, and get them and their children terrorised by local thugs.

At level 4 you would identify the spirit of the person, which is a spirit which is not operating in good faith.  A marker for this is that, when Tommy gave personal and human reasons why his members needed to hide their faces - very worrying reasons - the interviewer didn't stop to express and sympathy on that, but went straight on the attack for the contradiction.

She doesn't care if EDL members are killed, blinded or paralysed.  She doesn't care if they lose their jobs, become powerless to the movement, then sink with their families, penniless, onto the scrapheap of humanity.  She is a fascist, and as far as she is concerned, EDL is sub-human, so she doesn't care how they die.

Instead of giving a 'reasonable' level 1 response, he should just go straight on the attack for the basis that she asks that question, as in:

"How dare you ask me to expose my members to all the dirty tricks of the people you support?  How dare you ask me to expose them to violence in the street, their wives and children being attacked too, them losing their jobs and becoming unemployable for the rest of their lives? Is there not a trace of humanity in you for normal working class families in Britain who are struggling to deal with the problems the politicians have landed at their front door?"

(2) It was not a contradiction!  The level 1 response would be to point out the failure to establish contradiction.  But that is too nice.  By now, malicious intent has clearly been established, so you can proceed with an attack, which would look something like this:

"What is your question?  You've just stated two random facts, and you expect me to join them together for you?  What is your point exactly?"

I think she would be unable to say so you continue:

Since you are unable to make sense of your own question, I'll do it for you.
You are asserting that I hold two contradictory beliefs:

  1. That EDL members had good reason to engage in the lawful activity of covering their faces, in order to protect themselves and their families from fascist attack, at past EDL events
  2. That I would like to see a law enacted in the future that bans anyone from covering their faces in public.

The only way you can get a contradiction between these two beliefs, one in the past/present, and one in the future, is if the future banning law was made retro-active, and applied to demos that had already happened.

So you are not only an idiot in trying to make a contradiction here, you are also guilty of a double standard.  You are attacking support for the law I wish, yet at the same time wishing to apply it, and even wanting to apply it retrospectively!

And why are you applying that double standard?  Simply to save your own cowardly skin.  You know that if you side with the Muslims, you are safe, but if you start to challenge some of their special privileges and dispensations in our society, you will immediately get attacked on all sides, both verbally and otherwise.

Your questioning shows your three qualities of idiocy, double standards and cowardice, and you expect me to be ashamed?  My dear, take a look in the mirror.

If she objects to the harshness of his response, you can say that you are just responding strongly to totalitarian attempts to strangle the freedoms of our society, and force it to change into something completely different.  You are not beheading her, or blowing up her tube trains and buses, or beating up her gay friends, etc.  You are just using words.  Does she believe that we shouldn't even use strong words in response to fascist attempts to subjugate our society?

3. What do you want?

Q: What would a Britain governed by the EDL look like?

A.

Well, thanks for the thought, I like that :-)  But seriously, we have a 12 Point Plan to roll back the incursions that the political ideology of Islam has made into our secular democratic society, and that plan merely removes the discriminatory exemptions and preferential treatments that have crept into our society and law, basically since the Salman Rushdie Fatwa. 

http://4freedoms.com/group/argumentation/forum/topics/keyframeworks

4. Are there Good Muslims?

Q. Presumably you don't believe that all Muslims are bad, that there are good ones?

A.

Tommy accepts the premises of this question, that:

(a) its about the people and not the ideology

(b) its about percentages, and the percentages are small enough to be ignored

So he took the question at face value and talked about the Ahmadiyas as being an 'acceptable' sect of Islam, and the Wahabi Saudi ones, not acceptable. But all talk of 'people' eventually leads to a trap.  It is better to get the discussion back on track with:

There will always be a percentage of good and bad people in any community.  For example, there are 5 times more Muslims in prison in Britain than there are other groups, proportionate to population.  That would lead you to think that Muslims are 5 times more criminal than other communities - but I digress.

The issue is not about the people, but about the ideology.  Then when you want to find out about an ideology you can go down to your local pub to discuss Bolshevism or whatever, or chat to your Muslim neighbour over the garden fence, but honestly speaking, that is a childish approach.

You discover the ideology by reading the authorised texts of the belief system, that is to say, the ones that are recognised by a majority of the adherents of that ideology.  You then look amongst the people who follow that belief system.  If the belief system tells them to do X, and a significant number of them do X, and when they do it they say they are doing it because their books say X, then you can say that those texts are clearly implicated in X. 

Now, if X is an action which breaks the legal code, if it is an action which harms society, if it is one of a set of actions which are designed to actually overthrow your society, then you are warranted in holding the texts to account.  Therefore, you are also justified in holding the majority supporters of those texts to account.  

A Nazi does not have to say 'I hate jews and want to exterminate them' to be guilty of anti-semitism.  If he holds a copy of Nazi defining documents, and says he fully supports those documents,, and refuses to edit out any of the offensive phrases in them, then he too is guilty of anti-semitism.

The exact same argument applies to all Muslims, except those that leave, or try to alter the scriptures to remove the political components.  But the latter two groups are generally silenced or killed by the majority Muslims anyway, so their effect is negligable.

5. Tactics

Tommy says "Our tactics are completely questionable, but what choice do we have as working class people ..."

He makes a mistake in English, in the heat of the moment, but the fascist Left, far from recognising the statement as a proof of his struggle in a difficult area without the benefit of a PPE from Oxford, hold his mistake against him and quote him as saying that the EDL tactics are questionable!

What he meant was "Our tactics are open to question if you like ..." or "We welcome dialogue about our tactics ...".

6. Why do you wear balaclavas?

Here Tommy says he's had 4 official Osman warnings, but doesn't say what they are.  For most people, the significance of that will be lost because they've no idea what an Osman warning is; worse, they may even thing that he's being warned by the police because he's committed a crime!

He has to say that an Osman warning is issued by the police when they have credible intelligence that someone is planning to harm or kill you, AND, they are not able to provide you with any protection.  So they are effectively saying "somebody is planning to murder you, we know about their plans, but we aren't going to stop them, and if you die, its not our fault".

After that, just ask the interviewer how she would feel if the police came to her home and gave her an Osman warning with her family. 

Later she played a dirty trick on Tommy with: "So do you object to women wearing veils?"

Veils? as refined women sometimes have hanging from their wedding or funeral hat?  As damsels word in the time of King Arthur?

Please don't sneakily change the topic, we're talking about the Burqa and the Niqab, and yes, I do object to those face coverings.  Actually you may find that Selfridges also object to them since 6 robbers just stole £1.5m of jewellery from them by wearing burqas with axes hidden underneath.  Or any one of a whole host of crimes committed by men and women wearing burqas:
http://4freedoms.com/group/women/forum/topics/burqa-deceit-and-abus...

7. So why don't you clean out the EDL?

Tommy makes the same mistake again of rushing to answer the question.  He has again assumed good faith on the part of the interviewer, and not realised that she doesn't give a damn about his answer and whether he has 'cleaned out' or not, but is just looking to trap him.  I would suggest a response more like this.

Now let me just stop you there.  When you say 'clean out', what are you implying needed to be cleaned out?  We need to be sure that you are not slipping into a  libelous area here. So please tell me:

  1. What are you alleging that EDL has that I need to clean out?
  2. What proof do you have of that, in the form of criminal convictions?

I suspect she would withdraw the question.  

This point has a similarity with point 2.  In point 2, she made 2 assertions and left Tommy to draw the conclusion that they contradicted each other, which he did, then retreated.  

Here, she asks him about cleaning out, and leaves Tommy to jump to the conclusion that he has something to be guilty of, and therefore needed to clear out.  In that respect, she faces two problems:

  • the things she wants to convict him of, like bad behaviour or insulting Islam, are not actually offences, so they aren't proven in a nice convenient way, from a legal point of view
  • the things she can easily convict him of, like number of arrests of EDL people, are very small, not large enough to justify the charge she is making

"We don't want EDL with our cornflakes" ; http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13706/

I think this would not work in the scenario in which Tommy is interviewed.  This thing might work in a 30 minute discussion programme, between the Home Secretary, head of MCB, Archbishop of Canterbury, Peter Tatchell.

This is all too wordy, too subtle, too imprecise for the situation in which Tommy finds himself.  It is all about trying to not name islam as the problem, when in fact it is all about islam.  Tommy needs to improve his debating technique for sure.  But he doesn't need to add so many levels of indirection to what he is saying.

For most of the 12 point plan (assuming he got the opportunity to actually list all 12 points) the audience (and probably the presenter) would say "what's that got to do with islam?"

Alan Lake said:

3. What do you want?

Q: What would a Britain governed by the EDL look like?

A.  Well, thanks for the thought, I like that :-)  But seriously, we have a 12 Point Plan to roll back the incursions that the political ideology of Islam has made ...

RSS

Monitor this Page

You don't have to be a member of 4F to follow any room or topic! Just fill in on any page you like.

Privacy & Unsubscribe respected

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation
Immigration is allowed - except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud)
4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).

An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:

  • Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2018   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service