These are all the Blogs posted on Wednesday, 11, 2013.
Wednesday, 11 December 2013
Freund: Misrepresenting Mandela
Winnie and Nelson Mandela with Joe Slovo
Neither Israel's President Shimon Peres nor Prime Minister Benaymin Netanyahu could attend the state funeral for the late South African President and liberation leader, Nelson Mandela. According to the Jerusalem Post they cited finance and security reasons instead sending a delegation headed by Speaker Yuli Edelstein and Knesset members as noted:
Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein flew Monday night to the memorial service, along with the first female Ethiopian MK Pnina Tamnu-Shata (Yesh Atid), as well as MKs Dov Lipman (Yesh Atid), Nitzan Horowitz (Meretz), Gila Gamliel (Likud Beytenu) and Hilik Bar (Labor).
If you wonder why Israel's Peres and PM Netnayahu didn't join 90 world leaders in attending the late Nelson Mandela's state funeral, look no further than this column in the Jerusalem Post by Michael Freund, "Misrepresenting Mandela". It also struck me as indicative of the current ANC leadership that they would marginalize the late Helen Suzman, the lone member of the Progressive Party in the Pretoria Government of Botha, as the fiery oppoinent of Apartheid, suggesting that she had not done anything during her 13 years solitary role as opponent of Apartheid, See this April 2013 Mail & Guardian article, "ANC: Helen Suzman didn't act against apartheid".
Freund's Jerusalem Post, op ed, "Misrepresenting Mandela" chronicles his support for Israel's enemies, the late Muammar Gaddafi and Yassir Arafat, as well as, convicted Puerto Rican terrorists here in the US. Let us also not forget that he was an avowed Communist penning a pamhplet to that effect. Go no further than his ANC comrade Joe Slovo, whom the New York Times in its 1995 obituary labeled him as an "Anti-Apartheid Stalinist". Note this comment about the pivotal role that Slovo claimed:
But the men forged a friendship that grew into an unshakable political alliance. Over the years Mr. Slovo and other white Communists assumed influential places in the African National Congress. Mr. Slovo often said that his party's greatest role was in steering the A.N.C. away from black nationalism to a doctrine of nonracialism.
"The culture of nonracialism is now deeply embedded," he said in a recent interview, surveying the prospects of racial conflict in the future. "That has a great deal to do with the Communist Party."
Freund's assessment of Mandela's legacy is best captured in his conclusion:
Mandela was flawed human being, full of contradictions and shortcomings, a man who alternately extolled violence and reconciliation.
Read what Freund chronicles as the late Mandela's track record in his Jerusalem Post column.:
Mandela was flawed human being, full of contradictions and shortcomings, a man who alternately extolled violence and reconciliation.
Former South African President Nelson Mandela Photo: REUTERS/Elmond Jiyane/GCIS
Imagine a person who planned acts of sabotage and incited violence, resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians and damage to public property.
A man who embraced brutal dictators throughout the Third World, such as Libya’s Gaddafi and Cuba’s Castro, singing their praises and defending them publicly even as they trampled on the rights and lives of their own people.
A person who hugged Yasser Arafat at the height of the intifada, hailed Puerto Rican terrorists who shot US Congressmen, and penned a book entitled, How to be a good Communist.
Picture all this and, believe it or not, you will be staring at a portrait of Nelson Mandela.
The death of the South African statesman last week has elicited an outpouring of tributes around the world, with various leaders and media outlets vying to outdo one another in their praise of the man.
Highlighting his principled stand against apartheid, and his firm determination to erect a new, post-racial and color-blind South Africa, many observers have hailed Mandela in glowing terms, as though he were a saint free of blemish and clean of sin.
But such accolades not only miss the mark, they distort history in a dangerous and damaging way and betray the legacy of Mandela himself.
Take, for example, the editorial in The Dallas Morning News, which likened Mandela to Moses and labeled him “the conscience of the world.”
And then there was Peter Oborne, the UK Telegraph’s chief political commentator, who wrote a piece entitled, “Few human beings can be compared to Jesus Christ. Nelson Mandela was one.”
Even taking into account Mandela’s astonishing accomplishments and harrowing life story, he is far from being the angel that much of the media is making him out to be.
After all, in 1961, Mandela co-founded Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation), the armed wing of the African National Congress, which undertook a campaign of violence and bloodshed against the South African regime that included bombings, sabotage and the elimination of political opponents.
Indeed, in his autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, Mandela justified a car-bomb attack perpetrated by the ANC in May 1983 which killed 19 people and wounded over 200, including many innocent civilians, asserting that, “such accidents were the inevitable consequence of the decision to embark on a military struggle.”
His record of support for the use of violence and terror was such that even the lefties at Amnesty International declined to classify him as a “political prisoner” because “Mandela had participated in planning acts of sabotage and inciting violence.”
No less distasteful was Mandela’s unbounded affection for international rogues, thugs and killers.
Shortly after his release from prison in February 1990, he publicly embraced PLO chairman Yasser Arafat while on a visit to Lusaka, Zambia. The move came barely a month after a series of letter-bombs addressed to Jewish and Christian leaders were discovered at a Tel Aviv post office.
Three months later, on May 18, 1990, Mandela decided to pay a visit to Libya, where he gratefully accepted the International Gaddafi Prize for Human Rights from dictator Col. Muammar Gaddafi, whom he referred to as “our brother.”
While there, Mandela told journalists, “The ANC has, on numerous occasions, maintained that the PLO is our comrade in arms in the struggle for the liberation of our respective countries. We fully support the combat of the PLO for the creation of an independent Palestinian state.”
The following month, on his first visit to New York in June 1990, Mandela heaped praise on four Puerto Rican terrorists who had opened fire in the US House of Representatives in 1954, wounding five congressmen.
“We support the cause,” Mandela said, “of anyone who is fighting for self-determination, and our attitude is the same, no matter who it is. I would be honored to sit on the platform with the four comrades whom you refer to” (New York Times, June 22, 1990).
Even in later years, he maintained a fondness for those who used violence to achieve their aims.
In November 2004, when Arafat died, Mandela mourned his old friend, saying that “Yasser Arafat was one of the outstanding freedom fighters of this generation.”
Now you might be wondering: why is any of this important? It matters for the same reason that the historical record matters: to provide us and future generations with lessons to be learned and pitfalls to be avoided.
By painting Mandela solely in glowing terms and ignoring his violent record, the media and others are falsifying history and concealing the truth.
They are putting on a pedestal a man who excused the use of violence against civilians and befriended those with blood on their hands.
By all means, celebrate the transformation that Mandela brought about in his country, the freedom and liberties that he upheld, and the process of reconciliation that he oversaw. But to gloss over or ignore his failings and flaws is hagiography, not history.
And that is something Mandela himself would not have wanted.
In 1999, after he stepped down as South African president after one term in office, he said, “I wanted to be known as Mandela, a man with weaknesses, some of which are fundamental, and a man who is committed, but nevertheless, sometimes he fails to live up to expectations.”
Sure, we all need heroes, figures who seem to soar above our natural human limitations and inspire us to strive for greatness.
But Mandela was not Superman. He was neither born on Krypton nor did he wear a large letter “S” on his chest along with a red cape.
He was a flawed human being, full of contradictions and shortcomings, a man who alternately extolled violence and reconciliation according to whether it suited his purposes to do so.
Only 2% of Stamp Collectors are Women. There used to be an advertisement that claimed that a certain brand of beer could reach parts of the world that other beers could not reach. I also once read of a certain traveller's ambition, which was to reach somewhere where no Nescafé had ever been drunk.
There is something more ubiquitous in the modern world, however, than beer and instant coffee: it is grievance. No degree of privilege or good luck can quell it entirely. It springs now much more eternal in the human heart than mere hope.
I happened quite by chance to pick up The Philosophers' Magazine the other day, and opened it to a short article entitled Philosophy's problem with sexism. It was no different from an article that might have been entitled Philately's problem with sexism (only 2 per cent, perhaps, of stamp collectors are women) or Herpetology's problem with sexism.
I supposed one might have expected, or at least hoped for, better from philosophers. Among other statistics cited in the article was that 'less [i.e. fewer] than 20 per cent' of people employed in philosophy departments were women, and that 'just 3.6 per cent of citations in top journals are of the work of female philosophers.'
Sally Haslanger, a professor of philosophy at the MIT, was quoted to the effect that these statistics prove that women are prevented from succeeding by, inter alia, 'stereotype threat' and 'micro-aggression.'
However, there is hope on the horizon, at least according to Jennifer Saul, professor of philosophy at Sheffield. Apparently the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy will henceforth ensure 'the citation of women and other underrepresented groups.'
There's progress for you! Henceforth philosophers will consider not what is said but the demographic characteristics of who says it. A banality will cease being such so long as it emerges from the mouth or pen of a member of a favoured [i.e. previously disfavoured] group. A profundity will cease being such if it emerges from the mouth or pen of a member of a disfavoured [i.e. previously favoured] group. We may expect a philosophical golden age to emerge.
Hitherto, philosophers have only interpreted the world; the point, however, is to change it. Haven't I heard that somewhere before? Weren't policies once followed in quite a large part of the world based upon this blinding insight? But then, as the man(!) who had the insight said elsewhere, history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.
Will educated and progressive Americans ever start to recognize that the Islamic concept of a global caliphate is fueling thousands of Islamist terrorists, all of whom have explosives and some of whom have nuclear weapons? This stark reminder that many people fail to understand that evil and injustice truly exist comes from Phyllis Chesler, the well known personality, emerita professor psychology, psychotherapist, and feminist leader in her new book, An American Bride in Kabul.
Why does the Islamic world refuse to accept and observe international declarations on equality of women, human rights, and fundamental freedoms? On December 8, 1948 the UN General Assembly (UNGA) spoke of the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family. It proclaimed a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.
In the Islamic world no such achievement has been attained. The inferior state of women in Islamic countries is well known. The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women adopted by the UNGA on December 18, 1979 called on nations to incorporate the principle of equality of men and women in their legal systems, and to end discrimination against women in political and public life, as well to ensure equality in education, health, and employment.
In spite of this declaration, gender inequalities remain entrenched in many societies. Women are often denied access to basic education and health care, suffer violence and discrimination, face occupational segregation, lack empowerment, and experience considerable gender gaps. States have not revoked their laws, or altered their customs, that discriminate on the basis of sex and gender bias.
In Islamic countries culture and tradition as well as sharia law are responsible for limiting the fundamental rights of women. The resulting stereotypes and norms explain the legal, political, and economic constraints preventing advancement of those rights. Change of social and cultural patterns are essential to eliminate the prejudices and the practices based on the idea of the inferiority of women.
There are many reasons for this unwillingness to draw attention to the refusal of Islamic countries to provide rights of women. One is the use of the concept of cultural relativism, the view, with some few exceptions, that all cultural beliefs are equally valid or at least that no one is superior to others in regard to individual or collective behavior. But in the globalized world today the argument advanced by spokesmen at the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) that "What might seem to be discriminatory in the eyes of some might not be discriminatory in the eyes of others" is unacceptable. Should anyone now approve of incest, cannibalism, female genital mutilation, or honor killings of women?
In her new book, Phyllis Chesler argues that honor-related violence against women and gender apartheid are human rights violations and cannot be justified in the name of cultural relativism or religious custom, or political correctness. This is wisdom learned from her romantic adventure more than 50 years ago. In her extraordinary, beautifully written story she recounts the short period of her life when at age 20 she, a nice Jewish girl from Brooklyn, NY, married an Afghan fellow student, a Muslim, and went with him to his home and wealthy family in Kabul, Afghanistan.
Chesler opens the book dramatically with a startling sentence, "I once lived in a harem in Afghanistan." But this is a tease since she explains that the harem simply meant women's private quarters, not a brothel as pictured in Hollywood films. She admired the country, or perhaps the image, of Afghanistan. She had, and perhaps still has, a fondness for exoticism, of perfumed gardens, and high ceremonial communal meals.
This naïve, romantic Jewish adventurer immediately encountered reality. Her American passport was taken from her and was never returned. She, the wife of an Afghan, had no rights as an American, and was to be trapped as property in a household in which her father-in-law had three wives. She had no privacy, she was starved, and was a virtual prisoner who was only able to escape by luck when she was ill which led her father-in-law to get her an exit visa to the U.S. The seemingly Westernized husband had been transformed into a uncaring if internally tortured individual. Her acute realization was that her "unexpected house arrest was not as shocking as my husband's refusal to acknowledge it as such." She now portrays him as a man torn between religious and family traditions and his appreciation of Western values.
Chesler's new understanding of callousness, violence, and sexual inequality propelled her not only into feminist activism when she returned to the U.S., but also to political understanding. She recognized the falsity of the Islamic charges against the West. Gender and religious apartheid in Afghanistan were indigenous to the region; they were not the result of Western imperialism, colonialism, capitalism, racism, or military occupation. She observes that the Islamists such as the Afghan Taliban want to turn the clock back to the seventh century.
The book is an absorbing account of an extraordinary love story which in a sense has never ended. She provides a vivid account of the exotic culture to which she was exposed, and indeed appreciates some of it. But the memoir is valuable as a firsthand account of the reality of the life of a woman, and the discrimination she and Muslim women face, in an Islamic society. Indeed, it is an indirect warning to those women prepared to marry Muslim men.
This is not a political or history book though she does discuss the impoverishment of Jews, and Hindus, in the 1930s, and the cordial relationship between Nazi Germany and Afghanistan, which sheltered Nazis after World War II. The book is important in two respects. Chesler reprimands the politically-correct cultural relativists who are not only unwilling to criticize but actually defend traditional practices such as honor killings and also the wearing of niqab (face masks) and burqas (veil), which she calls "a sensory deprivation chamber." These masks and veils are now seen in the U.S.; Afghanistan has thus landed in the West while the West is still deployed in hostilities in Afghanistan.
Perhaps most important is Chesler's account of the impact of 9/11 which did more than bring back memories of her days in Afghanistan. She now speaks to the world about the difference between freedom and tyranny, about the presence of "bad" Muslims, the disgraceful demonization of Israel, and the danger of radical militant Islam. One can only hope that the politically correct and the cultural relativists in the West will take heed.
Michael Curtis is author of Jews, Antisemitism, and the Middle East.
La mandelamania est-elle justifiée ? L’unanimisme planétaire autour de l’exemplarité de Nelson Mandela est impressionnant. Seule la mort du chanteur Mickael Jackson avait suscité un tel engouement médiatique. Je le trouve pour ma part excessif, même si je suis admiratif de la cohérence de l'ancien chef d'Etat sud-africain dans son message de réconciliation nationale. La main tendue à l’adversaire et l’appel au pardon de l’ennemi, lancés par un homme ayant passé 27 ans en prison, gardent une résonance morale et religieuse qui force le respect. J‘observe néanmoins que ceux qui, en France, revendiquent le plus véhémentement son héritage sont les premiers à n’en tenir aucun compte. Jean-Luc Mélenchon rappelle : "Nelson Mandela était communiste. Le voilà, aseptisé, qui entre au paradis des braves types, encensé et acclamé par des gens qui ne mériteraient même pas l’honneur d’avoir le droit d’en parler". Le député (PS) François Eckert dénonce sur le même ton acide les "hommages hypocrites" de ceux qui s’opposent à l’Aide médicale d’Etat (AME)…J’ai cru un instant, ce week-end, que François Hollande allait appliquer la leçon de Mandela, en conviant Nicolas Sarkozy à l’accompagner demain à Johannesburgh. En fait, le président français s’est surtout aligné sur le geste de Barack Obama à ses prédécesseurs. Et les deux hommes ne prendront pas le même avion…
Ma réserve sur la mandelamania porte sur son support : cette "nation arc-en-ciel" que serait devenue, grâce à lui, l’Afrique du Sud. Or l’image reste malheureusement un mythe. Mandela a su, certes, briser l’insupportable apartheid. Mais il n’a pu construire une société pacifiée et prospère. Les mariages mixtes y sont très faibles, et le taux de chômage des jeunes Noirs est de 50% et plus. Comme l’expliquait hier Ela Gandhi, petite fille du Mahatma, dans le JDD : "Il va falloir sans doute arrêter de célébrer Mandela et la nation arc-en-ciel, de la vanter, d’en parler sans cesse. Pour la construire vraiment, pour obtenir des résultats. Oui, on le peut". Ce lundi, dans Le Figaro,Kofi Yamgnane, ancien secrétaire d’Etat de François Mitterrand et candidat à la présidence du Togo, dit sa crainte de voir l‘actuel président d’Afrique du Sud, Jacob Zuma, dériver "sur la pente de la corruption. De nombreux membres de l’ANC (NDLR : le parti de Mandela) sont encore animés par un désir de vengeance. Dans un continent où l’outil principal de la politique est la violence, la situation peut vite dégénérer". Et vous, que pensez-vous du bilan de Mandela ?
Defining Moment: Hillel International Confronts Swarthmore College Chapter on Zionism
Source: Inside Hgher Ed, The Chronicle of Higher EducationEric Fingerhut, Pres. & CEO Hilel International
For more than a decade we have been witness to Hillel Chapters on college and university campuses drifting to a policy of tolerating leftist Jewish ‘progressive’ and Muslim groups advocating delegitimization of Israel. We have seen it in Hillel chapters abetting efforts of groups like Jewish Voice for Peace, Students for Justice for Palestine, Muslim Student Association chapters putting on annual Israel Apartheid Awareness Weeks on college campuses across the US. In too many instances they were supported by local Jewish Federations in programming activities, as well as Jewish and Israel studies programs and faculty. This ‘tolerance of the intolerant’ by Hillel campus chapters may have been supported in the past by Hillel International: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life (HI). However, with the arrival in April 2013 of HI’s new President and CEO, Eric Fingerhut, this legacy of former HI President Wayne Firestone has ended.
The confrontation between the Hillel Chapter at elite Swarthmore College near Philadelphia and Fingerhut over the chapter’s so-called Open Hillel policy of presenting speakers delegitimizing Israel marks a new and potentially important development for this Jewish campus organization. The controversy has come to a head when recently the Harvard College Hillel Chapter barred a presentation by former Knesset Speaker, Avraham Burg, co-sponsored by an anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions group. Burg is a controversial leftist proponent of delegitimizing Israel internationally, who lives in self imposed exile in France. The incident at Swarthmore also comes at a time when two academic associations in the US, Asian American Studies and Council of the American Studies Association endorsed resolutions calling for boycott of Israel universities akin to similar efforts in the UK and EU higher educational professional groups. These developments are the focus of two articles, “Going Rogue” in the Inside Higher Ed blog of The Chronicle of High Education and another in The Jewish Press by US Correspondent, Lori Lowenthal Marcus, “Hillel CEO: You can’t use our name if reject Zionism”.
Swarthmore is not unlike other campuses in that the student groups have virtual autonomy from national affiliations, supported by local endowments and student activity fees.
We have written about these episodes at colleges and universities across the US. Professor Tammi-Rossman Benjamin at UC Santa Cruz went on a national speaking tour in 2012 to raise attention to the problem. We continually addressed the problems of the Olive Tree Initiative at UC Irvine and other major California campuses. We witnessed the indictment and conviction of 11 members of the combined UC Irvine/Riverside Muslim Student Association chapters on charges of conspiring to deny the free speech of former Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren in February 2010.
Watch this brief video of UC Santa Cruz lecturer Rossman –Benjamin’s presentation at Congregation Ahavath Torah in Stoughton, Massachusetts in 2012.
The current kerfuffle between HI’s Fingerhut and the Hillel Swarthmore chapter arose when the later published a series of rebuttals last weekend concerning the latter’s Open Hillel resolution in defiance of new standards adopted by HI. The Inside Higher Ed blog noted:
The student board at Swarthmore College’s Hillel chapter has unanimously passed a resolution saying it will not abide by the international Jewish student organization’s ban on hosting anti-Israel speakers.
The president of Hillel International has responded with a rebuke, describing the chapter’s position as “not acceptable” and saying that no organization that uses Hillel’s name can choose to violate its guidelines. Those guidelines stipulate that Hillel chapters will not partner with or host organizations or speakers that deny Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, or that seek to "delegitimize, demonize, or apply a double standard to Israel," or that support the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel
The premise of the Swarthmore Hillel chapter resolution was:
That Hillel International's rules have prevented campus chapters from cooperating with groups such as Breaking the Silence and Jewish Voice for Peace, and asserts that Hillel, “while purporting to support all Jewish Campus Life, presents a monolithic face pertaining to Zionism that does not accurately reflect the diverse opinions of young American Jews.”
Swarthmore sophomore Hillel student leader Wolfsun offered an olive branch via email to Fingerhut saying:
Although we stand by our resolution and our editorial, we look forward to a productive and fruitful dialogue with both you and with Hillel of Greater Philadelphia.
Fingerhut in his letter to the Swarthmore chapter noted Rabbi Hillel’s famed dictum “If I am not for myself then who a am I?” saying:
We here at Hillel international hold firm to his legacy. We encourage debate and dissent, but we draw the line at hosting groups who would deny the right of the State of Israel to exist. We will stand with Israel, the democratic, open, pluralistic home of the Jewish people. On that fundamental principle, we are unwavering.
Given our exposure to problems on US campuses over a decade, we applaud what Fingerhut at HI is doing. We presume that he has the backing of the principal funder of Hillel International programs, the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Let us hope Fingerhut's arrival as President of Hillel International isn't too late to reign in anti-Zionist efforts like the Swarthmore Open Hillel initiative on many US college campuses.
A tip of the chapeaus to Judy Block and Lori Lowenthal Marcus.
'Gender apartheid' is real in UK universities. So why aren't more people fighting it?
As 8,000 people sign a petition against gender segregation in British universities, a rally last night attracted only 100 protesters. Who is fighting the good fight, asks Emma Pearce.
last night, stood in front of the London headquarters of Universities UK, which claims to be ‘the voice for UK universities’, it appeared that the fight for equality is far from over.
Standing in Tavistock Square on a freezing December night, over 100 campaigners and students gathered to protest against the "shame of gender apartheid" at universities.
Last month, new guidelines from Universities UK suggested institutions could allow gender segregation during lectures given by external speakers, based on the teachings of their religion, as "there does not appear to be any discrimination on gender grounds merely by imposing segregated seating".
The rally last night was purposefully (I am sure they were purposeful, and steadfast and determined, but in context I think the young lady means purposely) held on International Human Rights Day and on the day of Nelson Mandela's memorial, to expose the fact that gender segregation is widespread.
A report in the spring revealed gender segregation, at events run solely by student Islamic societies or in the interests of Muslims, is widespread.
Student Rights, which carried out the research, found that radical preachers spoke at 180 events at universities including Cardiff and University College London (UCL) between March 2012 and March 2013. Segregated seating for men and women was promoted or implied at more than a quarter of the events, at 21 separate institutions.
“Words cannot fully describe what I feel today,” said Pragna Patel, director of Southall Black Sisters, a feminist group. “Rage, indignation and sorrow are just some that spring to mind.” And she went on to say “that the assertion of religious political power obliterates the very ideas of liberty and equality that so many people lived for and died for”.
‘Separate but equal’ is not equal at all was the message being spread by protesters. And of course it isn’t. By pursuing the appeasement of these religious fundamentalists anyone is right to question where this might end?
You would also be right to question why splitting people on race or sexuality would cause public outrage but splitting people on gender has received relatively little attention? We have been asking where the feminists are on even more serious issues like FGM, forced marriage, child rape etc for a very long time.
Geetanjali Normande, 20, from Oxford University, said: "It scares me that institutions like UUK which exist to represent universities and the student body find that it is acceptable to condone this. It sounds like they are so far removed from what it is to be a student and to be told that you can’t sit where you want to in your lecture.
Unlike many articles on the Telegrqph recently comments are still allowed on this one. The second best rated comment below answers Miss Pearce's question.
Jeez Louise, Emma - WAKE UP for Heaven's sake.
For the last 10 years radical Islam has moved into the UK lock, stock and barrel. Why do you think Al Medinah school was able to get off the ground and even the news of its atrocious practices received nothing like the national scandal that it should have done?
Why do you think that Islamic hate preachers are immune from prosecution and are the only people allowed to preach hatred and murder on our streets?
Why do you think Lee Rigby's murder is indeed a news item but not treated any different to any other stabbing that hits the news?
Because the Liberal elites (a liberal is someone of any country who detests and is ashamed of their country, its history, values, religion, ideals - every facet of that country and wants every one of them replaced by those of other peoples and cultures) want to get rid of Britain and all things British and replace them with other cultures, preferrably as different from the original as possible.
That is why Muslim communities in Britain are allowed to tear up 70 years of gender equalities movements, rights and equality without a whiff of complaint from anyone - least of all bogus and hypocritical human rights groups.
So be prepared to be blasted out of bed at 5.00 in the morning within a few years by the first Minorets calling people to prayer all over Britain because some councils are drawing up the plans NOW.
People who deny Britain is in the throes of Islamification are blind deniers or else liberal propagandists.