Well I guess the feminist groups must be happy. A commercial for some kind of protein shake has been suspended by the ASA following complaints.
Its hard to say what is actually wrong with the poster, which features an attractive lady and the slogan: "Are you beach body ready?”. There’s no swearing, no abuse or hate of any kind and no nudity (unless you count a swimsuit as too revealing).
The one and only criticism from the censor brigade is that the poster promotes “poor body images”, or “body shaming”. This is the kind of lexicon I first encountered in my communication with Endangered Bodies. It’s such a vacuum of logic that it’s hard to know where to start dealing with it. It’s as if I’m a lawyer trying to respond to the Chewbacca defence.
On the one hand, I’m inclined to go down the road of comedian Andrew Lawrence.
'Body confident', 'Plus size' ,'Big & beautiful'- however you choose to celebrate your obesity, you're still a greedy cunt. x
But to do so plays in to the hands of the zealots who desperately need to feel like they’re disliked and oppressed by prejudice. So from here on I'll at least try to match the logic of the banshees screaming down anything that makes them insecure.
Like most human beings I have my imperfections. In my case, my colleagues and friends will frequently remind me that I’m skinny and/or small. That’s my thing. Now, when I see billboard posters featuring body builders I totally get it. Big muscles (to a limit, maybe) are evolutionarily desirable. That doesn’t mean you have to be that way to look good, but it’s a look most blokes would like to have.
It’s the same thing with women and slim figures. Like it or not it’s human nature that most men generally find slimmer bodies more attractive and most women like to feel attractive. Yes of course there are numerous exceptions, yes of course any female can be beautiful, desirable, charming and inspiring without fitting the stereotype but that doesn’t change the general paradigm. Thats not sexist, prejudice or anything else except realistic. Deal with it.
So why then, could an advert for a body-toning supplement without any form of offence, prejudice or negativity have upset the angry feminist lobby? Simple: the advert achieved its aims. In fact, it achieved them too well.
Many commercials appeal to our insecurities. 'Zit' creams want teenagers to feel insecure about their face. Security products play on our healthy fear of crime. Dietary supplements want to touch our insecurity about our physique. These companies spend millions on market research: I’d be surprised if they ever concluded that focusing on falling rates of burglary, or the happy, productive lives of overweight people would shift more of their products. Fear sells.
Is it immoral and wrong? Possibly. But as usual when dealing with lefties, we have to separate the professed reason for their behaviour from the truth. The truth here is not righteous indignation about the morality of commercials, as Spiked have pointed out. Their real motivation is actually to be found in Andrew Lawrence’s crude tweets. Because Protein World visibly reminded everyone what an attractive female looks like, the angry minority have – or perhaps are so paranoid they believe they have - been reminded of their own dark opinion of their own bodies.
It’s equivalent to skinny folk like me saying photos of a body builders “shame wimpy people” or photos of Stephen Hawkins “shame those of us with lower IQs”. Essentially, it's a system of forbidding anyone else to feel good about themselves. It’s a response so illogical and ridiculous that only those with serious self-esteem issues could do so without seeing how cringe-worthily transparent they are.
When our bodies don’t match the look we want we have two options. Firstly, change it through diet and exercise. Secondly, accept it and move on. A very small number who choose option one will go too far, which is sad. Most will not. The feminist mob will seize on and exploit the tragedy of that small minority as propaganda for their cause.
The idea of laying the blame for insecurities at the feet of a poster model is not only remarkably vicious and dumb, it’s also dangerous. Dangerous because like so much of the left-wing philosophy, it’s an attempt to defeat human nature. That's a battle that can never be won, but can cause untold damage in the process.
I read your article on the Yahoo UK News site. At first I honestly thought it was an article by a Guardian columnist. Then I saw it was written by you, a key member of the Finsbury Park Mosque, of which convicted kidnapper and terrorist supporter Abu Hamza was a cleric, so I was very much in the correct ballpark.
I try to avoid the tactic of fisking as I find it leads to animosity rather than quality debate or reading, but as I read your letter I saw so much lazy thinking and simply outrageous statements that I instantly realised fisking would be the only way to deal with it. Forgive my abruptness as we dive in:
Every time the issue of young British Muslims going to Syria is raised, the same question is asked by both the media and the government: Why isn't the Muslim community doing more to stop these young people joining Islamic State (Isis)?
But while the Muslim community should rightly shoulder some responsibility to address this problem, simply putting all the blame and responsibility at the doors of our community will only risk alienating, marginalising and criminalising a new generation of Muslim youth.
Fair enough so far, though it still sticks to the typical line of self-pity over responsibility. It's ultimately saying that being 'picked on' is a greater reason for joining ISIS than upbringing or education.
Impressionable young Muslims who are steered towards extremism are British citizens and our government is duty-bound to engage with both them and the leaders of the Muslim community. The solution is not to issue new counter terrorism bills, a strategy which has largely failed.
No, impressionable young Muslims are joining ISIS from around the world. The only way to correct your sentence would be to add the demonym "British", which would make it a circular statement. This isn't a pedantic jab, I'm pointing it out because you've deliberately phrased it that way to reinforce your idea that a few Muslims in the UK join ISIS because they are alienated. If you focused on the worldwide picture the evidence would show that some Muslims from across the world are doing the same, making your stated motivation unsupported by evidence.
The fact is some young Muslims feel they are second-class citizens in Britain. Many face inequality and discrimination at work, anti-Muslim hatred and even physical attacks.
Really? It happens to many Muslims? Evidence? Data? Eyewitness reports? Neutral testimonies? Or just your word? It may happen in a very small number of incidents, as does the opposite.
It is irresponsible for pundits, politicians and commentators to dismiss outright a link between British foreign policy and radicalisation.
Agreed, it is.
Young Muslims are often politicised and sometimes radicalised by daily news of fellow Muslims attacked, killed, oppressed and denied the freedom to lead their own lives.
Often when I see news of attacks on Muslims, it is by other Muslim states or militaries. While it may be true that western policy has not helped, the argument that this drives ISIS membership from UK citizens is equivalent to saying that young Christians could move to North Korea to launch military strikes against the labor camps that Christians are condemned to, or a rebel group in Somalia, in which Christians are terrorised. Instead most Christians support charities like Open Doors, which support peaceful, practical and helpful support for persecuted Christians as best they can. Your argument, Mister Kozbar, is actually at the level of a child screaming: "He started it". You also fail to see the irony of a UK citizen using their freedom of movement to join a group which seeks to annihilate the nation which they declare has denied them freedom.
Sadly British policy abroad has resulted in some of this, including in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Gaza. Young people see the hypocrisy of the West standing by dictators like Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who violently removed Egypt's first democratically elected president, Mohammad Morsi, and has sentenced to death hundreds of his supporters without fair trials.
So just to be clear, the three 'Jihadi brides' left for Syria because of the British government support for Morsi. Not because one of them was fathered by a man who burned our flags and marched with Lee Rigby's killer, not because of your mosque taking in a Imam who was a kidnapper of innocent people and definitely not because of aggressive demonstrations against British soldiers. Instead they were calm, rational people who joined a violent, bloodthirsty, beheading, temple-burning, fire-executing group based on perceived hypocrisy in western foreign relations.
Did those "young people" also see the hypocrisy in citing western-backed dictatorship as a reason for ISIS support when most Islamic states are undemocratic and clearly show the problems linking Islam and democracy?
Muslims are a fundamental part of British society and an important part of the makeup of this diverse nation. The Muslim community has at its core values that are truly British, values such as honesty, justice and equality, all intertwined in their faith and culture.
The vast majority of British Muslims are proud to be British and Muslim and see no contradiction between the two. A BBC survey in February found 95% of Muslims in Britain are against any violent acts and loyal to their country.
I've expressed my views on the BBC before but I like to think you are right with everything you said here. However, a more recent survey showed that thirty-nine percent of UK Muslims felt police were a factor in radicalisation. It also concluded that forty-four percent of British Muslims believed families were responsible for preventing young people heading to Syria, meaning well over half of those interviewed did not believe family played a role. How compatible is the total rejection of family responsibility with British values?
Unfortunately, a minority of extremists on both sides – the Muslim community and the far right – are trying to push the narrative that you cannot be a good Muslim and a British citizen.
A study by Islamophobia network research recently claimed $57m is spent on spreading hate against Muslims in America through the media and by politicians. I wonder how much has been spent here in the UK? We recently saw the case of the so-called Trojan horse scandal – where a "plot" was alleged by which extremist Muslims planned to infiltrate schools. It transpired that there never was a plot in the first place.
Any organisation that calls itself "islamaphobia" - a totally bigoted, politicised and unverifiable piece of terminology in its own right - would strike me as one that is unlikely to conduct good, impartial scientific research without regards to its own income or justification for its existence. Do you have a more reputable, impartial survey to cite?
Key to challenging this is making young Muslims feel that they are part of the solution, not the problem.
We need to engage with young people in a positive way in mosques and universities. At Finsbury Park Mosque, we have worked hard to create a cohesive atmosphere out of one that was previously very hostile and we have managed to return the mosque back in the heart of the community despite the efforts of our detractors in the media and the far right.
Young Muslims could perhaps start by reading this book about Hamza and your mosque and decide if it is the right place to start looking for solutions.
But despite our best efforts, we are still subject to anti-Muslim hate attacks. We have had a pig's head hung on our gates; our mosque has been fire-bombed; white powder sent to our Imam; and we have received numerous death threats.
Your definition of "hate" appears similar to that of Stan Collymore. I don't dispute it's nasty and unpleasant to leave a pig's head outside your place of worship, but does it constitute "hate"? If so, is it an equal crime to that of beheading a person or watching them burn to death? I put it to you that you and many on your side deliberately exploit and overuse the word "hate" and "hate crime" for you own sympathy. I think you attempt to equalise the nasty but relatively petty offences against you and the horrific, sub-human acts committed by terrorists in the name of Islam.
Violence breeds violence and this cycle must stop. There is a desperate need for a dialogue and understanding of the real issues at play in order to find solutions to our problems and challenges. Scapegoating the Muslim community or trying to divide the community on nefarious grounds is not the solution.
A very true and fair statement. On this we can agree.
Let us all start today by acknowledging that Muslims are part of British society and like all communities they need understanding and support, rather than hate and the criminalisation of their faith.
A true statement in itself but carefully loaded to yet again play the "victim" card. There is absolutely no outlawing of the Muslim faith in Britain, the insufferable myth - and the liberal left's wet dream - of a backlash against Muslims never ceases to go away despite all the statistics and studies showing it has not happened. Indeed, your name is the most popular name for a new baby boy in the UK.
To my surprise Mister Kozbar, I actually find myself in agreement with your content and, at times, your tone. What I find extraordinary is that you can be so absolvent of the role your mosque has played in radicalisation. In addition, the spellbinding ignorance of the hypocrisy in your "British foreign policy"' excuses and the use of your British freedoms to complain about Muslims losing their freedoms would be comical, were it not so serious. I also note you never once justified your headline tag of "racism".
You are absolutely right though, we need dialogue, we need understanding and we need to acknowledge the role of different communities. What we also need is responsibility, honesty, clarification of priorities and unification. I can't see that you, your mosque or your line of logic and argument can offer any of these solutions.
.png)
