It is important to realise that Julie Burchill has a documented history of hate of Muslims & Islam, which is well known, yet has no bearing on her being a columnist at The Telegraph.
Julie makes her position about Muslims clear in the Spectator, where she attacks Sinead for becoming a Muslim
She says Islam (by which she is talking about Muslims) is a supporter of oppression, torture & murder of women, who dare to want freedom spectator.co.uk/article/diary-…
After talking about "Islamofascism", she highlights how for some Muslims: "if they hate it so much, why do they live here?”
She says in the Times, again ostensibly about Islam - but referring to Muslims
"I wonder why Prince Charles seeks to big up powerful, theocratic Islam — which already controls so much land and wealth and yet will kill and kill to gain more"
Burchill makes it clear she thinks Muslim women who wear the veil are "prisoners" who fear "a violent response", and if they are white (!), they are a "dumb, white bitch".
Julie believes that anti-semitism in the Labour Party is the Muslims' fault - and to get the "Muslim vote", because what....being anti-semitic is attractive for Muslims? Disgusting
On the day the "think tank" he is Director of Policy is at (Quilliam), has its report on gang-related CSE (used by the far right) so clearly debunked *again*, you'd have thought he might have some humility.
The blind spot Baldét and other pro-Prevent propagandists have, is they don't seem to have a clue why Palestinians might find it wholly offensive to be in such a presentation.
Why is "vocal support for Palestine" even relevant to be in such a presentation?
After Julie Burchill's Islamophobia towards @AyoCaesar, she appears to have lost her book contract
It appears her publisher realised the risk to its reputation to be associated with her racism & that Burchill may cross the line again during book promotion m.facebook.com/story.php?stor…
Some context on what Julie Burchill said to Ash Sarkar
The Home Office review on "grooming gangs" finally published concludes:
1. “links between ethnicity and this form of offending” could not be proven 2. “Research has found that group-based child sexual exploitation (CSE) offenders are most commonly white" independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/…
“Some studies suggest an over-representation of black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations. However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending.”
The document said there were issues with the data used in existing studies, sample selection and a “potential for bias and inaccuracies”
Assume this is referring to studies like the Quilliam report that was widely debunked by experts at the time, yet was cited in national papers
3. More importantly, why is she defending Liddle's disgusting article, where he “could not remotely conceive of not trying to shag the kids" (under-age and against the law -> would be considered rape)?
The reality is that columnists like Burchill make a conscious choice:
A) Attack Muslims like Ash
B) Defend people like Rod Liddle despite his long history of awful, racist & misogynist & hateful articles
ICYMI: the Chinese embassy's claim is clearly not true for Uighur Muslims
1.China built 100s of internment camps in Xinjiang, detaining 100,000s of Uighur Muslims 2. Forced sterilisation cases uncovered in Xinjiang 3. 1000s of Xinjiang mosques destroyed or damaged (65% of total)