This is part one of ‘Richard Littlejohn: The cloaca series‘
In August 2006 Richard Littlejohn in an article about Muslims entitled ‘If they hate us so much, why don’t they leave?‘ wrote about Muslims that a:
sizeable minority… have no desire to adapt to Britain. They want Britain to adapt to them. For a large number of Muslims, their faith is incompatible with Western freedoms and democracy.
This being the case, Littlejohn argued, why don’t they simply bugger off?
In 2007 Littlejohn produced a short ‘cut-out-and-keep guide to the two dominant branches of Islam‘:
Sunnis are the peace-loving, Saudi-backed wing who brought you Al Qaeda. Shias are the peace-loving, Iranian-backed strain behind Hamas and Hezbollah. I hope that helps.
Very helpful and very tolerant towards Muslims I’m sure everyone would agree.
In 2006 Littlejohn in an article entitled ‘Is it any wonder Britons are leaving in droves?‘1 wrote that:
You don’t have to be a card-carrying BNP neanderthal to worry about the consequences of this sea-change in our society. It is simply impossible to absorb and assimilate this many people from a myriad of cultures in such a short space of time – that’s always assuming they want to assimilate, which in the case of many Muslims they don’t.
So the trend tends to imply that Muslims are bad, they don’t integrate in the UK, don’t like us and should really just bugger off back home.
Yet in spite of this, Littlejohn in 2009 wrote a column in support of the intolerance of some Muslims simply because those Muslims (and Christians – but Littlejohn doesn’t seem to hate them) were being intolerant of the right thing: gays.
However, do not think that Littlejohn is going soft as he slowly approaches his eagerly awaited death, he still finds time in the same column to laugh at a devout Muslim for having a funny beard.
Littlejohn’s primary column seems to argue that young people today are uneducated and ignorant2 (the majority ‘think Auschwitz is a brand of beer’) because they are having:
lessons ‘celebrating’ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History Month… smuggled in under the radar in the guise of ‘history’.
Some parents decided to withdraw their children from such lessons, and it is these parents Littlejohn bravely defends because:
these aren’t the usual feckless mothers and absentee fathers content to let their children bunk off school. They are deeply moral and religious people who object to their children being force-fed homosexual propaganda in the classroom.
One wonders if these ‘deeply moral and religious people’ were arguing for lessons on Islam Littlejohn might be screaming ‘PC gone mad’ or ‘to hell in a handcart’ before trying to force-feed those same parents his favourite word: ‘integration’ (‘or go back to your own country’, he sometimes adds).
Leaving aside Littlejohn siding with his traditional enemy against the gays, it is worth examining exactly what Littlejohn finds so abhorrent about the teaching of diversity. Littlejohn is obsessed with the idea that teaching diversity is actually a propaganda mission determined to turn all of our children gay:
Regular readers may remember these fairy stories from a couple of years ago, when they were part of a £600,000 government-sponsored project designed to peddle gay propaganda to children as young as five.
‘gay propaganda’? Littlejohn seems to have such a paranoid and warped mindset that he even states that ‘this isn’t education, it’s cultural fascism.’
He also does not seem to understand that being gay isn’t really a choice. Why a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender month, anyway?’ he argues, ‘Why not a Foot Fetishists, Spankers, Sadists and Masochists History Month?’. Littlejohn lists these fetishes for two main reasons: one; to make Gay, Bisexual or Transgender people sound as perverted as Mail readers assume those who practice those fetishes to be, and two; to make it seem as if being Gay is a behaviour that one can choose not to indulge in – with the implicit assumption that to indulge in such a behaviour is a perversion.
His arguments are linked to a basic ignorance of what it is to be ‘gay’ – it could of course be that I’m talking rubbish as I am not gay – but I understand that people are born with a predisposed sexual preference; therefore no amount of propaganda is going to make a gay person straight or a straight person gay. No doubt Littlejohn still believes that gay men could be turned straight if only they were made to play rugby or visit a lap-dancing club.
Teaching diversity is important because it demonstrates to children that we live in a tolerant society where they can grow up and be accepted for who they are. The gay child in the classroom who is battling with desires he or she may not understand is relieved to find out that he or she is not alone, not perverted and won’t be ostracised or shunned by his or her fellow citizens for simply being whom he or she is. The straight child in the class will realise that being gay isn’t some horrific crime or perversion, something to be hidden or worse, scorned at by others. Teaching tolerance of others regardless of perceived differences is an important part of defeating fascist ideology; not – as Littlejohn stupidly argues – fascism in itself; nor is it ‘propaganda’.
That Littlejohn can pretend to understand the concerns (intolerance) of devout Muslims when those concerns (intolerance) align themselves; yet underneath in the very same column completely mock devout Muslim faith is astonishing – if it only highlights the moronic sycophancy of his readers.
PC Javid Iqbal (sub-heading: ‘Shiver me timbers – it’s Cut-Throat Pete’) is a PC who alleges racial abuse, from the routine mocking of his beard to being called a ‘fucking paki’ and left on patrols without a lift back to the police station. However, Littlejohn, as he makes clear in his sub-title is only interested in mocking the way that he looks:
I’ve never seen a dafter beard than the one sported by PC Javid Iqbal.It’s less a beard, more a privet hedge. If he entered it in a Best-Kept Village competition, he’d win a gold rosette.
It resembles those fake pirate beards we used to cut out of comics. PC Javid is a dead ringer for Captain Pugwash’s adversary, Cut-Throat Pete.
I wonder if it’s real, or comes off with his glasses, like one of those Groucho Marx masks. No wonder his colleagues couldn’t help poking fun at it.
Littlejohn, after this mocking introduction, mentions that ‘ PC Javid says the beard is part of his Islamic religion’ but mocks this reason immediately: ‘But surely a Jeremy Beadle or a Manfred Mann would have done the job just as well.’
For good measure Littlejohn makes a mockery of his claim for compensation:
Needless to say, PC Javid is suing for com-pen-say-shun and claims to be suffering from depression. In case that argument is laughed out of court, he also claims to have been called a ‘f***ing Paki’, which is usually worth about 50 grand.
Before using the magic but to imply that he is unlikely to have actually suffered racist abuse:
If he has genuinely been racially abused, fair enough. But Bedfordshire Police is one of the most ‘diversity-sensitive’ forces in Britain, especially when it comes to its large Muslim population.
And finally concluding that he was probably a rubbish policeman, and is better suited to being a ‘garden gnome':
And the official line is that PC Javid was sacked because he was ‘not cut out to be a police officer’. Sounds about right.
A garden gnome, maybe, just not a copper. Last time I saw a beard like that it was sitting on a toadstool, holding a fishing rod.
I find it difficult to comprehend how Littlejohn has the audacity to write a piece showing solidarity with ‘deeply moral and religious people [Muslims – photographed next to article] who object to their children being force-fed homosexual propaganda in the classroom’ and immediately following it with a piece completely mocking a Muslim who is presumably just as ‘deeply moral and religious’.
I guess it is clear to see how Littlejohn picks those to vilify and those to support: intolerant of gays = support; growing a beard that looks a bit funny but for the same religious belief but no mention of intolerance towards gays = vilify and mock.
Perhaps I just can’t believe that such an utter cloaca exists.
1. The logic of Littlejohn’s argument (there are so many foreigners in the UK, Brits are being forced to emigrate) is hysterical. If people dislike other cultures and foreign people that much, how can moving abroad, to a different culture full of foreigners, possibly be the answer? The whole article is staggeringly hypocritical; on the one hand Littlejohn finds it ‘profoundly depressing that so many energetic, qualified young people feel they have no future in the country of their birth’ and therefore choose to move abroad for a ‘better life’. On the other hand, foreign people moving to the UK, many precisely for the same reason as those bright young things leaving the UK, are a terrible thing.
Littlejohn really makes it clear that he values British people above people of other nations. How can he understand emigration (living as he does, mostly in Florida, USA) but not understand immigration? They are the same thing.
2. The irony of Littlejohn complaining about education standards… whilst simultaneously writing absolute drivel for a specifically targeted audience of morons.
This article first appeared on Angry Mob back in March 2009.
I am getting married in 23 days and have entered a competition to try and win my bride an amazing holiday. To win the competition I need your support, I am currently in 7th place and need you to vote for me to win. Voting takes less than 30 seconds and you can vote every 24 hours. Please vote, share, tweet and do whatever you can to spread the word, I cannot win this without your support. Thank you.