Denmark's burka ban will send Muslim women further underground

[spacejunk]

and now, good hearted western liberals are normalizing it because they fear to do otherwise would be perceived as bigoted or islamophobic.

There's a paradox here that i'd rather address than ridicule positions on this i disagree with.

You're saying that there is some sort of hypocrisy in people in the west accepting religions which are socially repressive - especially with regards to the rights of women.

I get the point you're making, but i think it is important to respect people's religious and cultural heritage, because it's not something you or i can just will away.
To me, the only way to help muslim women improve their lot is through understanding, not legislating against religious fundamentalism, but through leading by example.

I think the benefits of liberal democracies tend to become quite clear to people living within them - even if it takes a couple of generations. In the scheme of things, that's practically the blink of an eye - and i think it's best to resist the fear and mistrust of islam in exists in the western world.

I find the catholic church's position on numerous social issues to be pretty appalling - same goes for mormonism, hinduism, and pretty much every organised religion.

but i also realise that trying to impose "progressive" values onto people is problematic, and probably counterproductive.

When people cite women's rights when talking about making rules or laws about what people can and can't wear, i wonder what value we should place on the right to religious freedom, and freedom of expression.

If western nations insist on legally forcing muslim women to dress (or not dress) a certain way, i don't think it is very likely to help those women, or increase their social or cultural autonomy.

think it's safe to say that imposing our cultural values on people's religious customs (by banning certain religious clothing) probably makes life a lot more complicated (and dictated) for the women in question.

I tend to think that there are far better ways to support muslim women - and women more generally.

I've noticed that a lot of the aggressively anti-islam people in the west bring up the rights of women when it comes to islam, but not so much when it comes to feminist politics for the rest of us.

Some of the critics of islam who criticise the lack of rights enjoyed by muslim women are explicitly anti feminist - so i think it is often used as a wedge.

That's not directed at anyone here, but it's often used in a disingenuous way by many critics of islam.

Personally i think it is entirely possible to respect - and accept - the religious customs and cultures of muslim people, as well as valuing the rights of people who are oppressed by that (or any other) religion.

It seems kinda unrealistic to think that imposing 'socially progressive' ideologies upon religious folks will somehow help them.

i really think that basic acceptance of people's cultural and backgrounds and cultures is pretty fundamental - and that "burqa bans" would only be reasonable if muslim women wanted such laws.
When it is imposed from the outside, i'm sceptical of its value.

I tend to think that enforcing laws which ban religious dress may compound the difference between muslim and non-muslim people - which is exactly why i think it is counter-productive. The best way to influence cultural shifts is by leading by positive example, rather than legislating against conservative religious customs.

Freedom from oppressive religious traditions is probably appealing to a lot of people, espscially when they're living in a socially liberal community.

The best way to erode the power of ancient religions and the social oppression controls they exert is education.
Education is the biggest threat to religion, because it erodes the power of dogma and theistic social control.

I don't think that laws which try to force cultural integration will succeed in making that happen - i really think the best way to affect cultural influence is to embrace what you seek to influence, and maybe meeting people half way, rather than forcing them to bend to your will.

To me that seems like a good way of increasing division and mutual suspicion, rather than fostering cultural ties which are highly likely liberalise conservative migrant cultures in time anyway.

 

[mal3volent]

Edit: @cduggles and SJ

Cduggz, thank you for the historical context. I disagree that the discussion shouldn't include Islamic culture though. Everyone here is perfectly capable of comprehending the nuances of what we're talking about. I've said several times that there really is no religious justification for this behavior, but nevertheless, the ones that are perpetuating it are mostly Muslim and they do cite their faith as the foundation of their societal values. In a criticism of Amish culture, it would be perfectly reasonable to bring up Christianity. There was a sizeable Amish and Mennonite population near where I grew up, and trust me, I'm more than willing to have that discussion. Primarily how some of their practices are tantamount to child abuse.

SJ, you are an extremely intelligent and articulate guy (good looking too, I'm sure)...but I'm struggling to comprehend what the real substance of our disagreement is. We both have pretty extreme left wing ideas about government and religion in general. We both of course want to see a world where women are given the same opportunities as men. We agree that our moral standards shouldn't be forced on others militarily.

But don't you think we should be pretty aggressive in protecting our values within our own countries? If a see a woman who feels compelled to cover her body from head to toe in shame, just to be able to walk down the street, I want to do whatever I can to discourage that. Maybe she is actively miserable due to her circumstances... or maybe she isn't miserable at all but does see it as an unnecessary and unfair social construct that's holding her back from realizing her full potential. Maybe she's been brainwashed and actually does believe she is less than a man, and she's okay with that.

Whatever the situation... there are other young girls walking down the street next to her. What is the impact on a society that allows these clearly sexist behaviors to be advertised and tacitly endorsed (normalized) ? What is the subtle or not so subtle impression left on vulnerable, naive, or underdeveloped minds?

Again, we can't drop bombs wrapped in mini skirts. But we can (and should imo) do what we can (within reason) to prevent these ideas from spreading or taking hold in our own communities. If we have to cite valid security concerns, that's reasonable to me.

I think its possible to protect a person's right to practice their religion and also protect our secular progressive values. Wear whatever you'd like in your home...in your church...in your mosque...that's wonderful. More power to you.

@priest

i agree with a lot of what you said. But while you might be technically correct that Islam isn't a peaceful religion (if you interpret the source material literally)...I think it's more beneficial for everyone if we embrace and promote the moderate and compassionate voices...stand up against fundamentalists...whether they're Muslim, Christian, or whatever.

 

[zephyr]

Different cultures need to be discussed to spread education, Im not informed enough to say much about cultures and traditions of regions to say if wearing some clothing is actually representative of someones proud history and teligion or enforced due to being under militant rule.

People should integrate into their adopted country and just join in like anyone else but its their own background they bring which increases diversity.

I would expect foreigners in some middle eastern countries would not be allowed to wear clothes that expose the arms, hair and neck and that would be weird conforming so it works both ways.

 

[cduggles]

Mal, I don't mean the Amish are irrelevant to a discussion of Christianity. Rather, discussing Christianity solely as if all Christians lived like the ones in Amish settlements would be ridiculous.

I do think most all CE&P posters are perfectly capable of intelligent discussion, of course. I do think Islamic sects and similarities & differences would make a great thread topic! (hint )

So would Amish & Mennonites. (hint!)

However, I think my main point here is that I don't think legislation should dictate wardrobe choices, and that the burka isn't the biggest issue for most women who wear them.

I could be wrong and laws like this could bring about positive change. I really don't know. It seems rather cosmetic (no pun intended).

Kind of fun? fact: General HR McMaster showed that 1972 Kabul picture in my post to Trump to help convince him to stay in Afghanistan. Yeah, it's true.

 

[Yourbaker]

I don't think laws can ever bring about social change. Laws are made when the social pressure, caused by already existing change, is brought to bear on officials seeking re-election. In Canada we have brought about the social pressure of freedom to use marijuana recreationally as a nation. In reality we have been doing it for the last 20 years. Laws don't create change but they do reflect it and in some cases force the slow people to catch up.

When you wish to make a law that has an effect only on other people you should give your head a shake. If anyone feels they can pass laws on others they best be ready to abide by laws made by others that only effect them.

Respect people as people and think about the family structure where a woman is dressing according to her families religious beliefs. If I believe owning a gun is a sign that human life means little to a person that owns one I would ban them from my planet, despite your feelings. The minute you campaign against someone else's belief I can campaign against yours, I would be treating you the way you obviously want to be treated because it's how you treat others. (I own guns, so this is a lie but I'm using this to make a point)

Instead of pointing out some silly flaw in someone else's religious belief isn't it better to embrace them as humans and be the bigger person right in front of them?

 

[cduggles]

Laws do reflect overarching trends in society, but some are on the leading edge and drag some laggards along.
Examples: gay marriage and civil rights/school integration and (looking doobius-- couldn't resist) possibly federal cannabis legalization (although the $$$ might make it possible).

On the the other hand, hard right conservatives are promising to overturn Roe v Wade.

(my comments are only in response to Yourbaker, and don't reflect my other posts/points).

 

[spacejunk]

Great post, Yourbaker.

I don't really understand the fear and distrust of muslims - maybe because i've always known muslim people, so i never had any doubt as to their humanity or decency.
That's not political bias, it's experiential.

 

[zephyr]

Its probably got a lot to do with the general unrest and terrorist groups/ militant regeime which draws negative attention to the entire population.


The whole Spanish Inquisition thing is a crappy analogy but if social media existed and news coverage were there, Catholics would likely be feared the same.

Its not fair on anyone muslim or not to be expected to just ignore world events and not have reservations and not realistic either. But leaders of political parties should at least have some ability to be reasonable it thats not happening either.

 

[Yourbaker]

I would suggest that the fear of "insert any group name", is entirely caused accidentally by your media.

Media have two tasks, tell a story and make a living. If the story is great the living is better. It only matters that the story looks great it doesn't need to be true and media make a better living by crafting stories to gain more attention despite truth. To get America to do something like hate Muslims it didn't take much, look back at the story line so far.

There have been far more right wing extremists shooting up America but somehow it's still the Muslims Americans fear. I tried to watch a week of American news, it is pure fluff and the American media portray Trump poorly. To me it is no wonder there is such an unstable atmosphere in the US, media have made Americans fearful of the wrong stuff.

 

[spacejunk]

I would suggest that the fear of "insert any group name", is entirely caused accidentally by your media.

Absolutely. Especially the sort of garbage pumped out my Murdoch.

There have been far more right wing extremists shooting up America but somehow it's still the Muslims Americans fear. I tried to watch a week of American news, it is pure fluff and the American media portray Trump poorly. To me it is no wonder there is such an unstable atmosphere in the US, media have made Americans fearful of the wrong stuff.

agreed 100%.

 

[cduggles]

I would suggest that the fear of "insert any group name", is entirely caused accidentally by your media.

Media have two tasks, tell a story and make a living. If the story is great the living is better. It only matters that the story looks great it doesn't need to be true and media make a better living by crafting stories to gain more attention despite truth. To get America to do something like hate Muslims it didn't take much, look back at the story line so far.

There have been far more right wing extremists shooting up America but somehow it's still the Muslims Americans fear. I tried to watch a week of American news, it is pure fluff and the American media portray Trump poorly. To me it is no wonder there is such an unstable atmosphere in the US, media have made Americans fearful of the wrong stuff.

Great posts Yourbaker. I keep reading the same stories again and again from major news outlets, and the more serious outlets that try to cover more impactful stories are niche.

I probably watch about an hour of news a week from the major news outlets, if that much.

 

[spacejunk]

I havent watched tv news in at least 15 years, and when i do happen to catch an episode, i'm always kind shocked at the quality of the shit they serve up.
I'm referring to "commercial" news networks. Fortunately we have the ABC (for now...) and SBS (which was initially intended for foreign language and international content - specifically for migrant and multicultural audiences) so the perspective they provide is far less culturally divisive and crude.
To me most "network television" content is such sleazy, pandering nonsense, that i can't really stomach to watch it.
Fox news is the best example of that "race to the bottom" trash.

If that sort of shit, maybe i'd fear islam too...?

 

[mal3volent]

Absolutely...excellent posts yourbaker...

Do you think "fake news!" would be an appropriate description of your views?

Again, it's so fascinating to me to see the lengths some will go.

One minute they're bashing Trump for his attacks on the free press, the next they are piling on with him. Looks like this thread is devolving into a "anyone who has criticized Islam is a Fox News watching xenophobe" party.

no ones even trying to stay on topic anymore. SJ, you've posted three times since I have and still not responded to my points even though I addressed you directly. Cduggz, you at least responded but I think you are sidestepping a little now too.

it is pure fluff and the American media portray Trump poorly. To me it is no wonder there is such an unstable atmosphere in the US

oh ... so that's the reason we have an unstable atmosphere. Nasty news organizations treating Trump unfairly . Again...great points yourbaker!!

 

[spacejunk]

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic - but what sort of response are you looking for.
I could explain again that i don't think it helps to subjugate people for their religious background. Men or women.
I don't think it is really very complicated - criticising and discriminating against muslims doesn't help the muslim women that is used as a justification - which renders if kind of pointless.

Re: "fake news" - that's cretinous trump shit, and i'm really not interested in discussing it.
You don't think the press is sometimes irresponsible and/or divisive?

If not - why not? Just because trump is full of shit and attacks the press constantly, doesn't mean parts of the media don't spread ugly shit.

Who is sidestepping? I don't know what you are demanding here, or what is provoking this apparent hostility.

I live in a country which has a dominant culture of people who murdered, raped and pillaged their way across the continent.
So, i take it, do you.
Who are we to say our culture is pure and peaceful? European colonialisation essentially stole and ensalved the world.

Who are we to claim muslim people and their values are incompatible with our culture, our "civilisation"?
Millions of refugees left stateless and desperately seeking asylum in the west are in that position because of a situation the american, the australian, the british military's actions helped create.

Again, i live in a part of my city which has a big muslim population. It's nice, and i appreciate the cultural influence.

So i can't really relate to a lot of the stuff people say about islam.

SJ, you are an extremely intelligent and articulate guy (good looking too, I'm sure)...but I'm struggling to comprehend what the real substance of our disagreement is. We both have pretty extreme left wing ideas about government and religion in general. We both of course want to see a world where women are given the same opportunities as men. We agree that our moral standards shouldn't be forced on others militarily.

But don't you think we should be pretty aggressive in protecting our values within our own countries? If a see a woman who feels compelled to cover her body from head to toe in shame, just to be able to walk down the street, I want to do whatever I can to discourage that. Maybe she is actively miserable due to her circumstances... or maybe she isn't miserable at all but does see it as an unnecessary and unfair social construct that's holding her back from realizing her full potential. Maybe she's been brainwashed and actually does believe she is less than a man, and she's okay with that

.

There is no such thing as "brainwashing". Western condemnation of supposed islamic sexism seems a bit hypocritical to me, given our own shortcomings in that regard.

And no, i absolutely do not think we need to be "aggressive in protecting our values".
What values? You've got an alleged mass rapist as a president.
How about we sort our own shit out before we single others out for their cultural shortcomings? We're not perfect - "let he who is without sin...." et cetera.

To me, the value that i take seriously is taking people for who they are as individuals.
Not judging or condemning people for their religion. I consider myself something of an atheist, but i have friends who are engaged with all sorts of religion and sprituality - and i accept that in them, and i accept it in strangers too.

That's the "liberal" cultural value i take most seriously; i'm interested in social cohesion, not having my community divided by judgements or distrust over religion.

 

[mal3volent]

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic - but what sort of response are you looking for.
I could explain again that i don't think it helps to subjugate people for their religious background. Men or women.
I don't think it is really very complicated - criticising and discriminating against muslims doesn't help the muslim women that is used as a justification - which renders if kind of pointless.

Could you please help me out and tell me who the fuck is talking about the subjugation of Muslims? I think I've made the point about 17 times now, that the clothing in question, and the practice of shaming women into wearing them, predates the Quran. It is a social construct that would most likely still exist in these countries even if you magically eradicated any trace of Islam. It is about men controlling women ... that is the only subjugation I see.

Re: "fake news" - that's cretinous trump shit, and i'm really not interested in discussing it.
You don't think the press is sometimes irresponsible and/or divisive?

If not - why not? Just because trump is full of shit and attacks the press constantly, doesn't mean parts of the media don't spread ugly shit.

well I'm glad to see we agree...it IS cretinous Trump shit. And yes, parts of my post were drenched in sarcasm...well spotted. I felt the need to highlight the similarities between yourbaker's view of the media with Trump's. They both seek to discredit it as an institution. Demonize it broadly as the source of our country's discontent. Instead of criticizing it on a case by case basis, based on the facts, as a healthy society should. If some organization somewhere is "spreading ugly shit" go after those specific reporters, that particular story, that individual news outlet. Not the entire fucking news media as a whole. That is what Trump does. That is cretinous Trump shit.

Who is sidestepping? I don't know what you are demanding here, or what is provoking this apparent hostility.

I would characterize it as a healthy and playful hostility, the kind two friends might have when debating a contentious issue. Who is sidestepping? Thankfully, no one now. Now that we are actually talking to each other again.

I live in a country which has a dominant culture of people who murdered, raped and pillaged their way across the continent.
So, i take it, do you.
Who are we to say our culture is pure and peaceful? European colonialisation essentially stole and ensalved the world.

Dude, seriously... can you point me to the post where I said that our culture is pure and peaceful? Our culture is fucking vile at the moment. Mass shootings every other day. A criminal in the White House. A spineless Congress. The history of humanity is dark and we stand her today thanks to some truly unspeakable events that you and I had no control over. But that does not persuade me...not even a little...to stop pointing out areas where I think we could do better.

Who are we to claim muslim people and their values are incompatible with our culture, our "civilisation"?
Millions of refugees left stateless and desperately seeking asylum in the west are in that position because of a situation the american, the australian, the british military's actions helped create.

Again, i live in a part of my city which has a big muslim population. It's nice, and i appreciate the cultural influence.

So i can't really relate to a lot of the stuff people say about islam.

I will never say something as reckless as "Muslim values are incompatible with our culture". Because there actually are tens of millions of normal, moderate Muslims out there who have truly made an effort to bridge their faith, their culture, their values with modern secular society. I don't live near a particularly large Muslim population, but i wouldn't mind it at all. I mean, as long as they were cool with a homo druggie atheist being in their proximity.

There is no such thing as "brainwashing". Western condemnation of supposed islamic sexism seems a bit hypocritical to me, given our own shortcomings in that regard.

I hate to break it to you, but there absolutely is such a thing. Western hypocrites exist also. But the two don't cancel each other out. They exist independently of each other. But you can't say because there are sexist hypocrites in the West, then let's just not talk about the sexism that exists in many predominantly Muslim countries. Let's talk about all of it.

And no, i absolutely do not think we need to be "aggressive in protecting our values".
What values? You've got an alleged mass rapist as a president.
How about we sort our own shit out before we single others out for their cultural shortcomings? We're not perfect - "let he who is without sin...." et cetera.

Again...let's sort our shit out. But also... let's not pretend that we can't have criticisms of others at the same time. That's just absurd. You literally can't criticize anything without first perfecting the US model of government and everyone in it? What values? Women's rights. Secularism. Freedom. Tolerance. Compromise.

To me, the value that i take seriously is taking people for who they are as individuals.
Not judging or condemning people for their religion. I consider myself something of an atheist, but i have friends who are engaged with all sorts of religion and sprituality - and i accept that in them, and i accept it in strangers too.

That's the "liberal" cultural value i take most seriously; i'm interested in social cohesion, not having my community divided by judgements or distrust over religion.

absolutely. The freedom of the individual is extremely important. That's why they shouldn't face undue pressure to cover themselves in order to practice their faith. They shouldn't have to give up their dignity as a woman and a human being in order to fulfill their duties as a Muslim. And that won't ever change as long as we sweep tough issues like this under the rug.

 

[quiet roar]

I don't live near a particularly large Muslim population, but i wouldn't mind it at all. I mean, as long as they were cool with a homo druggie atheist being in their proximity.

Chances are that they wouldn't be cool with it, at all.

 

[mal3volent]

Chances are that they wouldn't be cool with it, at all.

im used to it .

im also fine with it, because people are allowed to have their beliefs and behave as they wish in their own homes.

 

[JGrimez]

 

[cduggles]

^ Well how interesting!

Who is "Peter Sweden"?

From https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2...orist-who-frequent-source-american-alt/219064

Meet Peter Imanuelsen, aka Peter Sweden, the bigoted conspiracy theorist who is a frequent source for the American "alt-right" on EuropeImanuelsen is a xenophobic pseudo-journalist who has denied the Holocaust, called the moon landing a "hoax," and suggested that LGBTQ people be sent to camps

Peter Imanuelsen (aka Peter Sweden), a bigoted conspiracy theorist and self-professed ?Swedish journalist? who made a name for himself by reporting on so-called migrant crime in Sweden, was recently banned from PayPal. Far-right trolls consider getting banned from such platforms a badge of honor, and Imanuelsen?s ban is a stepping stone for him as he seeks their acceptance.

Imanuelsen is a far-right vlogger who has worked to carve out a niche for himself at the intersection of pro-Trump trolls and the European far-right movement. Despite his Swedish persona, Imanuelsen is a British national born in Norway, who has spent time living in Sweden but has lived more than half of his life in the U.K. An August 2017 profileof Imanuelsen by the U.K. anti-extremism research group Hope Not Hate suggested that his family?s business appears to have committed tax evasion, which may explain their move from Sweden to the U.K.

Though a relatively obscure figure during his first year on Twitter, Imanuelsen?s notoriety was boosted around August 2017, a month after he participated in a wildly unsuccessful ?alt-right? stunt to disrupt refugee rescue missions in the Mediterranean Sea (ironically, the group's ship itself had to be rescued on one occasion by a refugee rescue ship). And, recently, he managed to draw the ire of the current curator of the official Swedish Twitter account.

Though Imanuelsen?s social media activity is now predominantly focused on blaming immigrants in Sweden for crimeand complaining about ?the left,? his older tweets, many of which have since been deleted, reveal an array of false, conspiracist, and bigoted beliefs. He has said he doesn?t believe in evolution, that feminism ?goes against God?s order,? that people should get ?capital punishment? as a ?consequence? of ?being homo,? that Jews are a ?seperate (sic) race from Europeans,? that the Holocaust never occurred (though he claims he has revised his views on the Holocaust), and that the moon landing was a hoax perpetrated by freemasons.

Since Hope Not Hate?s profile, Imanuelsen has pushed the types of stories, often misleading or outright fabricated ones, that serve as fodder for narratives about Sweden among American ?alt-right? Twitter personalities and pro-Trump trolls. His Swedish persona affords him a measure of credibility and gives xenophobic comments a sense of legitimacy (whether or not his conclusions are valid), and he understands the American medialandscape -- particularly narratives about President Donald Trump -- well enough to exploit them for his own benefit. In fact, two days ago, he appeared on a list of the 20 most retweeted accounts tweeting about antifa.

Imanuelsen regularly tweets unsourced or unsubstantiated claims that allege Sweden?s immigrants are responsible for sexual violence, bombings, gang activity, and other criminality, and that such activity is underreported or covered up by the Swedish police. It?s a two-pronged tactic: It provides a foundation for him to advance his ethno-nationalist arguments against immigrants, and it promotes a sense of distrust of mainstream institutions necessary for the continued relevance of Imanuelsen and people like him.

More recently, Imanuelsen has promoted himself by fearmongering about government censorship and harassment to a level that could reasonably be considered paranoia. Since October, Imanuelsen, who now purportedly residesin Norway, has been claiming the police have visited his parents many times looking for him and have swarmed his house in the U.K. ?probably looking? to arrest him for ?hate speech.? On January 10, he also claimed (without evidence) that a ?country? reported his January 8 tweet claiming (also without evidence) that Sweden is giving immigrants housing priority over native Swedes, writing, ?I would guess it is Germany with their new ?hate speech? law that has reported me" to Twitter.

Imanuelsen has, for months, been ingratiating himself into far-right and pro-Trump Twitter circles -- he once tweetedfour times in response to a Breitbartarticle lamenting the lack of Christian symbolism in a supermarket holiday ad -- and it appears that his efforts have begun to pay off. Imanuelsen now has over 85 thousand Twitter followers, 24 thousand YouTube subscribers, and his Periscope videos regularly draw tens of thousands of viewers.

Imanuelsen?s relationship with Paul Joseph Watson, an Infowars conspiracy theorist who is obsessed with the canard of Swedish migrant crime, illustrates his rise. Their Twitter relationship seems to have started in February 2017, when Watson quote-tweeted Imanuelsen?s tweet about an explosion in Malmo, which Imanuelsen later deleted. He started quote-tweeting Watson aggressively in March and started tweeting directly at him a few months later. Watson has quote-tweeted Imanuelsen many times and has interviewed him on Infowars. Most recently, Infowars.com reprinted a post Imanuelsen wrote for the anti-immigrant European news blog Voice of Europe. Imanuelsen?s* tweets parallel the content of several prominent far-right outlets that report on the subject of crime in Sweden, and an October 2017 post by the far-right Gateway Pundit was based entirely on his tweets. In November 2017, Imanuelsen was cited as a "journalist" who "keeps track of bombings in the country" in an article on the website of RT, a Russian media outlet which U.S. intelligence officials and experts have said is a propaganda arm for the Kremlin.

Consider the source...

The story on the left links to Breitbart...


From https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Peter_Sweden:

Peter Imanuelsen (born September 27, 1994), better known as Peter Sweden, is a far-right speaker. Immanuelsen was originally a Holocaust denier white nationalist, extreme-homophobe, Islamophobe and conspiracy theorist crank who has written that Jewsand the Vatican are behind a New World Order.

In 2017 Imanuelsen was doxed by the anti-racist organisation Hope not Hate after a news article about his Holocaust denial was published; this happened after Katie Hopkinstweeted a photo of her next to him, which prompted journalists to find out who he was. In response, Imanuelsen has claimed he has since changed his views and apologised for denying the Holocaust. No longer publicly attacking Jews, Imanuelsen is now a prominent Islamophobe who says he opposes Islamic immigration into Europe, as well as an anti-vaxxer.Imanuelsen has 50,000 followers on Twitter and more than 20,000 subscribers to his YouTube channel.

Are you one of his 'followers' JGrimez? It's such a huge step to go from anti-Semite to Islamophobe!

 

[JGrimez]

^I don't know anything about that guy but if you can disprove anything in the TWEET I will issue a correction.
Which of those policies do you disagree with, if any, and why?