Talk:Nazir Ahmed, Baron Ahmed/Archive 1

Baron?
Since when did he become Baron? I thought he was known as Lord Nazir Ahmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.112.202 (talk) 08:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Lord" is the form of address for someone who is a baron. He's correctly known as Lord Ahmed, never "Lord Nazir Ahmed".  J Rawle  (Talk) 10:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Other controversies
As far as I am aware, Lord Ahmed has also been invovled in another controversy involving baby milk in India, presumabley linked to Nestle. I think this issue, which is widely reported online, could get a mention too if anyone has enough details to outline it.Rob2000 12:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's another controversy involving Lord Ahmed:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-567287/Britains-Muslim-peer-faces-charges-text-message-sent-shortly-fatal-car-crash.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And the talk here and elsewhere about his ties to terrorism has to stop.

Reverted unexplained deletion of an entire paragraph
jucifer 04:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The passage


 * Jermas's ruse of attacking 'Zionists' rather than 'Jews' to avoid charges of anti-semitism is thinly veiled, and is laid bare by his description of Lord Beaconsfield (Disraeli) as Britain's "first zionist ruler" despite the fact that he died fifteen years before Theodore Herzl coined the phrase. Jermas's anti-semitism was made plain on his website where he expresses his acceptance of blood libels |1, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and various forms of  Zionist Occupied Government conspiracy theories.

Has been removed because Pollards 'also known as' has been transformed into an assertion the he is in fact Jermas and not Shamir, making the kerfuffle about Shamir's identity Lord Ahmed's sin by association as well as innuendo.

The claim that Lord Beaconfield was dead 15 years before Hertzl coined the term 'Zionism' does not negate the concept that D'Israeli was a proponent of Zionism before the concept was given identification with a name. see Encyclopedia Britannica

"In England political writers were found to urge the re-establishment of a Jewish state under British protection as a means of assuring the overland route to India (Hollingsworth, Jews in Palestine, 1852). Lord Palmerston was-not unaffected by this idea (Finn, Stirring Times, vol. i. pp. 106–112), and both Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury supported Mr Laurence Oliphant in his negotiations with the Porte for a concession which was to pave the way to an autonomous Jewish state in the Holy Land. In 1854 a London Jew attempted to float a company ' for the purpose of enabling the descendants of Israel to obtain and cultivate the Land of Promise '"

Whether you agree that Zionism started way before Hertzl or not, this is not a page for editorializing about anything, not even whether you believe that Shamir's writing is anti-Semitic or not. (JohD 15:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

Actually Jucifer, I would prefer if kept the discussion to the discussion page. To address your comments left on my User Talk:JohD page. 1. I am interested in Shamir, that is what led me to wiki in the first place. 2. It is by no means proven that Shamir is a Swede. He might be, but all we have is the word of a 'private investigator', and an unverified copy of a passport. I am trying to verify the passport, but have informed by the Swedish consul that privacy laws in that country forbid providing personal information about citizens. The 'private investigators' report is suspect on several grounds: a. The passport copy does not have a stamp(seal) covering the passport picture. b. The photograph, while possibly resembling Shamir in another era, can also just as easily be someone else. c. I can find no corroborating evidence that Shamir did indeed change his name, what his name was changed from, and the date it was changed on. Reports vary as to the timing. d. The claim by the 'private investigator' that anyone can get a copy of Shamir's passport. Presumably 'anyone' would also include wiki editors, I can't get a copy. d. There are no reports existing that Shamir does not live in Jaffa. There is the extensively reproduce quote from Ben Dror Yemini who, after being called by Frontpages Stephen Plaut; confirmed that Israel shamir is an Israeli, and is a virulent anti-Semite. You may ask then why Shamir does not sue if these claims are false? Sue who? The tabloid articles are charaterized by legalese, everyone is quoting everyone else. Even here on wiki, supposed to be an enclyclopedia, half baked allegations are accepted as fact. 3. Even if it can be shown conclusively that Shamir has changed his name and acquired Swedish citizenship, how this indicate that he is no longer an Israeli, since it is legal to have different identities and different nationalities in Israel, and it is not hard to have your name inserted on the census, even if you are not present. I suggest you find yourself a private investigator, find solid proof, convince a reputable newspaper to publish your evidence, and then come and edit in these reports. You don't get a free pass to edit in your opinions, based on the opinions of others, as a fact: ie. Swedish writer.
 * Yet you deleted the entiredescription of Jermas. Hmmm. jucifer 02:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

My edits are reasonable, explained and unless you have a pertinent argument for doing so, please don't revert it again.(JohD 04:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

Links to Shamir's site
The links are not broken actually. Shamir is just blocking refferals from wikipedia. jucifer 02:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If Shamir is blocking referrals from wiki, the full url should be provided instead.(JohD 04:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

Shamir is not blocking referrals from wiki, you got the URL wrong ... and everything else.

[Bloodcurdling Libel]

Discuss here first please Mr. Shamir
Right, I changed the info to make you happier. It is certainly NPOV now. If you wish to have it changed please discuss it here first. The content and nature of the speech was the cause of the controversy, and needs to be described. The other cause of the controversy - the invitation of Shamir himself - also needs to be contextualised, to note that his anti-Semitism is widely noted and is clear from his own website - if he had been a closet anti-Semite, it would not have been a big deal you see? jucifer 21:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I won't discuss reckless disregard of my previous explanations. see above. The content of the speech does include any reference to 'Zionist occupied government', it mere merely references Conrad Black & Rupert Murdoch; 'ardent Zionists', who he alleges suppress news. Please don't classify things as 'anti-Semitic' and a 'fact', when a simple reading of the text reveal the exact opposite. Likewise your use of the words 'endorses' and 'confirms' run counter to the linked text. Please don't include your POV in articles, as I have been reminded numerous times.It was only a 'controversy' for a few people; a beat-up and a storm in a tea-cup. Just becuase one journalist writes an opinion piece does not make opinion 'facts'. BTW, the address of the speech has not been changed, blocked, or moved around. You simply typed in the wrong URL. Your accusations against Shamir betrays a pre-diposition to believe the worse of him, whatever he does, or does not do. (JohD 14:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC))


 * Yes, I do tend to believe the worst of him - seeing as I have read his stuff, and know him to be a reprehensible fascist liar and antisemite. Your defence of Shamir eaqually betrays a pre-disposition to believe the best of him - why would you want to do that (all you have done on wikipedia).  Are you Brandt - or are you a personal friend, or are just a run-of-the-mill fan of his?  jucifer 14:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Juicifer, You are ranting now, and indulging yourself in an unseemly manner. I am not 'defending' Shamir, I am trying to have him, and and his views, presented on wiki in as fair, and neutral manner as possible. This is no place to indulge yourself in a jihad against him. Clearly, as my identity is out in the open, and yours hidden behind an anonomous mask, you possess no capital in the moral stakes, while my motivation, beliefs and philosophies are for all to see. Yes, I have a pre-disposition to believe the best of people, and prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt, even you; but you make it hard to do so. Why do you insist on bringing your personal baggage into what is supposed to be an attempt to provide balanced information for people? I daresay, I am attempting to be as accommodating to peoples sensibilities as I can; but I cannot abide unrepentant bigotry.

BTW, to assist you to present a proper report of the 'controversy', here is the link you don't seem able to find yourself:

Jews and the Empire (JohD 15:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

OK, then you place on the talk below how you would like to describe: a)the content of the speach b)how it was interpreted c)the ways in which the speach caused controvercy. d)ahmeds responce These are the main points and they must be in the article. So go ahead: place your prefered version (including all these points) on the talk page, and we will work from there. jucifer 15:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank You, that is more reasonable.


 * It can stand for now, I will write a report on the incident you wish to mention and place it here on the discussion page; but later, when I have more time. I have a project to get finished right now. I will message you when I have done so. (JohD 17:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC))
 * OK, great. jucifer 23:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Controversy
The following is a suggested report for the article regarding the Shamir 'controversy'. It is factual, and avoids any emotive 'spin' words. I hope it is acceptable.


 * On February 23, 2005, Lord Ahmed hosted a book launch in the House of Lords for an author by the name of Israel Shamir.


 * On the 22nd March, Stephen Pollard, in a guest editorial appearing in the Times, lambasted the event. In his piece entitled 'Lord Ahmed's Unwelcome Guest', Pollard opines that Shamir "is, in fact, a Swedish-domiciled anti-Semite also known as Jöran Jermas.”


 * Pollard goes on to characterize the speech entitled 'Jews and Empire’ as containing anti-Semitic references such as "Jews control ... a big share of mass media"; 'the Jewish supremacy drive' as the one reason for wars in the Middle East, and that (gasp! - only kidding!) 'Jews love Empire'. Shamir also suggested that the large Muslim population in Britain was important to turn the tide of 'Judaic Values' in Britain.


 * Lord Ahmed refused to condemn the remarks of Shamir.JohD 12:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Since there has been no response from Juicifer for two days now, I presume she has become disinterested in improving this article. I will place the edit on the article pageJohD

Actually, Lord Ahmed "refused to comment". He didn't refuse to either comdemn or support Shamir's remarks.

that is not quite correct; the article quite clearly states that Lord Ahmed refused to 'condemn' Shamir's remarks

Ahmed's House Of Lords attempt at silencing Fitna
I have updated this section as the House Of Lords will be viewing Fitna on the 12th February.Twobells (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Further update editing out emotive pov statements and clarified the current situation. Twobells (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is a recent interview with Lord Pearson, the member of the House Of Lords that invited Geert Wilders to London to show Fitna. Lord Pearson clearly states that the threats made by Baron Ahmed were to Black Rod. --Panzer71 (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Emotional interpretations
Can we avoid putting our personal emotional interpretations to what Ahmed says or does? you might not agree with what he does, but please keep your absurd interpretations out.

I quote two deletions I made: "(thus blaming Rushdie for the murders of publishers and publishing staff around the world by Muslim extremists.)". The fact that this was in brackets says it all.

"referred to the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks as martyrs". Well, you have to go too far to deduce that. He's actually saying imagine if people said that's what they are and the quote actually accuses him for referring to them as martyrs. Absurd.

--Djihed 13:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Dangerous driving prosecution
Here is an article from the Times about him texting while driving, which may have caused a death. Malick78 (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that he was involved in a crash and that he's been summoned should be in the article at least. I'm amazed there isn't already some mention of the crash already. I wouldn't necessarily mention texting, though - better leave the court to decide on whether that's true.  J Rawle  (Talk) 00:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I find it ridiculous that the article says:"So having been responsible for the death of someone Lord Ahmed will spend only 6 weeks in prison.". The texting occured before the crash and had no influence on it. There is no proven connection to the death.217.145.59.190 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 13:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC).


 * Erm, the fact that Nazir Ahmed was convicted of Dangerous Driving means that the act of sending a text whilst driving was the cause of the incident. --Panzer71 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Naturalisation
I assume he is a British citizen, though the article doesn't state that. When was he naturalised? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Does it matter? Probably 10 years after coming for the first time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.146.12.20 (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Semantical question
Is it truly proper to speak of "The Muslim World" [sic]? It seems rather presumptious to me. I don't see anything similar with regard to the "Western World". It's either "the Western World" or "the Western world", but never to my knowledge "The Western World" except perhaps at the start of a sentence. Is this common English usage somewhere and I just don't know about it (not having been everywhere) of just what I suspect that it is, a capitalisation mistake that should be rectified? 75.216.203.56 (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)