AS291: What In the World Is The SPLC Thinking?

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:29 Thomas: Hello, and welcome to Atheistically Speaking. This is episode 291, and I'm your host, Thomas Smith. Alright, well, had I known how much interest the simulation argument would have garnered, maybe I would have sprung for a two-parter on that. But, no, I'm glad I didn't. I think it was a good one-parter. But, boy, did I get a lot of comments on the website. I definitely want to do something. Not today. I don't want to do two in a row on that, but I may need to revisit that. And, actually, Phil has expressed some desire to revisit it again, in light of all the comments, and what, there's, because there's a lot of misconceptions in the comments. There's, there is a wide range, and it'll be interesting to talk about. I'm still, I think I've figured out better where my objection is, and I'd love to run it by Phil again, but I'm, I also want to make sure I have it right.

0:01:20 Thomas: So, I'm going to do some work on that in the background, and, but thank you for all the comment. Interesting debate, interesting talk, on the website, atheisticallyspeaking.com. Today, I've got some commentary for you on some issues that I think are very important. I finally, after a lot of people linking it to me, I knew this issue was going around, I just hadn't gotten a chance to fully research it, but Haley and I researched the SPLC document where they declared that Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali were anti-Muslim extremists. I was kind of hoping that didn't really happen. I go through a certain denial phase with some of this news where I'm like, maybe they'll take it back. But no, they're sticking to it, so I'm going to talk about that, and then I've got some other issues that we'll see if I have time for that I really want to get to regarding social justice and kind of the PC scare that I've received.

0:02:14 Thomas: I've received a lot of comments about it lately. But I think I'll start with the SPLC.

0:02:28 Thomas: Truth be told, I didn't know a heck of a lot about SPLC prior to doing a little research for this. It of course stands for the Southern Poverty Law Center. It was started in 1971 and it originally was trying to combat poverty Discrimination and the death penalty, but in 1979, it switched gears a little bit and started to monitor far-right groups like the KKK, and it's been labeling hate groups and kind of monitoring their actions ever since then. It's also been, they've also been suing on behalf of victims, and that's kind of what their form of activism is. Some and just to give you an idea, here's a couple.

They've won several cases, civil cases, against the KKK. One of the first listed here is for harassing, they were harassing Vietnamese fishermen, burning crosses and shooting guns near them and stuff, and so they sued them for that. There was another KKK-related one where the members of the Ku Klux Klan had burned down a church, a hundred-year-old black church in South Carolina, and they sued. And won an incredible amount of money that essentially put that chapter of the KKK out of business. So stuff like that, using the law, I suppose, and using civil cases to fight hate groups and the like.

0:03:56 Thomas: They don't receive any of the funding from the cases themselves. They don't accept any of the money. They do it all through their own fundraising, and they also, of course, don't charge any of the victims for their legal help. So it's a pretty respected organization that is doing work that in general, I, you know, I would support, of course, like, I think doing everything you can within the law to fight hate groups like the KKK, I don't have a problem with. That sounds like a good use of resources and charity. I mean, if you're helping victims, too, who maybe wouldn't have the money themselves to launch some of these lawsuits, that's a good thing. So, this is a very respected organization, at least until now. I don't know if this will affect them at all.

0:04:44 Thomas: We'll see. In case you didn't see this when it made the rounds. On October 25, so a couple weeks ago, the SPLC released a report that is called A Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists. And what it purports to do, I can read a few sentences from the summary here, just to give you an idea. In response to the high levels of anti-Muslim extremists regularly provided a platform in the media and in the public eye, the Southern Poverty Law Center has partnered with Media Matters for America, Rethink Media, and the Center for New Community, so there's some other organizations involved, to provide a resource on anti-Muslim public figures for reporters and media professionals.

0:05:32 Thomas: So, it goes on here, there's a quote, we wrote this manual because Muslims in America continue to be vilified by a network of anti-Muslim extremists spreading baseless and damaging lies, and we think the media can play a role in helping to stop it. That's Heidi Beirich, I think is maybe how you pronounce that, director of the intelligence project at the SPLC, which is the project that produced this. So their thinking is there are a lot of anti-Muslim extremists, and they're given voices on the media, they're giving time, most of it is Fox News, like when you look through everyone they've named, it says this person will be on Hannity, or this person'll be on O'Reilly, or what it is, whatever, so that seems to be the majority of it, but not all of it.

0:06:19 Thomas: And they're thinking, I suppose, to be as charitable as I can to it, which is not a bad idea, is let's get some information about these people so that if the media, if some random person at CNN or whatever organization is looking into an interview with someone, maybe they can find this and say, oh, okay, looks like maybe this person isn't as legitimate as I thought, or maybe they are some sort of anti-Muslim extremist, and therefore it would help to, I suppose, take them out of the mainstream media a little bit and give anti-muslim bigotry less of a voice in the media. So I get that. That sounds reasonable, especially, let's look at a couple good examples, see what you guys think.

0:07:04 Thomas: So here are, I suppose, some of the worst offenders, according to the SPLC. So, here's one, Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch is apparently her group, so, to give you an idea, I can just read her a little blurb that they have, Maryland-based activist who started the blog Refugee Resettlement Watch in 2007 is fond of describing immigrants as migrant hordes, wants a moratorium on Muslim immigration, claims there is a democratic plot to bring in Muslims to create new party voters, and accuses immigrant-run stores of illegally trafficking in food stamps. She's also, they also have a quote here where she described. Black people as a retrograde species of humanity, ran a live feed of her articles on her homepage.

0:07:53 Thomas: She loathes Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, saying that they had a lust for more third-worlders to be resettled in small-town America. So she's got some weird theories about immigrant-run convenience stores trafficking in food stamps. Somehow that's a thing? I don't know if there's a lot of money in that, but that's what she thinks they do. Like she said, go to any seedy neighborhood, like the ones I saw in Toledo, and there's an immigrant-run convenience store, it seems, on every block. There is no way they are all making a living selling bread, milk, and cigarettes. My guess is that many are participating in what is known as trafficking in food stamps. So that's, that's pretty out there. I get that. That sounds like a very toxic person. I, I understand, I mean, I could see wanting to make the world or the media more aware of the kinds of things she's said in order to make sure she doesn't get a voice where she shouldn't have one in the media, so that makes sense.

0:08:50 Thomas: So, here's the thing about this, though. I don't know. Alongside this person and others who are that level of detestable, I think, I mean, if the things they say are true, then this Anne Corcoran person is pretty gross, pretty racist, as someone might say. Another quick example, Steven Emerson from the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Apparently his thing is that he thinks Europe has these no-go zones, which apparently means that authorities don't even patrol them because they're, I don't know, overrun by immigrants. So I can see that's a pretty harmful thing to say. Here's an example. He's been interviewed on Fox News a bunch, and he has said in January 2015, he claimed that Birmingham, England was a no-go zone for non-Muslims and that in parts of London, Muslim religious police actually beat, this is a quote, actually beat and actually wound seriously anyone not wearing religious Muslim attire. The prime minister at the time, David Cameron, responded by calling him clearly a complete idiot and Ofcom, which regulates all the British media, said the comments were materially misleading. So yeah, stuff like that. I get it. Okay. Now here's the problem with this list.

As you already know, I think it includes Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. So that's a pretty, that's, that'll take some convincing for me as to why those two should be included in a list with people who are saying really, really terrible things about migrants and are making up falsehoods and all that.

0:10:33 Thomas: So let's look at their claims about Ayaan and Maajid. Okay, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, it starts off, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Somali-born activist who says she endured female genital mutilation, right, right there, I mean, am I being a little sensitive when I read, says she endure, wait, do we not take a woman's word for it if she says something like that, but, whatever, says she endured female genital mutilation and fled civil wars and an arranged marriage in Africa, she then moved to the Netherlands and became, a parliamentarian for a time, but key parts of the story she told Dutch immigration authorities and the public there turned out to be false. She had never witnessed any civil war. Attendees said she was at her wedding despite her claim to have not been present, and her husband paid her way to Europe and later granted her a divorce.

0:11:25 Thomas: So far, notice that absolutely nothing about anti-Muslim extremism has been uttered. Moving on, leaving the Netherlands after quitting its parliament in disgrace, Hirsi Ali became a citizen of the United States, accepting an invitation to join the Conservative American Enterprise Institute. Although she now positions herself as an ex-Muslim champion of women's rights, her anti-Muslim rhetoric is remarkably toxic. In 2007, okay, so now we're finally getting to it, because note that everything I just read was just personal smears about her life, and I looked into it.

Yes, she lied about her story. She did lie about her stories. She admitted it, and and she did so to gain asylum, so she sort of gamed the system a little bit, and said she was from somewhere she wasn't, so, she could get asylum faster, this was in 1992, so far, everything they've said, is personal, lies she told to, in 1992, you know, 24 years ago, to try to get asylum, that she's admitted, so so far is zero, I mean, it's kind of weird to me, so for absolutely zero anything to do, with extremism. But here we go, we finally get to it. In 2007, she told Reason Magazine that the West should defeat Islam and that we are at war with Islam. The same year, she said that Islam was a new fascism and a destructive, nihilistic cult of death in an interview with the London Evening Standard. In 2014, Brandy's university withdrew its offer of an honorary degree for her, saying that it had been unaware of her vitriolic attacks on Islam.

0:13:07 Thomas: While in the Netherlands, she wrote the script for a short and provocative film about women and Islam directed by the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was murdered in the street by a jihadist a short time after its release. The murderer left a note threatening to also kill Hirsi Ali pinned to his victim's body with a knife. It's weird. First of all, weird that that was out of order. So that happened back before the stuff that you just talked about with Reason Magazine. Don't, I mean, I'm just nitpicking, but it is a little weird that they wrote it in kind of an out of time order. And secondly, what is that about? What was the point of that paragraph? I guess it was just describing facts, but they were facts that would suggest to me she would have good reason to not like Islam.

0:13:54 Thomas: So it's really weird, but let's look at some of the claims on some of things she's said. So, a major source of the Ayaan claims that I've seen, and this has been for a while, is this Reason.com article, and it's from 2007, and you know, it is pretty troubling, actually. Let's see, I'll read some of it. Only if Islam is defeated, because right now the political side of Islam, the power-hungry, expansionist side of Islam, has become superior to the Sufis and the Ismailis and peace-seeking Muslims. Don't you mean defeating radical Islam? The questioner asks. No, Islam period, she says. Once it's defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful.

0:14:39 Thomas: It's very difficult to even talk about peace now. They're not interested in peace. And the questioner asked, we have to crush the world's 1.5 billion Muslims under our boot. In concrete terms, what does that mean, defeat Islam? She says, I think that we are at war with Islam and there's no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of ideology itself. At present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they're the most fanatical sometimes. There is an infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stopped the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and say, this is a warning. We won't accept this anymore. There comes a moment when you crush your enemy.

0:15:25 Thomas: And Reason Magazine says militarily, and she says in all forms. But if you don't do that, you have to live with the consequence of being crushed. And so that's some pretty, that is some violent rhetoric. I get it, I certainly get it. I don't know, I've been looking around to see if she's ever disowned that interview. I, I can't find anything. Let me know if any of you know of anything, but I've done a fair amount of Googling, I don't see it, and I, she doesn't have, like Sam Harris does, a section on a website that's like, here's how people have misquoted me and what I actually mean. I haven't found that for her, so the best I can tell, she stands by that. But it is pretty old, I know, and there, none of the problems that the SPLC has with her are at all new. They're all these old interviews.

0:16:10 Thomas: The other thing about Ayaan Hirsi Ali is her foundation, the mission statement is, and it's the ahafoundation.org, it's preventing violence, ending shame, reclaiming honor, their goals are to end honor violence, forced marriage, and female genital mutilation, they help girls by providing resources, so it's not like, I don't know, it's not like some of these other examples where their organizations are more sinister and racist and whatever, you know, whatever they're trying to get laws passed that, you knows, infringe on people's rights or anything. It's nothing like that. So, I don't know. With Ayaan, I get some of the statements she has made. To be honest with you, I don't like them because they're a little too militaristic.

0:16:57 Thomas: She has minimized the idea of any sort of moderate Islam, which I think is a mistake. I think there can be a moderate Islam. Just like with Christianity. I mean, Christianity was terrible. The Bible's terrible. It was far more violent. It has a lot of the same rhetoric, but it can be changed. It can mellow out. You can have a moderate form. I think Islam, I think the Quran is worse. I think it's more violent and there's more direct pleas for violence, but I, it doesn't mean that there can't be a moderate version of it and it doesn't mean that that's not what we should be going for. So I get some of her rhetoric. I can can almost understand her being included on this list. Here's what I would have loved. I would have loved if they reached out to her for comment. They should have asked her, they should have asked Ayaan, hey, everything we have on you is from like 2007 as regards this violent rhetoric you've used.

0:17:50 Thomas: And that's all they reference. That's all They Sword is this old, a few old interviews. And one actually was really hard to find too. They cited an interview from the London Evening Standard in 2007, and that's all they do. It's just the Reason interview and the London Evening Standard interview from 2007. And then in... 2009, they have that she criticized Obama for denouncing Islamic extremism without once associating Islam with extremists, I mean, how bad is that, is that really anti-Islamic extremism, if you just say that Obama should use the words, you know, radical Islamic terror, whatever it is, I, mean, that's, that, that seems to me a far cry from extremism to, to have that position, so all this stuff is kind of old, I wish that they had just gotten, and they'd contacted her and said, hey, is this, do you, have you changed your mind?

0:18:48 Thomas: Do you, or maybe found more recent sources, found more recent interviews so that it would be that much more powerful. And the stuff about her story where they're talking about her lying about her story, like let's, let's even assume for the sake of our argument, let's grant that the, the SPLC has, you know, good reason here for her being on this list. Why all the crap about her lying about her story in 1992. What does that add to anything? It's like they're trying to tarnish her reputation. It's not enough to say, oh, she has said some things with some rhetoric we don't like about Islam. It is really kind of creepy how they go into her story and say she says she is a victim of FGM.

0:19:33 Thomas: I don't know. I found that pretty weird to me. Even if we grant, okay, she should be be on this list, why all the crap about, yeah, she admitted she made up her story to try to get uh asylum. She admitted that. And that was 24 years ago. What does that have to do with anything? It's like this... it's like they're trying to smear her entire character in order to make us feel better about her being on this list. Like, oh, no, no. Trust me. There's a lot about her. You know, what is it? I don't know. I'm not trying to say I know what their motives are, but it strikes me as weird that they would do that. I don't see how that's necessary.

0:20:14 Thomas: It's and, you know, she, she's, she was late on her cable bill in 1990. It's like, what does that have to do with what we're talking about? But okay, whatever. Let's move on from ION. I'm going to give, I'm gonna give that one. Like, I don't think she should be on there really, but, but I understand it. I think it's with the caveat that I wish they had just asked her to stand by these statements or not. And then we could have said, yeah, she stands by this. She thinks we're at war with Islam. And I get it. If you think we're at war with all of Islam, I mean, that is a little toxic. I could understand how an organization like the SPLC would be against you. But now we go on to Maajid Nawaz. And this is where I just flat out don't get it, I flat out don't get it! Let's read what they have to say about Maajid.

0:21:02 Thomas: Maajid Nawaz is a British activist and part of the ex-radical, in quotes, circuit of former Islamists who use that experience to savage Islam, right away, right away, we're already, you know, they're already talking as though this is just some ploy that he uses to savage islam, that's already assuming a lot, in my mind, continuing, His story, which has been told repeatedly in the British and American press and in testimony to legislators as well, sounds compelling enough. Nawaz says he grew up being attacked by neo-Nazi skinheads in the United Kingdom, spent almost four years in an Egyptian prison after joining the supposedly non-violent Islamist group, but had a change of heart while imprisoned and then returned to England to work against the radicalization of Muslims.

0:21:52 Thomas: But major elements of his story have been disputed by former friends, members of his family, fellow jihadists, and journalists, and the evidence suggests that Nawaz is far more interested in self-promotion and money than in any particular ideological dispute. What on earth? That is amazing to me. So all they're going to say, and there's no sources here, by the way. They don't cite any sources in this document. There's nothing. It's not like at the bottom, oh, there's a bunch of, have, you know, one, two, three, four, five, you know, 67 sources where we got all this information. I can look up all the accounts they're talking about. No, there's none of that. It just says, well, you know, it's disputed. And yeah, I mean, maybe, maybe he's lying about his story.

0:22:38 Thomas: I don't know. You haven't proven it. It's pretty easy, especially for someone who is maybe critical of Islam. It is very easy to find people who will smear them. I mean I I wouldn't take it either way. I wouldn't take it for granted that he's right or wrong. I don't think it's enough to just say his life story is disputed. And furthermore, what evidence do you have, which they haven't provided, by the way. There's no link here. Evidence is that he's far more interested in self-promotion than any particular ideological dispute. Like, that even matters. Why would that even matter? Let me give you the four possibilities to really simplify it. Now, we got two possibilities for this whole list.

0:23:26 Thomas: Either you're an anti-Muslim extremist or you're not, let's say. Black and white terms, just to simplify. If you are, you're apparently getting on this list. Not everybody is on this. It's not all inclusive. But let's see if you are and you're notable, you are in the press, whatever, you on this list. If not, it doesn't matter. And then let's look at the other two things in question here, whether you're more interested in self-promotion or in an ideological dispute. How does that factor in? Let's say you're anti-Muslim, but you're More interested in Self-Promotion. Does that matter? No, it still doesn't matter. You're still saying bigoted things. Now, let's say you're anti-Muslim, but you are actually genuine about it. You are not even trying to promote yourself or anything. Would the SPLC be like, oh, that's okay, as long as you're really honest about it?

0:24:16 Thomas: This has no impact. It's just another one of these weird things they did, like with Ayaan, to try to put into question his whole character. And his just gets worse. He told several different versions of his story, emphasizing that he was de-radicalized while in Egypt, even though, in fact, he continued his Islamist agitation for months after returning. After starting the Quilliam Foundation, which he describes as an anti-extremism think tank, Nawaz sent a secret list to a top British security official that accused peaceful Muslim groups, politicians, a television channel, and a Scotland Yard unit of sharing the ideology of terrorists, according to The Guardian. Now, let's check that out. There's more, but we better check out that claim.

0:25:00 Thomas: So it's pretty easy to find the original article, and it is a little bit disturbing, to be honest with you. If you go to the Guardian, I'll link it, there's a Guardian article that says that Quilliam provided a list. Here's what the accusation is. That Quilliam, which is Maajid Nawaz's organization, along with someone named Ed Hussein, that they provided a list to the British government of Islamic organizations that were not terrorist organizations, but that had the same ideology, but only differed in their tactics. So the accusation is that it was almost this McCarthyite list that Maajid, or I guess Quilliam, was sending to the government, and then the government was going to do something to these organizations in some way, I don't know, maybe monitor them or whatever the accusation would be.

0:25:54 Thomas: So that does sound not great. I could see, again, how the SPLC might react to that, but here's the thing. They have a response to it. Quilliam has had an official response to this since before today, you know, or before two weeks ago. They've had it for a while that they actually weren't providing, like, a terror list. They provided a document called Preventing Terrorism, Where Next for Britain, and this list of more mainstream Islamic or Muslim groups was a list that should remain legal. And they cite... An example in Parliament where Quilliam's chairman was quoted by the Prime Minister as supportive evidence for why a certain group should not be banned, so they have that for them.

0:26:45 Thomas: Now here's the thing, I don't totally know who I believe in this instance, it was a little weird that if you read, I'll link, again I'll provide links, but if you read the original Guardian article it was confidential list, it wasn't to be seen, it was leaked. So I don't know. I mean, there's an argument to go either side there. But here's the thing. Maajid is a Muslim. He still identifies as a Muslim, and he was even on the other side from Ayaan Hirsi Ali on a debate over whether Islam is a religion of peace. So you have someone on the other side of someone else on your list. So, you have Ayaans and ex-Muslims, sure. Maybe Maybe we grant, okay, sure, she's an ex-Muslim extremist, although I still don't think that's very accurate.

0:27:33 Thomas: But even if we grant that, another person on your list is a current Muslim who was once in a debate on whether or not Islam is a religion of peace on the other side of one of your other people on this list. That's a little sketchy to me. All right, I'm going to read on, and you'll see there's more stuff. So this is, again, back to the SPLC report. His Quilliam Foundation received more than 1.25 million pounds from the British government, but the government eventually decided to stop funding it. That doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Governments change. They might change their minds. I don't really understand why that matters. One of Nawaz's biggest purported coups was getting anti-Muslim extremist Tommy Robinson to quit as head of the violence-prone English Defense League, trumpeting his departure at a press conference.

0:28:22 Thomas: But Robinson later said that Quilliam had paid him some 8,000 pounds to allow Nawaz to take credit for what he had already planned to do. Shortly afterward, Robinson returned to anti-Muslim agitation with other groups. This is weird to me. Again, this is more hearsay. Not only that, what are we talking about here? This is on the list for why, uh, why Maajid is an anti-Muslim extremist, and an item, the last item on this list, what I just read, was that he tried to take credit for someone quitting an anti-Muslim group. So sure, if you want to say that the, if, if, if you think that he may be bribed or something, Robinson to take credit for something, that's an interesting news story or a piece of gossip that you would want to try to substantiate.

0:29:15 Thomas: But how that is evidence that he's anti-Muslim makes no sense to me. He's trying to take credit for someone quitting a violence-prone English Defense League anti-Muslim group. So do you see how that doesn't make sense? I don't understand why that's even on the list. All right, now we get to the in-his-own-words section, which they do for everybody, is where they quote their own words against them, apparently, the first item is that list we talked about, so I won't go over that again, but the quote is, the ideology of non-violent Islamists is broadly the same as that of violent Islamists, they disagree only on tactics, that's maybe true to me, I mean, maybe it's inflammatory, but I don't get why that, you would, you you would need to look into that.

0:30:03 Thomas: That's not, to me, that's not demonstrable or self-evidentially insane. You know, that'S not something that I hear and go, oh, that's an anti-Muslim extremist right there. I mean, if I said Christians who are violent only differ from regular mainstream Christians in their tactics, I might believe that. I I mean they're, for the most part, I mean they're going to be pro-choice or anti-choice, you know, pro-life, but maybe the difference would would be they wouldn't actually kill an abortion doctor or something, you know, something like that. Like, that's not, that doesn't sound to me like that inflammatory of a statement, but whatever. Well, maybe we can grant that one, I guess, but let's look at the other ones.

0:30:48 Thomas: In 2013, Nawaz called for criminalizing the wearing of the veil or niqab in many public places, saying it is not only reasonable, but our duty to insist individuals remove the veil when they enter identity-sensitive environments such as banks, airports, courts, and schools. Identity-sensitive environments. And I found another quote where he said, yeah, I was saying any place where we wouldn't allow like a motorcycle helmet, we shouldn't allow a niqab. Seems totally reasonable. But The SPLC has a response to this that I'll get to later. Let's finish these bullet points. 2014, Nawaz tweeted out, oh, this is the best, this the best. So, here's another bullet point as evidence for him being an anti-Muslim extremist.

0:31:36 Thomas: He tweeted out a cartoon of Jesus and Muhammad, despite the fact that many Muslims see it as blasphemous to draw Muhammad. He said that he wanted to carve out a space to be heard without constantly fearing the blasphemy charge. What even is the allegation there? Like, I don't even, it's so weird that that's viewed as some anti-Muslim extremist thing. As Maajid and others pointed out, it's only certain Muslims that even react that way to cartoons, not all of them do. So the idea that this is evidence that he's an anti-Muslim extremists when he himself is a Muslim and tweeted that cartoon out, and when he tweeted it, by the way, I've seen this tweet many times, he just said that he is not offended by it as a a Muslim. So he is not allowed to say, I'm not offended by this as a Muslim, and tweet it out, because that's, that is absurd.

0:32:26 Thomas: Absolutely terrible. This one is, this is amazing. Here's the final bullet point on in his own words. By the way, uh, this says in his own words, and there's no quote in this bullet point. Nawaz, who's described himself as a feminist in quotes, so that quote-unquote feminist, that's not an actual quote, was, quote, filmed repeatedly. And this is not a Maajid quote. So again, the section, I have to emphasize this. The section, the header is in his own words. And then here's the bullet point. Was filmed repeatedly trying to touch a naked lap dancer, according to an April 10th, 2015 report in the Daily Mail. The paper apparently got the security film from the owner of a strip club who was incensed by Nawaz's claims to be a religious Muslim.

0:33:13 Thomas: Wow. Wow. Now this, that is, that is absolutely insane. I cannot believe that they put this in this document. If I ask someone, what, so, you think, Maajid Nawaz is a dangerously, you know, anti-Muslim extremist, what's your evidence?, well, one time, he got a lap dance, and security showed he tried to touch the dancer, oh, and he calls himself a feminist, no, that still doesn't, that doesn't make any sense, that is ridiculous, this really feels like somebody at the SPLC, or involved in one of those other groups, maybe, has, like, an ax to grind with Maajid Nawaz and is just looking for anything they can, because really, what does that mean? Okay, so he's a Muslim who maybe doesn't always live up to what he says he believes.

0:34:05 Thomas: I mean, is that the bar we're setting for being a radically anti-Muslim extremist? That is unfathomable. I cannot believe this is in their document. That is a joke of an accusation. Describes himself as a feminist but was repeated, uh, filmed repeatedly trying to touch a naked lap dancer. Okay, don't touch a lap dancer, sure, but come on, I mean, that's your evidence that he's an anti-Muslim extremist? This is a joke. I really, I really, it's, it's distressing to see an organization like this publishing something that is so just bereft of any substance. This, this section on Maajid, and some of the other ones, sure, I mean, the other ones make sense, but this section on Maajid will call all of that into question.

0:34:56 Thomas: If this is what it takes to be an anti-Muslim extremist, I would not pay much credence to this list. This makes me question everybody on the list. If they wanted to just put the only thing which they really view as the issue, which is this list that he supposedly published, or sorry, didn't publish, he gave the government, the British government, then just put that, just say, uh, this is it. This is the only thing, but we think this is really bad.

But instead they have all this filler material, like, well, you know, people think he lied about his life. How does that make him anti-Muslim? Okay. So we got a response from the SPLC. I had Haley try to contact them, and she was sort of in contact with them a little bit, but they were not really talking to anybody, I was gonna try to interview somebody, but, they declined, they sent a letter that it seems as though they're sending to everybody, I will read this letter, the first part is for, actually, I'll read the whole thing, you know what, I think it's important, we appreciate your sharing your concern about our inclusion of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz in our booklet, Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists, we do, however, respectfully disagree with your critique, Let me explain our position here. You write in regard to Hirsi Ali, who has repeatedly called for the closing of Islamic schools. This is not taken out of context or interpretation.

Hirsi Ali also repeatedly claims that there is no moderate Islam, which verifies millions and millions of peaceful Muslims practicing their faith. Okay, sure. Oh, sorry, one more sentence. Also, our report does not claim that she advocates violence. Our concern is that here is the media employing individuals who depict the Muslim community unfairly and stereotypically.

0:36:39 Thomas: So that's what they're saying on Ayan, and, yeah, I mean, I can kind of see that, to be honest with you. Again, I have, I've a big problem with how they depicted her and, and talked about details from her life that made, make absolutely no difference to this, but anyway. Now let's go to Maajid. We respectfully disagree with your assessment that Nawaz is a non-extremist. Let me cite some examples as to why we came to this conclusion. For starters, his organization sent a letter to a security official, according to The Guardian, this is the letter we've talked about, that the ideology of non-violent extremists is broadly the same as that of violent extremists. The same letter also makes other wild accusations, including that Muslim groups, a television channel, and a Scotland Yard anti-terror unit share the ideology.

0:37:24 Thomas: The letter also says that the extremists are not only extremists, we make this point in our report. I already covered that. Now they give us something new. Last year, Nawaz said something similar about academic institutions in Britain in a piece for the New York Times. He wrote, In fact, academic institutions and Britain have been infiltrated for years by dangerous theocratic fantasists. This talk of infiltration and sharing of extremist Islamic ideas within academia and government is a common anti-Muslim trope. Other extremists in our report, such as Frank Gaffney and John Guandolo, have said similar things. Well, maybe they should have put this in their original report instead of the part about the stripper, which makes no difference to anything. So maybe that would have been a good idea.

0:38:11 Thomas: But I tracked down this New York Times quote, and I actually remember reading this at the time, he wrote this in March 3rd, 2015, and it was about Jihadi John, so let me give you the full context of that sentence, because Jihady John was revealed to be someone born in, a naturalized British citizen from London, so that's why he was writing about this, and the part in question says, many were shocked, that the apparent executioner in videos made by ISIS was an educated middle-class metropolitan. In fact, here's the quote, In fact academic institutions in Britain have been infiltrated for years by dangerous theocratic fantasists. And then he says, I should know I was one of them.

0:38:56 Thomas: So that lends a little more credence to the quote. And I'll read a little bit here. The University of Westminster is well known for being a hotbed of extremist activity. The university's Islamic society is heavily influenced, sometimes controlled by the radical Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, I don't know how to pronounce that, sorry, and regularly gives a platform to preachers of hate. On the very day of the Emwazi revelation, the university was to host a lecture by Hatham al-Haddad, a man accused of espousing homophobia, advocating FGM, and professing that Jewish people are descended from apes and pigs. The event was suspended not by the university authorities, but by the Islamic Society, which polled it only because of security concerns.

0:39:42 Thomas: There's links for all of that. So I could read on, but he substantiates that. He says, here's what I mean. This is happening. I think that's a pretty weak quote. So that's what we've got. Let me go back to the response again. So I've covered that. So the response continues. Continues. I'd like to add that the calling for a ban of any religious dress is indeed extreme, regardless of the religious institution. Calling for a band on the niqab is akin to banning a kippah. I don't know what that is. Daniel Pipes, another extremist on this list, has also called for a similar ban. The calls are contrary to religious freedom. Well, he said only where identity is in question. That's what he said. I mean, that doesn't, that's not extreme. If you need to be identified, purified, you shouldn't be allowed to wear something that covers your face.

0:40:31 Thomas: That's pretty basic. Finally, in reference to the Jesus and Moe cartoon tweet, depicting the Prophet Muhammad in any form is a very offensive thing for Muslims, but of course is protected by the First Amendment as it should be. Well, he was in Britain, so that makes no difference. What are you talking about the First amendment? Let me be clear that we do not claim in the report that this was hate speech. Other examples of Nawaz's problematic positions are included in our report. So it continues, news. I'm sorry that you disagree with our conclusions, and we greatly appreciate your support of Southern Poverty Law Center. Sincerely, Heidi Beirich, Director, Intelligence Project. So this is incredibly weak to me. Very weak. Now look, I could be sold on Ayan. I get it. Some of her rhetoric is a little... I get It, you know? I kind of get it, to be honest with you.

0:41:18 Thomas: It's a little violent rhetoric. She minimizes the idea that there can be moderate Muslims. Lots of stuff stuff like that that I understand. Maajid, there's no case for it here. It's ridiculous. The Jesus and Moe cartoon thing is terrible. That makes no sense. He tweeted it. He said, as a Muslim, this doesn't offend me. And you're saying that puts him on a list of 15 radically anti-Muslim extremists. Now, that is just not rational. So, in conclusion, I think that this list is not necessarily a terrible idea. I think it's okay to want to call it a question and to call out some of these people. I will even be so charitable as to say that Ayaan maybe can be on this list.

0:42:06 Thomas: However, the details about her personal life and family and her becoming, the lies she told about her person life, not relevant. She admitted them, they're not relevant, nothing to do with anything, merely a smear tactic or some, I mean, really, what is the point of that? And finally, the addition of Maajid on the list is, is just completely backwards, words, completely counter to what you're trying to do. It's going to make people like me doubt the entire list. It is going to, it's going make people, like me, doubt the entire Southern Poverty Law Center. If you're doing this kind of lazy, uh, I don't know, agenda driven work, it just feels like a grudge to me. Really does. What the part about him, you know, being caught on camera, trying to touch a stripper, you drunk at a strip club.

0:42:55 Thomas: What, what does that have to do with the a list. That makes him an anti-Muslim extremist. We're going to have a lot of anti-muslim extremists. I'm not defending that behavior, by the way. Don't try to touch anyone who doesn't want to be touched, of course. But what does that have to do with anything? Are we really? I mean, that is, that is it seems like a pretty close to ad hom as could be. It's like we he's an anti Muslim Muslim extremist.

Here's why we caught him doing a bad thing that we don't like, that has nothing to do with anything. That's why he should be on this list. I mean, terrible, absolutely terrible.

So So here's the thing, it's sounding like, from Haley's correspondence with the SPLC, that we may be able to get a comment from them, maybe, so let me know what you would like to ask them, I don't know that they're going to answer anything too terribly, probably confrontational, or, you know, I don't think they're gonna, I think writing them a gotcha question really does a whole lot, because I feel like they just won't respond, but, I'm thinking maybe we can get them to respond if we ask them a question the right way, I have my thoughts, but I'm curious, if you have any thoughts, what you would ask, in a diplomatic way, put yourself in the position where you want to get a response from them, getting no response is worthless, that doesn't do anything, we can send a totally agitated question at them all day, I don't think it's going to do anything, but if you could think of, if, if you're someone who maybe is a tactful and somebody who considers himself measured and able to, you know, formulate your thoughts in a way that would, would get them to answer your question, feel free to comment, shoot me an email, shoot me whatever, um, what you would ask.

0:44:37 Thomas: I've got, I have my inclinations, but I'm, I'm open to input on this cause I couldn't quite decide. Um, and I don't know, we can try multiple questions. We'll see if we get any comment. My guess is they're just not going to bother, but I'm going to give it a try. We'll see what we can do. So thanks That's that in terms of the SPLC and their little list of anti-Islamic extremists, or anti-Muslim extremists. I want to thank Haley a lot for all the research and work she did on this. Very, very valuable stuff, and she's the reason why we might be able to get a comment from them. We'll see. So thank you so much for that, Haley. And also, I want say I've got a great interview you lined up with Michael A. Wood Jr. I've already recorded it, in fact, nice and long.

0:45:23 Thomas: That will be Thursday, and that will finally be my first two-parter in a while because it's very long, so I can't avoid it. It's too big of a file. So that'll be a two-part, which means, of course, patrons at patreon.com/atheist will get the second part early, so that's a little incentive to do that. And I think that's all I have for you today. Thank you so much. I had an entire another section planned just in case, because I have, I'm very bad at knowing how long something's going to take for me to talk about it, but I want to save it. I'll, I'll add it to the queue. It's not very time sensitive. So, uh, I will do it maybe next week, the week after. So don't worry about that. This was plenty enough for one episode on the SPLC. Thank you so much for listening.

0:46:09 Thomas: And I will see you guys on Thursday. Oh, yeah, one more thing, vote! Vote! It's not enough to just vote for Hillary, by the way, which is what I advocate, that's my, the official position of the show. It's also, it's the down-ballot elections. That's a reason, in my research that I've done, my, in actually becoming more interested in politics, that one thing I'm pretty disappointed in liberals for is we don't vote in the down ballot elections, we don't vote in off years. So, this'll be especially, I'll remind you next year, the year after, every year that's not a presidential election. But, yeah, please vote, it makes a difference. Thank you, see you next time.