The phrase ‘never apologise, never explain because it is a sign of weakness’ which is claimed to have been popularised by John Wayne in the film ‘She Wore a Yellow Ribbon’, is probably not a good way to get through life in general. I believe we should, if we are to be decent human beings, always admit where we are definitively at fault. It is right for example that I should apologise if, whilst being careless, I let a shop door bang in someone’s face, or if I make an assumption when writing a news article that later turns out to be false. Such apologies are both the morally correct thing to do and the polite thing to do.
However there is one particular area where apologies and explanations should never or very rarely be employed and that is in politics. In this arena, apologies and explanations can be ruthlessly exploited by opponents and any act of appeasement to the person or group who is being apologised to, will almost inevitably be turned against the apologiser. This applies especially when we are dealing with those from cultures and who follow ideologies that have no moral qualms about exploiting the weaknesses of non-believers.
One case that illustrates this starkly is that of the Scottish Labour councillor for Dumfries and Galloway, Jim Dempster. Mr Dempster is alleged to have made, as should be his absolute right to do so, some none too complimentary comments about the ideology of Islam. He also cracked a joke about Scottish National Party Transport Minister Humza Yousaf not being recognisable if he wore a burkha. There are also claims, unproven as far as I can tell, that have been made that he once, at some point in the past, chased an Asian child with an air freshener complaining about the smell of curry. It needs to be emphasised that these alleged incidents are said to have taken place approximately 25 years ago and are vehemently denied by Mr Dempster (Editors note: People change, I know that, as roughly about the same time as these alleged incidents happened, I can recall being a leftist and railing against the government of John Major).
I can’t help but wonder whether such claims against Mr Dempster may never have been made if he had not taken the route of apology and appeasement, a route that has been mercilessly exploited by Humza Yousef and others? Are these claims based in truth, or opportunistic publicity chasing or even taqiyya? At this stage I do not know. I shall reserve judgement on them for the moment as they are not relevant to the core of this piece, which is about how Humza Yousef is trying to destroy a man for having a negative opinion about Islam.
Whether you agree with Mr Dempster’s opinion on Islam or not, he should have a right to voice his opinions and not be forced to abase himself by Humza Yousef, a man with, according to the Bare Naked Islam site, significant familial connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. One of whom, his cousin, a cousin that Yousef didn’t break contact with, is alleged to have scammed £400k from the Scottish Government to put on an ‘IslamExpo’ that didn’t materialise, although a significant proportion of the money seems to mysteriously dematerialised . Unsurprisingly, with connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, influence within the SNP and an interest in pushing Islam in Scotland, Humza Yousef brooks no challenge of or debate about Islam. It’s plain to see that Humza Yousef wants Mr Dempster’s metaphorical head on a platter and he is exploiting both Mr Dempster’s unwise apology and whatever bit of dirt he can find on him, whether it is true or false.
Mr Dempster has attempted to appease his way out of the criticism he got for the Burka joke he made about Humza Yousef and other comments he made about Islam. He has signed up for one of the increasingly sinister diversity re-education classes that are offered to ‘thought criminals’ who perceive that Islam is not a religion of peace and he has grovelled before various Imams and Islamic ‘community leaders’. However none of it suffices to placate Humza Yousef, a man who it has been claimed saw Scottish independence under a left wing government as a way to advance Islam in Scotland and has also worked in the past for Islamist-linked charities such as Islamic Relief. If nothing else it shows that Humza Yousef, a long time Islamic agitator in Scotland and on the Scottish Left, knows that it is on the political Left, such as the SNP, that one will find some of the most egregious and outrageous Quislings for Islam.
This case also shows that appeasement of Islam and the appeasement of those like Humza Yousef, with disgraceful hand-wringing apologies and penance tours of mosques, will, like all attempts to appease ones enemies, end up in disaster for the appeaser. Appeasement has never worked. It didn’t work against the great and terrible tyrants of the 20th century and neither does it work against the tyrannical ideologies that threaten us today, ideologies such as Islam
If we look at the case of Jim Dempster and take out the disputed and ancient history incident with the air freshener, then what we have here is another case where a Muslim is trying to shut down negative opinions of Islam. The bluster, emoting and claims of ‘racism’ and ‘Islamophobic’ slurs that Humza Yousef is directing towards Mr Dempster are tactics he is employing in order to frighten people away from speaking against Islam. It turns out that Humza Yousef has a fair bit of form in this area, as he has very much taken the lead in attacking groups that purport to speak out against Islam and against Islamification, groups such as the Scottish Defence League.
It’s looking as if Humza Yousef may be able to destroy Jim Dempster’s political career with the smear tactics and the refusal to let this matter lie. What is plain to me is that he may be able to do that because Mr Dempster showed weakness by issuing his apology.
I can’t help but wonder if things would have been any worse for Mr Dempster if he had stuck to his guns about Islam? Maybe if had cracked more anti-Islam and burka jokes and told the sort of home truths about Islam that many of us want to hear from our politicians, things would have turned out for him exactly the same. He might still have lost his career with the Labour Party, but he would have kept his honour and self-respect intact. When I see a person like Jim Dempster doing the penance tours of mosques and issuing abject and grovelling apologies for ‘offending’ Islam and Muslims, I don’t see a man any more, I just see a sleazy opportunist who will sell his own soul in order to hang onto his political career.
Jim Dempster appears to have shown an appalling degree of stupidity and weakness by his apologies and appeasement, and it hasn’t helped him one little bit. He’s still going to be shafted by Scotland’s Left wing Establishment whether he’d apologised or not. If he believes that Islam is a threat, as many others of us do, then it would have been better to have stood by those views as it would have cost him the same or less to be unrepentant as it has for him to be show repentance and grovel before the Islamic ‘community leaders’.
This case is a prime example of why appeasing Islam and its followers in order to keep one’s social position is a doomed and pointless activity. Jim Dempster took the path of appeasement and not only has it failed miserably, but he now looks to some observers of this story, like a man with little or no self-respect. With Islam, if you apologise, you lose, every damn time and Jim Dempster is very likely to find this out. Those who you appease will always, without fail, like a blackmailer, want more than you should and could give.
