Why pick on Pipes?

PipesIn a recent email to Islamophobia Watch, George Carty writes: “…why have you included a lot of stuff about Daniel Pipes – a pretty bog-standard neoconservative – but nothing about far more extreme Muslim-haters such as Ali Sina (http://www.faithfreedom.org) or Jamie Glazov (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/authors.asp?ID=3)? It pains me to see Glazov’s sexualized ranting, or the warmongering of Victor Davis Hanson, go unrefuted. By the way I suggest you link to LGF Watch at lgfwatch.blogspot.com and Warblogger Watch at warbloggerwatch.blogspot.com.”

I suppose the reason for picking on Daniel Pipes is that he does exercise (or has done in the past) some influence on mainstream politics in the United States. Although Pipes now seems to have been rather sidelined by the administration, in 2003 Bush asserted his presidential powers to ensure Pipes’ appointment to the board of the United States Institute of Peace, overruling objections by a Senate committee. Last year, through his widely published articles on the issue, Pipes played an important role in justifying the decision by the Department of Homeland Security to withdraw Tariq Ramadan’s work permit and prevent him taking up his post at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana.

The other figures mentioned by George have received some coverage on Islamophobia Watch, and perhaps should have received more. But there is the question (and the same consideration applies to reporting the postings on Jihad Watch) as to whether comprehensively covering the ravings of individuals from the lunatic fringe of the US Right gives undue weight to their views. See for example yesterday’s demented rant by Ali Sina on FaithFreedom.org.

Of course, I lack any in-depth knowledge of US politics, and perhaps people like Sina have more influence than I attribute to them.

If anyone feels we’ve missed out on any relevant material please email us the details at editorial@islamophobiawatch.co.uk