Mr. Pipes rightly complains, but the choice of company?

Submitted by Malcolm (Israel), Sep 20, 2018 at 14:01

Mr. Pipes had every right to visit the leaders of three political parties that have shaken up the European political scene because they address vital issues that other parties sought to evade. He did not deserve to be vilified in such manner in the local press. Nevertheless, one wonders why he chose the company of Hopkins and Robinson, inevitably inviting those locals to pigeonhole him as one of their like, although Mr. Pipes soars above them in both academic acuity and political sagacity.

Hopkins managed to lose well-paid jobs at the Sun, LBC and the Daily Mail Online by ill-chosen language, such as calling for a "final solution" for Islamic terrorism. She has now filed for "individual voluntary arrangements" to avoid bankruptcy after losing that libel case brought by Jack Monroe. The latter offered to settle with her for an apology and a gift of £5,000 to a charity, but Hopkins refused. Result: £24,000 in damages to Monroe, £107,000 in costs to Monroe's lawyers and a rumored £300,000 owed to her own lawyers.

As for Robinson, a series of British commentators whose own views are close to Mr. Pipes have pointed out that Americans are falsely adulating Robinson in total misunderstanding of the UK's sub judice laws and vast exaggeration of Robinson's contribution to exposing grooming gangs. Recently, the article of Melanie Phillips on "The Tommy Robinson Circus of Fools."

Please, Mr. Pipes, keep up your invaluable political analysis, but make a more selective choice of company.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".