This article is presumably going to get flagged, but I would accuse Mr. Hari of dishonesty here. His original piece gave the impression that Dubai was a total hell on earth, totally beyond redemption. From reading his article, I got the impression that human rights are vastly more respected in Britain than in Dubai. If this is his belief (and not just my impression,) then he should defend it, instead of hiding behind "the world is not divided into a Block of Light and a Block of Darkness."
(I thought his Dubai piece was long on opinion and short on facts, but that is neither here nor there.)
You're falling into the exact same fallacy he's pointing. Why should he start defending a position he never expressed? There are many things you can "get the impression that". Why would you hang on to them and not address the main points, which are as big and visible as a painted target?
As for the rebuttal, it didn't even try to address the original article. It just tried to change the discussion to a more favorable position.
It's not just my impression: "This is a city built from nothing in just a few wild decades on credit and ecocide, suppression and slavery. Dubai is a living metal metaphor for the neo-liberal globalised world that may be crashing – at last – into history."
Al Qassemi seems to say that one could draw a similarly broad and misleading conclusion about Britain. Maybe Hari should at least address this point. I mean, he hints that the answer is yes, and such a conclusion is valid, but he never says it.
EDIT: On second thought, I'm making exactly the same mistake he's pointing out.
(I thought his Dubai piece was long on opinion and short on facts, but that is neither here nor there.)