Header Graphic



Syndicate this site (XML)

Powered by
Movable Type 3.121

« 24 November. The God Gene | Main | 30 Nov 04. More Papua »

25 November

Recently I was having an email conversation with a member of the Socialist Workers Party. He didn't like what I'd written about the SWP's hijacking of the European Social Forum and had written to tell me why. He spent some time explaining that 'political movements need leadership', and that the SWP's job was to provide it. Whether I liked it or not, he said, the masses need a revolutionary party to tell them what's good for them. Suggesting otherwise was pie-in-the sky romanticism.

It was all very predictable, depressing and fruitless, until we started talking about Iraq. Didn't he think, I asked, that the job of the British left now, whatever they thought of the initial invasion, was to get behind the Iraqi trade unions, radicals and reformers who are trying to ensure that post-Saddam Iraq ends up as at least a passing imitation of a fair society? The stark alternatives, after all, are a US client corpocracy or a Taliban-style Islamist junta. Look, I said, here's an article by Nick Cohen which makes this point rather well, if typically aggressively.

The Comrade's reply was simple: Cohen, he said, was 'Islamophobic.' There was, therefore, no reason to discuss his points any further. This verdict, it was clear, was supposed to end the matter.

Curious, I wrote back to him and asked him what 'Islamophobic' actually meant. I also asked him how it could apply to Cohen who had, after all, been suggesting that we all work with the Iraqi left, most of whom are presumably, er, Muslims. I didn't get a reply. Perhaps he had decided that I was 'Islamophobic' too, and thus dangerous to associate with.

This sort of woolly, accusatory rubbish is getting more common by the day. I've lost count of the number of times that I've heard unthinking lefties throw the term 'Islamophobic' at anyone who even questions the tenets or practices of Islam. I'm not sure when the British left decided that its primary duty was the unquestioning defence of one particular monotheistic religion, but it could lead them into a political cul-de-sac even deeper than the one they're already in.

Which is one reason I'm bothered about the announcement made in the Queen's Speech that a new crime of 'incitement to religious hatred' is to be put on the statute books. What does this mean? How is it defined? Who will be silenced by it? The suggestion that publicly criticising a religion is to be, potentially, a criminal offence is a deeply disturbing one. Some people compare the proposed law to anti-racist legislation, without confronting the blindingly obvious point that criticising someone for the skin colour they happen to be born with and criticising the religious doctrines and practices that they choose to live by are very, very different things.

This is a law which could used by extremists from every religion, from anti-abortionists to homophobes, to attempt to silence legitimate criticism of their grim beliefs. There's a good debate here which explores its pros and cons much more intelligently than I've done. I recommend it.

Oh, and, for anyone out there who's decided by now that I'm obviously 'Islamophobic' myself, have a look at this site, home to a Muslim woman who has made it her duty to publicly break her silence on the worst forms of her religion. You might find it confusing but hey, life is complex.

Posted by paul at November 25, 2004 12:21 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.paulkingsnorth.net/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/12

Comments

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?