The above discussion from last week features Douglas Murray, Maajid Nawaz, Brendan O’Neill and Simone Rodan. The event was organised by the Central Synagogue in London in conjunction with the Henry Jackson Society.
Thanks to @MehrdadAmanpour for tweeting link to.
Photo from Central Synagogue here.
The video is almost two hours long, but if pushed for time here is Maajid’s 11 minute speech during:
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
[This article, minus cartoons of Mohammed, can now be read on Huffington Post]
Imagine university students concerned about a platform being given by their debating society to a “radical feminist” that took a chainsaw to a crucifix while bare breasted. As far as they are concerned, it goes against religious sensibilities, is playing to the patriarchy that sexually objectifies women. Other students see her as anti sexual workers, given the early beginnings of the feminist movement she is a part of. What unites them is their tactic of no platforming by protest and if needs be direct action so the event gets canceled.
The person described is Inna Shevchenko, and she was speaking at a Copenhagen cafe this Valentines Day, when a gunman opened fire from outside, having been denied entry. His contribution to the “Art, blasphemy and the freedom of expression” debate being hosted was firing over thirty bullets. A Danish film maker was killed and five police officers injured. Later he went to a Synagogue celebrating a bat mitzvah, where a security guard barred entry to him. The gunman killed him before fleeing.
Silence falls in many ways. One by the sound of the gun having the last word with the victim. Threats of violence, as the fatwa on Salman Rushdie for writing The Satanic Verses. The debate in the cafe was marking the anniversary of that fatwa. Then the fear of meeting with people at such venues, or debating such topics openly – the very reason the event continued in the aftermath.
Lars Vilks, who organized the debate in Copenhagen, drew this cartoon of Mohammed as part dog.
Some conservative Muslims see dogs as unclean. Also, as you are no doubt aware, drawing Mohammed can be extremely hazardous to your health. I have already written about Charlie Hebdo and the need to be more outraged at drawing blood than drawing cartoons. Here the point is as Islam is for human rights and animal rights, than assaulting or cruelty to other living beings would be as an assault on the prophet. Nothing artistic should provoke you into such an action because of your faith.
That was his point in 2007. In 2015 despite activists and cartoonists being shot at and killed, we still have to contend with such messages as: do not provoke.
Even after Paris, even after Denmark, we must guard against the understandable temptation to be provocative in the publication of these cartoons if the sole objective is to establish that we can do so. With rights to free speech come responsibilities.
That seems to me the moral approach, but there is a practical issue here too. There is no negotiating with men with guns. If progress is to come, it will be via dialogue with the millions of faithful Muslims who would never think to murder but also abhor publication of these cartoons. We cannot have that conversation in a time and spirit of provocation. And to have it would not be an act of weakness. The strong approach is not necessarily to do what is possible, but to do what is right.
So ends Hugh Mir in The Guardian. Well, there is a point to the cartoon above. Which can only really be described by showing. Lars Vilks and the people at the cafe, need support and solidarity rather than – you are part of the problem. As Inna states “We are in the middle of ideological war in Europe.They fight us with guns,we have to fight them with cartoons, street protests, speeches etc.”
If Charlie Hebdo, Lars Vilks, Raif Badawi, Aliaa Elmahdy, FEMEN & others would NOT be alone in this fight, we would NOT become a [target].
This is how solidarity works. I do not think religion, Gods or prophets are anymore than fictions, which at best promote a common heritage, helping to shape a shared cultural identity and legacy. At worst, they become dogmatic, resilient to freethought and ideas which challenge their perceived wisdom in society. At their deadliest, extremism calls for blood for blasphemy in an ideal religious state. Fundamentalists are not prepared to wait for such a state, and will carry out the sentence anywhere in the world, against muslim and non muslim alike.
I recognise not all Muslims are extremists let alone fundamentalists in Europe and bigotry suggesting that they all are needs calling out for what it is. It would be ridiculous to excuse attacks on muslims because of the foreign policy of Saudi Arabia which has funded and exported extreme salafism around the world. Yet when it comes to attacks on Jews this has been readily excused as being provoked by the actions of Israel against the Palestinians (from conversation here). Anti-semitism might get mentioned as a factor, or dismissed entirely as Karen Armstrong did:
“We’re piling all the violence of the 21st Century on the back of religion, sending it away, saying we have nothing to do with religion. While we still have to deal with the political situation. The supermarket attack in Paris was about Palestine, about Isis. It had nothing to do with antisemitism; many of them are Semites themselves.
It feels that some are in denial that anti-semitism exists, just as anti-muslim hatred exists. Make it all political, all about foreign policy, forget religious extremism and hatred and that part of the problem is supposed to go away. To not provoke is to accept blasphemy as a social taboo even for an innocuous cartoon – as Maajid Nawaz tweeted of Mohammed saying “How ya doin’?”
That tweet, and the fallout that followed, was a year ago. Since we have seen blood spilt over the issue in Paris and Copenhagen. We have seen what religious hatred can do in a kosher supermarket and outside synagogue. A rise in attacks on muslims too. Now is the time for us all to speak up for each other’s rights.
Instead, far from showing that support even if you disagree, I am left wondering if Inna would be allowed to speak at all English Universities. As a letter to The Observer from academics and others made clear:
“No platforming” used to be a tactic used against self-proclaimed fascists and Holocaust-deniers. But today it is being used to prevent the expression of feminist arguments critical of the sex industry and of some demands made by trans activists.
This came to a head with the recent cancellation of comedian Kate Smurthwaite’s show. As Nick Cohen explains:
Last week, students at Goldsmiths College in London banned a performance by the fantastic feminist comedian Kate Smurthwaite in an act of neurotic prudery that bordered on the insane. Her show was on freedom of speech – yes, yes, I know. She told me that Goldsmiths did not close it because of what she had planned to say, but because she had once said that the police should arrest men who go with prostitutes and that she was against patriarchal clerics forcing women to wear the burqa. In the demonology of campus politics, these were not legitimate opinions that could be contested in robust debate. They marked her as a “whoreophobe” and “Islamophobe”, who must be silenced.
Nick talks about other things happening – lecturers told not to discuss religion or feminism, secular groups banned from displaying Charlie Hebdo survival front cover. “Rather than being free institutions where the young could expand their minds, British universities were becoming “theological colleges” where secular priests enforced prohibitions.”
By student groups actively no platforming, young people are themselves prohibiting the very controversy, offense and contrarian opinion which civil society needs to inform, stimulate and educate. Right now, people are failing to show solidarity when gunmen strike. Instead the message is do not provoke, do not dare to express anything that will inflame sensibilities. Do not even learn how to make a counter argument to those that you disagree with. Win by not letting them show up.
We cannot stop being alive, we cannot stop noticing the harm religious extremism and hatred causes. We will point out what fundamentalists are trying to do. We will show the limits they try to impose. We will show how people give tacit let alone explicit support to those that wish atheists, apostates and blasphemers dead.
The least you can do is not sympathise with the gunman as you blame the victim. If you are not prepared to take a flying bullet for them, you may at least be prepared to give a platform to the people that face them from fundamentalists.
Fight the fear together not alone.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Tristram Hunt, the shadow Education Secretary, has been accused of making derogatory remarks about nuns and faith, when remarking about the education of another panelist on BBC Question Time.
If you watch the video, you can see that Tristram Hunt was making the point that qualified teachers in the state system were preferable to non qualified teachers. He however agrees that nuns, and faith schools, may have an ethos that can coexist with state system. His suggestion, “they were nuns”, is suggesting being a nun they were better than most unqualified teachers.
This however has become for some a discussion about Labour being anti-faith rather than promoting qualified people who know how to teach children in the state classroom. Context is everything – Labour have recently announced making LGBT inclusive in sex education for state schools. Also, Tristram Hunt has said Ofsted should be able to scrutinise and review faith schools just as they do in the state system. For religious school supporters, fearful of what the aftermath to the Trojan horse affair may mean when British values go against religious claims, the axe was already sharpened to swing at a whiff of provocation.
Tristram has a belief in faith schools. It is shocking that nuns are automatically assumed to be better than most non qualified teachers. Any more than Mother Teresa being held up as a model of palliative “spiritual suffering” care over medicine and health care. This due reverence for clerics I was shocked out of at an early age. Reading Hitchens meticulously researched book should break the spell for others.
I have mentioned before about nuns providing respite for my disabled brother when we were kids. To give some details of their care, his fingertips were bloodied when cutting his finger nails. He was allowed to get into a scalding hot bath that terrified him for about ten years getting into another. He was chastised when displaying his mannerisms of uncontrollable movement.
As the only respite centre in the vicinity, there was no where else for my sleep deprived mother to use.
The change in my brother when social services kicked the Sisters out and placed professional carers in was immense. Not having untrained inexperienced amateurs, always out of their depth with the most challenging of children, made a difference.
Watch the video again. Tristram, like myself, is stressing the point that trained qualified staff are key for children – I would go further and say nuns need it too. Perhaps a supposed sneering manner detracts from what should be a universal point. I only wish a party would stand on a platform of secular education for all children. That will be a generational change. It is not for a close run election this year. Another reason for hyping this story.
My anecdote is not an end of the discussion anymore than someone having a great education at a faith school. (Read here for essay on secular versus faith schooling).
The people looking after your children and educating them should be trained, professional, and know what they are doing. It is no use just relying on a wing and a prayer. A child’s education takes precedence over religious instruction. The difference in grades are more to do with socio economic backgrounds, which faith schools can select for.
Whether teachers should be supplemented by experts, or educational motivators (imagine Stephen Fry talking about Shakespeare for a class) in their field who lack teacher training is a different point. For that, head teachers should be able to make a call based on what improves the educational experience of their students.
Here is a snap shot of how Tristram’s remarks have played out on twitter.
For once I am sparing you the tweet puns – breaking the habit of a lifetime.
However, this outspoken secular blogger suggests Tristram was not attacking religious faith schools. Labour policy may be reducing the exemptions religious schools have enjoyed. That is enough to blow this all out of proportion.
Ninety days to polling day. For God’s sake publish your manifestos quickly so we can talk about something substantive.
Update:
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Filed under British Politics, British Society, Culture, politics, Religion, secular
The articles of a thousand words, detailing what is wrong with Charlie Hebdo continue. A quick line or two condemn the murder of the cartoonists. Then the rest of the piece that in life they were out of order to satirise and lampoon religion and the religious.
More weight to the sensitivities of chest beaters proclaiming their adoration of Mohammed than to the loved ones of those murdered in cold blood. We are told the cartoons far from mocking racists with their own imagery, played into their hands to create division and hatred in society.
Ignoring that the attack that killed Muslims and Jews at the Kosher supermarket in Paris showed hatred against citizens that come together to live as one. This religious violence barely gets a mention that it is designed to expand the fault line through society to emphasise difference and provoke a chain reaction.
How does Islamism try to use the politics of identity?
“The prospect is groomed into identifying him or herself only as a Muslim, and feel kinship with only other followers of Mohammed. Solidarity is thus restricted solely to those who share the same faith.[Source]”
The majority of articles against Charlie Hebdo reinforce this, that Muslims must react as a monolith against any depiction of Mohammed. When we speak up that free speech guarantees freedom of religion, we are accused of supporting a system that targets and abuses the feelings of minorities. That satirising religion is cover for attacking Muslims.
That narrative needs challenging – all religions and religious figures are targets for satire and being made fun of. No one gets an exception, and that some try to by killing cartoonists, translators or threatening authors is a disgrace.
Our reaction must be to condemn the murder of people, beyond anyone’s hurt religious sensibility. The weight of our indignation must be against bloodshed. It must be for freedom to be true to ourselves, free to express, and to live as our conscience dictates without fear of reparisal for an opinion.
Or else we have a fucking problem.
Maajid Nawaz in the video talks about Raif Badawi – sentenced to ten years and a thousand lashes. For blogging that the theocratic regime of Saudi Arabia was at odds with what Islam teaches, and for advocating liberal principles.
We need to be moved against the violence of religious fundamentalism far more than demands of religious piety and outrage against a cartoon.
To confuse the bigotry of the far right that sees all Muslims as following an evil ideology with Charlie Hebdo is nonsensical. Racists attempt to make “the” Muslims all the same and other to us – do not oblige them by saying all Muslims must react the same.
That reaction does not have to be uniform as so many commentators suggest. You can choose to be outraged or not to give a flying duck. You have the power, not satirists or terrorists. Think for yourself.
Those that draw blood, not those that draw, are the enemies of religion. Time to focus more on those that will kill and torture in the name of your God over those that lampoon him and his messenger. Or else humanity is losing the plot.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
A 16 year old for posting via Facebook the cartoon on the left (a parody of the one on the right that was by Charlie Hebdo) is to be placed on probation and to be indicted. The call is for judicial “extreme reactivity” to such things.
The Charlie Hebdo cartoonists would be turning in their graves. The Muslim Brotherhood protestors, even with faith on their side, could not withstand the bullets of the army crushing any dissent to the Egyptian coup. The islamist democratic idea in Egypt was literally killed.
So much for religion, it does not make you bullet proof in your defiance. You die, and can be suppressed as any other mortal. Which is where the mock cover makes the point. The defiance of Charlie Hebdo in printing the cartoons they wanted was not going to save them. Maybe they never thought it would really come to this, that their lives would be taken.
Putting school children before the courts for what they say is a right French farce. This should not surprise you though:
In 2008, when Nicolas Sarkozy was President, a man in a crowd refused to shake his hand. Sarkozy said angrily, “Casse-toi, pauv’con!,” which means something like “Get lost, stupid jerk.” But when a protester later brought a sign reading “Casse-toi, pauv’con!” to a public meeting attended by Sarkozy, the man was arrested and brought up on charges. According to French law, the President of the Republic can insult you, but you can’t insult him—even with his own words. [The New Yorker]
How the criminalisation of school children is supposed to make the streets of Paris safe is anyone’s guess. Rather, it smacks of inequality of citizens. No Republic deserves to stand if it cannot grasp that.
Live up to égalité if you also truly want to mean it when you say “Je suis Charlie.” Or fail the Republic as the hypocrites you are. Sycophants to Liberty, whom you speak against behind her back, while claiming to be right behind her.
Hat tip Sunny Hundal.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
If not on the blog, probably covered on twitter.
Huffington Blog Posts Click Below
Homo economicus' Weblog 