Recent nonsense from the Standard (and other places)
In the same way as the Windsors are Britain’s best royal family and George W Bush is the best President the USA has at the moment, the Evening Standard is London’s best evening newspaper. As long as I can remember, it has included on its banner “incorporating the EVENING NEWS”, the market having demonstrated however many decades ago that, however many newspapers we can sustain in the morning, in the evening there’s only room for one. Or perhaps it was just that the Standard was able to force the News down because it also had the power of the Daily Mail. Whatever. What’s clear is that the lack of competition does not exactly motivate the Standard to get its facts right. In the wake of the 7th July bombings, it has circulated demonstrably false information on several occasions.
I’d like to use my inaugural posting to debunk a few myths which have been circulating in the last two-and-a-half weeks.
1. Brixton mosque is a hotbed of Islamic extremism
The mosque we’re talking about is in Gresham Road, across the road from Brixton police station. The Standard, on page 6 of the 22nd July “West End Final” edition (headline “Get Them”), printed a story headlined “Anonymous mosque that is hotbed of radicalism”, with a picture of the Gresham Road mosque.
The story contains nothing whatsoever about the present administration of the mosque or its regulars. Instead, there’s the usual story about how Abdullah “el-Faisal” used to be its imam and how Richard Reid passed through there on his journey to al-Qa’ida and that aeroplane he tried to blow up.
Facts: Brixton mosque is controlled by the wing of the Salafi (Wahhabi) sect influenced by the Saudi scholar Rabi’ ibn Hadi al-Madkhali, which is opposed to all of the political movements which have attached themselves to Wahhabism since the 1950s. This is the same clique which runs Salafi Publications, based in Birmingham, and TROID (The Reign of Islamic Da’wah, based in Toronto). Their various websites contain myriad condemnations of Sayyid Qutb and his followers, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Gulf and Jordanian scholars who are influenced by them, and unequivocally condemn suicide bombing. In fact, the issue of Abdullah Faisal was raised by Abdul-Haqq Baker, the chairman of the mosque – the first time I heard him called “el-Faisal” was when I heard Baker interviewed on the radio, before the Times broke the story.
Having listened to a number of Faisal’s tapes myself, I can state unequivocally that Faisal is no longer associated with them. In his tape The Devil’s Deception of the Saudi Salafis, he states that the “worst Salafis” are those of south London, particularly Brixton mosque. He calls them “mega hypocrites” and accuses some of them of trying to deceive the Muslims about their piety with big beards and thobes (Arabian robes). His attacks on their black Saudi-trained preachers are vitriolic.
The mosque has not always been controlled by the present group; it was set up initially by a Jamaican who had travelled to Ethiopia in search of Haile Selassie and was disappointed (not surprisingly as he had been overthrown). He subsequently became Muslim and opened his house to offer Islam to men who were coming out of prison. The mosque has seen many changes of control, with the Murabitun and the pseudo-Islamic Ansarullah sect at one point being dominant. But the present group were in control certainly by 1998 when I became Muslim.
2. Tariq Ramadan is a dangerous extremist who supports suicide bombings
The news that Tariq Ramadan has been invited to address Muslims (and others) in Birmingham has caused a predictable uproar in both the Sun and the Standard. Various accusations have been repeated over and over again despite having been proven false, or only half true, on more than one occasion.
Facts: Tariq Ramadan is accused of being “an Islamist” and some sort of extremist mainly because of his family heritage, being the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. He has a number of modernist ideas and is seen as liberal, in some cases too liberal, in the Muslim community. Apparently some right-wing commentators are better judges of who is a threat to public order than the Metropolitan Police.
The Standard managed to cram five factual errors into a report published on the 18th of July this year, which Tariq Ramadan answers for himself on his own website. Daniel Pipes, as one might expect, was at the forefront of anti-Ramadan agitation at the time of his invitation to teach at Notre Dame, subsequently prevented when his visa was revoked. In the aftermath of Pipes’ visa revocation, Pipes wrote on his weblog that the victory was not total, because it was based on his (supposed) links to violence and not his ideas – he hoped that “being an Islamist will in of itself – without necessarily having ties to violence – be grounds for keeping aliens out of the United States, much as being a communist was grounds for exclusion in an earlier era”, which opens up the possibility for some sort of inquisition of any intending Muslim visitor.
Scott Martens of A Fistful of Euros answered some of Pipes’ allegations in this entry last August. More coverage by Thabet of Under Progress here, and on my blog here.
3. Hizbut-Tahreer are an extremist, racist party and a conveyor belt for terrorism, and propaganda pieces for HT have appeared in the Guardian.
This has so far not made it into the Standard to my knowledge. It has merited comment by Mark Steyn in the Daily Telegraph. The buzz is that the Guardian employed, as part of its trainee scheme, a guy called Dilpazier Aslam who turned out to be a member of HT, who subsequently managed to sneak two propaganda pieces for HT into the paper, one of them an interview with Shabina Begum, the other a comment piece following the 7th July bombings. (The Times has also covered it, erroneously stating that HT were involved in the disruption in the run-up to the election. In fact, the group are believed to be an offshoot of the disbanded Muhajiroun.)
Facts (and an alternative view): An inappropriate action, that of authoring two pieces without having declared one’s interest, did take place. While the articles are conducive to HT’s positions, this does not make them propaganda pieces. The jilbab issue in particular is of interest to Muslims beyond HT. The conclusion to “We Rock the Boat”, published after the bombings, may give the impression of threat in the light of knowing Aslam’s HT membership:
The don’t-rock-the-boat attitude of elders doesn’t mean the agitation wanes; it means it builds till it can be contained no more.
But there is some truth in this, and “can be contained no more” does not mean “leads inevitably to a terrorist attack”. Remember that there have been riots in the north in the very recent past involving local Muslim youths.
Whether the conflict of interest is of sufficient weight to merit Aslam’s dismissal is a different matter. In cases where journalists have been sacked in the recent past, it has involved the fabrication of stories (as with Jayson Blair and Jack Kelley), which has not happened here. The Guardian eventually decided they didn’t want him around because they discovered an anonymous anti-Jewish tirade issued under the banner of HT, which although removed from their site, still existed elsewhere. Dilpazier Aslam himself is not a racist, but told the editor, Alan Rusbridger, that “he did not consider the website material to be promoting violence or to be anti-semitic”, which in the racial sense in which the term is correctly meant, it isn’t – and remember, we are assuming that the document is authoritative, when it has no name attached to it and is no longer on their website. HT was founded by a Palestinian in Jordan, a country in which hostility to Israel (and the experience of Jews in that part of the Arab world is dominated by experience of Israel) is widespread. This is not a case of Muslims rehashing the anti-Semitic propaganda of Medieval Europe, Tsarist Russia or Nazi Germany – as I have encountered certain other Muslim groups doing.
The campaign against Dilpazier Aslam has been tainted by prejudice, inaccuracy and hypocrisy. One of the campaigners, Scott Burgess of the Daily Ablution, misses no opportunity to nit-pick at the Guardian. (His application to the same programme in which Dilpazier Aslam was accepted was not made with the expectation of being accepted; it seems to be just another excuse to have a go at the Guardian, and not a grudge factor motivating his attacks.) In other cases, an anti-Islamist agenda is apparent or, indeed, clearly stated; one blogger even called Aslam an “Al Queda (sic) Columnist”, when in fact HT are not part of al-Qa’ida. As on so many other occasions, people only complain about inconsistencies in the media when weight is given to opinions other than their own; in this case, a paper has lost what could have been an important contact with the Muslim community, all because of a noisy group of bloggers who didn’t like his opinions.
(And no, I’m not a member or supporter of HT, and never have been.)
The whole Tariq Ramadan affair is quite interesting. It appears that he has been the focus of abuse in the past from many sides – he’s been attacked by conservative Muslims as being too progressive, and he’s been attacked by “liberals” and white hawks for his father’s Muslim Brotherhood link. He’s also, somewhere, been accused of being a mysogynist, but I’m not sure of on what basis.
The Sun attempt at a character assasination itself is unintentionally hilarious once you’ve done a bit of fact checking, but scary all the same. They felt they had to create a folk devil with someone who people, outside of academic or professional circles, will know very little if anything about. Through that, they can say what they like about him as the readership will be unlikely to have the frame of reference to contradict them.
Volia! Instant jihadi. Just add bullshit.
Pingback: The Inside Of My Head » Low Standards
Pingback: doctorvee » Nonsense
Taking parts 1 & 3, the trouble is few non-Muslims know any of the names of the various Islamic sects, or even necessarily that they exist, let alone what they all say. All they know is that there are some nutters who say they’re Muslims, that they belong to some sect or other, and so get them all confused.
When it comes to Christianity, when the various different versions began to crop up in the sixteenth century they were all lumped together. In England, first you had “Protestants” to distinguish the new views from Catholics – even though that Prostestant grouping included Lutherans, Zwinglians, Calvinists and God knows what else. Then, in England at least, the term “Puritan” appeared to distinguish the hardcore Protestants from the Church of England lot, even though there wasn’t a homogenous viewpoint amongst them either. Then you briefly started getting a few more factions recognised – Quakers, Ranters, Wesleyans and the like – although they often all got mixed up, which is probably why the Quakers were considered dangerous despite having renounced all violence.
But by the end of the seventeenth century it all got too confusing, so they all got lumped back together – first as “Dissenters”, then as “Nonconformists” – because the differences in beliefs simply seemed too subtle and complicated for anyone who didn’t actually subscribe to them to bother paying attention to. All that mattered was that they didn’t believe what the majority did. This then, naturally enough, again led to lots of confusion about who believed what.
And these days, “Christians” are all lumped back together as essentially believing the same thing – even though on matters of doctrine most Anglicans would get very confused about the Catholic concept of transubstantiation. But for the majority who don’t really care about the specifics of faith (in the UK in particular, that’s most), “Christian” is more than specific enough.
Sadly, however, when it comes to outsiders’ perceptions of Islam we’ve gone straight from the acknowledgement of a binary split (most are vaguely aware of the Sunni/Shi’ite thing, even if they don’t understand it) back to the perception of the entire religion as essentially one entity with a few vague differences. Just as Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans and Catholics are all now considered essentially to believe the same thing, so – it appears – are all Muslims. And, in any case, most non-Muslims don’t even know the basics of what Islam is all about. It’d be like someone trying to understand Christianity who didn’t get that at the heart of the religion is the concept that Christ was the son of God.
Not sure if what I’m trying to get at is entirely clear (had a couple of pints at lunchtime…), but what I’m basically saying is that, from what I can tell, the commentators trying to single out dangerous Muslims are effectively doing from a position that would be the equivalent of someone trying to explain the difference between Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams who didn’t even understand the difference between Protestants and Catholics, let along the complexities of the centuries-long history of Ireland’s troubles.
Not quite on topic, but since you raised it…
As long as I can remember, it has included on its banner “incorporating the EVENING NEWSâ€Â, the market having demonstrated however many decades ago that, however many newspapers we can sustain in the morning, in the evening there’s only room for one. Or perhaps it was just that the Standard was able to force the News down because it also had the power of the Daily Mail.
As it happens, it was the News that had the power of the Daily Mail; the Standard was a Beaverbrook paper (that is, part of the Express stable). The News and Standard merged in 1980, and the Mail group got a 50% share; they took control of the other half in 1985. Evening newspapers tend to be more local (probably because the distribution is more time-sensitive), and I can’t think of a city in Britain that sustains more than one.
The line on the masthead probably has more to do with the period in 1987 when they relaunched the Evening News to see off a new Maxwell paper, the Daily News. Which could be interpreted as a “power of the Daily Mail” thing, I suppose.
“Incorporating the Evening News” is there because the copyright law with regard to newspaper mastheads works on a use-it-or-lose-it basis. There is a “Sunday Guardian” printed twice a year with a circulation of 100 for the same reason.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at with 3 – looks like you’re reaching a bit to me. For instance, observing the daily ablution misses no opportunity to nit pick the Guardian (as opposed to pointing out glaring inconsistencies, factual and logical errors etc.?) well … no shit sherlock.
Are you saying that HT is not an organisation with extremist and or racist positions? Perhaps it isn’t, but you don’t enlightend us. The point of this post is presumably to inform the ignorant about the true nature of various Islamic religious and political strands, but you don’t tell us much more about HT here that where it was founded and that some dodgy views posted under its banner may not represent its true position. You state as fact that Mr Aslam is not a racist (or, more pertinently, effectively anti-semetic) well, maybe he isn’t, but why are you asserting this so confidently?
And as for The Ablution taking issue with the content of his articles, seems to me there are a number of rational criticisms to be made (putting in mildly) not least the idea that things would be better if the Muslim leaders preached a more extreme message rather than trying to keep a lid on their more hot headed followers. You note that “can be contained no more†does not mean “leads inevitably to a terrorist attack†but this was written just after a bombing, the message of the article looked pretty clearly to me “you had it coming”. Now to my mind that’s a repugnant view – imagine a BNP member writing in the Telegraph, for instance, arguing that we should not be shocked by a racist murder because the anger of urban whites cannot be contained and so forth. It’s not a perfect analogy, but it’s not too far away. I’d be calling for such a writer to be sacked and for heads to roll at the paper.
Yusuf
This is an extremely helpful article: particularly the Brixton mosque part.
The Times thinks that Hizb attacked Galloway, because that’s what Galloway said. I’m not sure why Galloway identified his attackers as Hizb, when he must have known that they were a splinter of Al Muhaj, which is a split from Hizb. The Times knows this too, having recently printed an article on the splits within Hizb.
Perhaps Galloway’s view is that the Hizb/Muhaj/Saviour Sect etc splits are tactical only and that they remain the same organisation. I don’t know.
Anyhow, I’ve posted the following on Harry’s Place in response to your article:
Hizb’ut Tahrir
Hizb’ut Tahrir is an organisation which wants to establish the Caliphate, with all that that entails. I accept that if you think that establishing a Caliphate is a good thing, you won’t think that this is an extreme political goal. But if you think that social democracy is better than rule by submission to God’s will, then you will think it is extreme. Let me make my position clear. I think social democracy is a better form of government than theocracy. I am opposed to Islamism for that reason.
I do agree that Hizb’ut Tahrir is not the most paranoid and racist of islamist political organisations. Partly, that is because they take great care to keep their nose clean. That they have taken a racist rant about jews off their website is good: but why did they put it up there in the first place? My guess is that they only took it off because it clashed with the outward image they want to present.
The Begum jilbab case my be of interest to muslims of a variety of political persuasions. However, it should be noted that Hizb’ut Tahrir clearly instigated and had close involvement in the conduct of that case.
My take on the Aslam affair is that disguised Islamist views and propaganda pieces are out of place in a liberal and left wing newspaper. The Guardian frequently runs pieces in its Comments page by the MAB/Muslim Brotherhood which are labelled as such. If Aslam had written articles saying “as a member of a political party which seeks to re-establish the Caliphate” that would be one thing. But to present himself as simply “a Yorkshire lad, born and bred” is extremely and deliberately misleading.
Ramadan
Secondly Ramadan is, by any standards other than Islamist ones, an extremely reactionary social conservative. Sure, he talks a lot about Baudrillard and the like. But if social democrats took his arguments and removed the references to Islam, nobody would think of him as a progressive. It is suggested also – not simply be islamophobes, but by Islamists trying to reconcile themselves to some of the more surprising things that Ramadan says – that Ramadan is dissembling. Whether or not that is true, I think that Ramadan’s stated position is a moderate theocratic one.
I can live with moderate theocrats, but would hope to see them opposed by muslim liberals. Liberal newspapers should be championing those muslim liberals: not the moderate theocrats.
Hizb’ut Tahrir is an organisation which wants to establish the Caliphate, with all that that entails.
But this is a relation of logical entailment, not practical. Logically, the fact that Hizb’ut Tahrir wants to establish the Caliphate entails that Hizb’ut Tahrir wants to see a society based on Islamic law ruling in Devon. However, this does not mean that practically they have a plan to set up the main mosque in Torquay.
The SWP in the 1970s wanted to see world socialist revolution “with all that entails”. However, this did not in fact mean that they were taking money from Russia or acting as agents of the Communist powers which threatened our way of life, which is why it makes sense to draw an important line between them and grouplets which did. And then another line between grouplets which were active agents of the Soviet Union in the UK and things like the Baader Meinhof gang.
We seem to be engaged in the project of repeating, precisely, the mistakes we made during the Cold War. Fighting aimless humanitarian wars in the name of democracy – check. Banning people and organisations because of their political aims – check. Running journalists out of their jobs for party membership – check. Passing ludicrous and unworkable sedition laws – check. Making windy and meaningless loyalty oaths and fulminating when people don’t sign them – check. We won that one so I suppose it will turn out alright in the end, but you would have hoped we’d learn something from the last time our civilisation was under threat. It all seems rather Streeb-Greebling to me.
Yeah, sure, Islamists will fail.
But if the question is “is it correct to describe the BNP/SWP/Hizb as extreme”, the answer is yes.
Pingback: New Humanist - Weblog
dsquared, what lessons do you think should have been learnt? (genuine question)
I guess you think that we should not be fighting humanitarian wars in the name of democracy. Do you think invading Afghansistan was an error? What would the world look like today with the Taliban still in power?
I am sympathetic to the view the Iraq was a mistake because of the very high risk of failure, is that the lesson you think should have been learnt?
do you think that no organisations should be banned, even if they preach violence?
I take the point about loyalty oaths, but if you are as I presume talking about UAT, but I think it could have a useful role in getting its point of view into the mainstream.
Not sure what sedition laws you refer to (my ignorance).
I don’t think “running journalists out of their jobs for party membership” really characterises that affair correctly either.
I’d also agree that there are plenty of nice lads, like Yusuf, who go on about how everything will be perfect when we all submit to the will of God, who are quite clearly not going to blow themselves up on buses.
That said, we should be treating Islamists as a species of totalitarian with whom those on the left have absolutely nothing in common. At least with Communists, there was a formal commitment to equality between persons which was no subdivided according to belief or gender and so on.
I do understand that there is a kind of sense on some parts of the left that “one shouldn’t be too beastly to Islamists because lots of them are foreigners who know no better and have it hard enough already etc.”. As well as being racist, this is ahistorical. Islamism is a belief system which is in conflict with, and in some parts of the world, has suceeded in driving back liberalism, and has brought religious law right into the public sphere.
Yusuf, as – I’m supposing – a person who moved into Islamism later in life, must know this to be true. He might say that Islam is a public faith, and that those who seek to express it solely in the way that they live their own lives are missing the point of Islam. He would correctly point to many religious scholars who would say the same thing. Well, they would say that.
But religious scholars don’t run the world, and quite right too.
Paddy, taking your questions roughly in order.
Afghanistan was not a humanitarian intervention and was never sold as one. It was a war of self defence aimed at removing the Taliban government which had attacked the USA by using Osama bin Laden as its catspaw.
I do believe the lesson that humanitarian interventions are usually a mistake is the one that should be learned; specifically, it should have been learned after Vietnam if not earlier so Iraq should never have been seriously considered (unless we believed the WMD story which we never would have done if we’d been thinking straight).
I think that some organisations shoulod be banned but that current UK policy is heading down a road of banning too many of them; if it reaches Hizb’ut Tahrir it will have gone a long way too far.
You’re right, I was referred to “Unite” Against Terror. I don’t think that a point of view which is identically the same as Labour Party policy exactly needs help “getting into the mainstream”.
The “sedition laws” I’m referring to are the ones that Blair is currently trying to get cross-party support for which make it a crime punishable by imprisonment to “glorify” terrorism. I’m pretty sure that everyone can see what a huge leap this is from laws against incitement to violence and that it’s an appalling retrograde step.
And I do think that the Dilpazier Aslam affair looked a lot more to me like “running a journalist out of his job for party membership” than anything else. I think that the “conflict of interest” charges looked trumped up after the fact (and were based on a load of extremely patronising assumptions about Shabina Begum).
David: this “liberalism” seems to get less and less like the John Stuart Mill version every week. If you’re serious about liberalism, then that means you defend free speech for everyone, including totalitarians (yes, even the BNP). You also defend it not just against government restrictions, but against private individuals and organisations who want to “shut it out of the mainstream” (Mill’s “On Liberty” is eloquent about this). That’s the only cause that the left has in common with Islamic totalitarians; we think (or should think) that Islamic totalitarians shouldn’t be censored (by government or by social ostracism). Islamic totalitarians might think that liberals should be censored or ostracised but we don’t have to agree with them about that.
Dan
I am not arguing for the banning of Hizb’.
Yes, I am aware of the passages of On Liberty you’re refering to; but I don’t know what you mean, practically speaking, by opposing “ostracism”.
Would I invite a totalitarian theocrat round for tea? Well, not personally, no. I think we’d just get testy with each other.
Would I no platform them in student unions? Certainly not, unless they were in fact inciting violence, or commiting another criminal offence, and so on. I want the agenda of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb to be made very very clear indeed. Yusuf, who is in sympathy with neither of these two factions, would too. It really is very important that people get a clear idea of what the political agenda of these groups is. It is ignorance that has allowed them to get away with the “I’m just an ordinary lad from Yorkshire and I’m angry” act for this long.
That is what I mean when I say I am opposed to the mainstreaming of Islamism. When Hizb turns up on Radio 4, I want interviewers to ask, not anodine soft questions, but to say “What exactly would the society you want to create look like?”. When Galloway is interviewed on TV, I want people to ask him why RESPECT is largely funded by a man whose political party prints racist conspiracy theories on its website. And so on.
These are sensible, serious and important arguments to have. I don’t want people to think that all muslims want to kill their neighbours. I want to know why one day somebody wakes up and thinks “society is so debased and corrupt that I must devote my life to its radical transformation” and then settles – as a solution – upon a religious code which, in some forms at least, requires the establishment of a state in which homosexuals are beaten, stoned, or thrown from tall buildings…
But this is exactly what Mill was referring to. You’re in favour of the Islamists getting exposure, but only in contexts in which it is made clear that they are *wrong* (I believe that this was the University of Wooloomooloo’s position on Marxism in the Monty Python Bruces sketch). You want to ensure that all and only all of their least attractive and most repulsive views are on show at all times; maybe you think that every other set of political views should be given this treatment (should Paul Wolfowitz be forced to set out, in detail, exactly how much of the world should be controlled by the USA?) in which case congratulations on consistency but it doesn’t seem very possible given the media as it is currently designed.
I think that they ought to be given a fair go because that’s the way we do things. I think the really scary thing is that Dilpazier Aslam is, in fact, an ordinary lad from Yorkshire, and he got that way because he felt that he was under attack by Western society. And to be honest, we’ve given him quite a lot of material to work with in building up that view. There’s lots of people these days who despise us for our unveiled women, alcohol and homosexuals, but who would never have particularly noticed these things if we hadn’t been so god damned keen on our oil and wars.
Yusuf Smith propagates some extremist views himself.
In an article called ‘Common doubts about
The Qadiani Sect’, he writes:
++++
{Read any account of the Qadianis’ behaviour in Pakistan, and you will discover that they are a vile, diabolical sect whose “civilised” front is just that – a front}
++++
The Qadianis are a sect of Muslims facing extreme persecution and violence in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Last month a number of their mosques were bombed and set on fire in Bangladesh
The Ahmadiyya sect have produced a website detailing the organised violence and discrimination they face:
http://www.thepersecution.org/
Elswehere in the article Yusuf Smith contemptuously refers to the Sikh religion as a ‘cult’ and states that the Dajjal, or Anti-Christ, (Satan) will be ‘a man, of Jewish background.’
You can read Yusuf Smith’s article here:
http://alhafeez.org/rashid/yusuf_smith.html
Well I don’t mate.
If you’re so keen on promoting the establishment Caliphate, then you put the effort into promoting it. I can see you now, standing on Speakers Corner on your soapbox, explaining that – although you don’t buy it yourself – you think there are probably very many good arguments for getting rid of elections and relying on the rulings of clerics instead.
Take a step back. This is an absurd position. You’re effectively saying that the only proper liberal position is one which takes no position for or against anything. That’s not liberalism. That’s nihilism.
Two points:
1. I’m sorry. The growth in Islamist belief is not the product of “our oil and wars”. It is the product of people who have Islamist beliefs which they want to propagate recruiting for their political cause. And they’re recruiting for THEIR political cause, not yours. They’re not pacifists. They’re not anti-globalists. They’er not environmentalists. They’re not running on any sort of platform that you would or should support.
2. You say:
And to be honest, we’ve given him quite a lot of material to work with in building up that view
You don’t have any idea how they recruit. They were recruiting on Bosnia when isolationists of the left and the right were opposing military action. They were recruiting on Kashmir when you hadn’t even worked out where it was. They were recruiting on the evils done to society by the wicked creed of feminism and gender equality when you were thinking that it was quite a good idea. They’re not recruiting in order to oppose “wars on oil”. They’re recruiting because they think that it would be a good thing to live in a society ruled by religious law as at was in the days of Mohammed.
And in any case, what an outrageous thing to say. You might as well say, “Well, in Barking, 16.9% of the electorate voted for the BNP, to be honest, we’ve given it quite a lot of material to work with, what with us having let all them foreigners in”.
David T, the issue about Tariq Ramadan is not whether he is ‘an extremely reactionary social conservative’ or a ‘moderate theocrat’, but whether you go along with people who, on the basis of innuendo, demonise him, seek to deny him free speech or categorize him with those who justify suicide bombings.
In this, The Sun was only following the trail blazed by Melanie Phillips and Daniel Pipes. We may have gone along with these right-wing people on Iraq, but he should not do so on Tariq Ramadan.
— Front page — Moderates
————
You’re effectively saying that the only proper liberal position is one which takes no position for or against anything.
No. It’s one which does not campaign for people to be sacked from their jobs at the Guardian or to be disinvited from conferences held by the Mayor of London. Or what the hell, to have their saxophone gigs cancelled at “MARXAPALOOZA”. Importantly, it’s one that doesn’t bash on the doors of newspapers and broadcasting organisations and attempt to dictate their editorial policy to them with organised campaigns and boycotts. Basically what I’m saying is that liberals ought to have enough confidence in liberal ideas to not play dirty pool.
It is the product of people who have Islamist beliefs which they want to propagate recruiting for their political cause
No, it’s the product of the combination of those people with other people who are susceptible to being recruited because they are in a similar emotional state to the German nation in the 1930s.
They were recruiting on Bosnia when isolationists of the left and the right were opposing military action. They were recruiting on Kashmir when you hadn’t even worked out where it was. They were recruiting on the evils done to society by the wicked creed of feminism and gender equality when you were thinking that it was quite a good idea
Numbers matter. As far as I can tell they’ve been recruiting a *lot* more successfully since 2003 and as you know, I don’t really buy Clive’s theory that this sudden boost has been a result of the incredible organisational marketing dynamo that is the SWP.
You might as well say, “Well, in Barking, 16.9% of the electorate voted for the BNP, to be honest, we’ve given it quite a lot of material to work with, what with us having let all them foreigners inâ€Â.
I’ve no idea why so many people on the Decent Left think that, given that I’m prepared to stick up for the civil rights of Islamists, I’m going to go “boojums” at the BNP. I would no more regard the views of the BNP on race as legitimate than I would regard the views of Qaradawi on homosexuality as legitimate. However, I would certainly ask the question “why is it that 16% of the electorate in Barking were susceptible to being recruited to the BNP”, I would probably come up with the answer “they have reached the opinion that normal electoral politics and particularly the Labour Party has no concern for them and nothing to offer them” and then I would think to myself “well, to be honest, we have probably been giving the BNP quite a lot of material to be working with”.
I’ll even give you a free hit; if the BNP do well in Dewsbury next year I will certainly say that it is at least partly because of Hizb’ut Tahrir.
This is what we do in the “root causer” profession, btw – we try to look for the *actual* causes of things to see *whether* anything can be done about them, rather than picking something we want to do something about and calling it a cause.
[by the way, if we had decided to deal with the problem of the BNP in Barking by putting troops on the streets of Barking, shelling Barking with white phosphorous and imposing an interim government on Barking appointed by us and then endorsed by elections which the white community had boycotted, then I would expect to see that a lot more people were joining the BNP over the next year and when they won a load of seats elsewhere in the country I would not pretend it had nothing to do with Barking].
Great comment Luke! Thanks for the links. Despite the careful planning, the calculated tone and the scrupulous conformity to progressive ideals, it always comes out in the wash, doesn’t it?
Time after time after time…..
You’re effectively saying that the only proper liberal position is one which takes no position for or against anything. That’s not liberalism. That’s nihilism.
That’s not right. He’s saying that liberals should take a firm position on the right of anyone, no matter how repulsive their views (short of incitement to crime), to express those views in public without persecution. I agree. This isn’t “no position”, it’s a strong anti-nihilistic position on freedom of speech. Which must include liberal opposition to right-wing witch-hunts against stupid Graun trainees.
dsquared ´imposing an interim government on Barking appointed by us and then endorsed by elections´
Oh, haven´t you noticed, Iraq´s got a different Prime Minister than it had before the elections?
You are quite right, though I dare say the damage to my analogy is repairable.
Well this is absurd isn’t it.
Pointing out that the SWP have invited Atzmon, who has moved fully into “Third Position” territory, to speak at their conference, or that the Guardian have commissioned articles penned by undisclosed members of totalitarian theocratic organisations has suddenly become out of bounds, has it?
I write for a blog. Its a website that costs a few quid a month to run. It isn’t a political organisation: in fact, it isn’t an organisation at all. We disagree with each other. We convince some people that we’re right on some things, and no doubt turn other people off. This is precisely the Millian marketplace of ideas, par excellence.
In relation to Aslam, my position has been to point out that one of their trainees is a member of a theocratic totalitarian political party, and has written articles consistent with the political agenda of that party. I have asked whether that is appropriate conduct. The Guardian has decided that employing staff members who think that theocracy is preferable to democracy is a bad thing for a liberal democratic newspaper to be doing. And this is my fault. Not the Guardian’s fault, and certainly not Aslam’s fault who was – I don’t know if I follow your reasoning – driven into the arms of totalitarianism by America.
Don’t blame me mate; blame the USA.
In relation to the Socialist Workers Party’s relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood and extreme right wing Third Positioners like Atzmon: I’ve said my piece, and – amazingly – they haven’t taken my advice.
So we’re back to the marketplace of ideas. If you’re convinced by my argument that there’s something a bit odd about a supposed revolutionary socialist party entering into alliance with a party which wants to establish a theocracy, then that’s good as far as I’m concerned. If you think that political movements which describe themselves as socialist shouldn’t be going around organising speaking tours with people who say that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion accurately describe the influence of jews in the world and so on, all the better.
If you aren’t: well, more fool you.
Luke – sorry, where’s the extremism in that article again? I’m genuinely intrigued to know. All I see is something written by someone with strong religious beliefs – hence phrases like “This is a miraculous proof of the Truth of Islam”. What with being an agnostic leaning towards atheism, I can’t say I agree with a lot of it, but I wouldn’t say it’s really any more extreme than believing that Christ rose from the dead.
As for the Sikh thing, I’m not certain on this, but Sikhism isn’t necessarily recognised as a religion everywhere – much as Scientology isn’t. I’ll try and check with my Sikh mate. It may not necessarily be a deliberate insult – although there is a long tradition of mutual hostility between the Sikh and Muslim faiths, so I wouldn’t be surprised. Even so, it’s not necessarily extremist to describe Sikhism as a “cult”.
As for the Dajjal (actually not quite the antichrist or Satan, though similar, from what I can tell), that he will be Jewish was presented merely as being the “consensus” opinion (presumably amongst Islamic scholars), though you seem to be trying to imply that this means Yusuf is antisemitic in some way. (It may be worth pointing out In Islamic prophecy, the Dajjal will be defeated by Isa, another name for Jesus. Jesus, lest we forget, was Jewish.) In any case, I personally find it somewhat less extreme to see the antichrist as a man of flesh and blood than a beast “with ten horns and seven heads… like a leopard, its feet were like a bear’s, and its mouth was like a lion’s mouth”.
In other words, from what I can tell you’re mistaking a summary of other people’s beliefs with the beliefs of the person making the summary, and using that mistake to make accusations of extremism.
If I’m wrong, by all means point me to other passages/articles in which Yusuf has expressed genuinely extremist views. I’ve only been aware of his writings for a short while, so can’t say I’m in a position to state categorically what his views are. From what I have read, however, and bearing in mind that I don’t buy into any religious teachings or doctrines, he strikes me as fairly sensible.
fair point Jarndyce but, as I’m sure you’d agree,”…the right of anyone, no matter how repulsive their views .. to express those views in public without persecution” is not the same as the right to express views without opposition, and isn’t the thrust of the argument put forward by David T & others of his ilk one of opposition, to the content, not to the right of speech? (and that liberals need to stand up for themselves in opposition to all varieties of, I don’t know what the right word is … theocratic? ideas).
on the Guardian thing, isn’t the question of whether the Guardian should have published this guy’s views another question again – nobody has a right to be published in the Guardian. The Combat 18 members have a right to free speech, but that doesn’t mean any paper ought to publish their views, nor that it shouldn’t fire them upon discovering it had done so unwittingly. And if a left wing “witch hunt” had uncovered a Combat 18 member writing about race issues in a paper, would you leapt to the writer’s defence?
Ist the declared affiliation bit important? Would there be an objection to the Guardian publishing a comment piece by Combat 18 if it was clearly to say “here, look, this is what Combat 18 think”? I don’t know, and there was no possibility of confusing it with a normal opinion piece.
Perhaps the acid test ought to be purely what is said, and not who is saying it, in which case I’d have said fire the arsehole for writing that repugnant shit, but who’s the arbiter?
Why do people think that designating a person’s views “religious” renders them worthy of greater respect.
I’m genuinely asking that question.
For example, my sister is religious and believes in God, and therefore is inclined to defend religious views which she does not in fact hold in any practical sense. I had a flatmate who similarly had some very low church beliefs about the punishments that ought to be meted out to various sorts of sinners in theory.
What saved both of them was that they think that the absurd and inhumane conduct that they think is required in God’s Perfect Vision for the World is only required when God establishes perfection and ultimate justice in the world.
Or to put it more simply, they don’t actually want to see religious law being established by human agency at all. In fact, they’d be horrified by the prospect. They’re actually liberals who profess to be religious fundamentalists.
Lots of religious people operate this sort of divided consciousness. Their religion gives them a vision of perfection which they focus on mentally.
Of course, if either of them thought that they ought to be creating God’s Perfect Vision for the World I would be very worried indeed. And so should you be.
So in summary, if Yusuf wakes up every morning and thinks “wouldn’t it be nice to live in a world in which all women were veiled and all gays were thrown off high buildings” and kept it at that – and I think that’s where he stands – I’d think it a bit odd. But it would worry me that much more than people who believe that sickness can be cured with crystals worry me.
If somebody wakes up each morning and thinks “what can I do to create a world in which all women are veiled and all gays are thrown off high buildings”, I’d really really hope that anybody who called themselves a liberal would help me to oppose such a movement.
Unfortunately, I couldn’t count on Dan, because he’d be too busy blaming himself, or America, to do anything about it.
whoops:
not
“But it would worry me that much more than people who believe that sickness can be cured with crystals worry me.”
but
“But it WOULDN’T worry me that much more than people who believe that sickness can be cured with crystals worry me.”
Oh and Nosemonkey … I’m resisting the temptation to forward your comment about Sikhism being equivalent to Scientology to a few sikh mates ;)
Paddy:
And if a left wing “witch hunt†had uncovered a Combat 18 member writing about race issues in a paper, would you leapt to the writer’s defence?
On the principle, yes. (On declaring affiliation, see below.)
DavidT: don’t get me wrong here – I’m not saying you don’t have a right to your say. That would be stupid. I’m saying that Aslam has, too. I haven’t followed your and/or the HP line on this, so I have no idea what your detailed opinion is, and wasn’t addressing that. What I’m saying is that Aslam’s opinion or affiliation is no reason to fire him. AFAIK you are a Labour Party member, but you don’t append that information to every post at HP. Why should Aslam append his Hizb membership to his Graun column? I can see his opinion is idiotic without that bit of knowledge. On anti-religion, I largely agree. But secularism won’t win by shutting them up. Quite the opposite, in fact.
David T – on the religious respect thing, I dunno – I agree with you that it happens, but am not sure how to explain it.
Personally, I don’t think it means anyone should be accorded more respect, merely that if someone is religious then they have a certain world-view which can’t necessarily be analysed in the same way that political views can. Largely because at the centre of that particular kind of belief system is something which, by its very nature, cannot be explained rationally.
(As for the Sikh/Scientology thing, I’ve been known to compare Christianity to beliving in goblins and faries before now – they should count themselves lucky… ;))
Nosemonkey:
On goblins and faeries: I disagree. Its closer to Advanced D&D.
Seriously though, there are many good things that people derive from religion: a sense of continuity, cultural transmission, a chance to have regular meals with relatives and friends, and so on.
Its just that I wish that some religious people would focus a bit more of their efforts on those aspects of their religious tradition.
Jarndyce:
AFAIK you are a Labour Party member, but you don’t append that information to every post at HP
Probably. once they’ve got you, they never really let you go, even if you cancel your direct debit.
HP posters go on about themselves all the time. Marcus and Harry are ex-CPGBers (the original one), I’m a liberal lefty, Brownie is the IRA apologist and so on…
The thing is, however much disquiet you might feel about the Labour Party and the present decision to allow detention without charge for 3 months, it isn’t proposing to replace democracy with a system of divinely ordained law, as interpreted by clerics. Hizb is: and not simply as a distant religious aspiration, but as something which they really very much would like to do, if only they can convince a sufficiently large number of people that they ought to go along with the plan.
I think that’s a distinctly odd view to hold, don’t you?
Nosemonkey
Here is the extremism:
++++
{Read any account of the Qadianis’ behaviour in Pakistan, and you will discover that they are a vile, diabolical sect whose “civilised†front is just that – a front}
++++
You can follow the links in my post to get a flavour of the persecution, violence and hatred that the Qadiani/Ahmadiyya school of Islam face in Pakistan and Bangladesh.
And, well, claiming that Satan is a Jew is pretty bigoted as far as I am concerned – but hey, feel free to think it is a box of chocolates.
And seeing as you were unable to see what was staring you in the face in my previous post regarding the Qadiani and the hatred that Yusuf Smith espouses for them, the laughable ignorance of your comment about whether Sikhism is comparable to Scientology or is a religion at all does not surprise me as much as amuse me – such people as you to be sure when they literally, and confessionally, do not know what they are talking about – thanks for that ;-)
Luke: how tiresome that you find the proffering of an opinion to be “extremism”. Grow up.
David T: Erm,… I’m not sure we’re really disagreeing on much. As I explained here I have no time whatsoever for the apologism of Aslam, Younge, etc (though that of Mad Mel – “it was the multiculturalism wot done it, guv’nor” – is no less offensive). I can imagine little worse than living under a regime of Hizbies. I just don’t think Aslam should have lost his job over this, nor should liberals have been joining the frothing hue-and-cry (beyond ridiculing his opinions). I’ve seen your post tonight over at HP, and that the NUJ wasn’t near-unanimously against his sacking is shameful stuff. Journalists not in favour of freedom of speech – whatever next?
No, I’m not sure that we are disagreeing either.
The world is full of people with obnoxious political views. I like Morrissey, for example. And Wagner. If Aslam had been commissioned to write about music, or sport, or the need for a minimum wage, then who would have cared.
Commission him to write a piece on the Hizbies put up job in the Begum case and so on: why not. But don’t present him as “a lad from Yorkshire”: let your readership know that he is a member of a theocratic totalitarian organisation whose website publishes racist material.
I wouldn’t buy such a newspaper of course: just as I don’t buy the Daily Mail.
Jarndyce
Sorry, I am fully grown and will not get any taller. How tiresome that YOU find the proferring of my opinion about Yusuf Smith’s extremism and bigotry to be irksome – instead of growing up you should perhaps stop being so condescending ;-)
Now, have we finished swapping insults? Good. Let Mr Smith speak up for himself, please dont be annoyed by what I say about another persons extremist views.
Check out those websites, see how the Qadiani’s are being bombed and burned because they are considered to be ‘a vile diabolical’ sect.
Toodle pip! ;-)
Luke, dearest, merely repeating what you’ve previously said with no further explanation and then bandying about accusations of ignorance doesn’t exactly do what I asked.
Now how about you treat this site in the spirit in which it’s intended and try to engage in debate without any of the crap? If you accuse someone of extremism and bigotry, back it up with proper evidence.
All you’ve done so far is provide a couple of out of context quotes and extrapolated based on evidence unrelated to anything you have demonstrated Yusuf as saying. He may well be an extremist for all I know, but you’ve done nothing to convince me so far thanks to lack of evidence and illogical arguments.
To wit: by your logic over Yusuf’s statements about this Qadiani lot, you could equally extrapolate from the fact that I’m on record as calling Ian Paisley a rabid mentalist as meaning that I support the IRA, merely because they don’t like him either. Which would be silly.
David:
Ooh look! another boycott campaign on the front page of Harry’s Place. Now apparently you can’t speak on the same platform as Galloway; the article has nothing new to say about Galloway other than to claim that decent people should shun him, which is rather what I’m talking about. I forgot in my last comment the quite disgraceful monstering of that Rohan bloke at Index on Censorship for telling a few home truths about Theo van Gogh. It’s not saying these things that is the problem; where you cross the line is when you put the little “mailto:” link in or encourage people to harass someone or their employer. You’re operating a real game of bait-and-switch here; in defence you’re saying “who me? no I just point these things out” but then in attack you’re mounting an organised campaign to stop someone from putting their views in the public arena.
in reply to your specific points to me:
If somebody wakes up each morning and thinks “what can I do to create a world in which all women are veiled and all gays are thrown off high buildingsâ€Â, I’d really really hope that anybody who called themselves a liberal would help me to oppose such a movement.
Well, it depends what kind of help you’re asking for. If they were standing in Holborn and St Pancras with a decent chance of winning, then yes I’d knock on doors and take full part in the democratic process to defeat them. I would even vote for Peter Hain if it meant stopping the Hizb’ut Tahrir candidate. I might even be a little bit more use to the cause than a lot of the people who normally help you, because I’m a bit less studiedly charmless.
If they were forming a violent movement forcing women to wear veils and pushing gays off high buildings, I’d support laws aimed at preventing them from organising to do so and once more I would volunteer to contribute a few quid to your campaign to do so.
On the other hand, if there was no real point in fighting them electorally (because they had no support), and no real need for legislation against them (because they were not taking violent action), but you still wanted my support for a campaign to prevent them from hiring halls, chucking them out of unrelated political campaigns and making sure that nobody who was a member of that party could hold down a job as a journalist (or if they did they had to put a special political disclaimer on their work that nobody else had to), then I would say to you roughly what I in fact do say, I’d say “that’s dirty pool, David, that’s not how liberals do things”.
Meanwhile, your crack about “blaming the UK and USA” is completely unserious. As a matter of sociological fact, your hypothetical movement is recruiting a lot of members because of something that the UK and USA did (invading Iraq). That’s not a matter of blame or praise; it’s just a statement of fact. But you and your mates have taken the decision to place any analysis or criticism of the decision to invade Iraq out of bounds (you’ve actually signed a statement saying that you’re not going to do it). This looks awfully like a conscious decision to retreat from the real world to somewhere more congenial.
From Luke:
Check out those websites, see how the Qadiani’s are being bombed and burned because they are considered to be ‘a vile diabolical’ sect.
I called them a “vile diabolical sect” based on their behaviour in Pakistan. You are talking about Bangladesh, where there is mob violence against them. Like the mobs in Bangladesh read my article before they go on the rampage.
dsquared surely you are (again) misconstruing the issue, as with the Guardian thing (in my opinion)
Ooh look! another boycott campaign on the front page of Harry’s Place. Now apparently you can’t speak on the same platform as Galloway;
It’s not about rights, free speech, principles etc. as you would have it. Nor about boycotts, wanting to silence opposing views, witch-hunts etc. It is about choices being made: what views to publish, whose views to publish, who to speak alongside, who to associate with etc. it’s about criticising those choices, not opposing the right to choose. It’s asking why is somebody who claims to be X appearing alongside a bunch of people who support Y, or why a paper that is supposedly X is publishing views that are Y.
I think you are forcing this debate into the wrong framework.
No I think it’s the right framework. I am trying to think of a non-patronising way to say this and coming up short so I’ll just bluntly ask the question: have you read “On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill? That’s where I’m coming from and I’m arguing with David who also has, which is why chunks of our discussion might not make a whole lot of sense to someone who isn’t at least familiar with the passages we’re arguing about.
The point is that social pressure can be a much more efficient means of censorship than regulation. Mill argues persuasively that part of the political commitment of liberalism is the commitment to keep an open mind even to repulsive ideas. If you are saying “a newspaper that is X should not publish someone who is Y”, then you’re already stepping very close to a line becase you’re trying to claim that there is some quasi-moral standard of what things people should or should not say (it would be better to say something less judgemental like “saying Y is not consistent with the values of X which I know that newspaper upholds, and I consider this a good argument that not-Y”, which would be taking part in the debate, not playing dirty pool to make it more difficult for the other guy).
If you are trying to raise a campaign on your website saying “everyone make a load of trouble and bad publicity for newspaper X until they get rid of the bastard Y-sayers” then you are clearly, clearly, way across that line.
David thinks that this liberal attitude is prissy and unrealistic and unsuited to the Islamist threat to our way of life. I think it’s the cornerstone of a decent society and that only a very much more serious threat would make me think about temporarily renouncing it.
oh right well thanks for not patronising me you fucker. no I have not read the book, guess I am not capable of responding to the arguments as I see you making them.
What does it even mean to keep an “open mind” to repulsive ideas?
you’re damn right it’s about being judgemental, it’s about saying here, this is what we support, and here, this is what we condemn.
and I reckon it is acceptable to say to somebody hey, why’d you make that choice (of association, to publish etc.) I think you shouldn’t, and to urge other people to make the same case, and to try and change that person’s or that newspaper’s mind. Perhaps even important to do so.
But hey, I’ve probably just embarrassed myself by failing to grasp a debate going on above my head haven’t I.
missing words:
and I reckon it is acceptable to say to somebody hey, why’d you make that choice (of association, to publish etc.) I think you shouldn’t have made that choice, and to urge other people to make the same case, and to try and change that person’s or that newspaper’s mind. Perhaps even important to do so.
don’t type in anger folks
you’re already stepping very close to a line becase you’re trying to claim that there is some quasi-moral standard of what things people should or should not say
I think it’s OK to beat up pakis, they smell and should be sent back to paki land.*
oh no, was that a QUASI line I just crossed?
* I don’t want to patronise you dsquared, but perhaps i need to point out this sentence was made to illustrate a point, and does not represent my own opinions or anything like them.
oh right well thanks for not patronising me you fucker. no I have not read the book, guess I am not capable of responding to the arguments as I see you making them
I’m sorry. I really didn’t mean to be rude. It’s just that in my original comment to David I referred to “Mill’s point on this” and that’s actually a very long and involved argument. I’m just saying that I think you are misinterpreting me and it’s going to be long and difficult explaining the specific way in which I think you’re misinterpreting me and this is why. I’m sorry.
What does it even mean to keep an “open mind†to repulsive ideas?
As I say, this is going to be long and complicated. Sorry.
you’re damn right it’s about being judgemental, it’s about saying here, this is what we support, and here, this is what we condemn.
Fine up to here, although I would hope that it would also involve saying why.
and I reckon it is acceptable to say to somebody hey, why’d you make that choice (of association, to publish etc.)
Absolutely. And I would say that there is an obligation on them to give you a reason.
I think you shouldn’t have made that choice
assuming the implied “because …”, also fine.
and to urge other people to make the same case
Now getting into dodgy territory because this is going to make it likely that some points of view get shouted down because their proponents are not so good at urging supporters.
and to try and change that person’s or that newspaper’s mind
Still on the right side of the line. Where one steps over the line is precisely what you didn’t say:
and try to make that person retract their statement even though they still really believe it, and try and make that newspaper sack that journalist even though they originally thought his article was acceptable
This is unfair because it’s trying to change what people say without persuading them.
But hey, I’ve probably just embarrassed myself by failing to grasp a debate going on above my head haven’t I.
No you haven’t embarrassed yourself, but the line I have drawn is probably going to look very arbitrary to you and it isn’t.
Paddy, speaking hypothetically:
I think it’s OK to beat up pakis, they smell and should be sent back to paki land.*
oh no, was that a QUASI line I just crossed?
No. If you were to beat up anyone, that would obviously be illegal. If you were to run for Parliament on a ticket of forcible repatriation, I would vote against you and I expect that liberals like me would do likewise.
But if you just said “I think it’s OK to beat up pakis, they smell and should be sent back to paki land”, then that’s protected speech. If you said it in the comments section of d-squared digest; well I would probably delete it since in most contexts there it would most likely be offtopic and rude. I would say “you shouldn’t say that” but it’s not because of the content; it’s because that sentence is simply a crude assertion of a personal view in insulting terms which isn’t possible to argue with.
But if you expressed a similar sentiment in a form which was possible to argue with, I would be a hypocrite if I refused to argue with it and even more of one if I deleted it. And if I emailed your girlfriend saying “do you really want to go out with someone who posts things like this on websites” then that would be completely out of order.
whoa, you’re right, this is difficult.
It’s OK to try and change someone’s mind, but not to try to and make a person retract a statement even though they still really believe it and it’s OK to try and make a newspaper reconsider what they publish and who they employ but not if they originally thought his article was acceptable.
Way to go changing minds!
and you wouldn’t object to the content of my rather regretable example, but because of the form of its expression. but hey, I guess that’s because it’s content is not possible to argue with.
but perhaps I do now understand the point you are trying to make, that I missed through not picking up the point you were debating from Mill (although I think you also made a few other points) – it’s OK to try and get somebody or some institution to change its mind by persuasion, but it’s not OK to try and try and change someone’s mind with persuasion. Is that it? So you don’t think that Harry’s post about the wisdom of that liberty speaker, or the emails it suggsts sending constitute persuasion? It’s a fine distinction, if it is there at all.
one last point, if you do ever hear me utter sentiments similar to those, please do bring them to my girlfriend’s attention and question whether she wants to be going out with somebody who’d say such things. I think she’d be surprised that she was, and upon finding out, do something about it. Which is, I dunno, kind of analagous to what Harry et al are trying to do wouldn’t you say?
sorry, doing it again. para should read:
but perhaps I do now understand the point you are trying to make, that I missed through not picking up the point you were debating from Mill (although I think you also made a few other points) – it’s OK to try and get somebody or some institution to change its mind by persuasion, but it’s not OK to try and try and change someone’s mind WITHOUT persuasion. Is that it? So you don’t think that Harry’s post about the wisdom of that liberty speaker sharing a stage with Gorgeous G, or the emails it suggsts sending to her, constitute persuasion? It’s a fine distinction, if it is there at all.
if anybody with edit powers can just correct the original and delete this, I’d appreciate it.
it’s OK to try and get somebody or some institution to change its mind by persuasion, but it’s not OK to try and try and change someone’s mind with persuasion.
No; it’s OK (in fact it’s laudable) to try to change somebody’s mind by persuasion but it’s not OK to try to use means other than persuasion to get your view across. “Persuading” someone to sack a person you don’t agree with or “persuading” the director of Liberty to refuse to share a platform with George Galloway, in my book, constitutes using means other than persuasion to try and get at Galloway.
Think about it this way; say that you had just had a bet with George Galloway – you would try to persuade people to sign the UAT petition and he would try to persuade people to sign his “Troops Out” petition, winner gets a pint. You decide to pop along to the local RESPECT disco in order to engage a few people in debate and hopefully bring them round to your point of view. When you get there, the bouncer knocks you back and you find out that Gorgeous George has rung him up and told him you supported the war in Iraq. Wouldn’t you say that GG had been cheating here, because the bet was to see who could persuade the most people and here he is using his network of mates to stop you from having a fair go?
For a Millian liberal, the whole of civil society is conducted under the same implicit rules as that bet.
No; it’s OK (in fact it’s laudable) to try to change somebody’s mind by persuasion but it’s not OK to try to use means other than persuasion to get your view across
which looks more or less in agreement with my characterisation, in corrected para.
Is this what it reduces to for you? Your beef with Harry & Co comes down to “the means they use other than persuasion” – even though for all I can see they’ve just used words on a website and emails. And that your objection is that trying to pursuade the Groan to dump that guy, or Liberty not to share a stage with Respect, is “not letting them have a fair go”. Bit of a stretch, but heck, if you want to have it that way.
aren’t there more substantive issues at stake, like …. content, not form?
Dan
Stop being silly.
[stands back and watches screen fill up with another 10000 word post explaining how Dan’s particular take on Mill prevents anybody from saying anything at all about anything, ever]
Look, if you don’t think I’m a liberal for pointing out that people who are involved in human rights campaigning shouldn’t join forces with people who are opposed to the very concept, that’s cool.
But I’d just like to point out that by saying that you’ve similarly effectively censored me and brought me into public opprobrium: so neither are you.
Can we leave this now please x
Look, if you don’t think I’m a liberal for pointing out that people who are involved in human rights campaigning shouldn’t join forces with people who are opposed to the very concept, that’s cool.
I really do think I deserve better treatment than this obvious caricature of my views. I notice you’re not trying to defend the attempt to separate Rohan Jayasekera from his job for being insufficiently respectful of Theo van Gogh.
and btw:
Can we leave this now please
No we can’t; you’re doing something that I consider to be very wrong indeed and since I am too much of a liberal to start a campaign to get you boycotted, no-platformed or sacked, all I can do is continue to explain to you (unfortunately at rather tedious length) why you’re wrong.
Well boohoo
OK I think I can see how to clear this up.
David T, please give dsquared dispensation to start a campaign to have you sacked from Harry’s Place. You are doing something very wrong. Would even John Stuart object to such a shocking breach of liberal principles, if the target has given permission?
dsquared – go on – experience the thrill of being a bad guy for once! Just be sure to confine your reasons why David T should be sacked to the form of what he is done, and mention nothing about its content. I’m sure the blogosphere will recognise the vitally important issues at stake.
We might even get a witch hunt, if we’re lucky.
Oh no, I’m far too principled to give him a dispensation.
In fact, the damage has been done. I’m subject to so much opprobrium don’t think I’m able to type another w…o..r….
see that’s the problem with you guys on the decent left; you’ve got a really leaden touch with comedy.
Wow. The Sharpener has turned into Harry’s Place. Take it outside please, fellas. We’ll have none of that in here.
Pingback: Martin Stabe
Pingback: Tim Worstall
On why should the Guardian publish Ramadan: his views represent a significant attempt to reconcile Islam as it understood by a great majority of its practitioners with liberalism. He is non-violent, if a social reactionary, and is genuinely interested in dialogue, not bullets. The bottom line is that ideas like his are the future in the Muslim world. These are the kinds of voices that have power and the wind at their backs in Iraq, in Egypt, in Syria, in Palestine, etc.. They are willing and indeed look forward to participating in an open political debate in their society. You can’t simply expect another society or religious tradition to adopt views you think they should adopt. Indeed, I think this kind of thinking is counterproductive and constitutive of violent Sunni Jihadism in the first place.
The Guardian publishes all kinds of columnists. I’ve seen them publish Wolfowitz, Rumsfelf, Richard Perle, for example. And Liam Fox. Does this mean the Guardian endorses any of these views? Clearly not. But I think it is responsible and fair minded to do so.
But frankly, I don’t see Tariq Ramadan’s social conservatism as being that different from that of socially reactionary Christian conservatives, including large segments of the United States’s population. Or for that matter, the current Pope.
Pingback: The Sharpener » On squabbling liberals
[url=http://you-online-slot-machine.blogspot.com/]slot machine[/url] slot machine slot [url=http://you-free-slot-online.blogspot.com/]slot[/url]