Either way, whether Muslim women with veils are requested they drop them, or women with mini-skirts are asked to cover up, we are faced with really silly debates over these issues.
In order to cut through some of the emotional outrage being hurdled about, there are a few points to be made.
1) Slurs. Jack Straw’s comments cannot be construed as racist or Islamophobic; the latter would imply he has something against Muslims or Islam when, given his comments everywhere, that does not stand up. One may however call Jack Straw opportunistic, in a bid for leadership, but that’s really about it.
2) Understanding. We also cannot pretend that people have different cultural norms. At a Guardian discussion on ‘Muslim opinion’ (see here) earlier this year many participants declared they had trouble mingling with their non-Muslim peers because it was usually around alcohol. It was met with some amusement, but the point is simply the same: different perception.
So one is perfectly entitled to ask Rajnaara Akhtar that if she wants Jack Straw to show some understanding – would she also apply the same principles to herself when asked to socialise with her non-Muslim peers? This bridge of understanding cannot be only one way.
3) Debate. I also feel the usual band of Muslim “representatives” are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to shut down the debate over this issue because it will only bubble underneath until it explodes into something idiotic, like voting for the BNP. Far better to have an honest discussion about it.
4) Liberty. Despite the hostile debate it is also unavoidable that the government has no real right to legislate what ordinary people can or cannot wear (other than through public indecency laws). So it is a rather harmless debate.
5) Identity. This is inevitably tied to issues around identity, making the debate more shrill than it needs to be. Non-Muslims see it as an attack on their values because they don’t understand or want to accept the idea behind the full veil (Niqab). This also makes many on the right feign an interest in the rights of Muslim women when, if they cared, they would be more interested in their economic underachievement.
On the other side people such as Rajnaara Akhtar will view this debate as a personal attack on their faith because it has become a form of an identity rather than a way of life and thus leads to an instinctively defensive reaction. Ideally she should use the debate to inform others of her thoughts and ideas than start accusing others of ignorance.
6) Boundaries. As my friend Arif said, people make their boundaries differently. “Some wear niqab and that contributes to minor tensions in society. Some pass judgment on them and contribute tensions themselves. We’re still mostly good people trying our best.”
So how shall we proceed? I don’t believe having emotional debates help. Is this an issue of liberty? Is this merely a debate where a politician is airing his views on the Niqab? Or is this simply an attempt by some groups to couch their xenophobia into relevant debates.
It would also help if people on all sides were not so hypocritical in their ‘understanding’ for the other. Yesterday we had the non-issue of PC Basha being made front page when he was simply worried for his relatives in Lebanon were he to be photographed protecting the Israeli embassy.
The death of informed debate continues.
Update: More interesting commentary by Rachel, Jai, Thabet, Satirical Muslim, Holly Finch, Suspect Paki and Not Saussure.
]]>A group of prominent MPs, alarmed at the rise of anti-semitism in Britain, will accuse some left-wing activists and Muslim extremists this week of using criticism of Israel as ‘a pretext’ for spreading hatred against British Jews.The charge is made in a hard-hitting report – by MPs from all three major political parties – which will be unveiled at a Downing Street meeting with Tony Blair on Thursday.
…
Though emphasising the right of people to criticise or protest against Israeli government actions, it says ‘rage’ over Israeli policies has sometimes ‘provided a pretext’ for anti-semitism.
MPs, we are told, are demanding action against rising abuse, harassment and even violence. Other than increasing police presence at Synagogues, which maybe advisable, the other insinuation of this report does seem to demand tacit censorship. And I don’t buy that.
While I fully accept that anti-semites on the far left, and some Muslims, are using their hatred as a pretext to attack Israel – it’s what you get for living in a free society. This may sound unsympathetic to Jews who have been attacked or abused, or oblivious to Synagogues that have been defaced, but it’s not.
The same issues highlighted in the upcoming report apply to British Muslims. They have seen a rise in attacks because of their faith; they have seen Mosques defaced with graffiti; they have seen bigots use terrorism as a pretext for open hostility against all of them as a people. Hell, the BNP is even trying to drop their traditional anti-semitism to focus on hating on Muslims.
So why wasn’t a comparison made along with British Muslims? Could it be due to Denis McShane’s chequered history? It may be because it would then expose the authors to accusations of trying to call for censorship.
That we should have the freedom to attack governments and faith based organisations without being accused, overtly or tacitly, of anti-semitism or Islamophobia, is obvious. For someone such as myself, who constantly criticises not only governments but faith (and race) based bodies for their myopia or downright stupidity, such reports are akin to demanding that we engage in self-censorship. I cannot accept that.
What we can do is distance ourselves from those we see as having ulterior, racist motives. But that is all. Accusations of having racist motives should not numb criticism of governments or organisations.
]]>Blogs need a ‘reason’ to succeed and do well. You may disagree of course but behind every averagely popular blog is a reason. Or exceptional writing, but let’s not go into that *cough*
More specifically political blogs need a reason to prosper and build their audiences. They need someone to rant at, they need controversies that people can vent feelings over and they need a general editorial line readers can identify with. Most importantly political blogs need attention and committment from the author and hence they need a reason to exist.
You may not be familiar with their full names but Jerome and Kos run MyDD and DailyKos respectively, the two most popular liberal blogs on the planet.
The book (and the review more briefly) follow the growth of the American left-wing blogosphere on the back of the 2004 election. They had found their reason: to organise an effective opposition to the Republican party using blogs as a grassroots medium and and, riding on the back of increased participation, force the MSM to take notice and occasionally follow their agenda. For example:
When The Washington Post kept repeating the GOP’s charge that disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money to Democrats as well as to Republicans, on-line activists assembled data and organized an overwhelming response, showing that Abramoff mainly worked with Republicans. This finding was soon picked up by the press and television and much less was heard about Abramoff’s evenhandedness.
Of course politics in the United States is a lot more belligerent and divided almost equally into two warring sides. That makes it easy for people to take sides. But the analogy is somewhat useful for this side of the pond too. The blogosphere can also be more democratic and organised in a way that the MSM cannot be. Again, taking the American example, the review states:
What gives Kos and Jerome credibility is less their solid and straightforward book than the Web community they’ve helped to inspire and build. It includes a series of literally interlinked sites, ranging from the enormous if somewhat predictable, such as MoveOn.org, partially financed by George Soros, to the tiny and tightly focused.
A few are expert blogs on particular topics: the University of Michigan professor Juan Cole, for instance, gives detailed accounts of the day’s events in Iraq at his Informed Comment site, JuanCole.com. Others derive from more traditional journalism: Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo (www.talkingpointsmemo.com) employs a couple of full-time reporters to uncover and explain the latest developments in the Republican congressional scandals. Others are more traditional blogs.
You get the idea.
So I come back to my original question. What is the reason behind The Sharpener? What is its purpose? You may accuse me of taking things too seriously, and you may be partly right, but I believe we need to figure out why this blog exists and what is its purpose, or it will start meandering.
Do we discuss anything and everything? Or do we, as a political blog, formulate some sort of a strategy akin to our American cousins and figure out if we can forge a common political agenda and take that forward? You may be unsurprised to hear that I favour the latter option.
In one way we are halfway there. Many political blogs featured here have their strengths on particular issues, partly the reason why I was happy to join this bunch. Along with promises of fame, fortune and female groupies of course but how quickly reality bites.
All we need now, providing some or all of want to do this, is figure out how we can play to the strengths of the blogging medium and use that to punch above our weight as the American blogosphere has done. The review above gives some examples of how this has happened.
If we believe there is an opportunity here and we do need strategic direction, then some questions to consider would be: how do we wish to influence party politics; what strengths can we leverage better than the MSM; and how can we put these ideas into practice? Essentially, what do we stand for and how can we get there?
Given, all this sounds very idealistic. But at the very least I wanted to kick start a discussion on how we can use The Sharpener as a platform to influence change in a way many other blogs on the other side of the pond have managed.
]]>The bad news is that the LibDems may as well not have existed in these elections; on face value it was a straight transfer of power from Labour to Conservatives. They shuffled around the edges.
I want to make two points in this article. The first is that there needs to be a better discussion of whether Sir Ming Campbell needs to make way for a new leader who has more impact. Secondly, that LibDem blogs need to start becoming more strategic.
It is true that in local elections people are less interested in politics on a national scale. But that does not explain why the Conservatives gained so heavily at the expense of Labour. So I set about going through LibDemBlogs to find out what party activists had been saying, and was left a bit disappointed. There was very little discussion of the results on a national level.
But there was some. Peter, Susanne and Stephen cover this briefly. Jonathan Calder says a bit more.
Let’s start with my first point. On this, James has a good analysis of the elections and says:
Is it fair to pin the blame on Ming Campbell? Yes and no. On the one hand, had Kennedy remained in post I am quite sure we would have had just as bad a night, possibly worse. From the central party point of view, our problem is twofold: our inability to develop distinctive national messages, and our inability to spread best practice and develop a coherent Lib Dem nationwide approach to local government.
Though Cicero and Tony Ferguson are forgiving, Ken Owen and Paul Linford are not:
Ming is a decent man, of that there is no question, but my suspicions that he would prove ill-suited to the demands of modern politics have proved sadly correct, and it is not just Tory MPs and part-time bloggers who think he cannot take the party through the glass ceiling.He has failed to give the Liberal Democrats the distinctive branding and youthful appeal they had under Ashdown and Kennedy and even his House of Commons performances, which were expected to be his strong suit, have been stumbling.
Apologies if I missed anyone out in my above round-up. During the leadership election Sir Campbell was not my first choice and I am still to be convinced he can make any real impact with voters outside the hardcore Lib Dem constituency. And that brings me to the second point.
A few months ago the Apollo Project merged with Liberal Review online. I view such consolidation positively because there is a real opportunity, specially for blogs aligned with political parties, to use this online space to move the agenda forward.
So here my view. While Lib Dems seem to more prevalent amongst card-carrying British bloggers, they mostly write about personal and local affairs. This is neither surprising nor necessarily a bad thing. But it pretty much means zero political impact.
What I’d love to see is the likes of Liberal Review and Liberal England leading a concerted and organised grassroots efforts to thrash out the future direction of the party. To discuss and debate why the local elections, what can be learnt, whether Sir Ming Campbell can do the job, and how those elusive voters can be converted to the cause.
We already know blogs offer a fantastic publishing platform for people to discuss and debate ideas. Why not use that to re-generate the political grassroots rather than leaving it to the higher-ups to formulate policy?
I’m not deriding the existing quality of commentary or implying there is little retrospection. I’m simply saying that rather than being disparate and disconnected, this debate needs to be more strategic and organised.
]]>