Come May will Respect make hay while the sun shines?
- Thread starter rebel warrior
- Start date
cockneyrebel
New Member
mutley just to say that while I think the comments about nigel seem like a chance just to have a dig at the SP, rather than real political criticism, I do think you've been right to pick up some of the posts that have been put up over the last couple of months. While the SWP has lost it over RESPECT as far as I'm concerned, there are too many people who have fallen into the Islamophobic hysteria that is currently being whipped up around Europe.
Having said that it's sad that the SWPs response to this has been to form RESPECT and ditch class politics and basic socialist principles.
Having said that it's sad that the SWPs response to this has been to form RESPECT and ditch class politics and basic socialist principles.
cockneyrebel said:
Cheers for that, and obviously i don't accept the accusation that we've abandoned class politics, but I don't reckon i'll be able to add anything new to that particular controversy..
The dig wasn't just at the detail of the SP's response, but also at the virtual complete silence of their members over the issue. Silence truly does speak volumes..
articul8 said:
The article also formed the basis of the SP leaflet used on the February 18th rally and march in central London. So far from being silent on the issue the Sp were out on the streets attempting to engage witn Muslims though not in the opportunist manner of Respect/SWP
From the SP website:
'In European countries, including Britain, there is also a groundswell of resentment amongst Muslims against a perceived increase in anti-Islamic feelings, greater police surveillance and harassment.'
So it's a perceived increase in anti-Islamic feeling. Not definite, just perceived. Can you imagine any socialists putting out leaflets saying that 'afro-carribeans are angry about perceived police racism.' No - but in this case we have to hedge our bets a little..
'Faced with what they see as a continuous campaign of vilification in the media and increasing harassment many Muslims have protested against the publication of these cartoons.'
Again, it's not an actual campaign of vilification, but it's seen as such..
'From all sides opportunists, religious sectarians and racists have jumped in to exploit the situation.'
Notice the order of priorities?
First we must worry about the opportunists (Is that Respect?),
Second the religious sectarians..
Lastly, the small matter of racism.. in that order.
' In Arab countries, right wing Islamic religious leaders are taking the opportunity to reinforce their claim to be leading the opposition to imperialism and also strengthen their grip on society.'
Are yes there must always be a bit about the right-wing religious leaders in the Arab world - there's always got to be a bit of distancing going on..
Exactly what the character of the protests in the Middle East has got to do with the experience of European Muslims is unclear.
I'm sure Idi Amin and the like would have been quite happy to use anti-apartheid rhetoric, but we were all a lot more comfortable about that issue weren't we.
Then we have the finishing paragraphs:
'Socialists resist all attempts to stigmatise Muslims but at the same time combat the attacks of vicious Islamic reactionaries against gays and the rights of women.'
'Equally, we oppose the anti-Semitic material produced under the guise of opposing Israeli policy in many Arab countries.
Most of the Islamic states that have protested against the Danish cartoons are dictatorial regimes with brutal histories of oppressing their own populations.
Today, a critical task before the workers' movement is to prevent divisions amongst working people blocking united struggles.
This means defending democratic rights and opposing repression, while striving to build a unified movement that can challenge capitalism and fight for a socialist future.'
The problem with these last paragraphs is PRECISELY that they are so 'even-handed'. On the one hand, Bush, Blair, the racism of the tabloids, the 'enlightenment liberals' having a go in the broadsheets, the B52's, Guantanamo, imperialism but we have to balance that with our opposition to the islamic reactionaries, the anti-semitic press in the middle east, the authoritarian regimes.. cos they are an equal threat..(???)
And the very last part - we have to 'defend democratic rights' (from Fatwas i guess that means) while 'opposing repression' which is so abstract that it means fuck all unless you say who you think is being repressed.
How about opposing racism? How about standing by the oppressed?
The comments about 'silence' were referring to the SP posters on here by the way.
I'm sure plenty of enlightenment socialists on here will be happy to side with the SP but with referrence to Islamophobia and racism this ain't the time for even-handedness
'In European countries, including Britain, there is also a groundswell of resentment amongst Muslims against a perceived increase in anti-Islamic feelings, greater police surveillance and harassment.'
So it's a perceived increase in anti-Islamic feeling. Not definite, just perceived. Can you imagine any socialists putting out leaflets saying that 'afro-carribeans are angry about perceived police racism.' No - but in this case we have to hedge our bets a little..
'Faced with what they see as a continuous campaign of vilification in the media and increasing harassment many Muslims have protested against the publication of these cartoons.'
Again, it's not an actual campaign of vilification, but it's seen as such..
'From all sides opportunists, religious sectarians and racists have jumped in to exploit the situation.'
Notice the order of priorities?
First we must worry about the opportunists (Is that Respect?),
Second the religious sectarians..
Lastly, the small matter of racism.. in that order.
' In Arab countries, right wing Islamic religious leaders are taking the opportunity to reinforce their claim to be leading the opposition to imperialism and also strengthen their grip on society.'
Are yes there must always be a bit about the right-wing religious leaders in the Arab world - there's always got to be a bit of distancing going on..
Exactly what the character of the protests in the Middle East has got to do with the experience of European Muslims is unclear.
I'm sure Idi Amin and the like would have been quite happy to use anti-apartheid rhetoric, but we were all a lot more comfortable about that issue weren't we.
Then we have the finishing paragraphs:
'Socialists resist all attempts to stigmatise Muslims but at the same time combat the attacks of vicious Islamic reactionaries against gays and the rights of women.'
'Equally, we oppose the anti-Semitic material produced under the guise of opposing Israeli policy in many Arab countries.
Most of the Islamic states that have protested against the Danish cartoons are dictatorial regimes with brutal histories of oppressing their own populations.
Today, a critical task before the workers' movement is to prevent divisions amongst working people blocking united struggles.
This means defending democratic rights and opposing repression, while striving to build a unified movement that can challenge capitalism and fight for a socialist future.'
The problem with these last paragraphs is PRECISELY that they are so 'even-handed'. On the one hand, Bush, Blair, the racism of the tabloids, the 'enlightenment liberals' having a go in the broadsheets, the B52's, Guantanamo, imperialism but we have to balance that with our opposition to the islamic reactionaries, the anti-semitic press in the middle east, the authoritarian regimes.. cos they are an equal threat..(???)
And the very last part - we have to 'defend democratic rights' (from Fatwas i guess that means) while 'opposing repression' which is so abstract that it means fuck all unless you say who you think is being repressed.
How about opposing racism? How about standing by the oppressed?
The comments about 'silence' were referring to the SP posters on here by the way.
I'm sure plenty of enlightenment socialists on here will be happy to side with the SP but with referrence to Islamophobia and racism this ain't the time for even-handedness
cockneyrebel
New Member
Good comments by mutley in my view. Here's an article by Workers Power on the issue:
http://www.fifthinternational.org/index.php?id=14,367,0,0,1,0
http://www.fifthinternational.org/index.php?id=14,367,0,0,1,0
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Far from being "good comments" they are the comments of the kind of cretin who populates part of the far left these days, unable to see anything in colours other than black and white. So the likes of Mutley and the SWP can see the racism involved in the issue but are incapable of mounting even the most token defence of free speech or the right to criticise religion and are for that matter utterly uninterested in combating divisions in the working class.
Let's be clear about this: If you don't oppose anti-muslim bigotry and racism you are not a socialist. But if you don't stand at the same time for freedom of speech and for the right to criticise religion and oppose anti-semitic material too you are also not a socialist. For the likes of the SWP there are two "sides", the baddies and the oppressed. Socialists just have to pick which team they are cheering for. For Marxists things are somewhat more complex than that and even as we oppose the anti-Muslim hysteria, we remember that there are other issues to be dealt with.
The Socialist Party article which is being discussed is available in full here by the way. I would invite you all to take a look at it.
Let's be clear about this: If you don't oppose anti-muslim bigotry and racism you are not a socialist. But if you don't stand at the same time for freedom of speech and for the right to criticise religion and oppose anti-semitic material too you are also not a socialist. For the likes of the SWP there are two "sides", the baddies and the oppressed. Socialists just have to pick which team they are cheering for. For Marxists things are somewhat more complex than that and even as we oppose the anti-Muslim hysteria, we remember that there are other issues to be dealt with.
The Socialist Party article which is being discussed is available in full here by the way. I would invite you all to take a look at it.
Nigel Irritable said:
The bottom line, again, is that these weighty 'other issues to be dealt with' must NOT get in the way of the first, second, and third duties of socialists, which is to be 'the tribunes of the oppressed'.
By the way, on the freedom of speech issue, if you'd been the shop steward in the printing works of that Danish Paper, what would you have said?
This what the sw had to say about freedom of speech
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8243
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
mutley said:
You mean by opposing things like anti-Muslim bigotry, anti-semitism, divison in the working class, sexist and homophobic attitudes? As the Socialist Party is doing?
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
soulman said:
What's tusp?
cockneyrebel
New Member
I'm sure there could well be comment in the next paper.
However, firstly the FBU hasn't resolved the issue yet, and secondly it's not led by revolutionary socialists on the NC.
CNWP meeting for South West London tonight. About 28-30 there - 6 Workers Power, probably 15 SP.
Hopefully these meetings around the country will be able to build a decent conference in March.
Nigel Irritable said:
It's funny, if someone printed a cartoon saying that all rastafarians were drug dealers and burglars, I really don't think that we would be told that it's vital that as well as protesting against the racism we must combat homophobia and sexism amongst rastafarians, and homophobic violence in the Caribbean. We would just protest loud and clear and say that the cartoons were a disgrace - full stop.
But it seems that we absolutely cannot defend Muslims without bringing up anti-semitic cartoons in the Middle East (for which UK Muslims bear no responsibility) and sexism and homphobia in the Muslim community (which is obviously absent from the rest of society - not).
The unspoken message is very clear: 'The cartoons are a bit over the top, but there is actually a problem with these people'.
Oh and again, if you were the shop steward in a paper that was going to run the cartoons what would you say?
And would you accept that we are not just looking at 'perceived' racism in society, and that putting that qualifier in is a mistake? Or do you defend it?
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Once more, your crude attempts to divide every issue into baddies and oppressed and to rigorously exclude any sense that there might be more than one issue at work here won't wash. Such empty-headed demagogy may well go down a storm at some SWP meeting, where critical thinking is considered a sign of disloyalty, but the rest of us can see it for what it is: Idiocy leavened with a touch of opportunism.
It is a fact that the main issue the Socialist Party addresses on this matter is anti-muslim bigotry. That's because it is, in fact, the main issue. Which doesn't mean that it is the only issue or that we therefore have to jettison our critical faculties when it comes to such things as:
A) The use which reactionary regimes and religious political movements are making of the controversy.
B) The vicious oppression which those regimes and movements themselves stand for.
C) The need to emphasis that criticising religion is not in itself a bad thing, and that in fact the right to criticise religious ideas has to be protected.
As for Rastafarianism, if that religion came under a bigoted attack we would defend it too *without* abandoning our critical faculties. Of course it's not an exact comparison because there are to my knowledge no dictatorial regimes which claim their legitimacy from Rastafarianism and no substantial reactionary political movements based on it. There would be in other words an absence of the factor we are commenting on here - nasty regimes and political movements using the outrage for their own malevolent ends.
I expect that's too complicated for you though.
It is a fact that the main issue the Socialist Party addresses on this matter is anti-muslim bigotry. That's because it is, in fact, the main issue. Which doesn't mean that it is the only issue or that we therefore have to jettison our critical faculties when it comes to such things as:
A) The use which reactionary regimes and religious political movements are making of the controversy.
B) The vicious oppression which those regimes and movements themselves stand for.
C) The need to emphasis that criticising religion is not in itself a bad thing, and that in fact the right to criticise religious ideas has to be protected.
As for Rastafarianism, if that religion came under a bigoted attack we would defend it too *without* abandoning our critical faculties. Of course it's not an exact comparison because there are to my knowledge no dictatorial regimes which claim their legitimacy from Rastafarianism and no substantial reactionary political movements based on it. There would be in other words an absence of the factor we are commenting on here - nasty regimes and political movements using the outrage for their own malevolent ends.
I expect that's too complicated for you though.
Nigel Irritable said:
No it's very very clear and very helpful.
What you are saying is that it is impossible to defend European Muslims without constantly referring to authoritarian regimes in other parts of the world, which European Muslims bear absolutely no responsibility for. Similarly, you cannot defend people without making them feel that they are somehow responsible for that minute protest that took place that called for beheadings etc.
This is exactly the approach that pisses off liberal or leftist Muslims who get sick to the back teeth of being asked to condemn anything, done anywhere, by anyone in the name of Islam.
The use which reactionary regimes in the Middle East are making of this is pretty much irrelevant to the politics of anti-racism in Europe, and your literature constantly referring to that again makes Muslims feel that somehow they are responsible for the Syrian Government.
If you wish to reply yet again, please do so without the obligatory accusations of demagogy, non-marxist identity for anyone but yourselves, generally low intelligence and lack of ability to grasp complex issues etc etc.
It just makes you sound like an arrogant aloof tosser.
And, for the THIRD time, what would your strategy be, if you were a steward, in a printing works, for a paper that was going to print the cartoons?????
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
There was once, I think; Hailie Sallasie of Ethiopa.Nigel Irritable said:
Sorry to interrupt the highly entertaining sectariana, but what is Respect's target? How many seats would they be happy with
*note I understand that they will not answer this since that would hinder their predicted attempt to turn any result into a doubleplusgood triumph, but you never know**
** note 2: that was an attempt to embarress them into giving an answer***
*** note 3: I realise the futility of such tactics for people who have no shame.
*note I understand that they will not answer this since that would hinder their predicted attempt to turn any result into a doubleplusgood triumph, but you never know**
** note 2: that was an attempt to embarress them into giving an answer***
*** note 3: I realise the futility of such tactics for people who have no shame.
poster342002 said:
There was indeed, and Nigels argument has no logic even if he was right about that.
IF there is homophobia and sexism in Rastafarianism, why does that only become a problem if someone seeks to set up a state based on it? A set of religious beliefs which leads to oppression is to be combatted only if its adherents decide that it is an overtly political movement? Aren't all religions/value frameworks political?
The model I am arguing for is that your public literature unconditionally defends the oppressed, and that you take up the reactionary ideas with the people themselves once you have established the trust. Which is happening inside Respect. Leaflets like the SP's are water off a ducks back, cos they are NOT coming from a starting point of previously earned respect (with a small r).
cockneyrebel
New Member
I think mutley is making some good points and I think the SP bent the stick too far one way.
Obviously it is worth criticising the fundamentalists and how the fundamentalist regimes are using this for their own ends (I think that is a relevant issue mutley) but as said I think the SP bent the stick too far. I really don't see the need to use words like "perceived" when it is clear to anyone that it is happening.
Out of interest mutley what did you think of the WP article?
As it goes the Sun published just as offensive cartoons a year or two back with their "Mr Men" cartoons. Including:
and
Obviously it is worth criticising the fundamentalists and how the fundamentalist regimes are using this for their own ends (I think that is a relevant issue mutley) but as said I think the SP bent the stick too far. I really don't see the need to use words like "perceived" when it is clear to anyone that it is happening.
Out of interest mutley what did you think of the WP article?
As it goes the Sun published just as offensive cartoons a year or two back with their "Mr Men" cartoons. Including:
and
Effing clueless - Haile Sellasie actually refused to leave his plane when he arrived in Jamaica until the Rasta reception committee left. Rastafarianism was an entirely Carribbean creation which made him into some sort of divinity entirely without his agreement - he explicitly rejected this when he was in Jamaicamutley said:
So you establish trust with oppressed muslim women by unconditionally supporting their oppressors in your public literature???mutley said:
cockneyrebel
New Member
Socialists (and anarchists!) should never hold back their criticism of religious bigotry (as the WP article says
) but the main issue here is that the cartoons were racist and a deliberate attempt to stir up racial tension.Just as I thought it was fantastic that workers at the sun refused to print an anti-NUM story I would have done the same if workers at that paper had refused to print racist cartoons.
Let's be realistic. Two of the cartoons were fairly offensive (although nowhere near as offensive as South Park for example) - the other six were not and some of them were quite good. We should also realise that it was not the offensive nature of the cartoons that prompted the protests - it was the very act of printing images of mohammed.cockneyrebel said:Socialists (and anarchists!) should never hold back their criticism of religious bigotry (as the WP article says
Of course they were a deliberate attempt to bash muslims and so on, the newspaper equivalent of trolling - but the best way to react to a troll is to ignore him. The only people for whom it made sense to choose this particular offense to get enraged about was the fundies. Anti-imperialists who chose to jump on this particular bandwagon are just following the stupid black and white goodies versus baddies model of politics that GW Bush and Osama want us to play.
Many of the people who got most offended about this and who helped to organise the protests weren't particularly offended by the imperialist invasion of Iraq (eg the regimes in the middle east). The whole thing was a transparent attempt to channel anti-imperialism into the much safer religious channel.
gurrier said:
You establish trust by defending their right to practice their religion in the way that they see fit, which includes defending both the right to wear and the right not to wear the hijab. Then you may start to get a dialogue.
You also support their community against being stereotyped as bombers which is what the cartoons did.
Nigels clearly not going to answer my thrice presented question is he.
cockneyrebel
New Member
In the context of rising Islamophobia I'd say the one with the bomb on the head was totally offensive and racist.
Also, equally important, is why the newspaper was doing it. They clearly aren't doing it to hold up free speech, they did it in an attempt to stir up racism and this should be the main thing that is pointed out.
I'm not sure you can say why all the protestors went out. Indeed quite a few secular people I've spoken to from muslim backgrounds said they were offended by them in that they thought they were racist.
I agree that the fundamentalist leaders fell straight into the trap, but that just shows how cynical the newspaper was being.
Indeed the WP article makes the point that firstly we shouldn't support state banning or the kind of legislations that the SWP/RESPECT is supporting and that the main thing that is worth turning anger against is stuff like Fallujah, Iraq, Palestine etc
Also, equally important, is why the newspaper was doing it. They clearly aren't doing it to hold up free speech, they did it in an attempt to stir up racism and this should be the main thing that is pointed out.
I'm not sure you can say why all the protestors went out. Indeed quite a few secular people I've spoken to from muslim backgrounds said they were offended by them in that they thought they were racist.
I agree that the fundamentalist leaders fell straight into the trap, but that just shows how cynical the newspaper was being.
Indeed the WP article makes the point that firstly we shouldn't support state banning or the kind of legislations that the SWP/RESPECT is supporting and that the main thing that is worth turning anger against is stuff like Fallujah, Iraq, Palestine etc
One cartoon did and that was not the point of the protests which were against the depiction of mohommed in any shape or form. By supporting such protests you only show that you defer to the ridiculous dictats of fundamentalist religion and by implication their right to order women to be obedient. If you had wanted to oppose the portrayal of muslims as terrorists you could easily have organised a protest on those grounds (maybe with placards showing mohammed as a nice happy smiling man) but you just decided to support protests whose entire point was that religious nutters should be allowed to impose their ludicrous rules on the rest of society.mutley said:
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
