Gair Rhydd published *those* cartoons?

[Swan]

this article is worth a read;
http://www.muslimwakeup.com/main/archives/2006/02/cartoons_ships.php#more

 

[chilango]

The simple facts are these:

If cartoon's were published that depicted Arabs stereotyped as terrorists, then the left would be united in condemning them.

Now, Instead of Arabs, the cartoons imply that ALL Muslims are terrorists - through depictions of the founder of Islam with a turban shaped like a bomb.

Yet, instead of condemning the cartoons, sections of the left obsess about freedom to criticise religion, freedom of speech and equivocate all over the place. The fact that some reactionary Islamic forces have exploited the issue is used to justify the left failing to condemn the cartoons.

The fact that the cartoons attack members of a religious group has led some sections of the left to treat the question completely different to if they attacked an ethnic group. Would they also react this way if they attacked another group not based on "race" - for example asylum seekers?

Yet, to me their seems little difference in cartoons that argue ALL Arabs are terrorists and cartoons that argue ALL Muslims are terrorists.

There is simply no comparison between the Rushdie Affair, or the affair around the Sikh play BEZHTI, or the Jerry Springer Opera and these cartoons.

If cartoons were published in European tabloids stating that ALL Arabs were terrorists, I think that no one on the left would have any problem with knowing what side they were on, I think the question of these cartoons is as simple.

From the descriptions I´ve read, the cartoon you refer to is only one of a dozen or so. Does that cartoon depict ALL muslims as terrorists? or that some terrorists use their belief in a version of Islam as a justification for their actions - that they describe as "holy war"?

I guess thats open to interpretation.

Certainly not as clearcut as you make out.

Especially as most of the fuss apperas to be not the "terrorist" depiction but the creation of images of Muhammed or Allah or whatever.

In which case its not a case of oppression, but rather of nonbelivers in a certain religion breaking a tenet of that faith. Should nonbelivers be forced follow the laws of other religions? That is how the Sudanese dictatorship has justified its campaign of genocide against non Muslims. Should the left support that too?

...besides even if what you claim is true (and it is akin to racism rather than a crude critique of a religion), the left can condemn offensive cartoons without supporting calls for state bans, censorship etc.

However, i think it is a dangerous game to play fast and loose between the terms Arab and Muslim, as you seem to do.

 

[jannerboyuk]

Nah.

Simply that those responsible knew what they did was a provocation, in an incident that has led to violence and deaths around the world. They cannot be surprised if they were to get attacked.

Not saying its right, both sides are wrong if you ask me.

Fair enough.

 

[osterberg]

Anyone want to answer my questions?

I'm all for free speech but should there be a right to incite islamophobia and racism?
Wouldn't Nick Griffin have been convicted if there was a law against the incitement of religious hatred?

 

[RubberBuccaneer]

Anyone want to answer my questions?

Yes,I think he would.

 

[Redstar]

Well, now a Left-wing French satirical mag has gone and published the cartoons. Which begs the question - is it a Left-thing, a Right-thing, or just a French/European thing?

Here's some background info about the mag and it's take:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo

 

[llantwit]

I think in this instance it might be a 'French Left' thing - you know how the French like to make a big thing out of their 'Egalite' in the eyse of the state thing... only in France would you have the far left marching alongside Le Pen supporting the ban of religious articles in schools, for example.

 

[llantwit]

Wouldn't Nick Griffin have been convicted if there was a law against the incitement of religious hatred?
Genuine questions.Not sure if I know the answers myself.

What's you're gut answer? Mine would be, yes he might have been convicted, but that doesn't make it a good law, it's stupid cos it could be used against a (perfectly reasonable) radical atheist position against any religion as well as against Griffin's prejudiced bile.

 

[jannerboyuk]

I think in this instance it might be a 'French Left' thing - you know how the French like to make a big thing out of their 'Egalite' in the eyse of the state thing... only in France would you have the far left marching alongside Le Pen supporting the ban of religious articles in schools, for example.

As opposed to the SWP marching alongside Serbian fascists?
It would of course be difficult for any other far left except the french to march alongside a french fascist unless it was a very bizaare day trip.
Are you saying that the French far left physically marched alongisde the FN or just had a policy that co-incided with an FN policy? - a big difference i'm sure you would acknowledge. I personally didn't agree with those policies as they were incompatible with individual freedom but i do think that whoever people are they should develop their policies according to their own principles not shit themselves that the FN might agree with them.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

What's you're gut answer? Mine would be, yes he might have been convicted, but that doesn't make it a good law, it's stupid cos it could be used against a (perfectly reasonable) radical atheist position against any religion as well as against Griffin's prejudiced bile.

Whatever your opinions on the law, I think that is highly unlikely. The law was extending the same defence to Muslims that already actually exists for Sikh's and Jews - there are no instances of atheists being prosecuted for incitement of religious hatred toward Jews or Sikhs, this to me, would challenge the argument that you put forward.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

As opposed to the SWP marching alongside Serbian fascists?

I beg your pardon? The SWP (along with Tariq Ali, Tony Benn, Jeremy Corbyn MP and many others) opposed the bombing of Serbia but was never in any way apologists for Millosevic (unlike some on the left). What are you talking about?

Incidentally, the SWP and anti-war movement's position was vindicated when the Serbian Revolution which involved 2 million Serbian workers storming the Parliament achieved what the NATO bombings didn't - the toppling of Millosevic

 

[llantwit]

It would of course be difficult for any other far left except the french to march alongside a french fascist unless it was a very bizaare day trip.
Are you saying that the French far left physically marched alongisde the FN or just had a policy that co-incided with an FN policy? - a big difference i'm sure you would acknowledge. I personally didn't agree with those policies as they were incompatible with individual freedom but i do think that whoever people are they should develop their policies according to their own principles not shit themselves that the FN might agree with them.

I'm sorry if my language wasn't precise enough for you. I remember being frustrated that any leftist group would support a state ban that limited people's freedom like that, and I also found it distasteful that the left were singing from the same hymnbook as the fascists. I wasn't saying they went on demos together to collectively bash the towellheads or anything (neither am I suggesting they sang Islamophobic hymns together, like ). The headscarf ban in France is the only place I can remember feeling like that, and always put it down to the French authoritarian left's commitment to/fetishisation of the values of the French revolution... that it caused them to end up sharing common ground with the authoritarian right was an extra unpleasantness, for me.

 

[neprimerimye]

The simple facts are these:

If cartoon's were published that depicted Arabs stereotyped as terrorists, then the left would be united in condemning them.

Now, Instead of Arabs, the cartoons imply that ALL Muslims are terrorists - through depictions of the founder of Islam with a turban shaped like a bomb.

Yet, instead of condemning the cartoons, sections of the left obsess about freedom to criticise religion, freedom of speech and equivocate all over the place. The fact that some reactionary Islamic forces have exploited the issue is used to justify the left failing to condemn the cartoons.

The fact that the cartoons attack members of a religious group has led some sections of the left to treat the question completely different to if they attacked an ethnic group. Would they also react this way if they attacked another group not based on "race" - for example asylum seekers?

Yet, to me their seems little difference in cartoons that argue ALL Arabs are terrorists and cartoons that argue ALL Muslims are terrorists.

There is simply no comparison between the Rushdie Affair, or the affair around the Sikh play BEZHTI, or the Jerry Springer Opera and these cartoons.

If cartoons were published in European tabloids stating that ALL Arabs were terrorists, I think that no one on the left would have any problem with knowing what side they were on, I think the question of these cartoons is as simple.

The facts have little in common with the rather naive positions Udo puts forward.

The cartoons were published months ago in Denmark to general indifference.

They have only received wider attention in the last week or so only as a result of right wing forces, which happen to be Muslim in their ideology, bringing them to wider attention.

The cartoons are noxious reactionary caricatures of Muslims and, to stretch a point, racist. As such to use Udo's emotive term, I condemn them.

But I'm opposed to banning their publication under pressure of the right wing, in some cases clerico-fascist, elements in the Muslim countries and among Muslim communities in the imperialist metropoles. Calls to ban them do make it an issue of Free Speech by definition.

Given that some Christians did seek to have the Springer opera banned and some Sikhs did seek to have Bezhti banned this case is a very close analogue to those others.

As a communist I oppose all laws which limit Free Speech. it follows that i oppose the current laws that make incitement to racial hatred an offence and I oppose the new religious hatred laws. Because as a communist I would argue it is wrong in principle to rely on the bourgeois state to decide what is or is not acceptable to say.

It is my position that racism and religious bigotry must be fought by the methods of the workers movement. That is by seeking through the best possible furtherance of the class struggle to abolish the hold of religion upon the minds of the masses by showing religion to be a form of false consciousness. As such I oppose the advocacy of any measure that will further strengthen the bourgeois state as with the proposed religious hatred law.

 

[neprimerimye]

I beg your pardon? The SWP (along with Tariq Ali, Tony Benn, Jeremy Corbyn MP and many others) opposed the bombing of Serbia but was never in any way apologists for Millosevic (unlike some on the left). What are you talking about?

Incidentally, the SWP and anti-war movement's position was vindicated when the Serbian Revolution which involved 2 million Serbian workers storming the Parliament achieved what the NATO bombings didn't - the toppling of Millosevic

Having just written to oppose the SWP's reformist pro-state centsorship position I guess I had better be even handed and defend the SWP!

First of all it's an urban myth that the SWP has segregated any of it's meeting. SWP members did however assist in stewarding a Brum STWC meeting which was so segregated. I''ve talked to comrades who were present and trust their reports as factual. A stupid error that means little in itself.

Serbian fascists did participate on anti-war marches in London to my certain knowledge. But the SWP was not in any kind of bloc or solidarity with them. They should have been run off but weren't. Again a pretty unimportant error but nonetheless an error principally of the organisers for not having proper stewarding.

I enjoyed Udo's gloss on the uprising that overthrew Milosovic! While it is true that in the end it was mass action that brought down Milo it should not be passed over that the opposition was financed by US and EU imperialism. A rather undialectical position from Udo.

 

[osterberg]

What's you're gut answer? Mine would be, yes he might have been convicted, but that doesn't make it a good law, it's stupid cos it could be used against a (perfectly reasonable) radical atheist position against any religion as well as against Griffin's prejudiced bile.

I'd like to get the bastard by any means necessary but such a law would probably be used against the wrong targets like 'Jerry Springer','Bezhti',etc.so you're probably right.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Having just written to oppose the SWP's reformist pro-state centsorship position I guess I had better be even handed and defend the SWP!

First of all it's an urban myth that the SWP has segregated any of it's meeting. SWP members did however assist in stewarding a Brum STWC meeting which was so segregated. I''ve talked to comrades who were present and trust their reports as factual. A stupid error that means little in itself.

Serbian fascists did participate on anti-war marches in London to my certain knowledge. But the SWP was not in any kind of bloc or solidarity with them. They should have been run off but weren't. Again a pretty unimportant error but nonetheless an error principally of the organisers for not having proper stewarding.

I enjoyed Udo's gloss on the uprising that overthrew Milosovic! While it is true that in the end it was mass action that brought down Milo it should not be passed over that the opposition was financed by US and EU imperialism. A rather undialectical position from Udo.

1) There was no "segregated" meeting held by Birmingham STWC. There was a meeting where men and women sat together. In the same meeting room, a small number of Muslim women voluntarily chose to sit together in an area of seating apparently designated as women-only.

Some people on the left (understandably) felt this was inappropriate. Personally, I think that sometimes you have to choose your battles and make compromises when involved in a broad campaign.

2) While it is true that the figures who placed themselves at the head of the movement were bought off by the west, the idea that the uprising was Western sponsored in the same way as the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon where people are bussed in from the affluent suburbs and the demonstrations have corporate sponsorship is false.

N. also ignores evidence such as the springing up of factory's placed under "workers' management". There is also the anti-capitalist spirit of the student movement Otpoor! who exhibited a subversive playfullness - they played huge public games of Monopoly to symbolise the way their rulers were playing with them, when Milosevic declared he was a national hero, the students put up stickers with their own pictures on and the caption "I am a national hero" - to mock him.

This was a genuine democratic revolution - Serbian Workers and Students achieved in 3 days, what NATO couldn't in 78 days. And this was all without bombing hospitals, bridges, schools and TV stations.

Serbian workers' did torch their Parliament - but who would quarrel with that.

A good article for N.: http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj89/german.htm

 

[Udo Erasmus]

I'd like to get the bastard by any means necessary but such a law would probably be used against the wrong targets like 'Jerry Springer','Bezhti',etc.so you're probably right.

I disagree - there is already existing legislation that covers religious incitement against Sikh's and Jews (one of th reasons for this law was to overturn this anomaly). Yet these laws were not used against "Bezhti".

The law was an extension of "incitement to race hate" legislation. Yet these laws have not been used to generally curb freedom of speech including stuff that we would agree was racist - for example their was no prosecution of Kilroy and Bernard Manning is free to appear in venues up and down the UK.

The one genuine danger, is not that these laws would be used against atheists, but that they would be used against the very groups they are claiming to protect.

The first person prosecuted by the race-relations bill in the 60s, was Michael X, a British Black Power activist, and you can imagine an Islamicist Cleric being prosecuted for incitement to religious hatred - but this presumably woudn't be a problem for people like Chilango.

I personally, would have voted for this law - with no illusions.

Neprimerimye brazenly states that Communists don't support any curb on freedom of speech. This is all very well for him, but he is not the kind of person who will be a victim of race/religious hate.

He is also a little bit disingenuous. Would he oppose the print workers working for The Sun during the miners' strike who refused to print a picture of Arthur Scargill with the caption "Mine Fuhrer"? - this is presumably a curb on freedom of speech

Do communists really oppose any curb on freedom of speech?

Shouldn't it be a legal right of ethnic minorities to attend school and work and not be subject to racist language from their fellow workers/students, or employers/teachers? And wouldn't he argue that now workers can take their employers to court for racial or sexual harrasment, that this is a step forward.

Shouldn't women be entitled to work in a workplace free from pornographic images being stuck up? And not have to put up with sexist language? And if they do have to put up with this treatment, shouldn't they be able to take their employers to court - surely ALL Socialists support this?

Surely, the imperfect legislation that has been passed against racism from the 60s onwards is something that socialists would defend?

As it happens, nobody has been arguing that the racist cartoons should have been dealt with in the law courts - we are arguing that the Left should be unequivocal in condemning them and should stand in solidarity with the people being attacked by them who have a right to be angry.

To liberals like Chilango and N. this might be a complex issue where we can all sit on our hands and slap our backs about how progressive we are, but if you are part of a group that has been demonised by the media and experienced a 600% rise in racist attacks towards you, you might expect a more concrete response from people who claim to be socialists

 

[Brockway]

The first person prosecuted by the race-relations bill in the 60s, was Michael X, a British Black Power activist, .

He lived in Cardiff for a few years, down the docks - he even adopted a son, who still lives here. I did some research on him, he (Michael X) was a bit of a con man really, took in a lot of white liberals like John Lennon - it took a black man, Caribbean writer VS Naipaul to write a proper critique of him.

 

[neprimerimye]

1) There was no "segregated" meeting held by Birmingham STWC. There was a meeting where men and women sat together. In the same meeting room, a small number of Muslim women voluntarily chose to sit together in an area of seating apparently designated as women-only.

Some people on the left (understandably) felt this was inappropriate. Personally, I think that sometimes you have to choose your battles and make compromises when involved in a broad campaign.

2) While it is true that the figures who placed themselves at the head of the movement were bought off by the west, the idea that the uprising was Western sponsored in the same way as the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon where people are bussed in from the affluent suburbs and the demonstrations have corporate sponsorship is false.

N. also ignores evidence such as the springing up of factory's placed under "workers' management". There is also the anti-capitalist spirit of the student movement Otpoor! who exhibited a subversive playfullness - they played huge public games of Monopoly to symbolise the way their rulers were playing with them, when Milosevic declared he was a national hero, the students put up stickers with their own pictures on and the caption "I am a national hero" - to mock him.

This was a genuine democratic revolution - Serbian Workers and Students achieved in 3 days, what NATO couldn't in 78 days. And this was all without bombing hospitals, bridges, schools and TV stations.

Serbian workers' did torch their Parliament - but who would quarrel with that.

A good article for N.: http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj89/german.htm

1/ Men and women sitting seperately in a meeting is segregation! Moreover the meeting was stewarded and said stewards directed men and women to their repsective seating areas.

2/ Most of your rather silly attempt to create differences between us on the question of the Serbian revolution are besides the point. But I did enjoy your defence of Otpor! as having an "anti-capitalist playfullness". This being the same Otpor! that was financed by the Soros Foundation I take it?

One point to remember about the torching of the Serbian parliament was that the only workers who benefitted were those employed to rebuild it. I'm pleased your satisfied with the democratic political revolution that brought Serbia under the aegis of US and EU imperialism for my part I look forward to the Workers Social Revolution.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

1. But I did enjoy your defence of Otpor! as having an "anti-capitalist playfullness". This being the same Otpor! that was financed by the Soros Foundation I take it?

One point to remember about the torching of the Serbian parliament was that the only workers who benefitted were those employed to rebuild it. I'm pleased your satisfied with the democratic political revolution that brought Serbia under the aegis of US and EU imperialism for my part I look forward to the Workers Social Revolution.

Would you similarly (like the Stalinists) argue that Solidarnosc was just a CIA front driven by reactionary Catholic politics - if you did I would also disagree with you.

Your analysis seems curiously undialectical and simplistic, if not ultra-left. Sure, we all want a socialist utopia - but does this mean that we oppose democratic uprisings and you still ignore the fact that their were signs of workers power on display, such as the experiments in workers' management - that were unfortunately curtailed by the new regime? Also, a similar senile criticism was made of the revolutions in Eastern Europe against the Stalinist dictatorships.

In actuality, the torching of the parliament was one of those great symbolic moments of liberation like the kicking over of the statues in Eastern Europe and in 1871 when workers shot off the clocks on churches and cathedrals during the Paris Commune.

I think you seriously underestimate the psycho-politics and consciousness-raising potential of seeing your parliament go up in flames and knowing that your fellow workers lit the flames

 

[neprimerimye]

Would you similarly (like the Stalinists) argue that Solidarnosc was just a CIA front driven by reactionary Catholic politics - if you did I would also disagree with you.

Your analysis seems curiously undialectical and simplistic, if not ultra-left. Sure, we all want a socialist utopia - but does this mean that we oppose democratic uprisings and you still ignore the fact that their were signs of workers power on display, such as the experiments in workers' management - that were unfortunately curtailed by the new regime? Also, a similar senile criticism was made of the revolutions in Eastern Europe against the Stalinist dictatorships.

In actuality, the torching of the parliament was one of those great symbolic moments of liberation like the kicking over of the statues in Eastern Europe and in 1871 when workers shot off the clocks on churches and cathedrals during the Paris Commune.

I think you seriously underestimate the psycho-politics and consciousness-raising potential of seeing your parliament go up in flames and knowing that your fellow workers lit the flames

One of the 'rules' of dialectics is to compare like to like. Thus your comparison of the small bourgeois student democratic group Otpor! to the mass many millioned workers movement that was Solidarnosc is drivel.

You also seem curiously lacking in knowledge of the Marxian dialectic which has as its centerpiece the idea that socialism is not utopian but a an urgent neccesity.

As an communist I take Lenins words to Trotsky to heart that the parliaments are bourgeois.

 

[nwnm]

"I didn't ask for your opinion hack. I wouldn't trust you to tell me the name of your weekly newspaper without checking for myself afterwards." Glad you hold my opinion in such high esteem - i love you to

"As opposed to the SWP marching alongside Serbian fascists?" Yeah right. Here's some footage of a joint meeting we had with them an all =
http://www.killsometime.com/Video/video.asp?ID=353
Or is it an editorial board meeting of Cardiff Alternative news?

 

[nightowl]

the journalists' weekly press gazette has an article on this with the line:

One Gair Rhydd insider said the decision to publish the cartoon had been poorly considered and was not a deliberate "statement of a belief in the right to free speech".

if true, sounds like what i imagined when i first heard about it, a bunch of students taking the piss and landing themselves in the shit rather than any deep crusading intent.

 

[nwnm]

sounds about right - do you have a link for this article?

 

[nightowl]

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/article/090206/newspaper_pulped_after_it_runs_muhammad_cartoon

 

[llantwit]

One of the 'rules' of dialectics is to compare like to like. Thus your comparison of the small bourgeois student democratic group Otpor! to the mass many millioned workers movement that was Solidarnosc is drivel.

You also seem curiously lacking in knowledge of the Marxian dialectic which has as its centerpiece the idea that socialism is not utopian but a an urgent neccesity.

As an communist I take Lenins words to Trotsky to heart that the parliaments are bourgeois.

Ooooooh. Get her!

 

[osterberg]

The law was an extension of "incitement to race hate" legislation. Yet these laws have not been used to generally curb freedom of speech including stuff that we would agree was racist - for example their was no prosecution of Kilroy and Bernard Manning is free to appear in venues up and down the UK.

The one genuine danger, is not that these laws would be used against atheists, but that they would be used against the very groups they are claiming to protect.

The first person prosecuted by the race-relations bill in the 60s, was Michael X, a British Black Power activist, and you can imagine an Islamicist Cleric being prosecuted for incitement to religious hatred - but this presumably woudn't be a problem for people like Chilango.

I don't see how you can say this and then say this:

I personally, would have voted for this law - with no illusions.

A bit contradictory I think if you think that the law would be more likely to be used against those it is supposed to defend(which I think it would).

As for this:

Shouldn't it be a legal right of ethnic minorities to attend school and work and not be subject to racist language from their fellow workers/students, or employers/teachers? And wouldn't he argue that now workers can take their employers to court for racial or sexual harrasment, that this is a step forward.

Shouldn't women be entitled to work in a workplace free from pornographic images being stuck up? And not have to put up with sexist language? And if they do have to put up with this treatment, shouldn't they be able to take their employers to court - surely ALL Socialists support this?

Well rather than relying on parliament to pass laws I'd rather rely on the self-organisation and solidarity of the oppressed and the working class to confront rascism and sexism.
I'd like to see both women and men in the workplace organised in trade unions and confronting sexism and trying to change the sexist culture in that workplace.
And the same approach should apply to both black and white workers and students fighting against racism.
Maybe calling for more legal rights plays its part but only a small part.

 

[neprimerimye]

The one genuine danger, is not that these laws would be used against atheists, but that they would be used against the very groups they are claiming to protect.

The first person prosecuted by the race-relations bill in the 60s, was Michael X, a British Black Power activist, and you can imagine an Islamicist Cleric being prosecuted for incitement to religious hatred - but this presumably woudn't be a problem for people like Chilango.

I personally, would have voted for this law - with no illusions.

Neprimerimye brazenly states that Communists don't support any curb on freedom of speech. This is all very well for him, but he is not the kind of person who will be a victim of race/religious hate.

He is also a little bit disingenuous. Would he oppose the print workers working for The Sun during the miners' strike who refused to print a picture of Arthur Scargill with the caption "Mine Fuhrer"? - this is presumably a curb on freedom of speech

Do communists really oppose any curb on freedom of speech?

Shouldn't it be a legal right of ethnic minorities to attend school and work and not be subject to racist language from their fellow workers/students, or employers/teachers? And wouldn't he argue that now workers can take their employers to court for racial or sexual harrasment, that this is a step forward.

Shouldn't women be entitled to work in a workplace free from pornographic images being stuck up? And not have to put up with sexist language? And if they do have to put up with this treatment, shouldn't they be able to take their employers to court - surely ALL Socialists support this?

Surely, the imperfect legislation that has been passed against racism from the 60s onwards is something that socialists would defend?

As it happens, nobody has been arguing that the racist cartoons should have been dealt with in the law courts - we are arguing that the Left should be unequivocal in condemning them and should stand in solidarity with the people being attacked by them who have a right to be angry.

OK I missed this yesterday and have since been told, off these boards, that i was avoiding the question! Perish the very thought! I'll take up each of Udo's points in order.

Udo tells us that the danger with legislation regulating race or religious abuse is that it can be used against those it is designed to protect. A very good argument not to support such legislation I would have thought. (We may however ignore the case of the conman Michael X as the revolutionary left did at the time). That Udo is also concerned for "Islamicist clerics" is however curious given that Islam expressly forbids the development of a clerical caste!

Despite such misgivings Udo tells us he would have voted for such legislation. Although without illusions - whatever that might mean. The simple fact known to all adults is that one either votes for, against or abstains in any gien election but there is never a tick box for yes but without illusions. Meaningless demagogy I'm afraid so sad from one so young.

Next Udo resorts to an attempt at liberal guilt tripping by suggesting that being a 'white' and atheist that i'm passing over these issues out of personal convenience. A stupid and ignorant presumption. Udo will note that members of my family have been racially abused and as a result of which I too was similarly involved. Racism is white problem soft lad and 'white' people who stand with their brothers and sisters (in law) are can also become subject to racial abuse.

As for the printworkers blacking - hope that time honoured phrase is not too racist for our PC comrade - the slanderous of the picture of Scargill no it was not a curb on free speech. It was an act of class war and in war the rule of civil law is replaced by the rules of combat. Which is to say that had printworkers refused to run a story simply because they disliked it then that would be an unconscionable abuse of their position and an attack on frree speech. But what they did was an act of solidarity with their fellow workers. I believe this fairly represents the position of the SWP at the time.

Udo then asks, in his usual rhetorical manner, whether communists really oppose any curbs on free speech. Actually Udo is well aware that the commuist position is opposition to state enforced curbs on free speech. In the real world there are always various curbs on free speech what revolutionists oppose is the bourgois state being granted the power t decide what we can say, see or hear.

This brings us to another series of empty minded repetitious questions from Udo. Again Udo asks if socialists should support having the legal right to take employers/teachers to court to seek redress from such abuse. But no communists do not support such laws although we can and must make use of it if need be. If such laws exist as they do then we cannot simply ignore them especially when our organisations are very weak as at present. What we ought to argue as an alterntive is that if fellow workers are abused that the offending person be removed or sacked and the correct way to raise such a demand is through the trade unions. In any case many cases of abuse of workers are persecuted through the courts by the unions. In fact unless a workplace is unionised many laws, health and safety too not just harassment, aren't worth shit in the real world.

It follows that the various laws which purport to fight racism - I dispute that this was their purpose - should only be defended by communists if their removal would cause a deterioration in the abilty of workers to combat racism. What is certain is that Marxian revolutionaists should never support the granting of more power to the bosses state to govern over us. That is a purely liberal or reformist position which udo has voiced support for I note.

Finally Udo comments that "the left"-whoever and whatever "the left" might be - should condemn the cartoons and stand in solidarity with those so caricatured. Nobody is calling on the state to ban them Udo tells us. Which sounds really good if you say it fast but actually means sfa. You see in fact people are calling on the state, in many cases not even the state in which they live, to ban the cartoons. People in Britain are using this non-event to boost the chances of more legislation being passed that will place limits on free speech including the right to publish these cartoons. And those who stand in solidarity with such right wing, in some cases as Cliff described them clerico-fascist, elements are guilty of tailing such backward reactionary demands and politics. Which is gross opportunism when placed in the context of Respects need to win council seats, at any cost, this coming May.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Ooooooh. Get her!

Actually a pretty poor come back from N.

I wasn't comparing Otpoor! to Solidarnosc, but the mass movement against the communist dictatorships with the mass movement against Milosevic.

Both were popular uprisings and in both the West clearly had some intervention.

But as this is completely irrelevant to this thread, I suggest we take up the issue of the Serbian revolution in 2000 against Milosevic another time

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Let's clarify, the Left are well aware that the state can't be relied upon to smash fascism, this doesn't mean that we are unwilling to use all means necessary including bourgeois law to fight racism and fascism without for a single moment believing that legal means are the ultimate way to tackle these problems.

The standard reason that the Left has been generally unenthusiastic about things such as "state bans" on marches by extremists is because generally the evidence shows that these laws are used against the far left rather than the far right. For example, Police fight to enforce the right of fascists to freedom of speech - but ANL Carnivals and counter-demo's are banned. Also, mass action by anti-fascists driving the BNP/NF off the streets is far more effective than the state banning them from the streets.

Now let's turn to the Race Hatred Bill and Public Order Act. All the evidence shows that these forms of legislation haven't been used in the overwhelming majority of cases against ethnic minorities. And I mentioned the prosecution of Michael X in the 60s - yet despite this nobody on the left campaigned against the Race Relations Bill, despite having no illusions that it would solve the problem of racism, because it was rightly seen as a bill that arose in response to anti-racist agitation from the left.

There is also little evidence that the Race Hatred Bill has been used to curb freedom of speech except in cases where their is believed to be incitement to violence against ethnic minorities: Members of the BNP and NF have been prosecuted, but Robert Kilroy Silk and Bernard Manning have never been prosecuted.

It is also known that this kind of legislation covers "mono-ethnic" groups such as Sikh's and Jews.

Despite this, there has been no cases of writers who offend Sikh's or Jews being prosecuted.

Now the current legislation proposes to close the loophole that allowed Nick Griffin to escape prosecution - he claimed that he was criticising a religion Islam, not a race - and there is no evidence to suggest that it contains clauses that would allow the prosecution of writers such as Salman Rushdie, or even the author's of ther racist cartoon's, or that it would be used against an atheist critique of religion.

The question is - the majority of Muslim organisations representing a minority religion in the UK that has experienced a 600% rise in racist attacks have called for this legislation - should the left support them - while expressing reservations about the efficacy of this legislation to fight islamophobia, exposing the government's role in stoking islamophobia, and discussing the government's "carrot and stick" approach to the Muslim population of this country? Or should it be seen to oppose them.

I personally have no problems with freedom of speech that results in violence to ethnic minorities being curbed - I just have some reservations about the capitalist state implementing this - but all the evidence shows that the legislation against race hate has not generally been used against your regular racist and garden bigot, but only in very specific incidences in the most high profile cases against members of Nazi organisations.

Well rather than relying on parliament to pass laws I'd rather rely on the self-organisation and solidarity of the oppressed and the working class to confront rascism and sexism.
I'd like to see both women and men in the workplace organised in trade unions and confronting sexism and trying to change the sexist culture in that workplace.
And the same approach should apply to both black and white workers and students fighting against racism.
Maybe calling for more legal rights plays its part but only a small part.

I would like to see this too, but I would have thought that the idea that revolutionaries though not reformists do fight for reforms would be one that you agree with?

Surely, it was as a consequence of the massive struggles against racism and sexism in the workplace and wider society that wrenched concessions from the state to achieve reforms such as the Equal Pay Act, the laws against racial discrimination etc. etc. - socialists have never thought that legislation in itself is enough to fight sexism or racism - but this doesn't mean that we oppose legislation and reforms that protect our rights.

Socialists never rely on the state alone to protect any rights - they always rely on the mass movement too.

But we see where the ultra-left cretinism of Neprimerimye (who seems to get his opinions these days sent to him from the Weekly Worker) leads - he even opposes legislation that was won from the agitation of anti-racists, the left and the women's movement on the basis that it is implemented by the bourgeois state.

Logically, Neprimerimye and Osterberg would oppose the Equal Pay Act on the basis that pay shouldn't be decided by the bourgeois capitalist state but by workers councils - actually I hope ultimately the wage-system will be abolished, but that doesn't mean I oppose reforms of benefit to working people in the here and now.

That women can take their bosses to court if they experience sexism in the workplace is something that I see as a step forward - of course, it would be better to see their fellow workers engage in a wildcat strike against sexism, but this doesn't alway happen, and in some cases it is these very workers who are perpetrating the offence. Socialist's don't oppose laws that defend women against sexism - but Neprimerimye does.

Finally Udo comments that "the left"-whoever and whatever "the left" might be - should condemn the cartoons and stand in solidarity with those so caricatured. Nobody is calling on the state to ban them Udo tells us. Which sounds really good if you say it fast but actually means sfa. You see in fact people are calling on the state, in many cases not even the state in which they live, to ban the cartoons. People in Britain are using this non-event to boost the chances of more legislation being passed that will place limits on free speech including the right to publish these cartoons. And those who stand in solidarity with such right wing, in some cases as Cliff described them clerico-fascist, elements are guilty of tailing such backward reactionary demands and politics. Which is gross opportunism when placed in the context of Respects need to win council seats, at any cost, this coming May.

Typically, N, distorts what I said - I stated that nobody on this thread had actually called for the cartoons to be banned by the state, not that nobody in society had made this call.

Because N. dislikes the politics of some Muslim groups who are cynically using the issue of the cartoon's to boost their reactionary politics, he states that the left should stay silent. Here we get to the cruch and Neprimerimye reveals his true colours and what happens to those who take a liberal rather than Marxist approach to the question of the cartoon's.

Actually, we have to be absolutely clear. The cartoon's ARE racist, they depict ethnic caricatures that carry the implicit message that ALL Muslims are terrorist just as in the past newspapers carried cartoon's implying that ALL Irish people were terrorists. Their publication across Europe is directly linked with the War on Terror and racism against immigrant and ethnic minorities. Virtually any Muslim in Britain will find these cartoon's unsavoury and be unsettled by the rush of the media and liberal intelligentsia to condone cartoon's which are demean Muslims as terrorists.

The same right wing Danish tabloid that boasts about "freedom of speech" refused to publish cartoons offensive to the Christian religion and campaigned against a Danish artist who offended Christian sensibility.

In Britain racist attacks against Muslims have risen by 600% We have witnessed an racist ideological offensive that seeks to portray Muslims as the enemy within and Muslim culture as being backward, inferior, reactionary etc.

In this context, the job of Socialist's is to state clearly that they don't side with those who are taking part in this offesive, but stand with Muslims.

This seems pretty elementary anti-racism to me. As Pastor Niemoller said . . . "they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew"