RESPECT/SWP Policy on Cartoons

[Serguei]

Cant see the cartoons having had as much impact on muslims as the demonsatrations against them. It looks to joe public as muslims = intolerance and double standards.
Its bad news for moderate muslims that extremist muslims are once again dragging there name down in the gutter.

I don't think we now talking about extremists only. I suspect huge majority of Muslims believe that those who are not Muslims have no right to say what they like to say abount Islam.

 

[mk12]

Evidence for that?

 

[exosculate]

I don't think we now talking about extremists only. I suspect huge majority of Muslims believe that those who are not Muslims have no right to say what they like to say abount Islam.

I suspect many muslims think that muslims shouldn't be able to be criticise aspects of the religion. This preventing those that are critical from having a meaningful voice within the religion. The reformation isn't coming soon, sadly!

 

[leftistangel]

It’s hard to imagine how the portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad as a suicide bomber in the current climate could not be construed as racism and a deliberate attempt to insult and offend the maximum amount of Muslims possible. But if anyone is an any doubt as to the nature of those cartoons they should look at the history of shady right-wing authoritarianism of the paper that printed them:

http://dearkitty.modblog.com/core.mod?show=blogview&blog_id=807007

What is to be done about the cartoons? They should be condemned as a calculated attempt to fuel anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment by a section of the Dutch right. They should not be banned but nor should they be accepted.

You pose the question on whether there should be limits to free speech. I would argue yes, freedom of speech is not an unconditional right but one that is accompanied by responsibility. There is no limitless right to free speech on this message board, all number of things are banned. Recently a BNP member was booted off the board and no one raised an eyelid. The left has a long principle of "no platforming" fascists, actively denying their right to free speech.

Yes I was in favour of the original R&RH Bill but I’ve rabbited on enough about that already. See the relevant threads for my reasons.

Oh what drivel. First of all Islam is not a race, but a multi-racial religion to which you can choose to belong (whether you can choose to leave it is another matter, since if you are a man apostasy is punishable by death, though women don't count and can leave without being killed, but that is one of the aspects of Islam I find most disturbing). Therefore it is impossible to be 'racist' about it, a statement of fact not open to debate. For you, who seem to be an atheist, it is therefore a set of opinions comparable to a political party. Its belief that those views are sanctioned by God is its view, not a demonstrable fact. Therefore I and any newspaper or publication have as much right to criticise, ridicule and mock it as I do to attack the Tories, the Labour Party or the Ulster Unionists.

You are an advocate of state censorship (though you probably don't like being called that) and of the monitoring of opinion by the state. Free speech is not free UNLESS it's absolute, just as law isn't law unless it's indivisible. You merely want to have it both ways. A classic problem for the authoritarian left.

 

[kasheem]

You are an advocate of state censorship (though you probably don't like being called that) and of the monitoring of opinion by the state. Free speech is not free UNLESS it's absolute, just as law isn't law unless it's indivisible. You merely want to have it both ways. A classic problem for the authoritarian left.

I think neither Nick Griffin or the Islamists should be allowed to speak.. so at least that's consistent. You incite violence then it's no longer the individual's concern and the law is going to come down on you.

 

[JoePolitix]

You seem to be presenting a simplistic duality. If I think X is wrong, X being a right wing Danish tabloid, then I must support Y, Y being a quite reactionary reaction from some sections of Islamic communities worldwide.

It is actually possible to be critical of both positions.

You should have read my previous post on this thread in which I asserted that I thought demonstrations like the one in London would actually adversly effect Muslims more than the cartoons themseleves. I certainly oppose such demonstrations.

I was concerned some (eg in 4thwrite's post) were reaching the conclusion that because Y is wrong then that justifies X.

 

[Harold Hill]

Evidence for that?

I think thats just his opinion. No one has to agree with it.

 

[JoePolitix]

Oh what drivel. First of all Islam is not a race, but a multi-racial religion to which you can choose to belong (whether you can choose to leave it is another matter, since if you are a man apostasy is punishable by death, though women don't count and can leave without being killed, but that is one of the aspects of Islam I find most disturbing). Therefore it is impossible to be 'racist' about it, a statement of fact not open to debate. For you, who seem to be an atheist, it is therefore a set of opinions comparable to a political party. Its belief that those views are sanctioned by God is its view, not a demonstrable fact. Therefore I and any newspaper or publication have as much right to criticise, ridicule and mock it as I do to attack the Tories, the Labour Party or the Ulster Unionists.

"Muslims aren’t a race" how profound. It may have escaped your notice but the vast majority are also non-Caucasian and of immigrant background. That fact certainly hasn’t escaped the notice of the European far right who have now selected Muslims as their number one victim of choice. It’s nice to know they’ll find anti-racist alibis via shite arguments like the one above.

You are an advocate of state censorship (though you probably don't like being called that) and of the monitoring of opinion by the state. Free speech is not free UNLESS it's absolute, just as law isn't law unless it's indivisible. You merely want to have it both ways. A classic problem for the authoritarian left.

There already exists state censorship of speech. Inciting racial hatred has been illegal since the 1960s. There are all manner of public order offences that out law speech.

If free speech is absolute would you defend the right to publicly advocate paedophilia, murder or rape? I’m sorry but freedom of speech does not give people the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre as the old saying goes.

 

[lewislewis]

I would be prepared to join (in solidarity) a Muslim demonstration against these cartoons.

Udo i'm going to ask for a straight answer- would you join a Muslim demonstration against these cartoons even if the women on the demo had to march ten paces behind the men, like they do at the moment?

 

[Wilf]

There already exists state censorship of speech. Inciting racial hatred has been illegal since the 1960s. There are all manner of public order offences that out law speech.

If free speech is absolute would you defend the right to publicly advocate paedophilia, murder or rape? I’m sorry but freedom of speech does not give people the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre as the old saying goes.

There's a difference though - paedophillia, rape and murder are all in themselves crimes. Anybody inciting others to do these is inherently on the way to becoming a party in a further crime - both legally and morally.

Religious views are different. I might say that Islam (or xanity etc etc) is oppressive, homophobic, employs hierarchical power systems - and is of course built on supernatural beliefs in non-existent gods (lets not forget that). You might quite properly come back by stressing context - racism in this country, right wing press agendas, orientalism etc. Shouldn't we be able to acknowledge both of those things at once - without having to choose?

Equally, we should be able to say that the cartoons were offensive to Muslims - but equally the sight of some protestors in central London calling for another 7th July style bombing was equally if not more vile. The extent to which one of these is true doesn't diminsh the other.

Edited ... to be a bit less inflamatory

 

[articul8]

I would be prepared to join (in solidarity) a Muslim demonstration against these cartoons.

And what makes you so sure you'd be welcome? For some of these groups - let's not forget - you'd be just another infidel.

 

[JoePolitix]

There's a difference though - paedophillia, rape and murder are all in themselves crimes. Anybody inciting others to do these is inherently on the way to becoming a party in a further crime - both legally and morally.

I was pointing out to another poster the notion of absolute, indivisible free speech is a fiction. As I’ve already stated I’m not in favour of banning these cartoons but I think the decision to publish them should be criticised.

(and lets not forget that crime is merely behaviour that the state deems unacceptable and makes illegal, it shouldn’t be the determinate of what is judged as right or wrong)

Religious views are different. I might say that Islam (or xanity etc etc) is oppressive, homophobic, employs hierarchical power systems - and is of course built on supernatural beliefs in non-existent gods (lets not forget that). You might quite properly come back by stressing context - racism in this country, right wing press agendas, orientalism etc. Shouldn't we be able to acknowledge both of those things at once - without having to choose?

You’re dam right I’m going to bring in context (am I really that predictable?). From the stand point of socialism I would argue that propaganda isn’t primarily about expressing moral outrage but rather about helping to advance a political cause. At the moment one such vital cause is the opposition to the war and the crack down on civil liberties. Securing an alliance with Muslims is an important part of this and as such singling out Islam for denunciation as oppressive and reactionary could be counterproductive.

Equally, we should be able to say that the cartoons were offensive to Muslims - but equally the sight of some protestors in central London calling for another 7th July style bombing was equally if not more vile. The extent to which one of these is true doesn't diminsh the other.

I agree. I have pointed out twice now on this thread that I thought the protests in London and similar ones elsewhere where unsupportable, the intolerant flag burning bigots aren’t going to help anybody. See the Guardian letters page today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1702924,00.html

Edited ... to be a bit less inflammatory

Self censorship?

 

[mutley]

Go for it Joe - hitting the nail on the head on this thread.

Udo - i'd be real real careful about going on any demos against the cartoons. I'd want agreed slogans before hand and serious stewarding..

 

[belboid]

go on the demo's? you'd have to be fyucking mad.

play straight into the right's (both muslim and christians) agenda

 

[Wilf]

To JoePolitix - a couple of points

(and lets not forget that crime is merely behaviour that the state deems unacceptable and makes illegal, it shouldn’t be the determinate of what is judged as right or wrong)

well, yes - I'm a good relativist too. The framing of something as a crime - to be dealt with in the legal system is what the state does. But in the examples given - murder, rape, paedophilia - these are wrong in almost any conceivable moral system also. The defence of a religion is a different matter - its open to genuine debate. As such, its not self evidently true that socialists or libertarians should mount such a defence.

You’re dam right I’m going to bring in context (am I really that predictable?). From the stand point of socialism I would argue that propaganda isn’t primarily about expressing moral outrage but rather about helping to advance a political cause. At the moment one such vital cause is the opposition to the war and the crack down on civil liberties. Securing an alliance with Muslims is an important part of this and as such singling out Islam for denunciation as oppressive and reactionary could be counterproductive.

Thats where it gets tricky though isn't it. Sometimes political priorities can clash with your moral outrage. In wanting to maintain good relations with UK Muslims, many in Respect have, I would suggest, encountered that very problem. It should be possible to fight racism whilst also condeming bigots. Looks to me though like the former always gets priority - along with the priority of building the party.

 

[Wilf]

Here's me trying to be so reasonable - but then Belboid comes along and says it more succinctly.

 

[mutley]

go on the demo's? you'd have to be fyucking mad.

play straight into the right's (both muslim and christians) agenda

I think the argument is not go on the actual (extremely small) Hitz But Tahir (spelling?) demos that are happening, but could you conceive of taking part in any protest against these cartoons in any circumstances.

 

[belboid]

me? No. maybe against wider press racism, which included within it a protest about the cartoons (which were clearly meant to whip up exactly the reaction they have done), but would I play into their hands, and folow their agenda by demonstratiting specifically against their 'right' to free speech. No.

 

[JimPage]

The cartoons from what ive heard were not even slightly funny but its an issue of free speech and the SWP etc should come out and say clearly that free speech is important.

no, its a simple issue of no free speech for racists and fascists. the cartoons are racist and islamophobic - end of debate

 

[tbaldwin]

no, its a simple issue of no free speech for racists and fascists. the cartoons are racist and islamophobic - end of debate

A very slippery slope. Why not include sexist and ageist as well. Free speech should not just be limited to people who you agree with.

Oh yeah and who defines racist and islamaphobic?

 

[belboid]

A very slippery slope. Why not include sexist and ageist as well. Free speech should not just be limited to people who you agree with.

you still raping two year olds? and selling their mothers into slavery tb?

 

[belboid]

or don't you really believe in absolute free speech?

 

[tbaldwin]

or don't you really believe in absolute free speech?

There are libel laws against lies but stating an opinion is a different thing.
There are opinions that should be censored but not opinions about religion which in my view is a form of mental illness.

 

[belboid]

aaah, so YOU decide what speech should be free and what shouldn't. Nice.

 

[cockneyrebel]

no, its a simple issue of no free speech for racists and fascists.

There is a difference between racism and fascism.

Or do you think that The Sun, The Daily Mail, The Conservative Party, the Labour government etc should be no platformed?

Was it this thread saying that muslims were the new commies, there might be a better comparison in saying they could be the next jews. And please don't let me hear one more fucking idiot say that jews are a race and muslims aren't. Like fascists in the 1930s would have been thwarted if judaism had been regarded as just a religion

 

[mutley]

There is a difference between racism and fascism.

Or do you think that The Sun, The Daily Mail, The Conservative Party, the Labour government etc should be no platformed?

Was it this thread saying that muslims were the new commies, there might be a better comparison in saying they could be the next jews. And please don't let me hear one more fucking idiot say that jews are a race and muslims aren't. Like fascists in the 1930s would have been thwarted if judaism had been regarded as just a religion

The point here is that UK Law says exactly that. Test cases and everything. You can say UK Law sucks, but when thinking about your attitiude to passing or repealing any law, you have to take that into account, if you're in favour of equality.

Added in edit: actually rereading what ur saying i think i see why u made that point then - muslims can play the same scapegoat role as jews and should be defended. If that's what u mean i agree.

On freedom of speech, no it's not an absolute unqualified right in my view.

Would you be in favour of 30's style anti-semitic cartoons being run in papers? And how would you react if they were? That's the best comparison with portraying Muslims or Mohammed as a suicide bomber. (It's not the images of the prophet element that fueled the anger imo - it was the nature of the images. If some kids' school book in Denmark had a picture of the prophet talking to his flock I doubt they'd be burning churches in the Lebanon).
This was not some kind of constructive engagement it was bigotry.

To whoever said they regard religion as some kind of mental illness. If most people, for most of history, have suffered from a mental illness then your definition of 'illness' is in trouble surely?? A condition where not having it is historically the minority position.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Added in edit: actually rereading what ur saying i think i see why u made that point then - muslims can play the same scapegoat role as jews and should be defended. If that's what u mean i agree.

Yeah that is what I meant. However I disagree with the Bill that was being passed in parliament for freedom of speech reasons. But it isn't simple.

Would you be in favour of 30's style anti-semitic cartoons being run in papers? And how would you react if they were?

I'd totally condemn it. Indeed there is no doubt that the reasons those cartoons were published is for racist and bigoted reasons.

Having said that there is no way you could agree with a law that bans cartoons taking the piss out of relgious figures.

To whoever said they regard religion as some kind of mental illness. If most people, for most of history, have suffered from a mental illness then your definition of 'illness' is in trouble surely?? A condition where not having it is historically the minority position.

I don't agree with the poster that you're responding to, but you'd have to agree that religions are insane, even if it's mass insanity....

Talking serpants, people parting the sea, someone moving a mountain, wailing in front of a wall, drinking cows piss etc etc if that's not insanity I dunno what is!!!

Having said that, this would obviously not be the best basis to try and pull people away from religious ideas and towards socialist ideas.

 

[mutley]

I don't agree with the poster that you're responding to, but you'd have to agree that religions are insane, even if it's mass insanity....

Talking serpants, people parting the sea, someone moving a mountain, wailing in front of a wall, drinking cows piss etc etc if that's not insanity I dunno what is!!!

Having said that, this would obviously not be the best basis to try and pull people away from religious ideas and towards socialist ideas.

'Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people'

As you well know. And it hasn't changed cos Western Europe has gone all enlightened and secular.

Once the conditions change, the basis of the ideas will alter and the hold of the ideas will weaken. Not the other way round.

 

[cockneyrebel]

double post

 

[cockneyrebel]

I totally agree. Which is why I said that saying religious ideas are insane wouldn't be the starting point of socialists!

That doesn't make it any less the case that religious ideas are insane, in terms of looking at things in logical and scientific way.

Looked at the Bible the other day and it read like the rantings of a mad man.....lets face it, if anyone came out with that stuff and it wasn't backed up by a religion they'd be thrown in an institution!