LET’S BE FRIENDS.
I think it is time to try to de-escalate any possible tension that seems to be growing up in the recent debate about Peter Tatchell’s politics.
Let us be clear about a number of things.
I have read through the entire debate again.
At no time did any one ever accuse Derek Wall of being Islamophobic.
At no time did any one ever accuse Green Left of being Islamophobic
At no time did any one ever accuse the Green Party of being Islamophobic
Nor is it true that those criticising Peter Tatchell’s politics have been predominantly members of Respect. Almost everyone disagreeing with Tatchell has gone out of their way to stress this is a tactical disagreement among friends and comrades, and that Tatchell is an activist worthy of respect.
Now sadly, Derek Wall, and some other members of Green Left have gained the impression that they have been accused of islamophobia, and that the Green Party has been “attacked”. I don’t see how they have come to that conclusion, but they are obvioulsy offended, and therefore it is their perception that matters.
This is unfortuntate, and I am sorry that this misunderstanding has arisen. In so far as break downs in communication are always the responsibility of both parties, then I accept some responsibility for this, and unreservedly apologise. I am not always the most diplomatic person, so I am fully cogniscent of my ability to put my foot in it. Sorry.
One of most contentious aspects seem to have been comments by Barry Kade, himself a member of the Green Left, and the Green Party, that referred to remarks he believed to be Islamophobic on the Green left discussion list two years ago.
What Barry has now said about this is:
Some people have been upset that I have referred to a debate on this list in my postings on this blog. Sorry to cause any offence. I deliberately did not give anybodies names or alias’s, or make direct quotations - and this is how it should remain. But we can give our general impressions of a list discussion which followed the suggestion that the greens should approach Salma Yaqoob in the aftermath of the Respect split.
It is legitimate to report that there was a ‘discussion thread’ of some 30-40 messages long conducted under the ’subject heading’ of ‘Salma Yaqoob’. Under this subject heading of one particular woman’s name a discussion was held which wondered far and wide over Islam’s faults, even mentioning ‘forced marriages’ and female genital mutilation. Allegations were made that Salma Yaqoob was in favour of enforcing the veil, contrary to her real politics.
I am happy to report that there were many shocked responses to this ignorant discussion, and many Green Left participants welcomed the proposal to approach Salma. Many also expressed shock at what seemed like an online witch hunt on this list, singling out a Muslim woman for such scrutiny that is not applied to other green allies or members.
Was this ‘Islamophobia’? Well, its a difficult term, as i have mentioned above. But I did experience it as a crude and insensitive episode, which involved the stigmatization and stereotyping of a respected left wing Muslim woman activist. I thought it showed the limits of the kind of shrill and militant atheism or secularism that prioritises the struggle against religion above all else. I think it represented a current on the left which obstructs alliance with Britian’s black and ethnic minority populations.
But I want to stress that this did not represent the majority response on the Green left list. And it was only individuals writing on an e-list! Not official policy statements.
As Barry Kade is a member of the Green Party clearly he is not attacking it. Nor am I responsible for what he has written on this blog.
It is perhaps important in understanding this issue to distinguish between Islamophobia, an active hostility or anxiety about Muslims, and the wider phenomenon of people not being as sensitive as they might be at detecting the nuanced ways that Islamophobia impacts upon mainstream common sense.
It is not surprising that a broad party like the Green Party includes a range of opinion, nor is it surprising given the traditions of militant secularism in parts of the British left that these views are also expressed, which can sometimes not recognise the sensibilities of religious minorities.
Of course the Green Party is not a racist party. The Green Party is not an Islamophobic party. No one has suggested that it is. The Green Party is a progressive, pro-equality, anti-discrimination party. In the General election then I hope that people vote for the Green Party in its target seats where it hopes to do well, including for Peter Tatchell in Oxford.
However, cooperation between people with differing political views, and collaboration between political parties, and alliances over single issues, also requires that there can be a fraternal and friendly acknowledgement of differences, and debate about what those differences mean.
The tactical and strategic differences that have been expressed about Outrages! political approach is an entirely legitimate discussion among friends.
Perhaps I have been incautious and undiplomatic by raising the question of whether the Green Party has yet managed to successfully reflect the ethnic and cultural diversity of our wider society; personally I think that it needs to be a first priority of any progressive party to attempt to achieve that, and where it is not acheived there is the danger of white liberals interpreting other people’s experiences and concerns, and we are more likely to make mistakes. Perhaps my perceptions, based upon my personal experience, are unrepresentative and out of date. However, it should be legitimate for political allies to have different priorities, and to be frank about what they see as both the weaknesses and strengths of their friends.
I am sorry that misunderstandings have arisen, and that hostility has been perceived when none was intended.
limited attention span problem
Comment by jock mctrousers — 10 November, 2009 @ 11:56 am
Andy - this reads less like a kiss-and-make-up and more like an attempt to justify the witch hunt against Peter Tatchell.
The perils of flinging around labels like ‘Islamophobia’ are obvious.
Comment by Dan — 10 November, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
“It is perhaps important in understanding this issue to distinguish between Islamophobia, an active hostility or anxiety about Muslims, and the wider phenomenon of people not being as sensitive as they might be at detecting the nuanced ways that Islamophobia impacts upon mainstream common sense.”
It would help if we abandoned the word ‘Islamophobia’ which is deliberately misused in certain quarterss to conflate criticism of reactionary politics with racism. I do realise that this is a hopeless desire this late in the day, but it would help if we could just call anti-muslim bigotry or racism what it is. It would also make people more careful, I think.
Comment by John Meredith — 10 November, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
“the nuanced ways that Islamophobia impacts upon mainstream common sense”
What on earth does that mean ? Talk about thought crime. You are getting yourself in more and more knots here Andy.
You still haven’t retracted your absurd support for the gross “Gay Imperialism” slurs made by the demented “academics” on Peter Tatchell so I think this mea culpa isn’t going to go far.
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 10 November, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
Andy’s real world coalition building skills on display again.
Comment by non-partisan — 10 November, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
My understanding is that Respect invited Peter Cranie to speak at its conference this weekend. The secretary of Manchester Green Party spoke to the Greater Manchester Respect AGM and the parties have agreed to share skills on elections and e-campaigning. There is also productive discussion taking place on refusing to stand against each other across Manchester.
These are small but useful steps in cooperation and there will be problems and pitfalls as we learn and try to trust each other.
In terms of the problems on these threads, I am not interested in whether there has been arguments in the past two years on the Green Left distribution list. This does not reflect the position of the Green Party any more than the Manchester Respect Google group reflects the party’s position.
The supposed ethnic composition of the Green Party, as with the Respect Party, is not the key factor in determining the nature of the party. Personally, I have no idea about either though they draw support from different electoral constituencies reflecting their origins in the anti capitalist, environmental and anti war movements. The diversity of support and the prospect of building mutual cooperation and dialogue should be celebrated rather than the subject of ‘finger jabbing’.
Of course, every progressive party will be conscious and very aware of its composition. My experience of the Green Party is that it is not colour blind and fights alongside Respect in every anti racist initiative we have taken. Indeed, at a meeting last week between the Convenor of GM Respect and the Secretary of Manchester GPEW, the Green Party specifically requested new anti racist initiatives in the Hulme and Gorton areas of Manchester. Respect is very pleased to work jointly with the GPEW to mobilize anti racists in the run up to the 2010 elections. My experience of Respect is that it is not blind to sexuality and its oppression. The Labour Party regularly attacks Respect for this.
My own view is that there is a great deal of mythology on the left that often starts in either the mainstream press or emanates from the Labour Party about various individuals and their political positions. Both Peter Tatchell and Salma Yaqoob are victims of these myths and it is to their credit that they are considered such a threat.
Charges of homophobia and Islamophobia are principled objections, while the arguments on these threads are about individual and sometimes organizational tactics rather than political principles.
Comment by Dirty Red Bandana — 10 November, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
#4
“You still haven’t retracted your absurd support for the gross “Gay Imperialism” slurs made by the demented “academics” on Peter Tatchell so I think this mea culpa isn’t going to go far.”
How ridiculous. they make an excellent and substantive politial critique of some of the problematic assumptions behind Outrage!
In so far as they made unfair criticism of peter Tatchell, I have pointed out they were wrong.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 November, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
How about the Left just abandons the silly word “Islamophobia”? Too simple, I guess.
Comment by Charles Dexter Ward — 10 November, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
“How about the Left just abandons the silly word “Islamophobia”?”
The political content of this issue is of course that you want us to abandon defence of Muslims from discrimination, prejudice and oppression.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 November, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
“The political content of this issue is of course that you want us to abandon defence of Muslims from discrimination, prejudice and oppression.”
Quite the opposite. I want a robust defence of Muslims from increasing anti-Muslim bigotry. What I don’t want is for dishionest political operators to use that anti-racist movement to deflect criticism of their alliances with ultra-conservative Islamist parties. The term ‘Islamophobe’ is absurd although it wouldn’t matter if it wasn’t so dishionestly used. What we are against is anti-Muslim bogotry, not criticism of political Islam.
Comment by John Meredith — 10 November, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
So you accuse people of being Islamophobic. And when they object. You simply deny you ever said it.
Right.
Comment by bill j — 10 November, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
Andy’s new defintion of “Islamophobia-lite” (is this what you think is the problem with Tatchell Andy ?) :
“the wider phenomenon of people not being as sensitive as they might be at detecting the nuanced ways that Islamophobia impacts upon mainstream common sense.”
Total gobbledegook that Andy has so far made no attempt to explain.
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 10 November, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
There won’t be any coherent explanation MMN until Andy uses an alternative phrase to ‘Islamophobia’. He is hiding behind that slippery word.
Comment by John Meredith — 10 November, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
Presumably people have read the publisher’s retraction of some of the comments in the Gay Imperialism chapter? http://www.rawnervebooks.co.uk/Peter_Tatchell.pdf
Comment by Dave Semple — 10 November, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
I think you’re making an excellent point there JohnM. I’m with you on this.
Let’s be more specific and oppose anti-muslim bigotry and anti-gay bigotry, rather than talking of “phobias.”
Comment by Karl Stewart — 10 November, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
You mean the retraction written by Peter Tatchell?
You can only conclude that Tatchell’s ego is so inflated that he has no understanding of how ridiculous he makes himself appear.
Comment by Anon — 10 November, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
Amusing how the tactic of labelling anyone who disagrees with the Left pandering to religious fundamentalists - of any type - as racists occasionally backfires.
Comment by Dustin the Turkey — 10 November, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
Look whose happy:
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/11/10/a-lesson-for-respect-islamophobe-smears-can-backfire-badly/
Comment by Richard Farnos — 10 November, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
Dis anyone mention RESPECT ?
If this Swedish idea catches on RESPECT might be left without an electoral base:
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2009/11/sweden_to_pay_m.php
Comment by Henry — 10 November, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
#13 Quite right. Can we agree, please, that it is possible to criticise specific Muslims for making comments that are hateful about gay people without being ‘Islamaphobic’ or ‘racist’, and indeed that it is right to do so?
The perception that the Left turns a blind eye to bigotry when the bigots are Muslims, because they are Muslims, is extremely damaging. It is precisely the type of thing that pushes people to the B&P.
Anti-gay hate is wrong, whether the hater is white, black, Christian, Muslim, Jewish or whatever. Let us not patronise the majority of Muslims, and insult gay people, by making excuses for hate.
Comment by Jonny Mac — 10 November, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
17# Great minds think alike - I’ve got a piece up on Harry’s Place about this saga now :
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/11/10/a-lesson-for-respect-islamophobe-smears-can-backfire-badly/
Andy and other Respect type really need to get their act together on this “Islamophobia” smearing nonsense - which of course is what we “Decent Left” types have been saying all along.
(Cue a lot a ranting “Harryophobia” now here no doubt….. oh well….)
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 10 November, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
Thanks Andy, for your sterling work. Moderators have a difficult task. Keep the good work up for Socialist Unity
Comment by Larry N — 10 November, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
Wow I knew the pro-war left would be upset that the greens and respect are working constructively towards some unity but I didn’t realise they were this worried about it. Using a premise as flimsy as it is farcically untrue - that Respect think the Greens are Islamophobic - they have nevertheless taken this baton and are trying to run with it for as long as they can.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 10 November, 2009 @ 3:38 pm
#22 “Wow I knew the pro-war left would be upset that the greens and respect are working constructively towards some unity but I didn’t realise they were this worried about it.”
You seem to be a mad conspiracy theorist as well as unfriendly, Derek Wall is the one who is upset - can’t you read ?
And the rest of us are fed up of as being smeared as Islamophobes and racists as well so we’re not at all upset by Andy’s little problem - it serves him right.
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 10 November, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
“Wow I knew the pro-war left would be upset that the greens and respect are working constructively towards some unity but I didn’t realise they were this worried about it.”
It serves you right for underestimating our depravity. What did you think we discussed with our Mossad handlers at the High Council of Pro War Zio-Leftism except what can be done to drive a wedge between the mighty ranks of Respectites and Greens before this movement swept across the globe?
Comment by John Meredith — 10 November, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
#23 Derek Wall is an adult and is capable, as he has proven, of standing up for himself and voicing his own concerns. I would hope too that he sees through your little charade.
As for ‘Andy’s little problem’ - well, it’s not Andy’s little problem, it is Harry’s Place and their supporters’ little problem that they have so much free time they’re trying to kick up a fuss about a few misunderstandings on another blog.
#24 Grow up. I’m interested in the role you and others are playing in trying to harm unity between progressives. That is all.
#23 and #24 - I note that the two of you seem very relaxed about being referred to as the pro-war left and implicitly accept that it applies to you.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 10 November, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
This only proves what the eco-warriors and anarchist I grew up with told me - that the hard left are the kiss of death to effective activism.
Disband! Kill yourselves! SOD OFF!
Comment by badnewswade — 10 November, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
#26 there are now available some effective over-the-counter remedies for what you have. I recommend you make use of them.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 10 November, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
How dare you describe yourselves as left wing?
Comment by badnewswade — 10 November, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
#28 my politics, badnewswade, only my politics.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 10 November, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
“I note that the two of you seem very relaxed about being referred to as the pro-war left and implicitly accept that it applies to you.”
I am very relaxed about any amount of name calling on blogs because I find it easy to ignore, especially when it comes from totalitarian homophobes such as yourself.
Comment by John Meredith — 10 November, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
Just as you scurrying off to repost your rather lame efforts here on Harry’s Place makes me fairly certain that you hardly have a left-wing value left in you.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 10 November, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
#30 top marks for John M, valiantly attempting to continue the lost cause that would have us all painted as totalitarian homophobes. Keep it up, John.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 10 November, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
Not all of you TFL, just you. If you disagree, just tell us what sort of homophobe you think of yourself as.
Comment by John Meredith — 10 November, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
I am proud to be of the pro-war Left and have never made any bones about it here or anywhere else. Ask johng, I’ve been laughing at his convoluted rubbish and the antics of SWP/Respect on the blogosphere for years (especially when he used to comment regularly at Harry’s Place).
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 10 November, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
Well, John, that is just the darned cleverest riposte I ever did see! Shall we talk now about my made-up homophobia?
Or, let’s talk about your pathetically transparent attempts, yet again, to engineer an upset in the growing unity of progressives as we work to elect the maximum number of green, socialist, anti-racist, anti-homophobia, pro-peace candidates in next year’s general and local elections.
Except you don’t want to do that, do you? So John, tell me, just quite what kind of reactionary are you?
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 10 November, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
“Or, let’s talk about your pathetically transparent attempts, yet again, to engineer an upset in the growing unity of progressives as we work to elect the maximum number of green, socialist, anti-racist, anti-homophobia, pro-peace candidates in next year’s general and local elections.”
I am (very slightly) more interested in your hompohobia. I always wonder where this particlar aberration comes from. A bullying father seems to be most common root cause, but you may have other views.
Now, back to engineering an upset in the growing unity of progressives. That work won’t do itself!
Comment by John Meredith — 10 November, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
I find a dead heart lies at the centre of most reactionaries. They see the world and hear its pain and just do not care.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 10 November, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
‘I am proud to be of the pro-war Left and have never made any bones about it here or anywhere else.’
The ‘pro war left’ seems to be an amalgam of extreme Zionism and me-me ism. What is there to be proud of there? Also why do you feel the need to characterise it as ‘left’. I cannot believe you actually think these wars have been progressive in anyway or that that is why they were fought. Its all nonsense isn’t it. Awful lot of dead people too.
Comment by Christy — 10 November, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
“I cannot believe you actually think these wars have been progressive in anyway ”
They removed ultra-rightist dictaorships, so they were progressive in that way, even if you consider them on balance to have had non-progressive outcomes.
Comment by John Meredith — 10 November, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
We should drop the ideologically loaded concept of Islamophobia, just as we should the equally loaded term homophobia. By characterising prejudice as phobia we stray into psychological categories that imply medical treatment, not political challenge. Prejudice against people for their religious beliefs, as prejudice against people for the sexual orientation is bigotry that ought to be confronted, but it is not a psychological disease. That is just rhetoric substituting for argument.
Comment by James Heartfield — 10 November, 2009 @ 4:44 pm
James: I agree that the words we are using are inadequate but believe the disagreements to have content regardless.
John: that’s why you’ve been such an enthusiastic supporter of the US and Britain invading Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, I expect.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 10 November, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
“Prejudice against people for their religious beliefs, as prejudice against people for the sexual orientation is bigotry that ought to be confronted, but it is not a psychological disease. That is just rhetoric substituting for argument.”
I bropadly agree with your comment but I think you make a mistake here. Being opposed to someone’s religious beliefs or disliking them for them is not prejudice. What we need to address is being opposed to someone because they identify with a particular religious community, regardless of their specific religious beliefs.
Comment by John Meredith — 10 November, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
“John: that’s why you’ve been such an enthusiastic supporter of the US and Britain invading Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, I expect.2
Ah yes, those three rightist dictatorships.
Comment by John Meredith — 10 November, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
Would John Meredith like to name the “ultra-right dictatorships ” to which he is refering?
Comment by Richard Farnos — 10 November, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
John, I agree with you that you don’t have to agree with Islam, or even that one ought to be allowed to criticise, even mock, Islam. But there is no political pay-off for criticising Islam, because it is a religion, not a political position. Religious views are not susceptible to criticism, and treating them as if they were political affiliations is a mistake. Affiliates of any minority church that are being persecuted for their beliefs ought to be defended from persecution, because that is the right thing to do.
Comment by James Heartfield — 10 November, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
‘Would John Meredith like to name the “ultra-right dictatorships ” to which he is refering?’
He might like to…
Comment by Christy — 10 November, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
I will if you like.
Comment by John Meredith — 10 November, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
“Affiliates of any minority church that are being persecuted for their beliefs ought to be defended from persecution, because that is the right thing to do.2
Yes I agree with you, but this does not seem to be the problem we are faced with (although it is a huge problem for minority muslims in many muslim countries, of course). What we are faced with is basically anti-arab and anti-asian racism under a new flag.
Comment by John Meredith — 10 November, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
I hate to say this, John, but I think the Iraq war was morally wrong. Which means obviously that you would never be able to work with me around any political campaign whatsoever.
Comment by lone nut — 10 November, 2009 @ 7:26 pm
Well done Andy - the challenge for the left is too big to be diverted into Monty Python sectarianism.
Dirty Red Bandana hits the nail on the head with “… Both Peter Tatchell and Salma Yaqoob are victims of these myths and it is to their credit that they are considered such a threat.”
Comment by ECOLEFTY — 10 November, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
Oh dear Andy, you’ve been drawn into the game playing of Tatchells supporters. They accuse people of all sorts of crimes to excuse and cover up their Islamophobia. Don’t buy it.
I wonder what the Greens make of the racists at HP trying to create a split between Respect and the Greens over Tatchells censorship of criticism against him.
Comment by Ray — 10 November, 2009 @ 8:36 pm
But the term ‘racism’ on its own does not capture what is going on with the current waive of muslim-hating in Britain. Have any of you had to argue with the EDL supporters etc, or seen what they say to each other? Or do you only talk to other leftists? (I also note that Dave Osler on his blog has joined in this debate, and has ridiculed the term Islamophobia, and wants to use the simple term ‘racism’).
Are some people are so caught up in their militant secularist critiques of religion, that they cannot see what is happening with the rise of anti-muslim bigotry?
The tabloid press, the BNP, the EDL - and many others - are attacking people because of their RELIGION. This undoubtedly has a significantly racist dimension, because most of the being vilified Muslims come from racially oppressed minorities.
But while this bigotry stems from racism, it is not reducible into it.
Thus rightwing EDL hooligans will say they are not racist, because ‘Islam is not a race’. They have learned to cite those passages from the Koran which support the claim that Islam is a religion that demands conquest and war (despite the fact that we have invaded the middle east, not vice versa). They will even hide behind our progressive criticisms of Islam’s sexism.
There is a definite current developing that wants to construct Muslims as the ‘alien other’, an enemy which must be even ‘ethnically cleansed’ from Europe. This is a real right wing ideological movement that we ignore at our peril.
Some leftists can simply imagine that this is the 1970’s, and re-live their ‘rock against racism’ youth. Then NF racism was based upon biological notions of race. It was relatively simple (but not easy) to construct an opposition coalition of black and white, of feminists, gays, socialists and the rest. Most people could be made to verbally denounce skin colour racism as obviously unjust and without foundation.
In the intervening years, we have seen a shift to culture. Whilst ‘biological racism’ remains, it has mutated into the cultural arena, where racism is now voiced (in Thatchers notorious words) in terms of a fear of being “swamped by an ‘Alien Culture’”. This was named as “the new racism” (Martin Barker 1981, Stuart Hall 1992, Paul Gilroy 1992).
This has now gone viral with the mixture of ‘new cultural’ anti-muslim hatred and ‘old biological’ racism we see today. This wave of anti-muslim bigotry has also been greatly stimulated by the western invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the turmoil in the middle east, with the growth of diverse Islamicist movements.
Today in Britain we are seeing violent racist attacks where as well as being called ‘P*ki’ the assailants also criticise their victims for being Muslim, as they are attacking them.
Thus only last Thusdsay, a gang of over 30 black and white youths united to attack a group of Muslim students at City University. According to reports, the attackers shouted “Get those Muslims” and “P*ki”. Four students were stabbed, and one was given a fractured skull, amidst the other serious beatings.
Around where I live in Lancashire, Muslim women have had their headscarfs and veils ripped from their heads by white men.
Are those pro-war ‘leftists’ visiting us from Harry’s place comfortable with this? Perhaps they think that It is this the work of progressive secularists and feminists, liberating women from the veil and resisting theocracy?
And is it simply ‘racism’, when black and white youths gang up to attack Muslim students, shouting ‘get the Muslims’?
Or is their something more complex for us to deal with? Is there perhaps something called religious hatred? We have seen religious hatred and bigotry before. While the Nazis racialised European Jewry as part of their genocide, it is incorrect to simply reduce the history of European Anti-Semitism to ‘racism’. Perhaps it is best describes as an ethno-religious hatred and oppression. We have also seen a long history of anti-catholic bigotry on these Islands. This used to be one of the most serious divisions hampering working class solidarity in these parts.
So how do we challenge the rising ethno-religious bigotry of the muslim-baiters? It is also true that Islam, like other religions, has deeply oppressive and patriarchal dimensions. We can not ignore these, and it should remain legitimate to criticise Islam. However, how can we differentiate this criticism from anti-muslim bigotry and ethno-religious hatred? Some are not that bothered, those ‘pro-war leftists’ who here make fun of our deliberations. If they can support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, then they are not bothered about violence and killing on a massive scale, and all the backward and colonial notions that are revived. They see Muslims as part of the enemy, and have no real concern with the dilemmas we have, or the complexities we see. But for genuine socialists, who want to unite the working class, and overcome multiple religious, racial and sexual divisions and hatreds in order to do this, we have to think and discuss amongst ourselves. We must always support women and gays resisting sexism and homophobia within every community, religion or ethnicity. As a the best and most practical strategy we seek left wing allies from within the Muslim community, to mobilise that section of the population to join the wider working class resistance against cutbacks, unemployment, war, racism and bigotry. By strengthening these allies from amongst Muslims, then progressive forces against fundamentalism, sexism, homophobia and anti-semitism can have a chance within these increasingly besieged communities. And listing the sense of siege in these communities with a society wide offensive against racism and anti-muslim bigotry would also be a great step forward. And most important, we need a class based mass movement against the recession and cutbacks, uniting people from every race and religion and more. That would be a realistic strategy amongst those who really want to improve the situation - rather than those who want to make their shrill propaganda, or deny the complexity of the problems we face.
Comment by Barry Kade — 10 November, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
#53 “Muslim women have had their headscarfs and veils ripped from their heads by white men.”
I’m sure that, just like the people of Baghdad, these poor benighted Muslims welcomed their liberators with sweets and flowers.
/sarcasm
Comment by Daphne — 10 November, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
More seriously, racism and religious bigotry have never been entirely distinct. When Rangers fans sing “The famine is over/why don’t you go home?” is it anti-Catholic bigotry or anti-Irish racism, or a phenomenon which partakes of both? This is why I think the term “Islamophobia” is useful, precisely because it is a noxious blend of racism and religious bigotry, distinct from either. (You will note that I’ve never seen persecutions in the West of Bosnian Muslims, who are pretty “white”.)
Comment by Daphne — 10 November, 2009 @ 9:22 pm
#52- I wouldn’t worry, no one with any sense reads the crap they post up anyway
Comment by ben — 10 November, 2009 @ 10:36 pm
Ray:
“I wonder what the Greens make of the racists at HP”
Can you please point out who exactly at HP is a racist?
Comment by Mick — 10 November, 2009 @ 10:48 pm
#57
Can you please point who exactly at HP is NOT a racist?
Comment by Anonymous — 10 November, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
#58 I’m not a racist - but you definitely are. Yah boo.
See how it goes ?
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 10 November, 2009 @ 11:03 pm
And you’re a sewer mouthed ranting cretin.
NaNaNaNaNa…
See how it goes ?
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 10 November, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
“Anonymous”
Seriously, care to give any examples of the racism espoused at HP? And by the authors of such racism?
It could form the basis of a legal case. Or are you just making it up?
Comment by Mick — 10 November, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
Just remembered the title of this blog - “Lets be friends”
Hilarious…
I bet “Anonymous” is one of the Respect goons - probably Ger Francis, what do we reckon ?
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 10 November, 2009 @ 11:14 pm
I haven’t been on the SU site for a while…. mmmm
I think i understand why….very frustrating.
#63 MoreMediaNonsense What is a ‘Goon’?
Comment by mark anthony france — 10 November, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
#62
Ah, here we go - reaching for the ‘legal case’ card like racists do.
HP is a racist, anti-Muslim, Zionist pro war website. This isn’t an opinion, it is fact. Arseholes like MMN are the norm there, throwing names around like confetti in an attempt to smear and slander.
Pity the comment policy at HP isn’t as liberal or relaxed as it is here. It’s the only reason why you scumbags are able to descend and disrupt and distort serious political discussion.
Comment by Anonymous — 10 November, 2009 @ 11:27 pm
# 63 MoreMediaNonsense…. What is a ‘Goon’?
are you refering to the Guardians Of the Oglala Nation
who organised the siege at Wooded Knee in ‘73… if so then Ger Francis can’t be a GOON as he was too young to be present at this decisive stand by native americans and beside he is irish.
Comment by mark anthony france — 10 November, 2009 @ 11:28 pm
“HP is a racist, anti-Muslim, Zionist pro war website. This isn’t an opinion, it is fact.”
Care to back it up with any actual ‘facts’? Shouldn’t be too difficult really.
Throwing accusations around of ‘racism’ is a very serious thing. If you can’t justify such an accusation through proof, then you weaken the term and you prove yourself to be, well, a liar.
Comment by Mick — 10 November, 2009 @ 11:30 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9KC7uhMY9s
Comment by mark anthony france — 10 November, 2009 @ 11:34 pm
“are you refering to the Guardians Of the Oglala Nation
who organised the siege at Wooded Knee in ‘73… if so then Ger Francis can’t be a GOON as he was too young to be present at this decisive stand by native americans and beside he is irish.”
HaHaHa - good one - a much needed bit of humour there !
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 10 November, 2009 @ 11:35 pm
I see no point in allowing this thread to continue open.
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 November, 2009 @ 12:02 am