Mutual Contempt

Donald Trump’s successful campaign hints not all is well in American politics


Friday 17th June 2016

On 16 June 2015, a year ago yesterday, Donald Trump announced his intention to seek the Republican nomination for president, and nobody gave him a chance. Trump’s campaign was going to be a political sideshow; something for the media and the public to enjoy before having to focus on real candidates, like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. It was predicted that Trump would suspend his campaign before primary season. And yet now, with the primaries completed, Trump is the only contender left from an original field of 17. It’s been an eventful 12 months and he is now the presumptive nominee.

From the beginning, Trump has been outrageous. In his commencement speech he said that Mexico is illegally deporting criminals to the United States, and that the most effective way to stop this and illegal immigration is to build a wall (for which the Mexican government would pay). Undeterred by criticism, he continued shamelessly: Sen. John McCain is not a war hero because he was captured in Vietnam and Trump likes “people who weren’t captured, OK?” Cue more criticism, but on he went: announcing after the Paris attacks how he intends to enforce a temporary ban on Muslims from entering the USA “until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”

Trump has denied that he has said anything over the top, claiming he was taken out of context or misquoted by the media, for which he has nothing but disdain. For example, when asked, he clarified that his real issues with McCain were over his failure of veterans and his inability to secure the borders, oh, and, by the way, “Four times, I said, he is a hero, but you know … people choose selective pieces.” Trump appears to be unable to let things slide. Similar to a school bully, he has a huge ego which can be deflated by the tiniest jibe. Just in the past week he revoked the Washington Post’s press credentials for his rallies because of ‘incredibly inaccurate coverage of the record setting Trump campaign’. A ‘short-fingered vulgarian’ is how Graydon Carter, editor of Vanity Fair, described Trump in the 1980s. ‘To this day,’ Carter wrote in November 2015, ‘I receive the occasional envelope from Trump. There is always a photo of him—generally a tear sheet from a magazine. On all of them he has circled his hand in gold Sharpie in a valiant effort to highlight the length of his fingers.’

Trump’s candidacy contains plenty more concerning incidents. Including, but certainly not limited to, the mocking of a disabled reporter, promulgating conspiracy theories, calling for waterboarding and the legalisation of torture, the underhand attempt to have presiding judge Gonzalo Curiel dismissed from a case in which Trump is the defendant because Curiel is of Mexican descent, and the uncouthly swift politicisation of the Orlando massacre. Books are no doubt already being written about this tawdry chapter of American politics.

When choosing who to vote for, forgetting the personalities and focusing solely on policies and pledges is often the most productive method available. This would be the wrong thing to do with Trump for two reasons. First, Trump’s policies are not set in stone. In fact, it’s terribly difficult to be sure what he believes in. One week he says one thing, the next he says the complete opposite without any reference to the former. Concrete policies and strategies are not valued by the Donald Trump campaign. He utters meaningless statements and buttresses them with yet more statements devoid of meaning. Consider the following:

We will have so much winning if I get elected that you will get bored with winning. Believe me. I agree, you’ll never get bored with winning! We never get bored! We are going to turn this country around. We are going to start winning Big League on trade. Militarily we’re gonna build up our military. We’re going to have such a strong military that nobody, nobody, is going to mess with us. We’re not going to have to use it.

Piffle. People take from it what they want to hear. This à la carte form of politicking seems to be how his supporters assuage some of their own misgivings. Second, his personality is such that it cannot be ignored. His hubris, that he’s quick to take offence, his lack of humility, and his reticence to take ownership of previous comments makes Trump quite possibly the worst presidential candidate ever.

By now, one can assume that Hillary Clinton will be awarded the Democratic nomination. Clinton has uninspiring policies and acts like she is owed the presidency. During her time as Obama’s Secretary of State she did not make one decision without considering how it could influence future presidential ambitions. Furthermore, when she feels under threat, Clinton resorts to identity politics: pointing out that she is the first female nominee and could be the first female president, implying that this alone makes her a good candidate. She, with her husband, the 42nd president, Bill, continues to maintain the Clinton Foundation which, for all the charity work it does, has an exceptionally seedy side. Furthering the notion that the Clintons’ morals are absent when it comes to money, the foundation has received large fees in exchange for speeches given for some of the vilest, most corrupt people on the planet, thereby lending presidential legitimacy to their client’s dealings. In an ordinary year, one should vote against Clinton; however, this is not an ordinary year. We have a rough idea of what Clinton would do in office, but we do not have a clue what Trump would do, and that – combined with his dirtbag personality – makes him unelectable. If you have a vote on Tuesday 8th November 2016, use it to vote for Clinton.

Trump’s success has unintentionally highlighted loathsome qualities present in modern political discourse. Polls conducted prior to his ascendancy indicating stark polarisation have been borne out. Appealing solely to emotion, inflating a sense of victimhood, using menacing tactics, and routinely discussing opponents in a bias, unreasonable manner has led to the dehumanisation and scapegoating of adversaries. This is not conducive to a healthy democracy when it’s used by one side; it’s exceptionally problematic, however, when both sides partake.

Trump supporters and opponents have engaged in online abuse and minor scuffles. It has only been Trump’s opponents, however, who have tried to prevent people attending a rally in Arizona by erecting a road block. At a rally in Ohio, a protester jumped a fence before being tackled by Trump’s security. These aren’t the only two incidents of inflammatory protest, e.g. there have been plenty of occasions where people have tried to shout Trump down at his own rally. Comparatively minor protests have been held at events for Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. The most bizarre aspect is that in almost every instance, the protesters have fed Trump’s narrative and enhanced his insurgent candidacy.

These protesters draw parallels to the 1930s: according to them Trump is the next Hitler, thus a vote for him is a vote for another Holocaust. Trump’s opponents feel they have a chance to stop a despotic dictatorship before it begins. They believe they are on the right side of history, and that what they are doing is morally justifiable. They’re patriots acting so that their country (and the world) does not again fall foul of fascism. They will stop at almost nothing to prevent Trump becoming president.

Trump’s supporters imagine the USA as a weak, downtrodden, helpless victim. The Democrats, the East Coast establishment, and the Liberal Left-wing media have eroded traditional American values and caused its downfall. Trump claims he will reverse this trend and ‘Make America Great Again’. He also hints that while on their moral mission to restore America, Trump and his patriotic supporters should expect an unfavourable response from the traitorous establishment.

Both sides believe that they are doing the right thing and that they’re working for the greater good. In a recent interview, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt said:

We all think that we have reason on our side. … When I talk to groups on the Right they say: ‘…isn’t the bottom line that our side is based on reason and their side is all just based on emotion?’ When I talk to groups on the Left it’s exactly the same thing. [They think] they have reason, and the other side is just emotion.

The passion is refreshing, but the direction in which it is being used is misguided at best. It’s likely that scuffles will increase in frequency, as once a person considers a goal morally essential almost anything which needs to be done to reach it is, by the same rubric, moral too – this includes violence. Almost by definition those against them are evil, expendable, and need to be explained away.

Protesters depict Trump’s supporters as white, racist, Southerners. This could be true; however, I take leave to doubt it as they likely comprise a more complex demographic. Some of them want to see the system burn; these include anarchists and the Alt-Right shit posting trolls. Some are racists, like David Duke. Others undoubtedly hold a position somewhere between anti-immigration and xenophobia. There is probably an anti-political correctness faction too. Of course, one could believe in all or none of these ideas and still support Trump; hence, it’s not unreasonable to seriously question the stereotype. For one thing, they’re certainly not all white or from the South. The reason for the stereotype is to morally legitimise almost any tactic against them: racists are all evil, so screaming in their faces and getting into fights is acceptable.

Seeing the opposition as emotional and their beliefs as incredible should lead one to work doubly hard to understand how they got to their position. Clearly there is a point when a bad idea is so entrenched that it cannot be reasoned with, but people currently seem unwilling to listen to anything which may go against preconceived notions. Any position going against one’s own is automatically rejected as an affront to the individual. Thus, Trump’s supporters are cast into the same category as Islamists and neo-Nazis. Whether this is due to the echo chamber of the Internet, or the broadcast media pandering to the lowest common denominator, it doesn’t matter. What does is that it has drawn political discourse on both sides of the Atlantic into a toxic state of affairs. It is now preferable to label people as unreasonable, and therefore unreachable, rather than listening to them at all. Not engaging means one loses the chance to understand, learn, and maybe help others. It leaves politics open to demagogues who are all too ready to indulge and reinforce solipsistic beliefs and grievances, be they real or perceived, for personal gain. The response to a leaked video from the company, Carrier, should act as case in point.

The footage is of the staff of a factory in Indianapolis being made redundant. It’s announced that Carrier would be moving to Mexico where it will be cheaper to operate. Donald Trump routinely posits that the government has signed trade deals which have decimated the traditional American labour force and destroyed its communities; he has made it a priority to get these firms back into the country. Whether that’s possible or not, it’s completely understandable that he had a surge in support, one would assume from blue collar workers, after the leak of this tape and his subsequent announcement. Similarly, when he talked about rectifying the terrible system in place for veterans’ pensions and support for their families he received a boost in the polls. That these factory workers and veterans had to turn to Trump to be listened to and offered help is embarrassing.

Both the protesters and Trump’s supporters have exhibited a sense of victimhood, a yearning for an achievable utopia, scapegoated their opponents, and are now waging a morally justified battle for what they believe is the greater good. It’s important to remember how to argue, as opposed to focusing purely on what to argue. As a rule, people do not change their minds by being screamed at; however, if one appeals to logic, rather than emotion, persuasion is possible and political discourse is all the better for it. At the moment we have two groups at each other’s throats with the rest unconvinced that either is worth placating. This is a deeply troubling state of affairs which, on the plus side, is rectifiable. The first step is to remember that there are not bad people, only bad ideas.


New Old Labour and the Jews

Antisemitism continues to pollute the Left

2015-09-22-02-49-48.corbyne bij anti israel demonstratie

Friday 25th March 2016

In February, the co-chair of the Oxford Union Labour Club, Alex Chalmers, resigned his position in protest against antisemitism in the society. That evening the OULC had voted to support Oxford Israeli Apartheid Week which, according to its official website, “aims to raise awareness about Israel’s ongoing settler-colonial project and apartheid policies over the Palestinian people.” An internal investigation conducted by the OULC has been sent to the Labour Party. A press release by the Oxford Union Jewish Society appears to vindicate Chalmers.

This month the Labour Party has re-expelled one vehement antisemite, Gerry Downing, has put another, Vicki Kirby, under investigation, and, has openly readmitted Beinazir Lasharie, a Labour councillor in Kensington who thinks that Jews were “behind 9/11 and … ISIS,” as reported by the blogger Guido Fawkes over at It would be easy to pin the blame on Jeremy Corbyn. His hard Left faction has always had a penchant for antisemitism, but it’s been spilling over into the mainstream for some time now.

Traditional antisemitism is based on eugenics and race theory. Jews, it is said, are an inferior race because of their parasitic nature. They set-up in a host country, take over its economic system by stealth, defile its women, muddy the blood of the natives, and break down the moral and structural fibre of civilisation. In the United Kingdom, this exists chiefly on the far-flung fringes of the extreme Right. This, however, isn’t the Left’s antisemitism. Framed by its own prejudices, the antisemitism of the Left can be described as ‘antisemitic anti-Zionism’.

Founded upon an excessive hatred for Israel, Leftist antisemites see the Jewish state as the last bastion of imperialism. White European settlers ethnically cleansed the land of an indigenous population of Palestinian Arabs. Palestinians tried to reclaim their property and were driven back into the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Victimised and oppressed, beaten into submission, and at risk of being exterminated, the Palestinians have been forced by Israel to use violent methods to get their homes back.

At its most extreme, antisemitic anti-Zionism attempts to expiate the Holocaust by inverting it, making Israel play the role of Nazi Germany. Zionism is racist because it views Jews as superior, so the logic goes. The Palestinians have been herded into the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, their “open air concentration camps.” Rumours persist of abductions, medical experiments and even clandestine mass exterminations. Palestinians are now the Jews, and the Jews have become the Nazis. Benjamin Netanyahu is Adolf Hitler, and the Israeli Defence Force is the SS – all that’s missing are a few swastikas.

If you peel enough layers off of the onion of history you can find your desired culprit. If you selectively read history and deny people agency then you can come up with a very warped narrative to nicely compliment your partly-peeled onion. Leftist antisemitism does both of these things superbly.

It is often said that criticising Israel gets one unfairly labelled an antisemite. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be (and is not) regarded as antisemitic. It’s when Israel is held up to a higher standard that it crosses the line into antisemitism. Political scientist Alan Johnson spoke to this topic in a 2015 lecture. He explained that it constitutes the demonisation of Zionism as racism, an absolute rejection of Zionism, and the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

This comes to the crux of the issue: the hard Left does not want a two-state solution; they want a single Palestinian state. They want to wipe Israel off the map “from the river to the sea.” There is a distinction between criticising government policy and demanding the end of a country, the latter is something quite different.

Nit picking over the founding of a state is also different; for example, I believe the partition of India to be a mistake. I think that the creation of Pakistan and, eventually, Bangladesh has created problems for future generations, some of which may well turn out to be insurmountable. That does not mean that I want to see the end of Pakistan and Bangladesh. The partition was completed long ago and I do not dispute the right of each nation to exist. The hard Left, on the other hand, yearn for Israel to be a thing of the past.

Stating that one is against nationalism is a legitimate position, but there can be no exceptions. If one does not view Palestinian nationalism with the same critical eye as they do Jewish nationalism then, unless they are Palestinians, they are prejudiced. Sure, question the treatment of the Palestinians, there is quite a bit of room for improvement in that department, but don’t protest Israel’s right to exist; as Christopher Hitchens said: “Lots of states are founded upon injustices or foolishness or bad ideas, it doesn’t mean that anyone can just come and evict or destroy them. … But it should be a matter of principle, if Jews born in Brooklyn have a right to a state in Palestine, then Palestinians born in Jerusalem have a right to a state in Palestine. Anyone who doesn’t agree with that principle, I think, is suspect.”

The final aspect Johnson described is the BDS movement: the exclusion of, as he put it, “one state – and only one state – from the economic, cultural and educational life of humanity: the little Jewish one.” The organisations and groups which have signed up to the boycott do not sell or promote Israeli goods, nor do they allow Israelis a platform. The supporters of the BDS movement treat all Israelis as responsible for the actions of the state of Israel, and they only apply their standard to Israel, other nations are ignored. Turkey, for example, refuses to acknowledge the Kurds’ right to self-determination and has occupied a substantial portion of Cyprus, a member state of the European Union, since 1974, yet there is no BDS movement against Turkey, just Israel. Combined with the other factors, this double standard is antisemitic.

The Left has a problem with this antisemitic anti-Zionism. Indeed, the more one veers toward the hard Left, the more antisemitism one uncovers. The Stop the War Coalition, for example, which Jeremy Corbyn chaired until he became leader of the Labour Party, routinely crosses into antisemitism. The student unions of several British universities have signed up to the BDS campaign. The National Union of Students website has a free downloadable handbook “designed to be a practical tool for activists who are setting up local BDS campaigns.” Three hundred and forty-three academics at English and Welsh universities pledged to boycott Israeli academia in October 2015. This is the hard Left. It’s what to be expected when one pathologically hates anything which has links to the West. This wasn’t as problematic when they were the kooky fringe, but now they control the party. Corbyn is the leader. The hard Left is the mainstream by definition.

Early in his tenure, Corbyn spoke with Labour Friends of Israel and managed to exit the meeting without allowing the word ‘Israel’ to pass his lips. Furthermore, since he assumed the leadership he has not explicitly disavowed his links – however tangential – to antisemites like Raed Salah, Dyab Abou Jahjah, Paul Eisen, Stephen Sizer, and violent terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. This is because, in one way or another, they’re all fighting Israel: Corbyn found common ground and has chosen to ignore the rest.

The rise of the hard Left (and the Labour Party’s consequential problem with antisemitic anti-Zionism) stems from a predominantly Leftist delusion. We like to gaze through an idealistic lens, one which can obscure reality. The Right are relatively quick to expel fascists and extreme elements from within its ranks. This is a legacy of fascism. If one has a fascist as a member of one’s party, it is unsurprisingly easy for opponents to levy the charge of ‘fascists’ and spark images of the Holocaust in the public’s mind. The Left has used this tactic with remarkable efficacy, so the Right has had to learn quickly. The Left, on the other hand, has been appallingly slow at dealing with its own extreme fringe: communists, Stalinists, Trotskyists, etc. Reasoning for this is twofold: first, the Left has a benign belief in ‘re-education’ which, when combined with a stubborn confidence in one’s principles and the powers of persuasion, leads to the idea that eventually anyone can be persuaded to your position. Secondly, communism does not have a symbol as emotive as Auschwitz; thoughts of the Gulag pale in comparison to gas chambers and leather jackboots. This may be a fault of our education system; nevertheless, ‘communist’ is not as pejorative as ‘fascist’. Thus the Left give second and third chances, the Right rarely does the same. Had Corbyn held a belief at the opposite end of the political horseshoe it is tremendously unlikely that he would have won the leadership of the Conservative Party.

Authoritarians and totalitarians will not become social democrats. They will try to recruit those from the centre ground, and in doing so they may just poison the well with a vile strain of antisemitism. The danger of the hard-Left needs to be understood by the centre-Left. Unfortunately I don’t see that happening any time soon. All the same, I think it’s too late.

Identity Politics and the Oscars


Friday 4 March 2016

Manufactured outrage wrapped in a veil of legitimacy. That’s probably the best way to describe identity politics. Knowing when outrage is for legitimate or illegitimate reasons can be difficult because discrimination does occur. Manufacturing discrimination and claiming outrage, however, is an easy way to be taken seriously. For example, when discrimination has been alleged it’s often indisputably accepted before the claim has had a chance to be checked. Twenty years ago it was at the other extreme, people claiming they were discriminated against had to jump through hoops just to be heard; now, someone merely has to utter a buzzword like ‘racist’ for the accused to acquiesce. It’s this worrying state of affairs which is exploited by those practicing identity politics to claim that they and/or their group deserve special treatment because of the discrimination they claim to face. Most recently, a few bitter people in the film industry played identity politics.

Questions linger about systemic racism within the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) nearly a week after the 88th Oscars. Since the nominations were announced back in mid-January, it has been questioned why for the second year running there were no black nominees in the acting categories. Equally the same question could have been asked about why there was a paucity of people of Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander, or Hispanic descent, but it wasn’t and, as such, the criticism was oddly framed.

The #OscarsSoWhite controversy was paradoxically discriminatory. The people behind the hashtag and the multimillionaires who boycotted the Academy Awards probably had good intentions, but their protest signals that it’s okay to select based on ethnicity so long as it is their chosen ethnicity. Is it too much to ask that everybody should be treated the same? No special dispensation or discrimination because of your skin colour, gender, sexuality, hair colour, whatever. To borrow a Dave Rubin phrase: everyone should be treated equally shitty.

A huge deal was made about AMPAS membership being mostly white, male, and over 50 years in age, which it is: 94 per cent of respondents to the 2012 Los Angeles Times survey were white; 77 per cent male; 86 per cent were 50 years old or above. The membership, therefore, is not representative of American society which is 72 per cent white, 49 per cent male, 32 per cent aged 50 or older. In response to this criticism, three points needs to be made:

First, the Academy has said that it will try to diversify its membership in future.

Second, being white does not automatically mean you’re a racist. Similarly, being a man does not mean you’re a misogynists and being over 50 does not mean you go out of your way to discriminate against the young. Correlation does not equal causation. Patterns exist, but they can be figments of our imagination. Not having a black nominee does not mean the Oscars are racist. This year the average age for nominees in the two female acting categories was 37.6, in the male it was 43.4 for Best and 50.6 for Supporting. If we wanted to we could draw something from these statistics: why are teenagers being discriminated against? Why are nonagenarians being overlooked? Can they not act as well as other age groups? Could the Oscars be discriminating against the adolescent and the elderly? Yes. Could the Oscars be discriminating against black people? Yes. Finding definitive proof, however, is another matter entirely, especially when the AMPAS membership list is secret. Claiming that unproven allegations are as good as confirmed is dishonest.

Which brings us to point three: judging the creative arts is incredibly subjective. It’s all very well that people think Will Smith, Michael B. Jordan, or Idris Elba should have been nominated – that’s their opinion and disagreeing over creativity is part of the fun of watching movies. Debating whether it was a good story or whether someone was truly believable in their role is enjoyable because it’s so subjective. Personally, I have a penchant for ‘good-bad movies’ because of their unintentional comedic value: Sharknado and Mega Piranha being just two examples. It doesn’t matter whether I or others like them or not, these films will never get nominated for Academy Awards. Never ever ever. Does not being nominated mean a film is bad? No. Does having an Oscar or not having an Oscar indicate whether someone is a good actor or not? No. Alan Rickman never won one. Sir Ian McKellen hasn’t won one, neither has Glenn Close, Johnny Depp or Brad Pitt.

Regardless, ignore subjectivity for a moment: should nominees be chosen on the strength of their performance? Or should they be chosen because of their ethnicity? Imagine that Will Smith had been nominated in the first place and, then, picture the outcry if, when asked, a member of AMPAS said “I chose Smith because he is black and I felt, in the interest of fairness, that I should select a black person.” The backlash would be immense! It’s the same argument as was made at the University of Missouri in late 2015. Students protested because, among other grievances, they felt there were not enough black staff members. Once again, imagine the furore if, anywhere in the western world, it leaked out that an academic had been hired because of his or her ethnicity and not because they were the most qualified.

Sargon of Akkad, a.k.a. Carl Benjamin, made a great point to Dave Rubin on the latter’s show, The Rubin Report, in February 2016. Discussing extreme feminism, Rubin pointed out the overreaction to and criticism of the video game series, Grand Theft Auto:

Rubin:   I played Grand Theft Auto and, yeah, you could steal a car and punch a hooker and people would say: ‘well, that’s against women.’ But you could also punch a man. Or should they only have it that you only punch men? I mean even the logic behind it doesn’t really stand to critique.

Sargon: And there’s no winning either. So, this is the point: it’s all what’s called a ‘kafkatrap.’ It’s either you are this thing or you’re this thing and you don’t even realise it. You know? And there’s no falsifiability to any of their hypothesis. But, the main problem, if you think about it, like with Grand Theft Auto, so: what are the options? Not include women in the game? No way. They’d freak out if you couldn’t put women in the game.

Rubin:   Right.

Sargon: Or you can have the women not being able to be treated like men? Again, they’d be freaking out. ‘That’s not equal at all.’ So, what are you going to have? You’re going to have women so they just can’t be damaged. They will not allow you to treat women like men. You can’t beat up women but you can beat up men. And so you’re in this position where you’ve got no win. There’s no good answer. And that’s how they want it. They want you dancing to their tune.

What links these protesters? What do the extreme feminists against GTA, the #OscarsSoWhite crowd, the students at Mizzou, the people at Bowdoin College who hate tequila and sombreros have in common? They want to be the gatekeepers. They all yearn for preferential treatment. They want to beat down others with whom they disagree. They crave special consideration and they want to be made to feel important due to their membership of or advocacy for what they consider to be a marginalised, powerless, underprivileged, oppressed group.

Saudi women forced to wear cloth bags in desert heat, and Iranian homosexuals who know that if they’re ‘outed’ they’ll have to flee or face execution, are two examples of actually marginalised, powerless, underprivileged and oppressed groups. These people are so viciously discriminated against that they need all the help they can get. Actors and actresses living in Malibu, and directors with grand townhouses in Manhattan, however, are most certainly not marginalised, powerless, underprivileged and oppressed; nor are extreme feminists living in the West. Try telling a woman in rural Pakistan who has no other choice but to return to her husband, the same husband who threw battery acid on her for not bearing him a son, how GTA is stigmatising women. The people who claim special privilege are nothing more than power hungry narcissists acting like fascists, crying that they are being oppressed when a mirror is held up to their own vile bigotry.

At its roots, claiming special privilege stamps everybody else down. It is naturally discriminatory. We should all be treated equally shitty in the first place. It doesn’t matter which group you claim membership of; you do not deserve special privilege for just being X or advocating on behalf of X. Everyone has the right to speak, to march, to protest, to express themselves, but we’re not obliged to listen and we don’t have to accept something as dogma because someone else says it is. We ask for evidence and if we’re presented with a convincing argument we could even join the protest. But if what’s subjected to review is unconvincing then we reserve the right to exercise our own freedom of expression.

Let us ensure that we possess a meritocratic system which treats everybody equally shitty, nobody should be systemically disadvantaged. The person most suited to the job gets the job, rather than the most X. If they consider their identity to be X and they get the job, then great, well done them. They deserved it.

The Oscars are not perfect. Perhaps the Academy’s members considered Smith’s, Jordan’s and Elba’s acting inferior to the nominees, perhaps they didn’t. Maybe there really is systemic racism in the Academy, maybe there isn’t. At the moment the proof is unsatisfactory.

The remaining question is what will be the outcome of the #OscarsSoWhite protest? At the ceremony itself Chris Rock was an exceptional host, some people deserved the awards they won, and some people didn’t. (What’s new?) Next year, however, when the nominees are announced in January 2017 and several black actors and actresses have been nominated, we will all ask ourselves whether they have been chosen on merit or because of their ethnicity.

Moving on from Cologne

_87564582_030798902-1Friday 15 January 2016

Over the New Year’s weekend, reports that an organised gang of hundreds of men of North African/Arab descent attacked, molested, and raped women in the German city of Cologne were suppressed by the media. How could an attack like this happen? And why did the media not report it straight away?

The media was frightened. They thought that racist, right-wing gangs would respond to the news by marauding through the streets attacking any North Africans or Arab they saw. This fear, based upon a collective European history of Kristallnacht and pogroms, caused them to decide that running the story was too risky. When they eventually did, they explained really carefully that these people did not represent all North Africans and Arabs, as if pleading with a hostile population who could become savage racists at the flick of a switch. In the meantime, the victims of the attacks had been forgotten. The story became about the media protecting migrants. The motive behind protection is commendable, but the act is misguided. Yes, racists believe all Arabs and all North Africans are the same, but explaining that they’re not belittles the vast majority. Does, say, Al Jazeera really think most Europeans are violent racists just waiting for the right trigger?! This is the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Furthermore, by not discussing why these coordinated attacks happened and, instead, focusing on how these people aren’t representative, one leaves space for right-wing populists who are willing to have the discussions we’re not. Currently, in the United States, Donald Trump is leading the polls in the race to be the 2016 presidential nominee for the Republican Party. Trump should be a no hoper, but he’s far from it. His numbers keep going up and people continue to wonder why he has so much support.

In December 2015, at a campaign rally in South Carolina, Trump said that when he was elected president he wouldn’t allow any more Muslims into the country, his numbers went up again afterwards. A short incomplete clip was played on news shows the world over. If the whole sentence had been screened then maybe one or two careful listeners would have noticed something quite important. Trump, speaking in the third person, as all completely sane people do, said: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States, until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.” (My emphasis) Less than a week earlier, a terrorist attack had taken place in San Bernardino, California. He did not understand why. Trump doesn’t understand Islamism; neither does his supporters, who increased in number. People aren’t idiots and if you treat them like idiots, they will treat you like an idiot. Since 9/11, the American people have been told that terrorism has no religion and that Islam is a religion of peace, but when they go online they see that Islamic State has cited the Koran as justification for another attack, or they see a suicide bomber screaming Allahu Akhbar before blowing himself up. This has left them with a stark choice: on one side they have the government saying that there is no link, and on the other there is the populist saying that there might just be a connection and that we’ve got to work it out before we can allow in any more Muslims. It’s understandable that some have sided with Trump over the government.

Safety is noble. Perpetuating ignorance to maintain the illusion of safety is doomed to failure. Not discussing Islamism has opened up a chance of real power for a fool who has no business being in politics. If we don’t openly talk about possible reasons why the events in Cologne occurred, then the same thing could happen in Europe, especially because at the moment we are being offered victim blaming, diversionary tactics and self-loathing instead. The Mayor of Cologne, Henriette Reker, said that women should try to keep an arm’s length away from all strange men, to which the Canadian polemicist, Mark Steyn, angrily responded:

This may work for Mayor Reker traveling around her fiefdom with a car and security detail, but, alas, out on the streets, men often have longer arms than women, and, when there are more than one of them, you can easily wind up out-armed: “Ich hatte Finger an allen Körperöffnungen,” as one young lady put it. “I had fingers on every orifice.”

Then there was Ralf Jaeger, the Interior Minister of North Rhine-Westphalia, the region in which Cologne lies, discussing the right-wing response to the attacks: “What happens on the right-wing platforms and in chat rooms is at least as awful as the acts of those assaulting the women … This is poisoning the climate of our society.” The right-wing response is at least as problematic as the crime itself! Steyn again: ‘Maybe his cabinet colleagues might usefully stick some fingers in Herr Jaeger’s orifices, starting with his mouth.’

Finally, there was the Tunisian migrant living in Cologne who was interviewed on Channel 4 News: “It’s the fault of the German laws and not the people. Refugees and migrants who arrive have to wait six months to a year. During that time they can’t work and that means that often they turn to crime because they can’t make ends meet.” So, there we have it, the sexual assaults were the fault of Germany’s bureaucracy and the fault of the women themselves and it doesn’t matter anyway because the right-wing are just as bad as any rapist and we should focus on them. This is the nonsense we are currently being given. People don’t want to talk about why it happened, instead they skirt around the issue because, really, maybe we brought it on ourselves. This is masochistic stupidity and is because people are afraid of being called racist, which crushes debate and can have serious social ramifications for the accused. When talking about an issue as serious as this there cannot be any reservations, all ideas need to be put on the table to explain why it happened and how to prevent it happening again. Racist ideas will be shelved as racism is illogical and we need reason to work this out.To be told, therefore, that it is racist to even discuss why this happened because we are the root cause for our own downfall, as some have suggested, is disgusting! We have got to talk about this and it has to be now, because this wasn’t the first time. It is not an event without precedent, and that means it could happen again, which is terrifying.

In Sweden, at a music festival in 2014, and then, again, at the same festival in 2015, the police were afraid to report large gangs of migrants from Afghanistan who were attacking, molesting and raping young women because they were afraid of being labelled racist. Their youngest victim was 12-years-old. Twelve! Why were the police afraid of being called racist? I put a lot of it down to the rise of cultural relativism.

Cultural relativism is the idea that one has to take into account culture, society and history before deciding upon truth, knowledge and morality. Something considered bad or immoral within one group, may be seen as positive or good or at least not decadent by another group. No judgment can be made about the value of either of these positions without taking into account all factors or ideally being a member of the group in question. Someone who doesn’t consider themselves to be a member cannot comment upon the group’s issues of without bias. Cultural relativists insist that discussing something as important as how women are seen by those who grew up in another society, another culture, is beyond our grasp unless we truly understand them. What this means is that a discussion can be shut down quickly by shouting racist at someone willing to talk about these issues but opposed to this methodology. Being labelled as racist can cause someone to lose their job, friends and even family, whether it a justifiable accusation or not. Cultural relativism is twaddle; nonetheless it is potent twaddle because in its armoury it has the accusation of racism.

We have got to discuss why these horrendous attacks happened. What drove these people to organise large gangs in which they could attack women? The problem is that the cultural diktat over our society which states that it is racist to speak about the worth of another can be overwhelming. Even I feel a pang of reservation when I start to consider whether the way women are treated in North Africa and the Arab world could be better. Should I really be discussing this? Do I really want to wade into this tricky debate? The answers should be yes, but that pang still reverberates. I’ve considered the merits of posting this article more than once. I’ve also had to force myself to not bend over backwards to explain myself more fully, to not do the whole “what I’m not saying is… what I am actually saying is this…” I haven’t done that because I’ve got to trust that you, the reader, will take me at my word. So, here, for what it’s worth, is my take on why the attacks happened and how to try to prevent another one:

I am worried by how men in the Arab world, North Africa, and third world countries view women. These are not, despite what some say, the most progressive societies. Some may argue that rape is perpetrated by Westerners too, which is correct, but it does not occur in the same numbers and is viewed as evil, rather than a Friday night out with the boys. To play the Rawlsian thought experiment: say you are going to be born tomorrow, you know you’re female but you do not know the socioeconomic status of your parents, in which country would you prefer to be born? I can honestly say that I would want it to be a Western country. So, while some claim that the West promotes ‘rape culture’, I would, bearing that in mind, ask how one should define the culture in North Africa and the Arab world. Let me give an example, one which, as you will see, is not unique: the horrendous rape of Lara Logan, the CBS journalist, in Tahrir Square, Cairo, Egypt, in 2011, during the Arab Spring. This is a summary from Wikipedia, which is compiled from a transcript of the CBS show 60 Minutes:

She said the incident involved 200–300 men and lasted around 25 minutes. She had been reporting the celebrations for an hour without incident when her camera battery failed. One of the Egyptian CBS crew suggested they leave, telling her later he heard the crowd make inappropriate sexual comments about her. She felt hands touching her, and can be heard shouting “stop”, just as the camera died. One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew, a claim that CBS said, though false, was a “match to gasoline”. She went on to say that they tore off her clothes and, in her words, raped her with their hands, while taking photographs with their cellphones. They began pulling her body in different directions, pulling her hair so hard she said it seemed they were trying to tear off chunks of her scalp. Believing she was dying, she was dragged along the square to where the crowd was stopped by a fence, alongside which a group of women were camping. One woman wearing a chador put her arms around Logan, and the others closed ranks around her, while some men who were with the women threw water at the crowd. A group of soldiers appeared, beat back the crowd with batons, and one of them threw Logan over his shoulder. She was flown back to the U.S. the next day, where she spent four days in the hospital.

Apart from having the good fortune to have soldiers plunge into a crowd after her, it reads like the attacks in Cologne and Sweden. I had forgotten about Logan until I read an article by a Swedish journalist, Ivar Arpi, for the Spectator. Arpi writes:

In the Arab world, it’s something of a phenomenon. It has a name: ‘Taharrush gamea’. Sometimes the girls are teased and have their veils torn off by gangs of young men; sometimes it escalates into rape. Five years ago, this form of attack was the subject of an award-winning Egyptian film, 678. Instances of young men surrounding and attacking girls were reported throughout the Arab Spring protests in Cairo in 2011 and 2012. Lara Logan, a CNN journalist covering the fall of Hosni Mubarak, was raped in Tahrir Square. Taharrush gamea is a modern evil, and it’s being imported into Europe. Our authorities ought to be aware of it.

If Arpi is correct, then Taharrush gamea explains why the attacks happened in the way they did, and is a perfectly good reason to double check the backgrounds of migrants and refugees. We cannot allow this disgusting practice to be imported into Europe. Maajid Nawaz suggested in the Daily Beast that “classes [on social and sexual norms] should be mandatory for new arrivals across the continent. These classes should form part of a citizenship, integration, and employment course, before residency permits are provided. In any case, they would help refugees come to grips with the strange new world they have just fled to, and can only make their job prospects better.” This is a great idea, one which, as he explains elsewhere in the article, is already being put into practice in Norway, the town of Passau in Bavaria, and, soon, Denmark. Let’s hope the rest of Europe follows suit.

Another way to go would be to follow the example set by Canada’s new Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau. Trudeau, realising that 90 per cent of migrants are males and that the vast majority of that percentage are unaccompanied, “announced in late November that, starting in 2016, [Canada] would accept only women, accompanied children and families from Syria. Specifically excluded would be unaccompanied minor males and single adult males (unless they are members of the LGBTQ community); those excluded will primarily be older teen and young adult men.” Admittedly, Canada has the luxury of the Atlantic between its borders and the origins of most migrants, nonetheless this is a sound policy from a country that wants to help and is doing so logically.

Something which may deter attacks is to finally enforce tougher punishments for rape. If it doesn’t, then at least the current insincere punishments will have been updated. In the meantime, we must learn more about the way women and sex are viewed by those migrants already here and those making their way to Europe. If we are to adapt to their presence we must help those who want to integrate to do so. We need to learn how to live together, we must be proud of how Western society treats women, noticing that we are not at equity yet, but that we are far more advanced than from whence they came. New arrivals must respect other people, whatever their age, gender, sexuality or ethnicity. They are to be told that if they try to import their current standards, then they will be sent back. There can be no compromise. We must learn how to have these difficult conversations. It is imperative that we suppress both the fear of being labelled racist and of inciting a right-wing backlash, especially when the topic is so important that it concerns the safety of 50 per cent of the continent’s population.

And we must hold rapists accountable for their actions, even if, as one of the men arrested showed, they are full of themselves: “I am Syrian. You have to treat me kindly. Mrs Merkel invited me.” No, we don’t, you’re a rapist and you’re going to prison where you will learn fast or you will be deported upon release.

How can we win if we don’t know what we’re fighting against?


Friday 20 November 2015

“Saying it louder and relentlessly is not going to make it true.”

Sam Harris

“Between the apologism of the far Left in this debate … and … the sensationalism of the far Right, the most important thing … is for us to remain level-headed … So let’s remain level-headed and avoid being, I’d say, blinded by our Left eye or popping a blood-vessel in our Right eye because both of those conclusions would render us blind.”

Maajid Nawaz

“The thing I’ve always said is we’ll win when an Islamist who is not breaking the law but is saying horrible and hateful things is treated in the same way that Nick Griffin is treated. That’s when we’ll win.”

Douglas Murray

The terror attacks which took place in Paris on the evening of 13 November have made us again ask why. Most of us don’t understand why Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL, or Daesh – whatever you want to call them) is attacking us. At the moment we are fighting an inexplicable enemy and, therefore, an unwinnable war. Most will have heard of ‘Islamism’ and ‘Jihadism’, but I doubt many know what the words mean or can identify their relevance to this discussion. This is because, currently, terrorist attacks are explained in one of two ways.

It is claimed that either terrorism is a very Muslim problem. So Muslim, in fact, that all Muslims are potential terrorists who comprise a fifth column. Or, the far more popular argument, is that the terrorists were not Muslims because terrorism has no religion and Islam is a religion of peace. The attacks, therefore, must have happened as retaliation for some foreign intervention or because the attackers were nihilists taking advantage of a downtrodden religion. Witness, for example, the unproductive discussion held on Question Time on 19 November. A memorable low-light was an audience member stating with gusto that “I take objection to the fact that we even refer to this terrorist group as ‘Islamic State’. If I call myself a zebra, do you then refer to me as a zebra?” Her remarks were met with applause.

I dare not opine as to whether these are firmly held beliefs or mimicry by those who absorb the words of others and claim them as their own (without fact checking). In recent times ignorance has been frustrating but not a hindrance to intelligent discourse about Islamism. There has been plenty written about it, some of which is superbly detailed, very well explained, and everyone should read – I’m thinking here of Paul Berman, Malise Ruthven, and Fawaz A. Gerges. Given a lack of opposition and ample minds to feed upon, however, the termites have spread far and wide. Simple but totally inadequate, if not outright false, explanations of terrorism have found fertile territory on social media (look, for example, at the #TerrorismHasNoReligion hashtag). Leon Trotsky’s poignant (mis)quote – “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.” – has been repeated several times since Paris, and for good reason: war was very interested in Paris that evening. For the benefit of our discussion, I would introduce the Swiftian: “Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it.” To my mind, as someone who has grown up in the post-9/11 age, even the post-7/7 age, I see now as good a time as any to rid ourselves of flights of fancy, however comforting they pertain to be, and properly explain what it is we are fighting. What chance do we have of winning if we don’t know exactly what it is we are up against?  Since Paris there has been plenty of talk of extending bombing to Syria, even of boots on the ground. These may well be necessary steps; however, a military victory alone would not rid us of Islamism: only a dual strategy in which emphasis is also placed on an ideological victory can do that. And, before we form a strategy for that intellectual confrontation, we must explain what it is we are up against so that everyone understands.

Islam is a religion which, like all religions, has schisms and divisions within it. There are extreme fundamentalists at one end of a scale and at the other there are the moderates with liberal mindsets. This is comparable to Christianity which is currently split over issues such as homosexuality and abortion.

Islamism is a political movement best described as the desire to impose a version of Islam over society, bringing about an Islamic state (also known as the caliphate). Islamists see the divide between church and state as unnecessary because, they believe, Islam provides answers to any problem. For example, the Koran has rules on taxation. The divide between church and state is a curse from Christianity and the crusader west. It causes religion to become moribund, leading to decadence and immorality – ‘cultural schizophrenia’, as an Islamist scholar, Sayyid Qutb, phrased it.

Not all Muslims are Islamists, but all Islamists are Muslims. Similarly, not all Islamists are Jihadists, but all Jihadists are Islamists. Jihadism is the use of violence in the pursuit of the caliphate. Their use of violence will, according to Jihadists, either awaken all Muslims to convert to the one true Islam and join their cause, or it will cause non-Muslims to turn against the Muslims living among them, thus forcing them to seek refuge in the caliphate. This idea of insiders and outsiders is a part of the central myth of all totalitarian movements: the ur-myth. The ur-myth, as described by Paul Berman in his masterpiece, Terror and Liberalism, is originally found in:

the Book of the Revelation of St. John the Divine. There is a people of God, St. John tells us. The people of God are under attack. The attack comes from within. It is a subversive attack mounted by the city dwellers of Babylon, who are wealthy and have access to things from around the world, which they trade…

These city dwellers have sunk into abominations. They have been polluted by the whore of Babylon. … The pollution is spreading to the people of God. Such is the attack from within. There is also an attack from without—conducted from afar by the forces of Satan, who is worshipped at the synagogue of Satan. But these attacks, from within and without, will be violently resisted. The war of Armageddon will take place. The subversive and polluted city dwellers of Babylon will be exterminated, together with all their abominations. The Satanic forces from the mystic beyond will be fended off. The destruction will be horrifying. Yet there is nothing to fear: destruction will last only an hour. Afterward, when the extermination is complete, the reign of Christ will be established and will endure a thousand years. And the people of God will live in purity, submissive to God.

One can identify the roles certain groups played in Hitler’s or Stalin’s ur-myth. For Islamism the people of God are those who believe in the one true Islam. The Babylonian city dwellers are Muslims who do not. The role of the satanic forces at the gate is played by the crusader west, with a special hate kept aside for the Jews. Islamists long for a caliphate but state that the time for action will become readily apparent. Jihadists try to force Armageddon and resurrect the caliphate sooner.

Until the Paris attacks there used to be a pretty clear division between two sides of Jihadism. On one was al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda believed in striking the satanic forces, the far enemy, the crusader west, first. On the other side, ISIS created an Islamic state before all else to convince other Muslims to join their cause. This would render them in a stronger position to tackle the near enemy, the city dwellers. After defeating or converting the near enemy, they would take on the west, forcing Armageddon. The Paris attacks show how ISIS has changed tactics. This is a move likely born out of desperation because the city dwellers have not been defeated, nor are they rising up to join en masse.

To recapitulate, Islamists want an Islamic state. Jihadists use violence to achieve this end. All Jihadists are Islamists, but not all Islamists are Jihadists. All Islamists are Muslims, but not all Muslims are Islamists. For those who didn’t have a clue, I hope that helped.


Islamism is a far trickier concept to understand than preconceived notions of ‘all/no Muslims are terrorists’. Not appreciating the difference between Islam and Islamism, between Muslims and Islamists, however, leads one into mental paralysis. What’s more, one ends up both enabling Islamists and shutting down liberal Muslims.

By saying that the attacks had nothing to do with Islam, that terrorism has no religion, one is being blind to the differences between the varying schools of Islam. This forces all Muslims into a ‘bloc Islam’ and a picture is painted of a single united ‘Muslim community’, rather than communities. Identity politics and cultural relativism feature, which, in turn, plays into the hands of Islamists who claim that they speak for Islam and by definition all Muslims. By pigeonholing and putting Muslims in their box, one delegitimizes moderate Muslims who are fighting against the sexism, homophobia and bigotry of the Islamists, and instantly awards that same sexism, homophobia and bigotry the title of ‘culturally sensitive’. We cannot comment because it is their religion and anything said against it is ‘Islamophobia’ – “a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.

What begins with a desire to protect Muslims from a perceived backlash of anti-Muslim bigotry ends up hurting the very people they had intended to keep safe. By not recognising that there is more than one Islam, the non-violent Islamists who live in our society end up being the winners. They are the ones who speak of the Muslim community and get asked to appear on television and write newspaper op-eds ‘from a Muslim perspective’. This is pandering to a minority within a minority. And, when the minority asks to suppress the majority because ‘it is their religion’, the enablers say go ahead, and ignore the pleas of liberal Muslims.

By going to the other extreme and saying that all Muslims are terrorists, then one is, without a doubt, a bigot who is destined to live in either constant fear of Muslims or will end up being one of those arseholes who takes the law into their own hands and attacks a person doing the groceries because they look like a Muslim. This harms liberal Muslims as well because anything they do – anti-extremism and de-radicalisation programmes, for example – must really be nefarious. The liberals should be good Muslims and live up to the stereotype of the angry, shouting Muslim who protests at the smallest incitement. This is a very narrow worldview and is, if anything, more toxic than its popular antithesis.

Of course, repeatedly saying that terrorism has no religion or is all religion does not make it true. Islam is neither a religion of peace, nor a religion of war. The attacks did not have everything to do with Islam, nor did they have nothing to do with Islam. They had something to do with Islam. The idea that Jihadism is an offensive, violent struggle against impurity in the world (rather than an internal, spiritual struggle) was argued by people like Qutb in the 1950s and 60s. The idea of ‘aesthetic terrorism’ – that a terror attack is more of a statement when more people are killed and that who was killed does not matter as much – goes back to the anarchism of the 19th century. These ideas are old, but we’re now in an age where – apparently – one can get hold of Kalashnikovs or AK-47s with apparent ease, so it is damn important that we understand what we’re up against so that we can form a plan and start putting it into action. Blinding your Left eye or popping a blood vessel in your Right is asinine.


The two major European totalitarian movements of the 20th century – fascism and communism – were defeated in different ways. Fascism took hold of several nations, the foremost of which were Italy and Germany, and a combination of events delegitimized it. The crushing defeat of the Axis powers in the Second World War was one factor, the other was the Holocaust. The cold, calculated nature of mechanised killing – the pinnacle being Auschwitz – mars fascism for the foreseeable future.

Communism took longer to discredit. When man has a chance to cheat the system, more often than not he will. The communist system provided the opportunity for the powerful to exploit the weak. The promise of economic equality being replaced by the concept that “some animals are more equal than others” was only the beginning. Stalin’s Great Terror and forced starvation of the Ukraine exhibited how truly inhumane the system had become. Eventually, after being pulled into an economic game of chicken with the west, the communist house of cards collapsed and, when the Iron Curtain fell, the secrets of the inhumanity poured out.

Unfortunately, we don’t have time to grind Islamism down through economic power, and we cannot afford a Third World War and genocide like that of the Holocaust. We need a different way of showing that Islamism is an inhumane, immoral, futile project.


The problem is that for a long time journalists and politicians have suffered from the same senseless jabbering in the aftermath of an attack as is seen on Facebook and Twitter. Remember George W. Bush after 9/11? Tony Blair after 7/7? They both said that Islam is a religion of peace, or that the attacks had nothing to do with Islam, or that the terrorists were operating in the name of Islam. It is disheartening to note that we have so much work to do.

That being said, we are making progress. It’s just so damn slow. On 14 November, fewer than 24 hours since the attacks in Paris, Newsnight, the flagship news programme of the BBC, broadcast a special show live from the French capital. I hope that it will be remembered for the closing remarks of Emily Maitlis, the presenter.

“Well no one expected to see attacks here, on the same city, twice in one year. We were here in January after the Charlie Hebdo attacks. And what’s striking is how we tried to make sense of them then. Was it, we asked, about press freedom? Was it about satire? Was it about causing offence? The answer, in the light of what’s happened here now, is clearly, no. This is a war on all our culture and all our countries. And it almost certainly won’t end here in France.

I’ve always been one to take a person at their word, so I read Maitlis’ statement with optimism: hopefully the BBC are beginning to gather that we’re not fighting a religion, nor are we fighting extreme literary critics.

In politics, the ruling Conservative Party appear split on the issue. After many years of unhelpfully stating that Islam is a religion of peace, David Cameron – finally – named Islamism as the problem in a speech earlier this year. In doing so he admitted, correctly, that Islamism has something to do with Islam. Not nothing, not everything, but something. In the wake of the attacks in Paris, the Prime Minister gave a superb speech in which he said that “it is not good enough to say simply that Islam is a religion of peace and then to deny any connection between the religion of Islam and the extremists.” These are all steps in the right direction. A few days ago, however, the home secretary Theresa May declared that the attacks “have nothing to do with Islam.” So there appears to be diverging opinions within Britain’s most informed party on the threat of Islamism.

The Tories are ‘informed’ because it is a mess outside of government. There are those who believe that Islamic State is not an Islamist death cult and that, like rational human beings, it will listen to reason. The Green Party’s foreign affairs spokesperson, Tony Clarke, said after Paris that “the weapon these terrorists fear most of all [are] peace talks.” I don’t have a direct line to Raqqa, but I’m almost certain that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi isn’t afraid of peace talks. In fact, I’m pretty certain they don’t even register on his radar. The premis of peace talks is that compromise is possible. There can be no compromise with Islamism – it is Islamic State or bust. Nonetheless, imagining a summit meeting between Natalie Bennett and Baghdadi will make me chuckle for some time.

I make light of the Green Party, but at least they have a plan. It’s ridiculously impractical, but it’s a plan nonetheless. The Labour Party is too busy arguing with itself to form a cogent sentence. Jeremy Corbyn entertains fantasy when he declares that it would have been better to arrest Mohammed Emwazi, a.k.a. Jihadi John. Well, yes, Jeremy, but would you have authorised Special Forces operations in Syria, immediately putting British people in immense danger? I doubt it somehow. On the topic of Islam, the unctuous MP for Leicester East, Mr. Keith Vaz, decided on 12 November that reintroducing the blasphemy law should appease those speaking for the ‘Muslim community’, a.k.a. the Islamists. The Liberal Democrats do not have a policy worth speaking of, neither does the SNP, the leader of which, Nicola Sturgeon, indicated a few months ago that if she was in charge she would avoid military action in Syria and instead seek a democratic one. Sturgeon sitting down with Baghdadi and Bashar al-Assad? That’s even more laughable than Clarke’s idea. Maybe they can find common ground over a hatred of Westminster?

Some think-tanks are doing great work and it would be remiss of me not to mention the Quilliam Foundation, which continues to impress. Nonetheless, the wheels of change are moving very slowly. Hopefully you see what we are up against. Politicians and the media are beginning to perceive the problem of Islamism, but I worry that we will end up with a ‘military only’ strategy to deal with Islamic State, or, worse, no strategy at all. If you take anything away from this article I sincerely hope that it is an understanding of the differences (and the similarities) between Islam, Islamism and Jihadism. If we, the people, learn what we’re fighting then we will drag the politicians and the media along with us. Once we reach a consensus based on fact, not desire, we can write a coherent strategy which illustrates that Islamism is as rancid as fascism and communism.

Assisting Radicalisation

Friday 20 February 2015

More British Muslims are members of the Islamic State (ISIS) than are soldiers in the British Army. ISIS has reached the height of its popularity: it has expanded into North Africa and it has replacements ready for when its fighters are killed (despite the inevitability of an internal power struggle). Less is known about the composition of other Jihadist groups in the region, like Jabhat al-Nusra, which Brits are also joining: regardless, it is indisputable that the danger of radicalisation in British Muslim homes is real.

On 13 January, the BBC current affairs television show, Panorama, screened an episode titled ‘The Battle for British Islam’, which I recommend going back and watching. It placed a lot of emphasis upon the grievance narrative perpetuated by non-violent, ultra-conservative, theocratic clerics as a reason for why radicalisation is a problem. This narrative is predicated upon the idea that Muslims are being persecuted for being Muslims, both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Foreign examples put forward are the barrel bombing of Muslim civilians in Syria by the Assad regime and – a constant since 1948 – the plight of Muslim Palestinians. Previously, the experiences of Muslims in the Iraq War, the War in Afghanistan, and the Bosnian War have been used. Injustice and victimhood can be forged from something as ostensibly insignificant as cartooning the Prophet Muhammad, which they say is an attempt to dehumanise a powerless and discriminated against group; hence, it is worthy of a march and a petition, which happened on Sunday 8 February. Last week the perceived under-reporting of the killing of three Muslims in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, caused both Muslims and anti-fascist groups to mass outside the BBC, screaming “Muslim Lives Matter,” as if the BBC was a well-known font of anti-Muslim bigotry.

Maajid Nawaz
Maajid Nawaz

The issue is that these grievances often build upon a grain of truth which Maajid Nawaz, the co-founder and chairman of the anti-radicalisation think tank Quilliam, calls half-truths. “[H]alf-truths aren’t the same as lies. It’s a lot easier to debunk a lie and to disprove a lie because it’s not based in fact,” Nawaz said in 2013, “they only pick on evidence that justifies their own narrative. They say America is at war with Islam and Muslims because Palestine, Kashmir, Bosnia, Iraq. Muslims are dying everywhere – Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition to torture, waterboarding – these are all things that actually happened. …if one were to try and prove any one of these they can find ample evidence to say these happened and that’s how the young mind gets convinced, but, of course, it doesn’t tell the other side of the story.” The next step is to tell Muslims that they need to defend their faith from the other, the people wanting to destroy it. This is why demonstrations only occur when the victim is a Muslim and the perpetrator is not. One hundred and thirty two children have been massacred in a school in Pakistan? That’s not worth rallying over because those pulling the triggers said they were Muslims. A Jordanian Muslim man, Muath al-Kasasbeh, has been placed in a cage and burnt alive?  Better not march, apparently a Muslim lit the match.

It creates an ‘us versus them’, ‘in-group/out-group’ dynamic. Crimes committed by Muslims against other Muslims do not fit into this narrative, so they are ignored. Islamist clerics attempt to dehumanise non-Muslims to make any future action feel justified and less inhumane. “Part of being a non-Muslim is that they are liars. Usually, usually,” rants Abu Usamah at-Thahabi in the montage of Islamist clerics shown on Panorama. The other two screened are Murtaza Khan and Haitham al-Haddad. All three have said some despicable, antisemitic, misogynistic, racist things, hoping to remove any semblance of humanity from the out-group non-Muslims, thus deepening the fictional divide between Muslims and non-Muslims. This is identity politics at its headiest; calling on Muslims to identify with their faith first and foremost and protect it from inevitable outside attackers.

The worst part, and the greatest success of the Islamist movement in Britain, is that these hate preachers have been adopted by the media as the voice of the British Muslim community (as if such a coherent single group exists). This has allowed Islamists to call themselves mainstream and label anyone who says otherwise a racist or an Islamophobe – this includes liberal Muslims. Naser Khader, a Danish-Syrian Muslim and former member of the Parliament of Denmark, is quoted in Nick Cohen’s marvellous work, You can’t read this book (which I beseech you to read), discussing the opinion of mainstream society. Khader says that “They [mainstream society] take a minority in a minority to represent everyone.  When the minority in the minority demands the right to oppress the majority within the minority, they give it to them.”

And now we turn to our Caucasian correspondent to hear how the Caucasian community feel about this development...
“And now we turn to our Caucasian correspondent to hear how the Caucasian community feel about this development…”

There are more similarities than differences between fascists and Islamists. They are closer in ideology to one another than either is to the Liberal centre, but Islamist groups are considered respectable and allowed a platform to air their views because they claim they speak for a minority. Spokesmen from Islamist groups are routinely asked to appear on news and current affairs programs. They speak as the voice of the British Muslim community, and the media takes their word for it. Far-right white racist groups often use a similar tactic when discussing a pure Aryan race as if they speak for all Caucasian people. The difference is that television executives, newspaper editors, and radio producers refuse to converse with white racists (and there will be no backlash if they continue to refuse), but they allow Islamist racists to air their grievances.

Two examples: in 2012, the Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA) wrote that they disliked a Channel 4 documentary, Islam: The Untold Story, by historian Tom Holland. They called it “clearly biased,” amongst other things. You may, correctly, think: who cares? Well, the BBC then published a story featuring their press release, even though leading members of the iERA have made openly antisemitic comments, approved the death penalty for blasphemy and apostasy, and have stated that domestic violence against women is acceptable. From there it snowballed: other groups complained, Holland and people at Channel 4 were threatened, and so, on 11 September 2012, Channel 4 cancelled a planned screening at its London headquarters and decided not to schedule it. They said it would only be available on 4oD.

When Brigadier Lee Rigby was publicly executed in Woolwich, Asghar Bukhari of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (MPACUK) went on television and said the government had to admit the “direct link” between Britain’s foreign policy and the death of Rigby. When the massacre at Charlie Hebdo happened last month, again Bukhari was on television exonerating the killers and indirectly blaming the deceased for their own murders. MPACUK has a very chequered history, not least its antisemitism and routine conflation of ‘Zionist’ and ‘Jew’, yet they keep being given air time. Supporters and members of groups like the iERA and MPACUK are part of a minority which do not represent the views of the majority of British Muslims. Yet, as their opinions continue to be sought, these groups are given a respect which they do not reciprocate or deserve. It is embarrassing that they are treated as if they speak for British Muslims. It is also problematic, because, by featuring on such a public, high profile medium, both the grievance and ‘us vs. them’ narratives are lent a legitimacy.

There is an ongoing ideological battle within British Islam to be rid of the ungainly concepts of grievance, victimhood and ‘the other’ for, mainly, two reasons.  First, it is fiction:

  • Islam is a religion. Religions are prone to schism. More than one sect exists in Britain and no one person or group speaks for all Muslims.
  • There is no Western war on Muslims. There are only people tragically caught in war-zones; though, that is not to say that there are no anti-Muslim bigots. Intolerance still exists and should be argued against and called out. Nonetheless illegitimate anti-Muslim bigotry is not to be confused with the legitimate stance taken by those opposing Islamism.
  • The majority of British Muslims – especially women – have a far better quality of life in the UK, than if they lived in an Islamist society. This is shown again and again, and is not dissimilar to the masochism of spoilt Westerners.

Second, these myths are pushing some Muslims toward Islamism and on to Jihadism. The media has been getting better – painfully slowly, I might add – at selecting liberal Muslims to appear, Maajid Nawaz for one. I hope that the days when Anjem Choudary will feature on Newsnight are gone (although he does still write for USA Today).

Islamists have been facilitating radicalisation by pressuring Muslims to pick sides in a fictional battle, occasionally through the threat of violence. If we want to help our liberal brothers and sisters fight radicalisation we can start by handling Islamists the same way we treat white racists. To do this we must argue them back to the fringes. This is not censorship; it is rationally debating them, convincingly winning, and then removing the oxygen of publicity from their discredited ideas. Those that shout the loudest get heard, such is life — but we do not have to listen. When tragedy befalls our society I do not want to hear Asghar Bukhari once again telling us that the West is to blame. Nor do I want to be told what I can and cannot watch on my television by theocratic fascists. To accept that these people must be given a platform as part of a balanced argument is masochism. Masochism offered to us by sadists. We need the Islamist ideology to be rejected by mainstream society like fascism has been since 1945.

I have written in the past that we are not directly involved in this ideological battle, but we can help the morally superior side by aiding heroic organisations like Quilliam, British Muslims for Secular Democracy, and the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain.

Foreign Policy and Jihadism

From left to right: Chérif Kouachi, Saïd Kouachi and Amedy Coulibaly.

Monday 2 February 2015

One of the most preposterous statements made after the killings in France between the 7th and 9th of January was that the murders were a protest against the West’s foreign policy. This has mostly come from people on the Left of the political spectrum, and I am not entirely surprised that it has resurfaced. It’s an old argument which I first recall being used after the September 11 attacks, but it probably dates back further. Nonetheless, it would be remiss of me to ignore it: so, were the Kouachis and Coulibaly stirred to kill by a difference of opinion over the foreign policy of the French or Western governments? Indeed, was their rampage an expression of disgust at Western imperialism?

It is easy to mix up cause and effect, especially as humans wish to think in binary; nothing is ever that straightforward. Students have teachers, who were once students with their own teachers, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Put it this way: on a large, hellish, Jihadist spider diagram one could draw a rather short line from the Kouachis and Coulibaly to Abu Hamza and the Finsbury Park mosque, or, even, to Osama bin Laden. A narrow lens is essential. One must pick their way through this minefield of tangents because in an attempt to explain everything, one often ends up explaining nothing. We are not trying to understand global Jihadism, merely whether foreign policy was the sole motivator for these men to kill a group of twenty people consisting of journalists and cartoonists, policemen and policewomen, and Jewish shoppers.

The picturesque Parc des Buttes Chaumont.
The picturesque Parc des Buttes Chaumont.

The killers were not intellectuals; they did not leave behind a detailed treatise explaining why and how they decided on this rampage and these targets. Both Chérif Kouachi and Amedy Coulibaly said that the fate of Muslims abroad played upon their minds, but neither went into great detail. Saïd Kouachi said and wrote very little that could get him in trouble or leave an indication as to why he decided to go on a rampage. We know he studied in Yemen in 2009-10 and briefly shared a room with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the underwear bomber. Saïd returned to Yemen in 2011 and met Anwar al-Awlaki, then the leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula – the group which claimed responsibility for the attack on Charlie Hebdo. (Meeting al-Awlaki does not necessarily mean that he trained with the group, but it cannot be discounted.) Whether Chérif was with him during this trip is a matter of speculation, but he was certainly not there during Saïd’s time as a student. All this being said, we do not know how or why Saïd was radicalised; it is likely that he was influenced by his younger brother, but we do not know when. His trail goes dark from 2011 onwards, approximately four years before the attack on Charlie Hebdo. A lot can happen in four years.

Chérif Kouachi’s statement is drawn from a deposition he gave in December 2007 before the trial of seven members of the Buttes-Chaumont network of which he was a part. Arrested in January 2005 as he was about to travel to Iraq, via Syria, to fight for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s al-Qaeda in Iraq, he was then incarcerated for over two years before the trial commenced. Chérif, according to his deposition, said: “I got this idea [to go to Iraq] when I saw the injustices shown by television on what was going on over there. I am speaking about the torture that the Americans have inflicted on the Iraqis.” Similarly, in a video posted on Twitter a few days after his death, Amedy Coulibaly stated that his own actions were “perfectly legitimate, amply deserved… You and your coalition carry out bombings regularly over there, you kill civilians, you kill fighters – and why, because we apply Sharia? Is it you who decides what goes on on this earth? No. We won’t allow it. We are going to fight.”

The iconic image of Ali Shallal al-Qaisi being tortured at Abu Ghraib.

The message is clear, both are saying that they want to wage jihad because of events elsewhere: Chérif because of the deaths of Iraqis, Coulibaly because of bombings “over there”. This being said, foreign policy was a tool used in the radicalisation process, so it cannot have been the primary motive for the attacks. I have no doubt that images and discussion of the fate of some very unfortunate people during the War in Afghanistan and Iraq War were used as a recruitment tool to convert people like Chérif Kouachi to Jihadism. It needs to be pointed out though that the current concept of Jihadism predates both of those conflicts. Extreme fundamentalist Muslims were committing acts of violence and calling it Jihad well before the war began in Afghanistan. The resources used to get someone to believe – the propaganda – has changed but the ideology is still the same.

One of the incidents referenced by Chérif Kouachi was the torture and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, which was brought to light in late 2003 by Amnesty International. Several people who have studied the Buttes-Chaumont network, to which Chérif and, probably, Coulibaly belonged, have said that its leader Farid Benyettou used images from Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan and Iraq to rile up his followers. According to a lawyer at the trial “Benyettou would talk to [his followers] about Abu Ghraib, the abuse of Muslims, and say, ‘What are you going to do about it?’… He was like a little guru who claimed to know the sacred texts. And he convinced them that the texts said it was their duty to go to Iraq to fight for the cause.”

On the same deposition Chérif Kouachi notes that “the wise leaders in Islam told him and his friends that if they die as martyrs in Jihad they would go to heaven… [and] that martyrs would be greeted by more than 60 virgins in a big palace in heaven.” The delusion that one will be rewarded for martyrdom is never created by a disagreement over foreign policy; it can only come from religion, as Voltaire once asked: “What to say to a man who tells you he prefers to obey God than to obey men, and who is consequently sure of entering the gates of Heaven by slitting your throat?” Benyettou was a strict Salafist and, amongst many other disturbing things, he preached that the Islamic scriptures state that suicide bombing was a good thing. A thoroughly repugnant figure who has apparently reformed and was – until the attack on Charlie Hebdoworking as a trainee nurse at the hospital where many of the Kouachis victims were taken. Just one of those weird twists of fate history can conjure up.

I posit that the ideas Benyettou put to his disciples would not have materialised purely because of a dislike for the Iraq War; they were moulded by his extreme, fundamentalist, literalist version of Islam. Simply put, Jihadism did not begin because of the Iraq War or the bombings in Syria – that’s just a matter of chronology – but a skewed view of these and other conflicts will have been employed to persuade new recruits. Foreign policy will have played some part in the conversion process, but it isn’t the reason why the attack happened. Claiming that this was the case would be akin to stating that women’s rights were the reason why Anders Behring Breivik went on a rampage. Now, every time you hear people say “if we stop all foreign wars, these Jihadist terrorists will stop,” mentally replace the words “Jihadist” with “misogynist” and “foreign wars” with “women’s rights” and then proceed to explain how their argument is ill conceived.

George Galloway
George Galloway

The first time I heard someone say that foreign policy caused Jihadist violence was after 11th September 2001. A perfect example comes from a 2005 debate in New York where the odious George Galloway stated, mildly for him, that:

[You] may think that those aeroplanes in this city on 9/11 came out of a clear blue sky. I believe they emerged out of a swamp of hatred created by us. I believe… that by their unending, bottomless and total support for General Sharon’s crimes against the Palestinian people,… I believe that by propping up… the puppet presidents and the corrupt kings who rule the Muslim world almost without exception from one end to the other, western policy has created this swamp of hatred against us. …We have to drain that swamp by stopping that support for Sharon’s Israel, his apartheid war, his crimes against the Palestinians. …I think unless we stop propping up these dictators in the Muslim world – none of whom who would last five minutes if it were not for the military, political and financial support of countries like yours and mine. Unless we stop invading and occupying Arab and Muslim countries, then we will be forced to endure the atrocities that took place in New York on 9/11 and in London on 7/7, over and over again. …Revert your policy towards Israel and Palestine; reverse your policy towards dictators in the Muslim world. Reverse your policy towards war and occupation and we can all be safer!

It is this same argument which is being wildly rehashed over and over again by self-centred fools who cannot conceive of a world where what they and their country are doing is not all that others think about and despise. The blame game begins with the USA, then the West, then Israel and the Jews, and then to proxy support given by any of the above. I know this is tough to accept for a lot of people, but we do not have a central role in this contest. At best we are a spectator. The majority of Jihadist terrorist attacks take place in nations in the Arab world and Muslim majority countries, why would that happen if it was all about us and our “imperialism”? France, for example, was deeply opposed to military action in Iraq. This is a fight within Islam between the extremists and the liberals. And we really want the liberals to win.


I’ve recently been hearing about how the use of violence is merely the way that the Left-wing expresses themselves in other cultures and societies. In the West, the left write essays and pamphlets, but in Africa and the Middle East – so the argument goes – they blow themselves up to make a similar statement. I feel that I cannot shy away from using the word racist to describe this argument. That violence is what they do and that we write and maintain intellectual pursuits is an abominable way to think. Here’s a tip: spread the load. Critique all streams of thought equally, regardless of the ethnicity or culture of its adherents. Fight against the anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration line of British parties like UKIP by all means, but also stop trying to claim that Hamas, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, ISIS and other nut-bag Islamist groups are really fighting to unseat the power structures and be rid of the shadow of Western imperialism. It is okay to call a spade, a spade. If there’s one thing that can be said for UKIP it is that they don’t use violence, beheading, and rape as a political tool, unlike ISIS, et al. One should call out all bigoted, racist groups, and not shy away because their followers may be of a different ethnicity and/or claim to represent a minority. It is not a Left-critique to side with Islamism, nor is it racist to highlight extreme Islam’s totalitarian tendencies. It is simply common sense.

Charlie Hebdo, Binary, and Freedom of Expression


Friday 16 January 2015

James [Fenton] was unable to forget the embarrassment of an undergraduate dinner with [George] Steiner, in which he had overdone his own insouciance and had too languidly said that there were no great unifying causes left anymore: no grand subject of the sort that had sent Auden to Spain or China. Steiner had snapped at this Fentonian display of the blasé and told him to take a hard look at what seemed to be happening in Vietnam.

– Christopher Hitchens, Hitch 22: A Memoir

Having studied the 1960s I have often wondered what it was like to be involved in an honourable struggle like the discussion over the morally corrupt Vietnam War. The quote – which describes a dinner in the late 1960s (probably ‘67 or ‘68) – highlights that everyone is liable to nostalgic tendencies, even as great a poet as James Fenton. Current events are difficult to string into a coherent narrative, they move by at the pace of life. We get drawn into idolising the past and we cannot see the wood from the trees. It has only been in the week after the attacks in France that I’ve come to understand what has been staring me in the face since my mother asked me to turn over to CNN on 11 September 2001. The major ideological battle of our age is the one concerning militant Islamofascism. The irony is that we – the West – are not one of the prizefighters in the ring, we have a ringside seat and sometimes the fight spills over and continues on our lap.

I’ve been a critic of religion for a while and an atheist for longer, but it’s only in the last year or so when I have started to consider the psychological aspect of faith. Human beings want to think in binary. By this I mean that in an attempt to understand events and their root causes we love to think that someone is certainly, or certainly not, something – an idea, a belief, a reason. That person is either a racist, or they are not. The Columbine massacre happened because of video games, or it had nothing to do with video games. The Kouachis butchered the staff of Charlie Hebdo because they are Muslims, or their faith had nothing to do with it. It was to do with immigration, or it was not. It was the West’s foreign policy, or France’s history of colonialism, or because they were crazy. Expecting one simple answer to be one hundred per cent correct is an elementary mistake and one of which we need to rid ourselves. Sometimes A happened because of B, but more often than not A happened because of a mix of parts of B, C, D, and E. To some this may be a truism, but from the last week of coverage vast swathes of our media and many of the most important politicians think otherwise.

Protest At Ground ZeroThe ‘à la carte’ nature of modern religion is an example of this. Christianity has a central core of beliefs which are followed by all variants of the faith (e.g. that Jesus Christ was the son of God). Outside of the core there is the Bible, Christianity’s holy text, which contains some beautifully written sections, but it also has depraved lines, passages and books. To name but a few: homosexuality is an abomination, slavery is common place, rape is a way to pick a wife, genocide is divinely mandated, and women are fundamentally inferior to men. Must one give credence to all of these concepts to be a Christian? No, mainstream Christianity has moved away from the majority of these repugnant ideas. If a man in holy orders were to state that God hates homosexuals, however, they would be correct because the Bible says God hates homosexuals. Any argument against this statement would not come from the Christian faith. This passage has not been struck out, but it is routinely ignored. Who’s to say that the liberal Christian is more of a Christian than the literal homosexual hating Christian? Both are Christians and neither speaks for the whole of their religious faith. One interpretation has more subscribers than the other, but both represent separate sides of a pretty serious division within their religion. Biblical literalism is an ongoing problem. Personally, I could not be more in favour of loose readings of holy books (so loose, in fact, that they aren’t even open).

In the aftermath of the attacks in France we have heard both extremes of a binary story. We have been told that these men do not speak for Islam, that they have damaged the religion, and that they were not Muslims in any sense of the word. Others have said that they are typical Muslims, that this was the true face of evil Islam, the fifth column inside Europe waiting to destroy our civilisation. To take either of these positions is to misunderstand Islam. Like Christianity, there are a core set of beliefs and practices which all Muslims hold dear. And, like Christianity, there are liberals and there are puritanical literalists who believe that some parts of the Koran and certain Hadith are more important than others. Both are Islam. Undoubtedly Saïd Kouachi, Chérif Kouachi, and Amedy Coulibaly were all Muslims. They spoke for a subsection of Islam – Jihadism. To listen to those who say that they were not true Muslims is akin to stating that Catholics are not really Christians.

2014-08-18 11.58.15
A visualisation by Information is Beautiful attempting to explain the various branches of Islam.

Islam has two major branches (the Sunni and the Shia), and those branches split into schools, which in turn can divide into movements. Jihadism is a movement out of Salafism, a subsection of the Hanbali school which has its origins in Sunni Islam. Jihadism is not a peaceful movement. I wish I didn’t have to type that, but I feel I have to because “Islam is a religion of peace” is being repeated again and again by those in power. This subdivision of Islam is not peaceful. Let me repeat that so that I am wholly understood: Jihadism is not peaceful. Islam has extremists, conservatives, moderates and liberals, like every other religion. Jihadism stands ululating at the violent extreme of the scale. Now, once again, to amplify what I am saying and what I am not: Islam is not a religion of peace; it is also not a religion of war as some English Defence League bigots would have us believe. The majority of Islam is peaceful, certain subsections are not. While these violent elements continue it is not possible to call Islam a religion of peace.

Nobody speaks for the whole of Islam, just their chosen interpretation. That goes for everybody: extremist, conservative, moderate and liberal. Furthermore, the actions of the Kouachis and Coulibaly were a direct result of the teachings of Salafi Jihadist Islam. Not in the name of, but as a direct result of the preaching of a very extreme and absolutist subsection of Islam. In the same way as some of those who voted against same-sex marriage did so because of a fealty to their version of Christianity, these men carried out these attacks in part because they believed themselves to be doing the work of God. As the Nobel Prize winning American physicist Steven Weinberg said:

Many people do simply awful things out of sincere religious belief… because they believe that this is what God wants them to do, going all the way back to Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac because God told him to do that. Putting God ahead of humanity is a terrible thing.

Devotion to Salafi Jihadist Islam will be in large part the reason why these men decided to kill those who they believed had insulted their Prophet. It will not have been religion one hundred per cent, to believe so is to capitulate to binary thought and would not explain why it was these men and not other Salafi Jihadists, but to deny that it played a role and claim that they were really lashing out because of, say, Western imperialism is akin to burying ones head in the sand. Radicalisation is an ongoing problem in both French and British society. We need to address what faces young Muslims and why some are being radicalised. I’ll go into this in greater detail next time, for now bear in mind that there is an ongoing ideological war within Islam between extremists and moderates. Terrorist attacks which take place in the West are mostly an attempt by extremists to attract other Muslims to their side. For us in the self-centred West it is difficult to understand this. As I said, I will explain further in my next entry, but for the rest of this piece I wish to address the discussion held by the media about freedom of expression over the last week.

Some have posited that, in some way, the fate of the staff of Charlie Hebdo was inevitable because their caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad were racist. Asghar Bukhari, a founding member of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (MPACUK), took a similar line during a debate on Sky News the day after the shootings. Bukhari opened by saying that “the images that they are actually drawing of Muslims and of the Prophet himself are racist. It’s like drawing a black person as a zoo animal or a Jew as an evil banker.” A week later Catherine Heseltine, another MPACUK member and former CEO, appeared on Channel 4 News and said “This magazine was pedalling a racism against the Muslim community, dehumanising a powerless and discriminated against group in a way that stokes the Islamophobia and the violence, in turn, that Muslims are suffering.”

Simply put there is only one race: the human race. Humanity is not subdivided into different races. There are different ethnicities, but not different races. Whatever your ethnicity, you and I are both human underneath. (Incidentally, this is why I dislike ‘racism’ as a term – it leads to people using the word ‘race’ to describe different ethnicities.) I actually think that the definition of a racist is someone who believes humanity is partitioned into different races. Regardless of what I think, in modern parlance racism is “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.” In the media there appears to be some confusion over whether Islam is a race. My favourite, ludicrous, example is from Big Think where David Ropeik, who also thinks religion had nothing to do with the attacks, wrote:

It was not being German that led Adolph Hitler (born in Austria) to form the National Socialist German Workers Party and in the name of a national tribe commit some of the most atrocious crimes against humanity the species has ever suffered.

Well, quite. However, Hitler did not form the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, Anton Drexler did, and the comparison is nonsensical. Islam is not an ethnicity/race because converting to or leaving Islam is a choice. One cannot choose to change their ethnicity, but they can choose to change their religion. The caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad were not racist because they were a critique of an idea, not an assault upon a people. Here is one of the cartoons in question:

The speech bubble says "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter!"
The speech bubble says “100 lashes if you don’t die of laughter!”

See? Not racist. Islam has followers on all the major continents who all share the same core beliefs of Islam and they are not all of the same ethnicity. Once again, it is a belief, not an ethnicity. It goes without saying, therefore, that the asinine comparison between the caricatures and antisemitic or racist cartoons is spurious. One is racial prejudice; the other is criticism of a belief system. No belief system is above criticism and, in fact, all should welcome it because it is always a good idea to question why one believes something and to re-establish first principles. The axiomatic insecurity of religion is highlighted by the need to refuse questions about its foundations. (Strangely enough the prohibition of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad was a good idea initially because it rejected idolatry. However, as time has worn on, the prohibition has itself become a form of idolisation. One can name a person Muhammad – Atta, for example – without uproar, but drawing a picture of the Prophet is condemned.)

Similar to the concept that these cartoons were racist is the question along the lines of “why are cartoonists allowed to draw the Prophet Muhammad, but not a picture questioning the Holocaust?” (see Channel 4 News, Al Jazeera) This is, also, asinine as it is an idea played up against a historical fact. Simply put, the Holocaust is verifiable and provable; that Muhammad had the Koran dictated to him by the Archangel Gabriel is not. The implication is that if probing the Holocaust is not legal, then the Prophet should not be allowed to be questioned either. There are two points here:

  1. Laws banning the questioning of the veracity of the Holocaust oppose the freedom of expression. The French law – the 1990 Gayssot Act – is wrong and should be repealed.
  2. It should be plain with the evidence we have that Muhammad is technically on the side of the Holocaust deniers. That is to say, there is as much evidence pointing towards him having heard those voices as there is that Auschwitz was a Jewish holiday camp.

People actually spend their lives trying to prove the conspiracy theory that the Holocaust never happened, which is an improvement upon taking it as read that Muhammad was a prophet. Also, there is not a single country in which one would be killed for saying that the Holocaust never happened, but there are still countries where if you leave Islam – commit the alleged sin of apostasy – you will be executed. The comparison between questioning the Holocaust and caricaturing Muhammad is a poor one – six million dead human beings played off against, maybe, a blunt pencil.

18nz6sfmyw4aapngWhen neither of these two approaches have been chosen, the line becomes: while it is okay to caricaturise the Prophet because of free speech, Charlie Hebdo was a rather nasty magazine which created racist cartoons and gave fuel to the French far-right (see Irvine Welsh on Channel 4 News, Mehdi Hasan in the New Statesman). I plead a Wittgensteinian defence on my knowledge of French culture, however I have read articles by people who know far more about France than I do who say that Charlie Hebdo mock racist attitudes, rather than incite them. To me, that sounds plausible when one considers that Charlie Hebdo is a left-wing magazine. If one knew nothing about American culture, or did not share the cultural similarities with the United States that we do, then upon viewing South Park for the first time one could infer that Trey Parker and Matt Stone are bigoted racists. The show draws and plays upon existing prejudices in an overt manner which to the uninitiated would appear incriminating. Until proven otherwise, I feel that I should give Charlie Hebdo the benefit of the doubt that I would want others to give South Park.

Nonetheless, let us play devil’s advocate for a moment: imagine that it has been proved conclusively that Charlie Hebdo is a racist magazine, does it matter? Not in the slightest, even if it is a racist publication it still has the right to publish. As per Salman Rushdie: “What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.” People have the right to place their thoughts into the public sphere and everyone else has the right to test their own arguments against them. The late Carl Sagan wrote that “the cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.” Freedom of expression gives people the right to learn and investigate for themselves. Democratic societies need freedom of expression, otherwise the society is neither democratic nor free. Taking offense does not equate to the need to censor.

The final chosen path of argument was one of self-censorship. Both Sky News and al Jazeera said they would not show the cartoons because they did not want to offend anyone. If that is true, then it’s sad. I would prefer to think that both were afraid of inciting a lynch mob. The pinnacle was on Channel 4 News when The Guardian cartoonist Martin Rowson and novelist Will Self discussed self-censorship. Rowson, who had appeared on numerous networks discussing the tragedy, admitted that he does occasionally self-censor because the publications he works for will not print certain images. Furthermore, he said that during the controversy over cartoons depicting Muhammad in the centre-right Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005 he did publish a cartoon depicting the prophet.

Will Self then put forward his view that “free speech comes with responsibilities… [the notion that] freedom of speech is some absolute right… is exactly the same as a religious point of view, interestingly. It places the ethics – human ethics – outside of human society… and that’s not the case. All rights have to be counted with responsibilities.” He also said that satire has to target the powerful and that Islamic terrorists “are not in power in our society”. While I disagree with him about his unspoken undertone, he has a right to say it and I am glad that he did not censor himself. Self-censorship is fine, I have no disagreement with the concept, just so long as people do not mind saying that they are censoring themselves because they are afraid of the consequences. Also, applying self-censorship does not mean that others should do the same. Will Self is correct: free speech comes with responsibilities, the greatest of which is to make sure it is unimpeded. Free speech has to be absolute and it must – must – include the right to offend. To, again, quote Rushdie – he has some experience of people trying to kill him for writing a novel, so I think quoting him twice is acceptable – “Both John F. Kennedy and Nelson Mandela use the same three-word phrase which in my mind says it all, which is, ‘Freedom is indivisible,’… You can’t slice it up otherwise it ceases to be freedom. You can dislike Charlie Hebdo… But the fact that you dislike them has nothing to do with their right to speak.” I cannot finish on a higher note than that.