thanks for your reply john. of course i should have qualified my statement
as 'some muslims', which follows the convention of the western liberal media
in distinguishing between extremist and moderate muslims. the extremists
refuse the distinction of course and insist that any muslim who does not
agree with them is not a proper muslim. they may be right for all i know. as
far as i can make out the danish paper that published the cartoons also
refused the distinction. i don't know if the same can be said for other
papers that also published the cartoons after the muslim response to them. i
think that was more an act of defiance against attacks on, lets be honest,
hard won press freedoms. just because those freedoms don't go far enough is
no reason to dismiss the ones that exist.
as for d)i was just curious to know what the precise relationship is between
islam and the 'unity of working people against the common enemy we all
face'. if there isn't one fine, but in that case as a socialist i can't see
the point of supporting or defending muslims as muslims, only as victims of
the undemocratic use of power, including the power of islam.
as for f)i think there would be a good chance of your cartoons being
published if they were funny or illuminating or reflected the prejudices of
the readers of european newspapers so that they would buy them, which is
unlikely. the relationship between bush, blair and oil is a commonplace in
even conservative political humour. your joke about intelligent design
doesn't work because ID does not imply jesus, or moses or mohammed or any of
them. the very liberal life of brian film caused far more teeth gnashing
amongst christians, and muslims and jews as i recall. similarly with jerry
spirnger the opera. your cartoon does not come close.
byt the way, ridiculing islam does not imply support for bush/blair policy,
although i fear it will if socialist analysis does not at least try to
provide some intellectually rigouros arguments. ridiculing islam like
ridiculing any faith is simply an attack on ignorance and stupidity.
cheers
jeremy
-----Original Message-----
From: John Layton
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 12/02/2006 17:18
Subject: Re: Cartoon row: the issue is racism
I cannot speak for the Socialist worker but only for myself and I would
answer your criticisms in the following way.
a. I do not accept your utterly spurious contention that all muslims
believe that they have a fundamental right to use violence against
non-muslims anymore than I would accept an equally spurious contention
that
Orangemen see as as a right to murder Papists or all Americans enjoy
Bush's
crusades. You should know as well as I do it's all propaganda and the
actions of a few do not reflect the thoughts of the many except perhaps
in
Iraq where muslims are trying to drive out aggressive invaders.
b This leads on from (a) which as I've explained is a false premise.
c.This also leads on from (a) which as I've explained is a false
premise.
d. Who says muslims should be socialists anyhow? Certainly not me and
certainly not the Socialist Worker. But it wouldn't be a bad idea.
e. As a socialist I don't happen to think 'liberalism' is a good thing,
but
that's another argument.
Now permit me to give you an 'f'. Do you believe any European newspaper
would ever publish any of my cartoons ? And if not why not ?
John Layton
----- Original Message -----
From: "Valentine, Jeremy" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: Cartoon row: the issue is racism
I think that the socialist worker's argument does not go far enough to
make
its case and would be more persuasive if a) it demonstrated that muslims
have a fundamental right, irrespective of their being muslims, to
threaten
or use violence against non-muslims who they feel have challenged their
faith in ways that they feel is unacceptable according to the doctrines
of
their faith, and b) demonstrated how this fundamental right is
compatible
with socialism, and c) demonstrated how the exercise of this right in
this
case contributes to the 'unity of working people against the common
enemy we
all face', and d) demonstrates the commitment of muslims, or member of
any
other faith, to that project by virtue of the intrinsic properties of
their
faith and e) stopped suggesting that liberalism would be a good thing if
only liberals actually were liberals.
cheers
jeremy
-----Original Message-----
From: John Layton
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 12/02/2006 11:58
Subject: Cartoon row: the issue is racism
Dear Mediawatch watchers,
I reproduce below an article published in the Socialist Worker
concerning the controversy over the recent publication of the Mohammed
cartoons, which from my perspective deals neatly with the question of
'freedom of speech' as opposed to the 'freedom of the press' (an
entirely different proposition altogether).
Being a half decent cartoonist myself I sent several of my Jesus
cartoons to the Danish paper which published the Mohammed cartoons
informing them they could have them free of charge. As yet I have had no
reply. You can view these cartoons yourselves on my website POLITICAL
CARTOONS <http://www.political-cartoons.co.uk>
If you agree with the article below and with the proposition that the
newspaper concerned should redress the balance by publishing some Jesus
cartoons then you can email them here:- [log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
John Layton
Cartoon row: the issue is racism
This is not about "freedom of speech". It's not about a "war of
civilisations". It's about racism. Anyone who doubts that need look no
further than the right wing Danish paper that commissioned the notorious
anti-Muslim cartoons last September.
It would have us believe it was all for a noble principle of "freedom of
speech". Oh, really? This is the same paper, Jyllands-Posten, which:
* Campaigned in 1984 to censor an artist who produced an erotic
image of Jesus.
* Refused three years ago to print a cartoon because the editors
said it would provoke an outcry among Christians.
No brave commitment to freedom of speech there. That was only invoked,
cynically, when the editors chose to target Muslims, not for debate
about religious views, but with bigoted caricatures that imply every
Muslim is a terrorist.
One rule for the majority, another for Arab, Asian and African
immigrants. There's a word for that - it's called racism.
And the same scapegoating, masked by the same hypocrisy about freedom,
is oozing from the other right wing papers in Europe that have leapt to
give these racist images a wider circulation.
The French paper France-Soir claims it is committed to freedom of
expression. But not, it seems, for Muslims.
The same paper supports the French government's ban on young Muslim
women wearing headscarves in school. What's "tolerant" or "liberal"
about that?
As for those who claim it is impossible to be racist against Muslims
because Islam is a religion "not a race", consider the followers of the
Jewish faith.
If a paper reprinted a cartoon depicting a Jewish person in the manner
of Nazi propaganda in the 1930s, every liberal paper and commentator
would rightly slam the racism, rather than denouncing Jewish people and
anti-racists for being outraged.
None would say it was merely a question of debating religious views
rather than being about spreading racism.
Yet in Britain, while no paper has republished the cartoons, we have not
had furious editorials in the millionaire-owned press exposing the
racist demonisation of Muslims.
Instead, the media is further demonising Muslims by suggesting that they
don't understand "Western democracy" and press freedom.
These well paid editors could do with learning a thing or two themselves
about standing up to censorship.
The lot of them, with the exception of Socialist Worker and the Morning
Star, have gone along with government censorship in refusing to name
Nicholas Langman, an MI6 agent implicated in the illegal seizure of
Pakistani immigrants in Greece.
What kind of fearless media is this that refuses to stand up to powerful
secret government agencies, but berates some of the most powerless
people in society?
And make no mistake, Muslim immigrants in Europe are among the most
downtrodden across the continent.
In Britain they fall behind the average on every social indicator -
housing, earnings, employment, education. The same is true in France,
Germany, Demark and the rest of the European Union.
And since 11 September 2001 they have been systematically targeted.
Anti-Muslim racism, Islamophobia, is the ideological cover for George
Bush's endless "war on terror".
The US and British military refuse to even count the number of dead in
Iraq. That would not be the case if they, their governments and the bulk
of the media considered the lives of brown skinned Muslims in the Middle
East every bit as valuable as those who have been killed in New York,
Madrid and London.
They don't. "Our" names honoured, "theirs" not even recorded - racism.
The British government cannot admit that the war on Iraq and decades of
Western intervention in the Middle East are the reason why Britain and
the US are so hated in the region and beyond.
Instead, we are told it is something to do with Muslims themselves. And
in order to prove you are a "good Muslim", not an "evil extremist", you
have to sign up to Bush and Blair's campaign. Hence there are the
endless loyalty tests.
Liberal
Supposedly liberal commentators feel no restriction, show no signs of
"self censorship", when they routinely abuse people who were born here
(and who happen to be Muslim) of being insufficiently British - racism.
Government ministers sense no shame in telling one group of people what
language they should speak in their own home, as if every British
resident on the Costa del Sol spoke Spanish round the kitchen table.
This "respectable" Islamophobia fuels the violent racist attacks of the
Nazi British National Party (BNP), which exploits the general
anti-Muslim climate and whose leader, a Holocaust denier, walks away
from a court case over incitement to racial hatred.
And when those on the receiving end of all this speak out and protest,
they are demonised again.
Stereotypes
The cameras seek out those images that will confirm the provocative
stereotypes that people are objecting to in the first place.
It's like kicking someone repeatedly and then, when they hit back,
saying, "Look, I told you they were violent."
And the overall effect goes beyond Muslim people who are targeted. For
if those responsible for wars, exploitation here and across the globe,
and the destruction of our civil liberties succeed in scapegoating
Muslims, we will all suffer - Muslim or not.
Racism has always meant divide and rule. It has always been undermined
by unity of working people against the common enemy we all face.
Today, for everyone who was genuinely sickened by the sight of the BNP's
gloating last week, that starts with standing up against this
anti-Muslim hatred.
The following should be read alongside this article:
» <http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8271>
'Racism against Muslims has rocketed since 9/11'
» <http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8243>
Freedom to spread hate?
» <http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8274>
Cartoon caricatures were designed to offend
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.5/256 - Release Date:
10/02/2006
|
