Category Archives: Liberal

‘Faith crimes’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Liberals have lost some important battles in the struggle to preserve democratic standards in the face of extremism. One was lost here in Britain, and by my profession, namely the decision by all British newspapers not to reprint the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten. The papers’ decision was encouraged by the Labour government and accompanied by a good deal of sage self-congratulation that wisdom had prevailed. The fact that journalism’s central task is to relate or show to people what is happening was put to one side, even though in this case what was happening was, inter alia, murders, burnings, riots and boycotts. Now that the smoke has literally cleared, we can see more clearly what that decision was: a disastrous miscalculation.”

John Lloyd in the Financial Times, 17 June 2006

And how can we see this more clearly? Apparently because “complaint backed by believable threat of violence, laced with the undertones of cultural guilt” has only encouraged calls for censorship from other minority communities, such as the Hindus who protested about the London exhibition of the paintings of Maqbool Fida Husain.

In other words the Nick Cohen line, which fails to distinguish between causing offence and promoting racism.

Observer boosts Ann Coulter

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A correspondent writes: “Think it’s worth mentioning that the latest Observer‘s review section is basically a huge plug for Ann Coulter’s new book. Her visage dominates the front page and there’s a gushing two page interview inside. Her nauseating racism is presented as ‘controversial’ bravery, ever-so-witty, she’s-got-a-point-y’know – all the usual trashy excuses that petit-bourgeois fuckwits trundle out for bigotry. Seems to me that the paper has made a strategic editorial decision to line itself up with this kind of Liberal Islamophobia and is pushing it systematically. Hardly surprising given its Bomb The Darkies position over the war, but still worth noting.”

Quite right, we should have posted on this. See the Observer, 11 June 2006

Observer apologises to Mad Mel

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Owing to an editing error last week, we failed to make clear that a letter from Chris Doyle, carried in response to our publication of an extract from Melanie Phillips’s new book Londonistan, was written in his capacity as director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab British Understanding. That extract (Comment, 28 May) may have given the impression that Ms Phillips’s book connects all British Muslims to a campaign of violence, whereas she stresses that the vast majority are peaceful and law-abiding. She also draws a distinction between Islam, which should be respected, and Islamism, which, she believes, is the use of that religion for violent ends.”

Editorial statement in the Observer, 11 June 2006

Evidently written in response to a complaint by Mad Mel herself. Readers of Islamophobia Watch can make up their own minds as to whether this characterisation of Phillips’ attitude to Islam is accurate.

The inconsistencies of Nick Cohen

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“The Satanic Verses, Behzti, Theo van Gogh’s Submission, Jerry Springer: The Opera, the Danish cartoons of Muhammad … now we can add the London exhibition of the work of Maqbool Fida Husain to the rapidly expanding list of works of art and satire targeted by militant religion…. Asia House closed the show on Monday after threats of violence from anonymous Hindu fundamentalists.”

Nick Cohen in the Observer, 28 May 2006

Not only does Cohen lump together a number of different cases, all of which have to be assessed on their own merits and in their social context, but he also omits to mention another recent example of a minority ethno-religious community calling for the suppression of offensive material, as described by Gary Younge:

“In January 2002 the New Statesman published a front page displaying a shimmering golden Star of David impaling a union flag, with the words ‘A kosher conspiracy?’ The cover was widely and rightly condemned as anti-semitic. It’s not difficult to see why. It played into vile stereotypes of money-grabbing Jewish cabals out to undermine the country they live in…. A group calling itself Action Against Anti-Semitism marched into the Statesman‘s offices, demanding a printed apology. One eventually followed. The then editor, Peter Wilby, later confessed that he had not appreciated ‘the historic sensitivities’ of Britain’s Jews.”

I don’t recall Cohen defending the right of the New Statesman to publish anti-semitic illustrations, or condemning members of the Jewish community for invading the magazine’s office to protest. Presumably, in this case, he was capable of distinguishing between freedom of expression and racism. Perhaps he should consider making the same distinction in cases involving other ethno-religious communities.

Islam ‘fused with an agenda of murder’ – Mad Mel

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Melanie Phillips claims that after the Satanic Verses controversy “the promotion of Islam in Britain became fused with an agenda of murder”.

Observer, 28 May 2006

You might wonder why a liberal newspaper gives space to a hard-right journalist like Phillips to promote her vile opinions about Muslims. But Phillips’ views are not that far removed from those expressed on a weekly basis by Observer columnist Nick Cohen, and the paper has given prominence to Martin Bright’s campaign to depict maintream Muslim organisations in Britain as supporters of violent extremism. As we never cease to point out on this site, when it comes to Islamophobia the differences between liberals and the racist right have become increasingly blurred.

More on Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Posted on by Bob Pitt

There’s a pretty dreadful article on Ayaan Hirsi Ali in today’sObserver by Jason Burke, who you’d have thought would know better, and a no less one-sided comment piece by Isabella Thompson. Hirsi Ali is described as a “radical liberal” (!) in the headline to Burke’s article and neither he nor Thompson bothers to address the appalling role she has played in stoking up anti-Muslim hysteria in the Netherlands.

Continue reading →

‘We call it Islamic terrorism because it is terror inspired by Islam’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Another incoherent anti-Muslim diatribe from Nick Cohen in the Observer. He applauds the editor of Die Welt who re-published the Danish cartoons on the grounds that “it is essential to protect freedom of expression because of all the pain we have invested to keep our liberal, secular society”. Somehow, you can’t imagine Cohen offering similar congratulations to an editor promoting “free speech” by printing anti-semitic caricatures. But publish racist illustrations directed against Muslims and Cohen will acclaim you as a defender of secular liberalism.

Cohen also takes exception to an admirable call by the EU to avoid the term “Islamic terrorism”. He objects that “the EU wishes to deny that political Islam inspires terrorists to blow up everything from mosques in Baghdad to tube trains in London, even when Islamist terrorists say explicitly that it does”. Perhaps Cohen would like us to refer to Bush and Blair as “Christian terrorists”, on the basis that they both make it clear that their politics are inspired by their religious beliefs? But then, I was forgetting – Cohen enthusiastically approves of that sort of terrorism, seeing the invasion and occupation of Iraq as a means of bringing liberal secular values to the benighted Muslim masses.

Mind you, Cohen does have one admirer – Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, who pays tribute to this “most welcome anti-dhimmitude from Nick Cohen”. Dhimmi Watch, 14 May 2006

Salma Yaqoob replies to Nick Cohen

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Last week a little piece of history was made in Sparkbrook as I was elected to serve as Respect’s first Birmingham city councillor. For Respect, it was an important breakthrough. But it was significant too that I became the only female Muslim councillor in the city. This was a small step to the left in a city where too many people turned to the far right. Not for Nick Cohen, who sees only ‘…a slice of the electorate in a poor part of Britain that is so lost in identity politics and victimhood that it will vote for those who stoke their rage, no matter how worthless they are.’ This bigoted perception of Muslims has nothing in common with the realities of our lives or our struggles.”

Comment is Free, 13 May 2006

Johann Hari on the ‘March for Free Expression’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

johann hariJohann Hari offers his assessment of last Saturday’s protest. “Communists mingled awkwardly with fascists”, he tells us approvingly, though unlike Tatchell he does at least have the honesty to admit that fascists participated in the demonstration.

Hari complains that a member of the Worker Communist Party of Iran was arrested for provocatively brandishing “silly cartoons of the Mohammed that some fundamentalist Muslims have declared to be blasphemous”.

The cartoons in question were in fact the most explicitly racist of the series published by Jyllands-Posten: one of the Prophet with a bomb as a turban and another of a wild-eyed Prophet wielding a knife, with two terrified veiled women cowering behind him – the implication of course being that Muslims are terrorists and misogynists.

We look forward to Hari defending the right of anti-semites to parade round Trafalgar Square with a caricature of a hook-nosed Jew counting money. After all, we have to defend freedom of expression at all costs, don’t we?

Evening Standard, 31 March 2006