This looks like it could be interesting!
London School of Economics
6pm Friday 17th February 2006
Room D702
Head-to-Head
“Freedom of speech: Who cares what Muslims think?”
Sajjad Khan vs. Claire Fox
Sajjad Khan
Editor of New Civilisation Magazine – A quarterly publication providing a unique perspective on Islamic political thinking to the western world, initiated as a unique forum to debate and discuss issues relating to Islamic political discourse seeking to do away with the tired labels of fundamentalist or moderate and instead engage with people holding a concerted rational opinion on these matters from all shades of the political spectrum: left, right and centre.
vs.
Claire Fox
Director of The Institute of Ideas. Its mission is to expand the boundaries of public debate. It is committed to scientific and social experimentation, intellectual ambition and curiosity. Embracing change and making history. Art for art’s sake, knowledge for its own sake, and education as an end in itself. Freedom. To think, to act, to say what needs saying – even if it offends others. Challenging irrational social panics. Open and robust debate, in which ideas can be interrogated, argued for and fought over. Civil liberties, with no ifs or buts.
Sounds fun, alas I’m stuck in Manchester.
S’pose you can all guess who I’d be cheering for (given Newcastle’s season gotta cheer for someone).
PS. Is it possible for the (ever so ‘umble) likes of me to start threads or post files? Got some stuff that might just amuse – might just.
The tired labels of fundamentalist or moderate? oh dear god, one of those eh.
Tired labels like murderer, terrorist, evil, etc.
Sorry for the off-topic: MPs vote for all-out smoking ban”.
(steps outside for a smoke)
Interesting, it may be. Of any practical use, it will not.
This one is going to come to blows, I’m afraid and, however well-intentioned, debates at the LSE, the Oxford Union, or any other institution are going to have bugger-all influence on the streets of Luton or Bradford, Islamabad or Tehran.
We are, if not already in the early stages of it, about to be at war.
GCooper – d’accord.
maybe you right GCooper, but it doesn’t hurt to try 🙂 .
I don’t really see us being at war though, the elites have too much to lose, in previous wars it was the lower class grunts who took all the pain, now theres gonna be nukes arriving at the elites doors.
The whole thing will probably just rumble along while our ‘leaders’ pretend nothing is happening, like what happened with the riots in France.
G Cooper,
So we can expect the LSE Students Union to vote not to fight for Queen and Country? Always a clear sign that the shit is hitting the fan.
We are already at war. We have been at war for a long time.
I was 16 when the communism collapsed. For a brief summer I believed in GHW Bush’s “New World Order”. All too soon, we were at war again. I had dared to believe that we had won, that the big fights were over.
There are other things to expend treasure upon: Aids, cancer, cool science. There are the planets and stars mocking our lack of progress for a generation (my lifetime).
But again, we must expend our treasure and our blood on the same old shit. Tragic fallacies from Germany, perfected in Russia; devastating hatred from a failed Austrian artist and now ancient evil from Arabia – the djinn of Islam released.
I worry. I worry about what we could’ve done if it wasn’t for this. As I said, for one summer, aged 16, I was in a dream.
Meanwhile the Government is busily enslaving us
Surely the question ‘who cares what Muslims think?’ should sit within more focused strategic questions of how best to put an end to Islamic tyranny in the Middle East – such as how much more help we should give to the opposition movements inside Iran. The Muslims whose opinions matter most are those who are prepared to challenge Islamic law with the belief in the individual’s liberty from arbitrary force. Those Muslims who merely talk about liberty while resisting criticism of Islam are not worth the price of a cheap cartoon.
Ron Brick – You are correct. Your power is gone.
I don’t think that there is much Islamic tyranny in the middle east. With the exception of Saudi Arabia and Iran most governments are plain oldfashioned corrupt secular tyrannies with a very strong socialist / totalitarian mindset. Sure, when it suits them, they present themselves as Islamic especially with issues such as the Satanic cartoons which they can whip up to ensure that they are on the safe side of a baying mob.
The peoples of the ME mostly hate their governments and want something else. Because those governments have efficiently repressed normal opposition in the sense of organised political groupings the only remaining, organized structure for opposition is religion.
If we make this into a war on Islam we hand the parasitic governing classes of these benighted lands an easy cause to ensure that their people unite behind them ensuring more years of darkness for their long-suffering people.
We should concentrate on sending out a message about the benefits of freedom and the rule of law. How great it is to run your own business without some goons with presidential connections demanding a share, caricature your own president without fear of being tortured, have secure tenure of your home.
Robert Alderson says: “I don’t think that there is much Islamic tyranny in the middle east.”
Robert Alderson – please go away and have a little think.
“If we make this into a war on Islam we hand the parasitic governing classes of these benighted lands an easy cause to ensure that their people unite behind them ensuring more years of darkness for their long-suffering people.”
Frankly, over the long term, I am more concerned about myself and my family and friends living in Europe than I am about the seething hordes in the Middle East.
Besides, Islam is a problem to the extent that it does not recognise (and thus is always in conflict with) the basics of modern society like private property rights enforced by a neutral, secular State.
Dale Amon recently posted an article decrying the use of the term ‘war on terrorism’ on the grounds that terrorism is a tactic. Although I sympathise with his ‘ends-justifying-means’ argument in favour of terrible tactics used by us in wartime, the term ‘terrorism’ describes the behaviour of totalitarian states quite accurately too. For this reason the idea of a war on terrorism where ‘terrorism’ would include totalitarian states quite appeals to me.
“We should concentrate on sending out a message about the benefits of freedom and the rule of law. How great it is to run your own business without some goons with presidential connections demanding a share, caricature your own president without fear of being tortured, have secure tenure of your home.”
I quite agree.
Robert Alderson.
Ignore the ignorant.
Haway the lads!
Ah, those nutty Italians. You gotta love ’em.
Rest of the story here
Robert Alderson,
Agreed. Most Arab regimes are in effect National Socialist, even down to institutionalised anti-Semitism.
I’m becoming increasingly depressed about the contrast between the UK and other countries on this.
First we had the French Foreign Minister making very robust statements. Then the US State Dept issued a resounding defence of freedom of expression. Now the Italian Reform Minister has stepped up to the plate.
Meanwhile our government seems to want to roll over and ask the islamofascists for a tummy rub, while at the same time attacking law abiding smokers – presumably on the grounds that British smokers, by and large, aren’t in the habit of behading people or blowing things up and are therefore a soft target.
I have met C. Fox and she is a feisty debater, one of that rather strange crowd of Marxists who, for some reason, have taken to voicing certain libertarian arguments with gusto. Not entirely sure what to make of them.
Yeah, Fox is interesting.
I used to read Living Marxism, and then LM magazine, back when she was a honcho there. Even went to a couple of RCP events on the basis of it, despite loathing Marxism and Communism with a passion.
These LM people were strange, deeply libertarian marxists. I still like to listen to what she has to say.
Pity I can’t go to this.
“Agreed. Most Arab regimes are in effect National Socialist, even down to institutionalised anti-Semitism.”
So what? Islam is not only the cultural weapon of choice being used against the West, but the very fact that it is, is surely the subject of this LSE debate. Is it not?
Rob, there’s another reason this supine Labour government won’t stand up to the bullying Islamists. They rely on their votes in a number of senior members constituancies, Jack Straw in Blackburn being the most obvious.
There is a strong parallel with the Labour NSW government out in Australia. The State Premiers electorate is stacked full of Islamists (indeed the Labor party ensured the stacking) and thus he is in hock to them. Not surprising then that after the recent so called riots many white anglo’s have been arrested yet almost zero muslims have been even though their ” “retalitory” rampage was far more violent, destructive and racially based then the original demonstration.
Once again a Labour government intent on persecuting the majority whilst pandering to the violent perverted minority due to dagma and self interest.
Its a waste of time to try and debate with most muslim spokespeople as they rarely answer a direct question prefering to simply harangue the audience with a torrent of lies and venom. Listen to the moral maze recording on Melanie Philips’ site for a perfect example. What is worse the British apologists for these morons seem unaware that they are betraying the very values that they claim to champion. I do not think this debate will be of any use to anyone and a shouting match will not be fun, just depressing.
In a full-blown “War on Islam” those regimes would collapse within hours and be replaced by something much, much worse.
Have a look at the Canadian news from time to time to cheer yourself up.
So anyone going to wear the DF new cartoon on their chests? I was thinking of going but not sure if its that useful.
Government and/or official spokespeople which have stood up to the Islamo-loons:
Denmark, the US, Italy, France, Holland (MPs Geert Wilders and Hirsi Ali) and those countries which published the cartoons, including Canada.
Britain – Oh, please don’t hurt us! We’ll give you anything you want! And we especially respect you.
Last week i posted about some of the encouragingly moderate comments on the MPACUK website. However this article is a little different.
In particular,
You need to join this JIHAD and now! Wake up, wake up and let the Ummah rise to defend what is most precious to us!!!
However, what is truly impressive is how action oriented the jihadists are compared to our feeble responses. Why are those who believe in liberty so pathetic at defending it.
Look at this from MPACUK
Here is what you can do:
E-mail the Danish Newspaper: jp@jp.dk (Sample Letter Provided)
Sign the Petition: Click Here
Boycott Danish Products:
E-mail Danish Embassy: Embassy of Denmark
55 Sloane Street
London SW1X 9SR
Tel: 00 44 (0)20 7333 0200
Fax: 00 44 (0)20 7333 0270
Email: lonamb@um.dk
Print this article and show it to your local Mosque/institution. Demand they inform the congregation of this Jihad.
Campaign to get local Mosques to organise mass email campaign to the Danish Government.
Contact Local Muslim Leaders to demand a meeting with the Danish Ambassador
Contact Muslim Leaders to meet their MP and demand he make a public statement.
Write to the Government of Britain and demand action.
Dave at February 15, 2006 02:09 AM
Well, it does hurt to try insofar as such debates perpetuate both the notion that “something” is being done and the notion that debates might be able to fix this.
Please cite one Canadian government official or statement by a Canadian government agency of any kind that has stood up to radical Islamists on this.
We have an example of an individual hero (Ezra Levant) who happens to live in Canada. As governments go, Canada’s has been the worst about this issue of any in the Anglosphere as far as I can tell.
(Although I should add – if there is clear evidence that the City Government in London was behind that staged protest Perry took pics of – then I guess it’s fair to say at least one sector of British gov has sunk lower than Canada…)
FYI…
Racist insults lead BBC to close website
Joshua – I think it’s clear that Livingstone and his cronies were involved in “facillitating” the event. That said, I’m not really sure that it’d be possible for that man to sink any lower.
Slightly off-topic, but very amusing:
new Hamas peace initiative
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/45357
More seething opportunities! (Link) What with the cartoons, new Abu Ghraib saucy shots and the Tommies beating Iraqis, the seethers are spoilt for choice!
February has been a bumper month for Islamo-loon outrage.
Verity: One wonders if the seethers have been assisted by the Left Wing with this Abu Graib Redux and the Brits giving the rioters something the local fuzz would certainly have done in plain sight. On the other hand, it could be a neocon plot to tip things over the edge or even just to bury it while the seething is at its height.
Regardless, a neat way to give a veneer of ‘justification’ to their outrage, which has really looked absurd.
For any Islamic country running short on able-bodied seethers, I am setting up a freelance seething agency. Outsource all your seething requirements to Ranters-R-Us for qualified practitioners of stewing, seething, angry, raging marchers and torchers.
All our freelance seethers are qualified in the 1-2-3 fist-in-the-air jab and can learn lines of any slogan in Arabic and Urdu quickly. Our lady ranters have perfected holding their chador across their face with their two teeth while shouting slogans. All are veterans of the rent-a-crowd community and can learn their grievances quickly and fluently in case of being chosen to comment by a roving reporter/cameraman.
Ask about our Seethe ‘n’ Banner package! Fifty qualified seethers PLUS five banners with your slogan of choice in Arabic, Urdu or English!
Well the Big Mo turns up in the unlikliest of places! Apparently he’s on the frieze over the entrance to the Supreme Court and has been for years – without so much as a whisper of complaint!
Well, OK, that’s not, strictly speaking, true. The linked article is an interesting read – makes it all sound sort of reasonable. CAIR has, of course, asked that the image of the Big Mo be taken down, but the Court has always refused. This all happened in 2001. Note the absense of seething street protests.
Another reference is made in the article to a political cartoon that appeared in US papers in 2002 showing Mohammed driving a pickup with a nuke – again, resulting in no street protests, boycotts, burned embassies, or deaths.
My these people are selective as to what’s a “sacrilege!”
Most governments in the Middle East are not islamic tyrannies. I suppose you could make a point about there being societal male tyranny within families but the fact remains that most Arab governments have far more in common with the European totalitarian regimes of the 20th century then with Iran or the Taliban’s Afghanistan.
Saudi Arabia’s government is a compromise between a figurehead Royal Family and an Islamic sect which supplied the fanaticism needed to carve out the Kingdom. Islam and Sharia have a much stronger role than in e.g. Syria but the basic concept is one of absolute monarchy – totally unlike Iran or Hamas.
Of late the middle east dictators club may view it as expedient to appear Islamic and they will certainly try to stir up Islamic passions against the West to strengthen their hold on power but the ministers and presidents of these countries are mostly secular, predatory thieves with degrees in e.g. engineering or pharmacy from progressive (lefty) institutions in the West or former Soviet empire who believe that extending state power is the solution to all problems (foremost amongst which is how to stay in power.) They are fundamentally different from the clerics with degrees in Islamic studies from local institutions who believe (probably for the most part sincerely) that Islam is the answer.
Encouraging freedom in the Arab world will bring out some more overtly Islamic governments but this need not be a disaster. Turkey has had Islamic governments which have made some progress in reducing corruption. We might not like the government of Turkey but it is a lot less toxic to the West than the government of Libya, Syria, or Tunisia.
So there we have a part of Sajjad Khan, Editor of New Civilisation Magazine’s view on how Islam is looking to the future while Western secular liberal ideology is embedded in the past. Too bad the theory doesn’t quite fit the reality of a religion that now openly advocates primitive barbarism against anyone questioning its tenets or expressing differing opinions to those of its primitive tome. Another of this individual’s little gems,
I feel it would be remiss of me to attend this debate since I would undoubtedly feel the need to wear a certain T-Shirt …
There’s a critical view of Claire Fox aka Foster and the IoI/Living Marxism connections here
“Most governments in the Middle East are not islamic tyrannies.”
Oh for heaven’s sake, I know this and did not state anything to the contrary. What I said was this…
“Surely the question ‘who cares what Muslims think?’ should sit within more focused strategic questions of how best to put an end to Islamic tyranny in the Middle East – such as how much more help we should give to the opposition movements inside Iran.”
The point being NOT that most governments in the ME are islamic tyrannies, merely that Islamic tyranny exists in the ME and any debate about what muslims think should, IMHO, be couched within a question of how to put an end to Islamic tyranny such as exists in Iran. The significance of this point is that Islam, as being practiced by Muslims both in the ME and in Europe is effectively the source of much tyranny (hence ‘Islamic tyranny’) – and this has nothing to do with whether the government is Islamic or not. Islamic terrorists, in my book, are those that seek to use force, and threats of force, against non-Muslims – both in actually killing them and in seeking to enact the power of the State against them as we have seen with their recent lobbying of the British government. They would like to see us live under constant intimidation and death-threat, if they would like to see us live at all.
That you jumped to infer I had meant most governments in the ME are Islamic is your own unique piece of logic since it is patently neither what I said, nor what I meant. Rather than come back with more patronising pedantry perhaps you would actually read my posts and consider where I agreed with you and the point I raised against you.
Mike,
Iran clearly is a threat to us. I think the type of threat it poses is akin to the old Soviet threat. A nation state with nuclear weapons, captive population, severe paranoia, delusions of world domination and an ideology which appeals to a vocal minority in the West. As a nation state they have a clear return address for a counter attack if they ever attacked us. They are therefore less likely to attack us than a stateless terrorist group.
Of course, it is in our interests to do what we can to get rid of Iran’s evil government and replace it with something better. Because of our presence in Iraq it is easy to promote insurgency in Iran if there are groups inside the country that want to fight. Evidence so far suggests that the only groups able to fight are ethnic Arab groups close to the Iraqi border. I can’t envisage a scenario in which those groups can overthrow the mullahocracy.
Probably the best chance to overthrow the clerical mafia is a general “people power” revolt of those who are fed up of bad government, opression and corruption. The same as the “colour” revolutions in Eastern Europe. I would like to think that Western intelligence agencies are already well to the fore in trying to promote this.
We in the West need to keep extoling the timeless and universal virtues of personal freedom and the impartial rule of law. This is the same message that we should give to the people suffering under the other ME dictatorships and those in Zimbabwe or N Korea. The Western system of government is so evidently superior. The only “alternatives” are socialist relics (Zimbabwe, N Korea, Cuba) or fascist rejectionist systems like Iran. None of these alternatives work and the unlucky inhabitants of these countries know that full well.
If, after succesfully getting rid of the current bunch of corrupt dictators, people vote for an organisation as repellent as Hamas the West should give that government only the basic minimum of “respect” that any nation state gets from another, hoping to illustrate to the electorate that their lives will be better if they get rid of their bad government but hanging back on any serious measures like sanctions, destabilization, invasion unless and until the new government attempted to subvert liberty to cling onto power.
I know that my second post was largely a rehash of my first. I was responding to Verity’s suggestion of going away and having a think. Let me know if I didn’t fully get your point.
I’ll be quick. I agree with the general gist of what you say regarding western strategy in the ME. However, there are two points that seem to have given you the slip.
First, I made the assertion that Islam is a source of terror in the ME and also in Europe. While this does not mean all Muslims are equally potential suicide bombers, it does mean that people who follow Islam have a problem with the basic corollaries of an even vaguely liberal society, such as tolerance of others. As such, I suggest you are wrong to shift the focus of the problem away from Islam and onto the governments of the ME, though they are also important. The adjective totalitarian can be used not only to describe governments – but also a culture / religion / ideology that would stamp out liberty.
“unless and until the new government attempted to subvert liberty to cling onto power.”
Are you for real?? What liberty do you think people in the ME have that is not due to the ineffectuiveness of their governments?
JK links to:
“Of the main contributors to the two day event around 15-20 are known to be part of the network behind LM/IoI. There was nothing in how they were presented, however, to alert either their fellow contributors or the audience to this. This is significant because those behind LM/IoI are fervently opposed to any restrictions on GM crops, cloning or other genetic technologies. But this shared vision is made to appear to the audience to be coming from a series of independent commentators presented as diverse individuals – a GP, a Professor of Sociology, a disability policy analyst, a science writer – or as representatives of diverse organisations – the Genetic Interest Group, Sense about Science, Cyberia etc.”
Smearing of pro-GM types as (a) not ‘independent’, and (b) falsely presented so is a simple tactic to discredit wholesale anything they say. It is the laziest of debating tactics since it serves to dodge reasoned argument. It is also lazy because the implicit claim (that the LM people are corrupt liars because they are funded by pharmaceuticals who have invested in GM) has no greater liklihood of truth than the same claim launched against the BBC for supporting the government because they receive their funding from the State.
Claire Fox always struck me as intelligent and I’m sure she’ll give as good as she gets tommorow night.
The Sp!ked/LM crowd have always seemed very likeable to me. They are steadfast against moral panics and the endemic fearfulness of the pampered mob. And they make interesting arguments about a wide range of things.
What marks them out for especial hatred on the left is their apostasy, but that can’t readily be characterised as despicable by the libertarian modernism in their world view. Explicit rejection of the received wisdom of the Green movement, on the other hand, presses all the leftist bile buttons: “How dare you think humanity might innovate to solve its problems, and that the answers we made up earlier don’t help.”
Having had the hair-shirted sheep baa-ing “Technofix!” at me from the floor of Green Party conference, I have a good deal of fellow feeling. The ultra-left changes its labels and the questions quite frequently, but never its answers (forcible equality/community), and never its villains (technology, individualism, wealth).
Guy Herbert – Your post is interesting. With regard to your final sentence, I would like to pose a question: Why?
Why are they against technology, individualism and wealth? I mean … why? This has puzzled me for years. Does anyone have any theoies?
I hope you’ll pardon me for asking guy, but what were you doing speaking at a Green Party conference? Not that I’m eyeing your post with a GCooper-like scowl or anything!
“Why are they against technology, individualism and wealth? I mean … why? This has puzzled me for years. Does anyone have any theoies?”
Popper called it ‘the strain of civilization’ – it is easier to want to keep things simplified and ‘harmonious’ than to deal with the complex challenges of life in a modern society. Like working your new dvd player…
…in other words “fear of being left behind.” Completely agree. That’s gotta be what’s behind it. Fear they won’t be able to adapt and keep up.
I think this also goes a long way to explaining what the Canadians call “red toryism.” The Tolkein wing of the Conservative Party, in other words. More about God and tradition than markets and individual rights. They are the self-made businessmen who turn into traditionalists and statists later in life because they aren’t sure their children have it in them to do as well as they did. So they develop a sudden liking for the status quo.
The LM aka Spiked crowd are somewhat sinister– the Scientologists or La Roucheites of ‘freedom’. Handle with care.
… what were you doing speaking at a Green Party conference?
I was a prominent member of the Green Party and stood in the Green interest for City of London and Westminster South at the 1992 general election. My essentiall views on personal and economic freedom were little different from what they are now, but it seemed like the place to work for fresh answers to some very important questions.
Environmentalists do ask a lot of important questions that remain important. Unfortunately (as I indicate above), a lot of Greens (like fundamentalists of other persuasions) are convinced they know the answers already and the questions and contingent facts presented by the world must be eveluated and reformulated accordingly.
I’d claim to have been a Skeptical Environmentalist avant la lettre.
Interesting; I’d had you down as a law professor or something similar. Were there many other green party members at that time to have the term ‘technofix!’ hurled abusively at them? Having had an earlier acquaintance with green politics from my student days, I can well imagine such people as yourself being something of a minority in those circles.
My law professors would blanch at the thought… but it is a job I quite fancy.
In my time in the Green Party several of us were rumoured to be MI5 officers planted in the organisation to undermine it. This we were doing – the logic being that twisted – by evilly attempting to make it electable by (among other things) creating institutions of leadership. Some factions regarded advocating any policy other than a move to subsistence organic permaculture and a LETS economy under bioregional direct democracy as a dangerous technocratic tendency. Quite why fancy agriculture doesn’t count as technology, I never have figured out.
So, no one went to the gathering, eh?
Verity: if one of the editors went, perhaps he/she will post a new piece about it when they’re good and ready.
“In my time in the Green Party several of us were rumoured to be MI5 officers planted in the organisation to undermine it.”
Ah, rather like organic pesticides – it’s almost a pity you weren’t MI5 officers trying to make them electable!!!