The Little Zionist

Since this story remains bizzarely underreported, here is a link for anyone who is silly enough not to read Melanie Phillips

clever mad Mel

BBC - Mayor is suspended over Nazi jibe

Funny how these little fascists always seem to align themselves with ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom of speech’ these days. Ken Livingstone reckons that the decision to suspend him from office for four weeks “strikes at the heart of democracy.” It wasn’t Livingstone’s comparison of a Jewish journalist to a concentration camp guard, but his refusal to see anything wrong with the remark, that landed him the four week suspension. He stands by his comment, claiming that “he was expressing his honestly-held political view of Associated Newspapers, but he had not meant to offend the Jewish community.” This seems rather odd to me. I know the horror of the Holocaust is being eroded daily by abusive comparisons to Israelis, and the hijacking of Holocaust memorial day etc. etc. etc., but surely it has not been so stripped of meaning that comparisons with Evening Standard journalists are now seen as legitimate and “honest”.

As David Irving is tried, convicted and sentenced, European libertarians cry out in outrage and horror as Muslims in the Arab world and in Europe use violence to try to control what can be published in Europe. Others exclaim at the perceived irony; the ‘left’ laud freedom of speech as a pure and transcendent value, an inherent right enshrined in our liberal democracies, and at the same time, Irving is incarcerated for making (what they admit to be repugnant) speeches.

Although to some, the timing of this aptly exposes Europe’s hypocrisy, surely we must be a little more careful in comparing the two ‘crimes’ in question. The Jyllands-Posten cartoonists satirised the abuse and politicisation of Islam. Their depiction of the prophet has caused great offence and hurt to some Muslims. However, the cartoonists trained their sights on what is undoubtedly a legitimate target; in fashioning itself into a political force, Islamic fundamentalism must accept that it will become the subject of political satire - and of polemic and rational criticism. Political Islam has no right to demand the reverence and protection from satire and abuse that some may feel should be offered to religion. The greatest irony in my eyes is not Europe’s ‘double standards’, but the fact that the hurt and offence generated by the cartoons has been augmented and manipulated; it, too, has been politicised and used to attack western goverments - to deepen the alienation felt by European Muslims, to increase the antipathy felt by many in the Arab world, and as part of an assault on western democratic values.

On whether the the Holocaust is a ‘legitimate target’, I am incredibly uneasy. This is the most horrific event in our history. It is fact. And it is still scarred deeply into the psyches of its survivors, as well into the collective psyche of the people it tried to exterminate. I am in theory opposed to any state-imposed limits on freedom of expression, but my disgust at David Irving’s views - at the fact that he shamelessly and thoughtlessly tells the survivors of Hitler’s concentration camps that they are liars - makes me wish he could be locked up forever, or at least until he finds some compassion for those whose horrific memories he desecrates. But I will try to keep my response more rational.

Although I feel repulsed by Irving and his views, I cannot escape the knowledge that every historical event is a legitimate target of debate. I am no libertarian, to be sure; I believe, like any rational human being, that personal freedom does not only entail, but is made possible by social responsibilites, and I know that in order to grant each person the greatest possible measure of his rights and freedoms, some of these responsibilities must be imposed by the state. However, it is futile for the state to resist these antisemites with laws that can be used against us. It is not up to the state to impose resposibilities in this case, because in doing so they must impose seemingly hypocritical laws that leave our society open to attack by fundamentalist Islam, and leave history open to attack by those whose intransigence could lead to events that we must debate becoming taboo. The responsibility for responding to people like Irving - to those who try to legitimate antisemitism - falls squarely with us - with rational individuals. Rational people must drown Irving’s views in a tide of information and debate, rather than allow this repugnant, right-wing racist to be defended in the name of free speech.

To a true libertarian, personal freedom is the standard by which society is judged. Perhaps a better way of seeing things is that the better a society functions, the more freedom it is able to grant to its citizens. If we take our responsibilities seriously on this matter, then Europe’s goverments will not feel such great need to promulgate laws which are obliquely harmful, in order to impose social resposibilities that the individual should willingly shoulder.

Sadly Galloway is coming to Cambridge again. He’s at the Cambridge Arts Theatre on the 12th. Here’s an email I sent to the executive director of the theatre. I doubt he will take much notice of it. The director’s email address, by the way, is davejmurphy@btopenworld.com

Dear Mr. Murphy,

I am writing to you to express my disappointment at the decision to schedule the forthcoming event An Audience With George Galloway. I saw Mr. Galloway speak at a political meeting in London in July, and was disturbed and intimidated by the atmosphere he created. Instead of levelling legitimate critism at the government, or at Israel, he exploited existing prejudices and tensions to whip up what became a manic fervour in some sections of the crowd.

As I am sure you are aware, Mr. Galloway recently spoke at the Cambridge Union as part of a debate on the efficacy of military action in combating terrorism. In this context, I found him significantly less repugnant. It is important that Galloway’s stance be debated rigorously, and I believe that it is in the context of debate that his views are best aired. Sadly, you have given a forum for Mr. Galloway to go unchallenged, and I fear that he will use the occasion to whip up hatred as I have watched him do in the past.

Although I am disappointed by your decision, I am consoled by the fact that Mr. Galloway seems to have utterly discredited himself in recent weeks.

Yours sincerely,

Little Zionist