Blood on the streets

I have not had time to blog in the last few weeks. Here are just some of the things I've been reading and thinking about.

Everywhere is struggle, everywhere is #Taksim
The events in the last weeks in Istanbul - and increasingly in Izmir, Ankara and elsewhere in Turkey - are truly inspiring. With passing similarities to the Occupy movement, the protests have in fact been socially diverse, joined by trade unions, women in headscarves and a huge cross-section of the Turkish urban population. There are good accounts at The Centre Left; the Gezi Park/Taksim Protests posts at Istanbul & Beyond; and elsewhere.

The repression has been appalling. And Turkish media's reportage of it has been muzzled, of course - but the BBC has not given itself much credit in its repeated descriptions of protesters throwing Molotov cocktails, without mentioning the large amount of evidence pointing to the possibility the throwers were agents provocateurs.

Thankfully, noone on the left seems to have stooped so low as to support Erdogan. I keep expecting the SWP or Alexander Cockburn or Tony Benn or John Pilger or MRZine to jump up and call OccupyGezi "bourgeois" (as they did with Iran's Green Revolution) or the AKP "objectively progressive" (as they do with Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood). Ken Livingstone's buddy Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawi has supported the AKP state, though, so perhaps they'll soon follow.

No, sadly, it is on the Zionist right that I found the worst response to the protests. Influenced by the Islamic sect of Adnan Oktar, the reactionary Yori Yanover makes a truly appalling case against the protests by a bizarre analogy with Israeli politics.

The sultans
Erdogan is an exemplar of the time we are living in: the age of the democratators, the elected leaders who bend state power to their authoritarian will, suppressing dissent, buying consent, chipping away at their constitutions to maintain their power. One of the hallmarks, taken to absurd degree in Erdogan, is the tendency to talk about themselves in the third person. Here are some extracts from Sultan Erdogan's recent speeches:

"If you call this roughness, I'm sorry, but this Tayyip Erdogan won't change."

"To those who... are at Taksim and elsewhere taking part in the demonstrations with sincere feelings: I call on you to leave those places and to end these incidents and I send you my love. But for those who want to continue with the incidents I say: 'It's over.' As of now we have no tolerance for them. Not only will we end the actions, we will be at the necks of the provocateurs and terrorists and no-one will get away with it."

"[They say] Tayyip Erdogan is a dictator. If they call one who serves the people a dictator, I cannot say anything... We will build a mosque in Taksim and we do not need the permission of the CHP [Republican People's Party, the main opposition party in Parliament] or of a few bums to do it."

Other democratators include Morsi in Egypt and perhaps Maduro in Venezuela (whose friends recently bought the only TV station that would air interviews with the opposition, which oddly now doesn't) - but the archetype is surely Vladimir Putin. Luke Harding draws the Putin/Erdogan parallels well here. The taming of the media is another parallel.

I read the print version of this David Aaronovitch article about Russia and thought it was brilliant, but I can no longer remember what it says behind the Murdoch paywall, but I still recommend it. I remember the wonderful term "phallocrat" to refer to Putin.

PRISM
Looking at the repression of basic freedoms carried out by the Erdogan and Putin regimes, I find it hard to get excited by the data-mining carried out by the US NSA which has occupied the twitterati lately. The bizarre "whistle-blower", Edward Snowden, has taken in refuge in China, a country which locks up nearly as many journalists as Turkey, and Russia has suggested it might consider offering him asylum. (For how Putin's Russia treats whistle-blowers, see some of these articles by the great Miriam Elder.) The involvement of the vile Glen Greenwald in the whole affair makes it even fishier for me. And the data mining seems to me (and David Simon) like no big deal. Amidst the hype, I've only seen sensible commentary from Francis Sedgemore and, obviously, The Onion.

(Oh, and talking of "whistle-blowing", here is A Jay Adler on Bradley Manning. And, of course, we must spare a thought for the upstaged Julian Assange.)

Syria's agony

And as well as the democratators, we have the full-on without qualification dictators, such as Assad. It seems he would rather rule over a massive grave rather than let go of power. The numbers are staggering. Bombs falling on rebel areas daily. At least 80,000 killed (maybe many more). Up to five million internally displaced. Millions of refugees streaming into Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and beyond at a rate of thousands a day. And the "international community" looks on. And, as Peter Ryley writes:

...non-intervention has profound consequences. It is not a neutral act. Proposals for peace conferences that will not be respected, even if they take place at all, are merely a fig leaf to cover the embarrassment of the poorly endowed. And so, when discussing the worth or otherwise of any international conflict, it is not enough to point out what went wrong. It is also important to consider the consequences of doing nothing and to see that inaction is rarely cost-free.

Meanwhile, Russia (again) arms and enables Assad, and blocks action against him. Iran has his back. Hezbollah (remember "We are all Hezbollah", comrades?) slaughters Syrians and Palestinians in alliance with him.

And still the likes of George Galloway and the mis-named Stop the War Coalition continue to provide a moral alibi for him. And - it would be funny if the situation were less tragic - they have been joined by the BNP's Nick Griffin. Even I do not loathe Galloway enough to say Griffin is his mirror image, but there are certain parallels (a pornographic love of power, racial nationalism, a Lawrence of Arabia fascination with the Arab orient, an intense "anti-Zionism", paranoid conspirationism...). Read the three-part series by Dave Rich, starting here, on the intellectual roots of Griffin's position, in the "Political Soldiers" faction of the old National Front.

Against Islamism, against Islamophobia

Closer to home, and post-Woolwich, are the endless debates about who is to blame and how to respond. A pandemic of anti-Muslim violence has swept Britain, with the arson attack on a Muslim school in Chislehurst, outer SE London, being the most recent incident. British Muslims have started to get used to - as British Jews have for decades now - praying with guards outside the door. Living in such a society is sick. 

While Islamophobia's apologists, such as Douglas Murray, blame the Islamists (or, worse, Islam in general) for this blowback, a nasty streak of philo-Islamism exonerates terrorism by blaming us, "the West", for the gory vengeance taken upon us - which Sarah calls "Greenwaldian logic" and Howard Jacobson calls the logic of "Culpability Brown". 

Greenwald has been ably taken apart by Zach Novetsky and A Jay Adler. Mehdi Hasan, a commentator I once hated but have increasingly come to admire, sadly takes one of the most left-Greenwaldian positions. Paul Stott has an excellent reply, on why Mehdi is half right and half wrong. Here is one of the key points:

For some on the left, making reference to problematic trends within domestic Islam remains a no-no. Some anti-fascist organisations have grasped this nettle – the anarchists of Antifa were probably first, whilst the anti-fascist organisation Hope Not Hate, under the leadership of Nick Lowles, has returned to this subject repeatedly. 

This remains a step too far for some on the revolutionary left, and broader organisations such as Unite against Fascism or the Stop the War Coalition. Here a condemnation of an attack such as Woolwich (or Toulouse, or 7/7) is quickly followed by a pivot into either opposition to the EDL/BNP or broader critiques of Western foreign policy. The Jihadists are then forgotten about, until the formula is repeated the next time. And the next.

Another excellent response comes from Dave Rich. And a sharper response from Dan Hodges.

In a related debate, Sunny Hundal wisely argues that the left must mobilise against the Islamist right as we mobilise against classical fascism.

And also

Murray's Greenwaldian logic

This is a guest post by Sarah AB

‘Forget “Islamism”:  Let’s Tackle Foreign Policy’ has been the subtext of a number of responses to Woolwich.  These have (rightly) been torn apart by many commentators.  Now Douglas Murray, in a piece entitled ‘Forget “Islamophobia”: Let’s Tackle Islamism’ appears to be deploying Greenwaldian logic in order to ‘explain’ anti-Muslim bigotry.

I find Murray an infuriating writer because I do actually agree with at least part of what he says, and have myself written about both the more obviously extreme Muslim groups and individuals, and about ones that might seem rather more mainstream such as FOSIS and IERA.

Murray complains that the term Islamophobia is employed as a smear, and that it is wrongly equated with antisemitism.  He describes how a ‘leader from the Jewish community … could not answer my question of how you could condemn Islamic anti-Semitism without committing an act of "Islamophobia".’ (p.2) It seems perfectly easy to me – Mehdi Hasan has written about the topic for example – just as one can discuss a possible intersection between Zionism and Islamophobia – as Klingschor does in this video (3:14) - without being antisemitic. 

Murray goes on to assert that ‘in so far as there is a definition — it includes insult of and even inquiry into any aspect of Islam, including Muslim scripture’.  This is completely wrong, I think.  Yes, insulting an aspect of Islam might be deemed Islamophobic, certainly – which doesn’t mean such insults should be banned or censored.  But although some intolerant types may shout ‘Islamophobia’ at dispassionate historians or scholars of religion, many more, who clearly take Islamophobia seriously, would not. 

Murray goes on to claim that anti-Muslim bigotry doesn’t come from nowhere, but can be explained with reference to terrorism committed by Muslims.  Although he contrasts this with antisemitism, in fact it is often noted that there is a link between the actions of Israel and spikes in antisemitic incidents.  Just as with Greenwald and co, using a similar logic but different politics, a hint that violent hatred might be justified by root causes just hovers around this article, however strenuously, and I am sure sincerely, Murray insists this is not the case. I don’t accept his theory that Islamophobia can all be traced back to terrorism or non-violent extremism – that may be the case for some, certainly, but for others it is obviously just a handy handle for old style racists to latch onto. 

On page 5 of Murray’s piece I read how:

 The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), America's largest Muslim umbrella group, has similar form. In the wake of earlier terrorism investigations, CAIR distributed a poster which read: "Build a wall of resistance. Don't talk to the FBI."

I think this is rather misleading. Here is another account. As I searched for Sheila Musaji’s rebuttal, it occurred to me that Douglas Murray’s approach has some unintended consequences.  I’m agnostic about CAIR, and am generally happy to pounce on the failings of apparently mainstream Muslim organisations – if I see them.  But in a few short pages Murray had induced in me a confirmation bias effect in CAIR’s favour.  And yet I have posted myself about the problems with Warsi’s approach (the topic he turns to next), and agree fully that the views of Sarfraz Sarwar (p.7) are just horrendous.

Murray puts ‘Islamophobia’ in repeated sneering scare quotes and weakens his account of genuine bigotry faced by Muslims by juxtaposing it with the extreme views of Sarwar. Now, Mehdi Hasan cautions here against overstating the problems faced by Muslims, and I have no quarrel with the many people who prefer not to use the term Islamophobia.  But if Douglas Murray’s goal is to encourage Muslims to speak out against extremism and cajole soppy liberals into recognizing that some Muslim groups are problematic – he really doesn’t seem to be going the right way about it.

I don’t think that standing up to Islamophobia needs to go hand in hand with ignoring the dangers (not just physical) posed by religious extremists and theocrats.  Hope not Hate, for example, has recently launched a petition which denounces hate from both camps.  I was going to end on that note, but think I must acknowledge a reasonable mild objection to that petition which I have just read – that it only criticizes violence from Muslim groups, not hateful views.  Even though Douglas Murray would agree with me – I don’t think it is Islamophobic to wish to stand against illiberal attitudes as well as violence. After all many EDL supporters don’t go so far as to carry out, or approve of, acts of violence – and we have no problem saying we find their views deplorable.

After Woolwich: two footnotes and some links

I wrote last night some of my immediate reactions to the killing of Drummer Lee Rigby in nearby Woolwich, South East London. If you read one of mine about it, read that one. Tonight, I have quickly added two footnotes. The first is on Mohammed Saleem, whose killing at the end of April in Birmingham I mentioned, but in a way that was not accurate, so I have corrected myself. The second is on Lewisham Islamic Centre, as I noticed my post on it from some time ago has had some traffic, because of the alleged connections of Michael Adebolajo to the Centre, and I thought I should update. Those two posts are immediately below this one. (29 May: I have updated both posts again today.)

While I'm here, a couple of other links. I recommend Les Back, a local writer:

London is both the stage for divisions and violence and also a meeting place where those differences are routinely bridged and made banal... The blood-stained headlines will not be easily forgotten but they will inevitably become yesterday’s news, and the rhythm of multicultural life in south-east London will find its balance again.

Les mentions the wars in the Middle East, but in a very careful way:

what we are seeing is a manifestation of the social damage of war erupting in the very ordinary spaces of British life.

Other commentators have made the connection rather less intelligently, and have rightly been taken to task for doing so. Alan Johnson says we need to talk about Islamism. Terry Glavin attacks the excuse-makers, fibbers and causation-seekers. Rob Marchant explores Ken Livingstone's stupidity on the issue. Jim Denham republishes Clive Bradley's 2007 destruction of the banal blowback theory. The morally literate Francis Sedgemore adds some essential footnotes.

Finally, one other thing that has angered me is the way that the mainstream media (BBC Newsnight, Channel 4 news) have trotted out utterly un-representative publicity-seeking Anjem Choudary as some kind of voice worth hearing in relation to the Woolwich killings. (Even worse, they pitted him against sauve Islamophobe Douglas Murray.) It seems Lee Rigby's killers (like Charles Manson in 1969) wanted to precipitate war through their spectacular bloody acts. Putting Choudary on TV at a time like this is doing their work for them. Anyway, I'm sick of it all, and am going to try and turn off the internet for the weekend.

The Woolwich killings and the Lewisham Islamic Centre

UPDATE: The fascist BNP are planning to march from Woolwich to the Lewisham mosque on Saturday 1 June. They should be opposed. Details at the bottom of the post.

The Daily Mail, Evening Standard and other outlets are reporting that Michael Adebolajo (the British-born man whose image with bloody hands and knife in Woolwich has circulated widely in the last two days) "is believed to have attended the nearby Lewisham Islamic Centre mosque, which police visited yesterday". 

The mosque, like many others, has put out a statement condemning the killings:

"We are deeply shocked by the tragic and disturbing events which unfolded in Woolwich on May 22. 

It is further disturbing to hear that these individuals were Muslims. From our perspective, we would like to clarify and confirm categorically, that these actions are in no way, shape or form from the teachings of Islam. 

Islam’s position on the sanctity of life, the concept of justice and the value of human life is such that the Quran equates the taking of one human life unjustly, with killing all of humanity - thus the Quran prohibits murder in clear terms...

It is inevitable at times like these that various groups will seek to drive a wedge between communities. We believe our community in the London Borough of Lewisham (LBL) is an excellent one that has an outstanding record with respect to community cohesion within and beyond LBL.

We sincerely hope that the heinous crime that has taken place will not lead to long term discord within the borough or beyond."

I don't know anything about the current leadership of the mosque, which is a fifteen minute walk from my home. But I do know that under previous imams, the mosque has harboured some very unsavoury politics.

We are all equal in death, but not all deaths are the same

In my post on the Woolwich killing yesterday, I said this:

 It is worth remembering those attacked and killed by racists for being Muslim, like Mohammed Saleem, 75, slaugtered in Birmingham, by vanload of white men earlier this month. But we mustn't score those attacks off against this attack, out of masochistic self-indulgent self-hatred or in some obscene zero sum identity politics game.

I had said roughly the same thing on Twitter earlier. Helen Gray, an old blogospheric friend, pointed out to me that noone knows who killed Mohammed Saleem, and that it certainly wasn't a vanload of white men. I got the van from the Guardian report, which mentioned a van, but did not say what I inferred:

Officers want to trace a white man, aged 25-32, of medium height and build, spotted on CCTV footage running near the scene of the attack around the time it happened, just before 10.30pm. Police also want to trace a seven-seat people carrier captured on CCTV, driving near the mosque with the two male occupants, both white and in their 30s, who are considered "significant witnesses".

Police are not ruling out "a racial motive", but nor are they saying it was a hate crime. Locally circulating stories have spoken about a family feud, for instance. I made a huge leap, and was wrong to do so. I am amending the post (correcting my typos at the same time!).

Thinking about death, six miles from Woolwich

I have really nothing to say about the horrible atrocity yesterday five miles down the road from my house in Woolwich, South London. There is nothing to be said. It was a horrific act, performed for the video cameras and for social media. It was an act of insanity, justified by a perverse and evil Islamist ideology. The responses of the EDL and other bigots - attacking mosques in Gillingham and Braintree, for example - were less atrocious but also mindless.

Against this we stack the the keep calm and carry on response of multicultural Woolwich, the bravery of passers by, the immediate denunciation of the atrocity by ordinary Muslims, the local anger at EDL opportunism.

One part of the left has been (once again) banging on about "root causes", i.e. what we do, which is like saying the "root cause" of rape is short skirts. CND trotted out a lightweight version of the same stupidity, describing the vicious butchering of a man for wearing the wrong T-shirt as some kind of inevitable "consequence" of Tony Blair's war.

George Galloway took the opportunity to smear the Syrian resistance, likening its Islamist strain to that which manifested in Woolwich - ignoring the thousands killed by Assad, ignoring his own previous cheer-leading of al-Qaeda linked terrorism in Iraq, ignoring his own stirring of the embers of perceived Muslim grievance in "Muslim lands". (No doubt he will stir further tonight, when he appears on the Iranian terror state's propaganda outlet to pontificate about what happened.)

Left Unity responded to the terror by talking about the "real" terrorism, i.e. what the West is doing, which may or may not be true (in my view it isn't) but is beside the point when most ordinary people here are shocked and grieving for Drummer Lee Rigby - about as sensitive as telling someone whose mother is dying of cancer that the real killer is car crashes.

And then some of the lefties I follow on Twitter seemed a lot more bothered by the racism that came out in response to the killing than by the killing itself, talking about "this shitty country" when all the evidence points to a pretty shitty world, which may not be the worst reaction but troubled me somewhat. It is worth remembering those attacked and killed by racists for being Muslim. For example, Mohammed Saleem, 75, was killed in Birmingham on his way home from prayers at his local mosque, and the motive may have been racism. But we mustn't score those attacks off against this attack, out of masochistic self-indulgent self-hatred or in some obscene zero sum identity politics game.

Grieve for this brave soldier in Woolwich, grieve for Mohammed Saleem, grieve for those killed in Iraq, for those killed by drones and by Islamists in Pakistan, for those killed by Boko Haram in Nigeria, for the victims everywhere of preachers of hate and death.

That's all.

***

To donate to Help for Heroes go here. To report or get help with an anti-Muslim hate crime go here.

James Bloodworth's response was very sensible, as always. I liked Little Richardjohn's complex response. Darryl writes from close to ground zero. Aloevera's response to Glenn Greenwald is very pertinent. And below the fold are some of the more pertinent Twitter responses:

For Norm

Norman Geras's blog Normblog is, believe it or not, coming up to its tenth birthday. I was heart-broken to read this post, talking about his illness. Norm has been a huge inspiration to me, as well as to the whole world of blogging and to that part of the political world that is genuinely decent, in the real sense of the term. Although never having met him, I have come to think of him as something of a friend too, although I know I am among thousands who would say the same. What made reading the post even more poignant was that the night before I had been reading a book by Adèle Geras, Norm's other half, to my five year old, and I had meant to get in touch with her to tell her how much we loved it.

David Hirsh at Engage has posted a list of favourite Normblog links, all of which bear re-reading. The Soupy One posted a list of his favroutes on Twitter, which I reproduce below. I'm sure others are doing the same.

Back in 2010, I nominated Norm as a "good influence" on the left:

Norman Geras - a pioneer of political blogging (and therefore influential in opening up on-line audiences to left-wing cranks and crackpots like me), but also a profound thinker of Marxism and its limits, and an inspiration to those of us who like to think that left-wing values of justice and freedom are compatible with moral sense.

At the end of the year, I returned to the theme, with a post on influential left-wing ideas, to which Norm responded, so I'll nominate that post as my special Normblog post, and reproduce it here:

Bob from Brockley has tagged me, among others, for the exercise of suggesting five ideas for the left that are a good influence, five that are a bad influence, and five that aren't influential enough. I plead the season and the need to do some late Christmas shopping this afternoon as my reason for chickening out. As a token of goodwill towards the project, however, I comment below on one each of Bob's own suggestions. 

National sovereignty Bob has down as a bad influence, and he has no trouble alluding to bad usages of that concept, such as the notion of a 'clerical-fascist's right to use his country as a personal fiefdom'. However, I disagree with Bob that the idea of sovereignty is a bad influence. Pending the discovery of some better way for groups of people to band together for mutual protection, the sharing of other social aims, resources and facilities, and the voluntary pursuit of common cultural ways, states based on national (or sometimes multi-national) collectivities are the best way we have. Maybe one day they will be replaced by a more effective global community, but that doesn't look like happening any time soon. Maybe some different institutions than the state will in due course take over its functions. Meanwhile statelessness threatens those afflicted by it with a nightmare. Bob's opening implication that the idea of sovereignty presupposes some metaphysical national 'self' doesn't have to be accepted. All that sovereignty requires is some reality to the idea of a community of individuals sharing a common territory. 

Class analysis, Bob says, from once having been too all-encompassing on the left, at the expense of other types of identity, is now not influential enough. Without it the notion of social justice 'goes adrift'. I agree. 

The one-state solution... Bob gives it the thumbs-up. But, to my mind, he does so on the basis of a misplaced premise; which is (as I read him between the lines) that the idea could come to be accepted voluntarily by Israelis and Palestinians and thereby become consensual. If so, then well and good. But the two-state solution rests on the assumption that this consensus does not obtain, or obtain yet. While it doesn't, a one-state solution can only be coercive and therefore violate the right to self-determination of one or both peoples. We need influential ideas for different possible states of affairs and not only for ones that look out of reach at the moment.

Norm always makes me think again.

Get well soon Norm. Here's a song for you, Emmylou Harris singing Rodney Crowell's "Till I Gain Control Again", from your favourite Emmylou album.

Just read this and this

My run of bad blogging might come to an end soon, but in the meantime read this superb take-down by the Unrepentant Jacobin of the unspeakably awful Glenn Greenwald, who is inexplicably given a platform in the increasingly dishonourable virtual pages of the Guardian. Here is a choice extract, describing GG's world view:

a half-understood kind of dime-store Third Worldism; a gruesome combination of a thoroughgoing Western masochism with an ostensible compassion for the wretched of the earth that masks the same racist condescension and contempt typified by the worst kind of colonialist paternalism.

The other must-read (and somehow related) piece I've read recently is Eve Garrard's "The Pleasures of Anti-Semitism", which argues that hating Jews is fun. "There are (at least) three principal sources of pleasure which anti-Semitism provides: first, the pleasure of hatred; second, the pleasure of tradition, and third, the pleasure of displaying moral purity." She details each of these, with her customary lucidity and rigour. (It comes from the new edition of Fathom, which I've not looked at yet but which looks impressive, with contributions from Michael Walzer and others.)

While I'm here, I will link to some other stuff I've read recently:

Bad blogger

It is thanks only to Sarah, with her stimulating guest post on gender segregation, that this blog has limped through the last few weeks. Still, I'm doing better than Martin, who has popped out of retirement for "POOPCANS", on how liberal infoolectuals can ruin their best books. A wonderful post I missed earlier in the month is Peter Ryley's "Beauty and bestiality", on music and the Shoah. Two more must-reads, both tangential to the left's received wisdom on the late Margaret Thatcher, are Marko Attila Hoare on how Maggie turned us upside down, and Kellie Strom on Terry Glavin's Irish politics. Another is George Szirtes on Hungary's fast track to the past. I also liked Michael Harris on meeting a Chinese dissident on a train. Some important reading is Ben Six's series on Theocracy in the UK.

Some other things that have caught my eye: Two posts on academic boycotts, both via Engage: Jonathan Lowenstein on historical parallels; Raphael Cohen-Almago on the fallacy behind the boycott. The IWCA on UKIP and the working class. Carl Packman on Why David Cameron is right about Syria. Ben Cohen on deepening authoritarianism in Venezuela.

New blogs: Steve H's new music blog: Disaccumulation. Rob Palk's new blog, with posts on War Weariness, Boston Bombing Conspiracies, New Atheists, The Other Side of Orwell and a Defence of Book Snobbery.

Some thoughts on gender segregation

A guest post by Sarah AB

The issue of gender segregation has been in the news again recently.  It’s a topic to which people often react quite emotionally – both ‘sides’ are likely to feel their cherished values are under attack.   I want to try to think through some of the implications of the recent disputes over gender segregation in the context of ideas such secularism, liberalism, pluralism, relativism and consistency.

In the UK, and other similar countries, we accept a certain degree of gender segregation pretty unquestioningly – public toilets and changing rooms are the most obvious example, as well as hospital wards.  Women’s only exercise classes, swimming sessions for example, are fairly common. Although most segregation relates to contexts where sexual modesty is an issue, single sex schools are neither unusual nor particularly controversial. 

Sexual modesty is of course also a significant factor in the preference, on the part of some (mostly Muslims), to segregate in more general social contexts.  The threshold for gender segregation is set much lower, as it is felt desirable to separate even when attending a debate.

At recent events on campuses sexual segregation has been implemented.  There is some dispute as to whether, on various occasions, the segregation was enforced or whether people could choose to mix freely if they preferred.  It is my understanding that both options were available at this event, though I believe at other events complete segregation has been maintained.

Some compare this to apartheid – if conservative Muslims argue that they freely choose to segregate themselves by sex, they are asked in return how they would feel if people chose to segregate themselves by race.  But as people already segregate by sex in other contexts (e.g. toilets) this does not seem fully fair. 

In the context of another sensitive topic, male circumcision, one of the best arguments I’ve heard against those who want to ban the practice relates to unacknowledged inconsistencies on the part of the dominant culture.  Most people don’t want to ban alcohol and tobacco even though, objectively, they could be seen as harmful enough to warrant a ban – that’s because they are part of our culture so we sidestep logic.  But if circumcision isn’t part of one’s culture – then one has no reason to be anything other than coolly rational about the issue and may conclude the practice should be outlawed. 

I tried to think of another activity people might voluntarily decide to engage in at university (like partially gender segregated events) but which was harmful. The first example I came up with was boxing, which the BMA wants to ban.  There are many boxing clubs at British universities. Is it so much more shocking to allow voluntary, partial segregation at a debate or lecture?

This is one reason why I wonder whether it is completely rational to react with end-of-civilisation-as-we-know-it level horror to an event at which one can choose either to sit in a single sex or a mixed group.  In the context of dress it is common for people to argue that women should be allowed to be as modest or immodest as they choose, and that headscarves should neither be banned nor mandated. It is fairly widely accepted (though not of course by all) that it is illiberal to force a woman to remove a garment she has freely chosen to wear without good reason.  Might the same argument not be applied to women (and men) who want to sit apart but have no wish to enforce that preference on others? 

Another reason for pausing and reflecting on one’s responses to gender segregation relates to attitudes towards different groups in society.  Although antisemitism is certainly a very serious problem it does not generally, certainly not so often as anti-Muslim bigotry does, focus on religious practice.  That is just possibly one reason why stories of gender segregation within the context of Judaism don’t seem to press buttons in the same way such stories do when they involve Muslims, stories such as this one about (limited) segregated seating at a concert (for the benefit of Orthodox Jews).  Muslim segregation, by contrast, has attracted the ire not just of atheists and secularists (including Muslim secularists) but also more threatening groups. 

There are various reasons against being phlegmatic about gender segregation. One is that although the choice may seem free to some, for others ‘voluntary’ gender segregation is no such thing – if the option is there they may feel expected to avail themselves of it or be seen as morally lax. (This argument is also used in support of veil bans.)  Although I think this is a very important issue I’m never sure how far one can legislate for coercion.  In countering one sort of possible coercion one is formally, and more decidedly, instating coercion the other way – against those who want to segregate or veil.

Another reason is that sexual segregation is seen as inherently discriminatory against women.  It is certainly the case that segregation often fits this pattern – women’s seats generally seem to be at the back of such events.  It is also the case that arguments in favour of sexual modesty from a religious perspective can seem discriminatory against women.  They tend to frame women as objects of temptation and desire, and it is inaccurately implied that keeping covered up will protect against harassment.  Of course such arguments are also very insulting to men.  But for some, religiously motivated sexual modesty may not be conceived in this way, but as part of a more equally shared burden of virtuous behaviour – and recently in fact Saudi Arabia has expelled three men for being too handsome. 

Another factor which is at least implicit in arguments against segregation is that it is viscerally offensive, it seems to strike at the core of our values and beliefs. But – have we the right not to be offended?

Finally – I’m still not sure what I think about this issue – but it’s important to remember that just because we say something shouldn’t be banned doesn’t need to imply approval.  I certainly don’t welcome the influence of groups such as iERA on campus, or the conservative views on sexuality and gender which provide the impulse behind segregation.

From Jams' archive: Thatcher and Solidarnosc (and Pol Pot)

I was planning to write something about Thatcher's death, and still might do, but for now something not new but timely. I have been browsing through the archives of my late friend Shaun Downey, who, as you know, blogged (wonderfully) as Jams O'Donnell at The Poor Mouth. 

I came across the interesting piece, entitled "The Joy of Realpolitik", from February 2012. I thought this is significant, because her alleged role in defeating Soviet totalitarianism and winning the Cold War is one of the things that Thatcher has been much praised for among the mountains of sickening hagiography from trans-Atlantic hacks and pompous politicians. This post shows how thin that achievement was. I have corrected a couple of Shaun's minor typos; otherwise it is un-edited.

My thanks go to to the excellent James Bloodworth who tweeted this item earlier today (James writes for the Independent and has an excellent blog called Obliged To Offend)*. The tweet relates to an item on Spiegel Online which reveals that the British government in the 80s would have shafted Solidarity.

The article states that German chancellor Helmut Schmidt appeared to be the only top Western politician who was skeptical about the Polish trade union Solidarity in the early 1980s. However, it now seems that Thatcher was also had deep reservations about the movement and its leader Lech Walesa.

New evidence, reported in Monday's SPIEGEL magazine reveals British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was suspicious about the influential movement and Lech Walesa, the man who later became a Nobel Laureate.

In September 1981, British Premier Thatcher even considered supporting the Eastern bloc regime in Warsaw in quelling Solidarity. This is according to a declassified German Foreign Ministry document. 

According to the document, Thatcher's Foreign Secretary, Lord Peter Carrington, told colleagues in New York that Britain sympathizied with Solidarity. But if Solidarity got out of control and the government had to take repressive measures, it might make sense to help the government, he added.

Carrington had earlier outlined the UK's position, saying that his government only backed Solidarity out of respect for public opinion, but that perhaps, from a more rational position, they would actually be "on the side of the Polish government".

Back then, Warsaw was threatened with insolvency and Thatcher evidently feared that the demands of the workers' movement could trigger a Soviet invasion. A few months later, the Polish communist Leader Wojciech Jaruzelski imposed martial law and the US invoked economic sanctions against Poland. Britain, however, avoided levying sanctions on the country.

The imposition of martial law was a setback for Solidarity. About 100 "political dissidents" died in internment camps. But it did not prevent Solidarity from helping to bring about the end of communist rule in 1989-90. 

To be honest this does not surprise me. While I despise Thatcher and her minions, I know that any other British government would have shafted Solidarnosc in a heartbeat. Western governments pay lip service to freedom and human rights but are happy to cozy up to the nastiest of regimes if it means trade and profit... Look at our relationship with Saudi Arabia for proof of that.

In a similar vein, John Pilger - who had been a hero of both Shaun and me, before we became disillusioned - had an article in the New Statesman about Thatcher's support for Pol Pot, it being 25 years since Pol Pot entered Phnom Penh and the Year Zero genocide began:

In the months and years that followed, the US and China and their allies, notably the Thatcher government, backed Pol Pot in exile in Thailand. He was the enemy of their enemy: Vietnam, whose liberation of Cambodia could never be recognised because it had come from the wrong side of the cold war... 

Until 1989, the British role in Cambodia remained secret. The first reports appeared in the Sunday Telegraph, written by Simon O'Dwyer-Russell, a diplomatic and defence correspondent with close professional and family contacts with the SAS. He revealed that the SAS was training the Pol Pot-led force. Soon afterwards, Jane's Defence Weekly reported that the British training for the "non-communist" members of the "coalition" had been going on "at secret bases in Thailand for more than four years". The instructors were from the SAS, "all serving military personnel, all veterans of the Falklands conflict, led by a captain". 

The Cambodian training became an exclusively British operation after the "Irangate" arms-for-hostages scandal broke in Washington in 1986. "If Congress had found out that Americans were mixed up in clandestine training in Indo-China, let alone with Pol Pot," a Ministry of Defence source told O'Dwyer-Russell, "the balloon would have gone right up. It was one of those classic Thatcher-Reagan arrangements." Moreover, Margaret Thatcher had let slip, to the consternation of the Foreign Office, that "the more reasonable ones in the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in a future government". In 1991, I interviewed a member of "R" (reserve) Squadron of the SAS, who had served on the border. "We trained the KR in a lot of technical stuff - a lot about mines," he said. "We used mines that came originally from Royal Ordnance in Britain, which we got by way of Egypt with marking changed . . . We even gave them psychological training. At first, they wanted to go into the villages and just chop people up. We told them how to go easy . . ." 

The Foreign Office response was to lie. "Britain does not give military aid in any form to the Cambodian factions," stated a parliamentary reply. The then prime minister, Thatcher, wrote to Neil Kinnock: "I confirm that there is no British government involvement of any kind in training, equipping or co-operating with Khmer Rouge forces or those allied to them." On 25 June 1991, after two years of denials, the government finally admitted that the SAS had been secretly training the "resistance" since 1983. A report by Asia Watch filled in the detail: the SAS had taught "the use of improvised explosive devices, booby traps and the manufacture and use of time-delay devices". The author of the report, Rae McGrath (who shared a joint Nobel Peace Prize for the international campaign on landmines), wrote in the Guardian that "the SAS training was a criminally irresponsible and cynical policy".

Via Blood & Treasure, here is Thatcher on Blue Peter, a British BBC children's TV programme from 1983, when I was about ten. The key bit is about three and a half minutes in.

She says: 

Some of the Khmer Rouge, of course, are very different. I think there are probably two parts of the Khmer Rouge, there are those who supported Pol Pot, and then there’s a much, much reasonable grouping within that title, Khmer Rouge.... So, you’ll find that the more reasonable ones of the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in the future government, but only a minority part. I share your utter horror that these terrible things went on in Kampuchea. The United Nations couldn’t do anything about them, none of us could do anything about them. They were absolutely terrible.

In short, far from being tough on totalitarianism, Thatcher tried to return to power the worst Stalinist dictatorship of the twentieth century for reasons of realpolitik, and for reasons of stability and order contemplated supporting the Polish Communist junta's repression of one of the most powerful movements for freedom to emerge behind the Iron Curtain. Some legacy.


Related posts: The Hitch and Cambodia; GHW /Bush on the wrong side in the Cold War; 25 years of Solidarnosc; From the Cold War to the war on terror.

*For the record, James Bloodworth is now at Left Foot Forward. He wrote this fine post in anticipation of Thatcher's death over a year ago. I will try and post some more gems from Shaun's archive over the coming weeks, as well as links to some of the moving obituaries to him in the blogosphere.