Bremner, Islam…and fear
Rory Bremner, a leftist satirist, was interviewed as part of a Channel 4 show on “satire” that appeared last night. He said this:
“With Islam, you’re in a situation now, which I’ve never been in before, which is that when you’re writing a sketch about Islam, I’m writing a line and I think ‘If this goes down badly, I’m writing my own death warrant there.’
“‘Because there are are people who will say ‘Not only do I not think that’s funny but I’m going to kill you’ – and that’s chilling.”
I’ve been thinking about Bremner’s words ever since, and reckon they’re quite important. At one level, he’s merely stating the obvious: that the willingness of Islamic fundamentalist extremists to kill people creates an atmosphere of fear that western satirists are not used to dealing with. When I first got involved with the far left, in the 1970′s, hostility towards religion was taken as read; satire (like Monty Python’s ‘Life of Brian’) was unquestioned; the idea that we might possibly, under *any* conceivable circumstances defend religion or have ”respect” for (as opposed to *understanding* of) the feelings of religious people, was unthinkable. Socialist Worker and the International Socialists, in particular, were vigorously secular and anti-religious.
The tide turned after the Salman Rushdie / ‘Satanic Verses’ row in 1988, when some elements on the ”left” (noteably the SWP who had initially defended Rushdie, then changed their mind) turned against free speech and in favour of “respect” towards religion. This was the beginning of relativism as a force to be reckoned with in “left” politics in Britain.
The SWP, in particular, championed an unprecedented leftist softness towards religion and expended great efforts to misrepresent Marx and miseducate young comrades on the question of religion, up to and including what he meant by the “sigh of the oppressed.” The SWP’s bastard offspring, “Respect”, led by the shyster/poseur Galloway, a proclaimed, political Catholic who hinted at a forthcoming conversion to Islam, further challenged the internationalist left’s traditional secularism.
We all know that the BBC and other mainstream media from the Sun to the Guardian, have long avoided any criticism of Islam. The sort of attacks on Christianity, Judaism and Hindusim, that are acceptable, and indeed, welcomed, by leftists, are now deemed “unacceptable” in “left” circles, when applied to Islam.
The reasons for this are mixed; as is so often the case there is a “good” reason:
Muslims are amongst the poorest and most disadvantaged people in Britain today. The left, quite rightly, wants to support Muslim people. Islamist radicals have been fostering a sense of victimhood within Muslim communities for some years. No reasonable person would want to increase the sense of victimhood by gratuitously insulting Islam. The “left”, in particular, wants to be seen as defenders of the oppressed. But our true role must be to champion working class people in the workplace and , and to fight for equal rights in the communities- not to defend religious and social backwardness.
But there is a “real” reason: the “left” (which for the purposed of this article, includes the “establishment” liberal/left of the Guardian and the BBC) is afraid of the virile, aggressive religion of Islam, in a way that it isn’t of liberal, decadent Christianity.
And the establishment liberals are afraid because they’ve been told, by Muslim fundamentalists, “Upset us and we’ll kill you.”
Rory Bremner has acknowledged that simple fear often lies behind the reluctance of the mainstream media, comedians and satirists, to treat Islam as they treat Christianity and all other religions.
We on the left need to reassert what used to be a trusim: that it is possible to defend immigrant communities against attack, whilst not defending their cultural traditions – especially when those traditions are thoroughly reactionary. And we must defend the right to attack and ridicule religion and defend free speech . “Leftist” like the SWP who have equivocated on any or all of that are, quite simply, traitors to the enlightenment and to Marxism.
David D. said,
June 18, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Sshh, Jim, not so loud!
Laban said,
June 18, 2010 at 10:17 pm
General agreement but two teensy caveats :
1) I don’t often agree with Andy Newman, but he’s right that this ‘traitors to the enlightenment’ stuff is so much eyewash. ‘Enlightenment values’ is code for ‘the social changes which started in the 1960s’ – nothing at all to do with Voltaire, eighteenth-century Edinburgh or socialist politics as understood up to that point in time.
The values of Attlee’s administration, for example, would have presented few problems for a religious Muslim.
2) “Muslim people are amongst the poorest and most disadvantaged people in Britain today.”
They are also the most successful people in Britain today, if success is measured in demographic terms – which in the long run are the only terms that count in a democracy. To measure success in cash terms is to set a false scale of values, surprising in one who claims to be of the left.
Let us take two imagined communities, X (97% of population, average wealth 50K) and Y(3% of population, average wealth 15K). No doubt about who the successful community are. But if after 100 years X are 40% of population, average wealth 80K, Y are 60% with average wealth 20K, you’d have to be pretty blinkered to claim X as the most successful group.
A 30% increase in 4 years – well, you do the maths. Compound interest is a wonderful thing.
shug said,
June 19, 2010 at 4:43 am
Povery and aspiration.Capital induced philosophy,divided by the trinity of gospel.
Socialism,by nurture is the door step.
johng said,
June 19, 2010 at 8:29 am
Could you perhaps explain how the SWP ‘misrepresented’ what Marx said in his article about how criticising religion without criticising capitalism is a waste of time? It might be useful.
resistor said,
June 19, 2010 at 8:58 am
‘They are also the most successful people in Britain today, if success is measured in demographic terms – which in the long run are the only terms that count in a democracy.’
Racism, pure and simple.
Jim Denham said,
June 19, 2010 at 9:26 am
John, I (together with many others) have already done so here and elsewhere. If you are too thick or prejudiced to understand it’s probably a waste of time continuing, but try this:
http://www.workersliberty.org/node/5953
charliethechulo said,
June 19, 2010 at 9:33 am
resister (on Laban): “Racism, pure and simple”
Probably true, resister: but we also publish your anti-semitic rants, don’t we?
Max Dunbar said,
June 19, 2010 at 10:27 am
Laban
If you’re poor and live on a sink estate, it’s no comfort that others are poor and there are lots of sink estates.
We’re all getting bored of this Eurabia/BNP stuff. You’ve had your say. Now why don’t you shut up?
Jim
Great post but two points:
1) The pro-faith mentality goes beyond Islam – Eagleton’s books, SU/CiF defence of the Pope over child rape scandals, silence on the Christian fundamentalist elements in government
2) It’s not just fear but power – as we saw with Galloway/Respect, a pro-faith line can deliver votes. Power is what these people want more than anything. Galloway would align with the EDL if he thought there was money or status to be gained by doing so.
Steve said,
June 19, 2010 at 10:38 am
Rory Bremer a leftist, that nicely sums up Shiraz leftism.
maxdunbar said,
June 19, 2010 at 11:19 am
And you can fuck off too.
bill said,
June 19, 2010 at 3:13 pm
The Christian West was than under constant threat from Muslim rule for almost a thousand years, since the massive migration of the Islamic Muslims on the seventh century into the lands of the Byzantine and the pre-Islamic Persian empires in an unprecedented speed and scale.
But following the passing of the Cold War, a Russian gesture to welcome the West onboard the space station, the West in return declared a quasi war on Islam from space, that declaration was formalized by the Muslims on the 11th of September 2001, to continue their seized on the Christian front since the 7th century for almost a thousand years, albeit after a long a tea-break in the early 20th century, or sleeping on the job.
maxdunbar said,
June 19, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Yeah, I heard you can get a cream for that
Steve said,
June 20, 2010 at 9:18 am
“The Christian West was than under constant threat from Muslim rule for almost a thousand years”
Have you heard of the crusades or what?
Why is this race theory of history or whatever the fuck it is allowed to go unchallenged on a socialist website?
Laban said,
June 20, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Max – can I shut up when a socialist website stops defining success in terms of money ?
Shelley took a different view,
“Ye are many – they are few”
Laban said,
June 20, 2010 at 3:47 pm
and re resistors ‘stupidity, pure and simple’ – when any group of people – or even a subset of that group – hold political or social views which are problematic, then the size of that group becomes important. If there were 15 Muslims in the UK, all in the Isle of Lewis, you wouldn’t be writing this. And if there were 48 million I don’t think you’d be writing this either..
But I’m sorry to embarrass you – on consideration, it’s a politically brave post – and the last thing you need is a born-again rightie agreeing with you.
I feel the same when anti-semites (the Jewish conspiracy types) post comments on my blog. The difference is that they are wrong and I’m right
resistor said,
June 20, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Laban’s racist hero and role model,
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2280.shtml
Speaking at the third annual Herzliya conference, Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his audience: “It is not the Palestinians who pose a demographic threat, since one day they will benefit from self-determination, but the Israeli-Arab population. The most important thing is maintaining the Jewish majority in the country and improving the economy to encourage more Jews from the Diaspora to immigrate.” If the Palestinians in Israel “reach 35 to 40 percent of the Israeli population, Israel will become a state with two nationalities,” he said.
‘…and the last thing you need is a born-again rightie agreeing with you.’
That gives the game away.
charliethechulo said,
June 20, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Even so, that’s slightly less racist than “resister”‘s position of wanting Israel wiped out.
Laban said,
June 20, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Give me Yoni over Benji any day.
resistor said,
June 21, 2010 at 9:44 am
Still making stuff up Charlie?
Meanwhile not all Zionists have Laban’s racist attitudes
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/strenger-than-fiction/strenger-than-fiction-israel-should-consider-a-one-state-solution-1.296976
skidmarx said,
June 21, 2010 at 10:32 am
<i.noteably the SWP who had initially defended Rushdie, then changed their mind
I don’t think the SWP ever changed its mind about his right to publish. I remember Talat Ahmed setting out the party’s position (I think after a Time To Go conference in 1989) that such was the case, but the whirlwind of anti-Muslim feeling that swirled up meant that the party had to fight racism as a priority.
I was walking through Nottingham with a young guy a few years ago who said to me “I’m not bothered what people call me, but when you call someone a Paki they get all upset”. I tried to explain that if you face such insults on a daily basis, sometimes followed up by physical attacks (and I’d now add with an overarching demonisation by the media) it’s not surprising that they have less of a sense of humour. I have a lot of sympathy with Bremner, as it is hard to make good comedy when you’re looking over your shoulder, and have less sympathy for religious belief in general than seems to be the SWP line these days, but I do think it is important not to allow the criticism of religion to be a tool of oppression, and I think you are in danger of being such tools.
Jim Denham said,
June 24, 2010 at 11:42 pm
Skidmarx: I seem to reacall Alex Callinicos stating in the last few years that the SWP had been wrong to have supported Rushdie and if the same situation happened now, they wouldn’t offer such support to a blaspheming author..
skidmarx said,
June 25, 2010 at 10:42 am
I doubt if he´d have used the word “blaspheming” in this context, so I am quite doubtful that this is the case.
resistor said,
June 25, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Jim Denham caught fibbing yet again
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=8243
Freedom to spread hate?
Should free speech extend to Nazi leader Nick Griffin?
The furore over the Danish cartoons shows the growth of Islamophobia, writes Alex Callinicos
‘Many commentators have compared the Danish cartoons row with the furore provoked by Salman Rushdie’s 1988 novel The Satanic Verses. In it Rushdie presented a fictional, alternative history of the origins of Islam.
The book caused great offence among Muslims, including many in Britain, and led to the Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini issuing a judgment (fatwa) condemning Rushdie to death.
There is no comparison between The Satanic Verses and the Danish cartoons. The latter are crude attempts to insult Muslims, while Rushdie’s novel was a complex work of art by an author of Indian Muslim origins who was trying explore the roots of the faith into which he was born.
Socialist Worker defended Rushdie’s right to publish The Satanic Verses. But we also recognised the real anger and hurt the novel caused among Muslims in Britain and other Western societies.
The book, rightly or wrongly, came to symbolise the humiliation and discrimination Muslims suffered, and indeed continue to suffer.’
As for me, I too defend Rushdie’s right to publish his dreadful books (having read Midnght’s Children and Shame, I just wish he hadn’t bothered) and his right to live in freedom and safety. His only crimes were against literature.
This is good
http://www.newstatesman.com/199904090035
The emperor’s new clothes. Salman Rushdie has written an alarming new kind of anti-literature, with banal obsessions and empty bombast, pseudo-characters and non-events
Pankaj Mishra
Published 09 April 1999
The Ground Beneath Her Feet Salman Rushdie Jonathan Cape, 448pp, £18
Cugel the Clever said,
June 28, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Hilarious. The moment the excrement of Islamism is mentioned along come the flies to feast. I wouldn’t eat next to resistor though Steve and Skidmarx – he’s so greedy for this stuff he’s likely to stuff himself until he bursts!
What a bunch (herd?) of fuckpigs. They’d suck theocratic cock right up to the moment they’re throats are cut.
skidmarx said,
June 28, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Maybe a wallow.And Western is good.