Weekly Worker 613 Thursday February 23 2006 Subscribe to the Weekly Worker

Censorship rally

Hyperbole and irrationality were the order of the day at Respect’s London rally, reports Mark Fischer

Respect’s February 17 rally, ‘Islamophobia, the war and freedom of speech’, was opened by chair Linda Smith of the Fire Brigades Union with the comment that it was “absolutely right that Respect is discussing this”.

The problem was, of course, that not only was there precious little “discussing” on the night - there were no contributions from the floor and no important differences on the platform - but the SWP-Respect party seems intent on closing down any space in the movement where the issues associated with this complex question can be rationally debated at all.

This is being attempted via the tried and trusted SWP method of making a number of stark assertions about the current controversy, issuing dark, overblown warnings about what it all portends, then cautioning those raising doubts and differences that they are effectively giving succour to the enemy. It’s very simple - all that needs to concern you is “Whose side are you on?”, as George Galloway bluntly told us.

Thus, the meeting was uncomfortable for me and, I’m sure, anyone else who dissents from the crude, semi-hysterical analysis that constituted the consensus of the majority. In the contributions of three of the speakers - Yvonne Ridley, John Rees and George Galloway - the essential elements of this outlook were sketched out:

‘It’s all about racism’

Yvonne Ridley’s bizarre notion that “my faith is my nationality and when you attack it you are being racist” is particular odd to hear coming from the mouth of a middle class, white English woman. Yet this line of reasoning is clearly at the core of the SWP’s response to the furore around the Danish cartoons. Given the dominant culture of official anti-racism and multiculturalism, the repetition of the ‘R’ word is an attempt to outrage what are essentially liberal sentiments in much the same way as the SWP labels the most diverse rightwing forces as ‘Nazi’ in order slipstream the national chauvinist myth of Britain’s ‘democratic crusade’ in World War II.

The simple fact is that, despite the rhetoric, the muslim population and its spokespeople are responding to the attacks on them as a religion. That is their reality, in other words.

‘Pogrom in the air’

Again, Yvonne Ridley articulated this theme in the most eccentric way when she mused, “How long it will be before [Blair] invites the grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan to tea?” Er, a bloody long time, I would have thought, Yvonne …

Comrades Galloway and Rees were less loopy, but their comments contained the same attempt to draw parallels between the 1930s and the disastrous fate of European Jews with a sort of ‘creeping holocaust’ starting to menace the muslims. This was rather undermined by a passage in comrade Rees’s speech where he spoke about the dangers of sections of the muslim population being enticed by knighthoods and various other inducements from the establishment.

Rees recognises the process of incorporation going on here (is that really compatible with his “nasty pre-pogrom air”?) and - unsurprisingly - it has ‘carrot and stick’ elements. The SWP-Respect thus correctly rail against the ‘stick’ of the recent ‘glorifying terrorism’ legislation - Galloway’s final words were drowned out in thunderous applause, as he ended with a gauntlet thrown down to Blair that he “will continue as long as I have breath to glorify - yes, glorify - those who have taken up arms to fight against your criminal wars and your occupation of their countries”.

Yet, idiotically, it simultaneously supports the ‘carrot’ of the government’s offensive - the most recent of which being the legislation on religious hatred, of course. Indeed, on this question Rees, Galloway et al constituted themselves as rabid opponents of free speech, blasting the Blair government for watering down the final legislation in the face of opposition. This is perhaps the most worrying of this organisation’s response to recent political developments - there was a palpable sense of resentment and even contempt in the hall whenever the words ‘freedom of speech’ were used …

‘Talk of free speech is simply hypocrisy’

John Rees effectively rubbished the BBC’s claims to be on the side of free speech - but that is hardly the point. Actually, it should be our movement that is the consistent champion of freedom of expression. Instead, the very notion was equated with the hypocrites in the rightwing media and in effect the message we were meant to take away from the rally was that all talk of it was “utterly hollow”, as Galloway put it.

Galloway used the idea that if the Nazis had covered Liverpool Street station with their posters, it would be quite right to rip them down. The Respect MP’s notion of leading the 350-plus audience out into the brisk February night to tear down these imaginary posters is actually profoundly misleading, despite the ovation he received for it. In fact, the SWP-Respect are not advocating the tactics of militant struggle to deal with chauvinist ideas - which can legitimately include workers’ boycotts, strike action and physical confrontations, of course. Communists are not sanguine pacifists or neutral on the propagation of such deeply reactionary ideas in our society.

However, through its vociferous support of the religious hatred legislation and its thoroughly censorial approach to the controversy around the Danish cartoons, our main enemy - the British state - is being urged by the SWP-Respect to take on new, expanded powers to decide what is to be deemed ‘legitimate’ debate, where the parameters of ‘free speech’ begin and end. Galloway’s fantasy would have been more realistic if it had ended with him suggesting a call to the local police to come to deal with the matter - although he probably would not have got such a cheer if his story had ended as limply as that.

Some comrades I spoke to on the night were pretty cynical about the whole affair. It was suggested that the pro-islam aspect of the proceedings was being hyped up to claw back some ground lost in the aftermath of George’s Big brother slow-motion political car crash. It is certainly true that this SWP-Respect meeting was the most saturated in religion I have been to. Comrade Oliur Rahman’s speech emphasised his personal faith and self-identification as a muslim more than I have ever heard him do before and in the contributions of other speakers there was a constant pro-islam slippage.

For instance, John Rees observed that “there are some religions that are overwhelmingly held by the poor and excluded and there are some religions that back up the establishment, the rich and the powerful. So when the rich and the powerful attack the religion of the poor and excluded, then everyone should know what side they are on”.

Yes, comrade Rees. We are on the side of the poor and excluded, not on the side of their religion per se. Islam in some parts of the world is not simply the belief system of the oppressed, but a state religion of the oppressors - or of deeply reactionary, anti-democratic movements that pose threats not simply to imperialism, but to the democratic rights and physical well-being of the masses themselves.

The lack of contributions from the floor perhaps masked the level of unease amongst some in the audience with what they had heard. Certainly, non-SWP Respect members expressed grave disquiet to our paper-sellers. However, judging from the level of applause and enthusiasm that greeted even the more bizarre statements from the platform, the SWP-Respect party formation is evolving in a very worrying direction, at a very worrying pace.

Print this page