Islam4UK – a test case for dissent

Home Secretary Alan Johnson has announced that being a member of Islam4UK is to become an offence which can get you a ten year prison sentence. In other incarnations they have also traded under the names Al Muhajiroun, Call to Submission, Islamic Path, and London School of Sharia. Most of this site’s core readership are…

Liam

January 12, 2010

1–2 minutes

Most of this site’s core readership are unlikely to be attracted by Islam4UK’s programme of a Saudi style sharia or its tactics of advertising that you intend to go to a place with the deliberate intention of causing as much offence as possible. If we were use the spectrum of bonkers Trotskyist groups as a yardstick it would be in that narrow band between the Spartacist League and the ones who anticipated that socialism would be brought to earth by space travellers from a more advanced alien culture. They are an utterly marginal bunch.

Johnson’s decision to ban them is completely wrong. He is using anti-terror legislation against an outfit which has not killed anyone, blown anything up or been accused of these things. Groups supporting the Republican Movement in both Britain and the north of Ireland had relative freedom to raise money for prisoners, hold public meetings and carry out open political work all through the IRA’s armed struggle without a fraction of the pressure that Islam4UK is coming under. The inescapable conclusion is that race and religion are major factors in Johnson’s decision. Islam4UK is determined to make it easy for him. Theirs is the classic mentality of the sect which sees everyone and everything in the outside world as hostile or treacherous. They have eschewed making alliances with other forces in the anti-war movement and seem to regard every Muslim who does not agree with them as a heretic.

Islam4UK’s core message that has got it banned is opposition to the imperialist war in Afghanistan and it, in a very crude way, offered a critique of the current ideological drive to present the occupying armies as social workers with guns. By banning them for saying that Johnson has moved to narrow the parameters for dissent against imperialist war.

75 responses to “Islam4UK – a test case for dissent”

andy newman

January 12, 2010 at 11:08 am

i agree 100%

LikeLike

Reply
The Bunk

January 12, 2010 at 12:21 pm

I agree 116%

LikeLike

Reply
Mark Victorystooge

January 12, 2010 at 1:32 pm

The Terrorism Act 2000, which became law before 9/11,is wider-ranging than the PTA and makes it much easier to proscribe organisations. It also has very broad definitions of what supporting such an organisation constitutes. This is not the first group banned in this way and won’t be the last.
You could ask though why the British left, or at least sections thereof, don’t get banned. Is it just too marginal?

LikeLike

Reply
entdinglichung

January 12, 2010 at 1:38 pm

off topic: sad news, Daniel Bensaïd is dead

LikeLike

Reply
skidmarx

January 12, 2010 at 2:04 pm

Alan Johnson clearly agrees with one of their placards that “Freedom can go to Hell”.

Islam4UK is determined to make it easy for him. Theirs is the classic mentality of the sect which sees everyone and everything in the outside world as hostile or treacherous.
Well, yes and no.Perhaps it is part of their strategy to incite over-reaction, but that shouldn’t prevent all of the blame being placed on an illiberal government unwilling to distinguish dissent from terrorism.
Maybe if they’re willing to take things through the crusaders’ courts they could get the decision reversed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8453878.stm
or maybe we’ll see them again as “Islam5UK”.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark Victorystooge

January 12, 2010 at 2:41 pm

I don’t know that they made it “easy” for him. Whole-hearted, candidly expressed anti-imperialism is at least potentially illegal anyway in the UK. They managed to annoy the government, something that may be beyond the left’s power. Hence the ban.

LikeLike

Reply
fiannanahalba

January 12, 2010 at 3:31 pm

Not much chance of any socialist or faux socialist group in the disUK getting banned is there? Bad form from Johnson though militant muslims arent going to be bowing to the brit state because of their ban. Wasnt Tony Benn a supporter, when he was an MP in the 70s of the PTA?

LikeLike

Reply
fiannanahalba

January 12, 2010 at 3:38 pm

ABUSIVE COMMENT DELETED.

IF READERS HAVE GRIPES ABOUT THE EDITORIAL POLICY OF OTHER SITES THEY CAN RAISE THEM ELSEWHERE.

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

January 12, 2010 at 4:26 pm

Ahh, there’s nothing like a bit of moralising denunciation to illuminate a current political issue.

The race and religion aspect of this is important. You can walk into any branch of HMV and buy a copy of The Wind That Shakes The Barley. In one scene two British soldiers are shot in a pub and in another a British patrol is wiped out by the IRA. This is followed by a speech justifying the action. It would be a brave director today who showed similar scenes in a film about Iraq or Afghanistan casting the killers as morally unambiguous. Ken Loach got away with it not just on account of the historical distance.

LikeLike

Reply
I4NI

January 12, 2010 at 4:37 pm

HMG and the BBC seems to be whipping up the auld Islamophobia and this latest action through brutish courts it is hardly surprising ‘of the 60 organisations proscribed under terrorism legislation in the UK, 14 of them are from Northern Ireland’ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8454479.stm though not yet banned eirigi have taken up todays euro court judgement on section 44 and the rise in provocative stop and searches http://www.eirigi.org/latest/latest120110.html

@skidmarx Its a wonder Rambo III isn’t banned next.

After the Yemen hysteria there was that poll themselves, some German channel and ABC made up about an increase in Afghans actually supporting the occupation was quite revealing too it began with ‘dark Dickensian Afghan industry’ last night below is Miliband as I can’t find the news channels video.. I wonder what Socialist alternatives are being proffered? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8452424.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8453366.stm http://www.socialistparty.net/index.php/news/international/220-afghanistan-will-this-be-obamas-vietnam.html

“You look different without a cap.”

“You look different without the jump suits.”

‘The scene of this current exchange of pleasantries couldn’t be more different from where they last met – a television studio in London. Also here is Shafiq Rasul, a fellow ex-Guantanamo prisoner, without whose Facebook page the reunion would never have happened. ‘
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8452937.stm

‘The meeting with the ambassador, Ahmet Oguz Celikkol, was called over the fictional television series Valley of the Wolves, popular in Turkey. ‘It depicts Israeli intelligence operatives running operations to kidnap babies and convert them to Judaism. Last October Israel complained over another Turkish series, which depicted Israeli soldiers killing Palestinians. In one clip, an Israeli soldier shoots dead a smiling young girl at close range.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8453694.stm

LikeLike

Reply
prianikoff

January 12, 2010 at 5:30 pm

The ban should be lifted.
Not only should trade union branches be passing motions to that effect, but they should also be organising protests against the Afghan War.

The ludicrous slogans of the religious crackpots of Islam4UK have been a gift the the EDL and the right wing of the Labour Party. They have absolutely no mass support whatsoever and the backlash they’ve provoked threatens the Civil Liberties of the anti-war left as a whole.

A mass TU backed presence in Wooton Basset would be a good way to build a movement against the jingoist emotional blackmail that’s being orchestrated by the government and the military brass.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark Victorystooge

January 12, 2010 at 6:32 pm

Early 2001, I discussed the Terrorism Act 2000 with someone else, noting that there was little or no response by the left to its draconian provisions. The other person replied that this was because the left didn’t think it applied to them as they were not “terrorist”.
Civil liberties in the UK have been poured down the drain since at least 2001, if not earlier.

LikeLike

Reply
andy newman

January 12, 2010 at 9:27 pm

A mass TU backed presence in Wooton Basset would be a good way to build a movement against the jingoist emotional blackmail that’s being orchestrated by the government and the military brass.

I can assure you that such a march would be opposed by trade unions in the Wiltshire and Swindon area. It is simply not politically viable.

As it happens a number of EDL football hooligan types turned up in bassett at the weekend, bacsye they had received facebook tip off that Islam4UK were holding an impromptu. They hung around for a bit then pissed off.

This was no bad thing, because it is being seen locallly that it is the right wing, first Griffin, now EDL trying to make political capital out of the dead soldiers.

You have to understand this, the political situation is volatile, but not pro-war. Witness the good reception salma got on question time.

Any specifically anti-war march or protest in bassett will be resented and backfire on us.

For sure, have a protest against the Afghan wear dead. But do it somewhere else.

LikeLike

Reply
fiannanahalba

January 13, 2010 at 12:58 am

Wooton Bassett is sacred ground for Brutish imperialism.
Newman is right the poster who calls on the tame unions to organise an anti imperialism anti war gig in WB is completely oblivious to the state of the tame unions in Engerland today. ABUSE DELETED.
Islam4UK are proscribed under terrorism legislation and the idea that any left group or grouplet of the great Brutish left would face a ban is risible. Pincher the brit spy was on the ball when he described the left in England as being as dangerous as a pondful of ducks. Toytown revolutionaries the lot of them- careers they have and careers they want will always be more important to them than the inside of a prison cell for their political beliefs. I have more respect for the pacifists of ploughsharesthan all the brit left not so revolutionaries put together.

LikeLike

Reply
fiannanahalba

January 13, 2010 at 1:01 am

Andy where do you suggest this protest should take place, Hyde Park? Trafalgar Skwerr? Somewhere out of sight of the patriotic english working class?

LikeLike

Reply
prianikoff

January 13, 2010 at 6:57 am

Depends on what basis such a protest was organised.
Standing around shouting “murderer” and “rapist” at a soldiers’ funeral is a guaranteed loser.
Especially if the demonstrators are *exclusively* South Asian, male, obscurantist Muslims.
A national demo organised by the TUC that was respectful of the dead, but critical of the government & war might actually work.
If no one calls for it, we’ll never find out.

LikeLike

Reply
fiannanahalba

January 13, 2010 at 11:06 am

All the hard left and the anti-imperialists of a progressive stripe should pull together and organise it for Wooton Bassett, test the imperialists resolve to see if they ban it. Only with an organised hard left will there be the possibility of gaining some leverage over the more militant end of the tame union spectrum and getting some branch and rank and file support. Perhaps Galloway, Yaqoob and Benn could be utilised as focal points for media attention, if they baulk then they and their ilk would be exposed in the eyes of miltant workers and anti imperialists.
I dont think its likely to materialise as the brit left sects and the middle class careerists couldnt agree on such elementary practice.

LikeLike

Reply
Joseph Kisolo

January 13, 2010 at 2:15 pm

Isam4UK seem to me to operate with the same tactics as direct action anarchists. It is unimportant to them whether they win over the masses or even whether they garner the support of those against the war. They don’t even care about the opinions of the wider Muslim population. Their goal seemed to outflank the anti-imperialist left to attract those already pissed off and looking for a ‘harder’ form of opposition.

Calling for the left to organise a march in Wooton Bassett, is like calling for the left to support smashing up Maccy D’s (as on the early anti-capitalist marches). We shouldn’t have anything fundamentally against either of those action but we should recognise that unless backed by huge mass they are tactically stupid.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark Victorystooge

January 13, 2010 at 4:28 pm

Can you actually talk of an “anti-imperialist left” in Britain? Some of the left even purvey pro-imperialist ideas, and many of those who don’t overtly seem not to be a million miles from it.
I have referred to it before, but it perhaps bears repeating. The “huge mass” at the Gaza demos a year ago came from Muslims, as did most of the militancy. The left was neither numerically dominant, nor particularly militant. Outflanking a pallid and palsied left would not seem to be particularly difficult. Islam4UK attracted a lot of publicity in Muslim countries, much of it sympathetic or at least non-commital. It attracted a lot of publicity in the British media, of a hostile, “this is the enemy” nature, but was certainly not ignored. And its banning merely suggests that it was a force too radical to handle, and illustrates how uncommitted the “free world” is to freedom in practice. An interesting saga – can the left learn from it – or will it go on being irrelevant?

LikeLike

Reply
fiannanahalba

January 13, 2010 at 4:57 pm

Excellent comment from Mark there. The true anti imperialist left in the disUK is tiny- not even the majority of those self described Marxists and Leninists follow Lenins position or for that Trotskys. The great british fakers are contemptible and as trotters said deserve to be branded with infamy if not a bullet.

LikeLike

Reply
Charlie Pottins

January 16, 2010 at 7:10 pm

What a load of romantic nonsense is spouted in the name of “anti-imperialism”. And how insulting to the majority of Muslims in Britain, as well as the working class movement.
How can we possibly come up to the exacting standards of these “anti-imperialist” fighters with their need to conceal themselves behind noms de guerre and their admiration for whichever deranged provocateurs are set up for them by the media? And why the hell should we try?
Islam4UK managed half-a-dozen fools to stage an incident in Luton -a town with one of the biggest Muslim populations in the country – and lo and behold the English Defence League appeared on the scene. Ever wonder who’s writing the script?
The state has been desperate for public support for its wars, and trying to use shows of public respect and sympathy for soldiers and their families to somehow turn it into that support. But people can distinguish between soldiers and government, and the stunts were not working.
So wheel out Islam4uk saying it it is going to Wootton Basset. But now it has outlived its usefulness and can be put back in the cupboard -albeit with the ban to “suggest it was a force too radical to handle”. A force? radical? Your contributors should really get out more.

LikeLike

Reply
fiannanahalba

January 16, 2010 at 7:46 pm

Nothing was as radical a force as the good old WRP Charlie.

LikeLike

Reply
Joe Dyke

January 17, 2010 at 12:06 pm

If you are interested in Islam4UK read my exclusive interview with their leader Anjem Choudary

http://tinyurl.com/yg483zs

LikeLike

Reply
Mark Victorystooge

January 17, 2010 at 2:36 pm

Ah yes. The WRP.
I remember the Workers Press, the least deranged of the fragments, reputedly.
Their fraternal org stood in Namibia’s elections in 1992 or thereabouts, polled about 120 votes, blamed this obvious failure to ignite the masses on their own use of the hammer and sickle, discredited by Stalinism apparently. Soon after they liquidated themselves. Ha ha ha.
Re Islam4UK, time was a left organisation could have occupied that space, in opposition to imperialist aggression. Only the left doesn’t count, Wonder why that is?

LikeLike

Reply
ID

January 17, 2010 at 5:12 pm

I actually agree (no doubt only episodically) with Charlie Pottins on this question of Islam4UK. There is nothing ‘anti-imperialist’ about their tactical objectives here. We should oppose the bans, but not least of the reasons for doing that is that they actually WANT to be banned. These actions are provocations aimed at acheiving notoriety, deliberately aimed at augmenting the influence of the likes of the EDL in order to increase the isolation of Muslims in British society so that they can be driven down the road of jihadism.

Those Muslims in Luton who previously threatened these people with physical retribution and drove them out of town were on the right track. The Muslim community should treat these people as if they were agents of white fascist groups. Which is what they are, objectively. They have nothing in common with genuinely anti-imperalist Muslim groups such as MAB etc. They are the provocateurs who threatened to kill George Galloway during the 2005 General Election. The left should not regard them as ‘anti-imperialist’ in any way, but as criminal provocateur scum.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark Victorystooge

January 20, 2010 at 10:15 am

They’re simply playing the media rather skilfully, and doing it better than the left does, which tends to be more manipulated by the media than manipulating it.

Current legislation actually makes it quite easy to ban groups. “Lenin’s Tomb” notes correctly that far right supporters can be caught with bomb-making equipment without it pervading the media, much less resulting in organisational bans. The fire-breathing Bolsheviks of the British left don’t get banned, either, though in this case, why ban a pondful of ducks?

There are wider issues, too. Tentatively since the early 1990s, and more firmly since 9/11, radical Islam is the “Other” threatening to strangle us in our beds, replacing the Red Menace.

LikeLike

Reply
ID

January 20, 2010 at 1:04 pm

“They’re simply playing the media rather skilfully”

Yes, they are playing the media rather skillfully.

And their intention is to help the likes of the BNP and the UDF, so they can recruit despairing Muslims to jihadism from the fallout from that. Their relationship to Islamophobic fascists today is similar, all proportions guarded, to some of the worst ZIonists who happily rubbed along with the Nazis in the common purpose of promoting the separation of Jews from the rest of humanity. They have a common interest with the BNP et all in promoting anti-Muslim bigotry.

That ain’t a progressive objective.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark Victorystooge

January 21, 2010 at 1:43 pm

The reality is that the left, in Britain at least, hasn’t got the neck to promote anti-imperialism and so it has to denigrate those who do. Islamists are occupying the space that the left refuses to occupy.
Anti-Muslim bigotry is intrinsic to imperialism, especially post-USSR – blaming Islam4UK for it is the old, old story of blaming the victim. And it is because the left is absent that Islam4UK and suchlike are filling that space.

LikeLike

Reply
ID

January 21, 2010 at 2:20 pm

I’m not so sure these people are filling any space. Except perhaps the kind of space that was filled by the likes of the Stern Gang among Jews a generation ago. What you say is true about supporters of Hamas, or Hizbullah – who are willing to link up with the anti-imperalist left. Many ‘Islamists’ would agree with me that Choudhury and his chums are effectively acting as recruiting agents for the white far right.

LikeLike

Reply
fiannanahalba

January 21, 2010 at 10:35 pm

Mark is correct- the left in Britland are too timid and in awe or more likely fear of the British soldiers and their families to make either a decent fist of anti-imperialism in terms of propaganda or indeed action. The StWC have been a complete failure on every level- even as a recruiting conduit to the woefully misnamed SWP.
The only exception i would cite to this trend are the SSP but even they are mired in pacifism.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark Victorystooge

January 22, 2010 at 2:16 pm

“Choudury and his chums are effectively acting as recruiting agents for the white far right”

Fascism started out as a radical counter-revolutionary response to the left. I’m not talking about the British left of course, I mean a left that scares the bourgeoisie which feels it needs to organise bootboys or worse as a response.
If the British left don’t act as recruiting agents for the far right, it is because nobody sees a few SWP etc. papersellers on a Saturday high street as a threat.

LikeLike

Reply
ID

January 22, 2010 at 3:05 pm

And what makes you think that you are more of a threat to the bourgeois order than the ‘British left’, Mr keyboard warrior and cheerleader for seperatist provocateurs? When you can show some solid achievements in revolutionary struggle, you might be able to credibly make such claims.

The white far right are not a ‘reaction’ to Choudhury’s threat to the bourgeois order, as you absurdly imagine. Rather, they both have a common interest in promoting Islamophobia. Rather like some Zionists and the Nazis had a common interest in promoting anti-semitism. You still can’t address the point made. By your logic Jabotinsky was also a threat to the bourgeois order.

The mass Communist Parties of the past did not have a common interest with fascism in promoting counterrevolution. That is what this analogy implies.

This is the logic of what happens when you seek a substitute for the working class to make revolution. Some tiny bunch of publicity-seeking provocateurs become the substitute vanguard. Risible.

LikeLike

Reply
fiannanahalba

January 22, 2010 at 9:02 pm

Marks position on the left and its ineffectiveness at least poses the correct question, while ID delivers nothing new but a defence of failure. At least acknowledge that the left are in a mire and that they are barely keyboard warriors. They cant even talk a good fight never mind make one in the real world.

LikeLike

Reply
ID

January 23, 2010 at 9:15 am

Well, I’ve not seen evidence that those foolishly championing Choudhury and his little band are anything but keyboard warriors. There are all kind of strange views expressed on the internet, and whatever the problems of the existing left, not all critiques of it are valid. Some critiques are insane. This is one of them.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark Victorystooge

January 23, 2010 at 3:25 pm

Choudury and Islamists in general are occupying a protest space because the left, certainly in Britain, is letting them. And it is letting them because it lacks the confidence to confront imperialism. This makes an interesting contrast with the 1970s for example, but the left in Britain had more self-confidence then.

I have been in several left organisations in Britain over the past two decades or so, was active in them all (and expelled from one, not that this is especially unusual in the British left, see the latest SWP conference kerfuffle). I don’t belong to a British left group currently because none of them are worth it, and it is not as if I don’t know them. The Socialist Alliance was dismantled, the SSP was dismantled (particularly lurid, that), and Respect was dismantled. The SWP has left DNA at the scene of them all, but if it is not itself dismantled or in a state of collapse, it isn’t going anywhere either. There has been mention of the alleged risibility of my views, but the Brit left is intrinsically ridiculous, as all the prior examples show, and the state knows this and feels it is not worth banning.

LikeLike

Reply
ID

January 23, 2010 at 8:31 pm

Islamists are indeed occupying space that in previous generations was occupied by the left. That is far more true in the Middle East than here. But Choudhury and co are a lunatic fringe among Islamists, who actually seek to feed Islamophobia in order to fuel separatism and jihadism. That is not the approach of those actual national liberation movements that have adopted an Islamist ideology such as Hamas and Hizbullah. They are engaged in a real struggle against imperialism’s concrete manifestations in the world.

However, when has abusing rank-and-file troops of any army as killers and scum been anything other than a device to cement the unity of the army and allow the reactionary officers and pro-war politcal leaders to present themselves as the defenders of the ordinary soldier? Those who do this are provocateurs, who know exactly what they are doing … they are consciously aiding the worst imperialist reaction.

Every genuine anti-war and anti-militarist movement has always tried to split the armed forces, ultimately to incite them to refuse to obey the orders of those who sent them there to kill. Funny how this was recognised by the Viet Cong, who directed anti-militarist propganda at American troops, and by the Islamist-led Iranian revolution, which tried and eventually suceeeded in spliltting the Shah’s army. It is also recognised by radical Muslims such as MAB, who have been active alongside the left over Iraq and supported such initatives as Military Families against the War.

But then Choudhury and his mates set up shop and start denouncing rank-and-file soldiers as killers and scum. Not their officers, not those who sent them there, but the soldiers themselves. We are not talking about troops from elite killer units such as the SAS. We are talking about the ordindary rank-and-file soldier in the regular army. I’m sorry, but people who do this are not naive. They know what they are doing – they are consciously seeking to undermine any attempt to appeal to the rank-and file of the army and to drive the ordinary soliders who may come to doubt the justice of the war, into the arms of the officers and politicians.

Choudhury and co are enemies of the left, and enemies of that section of political Islam (a very varied term) that is prepared to unite with the left to fight imperialism. Choudhury and co prefer to unite with the white far right to defeat the left and create despair among Muslims so that they can pick up recruits to a programme that is actually identical, from the other side, of Samuel P Huntingdon’s ‘clash of civilisations’ thesis. Thankfully, they are tiny.

If you think they are in some way better than the left, with all its faults, why doesn’t our friend put his money where his mouth in and join them? I somehow don’t think so, I’ve seen so many poseurs come and go…

LikeLike

Reply
fiannanahalba

January 23, 2010 at 9:07 pm

In Scotland last year Republican Sinn Fein Scotland organised and held an anti British imperialism demonstration at Georges Square in Glasgow on the Armed forces day march past. Despite plenty of notice- there were no lefties or StWC on the protest. Are you saying RSF Scotland are “provocateurs” ID?

Of course they were attacked and in a couple of cases stabbed by enraged loyalist/fascists but the RSF members were entirely local working class and even though they suffered severe physical assault and arrest by the police- this years anti armed forces protest in Glasgow is sure to be bigger and stronger. Can the left learn to be more militantly anti imperialist or will they sit behind their keyboards or in their interminable meetings discussing?

LikeLike

Reply
ID

January 24, 2010 at 10:45 pm

So tell me, do RSF organise demonstrations at dead soldiers’ funeral processions saying in effect ‘scum deserved to die’? Apart from the fact that there are no such funerals of soldiers coming back from the North any more, republicans have always had far too much sense to do that. Why don’t you compare like with like?

Again, you evade the block that exists between Choudhury and the BNP/EDL.

LikeLike

Reply
fiannanahalba

January 25, 2010 at 3:23 am

For a start ID it may have escaped you but over the last twelve months 2 British soldiers were killed by the Irish resistance.

It is you who is evading the challenge put by Mark and myself regarding the lefts inability to mount any real challenge to imperialism leaving a vacuum so ably and easily exploited by I4UK.

You cant even counter the EDL – Stoke saw them massively outnumber the anti-fascists and its got to be said the only people who will be able to stand up to the provocations of the EDL are the most militant muslem youth, certainly not the lecturers of the Brit left and their few followers from middle class students.

The only credible anti-imperialist work is that of the SSP albeit through a fairly pacifistic lense.

LikeLike

Reply
skidmarx

January 25, 2010 at 12:20 pm

Hi ID – you said Choudhury and his mates set up shop and start denouncing rank-and-file soldiers as killers
But they are (killers). And while as socialists we might wish to concentrate our ire on those that sent them, it is the unacceptabilty of criticism of the army that gives Choudary a political space. And while in practice it might be arguable that he aids the far right, I think the claim that they are part of a bloc seems a bit farfetched.

LikeLike

Reply
ID

January 25, 2010 at 1:02 pm

He aids the far right by attacking soldiers, not the army. I don’t accept that no-one criticises the army – the left has done so as long as I remember.

Al Muj and its successors know what they are doing. Its obvious. His crew can be held responsible for creating the political space for the EDL to emerge. There is a mutually reinforcing relationship between Al Muj and the EDL – whether or not you call it a block. Their actions have hurt Muslims. I don’t see what’s wrong with saying that.

LikeLike

Reply
ID

January 25, 2010 at 1:12 pm

fiannanahalba

“For a start ID it may have escaped you but over the last twelve months 2 British soldiers were killed by the Irish resistance.”

Is that more than or less than died in road accidents?

Anyway, you still haven’t shown me where Republicans, Official, Provisional, Real or Continuity, have turned up at military funeral-type events of ordinary soldiers with slogans saying that the dead were scum who got what they deserved.

Such a tactic amounts to provocation against anyone trying to appeal to the ranks of an army against any war. Republicans have never done that. Nor has any intelligent anti-imperialist movement.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark Victorystooge

January 25, 2010 at 2:45 pm

The British establishment is trying to sacralise army funerals and commemorations, implicitly in order to support all that the British army does. If the left does not challenge that, someone like Choudury will – and does.
This is slightly at a tangent, on the subject of what the British army does, last night, a Turkish satellite TV channel broadcast “Bloody Sunday”, a dramatisation of the events of January 30, 1972 in Derry, dubbed into Turkish. The thought of heavily armed British soldiers running amok gunning people down is probably not the shock to the average Turk that it might be to the average Brit.

LikeLike

Reply
ID

January 25, 2010 at 4:31 pm

So you agree that the left should say that soldiers who die in imperialism’s wars are scum who deserve to die?

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

January 25, 2010 at 4:49 pm

Am I the only one who’s starting to find this discussion a bit weird?

LikeLike

Reply
skidmarx

January 25, 2010 at 4:57 pm

And what’s normal?

LikeLike

Reply
fiannanahalba

January 25, 2010 at 5:37 pm

ID of course no-one is advocating disrupting the actual funerals or the corteges of dead imperialist volunteer British soldiers. AFAIK I4UK were planning a protest in Wooton Bassett, purely because it has become the totem of the brit imperialist propaganda campaign. That makes sense from a publicity point of view just as anti fascists head off to some rural spot where the BNP hold there jamboree. I conflate the two deliberately because one feeds the other, British official imperialism is worse than anything the BNP can muster in terms of racism/division of the working class. Im calling on the left, particularly those who describe themselves as revolutionary, to become an open pole of attraction to all anti-imperialists by being exactly that in word and deed. Sadly they have capitulated in deed to social imperialist tendencies which have deep roots in the labour/workers movement of an imperialist centre.

LikeLike

Reply
ID

January 26, 2010 at 9:56 am

“ID of course no-one is advocating disrupting the actual funerals or the corteges of dead imperialist volunteer British soldiers. AFAIK I4UK were planning a protest in Wooton Bassett, purely because it has become the totem of the brit imperialist propaganda campaign.”

Its just as much become a focus of war-weariness and the popular view, that is slowly gathering force, that the Afghan war is pointless and unwinnable. The fact is that Al Muj has turned up at military events aimed at ‘honouring’ dead soldiers with slogans that basically say that those soldiers were scum who got what they deserved. Such slogans are poison to any agitation that aims to build sympathy for anti-war positions in the army.

“British official imperialism is worse than anything the BNP can muster in terms of racism/division of the working class. Im calling on the left, particularly those who describe themselves as revolutionary, to become an open pole of attraction to all anti-imperialists by being exactly that in word and deed. Sadly they have capitulated in deed to social imperialist tendencies which have deep roots in the labour/workers movement of an imperialist centre.”

Actually, you cannot separate the fascists from imperialism. The fascists represent the most consistent imperialist trend. This kind of logic, counterposing the fascists to imperialism and arguing that ‘imperialism’ is worse than the actually existing fascists, reminds me of the RCP in their mid-1980s, Irish Freedom Movement, vintage period. They also argued that fascism was harmless compared to ‘imperialism’ , from which the fascists were a completely seperate, and marginal phenomenon.

That logic is not Marxism, but a form of moralism. The fascists are an integral part of imperalism, its most consistent expression. Those who aid the fascists, by provocative ‘tactics’ that work against encouraging the development of anti-war dissent in and around the army, aid imperialism.

LikeLike

Reply
fiannanahalba

January 26, 2010 at 7:46 pm

You misunderstand my point – im fully aware that fascism is, in the Brit context, an expression of Brit imperialism., however without tackling the social imperialism rife in the working class then we are always on the backfoot when it comes to tackling racism/fascism.
Im touched with your belief that there will be recruits to anti imperialism and socialism from within the volunteer brit army- there may be ones or twos but until a class struggle credible organisation of the working class develops- the volunteer soldiers are not going to be won over. Far better to have a militant anti imperialist left attracting the best of the working class and the muslim youth.

LikeLike

Reply
ID

January 26, 2010 at 11:31 pm

“Im touched with your belief that there will be recruits to anti imperialism and socialism from within the volunteer brit army- there may be ones or twos but until a class struggle credible organisation of the working class develops- the volunteer soldiers are not going to be won over. Far better to have a militant anti imperialist left attracting the best of the working class and the muslim youth.”

Pity I never said anything about such recruits. That is a long way off. However, a class struggle organisation of the working class will seek to promote fraternatization to bring about small beginnings of dissent in the army, which can take all kinds of different forms.

The best of the working class and the Muslim youth are not to be found among Choudhury’s minuscule group of provocateurs, that’s for sure. You must hold them in high regard to speak of them in this way. What certainly is ‘touching’ (or perhaps touched) is your belief that these people represent the ‘best’ of the Muslim youth. If you believe that sympathisers of Al Qaeda such as Al Muj represent the best of Muslim youth then your understanding of Islam is Islamophobic and stereotypical.

LikeLike

Reply
fiannanahalba

January 27, 2010 at 1:26 am

Again you wilfully misrepresent what i said. Inever said I4UK represented the best muslim youth, the lads im referring to are the type of combative youths who despite the uselessness of the current hard left and the attraction of muslim organisations are still winnable on a class basis to a genuinely anti imperialist left, the republican movement in Scotland has fraternal relations with some of these youth- based on the commonality of struggle against imperialism and the street fascists/loyalists.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark Victorystooge

January 27, 2010 at 9:37 am

Let’s face it, the left, or most of it anyway, is largely useless in the UK, and subtly influenced on many levels by the bourgeois state it is supposed to be opposing. So when an Islamist group gets banned, there are perfunctory complaints about the transgression of civil liberties, combined with rather more heart-felt and vindictive shrieks about them being “provocateurs”.

LikeLike

Reply
ID

January 27, 2010 at 9:56 am

I’m fiannanahalba now repudiates the idea that Islam4UK represent the best Muslim youth. If he wasn’t saying that, however, his point becomes somewhat incomprehensible. Since the whole thrust of the argument above is precisely that Islam4UK appeal to some militant anti-imperialist constituency that the left is too cowardly to compete with them for. Now it seems they don’t appeal to that constituency at all.

There have been lots of problems on the left that have prevented the creation of a working class party that could draw in the many Muslim youth that were radicalised by the Iraq anti-war movement, most of whom had no sympathy for Al Muj (who are a despised fringe). Respect had important potential in that regard, but after being stunted and damaged by the SWP’s flawed way of doing things, is now in retreat from its original goal of building an alternative that could unite all struggles against imperialism and capitalism. But making it a point of honour to tail Choudhury and his mates is a bizarre diversion from what is necessary.

LikeLike

Reply
ID

January 27, 2010 at 10:06 am

And Mark Victorystooge, you may not have noticed, but Al Muj have been banned before. Didn’t make such difference then, probably won’t do so now. All they do is disband, come together as individuals, formulate a new name, and carry on. My point, which you still don’t get, is that they WANT to be banned. Its part of their strategy. Yes, we should oppose them being banned – (a) because we don’t support the right to the state to ban such groups, and (b) because in any case, being banned is what they want.

Apparently to state the obvious truth here is to be ‘pro-imperialist’. Well, for me, only the truth is revolutionary.

LikeLike

Reply
fiannanahalba

January 29, 2010 at 1:17 am

Anjem Choudry and another leading light of I4UK must have learned a lot in their student days as members of the SWP.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark Victorystooge

January 29, 2010 at 2:22 pm

Ah, no doubt you have windows into the souls of others. Chodury wants to be banned. Has he told you this? Perhaps Rosa Luxemburg wanted to have her skull caved in by the rifle butt of Jaeger Otto Runge, too. Your appetite for blaming the victim really shows through.
Choudury possibly knew he risked banning etc. (I am quite aware it happened before). Maybe, unlike the British left, he is just not so easily intimidated.
Changes in the Terrorism Act make it much more difficult to avoid proscription by changing your name. As to nothing happening to him, I suspect if he persists, he may indeed be formally charged and imprisoned. And your kind will no doubt say he wanted it. Risible.

LikeLike

Reply
ID

January 29, 2010 at 8:17 pm

“Ah, no doubt you have windows into the souls of others. Chodury wants to be banned. Has he told you this? Perhaps Rosa Luxemburg wanted to have her skull caved in by the rifle butt of Jaeger Otto Runge, too.”

So Choudhury is compared to Rosa Luxemburg. That’s the best joke I’ve heard all year.

He does not need to tell me anything. I judge people by their actions, not simply their words. And his search for political martyrdom is obvious to anyone with any political sense at all. Which excludes this guy, of course.

This is what Salma Yaqoob said about Anjem Choudhury:

“He is a bigot whose goal in life is to provoke division. He engages in these provocations because he is deeply hostile to any coming together of Muslims and non-Muslims. For him, the fact that a majority of the British people – Muslim and non-Muslim – oppose the war in Afghanistan is not something to be celebrated, but is something to be feared.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/05/wootton-bassett-salma-yaqoob

Spot on! I wouldn’t compare Salma Yaqoob with Rosa Luxemburg, for she is not a revolutionary. Its easier to envisage her playing that kind of role by some kind of organic leftward development than Choudhury, however. Among politicised Muslims, Salma is on the left fringe, whereas Choudhury is on the far right. He is in a de-facto bloc with the EDL and the BNP, in that he hopes to benefit from the growth of Islamophobia. If our friend continues to make excuses for him and tail him, that raises questions about his political trajectory as well. I remember similar nonsense from the RCP in the eighties – they are now on the liberarian right. I wonder where ‘Victorystooge’ will end up?

LikeLike

Reply
ID

January 30, 2010 at 12:49 pm

“So Choudhury is compared to Rosa Luxemburg. That’s the best joke I’ve heard all year. ”

Mind you, its still only January….

LikeLike

Reply
Duncan Chapel

January 30, 2010 at 2:05 pm

I do think there’s something useful and well-observed in what Mark Victorystooge is saying. Personally, I don’t think it’s important to consider whether or not Islam4UK wanted to be banned. It’s a tactical choice and it’s the fault of the British government and it’s crazy strategy that such a choice is presented to organisations engaged in propaganda.

However it is the case that Islam4UK is taking a sharp stance against the crimes of the British army which the left is not taking. Personally, I think the demonstration against the troops in Luton showed a lot of élan. If the left had done that, it would have been possible to show that it wasn’t only Muslims who consider this war to be a crime against both humanity and against law. The left could also had military families and ex-servicemen there. They have raised different slogans, which criticised the government and officers, and which supported the actions of anti-war soldiers like Joe Glenton.

Mark is also spot on when he says that these parades are used to sanctify the war and turn these soldiers into heros in order to win more support for the war: more volunteers, more money and more political will. Generally, however, they are not heros: they are working-class people doing their bosses jobs.

The left has, at times, not been sharp enough. STWC is right to run its anti-Blair campaign, but the blame needs to be placed not only on Blair but on capitalism. Starting the argument by talking about the number of British troops killed, as STWC often does, is not the only option. The war isn’t wrong because we need that money for public services or because it’s unwinnable, or because the troops don’t have enough suppliers, or because it’s taking longer than expected, or because “we” were lied to. The arguments raised by STWC are simply not sharp enough to allow the left to out-manoeuvre Islamic groups in the fight for the hearts and minds of young people.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark Victorystooge

January 30, 2010 at 2:56 pm

I picked the Rosa Luxemburg comparison for a reason. Just before WW1, she was convicted of undermining respect for the armed forces (this is the Kaiser’s Germany we are talking about, a highly militarist place) and she was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment, though she did not start her term until 1915. By then, the war had broken out, and after her term was finished she spent another 2.5 years in “protective custody” as the authorities did not want to release such an effective anti-war agitator in the middle of the Great War. She was released just before the Armistice.
There are similarities between her and Choudury. Both have taken a sharp line against glorification of the army, and both were “outsiders” accused of being unpatriotic and even traitorous. Both were attacked by elements of the left (Luxemburg’s anti-militarist stance was questioned by a large part of the SPD even before it voted for war credits). It is easy for the British left to canonise Luxemburg, of course. 1914 is 96 years ago. It is today’s controversies it should be dealing with, and its record is not good.

LikeLike

Reply
Duncan Chapel

January 30, 2010 at 3:00 pm

Anyone else want to relaunch the Campaign against Militarism? I think the still have the old banner in the vasement of the ICA 😉

(Liam, I forgot a /b after British to end the bold. Can you fix that?)

LikeLike

Reply
ID

January 30, 2010 at 5:08 pm

Actually, the most famous work combatting militarism was probably done by Karl Liebknecht. His famous pamphlet ‘Militarism and anti-Militarism’ was banned, and he was jailed, as early as 1907. His pamphlet was an extremely powerful indictment of the military system, and basically seen as one long incitement to disaffection and munity. See no evidence this bears any resemblance to the activities of Al Muj, though.

“It is easy for the British left to canonise Luxemburg, of course. 1914 is 96 years ago. It is today’s controversies it should be dealing with, and its record is not good.”

A funny complaint to make, since the name of one of the Spartacus leaders was dragged into the dispute about the contemporary debate about Al Muj by …. Mark Victorystooge!

In any case, the circumstances today are very different. Britain is in Afghanistan, as it was in Iraq, as a junior partner of and political cover for the United States, not a contender in its own right for world power in an inter-imperialist conflict. This is linked to US domination in the Middle East and West Asia, self-determination, and the US promotion of reaction in the Cold War biting it on the arse in the following decade. To defeat imperialism politically over Afghanistan we have to defeat the ‘clash of civlisations’ thesis – the Islamophobia at the root of todays pro-war ideology.

Tailing after some minuscule group of bigots whose whole ideology is built on that concept – and an attempt to exploit it from the other side – is very foolish. I’m sure the left could do better anti-militarist agitation – though I don’t think the agitation of military families, the Glenton case, etc is bad at all given the difficult times we live in and the weakness of the working class movement in this period.

And I do think that the focus on coffins etc at Wooton Basset is not simply a pro-war focus, but partially reflects weariness as to the stream of corpses coming through there. Of course, the Afghan dead are far greater, but while pointing that out, you also have to take account of the consciousness of those close to the army etc as they begin to question the war.

It is no accident that the Bush administration tried to stop media coverage of the return of body bags from Iraq to the US. Such events always contain an element of sentimental and patriotic ritual.

But the overall question is, do they help or hinder the imperialist war effort at a given time? I think there is considerable evidence that they tend to hinder it. Particuarly when imperialism appears powerless to stop the losses. Turning up with shrill slogans that appear to be directly aimed at denigrating the dead troops is not good anti-war tactics. And some group of fringe Islamists turning up to call the dead troops scum is simply provocation. Salma Yaqoob is quite right about that.

What is wise or not in terms of our own intervention as the left is a matter of tactical discussion, but what is not wise is associating ourselves politically with the likes of Al Muj. Not all Islamist currents are open to being influenced by the left. This one is not our ally, but is consciously trying to undermine us.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark Victorystooge

January 31, 2010 at 2:42 pm

Your attitude to Rosa Luxemburg is ahistorical. Comparisons of her with Choudury are absurd if you simply think of her as a left icon at the safe distance of nearly a century, in another country. But in her day, in Germany, she was often reviled as a foreigner from a widely despised and suspect minority who was allegedly stabbing “our boys” in the back.
In her day, Jews like her were blamed for everything from radical subversion to betraying secrets in wartime (Alfred Dreyfus) to ritual murder of Christians. Today, Muslims are accused of everything from terrorism to stabbing our boys in the back and even female circumcision (this last came up as a comment on a left blog).
As to Islam4UK trying to consciously undermine the left, well, I think people like you on the left make it very easy for them, assuming they really pay that much attention to the left. But you exaggerate the left’s importance. At Gaza protests a year ago, young Muslims I talked to were actually incredulous that non-Muslims were pro-Palestinian, which perhaps tells you how little impact the left really makes out there. Of course, since some sections of the left are pro-Israeli, perhaps the confusion can be explained by that.
As to imperialism changing its spots from her time – nope. Not in essentials. The USA is stronger, the UK weaker, but imperialism as known to Lenin and Luxemburg is still very much with us.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark Victorystooge

January 31, 2010 at 2:44 pm

Small correction to the previous item: Dreyfus didn’t allegedly betray secrets in wartime. I was typing a little quickly as my time in the internet cafe is limited.

LikeLike

Reply
ID

January 31, 2010 at 6:47 pm

“Your attitude to Rosa Luxemburg is ahistorical. Comparisons of her with Choudury are absurd if you simply think of her as a left icon at the safe distance of nearly a century, in another country. But in her day, in Germany, she was often reviled as a foreigner from a widely despised and suspect minority who was allegedly stabbing “our boys” in the back.”

[…]

“In her day, Jews like her were blamed for everything from radical subversion to betraying secrets in wartime (Alfred Dreyfus) to ritual murder of Christians. Today, Muslims are accused of everything from terrorism to stabbing our boys in the back and even female circumcision (this last came up as a comment on a left blog).”

This is not an argument at all. We are not talking about Muslims in general – who are indeed targets of Islamophobia, but Choudhury in particular.

Just because Rosa Luxemburg was Jewish in a period where anti-semitism was rampant, and Choudhury is a Muslim in a period where Islamophobia is rampant, does not make them remotely equivalent. A better comparison would be between Choudhury and those Zionists who made alliances with anti-semites based on common aim of the separation of the Jews from the rest of society.

Salma Yaqoob has been a target of Islamophobia and has courageously fought against it. She is not a revolutionary, but far to the left of Choudhury and in that sense far closer to Rosa Luxemburg. Choudhury and his ilk know full well that they are promoting Islamophobia when they gloat about soldiers deaths and organise marches for Shar’ia law in Britain. Their aim is to promote Islamophobia because they calculate that they will benefit from the despair among Muslims that this would provoke.

He has nothing in common with Rosa Luxemburg, but he does have much in common with those Zionists who were prepared to ally with the Nazis. Objectively, Choudhury is a stooge of the white far right, of the BNP and EDL.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark Victorystooge

February 1, 2010 at 2:00 pm

Again, you’re being ahistorical. Using your style of argumentation, you could just as well claim that “objectively” Rosa Luxemburg was a “stooge” of the German far right because her radicalism combined with her Jewish background helped feed the “Jewish Bolshevism” mythology, which was potent and very toxic indeed from 1918 onwards, and not just in Germany. Less radical Jews probably did feel that people like Rosa Luxemburg gave the anti-Semites ammunition. Even in the relatively stable Germany of the Kaiser prior to WW1, I understand a party with a platform that more or less started and finished with anti-Semitism gained 15 or so seats in the Reichstag.
Meanwhile, over at the Socialist Unity Network, they seem more or less agreed that they need the police to protect them from the EDL. The pathetic nature of the left in Britain – the gift that just keeps on giving.

LikeLike

Reply
ID

February 1, 2010 at 8:05 pm

You could say the same thing about Trotsky in Russia. The difference is that both Trotsky and Luxemburg had a political programme to fight anti-semitism through leading class struggles. Whereas the political programme of Al Muj depends on Islamophobia, just as the programme of the Zionists in Luxemburg’s era depended on anti-semitism.

Whatever the left reformism on some on the left who correctly oppose the EDL, at least they oppose the EDL. Chaudhury does not oppose them – he is their bed partner. Just as Hertzl and co. were in bed with von Phleve in those far off days. That’s the correct historical comparion, not with the leaders of the Spartacusbund!!!

LikeLike

Reply
Mark Victorystooge

February 2, 2010 at 4:06 pm

Their political programme didn’t work out, though, did it?
“Whereas the political programme of Al Muj depends on Islamophobia”
Well, bearing in mind that you get Islamophobia even on some of the British left, not to mention encouraged by the British state and media, that sounds like a pretty solid basis for them.
“Opposing” the EDL by relying on the British police to play Luke Skywalker isn’t opposition at all, and actually gives people like Choudury more room for manoeuvre, not less, if that is really what bothers you. The fact is, his group has been banned by the British state, and while I can’t say for sure he and others will get jailed, I can say the legal basis has been laid. While over at SUN, most of them are more or less admitting that if it wasn’t for the British state, the “anti-fascist” left in Britain would get its head kicked in by the EDL. Interestingly, some of them are admitting that Asian, including Muslim youth, do defend themselves when the far right tries to invade their neighbourhoods, and without recourse to the Old Bill who seems so indispensible to all the fire-breathing Bolsheviks. No wonder Choudury and his ilk are running rings around the left.

LikeLike

Reply
ID

February 2, 2010 at 5:05 pm

A completely false polemic. I don’t know why Mark Victorystooge is lecturing me on what SUN says. I have nothing to do with SUN and am not that keen on a lot of what is said there.

You do indeed get Islamophobia on the British left. An example of that is when some on the left imply that the ‘best Muslim youth’ are supporters of Al Mujarhoun, which openly supports Al Qaeda and talks about the ‘Magnificent 19’ who flew the planes into the twin towers. I don’t think there is anything progressive about that.

Islamophobes on the British left have generally been those who tended to equate other Muslim organisations with these people, despite the fact that, for instance, MAB etc were more forthright in condemning 9-11 and other acts of terrorism aimed purely at civilians than some on the left, for instance the SWP. The Alliance for Workers Liberty springs to mind as the archetypal example of such ‘left’ Islamophobes.

What you seem to be saying is that anyone who isn’t prepared to tail after and associate themselves with sympathiser of Al Qaeda, is an Islamophobe. That makes most of the Muslim organisations that have allied with the left over the past decade, Islamophobes.

This is just the kind of guilty-liberal nonsense the RCP used to peddle in the 1980s around Ireland. It was nonsense then and it is nonsense now. And since the RCP ended up on the libertarian right, I am very wary of it.

LikeLike

Reply
martin ohr

February 2, 2010 at 7:30 pm

Ian : ” The Alliance for Workers Liberty springs to mind as the archetypal example of such ‘left’ Islamophobes.”

The problem is Ian, that the AWL springs to mind all too readily to you all the time – what would a Fruedian make of your obsession with us?

For anyone who’s interested you can find about 20 exmaples of Ian’s lies being orundly trounced at: http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cgi?Gw=ian%20donovan%20site:workersliberty.org

You won’t find a single item of Islamophobia written or implied on our website, although you’ll find lots of examples of crass stupidity and pro-islamicist nonsense on the following node: http://www.workersliberty.org/category/awl-labour-and-left/left-groups-and-people/respect-and-george-galloway

LikeLike

Reply
ID

February 3, 2010 at 12:11 pm

Tedious, abusive, and completely off-topic, as usual. Nuff said.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark Victorystooge

February 3, 2010 at 1:24 pm

Oddly enough, on the subject of the AWL, I agree with ID. The Israeli flag-waving by at least one of their members was certainly noticed, as it was bound to be, at a Gaza protest last year. I am not sure Islamists notice the left much, but for those who saw that incident, a certain picture of the left in Britain would be formed, namely as apologists for the Israelis. Perhaps that was the whole point of the exercise?
And not just the AWL. “Harry’s Place” is a sewer of Islamophobia, but still passes itself off as “left”. That, again, would cause a few problems, I would have thought.
Actually, I don’t think everyone who does not “tail after” Choudury is an Islamophobe, as you put it, although it is certainly a very visible presence on the left, not least on the Internet. As to referring to SUN, it may be the biggest left blog and its arguments are, I would have thought, pretty representative of the left in Britain. I am not easy to shock, but the relatively casual acceptance there that without the police the EDL would kick the left’s ass certainly took me aback.

LikeLike

Reply
ID

February 3, 2010 at 3:05 pm

‘Islamism’ is a very broad phenonemon though. That’s the real point I’m making. And actually, one of the key methodological features of ‘left’ Islamophobia, which certainly exists, is to see politicised forms of Islam as all the same, all reactionary, all akin to fascism.

When in fact, it is a very contradictory phenomenon. Many in this country who you could call ‘Islamists’ have worked with the left for years. The highpoint of that was the mass Iraq anti-war demonstrations called by the ‘triple alliance’ of the Stop the War Coalition, CND and the Muslim Association of Britain. Regarding the latter, left Islamophobes of the AWL/HP type made an incredible fuss, accusing the MAB of being the British branch of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. This allegation was inaccurate – MAB was much broader than that, though there were and no doubt still are partisans of the Brotherhood involved in MAB. I always welcomed joint activity with the MAB as part of the fight against imperialism. They were pretty keen too.

However, not all politicised Muslims play such a progressive role. Just because Islamophobes accuse all strands of being utterly reactionary does not mean that there are no outright reactionaries among political Islamists. That is the point I was making, and why I quoted Salma Yaqoob, who I admire in many ways, but also have considerable political differences. She is politically a left reformist socialist, with some liberal elements to her politics as well, but she comes from a background that many would say at the very least overlaps with political Islam. For all her political flaws, she is living proof that politicised Muslims are very heterogenous and contain the potential for many different types of political development.

SUN has a large readership, but it is at bottom Andy Newman’s blog, and bears the imprint of his politics. That appear to me to increasingly resemble Eurocommunism. It gained a lot of its readership from its important role in the Respect split over 2 years ago, but that does not thereby make it representative of the British far left. A wide variety of people comment on it, and he does invite guest posts from quite a range of people, but Andy is its political centre of gravity. He can correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to remember him describing himself as a left social democrat recently. Not far left at all in other words.

LikeLike

Reply
martin ohr

February 4, 2010 at 3:18 pm

Mark victorystupid: “The Israeli flag-waving by at least one of their members was certainly noticed, as it was bound to be, at a Gaza protest last year”. Oh that old tedious bit of nonsense. That would be the AWL member who was holding (not waving) simultaneously the Israel and Palestine flags- as a symbol of unity between workers on both sides against the Gaza attack(BTW it wasn’t an AWL sanctioned stunt, and I personally thought it was very misguided)

So Mark, your once piece of evidence for AWL islamophobia is an AWL member holding the Palestine and Israel flags together?!

It’s unwise to agree with anything that my dear chum Ian Donovan says in relation to the AWL; he has some obsessive bee in his bonnet about us and always has done. Have you read the letters he sends us?

(COMMENT SLIGHTLY ALTERED TO MEET POLICY – LIAM)

LikeLike

Reply
Mark Victorystooge

February 5, 2010 at 1:51 pm

Oh dear. Martin Orifice has been reduced to childish name-calling.
Let’s see now. Why would someone wave an Israeli flag at a pro-Palestinian demo? (The Palestinian flag your boy apparently had as well was an insurance policy or an attempt to muddy the waters.)
1. A Zionist counter-demonstration, some of which was happening at this time.
2. Idiocy.
3. An attempt at provocation. After all, the British police arrest Muslims pretty freely. Your boy stirring them up with provocational flag-waving at a time when the Zionist slaughter of Palestinians was keeping temperatures high anyway, then the police move in and arrest anyone who rises to the bait.
Take your pick of what the AWL was up to. Personally, I think all three motivations are quite credible.
The AWL, or its leaders, have self-identified as Zionist, and since most Zionist victims are Muslims (there is a Christian Palestinian minority), Zionists are Islamophobes. Including the AWL.

LikeLike

Reply