The lesson the left has never learnt; Why is a British socialist group forming a
Nick Cohen | 22.07.2003 15:50 | Analysis
The lesson the left has never learnt; Why is a British socialist group forming a political alliance with repressive, Islamic fundamentalists? Because it really is exceedingly stupid
As with Voltaire's Holy Roman Empire, the Socialist Workers Party negates the meaning of every word in its title. It never had much to do with the workers: like a minor public school, the SWP is a home for dim, middle-class children. For years it has been a sect or cult rather than a party - think of the Moonies, but without the smiles. Now it is giving up on socialism to form an alliance with Islamic fundamentalism.
The enemies of political freedom and the enemies of religious and sexual freedom are at one, and will soon be presenting joint candidates to the electorate. Party allies are feeling the shock of the SWP's opportunism. Unknown to most of its members, CND is having a huge internal row between Marxist-Leninists and the rest about whether it should abandon its political neutrality and endorse the Stop the War Coalition. The coalition itself and the Socialist Alliance, a grouping of far-left parties, of which the SWP is one, are in crisis. In theory, all three organisations should have been enjoying a collective moment of triumph. On 15 February, the Stop the War Coalition organised one of the biggest demonstrations in British history. According to the police, 750,000 people marched. According to the coalition, the true figure was two million, although, as we shall see, there are reasons for believing that the claim is tosh. I was astonished, and remain astonished, that a section of right-thinking progressive opinion, which bridles at the smallest sign of sexism, racism or human rights abuse, allowed itself to be organised by the friends of tyranny. Andrew Murray, the coalition's communist chairman, celebrated Stalin's 120th birthday and condemned the 'hack propagandists' who went on so about the millions of slaughtered innocents. George Galloway, its star speaker, saluted Saddam Hussein's 'courage' and no one in the coalition told him that a fascist dictator didn't require a great deal of courage to order, for instance, the gang rape and mutilation of a young political opponent and the delivery of a video of the crime to her powerless family. (In these circumstances, the courage is all on the other side.) The SWP was the driving force behind the coalition, but it wasn't well suited to coalition politics. It is a Leninist party which believes in the overthrow of democracy and the establishment of a dictatorship of a proletariat that will be following its guidance.
As a democratic socialist and a supporter of the Kurdish and Iraqi opposition to Saddam Hussein, I know that I tend to be intemperate when discussing these creeps. In the interests of balance, I should allow Mike Marqusee, press spokesman for the Stop the War Coalition and leading member of the Socialist Alliance, to have his say. Unlike many of his comrades he talks in sentences rather than Dalek-like slogans. His books on the meshing of politics and cricket have made him a worthy successor to C L R James. In short, he's the best and the brightest the coalition has to offer.
In a speech delivered to a seminar organised by the Signs of the Times socialist forum, he explained what working with the SWP was like. 'The SWP is constitutionally incapable of working with others on an equal, honest and transparent basis. In the end, their aim is dominance, and anything that threatens or undermines that dominance will always, in their eyes, be suspect . . . Truth is reified in the form of jargon - and any nuance that cannot be expressed in that jargon is ruled out of consideration. In the end, the SWP is imbued with an authoritarian ethic - most recently confirmed by their readiness to dub as 'divisive' or 'disruptive' anyone who voices political preferences contrary to theirs.'
Marqusee cited what happened at a 'crudely packed meeting in Birmingham' where one of the few 'genuinely independent (and respected) trade union activists the SA could boast' was forced out. There were other instances he might have mentioned, but his most interesting evidence was of Stop the War's determination to support the British cheerleaders of Ba'athist tyranny above all else. Marqusee explained that the coalition had been quiet about Tony Blair's embarrassment at the failure to find chemical and biological weapons because the SWP's priority was 'campaigning for George Galloway', who is merely threatened with the loss of the Labour nomination in Glasgow rather than, to cite a second Iraqi example, being fed feet first into a plastic-shredding machine like the opponents of the 'courageous' Saddam.
Marqusee concluded with a picture of an SWP whose dedication to spin and control surpasses new Labour's. 'Instead of sober assessment of our success and failures, strengths and weaknesses, we're offered empty boosterism. The numbers attending meetings or demos are routinely inflated there go the two million marchers, then and the complexity of multi-faceted developments is unacknowledged. What has disturbed me most in working with the SWP has been their flagrant ethical relativism. This is an ancient foible of the left - a conviction that the class struggle, or the building of the revolutionary party, or the sheer evil of the forces we find ourselves up against justifies any behaviour, no matter how dishonest, duplicitous, or destructive to others. In their competition with the rest of the left, in their drive to maintain control (including control of their own members), anything goes.'
Indeed it does, including alliances with feudal theocracy.
To understand how the Stop the War Coalition has ended up in bed with the forces of reaction, put yourself into the mind of Lindsey German and other leaders of the 3,000-strong party.
You spend your life waiting for a revolution that never comes. The proletariat, whose vanguard you have appointed yourself to be, refuses to follow your instructions. Your voice grows hoarse screaming in rooms filled with, at most, a few hundred supporters. And then, on a bright February day in 2003, you find yourself declaiming to hundreds of thousands in Hyde Park. (Millions, according to your spin-doctors.) It's bound to go to your head, even if the masses haven't the faintest idea who you are and can't work out why they're not being addressed by someone they've seen on the telly.
And then it all goes wrong. Having organised an unprecedented protest, you take the pressure off Blair and make a nonsense of your own slogan by announcing that the next demonstration won't be until after the war has started. (I used the word 'dim' to describe the SWP leadership for good reason.) You can't admit the mistake; instead you concentrate your hopes on the masses going home from Hyde Park and voting for you in the May elections. The great day arrives and the Socialist Alliance is defeated in every ward except one: it wins a seat on Preston City Council, not previously noted as a hotbed of revolutionary socialism. The Socialist Alliance took the seat because 12 local mosques put their support behind its candidate.
You mull on the reasons for your success, and reflect that socialism with priestly allies isn't new for you. The Stop the War Coalition had, after all, invited the Muslim Association of Britain to co-host its demonstrations. The association is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, who admired Mussolini's blackshirts. Its website proclaims: 'Qu'ran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.' At Stop the War demonstrations last autumn, association members handed out leaflets which explained that the punishments for a Muslim who freely decided to abandon his or her faith should include death. Tricky situations have had to be negotiated since. At a Stop the War meeting in Birmingham, the clerics and their supporters instructed Asian women to sit separately from the men. Iranian socialists had to be shut up when they protested that they knew from bitter experience where religious bigotry led. Why not win more than a seat in Preston by seeking an arrangement with the only people who can deliver the votes?
Which is what the SWP is trying to do. It is planning to join with Muslim activists and mosques in Birmingham to run 'Peace and Justice' candidates in the 2004 European elections. Complaints from queasy SWP members who worry about women's and gay rights were dismissed by Lindsey German at this summer's SWP conference. 'I'm in favour of defending gay rights,' she declared. 'But I am not prepared to have it as a shibboleth, created by people who . . . regard the state of Israel as somehow a viable presence.' (Both the SWP and the Muslim Association want to abolish Israel.) Common ground is already being found, and the latest issue of Socialist Worker is calling on the comrades to protest against women who lap-dance in Spearmint Rhino strip clubs.
I doubt the tactic will work. If conservative West Midlands Muslims can win seats, why shouldn't they drop the Trots and do it on their own terms? If the coalition goes ahead, we can look forward to the delicious spectacle of new Labour, Lib Dem and even Tory candidates attacking the SWP from the left on nearly every issue in the political alphabet from abortion onwards.
The story does, however, contain two wider points. First the SWP is exhibiting in extreme form that strain of liberal opinion which said after 11 September that fundamentalism was really the fault of the west and fundamentalists deserved to be understood. Second, and this really should have been obvious decades ago: the democratic left will never get anywhere in this country unless it makes a clean break with the supporters of dictatorship, whether they come in clerical or political guise.
The enemies of political freedom and the enemies of religious and sexual freedom are at one, and will soon be presenting joint candidates to the electorate. Party allies are feeling the shock of the SWP's opportunism. Unknown to most of its members, CND is having a huge internal row between Marxist-Leninists and the rest about whether it should abandon its political neutrality and endorse the Stop the War Coalition. The coalition itself and the Socialist Alliance, a grouping of far-left parties, of which the SWP is one, are in crisis. In theory, all three organisations should have been enjoying a collective moment of triumph. On 15 February, the Stop the War Coalition organised one of the biggest demonstrations in British history. According to the police, 750,000 people marched. According to the coalition, the true figure was two million, although, as we shall see, there are reasons for believing that the claim is tosh. I was astonished, and remain astonished, that a section of right-thinking progressive opinion, which bridles at the smallest sign of sexism, racism or human rights abuse, allowed itself to be organised by the friends of tyranny. Andrew Murray, the coalition's communist chairman, celebrated Stalin's 120th birthday and condemned the 'hack propagandists' who went on so about the millions of slaughtered innocents. George Galloway, its star speaker, saluted Saddam Hussein's 'courage' and no one in the coalition told him that a fascist dictator didn't require a great deal of courage to order, for instance, the gang rape and mutilation of a young political opponent and the delivery of a video of the crime to her powerless family. (In these circumstances, the courage is all on the other side.) The SWP was the driving force behind the coalition, but it wasn't well suited to coalition politics. It is a Leninist party which believes in the overthrow of democracy and the establishment of a dictatorship of a proletariat that will be following its guidance.
As a democratic socialist and a supporter of the Kurdish and Iraqi opposition to Saddam Hussein, I know that I tend to be intemperate when discussing these creeps. In the interests of balance, I should allow Mike Marqusee, press spokesman for the Stop the War Coalition and leading member of the Socialist Alliance, to have his say. Unlike many of his comrades he talks in sentences rather than Dalek-like slogans. His books on the meshing of politics and cricket have made him a worthy successor to C L R James. In short, he's the best and the brightest the coalition has to offer.
In a speech delivered to a seminar organised by the Signs of the Times socialist forum, he explained what working with the SWP was like. 'The SWP is constitutionally incapable of working with others on an equal, honest and transparent basis. In the end, their aim is dominance, and anything that threatens or undermines that dominance will always, in their eyes, be suspect . . . Truth is reified in the form of jargon - and any nuance that cannot be expressed in that jargon is ruled out of consideration. In the end, the SWP is imbued with an authoritarian ethic - most recently confirmed by their readiness to dub as 'divisive' or 'disruptive' anyone who voices political preferences contrary to theirs.'
Marqusee cited what happened at a 'crudely packed meeting in Birmingham' where one of the few 'genuinely independent (and respected) trade union activists the SA could boast' was forced out. There were other instances he might have mentioned, but his most interesting evidence was of Stop the War's determination to support the British cheerleaders of Ba'athist tyranny above all else. Marqusee explained that the coalition had been quiet about Tony Blair's embarrassment at the failure to find chemical and biological weapons because the SWP's priority was 'campaigning for George Galloway', who is merely threatened with the loss of the Labour nomination in Glasgow rather than, to cite a second Iraqi example, being fed feet first into a plastic-shredding machine like the opponents of the 'courageous' Saddam.
Marqusee concluded with a picture of an SWP whose dedication to spin and control surpasses new Labour's. 'Instead of sober assessment of our success and failures, strengths and weaknesses, we're offered empty boosterism. The numbers attending meetings or demos are routinely inflated there go the two million marchers, then and the complexity of multi-faceted developments is unacknowledged. What has disturbed me most in working with the SWP has been their flagrant ethical relativism. This is an ancient foible of the left - a conviction that the class struggle, or the building of the revolutionary party, or the sheer evil of the forces we find ourselves up against justifies any behaviour, no matter how dishonest, duplicitous, or destructive to others. In their competition with the rest of the left, in their drive to maintain control (including control of their own members), anything goes.'
Indeed it does, including alliances with feudal theocracy.
To understand how the Stop the War Coalition has ended up in bed with the forces of reaction, put yourself into the mind of Lindsey German and other leaders of the 3,000-strong party.
You spend your life waiting for a revolution that never comes. The proletariat, whose vanguard you have appointed yourself to be, refuses to follow your instructions. Your voice grows hoarse screaming in rooms filled with, at most, a few hundred supporters. And then, on a bright February day in 2003, you find yourself declaiming to hundreds of thousands in Hyde Park. (Millions, according to your spin-doctors.) It's bound to go to your head, even if the masses haven't the faintest idea who you are and can't work out why they're not being addressed by someone they've seen on the telly.
And then it all goes wrong. Having organised an unprecedented protest, you take the pressure off Blair and make a nonsense of your own slogan by announcing that the next demonstration won't be until after the war has started. (I used the word 'dim' to describe the SWP leadership for good reason.) You can't admit the mistake; instead you concentrate your hopes on the masses going home from Hyde Park and voting for you in the May elections. The great day arrives and the Socialist Alliance is defeated in every ward except one: it wins a seat on Preston City Council, not previously noted as a hotbed of revolutionary socialism. The Socialist Alliance took the seat because 12 local mosques put their support behind its candidate.
You mull on the reasons for your success, and reflect that socialism with priestly allies isn't new for you. The Stop the War Coalition had, after all, invited the Muslim Association of Britain to co-host its demonstrations. The association is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, who admired Mussolini's blackshirts. Its website proclaims: 'Qu'ran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.' At Stop the War demonstrations last autumn, association members handed out leaflets which explained that the punishments for a Muslim who freely decided to abandon his or her faith should include death. Tricky situations have had to be negotiated since. At a Stop the War meeting in Birmingham, the clerics and their supporters instructed Asian women to sit separately from the men. Iranian socialists had to be shut up when they protested that they knew from bitter experience where religious bigotry led. Why not win more than a seat in Preston by seeking an arrangement with the only people who can deliver the votes?
Which is what the SWP is trying to do. It is planning to join with Muslim activists and mosques in Birmingham to run 'Peace and Justice' candidates in the 2004 European elections. Complaints from queasy SWP members who worry about women's and gay rights were dismissed by Lindsey German at this summer's SWP conference. 'I'm in favour of defending gay rights,' she declared. 'But I am not prepared to have it as a shibboleth, created by people who . . . regard the state of Israel as somehow a viable presence.' (Both the SWP and the Muslim Association want to abolish Israel.) Common ground is already being found, and the latest issue of Socialist Worker is calling on the comrades to protest against women who lap-dance in Spearmint Rhino strip clubs.
I doubt the tactic will work. If conservative West Midlands Muslims can win seats, why shouldn't they drop the Trots and do it on their own terms? If the coalition goes ahead, we can look forward to the delicious spectacle of new Labour, Lib Dem and even Tory candidates attacking the SWP from the left on nearly every issue in the political alphabet from abortion onwards.
The story does, however, contain two wider points. First the SWP is exhibiting in extreme form that strain of liberal opinion which said after 11 September that fundamentalism was really the fault of the west and fundamentalists deserved to be understood. Second, and this really should have been obvious decades ago: the democratic left will never get anywhere in this country unless it makes a clean break with the supporters of dictatorship, whether they come in clerical or political guise.
Nick Cohen
Comments
Hide the following 22 comments
typical Nick Cohen islamophobic racism!
22.07.2003 20:50
effendi
nick cohen the democratic left
22.07.2003 23:54
yet he supported a war which had no democratic welfare .He is one of these
champaingne socialists lordes by the big business elites at dinner parties
because he can give them a nice quote similar to christopher hitchens who has a
great fan base in the chattering classes in the US.
dont like the new statsment has an air of superiority about it and smugness
If it wasnt for the occasional bit by the likes of john piliger or tariq ali
it would be a total waste of a good tree.
chris smart
sorry
23.07.2003 00:01
understand the main jist
chris smart
With Marqusee, sometimes! With Cohen, never!
23.07.2003 00:08
Anything to say about the politics of that? Nope. Thought not.
Old Mutha Hubbard
When is a racist/sexist/homophobe not...?
23.07.2003 00:47
The people with their heads up their arses pretending it's not happening are the worst. They allow Islamic fundamentalists to get away with the kind of rhetoric they would be furious to hear coming from a Jew, Christian, Hindu or atheist, because "Moslems are some of the most oppressed sections of society in Britain". The BNP draw most of their support from oppressed sections of society but that doesn't mean joining should be acceptable.
Muslims would be, to a considerable degree, less repressed if a minority of loonbag fascists weren't allowed to shout down the majority, with the full consent of so called left wing groups.
I don't have to meekly put up with racism, homophobia, nationalism or sexism from anyone. I couldn't give a toss if they claim it's their cultural or religious right to be racist, homophobic, nationalistic and sexist, because that's bullshit.
Dillon McBurney
Sexism & Homophobia OK If Its In The Name Of Anti-'Islamophobia'
23.07.2003 08:39
As Nick points out the issues in Birmingham are ones of the SWP's use of the stick of 'islamophobia' to beat on anyone who disagrees. Was Aresh (the Iranian socialist refered to in the peice) 'Islamophobic' because his family had been murdered in the fascistic Theocracy of Iran? Were the secular asian women who were victims of sexist remarks at the meeting refered to 'islamophobic' because they said they wont have men trying to segregate them?
Or perhaps you think the PHYSICAL attacks by the SWP on people peacefully protesting against the SWP's moves to dump anti-sexist & anti-homophobic principles are OK cos all women & gays are 'islamophobic' right?
As for muslims being the most oppressed group..dont make me laugh..try looking at the stats of attacks on women for a start...or is it only muslims that count now?
If the issue was race rather than gender or sexual orientation there's NO WAY you so called leftwingers would be smug to crap all over those fighting against it..from WHATEVER source..
Being anti-war doesnt mean i have to be anti-women & anti-gay..
Gerk Francis
Left Love Muslims Stuff Evreyone Else
23.07.2003 08:55
no effendi you run back to the SWP and stay away from my community
Gurdeep
Nick Cohen
23.07.2003 09:33
I wouldnt say he has blood on his hands, but he certainly is a cheerleader for those who do.
Still no doubt the SWP bashers will leap into bed with their new ally, forgetting that only a month or two ago he was calling them "useful idiots"
Sonic
So now being antisexist is being a Cohenite!
23.07.2003 13:21
Go back to the suburbs poor little rich kids..
Man-E-Faces
SA Supports Shar'ia Law..So Why..
23.07.2003 13:31
should have had:
'Muslims Rule: Every One Else Is A Racist
Vote SA'
much more realistic
Gurdeep
er
23.07.2003 15:49
Now some might say that is the most lunatic comparison ever made, but as you obviously have some severe paranoia problems I will just giggle quietly in the corner.
"poor little rich kids"
Writing for the daily mail at the moment?
Sonic
Tsk!
23.07.2003 16:03
Old Mutha Hubbard
er
23.07.2003 16:20
Like the ones comparing the SWP to the Nazi party?
or were they fair and balanced in your opinion OMH?
Sonic
Gurdeep is an idiot!!
23.07.2003 21:53
effendi
Agreed...
23.07.2003 22:26
However, for the so called ‘Marxists’ of the SWP Central Committee to abandon any kind of class analysis for the sake of electoral gain smacks of poorly judged opportunism. Moreover, it strikes me as somewhat ignorant (and possibly itself an example of unexamined prejudice) to lump all Muslims together and then claim that anyone who criticises the policies and actions of their self-appointed ‘leadership’ is an Islamophobe. The simple fact is that Muslims all over the world are themselves divided along class lines, as well as those of sex and sexuality. The Muslim Association consists overwhelmingly of clerics and businessmen: that’s right – those ideologists who want us to believe that these aforementioned distinctions do not exist. All one big, happy family. And the SWP, by shouting “Islamophobe” at anyone who criticises these ideologists, seems to fall for this obfuscatory nonsense.
Further: by organising Muslims along religious lines, the Muslim Association runs the risk of dividing racially oppressed groups to an even greater extent. I understand that this is one of the reasons the sacked executive in Birmingham opposed the forthcoming alliance. Is that concern racist? Well, it strikes me as worth considering that a low-paid Muslim woman might have more in common with a low-paid Hindu man, or indeed, a white working class queer, than with a wealthy and socially conservative Muslim businessman. Gurdeep makes some extremely valid points regarding this matter.
With regard to the STWC, I would tentatively suggest (and may be proved wrong) that the large numbers of British Muslims who turned out did so BECAUSE THEY OPPOSED THE WAR, rather than because the MAB called them out like sheep. It strikes me that the MAB was as much a beneficiary of anti-war feeling as the SWP, and may have itself been somewhat surprised by the turnouts.
If the SWP were serious about defending oppressed groups, they would engage in the more difficult and painstaking work of building alliances with workers’, womens’ and gay groups on the ground, irrespective of race or religion. This might not pay off immediately, but it would demonstrate that it can see through the appearance of Islamic unity. As it is, they seem to see an alliance with the MAB as delivering a block of black votes which could possibly confer upon them a short term electoral advantage. If this involves discarding certain ‘shibboleths’ in the process, Peace and Justice will not be achieved. To employ a current cliché, history will not judge the actors kindly.
However daft or mad he was while alive, I sincerely believe Tony Cliff would have been appalled by this behaviour. By the way, to extend my analysis, the SWP is not, for all it would wish to be, or convince itself it is, a homogenous group of obedient sheep. And it is incumbent upon its membership to seriously analyse the policy of the Central Committee, and do something about it. Failing that, get out.
Non...
Anti-Sikh Racism Supported BY SWP & MAB
24.07.2003 08:11
Gurdeep
The "other"
24.07.2003 08:54
Socialism is about siding with the oppressed and it is clear that a great many Muslims are oppressed. Moreover, it is also clear that the powers that be have chosen Muslims as a target - in fact there are strong similarities between how Muslims are depicted now and how Jews were depicted before the Holocaust - as a threatening "other" which is not like we are and to be feared and hated because of it. Except for the former Yugoslavia, all the countries attacked by the USA/Britain since the collapse of the USSR have been Muslim. The SWP has been reacting to that reality and whatever else it seems to be doing, it is not going along with this tide - and as a group that has shown itself capable of opportunism in the past, it might have done.
The Crimson Repat
To Crimson Repat
24.07.2003 11:42
As for your point about a crusade against Islam...well, that's actually debatable innit? I mean the U$ and UK actually shores up some of the most brutal and corrupt regimes which HAPPEN TO BE Muslim. Saudi Arabia? Kuwait? Don't see much danger of them getting attacked, personally. All the evidence suggests that capital doesn't care too much what religious persuasion nationalities adhere to, just so long as they toe the line.
Another problem with dividing us along these RELIGIOUS lines; what happens if/when Bush attacks Korea? Are the mosques gonna mobilise? They didn't for Kosova, if you recall. Nor, back in the day, Vietnam. And in the meantime, many "non-oppressed" people, like Sikh activists are gonna decide that they won't touch the SWP -and, by association, a lot of the Left- with a bargepole. This isn't, of course, to deny that many people from Muslim backgrounds have good, consistent political positions over these issues. But it's stupid to make the equation that Muslim=anti-imperialist.
So, sorry. But all the evidence still suggests that this thing sucks.
Old Mutha Hubbard.
Where were the Muslims when...
24.07.2003 13:12
Where were the muslims when Raghbir Singh was put in jail in uk without trial in 1995?
No where thats where....
Muslims and SWP only protest when Muslims get attacked not for anyone else
Its muslim countries like Saudi and Kuwait that the west & the SWP support
Gurdeep
Against illusion
24.07.2003 14:05
To an extent, yes, Muslims are being portrayed as a sinister ‘other’ in a similar way to widespread anti-Jewish prejudice. HOWEVER, as Old Mother Hubbard and I have pointed out, to criticise the ideology apparently representative of an oppressed group is NOT necessarily to attack the group itself. All progressive politics as we have received it has its origins in the critique of religion. Conversely, according to the current logic of the SWP CC, anyone who criticises the ideology of Islam is an ‘Islamophobe’ (read ‘racist’). But if this twisted logic was to be applied universally, and ideologies were reified in the site of the individual, it is just as correct to claim that anti-Zionism equals anti-semitism. This is where this nonsense leads.
Now, it may sometimes be justifiable to make popular front alliances with those whose beliefs are antithetical to one’s own, particularly for urgent single issue campaigns. On balance, I feel that the alliance between the SWP and MAB in the Stop the War Coalition may have been justifiable. But a longer term alliance on a broader set of issues, such as is being proposed, is a different kettle of fish. It is essential that socialists be aware of the dangers, and avoid falling into the illusions we are already seeing develop here. Other than the extremely pertinent example of the mistakes of socialists during the Iranian revolution, two other examples might suffice. Firstly, consider the manner in which some Jewish socialists allied themselves with the Zionist movement. Their thinking probably went along similar lines: Jews are an oppressed group, we must unite. Now look at the tragic situation of the Israeli left, forced to defend a rampantly right-wing government intent on implementing a continuing policy of ethnic cleansing. Secondly, during the 1980s some radical feminists, including Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, allied themselves with Christian extremists in order to pass ordinances banning pornography. There was limited success, but of course the main loser was subversive feminist porn. Not only that, but Dworkin’s books, which quoted porn for the purposes of illustration, were themselves impounded for violating the customs ban (in Canada, I believe).
Yes, it is admirable to defend oppressed groups. But engage your brains too. Learn from history, rather than parroting the mantra of these opportunists.
Non
to Gurdeep
25.07.2003 22:22
also do not be too sure god is on your side...
effendi
MISCONCEPTIONS
03.02.2004 20:25
no one has taken into account that ethnic minorities are in the minority in the uk.
only 0.5% of the uk is sikh
4.7% muslim
1% hindu
72% being christian
please refer to stastics.gov.uk
evidently ethnic minorities are really a minority.
no one expects you to know what a sikh is due to their small numbers .
people obviously know what a muslim is and subquently all people think sikhs and hindus are also muslims, in particular sikhs with their turbans and beards.
what do you really know about minority religions beyonf their appearance?
sikhs irradicated the islamic empire from india, so feel greatly offended when they are profiled as muslims.
sikhs are greatly offended when they are profiled as hindus
just as muslims being profilled as terrorists is very offensive to muslims.
hinduism is a religion that relvolves around rituals and idol worshiping. they cause no real religous threat.
muslims have a concept of jihad which is primal for any human to protect their own clan.
sikhs have the idea of khalistan where anyone can live regradless of sex colour religion or any demographics, on the condition that all people are on the fore front of scientific inventions.
all religions have achieved huge breakthroughs in all aspects of sciences.
people opinions on other religions are normally expressed with no consideration with mentalities of folowers of a specific religion.
it is truly amazing at how minorities are misunderstood.
muslims have obviously taken the stick topgerther and rule approach.
hindus have taken the "hippie peace and love approach" and intergarted in to scoiety.
sikhs want a proactive scociety with an emphasis on quality of relationships and revolution of legislation to help mankind.
western worlds do not accomodate change from foregin people.
the results is that the parents of ethnic minorities have not controled their children.
when have u heard of a muslim parent beating their children for being racist to a white person?
children of minorities have no real direction of being proactive members of scoicty.
muslims boys all know that non muslims are kafir and infidels.
hindu youth just care for hip hop music and drugs
sikh youth are forgetting to refrain from the righteos actions and protect human rights.
christians have had their time as rulers, scientists, leaders, . they are relluctant to accept minorities' achivments because minorities have big egos.
pakistan has many spies in india dressed as skihs and hindus.
indian hinhus have many spies all over the world and take an accedemic approach and mainly utilise divide and rule factors that they learnt from the british raj in india. hence the bombing of golden temple.
usa is only interested in expanding it eccomony and have monoplised the world. usa will never allow japan or india to exceed a larger valuable ecomony.
politics and religion are inseperable. religion will always play a role in politics and exposes the orientation of thought of each politician.
in this case it is only imperitive for total equality and accepiting all religions as you would accept your own. e.g calling your self a hindu that believe in jesus
the reason being all religions are very different in hisroty and intentions.
why did god make these religions and then tell each religion to follow a different path?
i have not expressed my views properly, the fact is that people can not understand people from beyond their appearance (thats obvoius) more to the point people do not appreciate the frustration of minorities when they have an idea beyond your own comprehension.
JUST A PERSON