The
Blanket has now completed its series profiling
the 12 signatories to the Manifesto
Against Totalitarianism. Alongside each profile
was featured one of the 12 controversial Danish
cartoons. The signatories deliberately ensured there
would be 12 signatures to the manifesto in order
to illustrate the direct linkage between their opposition
to totalitarianism and the totalitarian campaign
to smash free enquiry by seeking the suppression
of the 12 cartoons.
When
'Kartoonacht', as one letter writer termed it, first
erupted The Blanket, although requested to,
declined to carry the cartoons. There seemed no
reason to do so other than shock value. That situation
changed once the 12 writers issued their manifesto
in the wake of Islamicist racist violence against
Denmark calculated to weaken resistance to a creeping
theocratic censorship. As the Marxist philosopher
Slavoj Zizek was to point out, 'the paradox is that
Muslims' only real allies are not those who first
published the caricatures for shock value, but those
who, in support of the ideal of freedom of expression,
reprinted them.'
There
was little in the way of opposition to The Blanket's
stance. Most people understood that the journal
had always existed to provide people with more information
rather than less. On the eve of publication I had
a lengthy conversation with a representative of
the Islamic community in Belfast. His arguments
were unpersuasive and left me feeling he had earlier
listened to alarmists trying to exploit certain
Muslim worries for their own political ends. Eamonn
McCann rang and raised cogent concerns about the
possible backlash against Muslims living in Belfast.
A member of the Anti Racist Network who grumpily
objected to the publication left me in little doubt
about their own racism.
I
had also received some intelligent e-mails from
within the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign
as well as some illogical e-mails from within the
same group. I had a vigorous but healthy conversation
with the Belfast group's current chair. His points
were well made; I just didn't agree with them. A
shrill sounding spokesperson for the IPSC went on
radio to convince nobody of anything and then put
out a letter criticising The Blanket's decision
to publish. But as invariably happens with those
who do not write well, the letter writer succeeded
only in drawing attention to the deficiency of the
argument being made.
Elsewhere,
there had been rumblings about a campaign aimed
at ostracising The Blanket. It was Socialist
Workers Party inspired, directed, it is said, from
a bankrupt London leadership determined to protect
its alliance with theocrats and kill off any free
enquiry by screaming 'racism.' After three people
said they would never write for the journal again
- one of whom had never written for it to begin
with - there followed self-important predictions
of more 'defections' to follow. We are still waiting
on them. I debated the issue with one of the 'defectors'
on radio. It changed nothing. Each failed to persuade
the other.
In
my more humorous moments I tend to reflect that
the experience almost led to me becoming a convert
to Islam. Emulating Voltaire I tried my luck and
prayed, 'Allah, make my enemies ridiculous.' My
prayers were answered. The only enemies that turned
up were from the Irrelevant Left. The campaign to
shun The Blanket was an unmitigated flop;
merely demonstrating to those blissfully unaware
of it the habitual insignificance of the Irrelevant
Left.
The
decision to publish the cartoons was a correct one.
At no time did The Blanket feature any cartoon
as a signifier of a racist message. Each contentious
image was weaved into a narrative that highlighted
oppression against Muslims. In particular, the Islamicist
assault on the rights of women formed the spine
of the narratives. Certainly, there is room to argue
that an alternative contextualisation exists which
places the cartoons in a racist setting. But such
a perspective must compete with others which do
not share its core assumptions. Context is always
alibi. The alibi might be genuine, but it has no
automatic right of passage to the status of fact.
As with all alibi, it succeeds to the extent that
it survives cross examination. Critics must have
the opportunity to falsify alibi, otherwise it emits
the sound of one hand clapping. The Irrelevant Left
and the one or two fellow travellers who accompany
them on their inconsequential forays sought to have
their own contextualisation go unchallenged and
have others acquiesce in it. Such an attitude is
the product of a totalitarian mindset in that it
can brook no alternative opinion to its own. If
it was ever the intention of the Irrelevant Left
to take on The Blanket in a battle
of wills it would leave the contest sorely disappointed.
The Blanket would never lose as is indeed
demonstrated by tonight's completion of the profiles
project.
That
project amounted not only to a strong defiance of
censorship but also a resolute defence of those
Muslims who experience the repression and violence
of the theocrats. It challenged the racism of those
who promote cultural relativism as a means to deny
the extension of human rights to others less able
to secure them. It was premised on a belief that
that there is a global citizenry which should not
be thwarted in its quest for global rights by recourse
to lesser concerns rooted in ethnicity, culture,
religion and nationality. Islam, like Christianity
or Judaism, like other belief systems, can search
out a place for itself in the world. But where it
seeks to create children of a lesser God whom it
can treat as subhuman, any religion should be vigorously
challenged and pushed back.
One
noticeable factor in the wider cartoon debate was
fear. Many journalists who commented on the Blanket
decision to carry the cartoons stated that their
own papers and news outlets should have done likewise
but allowed fear of violence, intimidation or disapproval
from authority to shape their judgement. In a country
where the problem of immigration could arguably
be redefined in terms of there not being enough
of it, fear of other people is hardly conducive
to an atmosphere of understanding and tolerance.
Fear is not removed by suppressing doubts but by
encouraging them to be expressed openly.
Those
critics of the Blanket whose opposition was
based on genuine concerns about the rise of racism,
and was not governed by some authoritarian impulse
to censor and control the views of others, should
reflect on what the Blanket has sought to
achieve through its management of the cartoon question.
Thorny and complicated issues were addressed, not
swept under the carpet. Perspectives on theocratic
repression that others hoped would never see the
light of day were brought to the surface. It became
abundantly clear that there is no left-right cleavage
on the subject matter. Despite the Irrelevant Left
barking a la Pavlov's dog, many on the Left favoured
publishing the cartoons, while elements on the right
favoured censorship.
Despite
the initial rants, the general response has been
one characterised by perspicacity more than petulance.
Overall, the Blanket has contributed in some
small way to a much needed public discussion. Those
few who opposed critical reflection closed only
the door on their way out. They failed to close
discussion. They did not close the Blanket.
