In
March 2006, the online journal, The Blanket,
took the decision to publish the cartoons that had
caused such controversy earlier that year. As a
result, the cartoons were published on a weekly
basis alongside profiles of 12 writers who had signed
an anti-totalitarianism manifesto � a manifesto
written in response to the reaction that the cartoons
had generated. Here, Anthony McIntyre, co-editor
of The Blanket, talks to The
Henry Jackson Society and explains why he
felt the cartoons had to be published and the wider
debate with which they connect.
Q.
Anthony, can we ask by asking what it was that led
you to publish the cartoons?
A.M.
We decided to publish the cartoons alongside profiles
of the 12 writers who recently signed a manifesto
against totalitarianism. They themselves, as 12,
had been selected to match the 12 cartoons that
caused such Islamist fury. Earlier, when the cartoon
controversy was generated � not September when they
were first published � but earlier this year when
there was a furore, we were asked to publish the
cartoons and we declined. We felt then that the
only reason for publishing them � at that time �
would have been shock value. So we decided that
that wasn�t what we were about � shocking people
� we weren�t going to be providing any new information.
But then, when the writers came out and made their
appeal, and we had people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali asking
for the cartoons to be published and criticising
people who claimed to stand for free speech, but
who at the same time were declining to publish them,
it was put to us again. And this time we agreed.
Q.
And what drew you to the manifesto?
A.M.
Well, in the year 2000 I had written an article
in defence of Taslima Nasrin. And in 2004 I wrote
an article protesting the murder of Theo van Gogh
in Amsterdam. One of the people who were forced
to go on the run around the time of Van Gogh�s killing
was Ayaan Hirsi Ali who signed the manifesto � and
I had referred to her in my article. So there were
two people who I had defended directly or indirectly,
who were involved now with the manifesto, and it
was put to me that there was no real reason not
to defend them on this occasion as well.
Q.
When the initial controversy erupted over the cartoons
were you surprised by it?
A.M.
Well, no, because I have come to expect that this
is the way that totalitarians operate. They demand
respect, but in a sense this is a disguise for submission.
And I think it was an interesting title that Hirsi
Ali and Theo van Gogh gave to their film on the
abuse women suffer within certain Islamic societies
and cultures � �Submission�. So, I wasn�t surprised
and, anyway, the fact is that the initial cartoons
didn�t cause the offence that people claim. It was
a Danish Imam, who, along with others, took the
cartoons to the Middle East and added three cartoons
and pretended that these had been the work of that
newspaper in Denmark also. Now, these were never
part of the original cartoons and some were even
fake, but they were used to stir up hatred and this
is why we had an outburst of what was really racism
against Danish people.
Q.
And then when The Blanket decided to publish
the cartoons, were you surprised by the reaction
you received? I�m thinking particularly of the criticism
you received from the Socialist Workers Party (SWP)
and the Palestine Solidarity Committee and the three
writers (Eamonn McCann, Brian Kelly and Barbara
Muldoon), who declared they would no longer submit
work to The Blanket and actually wanted their
previous articles removed from the web-site�
A.M.
Well, for all that it matters, the Palestine Solidarity
Committee didn�t have any business criticising me
on this issue. Their remit is human rights not censorship.
Human rights were what I defended � for all Muslims
and not just those oppressed by Israel. The arguments
put by some in the group suggested to me that they
had lost the plot; plenty of emotion and little
intellect. One at least has since ostracised me
on the street! Others were more nuanced in their
thinking, and while not siding with The Blanket
felt that the issue was more complex and in need
of further discussion rather than the clarion calls
for censorship. I think overall the manner in which
the Palestine Solidarity Committee expressed itself
publicly left it open to much ridicule and accusations
of Stalinism. Which is regrettable because it does
great work. But I think the public denunciation,
to which I remain obliviously indifferent, was the
result of an individual harbouring some long lurking
resentment against non-conformist personalities.
I suppose they need structures that reflect their
authoritarian personalities, their need to be obeyed,
and feel insecure with any form of dissent. It is
a common problem that you find with those who are
pulled towards the �vanguardist Left.� Which brings
us to the objections from McCann and the others.
I wasn�t surprised at the Socialist Workers� Party
criticising the decision to publish the cartoons,
but what I was surprised at was the petulant response,
when their members or associates asked that the
articles they had previously written for The
Blanket website be withdrawn. Now, the only
person who had consistently appeared on the website
anyway was Eamonn McCann, but most of the articles
that he submitted to The Blanket have been
published elsewhere � so Eamonn�s message would
still get out and it�s right that it should. That
is more important than the issue of where it appears.
Brian Kelly on the other hand hardly ever wrote
for The Blanket and Barbara Muldoon never
did � one article she wrote, which was for The
Other View magazine, was featured in The
Blanket, but it wasn�t written specifically
for The Blanket. Much ado about nothing.
Their criticisms might have pricked more ears, but
for the petulant Orwellian demand to obliterate
written history. In the end they failed to rally
any substantial swathe of opinion and managed only
to download sneers. Some of the criticism directed
McCann�s way, however, was nothing more than personal
abuse and downright dishonesty. He at least is immersed
in politics because of the issues he feels need
to be confronted � not because of some authoritarian
trait that can only be accommodated within a complementary
authoritarian structure replete with totalitarian
sentiments.
Q.
Can I ask you more generally how the experience
has affected your political views? Also could you
say something as to who has been supportive of you
and who has been opposed? And has that been surprising?
A.M.
Well, the journalistic community, in particular,
have been very supportive and it�s interesting too
the way the debate has broken down in �the Left�.
The �irrelevant Left�, who are intent on remaining
irrelevant, have attacked us. Those who are searching
for a different �Left� � a more creative, inventive
and imaginative �Left� have been supportive of us.
So, in many ways, you find us appearing on websites
and appearing in Indymedia, where you might not
previously have expected to see The Blanket
featured. And out of all this I think there is increasingly
a huge cleavage developing here about human rights
and freedom of speech, which doesn�t break down
along the traditional �Left-Right� divide. For instance,
one could argue that people who�ve previously been
very �war-like� in their approach to countries like
Iraq � such as those in the British Government and
the American Government � were actually aiding those
who wanted the cartoons repressed. Jack Straw, for
example, was one of the first people out praising
the press for actually not having the courage to
print them�
Q.
And in terms of �the Left� specifically, do you
think that it has changed in the last decade or
so in terms of the values that animate it?
A.M.
Sections of �the Left� have actually become reactionary
� that�s the reality of it. I mean, if I had to
identify the two most racist parties in Britain
at the moment I would say the BNP and the SWP. The
SWP appears to have taken an attitude that there
are some people in the world who are not as human
as the rest of us, which makes them sub-human, or
what certain people used to call �untermenschen'.
The SWP has taken a view that they are not worthy
of the same rights as other human beings and I think
that is a very insidious form of racism. And I think
maybe now we need to start redefining racism, so
that instead of dressing it up as some form of �cultural
relativism�, we recognise racism where it exists.
If you want to exclude some sections of humankind
from human rights then you are a racist.
Q.
What do you think has led groups like the SWP to
this position?
A.M.
It�s basically opportunism and the SWP�s irrelevance
to wider events. The SWP impacts on events in the
way that Philip Gourevitch once described � using
a beautiful French description - ineffectiveness:
just like a cow standing in a field watching a train
go by. And I believe that the SWP try to jump on
any bandwagon that would maybe take them somewhere
and lessen their irrelevance and they concluded
that this issue would play well with Muslims and
be useful to themselves as a party. I think also
there�s an underlying motive here. The SWP claim
this is about the Prophet Muhammad; I think it is
about the Prophet Trotsky, who ain�t ever going
to come again. And the problem here is that where
you have an authoritarian structure, ruled from
on high by a small priesthood, which seeks to impose
a meta-narrative and teleological view of history
that these self-ordained people will secure, you
have clear similarities between different �select
churches�. So, it becomes very easy for the SWP
to identify with theocratic reaction. I recall,
you know, that Hitler once said, when people were
joining the Nazi party, �Don�t let the Social Democrats
in, but let the Communists in � they can join because
they think like us��and I think there�s something
there in the way all these type of �select churches�
work.
Q.
Returning to the �creative Left� you mentioned earlier,
how do you think this can be taken forward? And
how can �the Left� begin to deal with Islamic grievances
with the West?
A.M.
Well, I think if a new �Left� is to develop it can
only do so around a Human Rights� Agenda. And they
have to push Human Rights within Islamic societies
every bit as much as they push Human Rights within
their own society. And they have to stop trying
to impose a very monolithic view of the world �
that there�s only one cleavage, between �Left� and
�Right�. There�s a huge variety of cleavages � I
think it was best summed up by John Barry, co-leader
of the Green Party in Northern Ireland, who said
that there are many divisions within society � �class
plus� � and I�d agree with that �class plus� analysis.
The SWP almost fainted up in Derry when he made
that point. Fraternal smiles gave way to demonic
snarls. So it�s important that the �Left� moves
away from its old class determinism and the old
vanguard authoritarian attitude, because I think
vanguardism and authoritarianism are very dangerous
as a means of going forward. In my view, �the Left�
must stop thinking about seizing power, which they�re
not going to do, and redirect their intellect towards
monitoring power and holding it to account. And
they have to start thinking about a rights-driven,
rather than a power-driven, Marxism. Before �the
Left� can deal with Islamic grievances against the
West, they must first work out what those grievances
are, instead of opting for the old knee jerk reaction
that the grievances can be reduced to a liberationist
impulse against Western imperialism. Some of those
with grievances are fascists and would readily open
the gas chambers to repeat the Holocaust all over
again. And there are widespread grievances within
Islamic societies that are directed against the
theocratic fascists. People with these grievances
must be supported, rather than being silenced in
the interests of some fictional monolithic anti-imperialist
struggle.
Q.
Can I also take this opportunity to ask you about
your views on �free speech�, which is obviously
one of the other issues to arise from this matter?
Where do you think the line should be drawn? Should
boundaries be placed on the notion of �free speech�?
A.M.
Well, my personal view is, �would I say anything
that would directly lead to your death?� No, I would
not. Of course there are boundaries in that sense.
Nevertheless, I am totally distrustful of the �Free
Speech, but�� school. I mean, Orwell made this point
many years ago � many of these people who attend
�Free Speech� marches also have a censorial impulse
driving them. So what I tend to do is identify with
a purely �Free Speech� impulse and I�m always looking
for ways to push out the boundaries and expand �Free
Speech�. There are enough people trying to impose
boundaries as it is, so I don�t go looking for them.
I accept that �Free Speech� is not an absolute,
but I don�t go searching for the limits. That�s
the vocation of the censor not the writer. Sometimes
the accusation is made that people like myself are
free speech or secular fundamentalists. But this
is a stratagem employed to confuse the issue. Free
speech and secularism, because they seek to impose
no grand narrative, actually de-fundamentalise society.
They are the antidote to fundamentalism.
Q.
Finally, how do you see this debate playing in relation
to wider �liberal society�? What does it tell us
about the future of liberal democracy, or the dangers
that it faces?
A.M.
Well, one of my problems with liberal democracy
is that it is not participatory enough and it can
lead to terrible grievances and inequalities like
those in American, British and European societies.
But I do think the values and freedoms that liberal
democracy provides offer the opportunity to change
society � almost in spite of those who might rule
us. And I think we have to protect those values
and also try to develop a more democratic ethos
within society. This is one means of ensuring that
we do not swap one set of democracy-deficient administrators
who wave little blue flags for another set who wave
little red flags. And I felt that what we have seen
here with the cartoons� debate is an effort to encroach
on that democratic freedom by the imposition of
an anti-secularist, religious fundamentalism, which
I see as a major threat to democracy. I don�t oppose
religion in the sense of arguing for it to be suppressed
but I think it should be pushed very much into the
private sphere � everybody can have their own God,
or as many Gods as they like � but they can�t bring
their God into the public sphere and try to impose
it on the rest of us. As the writer Wafa Sultan
says, they can worship stones if they like � just
don�t throw them at me.
See also, "The Blanket, the Cartoons and the End of Left and Right",
by Gabriel Glickman
