We live in privileged times
Mar. 17th, 2006 02:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fpbYes, we are fortunate. Like the great men of a time we thought we might never see again, we have our chance to defend freedom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manifesto head
By Diana West
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published March 17, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement
Last month, 12 mainly European-based, mainly Muslim or ex-Muslim intellectuals, alarmed by the spell on free speech cast by Cartoon Rage 2006, signed onto an anti-totalitarian manifesto for freedom of expression published by Denmark's Jylland-Posten. "After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism," the manifesto began. "We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all."
Among the dozen signatories were Somali-born Dutch parliamentarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ugandan-born Canadian writer Irshad Manji, Indian-born British writer Salman Rushdie, and Pakistani-born writer Ibn Warraq. Rounding out the list were a few French writers, a Bangledeshi, a Lebanese and several Iranians. What is striking is that none of them come from that "world" they hailed, the one that overcame fascism, Nazism and communism not merely "Stalinism." (One signatory is billed as an Iranian communist, which may account for the jarring distinction.) Not only that, but, as the blogger Belmont Club pointed out, the manifestowas printed, "not in the New York Times, Le Monde or the Times of London, but of all places, in a provincial Danish newspaper of no particular fame."
All of which should shove a big, fat question mark onto the "world" stage to ask where these brave signatories' writerly, journalistic and intellectual brethren are on this one, not to mention Big Media coverage. After all, the world didn't overcome fascism, Nazism and communism with the silent treatment, restrained rhetoric, or exquisite editorial discretion. But beyond the blogosphere, coverage of the manifesto -- not the last word on the subject, but certainly a start -- has been sparse, just as though freedom of speech weren't in peril. And just as though the signatories, for affirming freedom of speech, weren't either.
But they are. A crude death threat has been posted at the British Muslim Web site, ummah.com -- the kind of Web site where, as Time magazine reported after the London Underground bombings last year, a poem said to have been posted by Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi glorified terror-bombings in Iraq, and another user wrote that "killing Americans is not murder, it is retaliation." This time, under a thread entitled "Writers Slam Islamic 'Totalitarianism,' " the names of the Free Expression 12 appeared and someone wrote:
"Now we have drawn out a hit list of a `Who's Who' guide to slam into. Take your time but make sure their [sic] gone soon -- oh, and don't hold out for a fatwa it isn't really required here." And then:
"Has anyone got that Christian kaffir 'Ibn Warraq's' real name yet?"
Scrolling through such illiterate spewings is a little like reading an interactive bathroom wall; but since the Internet has linked and even activated jihadi terrorists, it's not something to ignore. The poster continued: "Well them [sic] disbelievers [the signatories] have in effect signed a death wish via this statement so to hell with them, we'll just provide the help that they so dearly crave."
I asked Mr. Warraq, author of the superb "Why I Am Not a Muslim" written after the Salman Rushdie affair, about the threat. "We must take it seriously in one sense, but we mustn't let it stop us in our tracks," he said. He's right, of course; although most of the "world" writers, journalists, intellectuals -- have already been stopped in their tracks, intimidated, paralyzed, almost disfunctionally so. How to jump-start them again?
As far as I can tell, the manifesto has inspired just one outlet, an Irish Web site called the Blanket, to publish the Danish cartoons "in protest against totalitarianism," editor Anthony McIntyre said last week. This makes the Blanket, which will also be profiling the manifesto signers, the sole journal in the British Isles, online or on paper, to do so. "We wanted to show solidarity with those writers who were prepared to stick their necks out in defense of free speech," Mr. McIntyre said.
So here we are, living in a world where a manifesto for free speech constitutes "[sticking] their necks out," draws death threats on the one hand, and silence on the other. Why did they sign it, then? Mr. Warraq offered the words of John Stuart Mill: "A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight; nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by exertions of better men than himself."
Copyright © 2006 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manifesto head
By Diana West
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published March 17, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement
Last month, 12 mainly European-based, mainly Muslim or ex-Muslim intellectuals, alarmed by the spell on free speech cast by Cartoon Rage 2006, signed onto an anti-totalitarian manifesto for freedom of expression published by Denmark's Jylland-Posten. "After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism," the manifesto began. "We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all."
Among the dozen signatories were Somali-born Dutch parliamentarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ugandan-born Canadian writer Irshad Manji, Indian-born British writer Salman Rushdie, and Pakistani-born writer Ibn Warraq. Rounding out the list were a few French writers, a Bangledeshi, a Lebanese and several Iranians. What is striking is that none of them come from that "world" they hailed, the one that overcame fascism, Nazism and communism not merely "Stalinism." (One signatory is billed as an Iranian communist, which may account for the jarring distinction.) Not only that, but, as the blogger Belmont Club pointed out, the manifestowas printed, "not in the New York Times, Le Monde or the Times of London, but of all places, in a provincial Danish newspaper of no particular fame."
All of which should shove a big, fat question mark onto the "world" stage to ask where these brave signatories' writerly, journalistic and intellectual brethren are on this one, not to mention Big Media coverage. After all, the world didn't overcome fascism, Nazism and communism with the silent treatment, restrained rhetoric, or exquisite editorial discretion. But beyond the blogosphere, coverage of the manifesto -- not the last word on the subject, but certainly a start -- has been sparse, just as though freedom of speech weren't in peril. And just as though the signatories, for affirming freedom of speech, weren't either.
But they are. A crude death threat has been posted at the British Muslim Web site, ummah.com -- the kind of Web site where, as Time magazine reported after the London Underground bombings last year, a poem said to have been posted by Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi glorified terror-bombings in Iraq, and another user wrote that "killing Americans is not murder, it is retaliation." This time, under a thread entitled "Writers Slam Islamic 'Totalitarianism,' " the names of the Free Expression 12 appeared and someone wrote:
"Now we have drawn out a hit list of a `Who's Who' guide to slam into. Take your time but make sure their [sic] gone soon -- oh, and don't hold out for a fatwa it isn't really required here." And then:
"Has anyone got that Christian kaffir 'Ibn Warraq's' real name yet?"
Scrolling through such illiterate spewings is a little like reading an interactive bathroom wall; but since the Internet has linked and even activated jihadi terrorists, it's not something to ignore. The poster continued: "Well them [sic] disbelievers [the signatories] have in effect signed a death wish via this statement so to hell with them, we'll just provide the help that they so dearly crave."
I asked Mr. Warraq, author of the superb "Why I Am Not a Muslim" written after the Salman Rushdie affair, about the threat. "We must take it seriously in one sense, but we mustn't let it stop us in our tracks," he said. He's right, of course; although most of the "world" writers, journalists, intellectuals -- have already been stopped in their tracks, intimidated, paralyzed, almost disfunctionally so. How to jump-start them again?
As far as I can tell, the manifesto has inspired just one outlet, an Irish Web site called the Blanket, to publish the Danish cartoons "in protest against totalitarianism," editor Anthony McIntyre said last week. This makes the Blanket, which will also be profiling the manifesto signers, the sole journal in the British Isles, online or on paper, to do so. "We wanted to show solidarity with those writers who were prepared to stick their necks out in defense of free speech," Mr. McIntyre said.
So here we are, living in a world where a manifesto for free speech constitutes "[sticking] their necks out," draws death threats on the one hand, and silence on the other. Why did they sign it, then? Mr. Warraq offered the words of John Stuart Mill: "A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight; nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by exertions of better men than himself."
Copyright © 2006 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-18 01:23 am (UTC)I'm writing an article on the latter part of that statement in relation to a) The Danish Cartoons and b) South Park. This is rather interesting... however, it's also something that riles me up more than just a little bit. To me, these men are not great - they are definitely standing up for a cause they believe in, but at the same time they are the people who, rather than critically analyse their original beliefs, prefer to abandon the values and attack those very beliefs. I don't really see greatness in that. As much as I value the efforts being put forward to validate freedom of expression, the truth is, this kind of reaction - where people who are knowledgeable and have the ability to see both sides could try and achieve balance, within reason, and do not do so - well... it just makes me a little angry, a little sad. a little bit sick.
There's a difference between defence and attack. The people who are posting on the websites targeting these individuals are not right, either, IMHO... however, this is one of those issues where both sides seem to have their points, both positive and negative. Why I guess the writers' responses irk me is because they could, if they so wished, try to reason it out. The fundamentals will be fundamentals, no matter what anyone says. But these people have been granted knowledge and reasoning and have Islamic backgrounds, and probably could present a more balanced argument than just denouncing 'Islamism' as if it was one of those other 'isms' that they so abhor. Every side will have its supporters and detractors, but in this case, I guess I'd appreciate more of a negotiated view than this.
Just my $0.02
-Kiks