Article
Time to speak out
We need to stanch the growing anti-semitic hate originating in other countries but easily available in Britain.
At long last, a tiny dam is being put up against the poisonous water of hate speech which now fills the internet. The abuse of Muslims, black people, Jews and almost every group that has a distinct identity is now reaching alarming proportions. The British press filters out most of this evil language, thanks to professional journalism and an ethics that even when deformed by red-top sensationalism knows there are limits.
Elsewhere this is not the case. The elsewhere takes two forms. The first is the spread of populist newspapers screaming accusations and sensationalist writing at the top of its voice. In many new EU member states, a Gresham's law is operating of bad journalism driving out good. Anti-Jewish writing is widespread. So too are racist attacks. Foreign students in Russia are told to hide in their university halls of residence next week as Adolf Hitler's birthday is celebrated by Russian thugs going out to beat up foreigners. They do not do this spontaneously but are told by various publications that such behaviour is OK.
Jean Marie Le Pen has dragged the French presidential election to new lows by denouncing the main rightwing candidate as being not really French. This reference to Nicolas Sarkozy's part-Hungarian, part-Jewish background is par for the course for Le Pen. The smarmy profiles of him in the British press in the French election have studiously ignored his roaring anti-semitism. The Polish political class has still taken no action against one of their MEPs who published a pamphlet earlier this year attacking Jews. Radio Maryja in Poland does not disavow its anti-semitic broadcasts.
Europe's Muslims also suffer from a branding of their religion which insults those for whom mosques - like the churches of Christianity or the synagogues of Judaism - are places of prayer and of being closer to their god. The ideological aspects of Islamism - the denial of women's rights, the homophobia, the tacit acceptance of stoning women to death, or the awful throat cutting in Turkey this week of Christian activists - contradict democracy and human rights, but the right of Muslims to follow their faith under law in Europe must be defended.
Yesterday, together with other members of the parliamentary commission of enquiry into anti-semitism, I met with Margaret Beckett at the Foreign Office to discuss how Britain could help stanch the growing anti-semitic hate originating in other countries but easily available here.
One of the biggest problems we faced was the use of the net to spread anti-Jewish hate. The same is true of the net being used as vector to spread other hate messages. A major deontological debate needs to be had on whether there are any limits to hate speech on the net or in publications. The United States has washed its hands of this problem and as the main ISP source in the world is allowing hate against Jews, against Muslims, against women, against blacks to be spread on the net with all the journalistic honesty of Die Sturmer.
This is done in the name of free speech just like the right to bear arms allows Americans to be denied their freedom to live as gunmen kill thousands in a way unacceptable in European nations. That is a problem for Americans but in Europe we cannot, from our historical experience, allow hate speech to be banalised. The new EU directive will encourage those decent journalists and law-makers in new EU member states to promote decent and fair practice.
I do not believe it is desirable for legislators to decide what can and cannot be discussed by the media. I opposed the French parliament's decision to say that the Armenian massacres of 1915 can only be discussed in a certain manner. Holocaust denial in Germany and Austria has specific political consequences which cannot be avoided but in general history should be left to historians.
But to promote race hate and to stir up violence via the net is to deny democracy and all that Europe has achieved by matching free speech with rules on tolerance and democracy. I am not sure this new EU directive will have the impact its promoters seek but to denounce it is to give comfort to all those who are making the lives of many in Europe a daily experience of fear and uncertainty.
Related Content
User Comments
KelvinYearwood
20 April 2007 1:26PM
In the real world, what professional UK journalists seem quite good at doing is filtering out the truth:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7189
This is why I don't buy UK newspapers, the serious tabloids or the sensationalist ones. I believe Pilger only turns to UK papers after he has checked some tried and tested internet websites, and he doesn't even bother with UK tv news, at all.
Censorship of race-hate narrative is another thing. Like most people, I condemn such a thing, but should we censor it.
BTW, just as a metter of interest, have you ever conveniently confused criticism of Israel with anti-semitism? It seems to be a common 'professional' journalist position, based on an ideological structure of ignorance, career considerations, following the pack mentality, etc.
Bils
20 April 2007 1:46PM
Dear Denis,
We also need to stem the anti-Muslim Islam hatred that is not just about words but that has been adopted by the BNP who are fighting elections. This prejudice has been fed by journalists such as you who use words such as 'Islamofascist' and provide the legitimating discourse for the BNP,
so your credentials as an anti-racist campaigner are a little tarnished by the fact that you have so often and systematically indulged in promoting prejudice and racism against Muslims,
nowthennowthen
20 April 2007 1:52PM
Dennis
Excellent article and I applaud your intentions. However I feel that you will fail. For some reason it seems to be within human nature to be wary of those who are of different race, colour, religion, country, sex or football team. That waryness can be dormant and never become other than natural caution. In other cases it can be taken to extremes and this leads racist, sexist or other forms of abuse and action. We also seem, as a species, to be stunningly incapable of learning from our own mistakes and history.
You say that you want to stop the spread of anti-semitic material available here that originates from abroad. This material takes three forms. Far-right neo-Nazi sourced literature, far-left anti-Israel literature hiding behind a veil of anti-semitism and that produced by Islam facists.
It was somewhat ironic when during the Danish cartoon riots that swept the world last year, that even more offensive anti-semitic cartoons, produced on a virtual daily basis in middle-eastern news media publications got no mention here. It was almost as if the Islamic fundamentalists were saying "You can't criticise or insult us, but we can criticise and insult you".
A similar response when the pope's comment on the writings of a medevil document was taken out of context. "Islam has brought things only evil and inhuman". Turkey told him to stay away and a nun was murdered in Africa. In other words he was quoting a source that claimed Islam was a violent religion with the result that the "religion" responded with violence. Point proved?
thetrashheap
20 April 2007 1:54PM
Denis MacShane considering that Bils considers you guilty of what you wish to ban can you not see how dangerous your proposed laws would be.
Donuts
20 April 2007 1:57PM
I'm a bit confused by this, sorry. Maybe its a little early for me or whatever.
"I do not believe it is desirable for legislators to decide what can and cannot be discussed by the media. [Ref A] I opposed the French parliament's decision to say that the Armenian massacres of 1915 can only be discussed in a certain manner. Holocaust denial in Germany and Austria has specific political consequences which cannot be avoided but in general history should be left to historians.
But to promote race hate and to stir up violence via the net is to deny democracy and all that Europe has achieved by matching free speech with rules on tolerance and democracy. I am not sure this new EU directive will have the impact its promoters seek but to denounce it is to give comfort to all those who are making the lives of many in Europe a daily experience of fear and uncertainty [Ref B]."
Ref A seems to suggest the author thinks legislation is a bad idea.
Ref B seems to suggest that opposing the legislation is also a bad idea.
Is the author beating himself up somewhere?
One of the problems with having so many lawyers entering politics is that they think laws can be passed to resolve any problem. They have little or no concept of something as unstructured as the internet, and seek to impose control over it. A natural response I guess, but doomed to failure from the outset.
The other problem is larger. How easy it it to identify a piece of material, spoken or written, as inflammatory and/or likely to incite racial-hatred? I mean, if I say 'kill the greens/blues/reds/whatever' then obviously thats a far cop (gov). Suppose I say 'this bunch of newcomers to our country are hoovering up all our resources and getting first priority on council houses'? OR, 'You know, you never see a poor X - they look after their own you know'?
Who would be the arbiter in all of this and what bias of their own would they bring to the table?
bobdoney
20 April 2007 2:01PM
"The United States has washed its hands of this problem and as the main ISP source in the world is allowing hate against Jews, against Muslims, against women, against blacks to be spread on the net with all the journalistic honesty of Die Sturmer.
"This is done in the name of free speech..."
Yes, with you so far.
"I do not believe it is desirable for legislators to decide what can and cannot be discussed by the media."
Yes. So what was wrong with the American approach?
"But to promote race hate and to stir up violence via the net is to deny democracy and all that Europe has achieved by matching free speech with rules on tolerance and democracy."
So are you in favour of free speech or not?
"I am not sure this new EU directive will have the impact its promoters seek"
Ah, you're not sure.
"... but to denounce it is to give comfort to all those who are making the lives of many in Europe a daily experience of fear and uncertainty."
Glad we cleared that up.
So to sum up, we are in favour of free speech (HOORAY!), except when it's the Americans (BOO!), and we're not sure if the EU directive is a good idea (HMMMMM.....), but denouncing it is a bad thing.
Anyone got an aspirin...
cesard
20 April 2007 2:04PM
anti-semitism is stupid.
If Jews are a race or a people, then racial discrimination laws protects them.
If Jews are simply a religion then religious discrimination laws protect them.
What makes Jews more important than others that they get their own special terms?
Ishouldapologise
20 April 2007 2:16PM
Call for a boycott of most of Eastern Europe the Ukraine, Belorus and Russia. . . . They are the worst culprits. . The antisemitism of Iran and Middle Eastern countries must be seen in terms of the Israel-Palestine question. It's a seperate issue.
daniitzhak
20 April 2007 2:18PM
BILS
"We also need to stem the anti-Muslim Islam hatred that is not just about words but that has been adopted by the BNP who are fighting elections. This prejudice has been fed by journalists such as you who use words such as 'Islamofascist' and provide the legitimating discourse for the BNP,
so your credentials as an anti-racist campaigner are a little tarnished by the fact that you have so often and systematically indulged in promoting prejudice and racism against Muslims"
i completely agree with you. people seem to care more when jews get offended than when muslims do. why is that? because of the horrible treatment and persection of jew throughout the years? that's fine, but, that doen't mean that a jewish blood is worth more. that's what i try to convey to right winged israelis who seem to think that when the pals lose- lets say- a child- it's less horrible thanwhen a jew losses his! that's awful. racism in any way is wrong. anyway, i liked your post.
Danielle
Function
20 April 2007 2:22PM
Bils
"We also need to stem the anti-Muslim Islam hatred that is not just about words but that has been adopted by the BNP who are fighting elections. This prejudice has been fed by journalists such as you who use words such as 'Islamofascist' and provide the legitimating discourse for the BNP,"
If you don't like the term then what do you think that islamofascists should be called instead? Or are you one of these people who believes that if something doesn't have a name it won't exist? That you can change reality itself just by adjusting language?
GreenBird
20 April 2007 2:29PM
"The ideological aspects of Islamism - the denial of women's rights, the homophobia, the tacit acceptance of stoning women to death, or the awful throat cutting in Turkey this week of Christian activists"
Was this supposed to be in defence of Muslims and other minorities? This is racist prejudicial drivel which one would expect to come out of the mouth of the likes of the BNP and Le Pen but which is increasingly coming out of the mouths of members of the government.
SteveM
20 April 2007 2:38PM
"The antisemitism of Iran and Middle Eastern countries must be seen in terms of the Israel-Palestine question. It's a seperate issue." - Ishouldapologise
Wrong again. The antisemitism of Iran and Middle Eastern countries is indefensible and should not be part of the Israel-Palestine question. It's a separate issue.
Lopakhin
20 April 2007 2:48PM
Kelvin Yearwood: 'I believe Pilger only turns to UK papers after he has checked some tried and tested internet websites'
Well, we now know that those tried and tested websites include the conspiracy theory website PrisonPlanet.com, from where he gleaned a misquote which is corrected in this week's New Statesman. See:
http://medialenswatch.blogspot.com/2007/04/medialens-hero-caught-lying-in-new.html
Maybe he should stick to the newspapers?
CoeurDeLion
20 April 2007 2:50PM
Your sub-header and first sentence are fair enough, but unfortunately from then on, political correctness and moral relativism take over, trashing your own argument. Such restraint may be well meaning, but its duplicity will do nothing to alleviate the problem, in fact failing to face this issue head on will only make it worse. The road to ruin is paved with good intentions.
Where is the evidence that "the abuse of Muslims, black people, Jews and almost every group that has a distinct identity is now reaching alarming proportions"? There are, of course degrees of abuse, from name calling to throat slitting. And this is where attempts to show "balance" through moral relativism fall flat. If I must spell it out, throat slitting is worse - much, much worse than name calling, and unfortunately for your argument such violence is not directed against, but comes primarily from one and only one of the groups that you enumerate.
So where is all this anti-Muslim hatred? Many have serious, rational and sincere concern about Islam, but as far as I am aware there is little abuse of Muslims. There is disdain, dislike and distrust, certainly, but a rational case can at least be made for these, as such sentiments (and much worse) are institutional for kaffirs throughout the Muslim world and often reciprocated in Britain. The Sharia court of Pakistan recently overruled convictions by civil courts for murder of "people believed to be immoral" by Muslim thugs - in Sharia even a mistaken belief is sufficient for acquittal. No moral relativism in Pakistan.
"In November 2005, the French government's human rights commission delivered to Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin its 2004 report on racism and anti-Semitism in France. The report underscores a worrisome pattern of retreat into separate ethnic communities. And the evidence of hostility is sobering: The number of violent acts and threats nearly doubled, from 833 in 2003 to a record 1,565 in 2004. Of these, 62 percent were directed against Jews, who make up just 1 percent of France's population." http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/446loxwa.asp?pg=1
Statistics, hushed up by the European Commission, show that the level of anti-semitism from all groups but one has been at a static level for decades. The recent increase is solely due to that one remaining group. If you want to know where the source of all this hate is, you need only look at MEMRI.
DeepFried
20 April 2007 2:56PM
I am more concerned about the institutionalised racism, systems of apartheid and blatant ethnic cleansing of Israel than I am by people on the web pointing it out.
This business of conflating valid criticism of Israel with anti semitism will backfire badly when no one in the world much cares whether they are called an anti semite or not. And folk like Denis here will be very much to blame for it when it does happen, as it surely will.
Denis why not worry and write about real crimes �on the ground� that are genuine atrocities rather than words written in cyber space.
cesard
20 April 2007 3:05PM
Why have the term 'anti-semitic' anyway? Why can't you just be a bigot if you insult or hate Jews?
SAVLANUT
20 April 2007 3:06PM
"What makes Jews more important than others that they get their own special terms?"
They are similar but not identical phenomena as as those which make Muslims feel entitled to their own special terms. Which means that Jews should get them if Muslims do.
thetrashheap
20 April 2007 1:13PM
When has it every been good for a society that laws control opinions. THe first thing any despotic regime does is try and control the media. Edited by CIF moderator.