Norm Geras, one of the authors of the Euston Manifesto, is defending it from its critics. He also explains why we need it.
The attachment to these principles — to democracy, freedom, equality — used to be standard on the Left. But in the opinion pages of the liberal press it has become routine to find journalists and others of would-be progressive outlook telling us that democracy, or liberalism, or Enlightenment values, all possibly suitable in the West, may not be so in other cultural contexts. The right to speak freely — entirely freely, barring only incitement to hatred or violence — is also frequently put in question in the face of religious sensibilities clamorously asserted.
(via Austin Bay)
In the same vein, Jeff Jarvis stands up for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is making a courageous stand for the very Enlightenment values Geras talks about. (Including the right to offend, which one of Jarvis’s readers took issue with when Hirsi Ali’s harsh tactics made the audience uncomfortable during a lecture he attended.
At the time, my personal response was that she had a vested interest in her opponents’ bigotry and was willing to engage in blatant self-promoting provocation — ostentatiously putting her copy of the Koran on the floor and refusing to move it to a table when politely asked to — in order to ensure that there would be no possibility of finding any common ground.
Hmmm. Hirsi Ali’s “opponents,” as I understand it, have threatened her, hounded her, proclaimed that they want to do away with her, slaughtered the director of the film she wrote, and intimidated her neighbors and moderate co-religionists into wanting to get rid of her so that they can get rid of the problem. All of this in Enlightened Holland.
I say she’s got the right to say she spits on their “religion.” No one’s religion, cause, or creed is more worthy of respect than the mutually agreed upon rules that bind people together and maintain public order.
5 comments ↓
Since I am the poster at BuzzMachine whom you quoted, let me clarify.
A major debate in the room at the Hirsi Ali event I attended was between liberal journalists from the Moslem world (many of them women) who objected to her blanket condemnation of an entire religion, and their less liberal co-religionists who agreed with her interpretation of Islam that it does indeed sanction the subjugation of women.
Hirsi Ali had no tolerance for this debate among Moslems. I interpreted her contempt for the Koran to be an effort to force both groups together in opposition to her — deliberately repudiating any opportunity there might have been to find common ground with the liberals.
PS –
None of the reactionaries who were arguing with her at this event (for whom, by the way, I hold no brief whatsoever) showed any sign of the attributes you cited.
None threatened her, hounded her, proclaimed that they wanted to do away with her, slaughtered the director of the film she wrote, nor intimidated her neighbors or moderate co-religionists into wanting to get rid of her.
You are jumping to conclusions if you believe that because some of her opponents may behave like that, that there was no opposition to her except by people who behaved thus.
Just a little clarification — Andrew
Yes, I take your point—Hirsi Ali certainly takes no prisoners.
Without knowing the people involved, and the groups and the agendas and the stakes, I can’t really address your point specifically.
I can say, though, that I’m a habitue of different emigre communities. No matter the ethnicity, religion, or race, they share a common trait: enmities run deep, and they don’t always fall along predictable lines (for example, liberal vs. conservative). I’ve found that people have personal grudges that are mixed in with political fights. In other words, things are not always what they seem, because we on the “outside” lack the frame of reference to make sense of them.
In short: the journalists from the Moslem world who look “liberal” to you may not have looked at all liberal to Hirsi Ali. (Just as certain Iranian emigres laugh at the notion that there are “hard-liners” and “reformers” in Iran—after all, there hasn’t been one iota of political change in that country since 1979.)
updated to fix typo
I am well aware that there is a great deal of hostility toward her in “polite society.”
That is the fate, and the burden, of dissidents. And yet still they stand up for what they believe.
Hepzeeba, you hit the nail on the head when you say: “In short: the journalists from the Moslem world who look ‘liberal’ to you may not have looked at all liberal to Hirsi Ali.”
My impression was that Hirsi Ali is not in the business of looking for liberals in the Moslem world. She seemed intent on blanket condemnations.
And you have no argument from me when you say: “I say she’s got the right to say she spits on their ‘religion.’”
My comments at BuzzMachine were not about her “right to spit on their religion” — of course she has the right.
I was merely conveying my impression that her spitting, in that particular context, was inflammatory rather than constructive.
Leave a Comment