What do I know?: October 2015

Why do I care?

I grew up in a bigoted environment as some of us unfortunately do. In my case, it was one focussed on the protestant/catholic Christian divide of Glasgow. I have therefore been interested in the many forms of bigotry which I've encountered ever since the time in my life when I realised that there was another approach to fellow human beings which I preferred. This has been a fairly constantly developing thought process for me and will hopefully continue to be as I keep questioning my beliefs and opinions. This blog post tries to explain where my thinking currently is. In particular, it has been prompted by many discussions on religious freedom and extremism as well as my recent experience of political protest.

What do I say?

The first thing to say is that I believe that we are all biased (and therefore bigots) to some extent. We cannot help but judge people we see or meet based on how they look or sound, never mind what they say. This means we all need to keep fighting the automatic reaction to be a bigot.

My overall mantra is this - discuss and criticise people's beliefs but don't attack the individual. This is not easy, especially where someone's beliefs are so ingrained and closely held, that they treat any criticism of beliefs as a personal attack. I believe that the tools of equal human rights and secularism are crucial in this.

Religious beliefs

To criticise Islam or any other set of religious beliefs is completely acceptable. For example, the misogyny engrained in all three Abrahamic religions and Islamic teachings on apostates deserving death. To attack Islamist, jihadist or right-wing Christian ideology that uses religious texts and teaching as its basis for extremist fascist style political systems is also totally acceptable. For example, the Klu Klux Klan or Islamic State/daesh. To treat all religious group as if they all act as one, agree on everything or are all a threat is not acceptable and is bigotry. Hope not Hate, Maryam Namazie and Maajid Nawaz always seem to get this right and are worth following on social media. Using muslims as an example, there are many different views amongst them and to treat them all as believing in the Islamic teachings on apostasy and misogyny is as bigoted as seeing all roman catholics as believing that abortion and contraception are wrong.

The term "Islamophobia" is sometimes used by regressives (on the left) to stifle free speech by describing anyone who criticises beliefs as a bigot (normally the term racist is used even though muslims are not one race). On the other hand, "muslimphobia" bigotry (attacking the people not their beliefs) is alive and well and makes me as sad as any other bigotry, racism or xenophobia. Attack beliefs not people and the world will be a better place.

Some painful examples of this have arisen recently in the comments I've seen on social media concerning the Syrian refugees. I have no doubt that there will be some islamist/jihadist extremists amongst the people fleeing war torn Syria. However to see some people argue that we should not help refugees because of this seems inhumane to me. As inhumane as stopping all state benefits in the UK because a few abuse the system.

Human Rights as a tool against bigotry

The tools to use against bigotry are human rights legislation and a secular approach.

Basic human rights are beautifully enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In Europe (as part of the Council of Europe rather than the European Union despite what some nay-sayers would have us believe) we have legislation under the European Convention on Human Rights and it's court the European Court of Human Rights. In the UK we also have the benefit of domestic legislation (The Human Rights Act) that enshrines ECHR into our court system so that we can deal with disputes here rather than in Europe (again despite what some nay-sayers would have us believe). Follow Amnesty International, Liberty, The British Institute of Human Rights and The Peter Tatchell Foundation who generally get this stuff right.

These protections for human rights enable bigotry to be attacked as they all try to ensure that we are all treated the same in legislation irrespective of our innate traits (colour, nationality or sexuality) or beliefs (religious, political etc.). If you've been misfortunate enough to have read the right wing press or heard politicians who've peddled the stories of human rights legislation "going too far" (such as allowing terrorists who owned a cat to remain in the UK and so avoid extradition) or proposing that we should have associated "responsibilities" before we earn human rights then please do me a favour:
1. check the facts of the case that shows "it's gone too far" as it's not true
2. read the legislation and show me the section you would delete thinking of yourself benefitting from the protections it provides to us all equally.

We also need to guard against criticising human rights laws because they are used by groups we disagree with. For example, I believe that groups like CageUK use human rights laws to try to cover for their extremist islamist fascist beliefs. We should argue against these beliefs not human rights legislation. Incidentally, the Orange Order who were a key part of my bigoted childhood are similar to groups like CageUK. They pretend they are trying to protect equal rights for protestants but, actually, are arguing for continuation of the privileged position they have historically held in the UK.

A secular approach as a tool against bigotry

I am particularly amazed when people treat a secular approach as an attack on basic rights. Secularism is not atheism, despite some religious people trying to conflate the two, nor is it humanism, which is an approach to life using rational evidence ignoring all superstitions. A secular approach attempts to ensure that any religious beliefs or lack of them does not give anyone a position of privilege over others (e.g. faith based state funded schools or Church of England bishops sitting in the House of Lords) or allow them to legally discriminate against others (e.g. ban homosexuals from a hotel). It has at its core our basic human right to be treated equally under the law irrespective of our beliefs (in the same way as for innate traits such as nationality, colour or sexuality).

Similarly as for human rights legislation above, if you've been misfortunate enough to have read the right wing press or heard politicians who've peddled the stories of Christians being persecuted in the UK please again check the facts of the case as the truth is that these are situations where Christians are actually arguing that their right to be bigots and treat others as inferior should allow exemption from the law (e.g. a bakery refusing to bake for a homosexual wedding) or that their previous position of privilege should be protected even if others are then in an inferior position (e.g. parents choosing a state funded faith based school for a child then arguing for travel costs to be paid which wouldn't if a more local non faith based alternative was chosen).

In this area, we also need to guard against cultural relativism where some justify beliefs and actions of certain groups because "it's the way they do things" given the group's cultural, religious or national background. If people live in the UK then their actions must be subject to universal laws applying irrespective of belief. As an example, we in the UK have stupidly allowed sharia courts to exist as "it's how they do things in their communities". This has been a disaster. We need to ensure that everyone in every community is subject to the same laws and associated rights. Otherwise we for example allow sharia courts to treat women as second class citizens in marriage disputes.

I should be clear on one thing regarding secularism. I am not arguing that religious groups should not have a say like everyone else. What I'm saying however is that they shouldn't have a more privileged voice than other groups e.g. the pope being given a voice in the United Nations as head of the Vatican state (a pretend country) or, closer to home, the church of England as the UK's established church having sole rights to our head of state monarchy and unelected bishops in our parliament.

Free speech

For me we should all fight for free speech as it is a cornerstone of equality and progress. There are two caveats however.

Firstly, free speech and the right to criticise others' beliefs doesn't mean we should feel able to randomly start discussing such things with someone who just happens to be passing us in the street. In other words, free speech isn't about being able to start hassling individuals. Its about being able to say what you believe in any public forum (e.g. a meeting, event or publication) or where the conversation is already taking place amongst people you are with. I know someone who approached a woman in a hijab at an event and started asking if she thought she was part of the problem of misogyny in Islam. It wasn't appropriate to hassle the individual and was seen as threatening by those nearby. I've been guilty of this on social media where innocuous posts have led me to inappropriately make a point only vaguely related to it to criticise the person's beliefs. If you've been one of them I apologise unreservedly. However I don't apologise at all if your social media post was on the topic that I then criticised your beliefs on - that's free speech and if you don't like it unfriend or block me - as others have done! We can be kind and civil to each other even if what we say in discussion forums offends others' beliefs.

Secondly, free speech and the right to criticise others' beliefs doesn't mean we should incite violence. This brings us into the very debatable area of so called hate speech. I believe that we should have laws in place that mean anyone who says that others should be physically attacked will be prosecuted. This is "hate crime" not "hate speech" and we already have laws on this in the UK. What if the comments are offensive to others? Although I fully accept that this is another difficult area, here I think the need for free speech overrides any concerns for people's feelings or any possibility that others will use the comments as an excuse for violence. There have been a number of university students' unions recently who have introduced "safe space" policies to try to avoid offence being caused. This is totally misplaced. If someone doesn't want to listen to a speaker who will offend them then they either shouldn't go to the event or, better still, they should go and tell the speaker why they are wrong.

Governments generally adopt an attitude of "something must be done" and therefore err on the side of trying to prevent upset and offense. This attempt to protect people is misplaced. We should protect free speech for all even if it offends others' beliefs (subject to the caveats I've described) even if we abhor what is being said. We are lucky enough in the UK to have abolished our ridiculous blasphemy laws. Such legislation tries to stop religious people being offended. It also stops debate and discussion and is an enemy of free speech. Worse still, it allows valid criticism to be stifled where religious groups are abusing their position or are benefiting from a privileged position. Even worse, blasphemy laws give protected religious groups a feeling that it is then appropriate to attack "blasphemers" as currently seen in Bangladesh where atheist bloggers are being killed and maimed.

Politics

I was recently involved in some of the protest events associated with the Tory party conference coming to Manchester. In particular this involved a gig at the People's History Museum ("PHM") and the TUC organised march on the next day as the Tory party conference began in Manchester. I've never been party political and take the view that to always support a political party irrespective of the specific item being debated is too restrictive. I'll generally feel more supportive of a certain party at any point in time but would rather disagree with them if I felt it necessary - for example if they attacked basic human rights or a secular approach to legislation.

The PHM and TUC events were totally different in many ways. One was the element of hate and bigotry that existed at the TUC march and other Tory party conference protests. I appreciate this was due to the profile of these being totally different but it still highlighted important differences to me. A small element on the march were more focussed on being anti-Tory bigots than emphasising the positives of a different approach. It's always going to be easier to attack than explain the benefits of a different approach but some just aren't interested in the latter. They are totally focussed on attacking "Tory scum" rather than showing why their alternative approach is better.

I think we should consider this by replacing the word "catholic" or "muslim" for "Tory" in what is said. All of these are relevant in that they relate to people's chosen beliefs. So if you object to the Tory government's treatment of the disabled or pensioners for example then say so. Exactly the same as if you object to Islam or Catholicism's treatment of women. If, however, you then think it's okay to shout "tory scum" because of the Tory government's policies, then presumably it's also okay to shot "muslim/catholic scum" at imams and priests?

Underlying this is a bigotry that assumes all Tories hold the same views and that they are all bad. Such identity politics is as bad as certain Tories treating all benefit claimants as being layabouts or right wingers demonising all poor people as being lazy.

What do I know?

As usual I know only what I believe is right and fair at the time. I would be really interested in others' thoughts on my ramblings here on, what I believe, are important topics for us all.

What do I know?

Friday 9 October 2015

Bigotry

Thursday 8 October 2015

Je suis Charlie