The ideology of 'evil'. posted by Richard Seymour

The Prime Minister has been staking out yet another of his tough but tender, firm but friendly, hard but huggable stances over the past few days. The basic coordinates of his latest idea are as follows: 1) the attacks on London were evil, 2) they were motivated by an evil ideology, 3) the perpetrators were Muslims, 4) Islam is a religion of peace which a small group of individuals have perverted, 5) QED: Muslims have to root out this 'evil' in their community.

Blood and Treasure has already taken such babble apart, but sadly he is not listened to by the BBC, ITV or The Observer. For instance, yesterday morning the Beeb hosted a discussion with a representative from the Muslim Council of Britain and another from the Muslim Public Affairs Committee . The guy from the MCB uttered some vague nonsense affirming that he and others would be seeking to have a dialogue with the young Muslims and so on. The MPAC guy was much more impressive - he excoriated the Muslim leadership for failing to speak up on foreign policy matters and depriving Muslims of a legitimate political voice. Asked if there was any chance of Muslims 'shopping' friends or relatives who started twitching nervously, blasting US imperialism and denouncing the Zionist enemey, he replied [very roughly]: "Not at all. We're all angry, and if you start locking people up, we'll all be in jail. What the Muslim leadership should be doing is speaking up and showing young Muslims a democratic alternative. At the moment, they're saying nothing, and many of them are so scared of hostility that they prefer to hide under the umbrella of the Labour Party. I speak to these young kids, and what they're angry about is the slaughter in Palestine and Iraq. They have to be shown that there is a legitimate way to voice those grievances".

Yet today, I heard something quite different. Kamal Ahmed of The Observer was appearing on the ITV News Channel with some fatuous presenter who asked if the problem was Muslims failing to 'integrate'. This ridiculous point was actually taken seriously. Ahmed said that there should be much more emphasis on 'British values'. Asked if the problem was with the Left, for being far too tolerant of extremism, what with Mayor Ken inviting al-Qaradawi to London, Ahmed replied once more that we should be more open about our 'British values' and there was some sort of suggestion that people graduating from high school should undergo a citizenship ceremony, and this was followed by a word or two in favour of free speech.

Question of the day, then: what the fuck are 'British values'? I'm sure some unctuous berk could generate some glittering generalities about freedom, democracy, human rights and the rest - but what's specifically British about those? Or some sarcastically dextral dickhead could expatiate in a negative fashion about British values not involving killing civilians ( ahem-hem! ) on purpose ( ahem-hem-hem! ) - somehow the words Aden, Oman, Yemen, India, Kenya, Boer, Iraq, Palestine and so on come to mind. But it would be almost impossible to come up with a set of uniquely British 'values' that did not in the end reduce themselves to a series of smug cultural reminiscences: Shakespeare, St George, Agincourt, warm cider, gawd bless, cricket, rolling meadows, stiff upper lip, empiricism, stoicism, Ooo do you think you are kiddin mister 'itler? and all the rest of it. And how to avoid the old conflation between British and English? Far right Tory MP Andrew Rosindell says that every Englishman should have St George's day carved into his heart. As I have repeatedly advised him, I'd be happy to carve those words into his heart the second he gives me the instruction. I'll even throw in an autograph. Answer came there none, I'm afraid.

Back to evil. When David Copeland, the BNP-supporting nail-bomber, killed many in Brixton and the Rainbow District of Soho, did anyone ask the 'white community' to remove this evil, perverted ideology from its ranks? Why not? Isn't the trouble with these white people that they refuse to integrate? What with their belligerent, blank-eyed youths, their Burberry wear and shell suits, their dreary 'pop' music, their annoying taxi drivers and tasteless food, and their unquestioning submission to a zombie-like culture - how could this not produce terrorism? Or perhaps white people don't feel implicated in the actions of a lonely tosser and his minute regiment of violent co-ideologues?

More generally about 'evil' as an ideological horizon, Badiou wrote:

We should be more struck than we usually are by a remark that often recurs in commentaries devoted to the war in the former Yugoslavia: it is pointed out - with a subjective kind of excitement, an ornamental pathos - that these atrocities are taking place 'only two hours by plane from Paris'. The authors of these texts invoke, naturally, the 'rights of man', ethics, humanitarian intervention, the fact that Evil (thought to have been exorcised by the collapse of 'totalitarianisms') is making a terrible comeback.

...

Ethics feeds too much on Evil and the Other not to take silent pleasure in seeing them close up (in a silence that is the abject underside of its prattle). For at the core of mastery internal to ethics is always the power to decide who dies and who does not.

Ethics is nihilist because its underlying conviction is that the only thing that can really happen to someone is death.

Certain commentators who insist on reminding us that Evil really exists in the world, that it is being implemented by the enemies of humanity and so on, rely too much on the notion of Evil to sustain their positions. The ultimate negative point of reference for them is usually the Nazi holocaust - understandably so, since the events and actions designated by this term often bely comprehension. It is a 'warning from history', but what it warns for such commentators (particularly when coupled with Stalinism under the polysemous notion of 'totalitarianism') is that any substantial deviation from the fixtures of liberalism results in Evil. Analysis is therefore eschewed for moral browbeating: can't you tell the difference between Evil and collateral damage? Isn't this moral nihilism? Evil therefore performs a regulative, coercive function in ideology.

So it is today that any Muslim deviating from the secular-liberal consensus is on the royal road to Evil. Even if you don't hold particularly anti-democratic views, merely expressing support for Palestinian or Iraqi violence is enough to get you vilified. And potentially, if you've got a beard and dark skin, it may get you shopped to the filth.

Side note: ironically, the 'Incitement to Religious Hatred' bill, which I have argued against, but which many Muslim organisations support, may now be used to exterminate Evil . That is:

Downing Street said yesterday that the incitement to religious hatred legislation going through parliament would not only protect Muslims "but would also enable the authorities to prosecute extremist Muslims who incited hatred".

The Home Office is allowed to deport a foreign national on grounds of "not being conducive to the public good" but human rights safeguards mean they cannot be sent back if there is a danger they will face torture or inhumane and degrading treatment.

I'm sure the British government would never deport anyone to a state known to use torture . I am equally sure that such laws are desperately needed for 'anti-terrorism', since existing laws do not allow one to prosecute someone for 'preaching hate' .