LENIN'S TOMB

 

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

This isn't really about free speech, is it? - Letter to Apostate Windbag posted by Richard Seymour

Leigh Phillips used to write a blog called 'Apostate Windbag', and occasionally guest-posted at this blog.  He's written this about Charlie Hebdo.  As he called me out by name, I wrote him a letter.  This is a brushed up version of the same.

Dear Leigh,

I read your article.  I disagree with you on many points, but above all I question your commitment to free expression.  You seem to take it for granted that you are a passionate defender of the right to free speech, as the foundation of all rights.  However your article presents evidence to the contrary.

Certainly, there is something superficially hard-headed in your macho denunciation of the “delicate flowers” who don’t want to reproduce pictures of Muslims buggering goats and similar fare.  Yet, the Arab cartoonists whom you say are “made of much tougher stuff” actually seem to fail your test of probity.  Not one of them depicts a single buggered goat, or dole-scrounging Muslim.  In fact, they are pretty timid - making fun of the Daesh numpties, championing free speech, all the platitudinous things that we’ve seen from the more banal anglophone cartoonists of late.  If this is your idea of pushing the envelope in the name of free speech, I am singularly unimpressed.  

Perhaps more troublingly, these same images whose toughness you extol are now being widely circulated as liberal clickbait, with the implied line being that “these Arab Muslims aren’t all savages: some of them are every bit as dull as we are”.  The intriguing thing is that if any of these images had showed a Muslim in the process of deflowering some gentle caprine, none of these websites would be reproducing them.  And I’m sorry to wound your amour propre, but neither would you.

Likewise, you appear to strive for consistency in your principles when you say that the Islamophobic backlash and the ramping up of surveillance/repression is to be opposed.  Yet, curiously you bracket this observation in a couple of paragraphs that are logically discontinuous with the rest of the article, almost as a caveat or aside.  This is odd: who is the major threat to free expression in the European continent today?  A relatively small, ruthless jihadi network who are almost universally reviled, or the governments who with considerable public support ban the hijab, lock up Muslims for Twitter statements, spy on their communities, ban their protests and events, arrest and harass them at disproportionate rates, and occasionally render them to the CIA for some tremendously fun games with water?  

You’re alive to the ways in which the 'Islamists' (like Daesh and the latest Al Qaeda franchise) mainly harm other Muslims, but you give every impression of being oblivious of the racialised way in which free expression is selectively controlled and suppressed, often on the basis of 'counterterrorism'.  I have to ask, since you’re so keen to spit on those caricatured leftists who think free speech is a form of colonial oppression, etc., whether the narrow way in which you construe the issue of free expression is intended to conform to their worst stereotypes of the Eurocentric leftist?  Is this some kind of trolling meta-commentary?

Another indicator that this is about something other than free speech is the gloss you put on Charlie Hebdo's Islamophobia.  It is one thing to defend free expression even for ideas that one detests.  But, while acknowledging the magazine's "hard on" for criticising Islam, you rather sweetly suggest that "no one particular Charlie cartoon can be said to be racist".  I wonder about that.  Oliver Cyran's piece, to which you link, strongly suggests that the phoney "sex jihadists" article and accompanying cartoon was a racist fantasy.  It also argues that the depiction of a Muslim fucking a goat (cf. "goat-fuckers") was racist.  It argues that the Sharia Hebdo cover, featuring Mohammed as guest editor promising a hundred lashes if you don't die laughing, was racist.  Taking his lead, allow me to ask you: supposing there had been a Talmud Hebdo cover, featuring a hook-nosed rabbi promising to take a 'pound of flesh' if you don't die laughing?  And what if the inside pages featured an old Jewish man - or let us say, someone who was depicted as a Kahanist or IDF killer - fucking a pig?  Is it conceivable that you would describe this as anything other than obnoxious antisemitism?  Or that you would actually avoid discussing such unpleasant details?

Still, having had your say on the subject, you go on to cite Marjane Satrapi saying that criticising Charlie Hebdo is "the wrong conversation" right now.  You don't say that discussing the question of Charlie Hebdo's racism is the wrong conversation to have - that would be absurd, since the discussion is unavoidable and you've just expended several paragraphs on it.  Rather, it is the criticism that is to be lulled, while you rally for free speech.

It is also frankly quite odd to sock-puppet Noam Chomsky as a ‘moral giant’, to anchor what is otherwise liberal browbeating in a leftist discourse and shame the supposed belittlers of ‘free expression’.  First question: aren’t you a little old to believe in moral giants?  Second question: if you are going to wield the ideals of a folk Enlightnment much as a goose farmer wields a stick, or an NYPD cop wields a plunger, why not begin with independence of thought, viz. “man’s emergence from his self-imposed nonage”?  That is, why don’t you just say what you think rather than dogmatically invoking Chomsky's erratic and evasive statements on Faurisson as a kind of moral trump over the rest of the Left?

Perhaps most symptomatic is the "victim-blaming” line that frames your argument.  The interesting thing about all of the 'are-you-saying-they-had-it-coming' pieces being written about the massacre is that, the only way the rhetoric can work is if one knows in advance that no one is actually saying that.  It’s because no one is saying that, that makes it effective as a smear.  It puts people on the back foot, forces them to waste energy stating that which oughtn’t need to be stated.  That’s what makes it such a low, dishonest, bad faith recourse, indicative of full-blown, spittle-lathered, testerical moral panic.  Little McCarthyite touches like that from soi-disant defenders of free speech are, sadly, par for the course at moments like this.

So there you are.  All puffed up and macho when it comes to pissing on Muslims with racist invective in the name of ‘free speech’, but strangely pious, humourless and censorious when some people decline to go along with the spectacle of 'Je Suis Charlie'.  All for free speech, but mainly up in arms about the way it affects white people and is threatened by brown people.  

There’s something very ex-RCP in all this.   Should I expect you to appear in Sp!ked Online any time soon?

Cheers,

Richard

8:06:00 pm | Permalink | Comments thread | | Print | Digg | del.icio.us | reddit | StumbleUpon | diigo it Tweet| Share| Flattr this

Search via Google

Info

Richard Seymour

Richard Seymour's Wiki

Richard Seymour: information and contact

Richard Seymour's agent

RSS

Twitter

Tumblr

Pinterest

Academia

Storify

Donate

corbyn_9781784785314-max_221-32100507bd25b752de8c389f93cd0bb4

Against Austerity cover

Subscription options

Flattr this

Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Recent Posts

Subscribe to Lenin's Tomb
Email:

Lenosphere

Archives

September 2001

June 2003

July 2003

August 2003

September 2003

October 2003

November 2003

December 2003

January 2004

February 2004

March 2004

April 2004

May 2004

June 2004

July 2004

August 2004

September 2004

October 2004

November 2004

December 2004

January 2005

February 2005

March 2005

April 2005

May 2005

June 2005

July 2005

August 2005

September 2005

October 2005

November 2005

December 2005

January 2006

February 2006

March 2006

April 2006

May 2006

June 2006

July 2006

August 2006

September 2006

October 2006

November 2006

December 2006

January 2007

February 2007

March 2007

April 2007

May 2007

June 2007

July 2007

August 2007

September 2007

October 2007

November 2007

December 2007

January 2008

February 2008

March 2008

April 2008

May 2008

June 2008

July 2008

August 2008

September 2008

October 2008

November 2008

December 2008

January 2009

February 2009

March 2009

April 2009

May 2009

June 2009

July 2009

August 2009

September 2009

October 2009

November 2009

December 2009

January 2010

February 2010

March 2010

April 2010

May 2010

June 2010

July 2010

August 2010

September 2010

October 2010

November 2010

December 2010

January 2011

February 2011

March 2011

April 2011

May 2011

June 2011

July 2011

August 2011

September 2011

October 2011

November 2011

December 2011

January 2012

February 2012

March 2012

April 2012

May 2012

June 2012

July 2012

August 2012

September 2012

October 2012

November 2012

December 2012

January 2013

February 2013

March 2013

April 2013

May 2013

June 2013

July 2013

August 2013

September 2013

October 2013

November 2013

December 2013

January 2014

February 2014

March 2014

April 2014

May 2014

June 2014

July 2014

August 2014

September 2014

October 2014

November 2014

December 2014

January 2015

February 2015

March 2015

April 2015

May 2015

June 2015

July 2015

August 2015

September 2015

October 2015

December 2015

March 2016

April 2016

May 2016

June 2016

July 2016

August 2016

September 2016

October 2016

November 2016

December 2016

January 2017

February 2017

March 2017

April 2017

May 2017

June 2017

July 2017

August 2017

Dossiers

Hurricane Katrina Dossier

Suicide Bombing Dossier

Iraqi Resistance Dossier

Haiti Dossier

Christopher Hitchens Dossier

Organic Intellectuals

Michael Rosen

Left Flank

Necessary Agitation

China Miéville

Je Est Un Autre

Verso

Doug Henwood

Michael Lavalette

Entschindet und Vergeht

The Mustard Seed

Solomon's Minefield

3arabawy

Sursock

Left Now

Le Poireau Rouge

Complex System of Pipes

Le Colonel Chabert [see archives]

K-Punk

Faithful to the Line

Jews Sans Frontieres

Institute for Conjunctural Research

The Proles

Infinite Thought

Critical Montages

A Gauche

Histologion

Wat Tyler

Ken McLeod

Unrepentant Marxist

John Molyneux

Rastî

Obsolete

Bureau of Counterpropaganda

Prisoner of Starvation

Kotaji

Through The Scary Door

Historical Materialism

1820

General, Your Tank is a Powerful Vehicle

Fruits of our Labour

Left I on the News

Organized Rage

Another Green World

Climate and Capitalism

The View From Steeltown

Long Sunday

Anti-dialectics

Empire Watch [archives]

Killing Time [archives]

Ob Fusc [archives]

Apostate Windbag [archives]

Alphonse [archives]

Dead Men Left [dead, man left]

Bat [archives]

Bionic Octopus [archives]

Keeping the Rabble in Line [archives]

Cliffism [archives]

Antiwar

Antiwar.com

Antiwar.blog

Osama Saeed

Dahr Jamail

Angry Arab

Desert Peace

Abu Aardvark

Juan Cole

Baghdad Burning

Collective Lounge

Iraqi Democrats Against the Occupation

Unfair Witness [archive]

Iraq Occupation & Resistance Report [archive]

Socialism

Socialist Workers Party

Socialist Aotearoa

Globalise Resistance

Red Pepper

Marxists

New Left Review

Socialist Review

Socialist Worker

World Socialist Website

Left Turn

Noam Chomsky

South Africa Keep Left

Monthly Review

Morning Star

Radical Philosophy

Blogger
blog comments powered by Disqus