Maryam Namazie fled Iran with her family in 1980. She is now
a prominent secularist. She has been barred from speaking by the student union’s
at a Warwick University event due to fears her speech would “incite hatred”
against Muslim students. Maryam Namazie had been booked by the Warwick
Atheists, Secularists and Humanists (WASH) group which was notified that Ms
Namazie’s speech had been cancelled.
“They’re basically labelling me a racist and an extremist
for speaking out against Islam and Islamism,” she said. “If people like me who
fled an Islamist regime can’t speak out about my opposition to the far-right
Islamic movement, if I can’t criticise Islam… that leaves very [few] options
for me as a dissenter because the only thing I have is my freedom of
expression. If anyone is inciting hatred, it’s the Islamists who are
threatening people like me just for deciding we want to be atheist, just
because we don’t want to toe the line.” She added, “To try to censor me, does a
double disservice to those people who are dissenting by denying people like me
the only opportunity we have to speak.”
The decision to cancel the talk has been met with criticism from
physicist Professor Brian Cox and physician and science writer Dr Ben Goldacre,
who said they will no longer visit the university to give lectures as a result
of the ban. Students in higher education should expect to be able to cope with
having their views challenged, Cox said. "We can't allow over-sensitive
students to wrap themselves in intellectual cotton wool."
Her argument is that any principled point of view must
oppose all forms of fascism, including Islamic fascism, and instead side with
the countless people, including Muslims, who are fighting and challenging
Islamism here in Europe as well as the Middle East, North Africa and the world.
She argues that regressive Islamists are given authority as ‘community leaders’
not because they actually represent the ‘Muslim Community’ but because of their
access to the state, political power and their links with the political Islamic
movement. Since it is those in power that determine the dominant culture, this
point of view sees Islamist values and sensibilities as that of ‘authentic
Muslims’. “In fact, ‘Muslims’ or those labelled as such include secularists,
ex-Muslims, atheists, free thinkers, women’s rights activists, LGBT campaigners
and socialists.”
Namazie is critical of the Stop the War Coalition, Respect
Party, Unite Against Fascism and individuals such as Ken Livingstone and George
Galloway and their agenda and methods. This section of the Left uses
accusations of racism and Islamophobia and a conflation of Muslim with Islamist
in order to defend Islamism and Islam rather than out of any real concern for
prejudice against Muslims or their rights, particularly since Muslims or those
labelled as such are the first victims of Islamism and on the frontlines of
resisting it. This pro-Islamist Left deems any criticism of Islam or Islamism
as racism or Islamophobia. However, criticising a religion, ideology or
political movement – far-Right or otherwise – has nothing to do with racism. In
fact, Islamophobia is a political term used to scaremonger people into silence.
Namazie writes:
“In responding to those opposing its alliance with the
Muslim Association of Britain (which is understood to be a branch of the Muslim
Brotherhood), the StWC’s leadership Andrew Murray and Lindsey German have
written:
‘Anyone remotely
acquainted with the British trade union movement will be aware that neither
sexism nor homophobia are uncommon in its ranks. […] woman can be subjected to
more crude sexist behaviour than they might be likely to encounter within the
Muslim Association of Britain. No one would suggest that an anti-war movement
should have no truck with trade unionism until its ranks are 100 percent
cleansed of such behaviour. Yet this is good enough as a stick to beat Muslims.
Such attitudes indicate a form of racism, a desire to hold their organisations
at arm’s length for the flaws which are, in some measure, tolerable in ours.’
The comparison is absurd. The difference of course is that
the ethos of the trade union is not anti-woman, its ethos does not say that
apostates should be killed or as the head of the MAB said recently at a debate
with One Law for All that women should be stoned to death. StWC’s alliance with
the MAB is akin to aligning with the EDL and then saying that racism exists in
the ranks of the trade unions too so why single out the English!?”
Namazie continues:
“Fundamentally, this Left’s support of Islamism comes down
to its affinity with Islamism, which it sees as a force of resistance against
imperialism. If racism was its real concern, it wouldn’t support the blatantly
racist notion of different and lesser standards and rights for those deemed
‘different’.
This Left is part of an anti-colonial movement whose
perspectives coincide with that of the ruling classes in the so-called Third
World. It is on the side of the ‘colonies’ no matter what goes on there. And their
understanding of the ‘colonies’ is Eurocentric, patronising and even racist. To
them the people in these countries (and the ‘Muslim minority in the West’) are
one and the same with the Islamists they are struggling against. This is why
StWC manhandles and expels anti-Iranian regime activists from its
demonstrations and rejects resolutions that simultaneously opposes a war on
Iran and the regime’s attacks on the working class and population at large. It
sees Islamism as a force for resistance whilst it is nothing more than a
regressive force for repression. But an enemy’s enemy is not necessarily an
ally.”
Further Reading:
Recommended Reading
The Socialist Party is perhaps the only political party that
refuses membership to anyone subscribing to religious ideas. We are a Marxist materialist
party.
What are the members of the Warwick students' union beliefs? How are they selected?
ReplyDeleteFor Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.
ReplyDeleteThe profane existence of error is compromised as soon as its heavenly oratio pro aris et focis [“speech for the altars and hearths,” i.e., for God and country] has been refuted. Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a superman, will no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of himself, the non-man [Unmensch], where he seeks and must seek his true reality.
The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.
It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.
A young Karl Marx