The worst form of censorship
Douglas Murray 3:14pm
A week ago, the offices of the French satirical paper Charlie Hebdo were burned down.
This attack came after it advertised the founder of Islam, Muhammad, as 'editor-in-chief' of the new issue. The move was a light-hearted response to the very serious matter of the election of an
Islamist party (the Ennahda party) as the leading party in Tunisia (a result which, incidentally, appears not to have greatly bothered most European media).
As the staff of Charlie Hebdo contemplated the ruins of their magazine, a much grander and richer magazine, Time, ran one of those pieces which have become familiar whenever there is an Islamist assault against free speech. As Nick Cohen has also noted, the Paris correspondent of Time magazine –- the almost too-perfectly named Bruce Crumley –- used the burning of their offices to taunt Charlie Hebdo's journalists
'Do you still think the price you paid for printing an offensive, shameful, and singularly humor-deficient parody on the logic of 'because we can' was so worthwhile?' he asked before going down a related track by denouncing French politicians who had criticised the firebombing. Mr Crumley is apparently not a fan of free-expression, or even slight jokes, when it comes to Islam. In this respect he is not unique. He follows in a long and ignoble line of useless idiots.
In 2004 when Theo van Gogh was murdered on a street in Amsterdam by a Islamic fundamentalist it was Index on Censorship's turn. You would have thought that with a title like 'Index on Censorship', the reader could expect such a magazine to do what it says on the masthead. Yet in what should have been a pretty straightforward test ('for or against the murder of people who express their opinions') Index on Censorship managed to land it wrong.
They published a piece which claimed that it was not van Gogh's murderer but van Gogh himself who had been a 'fundamentalist'; not Mohammed Bouyeri (the killer), but van Gogh (the killed) who had been on a 'martyrdom operation' by having the temerity to say mean things about Islam. Index on Censorship's author went on to imply that the whole murder was some type of performance art designed to promote van Gogh's new film on the assassination of another critic of Islam, Pim Fortuyn.
These are some public examples. But far more happens behind the scenes. In February this year the BBC ran a piece of shamelessly misinforming propaganda about the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. It was titled: 'Europe's Most Dangerous Man?' The question mark in the title was the only attempt the programme made at balance. After watching the programme I filed a complaint to the BBC about the warped arguments and factual inaccuracies of this piece of agit-prop. In response I received a long and further misleading response from the BBC. The apparatchik who responded on the corporation's behalf informed me that among the reasons one could tell that Wilders was an extremist and 'dangerous' was the fact that for many years now Wilders he had required round-the-clock security protection to prevent people from killing him.
In other words, the Crumleys of this world are not few in number. In the struggle for the right to say things which are serious or silly about Islam, there are plenty of people on the wrong side. Occasionally a Crumley breaks cover and gets relatively wide pick-up for it. But the Crumleys we never hear about present a far greater challenge than the Crumleys we do. In the same way, the things we don't hear about in response to the Charlie Hebdo story will prove far more important than the things that we do. It is what we will never read and will never be available to read that will end up mattering most.
A few years back a small independent publisher in London heard that one of the big American publishing houses had withdrawn from publishing a novel it had scheduled about the life of Muhammad called The Jewel of Medina. The fact that the novel in question was quite superbly fawning of the founder of Islam was not enough to get it off the hook. An early reader of the proofs claimed that the book could stir Islamic ire and so the book was pulled. Cue the small independent London publisher, who realised that a point of principle was at stake, stepped in and volunteered to publish the book. Shortly afterwards the office of that publisher in London was the scene of an attempted fire-bombing by some British-based Islamists.
Some readers will remember this incident. Most, understandably, will have forgotten all about it. The Jewel of Medina is without doubt the most sickly-sweet, sugar-coated hagiography that I have ever waded through. But even that didn't pass muster with the Islamists, and that sobering fact, and the lesson of it, has been learnt. In the years since then the British print-press which had been none-too-strong on these matters since absorbing the earlier warning of the Rushdie affair, took another step backwards. Since The Jewel of Medina fire-bombing, not one British publisher has published anything which could possibly be interpreted as anything other than 100 per cent onside when it comes to Islam or Muhammad. The result is that we live in a political and indeed religious culture in which everything is now skewed. It is skewed in favour of a completely uncritical, Islamic view of the world and is, as a result, skewed against any and all other religions.
A couple of Christmases back Private Eye ran a cover on its Christmas edition which might have been very offensive to some Christians. Yet Private Eye's offices remained un-firebombed. Likewise, when the mainstream left-wing newspapers and magazines in this country have run cartoons consisting of outright blood-libels against Jews, letters have been written and points made, but nobody has firebombed or otherwise inflicted physical damage on the premises of such publications. What is more, were there ever to be any such thing (and you can never be certain: nutters can come from almost anywhere) the first thing that you would be able to bet on would be the absolute unanimity of press opinion. Journalists and writers would love it. It would be their 'We shall not be moved' moment. They would compose and send joint letters to their own papers. They would repeat and reprint the contentious cartoon or statement to prove that they could. They would do their 'I may not agree with what has been said [though most of them would] but I will defend to the death your right to say it' shtick. All this would be done in the full and confident knowledge that there was no possibility whatsoever of having to defend anything to the death.
Self-censorship is the most invidious and successful type of censorship – not just because it is self-reinforcing but because once it is people invent reasons to cover for themselves. So the worst thing that any British journal can imagine doing today is to run a cartoon of Muhammad. Not because – as they all say in public – it is insensitive, or provocative or offensive. These are all names and things that journalists rejoice in getting called. It is simply and solely (as they sometimes admit in private) because they know that they will be at some degree of risk if they do.
I hope Charlie Hebdo recovers swiftly, as I'm sure it will. France's political and secular culture repeatedly shows itself more robust than that of most other societies, including our own. But when people wonder why it is that cultures go awry we will be able to point to moments such as this: when the foundations of your values are under assault and the walls are manned by phonies and fools.
Previous
Catesby
November 8th, 2011 3:36pm Report this commentWell said, Douglas Murray.
Another thing worth noting is that Tunisia allowed ex-pats to vote. Worryingly, Tunisians resident in France displayed a markedly higher propensity to vote for the Islamists than Tunisians at home.
So, the poor long suffering Tunisians will now have an Islamist regime inflicted on them by people who will not themselves have to suffer under it.
Crumley seems worse than a mere fool. I wish I could cancel my sub to Time magazine, but I did that two decades ago.
fergus pickering
November 8th, 2011 3:49pm Report this commentI agree with everything you say, Douglas Murray. Time and the Beeb are fawning running dogs, are they not?
Austin Barry
November 8th, 2011 3:53pm Report this commentWith the expansion of the Islamic community across Europe, it is important that our media try, in the interest of community cohesion and reconciliation, to become as Sharia-compliant as possible. If that means self-censoring, including the removal of fruity lovelies from our redtops, so be it.
I would hate to see Ian Hislop put himself at risk of fire or non-volitional circumcision by producing an issue of Private Eye that would be considered Haram by our sensitive friends.
John Gerard
November 8th, 2011 4:10pm Report this commentI'm just waiting for David Lindsay to chime in with "They got what they deserved blah blah blah, 1967 borders blah blah blah..."
Stephanie Tohill
November 8th, 2011 4:18pm Report this comment"Another thing worth noting is that Tunisia allowed ex-pats to vote. Worryingly, Tunisians resident in France displayed a markedly higher propensity to vote for the Islamists than Tunisians at home."
Almost all countries allow overseas citizens to vote.
I'm not sure it was ignored. I was aware of the election through reading the British press, but what exactly could we/should we do about it?
S Arse
November 8th, 2011 4:35pm Report this commentYeh, good shout ... I had thought about following up with some harsh words about islam , but I don't want the fkers fire-bombing me..
George
November 8th, 2011 4:53pm Report this commentDespite the print media being cowed into conformity, we can, happily, still enjoy the wonderful Jesus and Mo strip online. (at http://www.jesusandmo.net/)
Halcyondaze
November 8th, 2011 5:00pm Report this commentIt's pretty simple: across the country the churches are empty and the mosques are full. We're a few years away from the most radical demographic overturn ever inflicted on a Western country without military conflict. And our children and grandchildren face growing up in a country where they are the minority and they must live side by side with cultural norms that would have been unthinkable here just 30 years ago. The rich will take flight. And the poor, who will suffer most from the above, are locked in a welfare-induced coma. We haven't even got the stomach to put up a fight.
London Calling
November 8th, 2011 5:28pm Report this commentIs it a democratic right to offend?...if so, then the response should also be considered and in this case expected. It doesn’t make it right, but offending the Prophet was asking for trouble and I knew immediately that the response would be a backlash…then why do it…unless your completely stupid?..
Laurence
November 8th, 2011 5:42pm Report this commentExcellent post Douglas. I am afraid that Mr Crumley adds to the ranks of the Islamicised left, as do all those who have anything but unequivocal condemnation for the actions of these 'lovers of peace'.
In2minds
November 8th, 2011 5:51pm Report this comment"Self-censorship is the most invidious and successful type of censorship" True, and -
"insensitive, provocative and offensive" - All things radical Islamists never are!
Peter From Maidstone
November 8th, 2011 6:18pm Report this commentIt is interesting that Ian Hislop doesn't ever address Islam and Mohammed. I have lost any enjoyment in watching HIGNFY because he seems to have bought into the liberal MSM line on everything.
gordon-bennett
November 8th, 2011 6:20pm Report this commentRemember when 60,000 Christians objected peacefully to the beeb's "jerry springer - the opera" but were completely ignored.
Perhaps if organisations responded properly to mass objections then even muslims would not take recourse to firebombing.
grassmarket
November 8th, 2011 6:46pm Report this commentCatesby is correct: Out of 600,000 Tunisians resident in France about 60% voted Islamist, as against only about 40% of Tunisians at home.
pharbitis
November 8th, 2011 7:25pm Report this commentI have the newspaper cartoon of the Terrorist School: Human Bomb Class stuck on my fridge.
It has the beardy bandaged-head tutor, wired-up bombs on his chest, holding the detonator. Three gormless be-sandalled bandaged beardies are watching.
'Pay attention, because I'm only going to do this once, ok?'
It's old now, and browning but I derive much simple pleasure from it.
Freedom of thought will survive even if that of speech is lost.
Simon Denis
November 8th, 2011 7:41pm Report this commentAll true and further evidence that an essentially Marxist elite is now in charge of the West. For them the double standards which blame the victim of Islamist violence are the due expression of a moral truth: that "racism" is a typically abusive expression of "capitalist" power; that capitalist countries are (or were) largely white and that "racism" - a vague term, when closely examined - can only come, therefore, from their indigenous people - even though the term "indigenous" is officially denied as applying to ethnic Europeans in case they begin to feel that they have a particular attachment to Europe. It is, of course, profoundly sinister and sickening. Worse, it prevents the large Islamic populations in modern Europe from learning the essential disciplines of Liberalism, which involve permitting others to attack your sacred cows in picture and print. Until and unless these disciplines are accepted, the risk of prolonged civil conflict grows - but this is quite possibly what the Marxists are - wittingly or not - intending.
James
November 8th, 2011 8:21pm Report this comment"Is it a democratic right to offend?"
Err, no. It's a human right. Inalienable.
Democratic rights infer that individuals have a say in exercising power. That's all.
If I want to spell 'prophet' with a lower-case 'p' when talking about Mo, then I will - however offensive you find it. That's just your belief. I might care that you feel offended, I might not. However there's no good reason to demonstrate your upset with Molotov cocktails.
AGS
November 8th, 2011 10:27pm Report this commentYea, yea, yea. But none of this addresses why Charlie Hebdo should have the moral right to be ignorant and offensive. It doesn’t have that right. Knowingly insult my family with vicious words and I’ll be the first to light your ass.
Patricia Shaw
November 8th, 2011 10:48pm Report this commentMore PR Spin for the ultra orthodox Israeli government. Murray is a one trick pony who puts selects his target according to his bias and racism.
Cynic
November 8th, 2011 11:01pm Report this commentAlways remember - die Gedanken sind frei!
Baron
November 9th, 2011 12:06am Report this commentJames, well put, seconded.
Offending someone ain’t a crime unless the offended party can furnish evidence of damage in the court of law, the damage can be measured.
Your lighting someone’s arse, AGS, may prove costly, in a civilised society, taking revenge as a way for settling disputes doesn’t appear in either the civil or the criminal law.
Colin Cumner
November 9th, 2011 1:05am Report this commentA thought-provoking article. Looking at contemporary world affairs one cannot help but conclude the quasi-Christian West is now in advanced decline while the Islamic East is on the ascendancy. Is that good or bad? Only future history will supply the answer. Somehow, though, I don't think it bodes well for today's liberal thinkers or those who profess to be Christians. It seems our general abandonment of the Christian God has left a vacuum Islam is only too eager to fill.
Archie
November 9th, 2011 5:57am Report this commentNot to worry. With the imminent disintegration of the EU we shall, with a bit of grit, take back our borders and then can probably deal with the permanently aggrieved minority in our midst which is out to destroy us!
AGS: Try "lighting MY arse" and yours will be ignited ten-fold! Promise!
fergus pickering
November 9th, 2011 7:54am Report this commentI once wrote a verse with an Islamic subject. Couldn't get it published over here but could, and did, in Oz. For lovely Oz dollars.
Julia in Sussex
November 9th, 2011 9:48am Report this commentBrilliant piece - well done Douglad Murray.
It is bizarre that UK press devotes pages to revolution in Tunisia but little (if any) detailed reporting on the election results/what it could mean for Tunisia. And does ANYONE know the exact date of the general election in Cairo ?
Dimoto
November 9th, 2011 12:30pm Report this commentDaft but predictable piece, with predictable responses.
What does the Tunisian election have to do with the Dutch far right/Euro attention seekers ? Answers on a post-card.
The UK is in an advanced state of de-religioning. This is mostly good and not before time.
The "wave of converts to Islam" appear to be mostly lost young women in places like Bradford and Bolton, and if it provides them with a modicom of self-esteem, who are we to pass judgement ?
Paul Henry
November 9th, 2011 1:44pm Report this comment"These are some public examples. But far more happens behind the scenes. In February this year the BBC ran a piece of shamelessly misinforming propaganda about the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. It was titled: 'Europe's Most Dangerous Man?' The question mark in the title was the only attempt the programme made at balance. After watching the programme I filed a complaint to the BBC about the warped arguments and factual inaccuracies of this piece of agit-prop. In response I received a long and further misleading response from the BBC. The apparatchik who responded on the corporation's behalf informed me that among the reasons one could tell that Wilders was an extremist and 'dangerous' was the fact that for many years now Wilders he had required round-the-clock security protection to prevent people from killing him."
Excellent article and I wholeheartedly that the BBC's hack attack on Geert Wilders was little more than deeply politicised propaganda that bore absolutely no relationship to genuine journalism.
Please make sure that you make a point of mentioning this any time that you're on Question Time.
Eddie
November 9th, 2011 4:08pm Report this commentIt is, indeed, truly incredible that the British media - the BBC and others - seem to defend any Muslims as an almost kneejerk response, even if that Muslim or a group they belong to is threatening violence on others. Somehow in the mixed up multi-culti-worshipping minds of these people, it ios those who have been threatened with beheading - Hirst Ali, Gert Wilders, various cartoonists... - who are in the wrong.
As Churchill said: 'appeasement is like feeding a crocodile in the hope that it won't eat you next.' The way the BBC and the PC media elite - and the government and all institutions - appease and pander to what can only be called Islamofascists is a disgrace and utterly shameful.
All I can say is: Vive La France! At least their government is defending the right to free speech, unlike the craven politically correct Islamist appeasers in the UK.
Trev
November 10th, 2011 3:38am Report this commentBrilliant article.
Eddie
November 10th, 2011 8:58am Report this commentThis article states: "Since The Jewel of Medina fire-bombing, not one British publisher has published anything which could possibly be interpreted as anything other than 100 per cent onside when it comes to Islam or Muhammad."
That is true in part - but there ARE books (fiction and non-fiction) that address the issues around Islam: the novel Seventy Two Virgins is one, Crump is another; non-fiction includes Bruce Bawer and others; and there are great movies like Four Lions.
escapedRoger
November 10th, 2011 7:06pm Report this commentWe need more people to stand up and say the the basic beliefs of Islam( submission ,why?) are the result of primitive pre-scientific thought. Example: If someone went to the moon from Jerusalem ( i've seen the mark in that rock!) how did he and his horse Burak breath? A fundamentalist will not allow metaphor, it's 100% true they say.
No more 'pie in the sky when you die ' religions please. Just get over it and live a good life well now.
Back to top