You Can’t
Read this Book: Censorship in an age of freedom – Nick Cohen
|
It was some years ago that Matthew pointed out that I was
more of a libertarian than a socialist. I hadn’t previously noticed,
but he was, as ever, correct. It explains why back in my student activist
days, I used to get frustrated with my hard left colleagues who were happy that
they knew the truth and were not troubled about actually debating it, and how
often at Council meetings I ended up on the same side as our resident tame
anarchist. But this column about Nick Cohen, the Observor columnist. Back when I
still had time to read a Sunday paper I was quite a fan of Cohen, who put
across a strident liberal position. After such times were over I read his book
attacking the liberal left – What’s
Left? How Liberals Lost their Way. His thesis made complete sense until
he arrived at Israel. But his contention that the left were anti-Semitic
because they criticised the state of Israel made as little sense to me then
as it does now. I really do not believe I have a trace of anti-Semitism
within me, but many of the actions of the Zionist Israeli government are little
more than a disgrace. So I parted company with Cohen. But his latest book is
about censorship and freedom of speech, so I thought I would buy an e-edition
for the kindle and read it on the way to work. And it was very well worth it. It is a dreadfully written book. Hysterical, bombastic,
overblown and more often carried away by his own rhetoric than not. But the
questions asked, the challenges laid down are important – to me at
least. His essential question is: do you believe in freedom of speech. Really
believe? His argument is that the liberal left no longer does, hence his
disaffection with them. He goes through a series of case studies, starting
with Salman Rushdie, the ‘modern day Dreyfuss
affair’. A writer, who happens to be a very fine writer – but
that is irrelevant – writes a book about Islam. He is threatened with
death for this ‘blasphemy’. What is the reaction of the liberal
left? Essentially, that he brought it upon himself. This is nonsense, says Cohen
and I am in complete accord. As he points out, the very essence of
liberalism, freedom of expression and political thought was carved out in
opposition to organised religion. The American settlers were setting their
sights on freedom of religion over all other freedoms. Suddenly, many on the
left believe that you cannot insult religious sensibilities; moreover, that
to do so and then to be threatened is the fault of the individual, not of the
organised religion. Cohen suggests that this is pure cowardice. Freedom of
expression is easy if the oppressor is not threatening to kill you. So the
left is happy to lampoon Christianity, which (outside of Central African
Republic) is not going to threaten you, but not insult the Imams who may cast
a fatwa upon you. And his examples keep coming, Maqbool Fida Hussain, an
Indian painter vilified for suggesting that Hindu religion celebrates sex
(doesn’t it?), Hirsi Ali, vilified for being an African Muslim
feminist in Holland and the publishers of the infamous cartoons. Cohen’s
view – that European cartoonists lampoon the Royal Family, Christians,
politicians, so why not Islam? Is it anti –Islamic to point out that
many of the religious leaders who are involved in these cases are
misogynistic, deeply right-wing, authoritarian and illiberal? Why can’t
the left state this obvious truth? In part two Cohen moves on to the second group who he
feels the left cannot criticise. The mega-rich and Big Business. Was the
great crash of 2008 really a surprise? Not according to Cohen; it was simply
that the journalists, commentators, bloggers, and politicians were too in awe
of big business and the rich to actually tell the public. In the case of the
rich, however, it is not the fear of being killed that stills the tongues of
radical commentators, but the threat of libel. His attack on the British
liberal law is long, slightly tedious but I suspect entirely accurate. The
likes of Maxwell can use the libel laws to suppress criticism very
effectively. Quite recently the pharmaceutical industry has gone for Guardian
columnist Ben Goldacre, not suing The Guardian but Goldacre personally to get him to retract. Finally Cohen suggests that the idea that the internet and
world wide web will guarantee freedom of speech is simply a fantasy. Bearing
witness may be an effective tool in a democracy, but if the totalitarian
regime in Belarus see footage of citizens being abused then…. Well,
nothing really. They don’t care. Only hard politics Cohen suggests,
will make a difference where it really matters. In summation Cohen believes that the liberal left have
sold out their inheritance of freedom of speech, so hard won by our
predecessors, because of physical and intellectual cowardice. His argument is
wildly overblown, deeply emotional and very angry. I by no means agree with
huge swathes of his polemic. But deep down, I think he is right. I think we
now accommodate too many people with dubious views because they tick other
boxes, that we too often take the ‘my enemy’s enemy is my
friend’ approach to those who are justifiable angry with US (and indeed
UK) Neoconservatism. But being against the States
should not mean you are immune to criticism on the basis of the liberal
agenda, freedom to speak, publish, vote and demonstrate. These are hard won
rights for us, and our aim should be to ensure they are spread to as many
across the world as possible. Cohen argues that liberal values are universal,
not just for a European elite. Well
worth a read. |
|
|
Blog #16 |
|
|
|
|
|
Comments |
|
|
|
If
you would like to comment on any of these Blog pieces please email me on: bjc@briancreese.co.uk