March for Free Expression

Weekend Meetings

2006-04-24T09:43:00.000Z

The meetings on Saturday went well, with about 20 people attending the morning and afternoon sessions. A programme was worked out and a steering group constituted.

Full details about this will be posted on a new campaign website later this week. People who were unable to attend will have further opportunities to participate, both through the new website, a further meeting in London in about a month's time, and also in regional meetings that will be held for the many people for whom it is not convenient to travel to London.

We have also made provisional arrangements for an event in which the Danish cartoons will be displayed and debated.

Thanks to Conway Hall for the use of their facilities, and to those who attended the meetings and contributed so much to the future success of this campaign.

Meeting

2006-04-21T18:56:00.000Z

Just to confirm, the meeting is at Conway Hall in Red Lion Square, London tomorrow, Saturday 22nd April. There will be two sessions, 10:00am to 12:00 noon and 2:00pm to 4:00pm.

Comment word verification

2006-04-11T08:19:00.000Z

is back on - we've been getting some comment spam since I turned it off. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Revived

2006-04-11T08:04:00.000Z

Sorry it's been so quiet; a nasty bug knocked me out for a week or so. A rigorous course of Famous Grouse, local honey and Vindaloo has worked its magic, though, and I'll be catching up over the course of the day.

The policy meeting is now well subscribed, I'll confirm by email to everyone who has expressed a wish to attend. I'll also publish a draft agenda in the next 24 hours.

Religious enthusiasm is not our only problem. Ten year old boys say nasty things to each other in playgrounds all over the world. They do not all end up in court. We have work to do...

Dialogue

2006-04-05T08:57:00.000Z

This campaign is about freedom of expression, not Islam. Nonetheless, there has been a lot of conversation in the comments section between Muslims and others. This is great, and it is a real achievement. Thank you, Ismaeel and thank you, anonymous, for continuing to engage in this conversation.

The following is taken from a recent comment:

I'm Muslim and I'm not scary, and we're talking, and we shouldn't let any one scare us or intimidate us from having a dialogue.

What is unacceptable to me, as I've said many times is to engage with an inhumane political party like the BNP or the one from Denmark that wants to deport all muslims from Europe. This is offensive not to mention impractical - where will anyone get a kebab?

What is unacceptable to you, which I think is also very reasonable - is to engage with inhumane Islamist groups like Al-Qaida, that seek to agressively impose their brand of Islamism on the world.

I agree with you about that. So these two groups have to be off the table because they make for too intimidating an environment for the others unless they are prepared to modify their tactics and change their policies so as not to be a direct threat on others, in which case they can come back to the table. In other words there needs to be a ceasefire from both these camps to bring them back to the table.

Until then we should all agree that this is an uncivilised approach.

Policy Meeting, 22nd April

2006-04-05T08:37:00.000Z

We have been offered use of the members' library at Conway Hall in Red Lion Square, London WC1 for Saturday 22nd April 2006.

The purpose of the meeting will be to move this campaign onto a proper long term footing, draft a policy agenda and formulate a firm strategy for advancing our agenda. Officers will be elected.

The meeting will be open to everyone who would like to be involved, but we ask everyone who wishes to attend to let us know their names so that we can be sure we have sufficient seating and other facilities. Some people have already emailed us to express an interest in attending and I will be replying by the weekend. If you haven't had confirmation by Monday, or want to register your interest in attending, please mail us.

The Liberal

2006-04-03T09:00:00.000Z

It's a great shame that we ran out of time on Saturday 25th March. There was one other unscheduled speaker waiting in the wings. Ben Ramm, the Editor of The Liberal was ready with a short speech about his experience as an editor who had tried to publish one of the Danish Cartoons. As his website puts it:

The magazine was informed on the evening of Wednesday 8th February by senior offices at Scotland Yard that the editor and his staff could not be guaranteed police protection in the event of publication.

Ben's take on this is slightly different to those of the more determinedly secularist of our speakers and commentators. He feels that:

the affirmative argument about the sacred nature of humanity - that "there is nothing unholy or inadequate about the human form. In other words, it is wrong to suggest that to depict an individual is de facto to profane him or her" -
has yet to be properly aired in the pubic sphere

You can download a pdf (69k) of his argument here.

A letter from Reza Moradi

2006-04-03T08:23:00.000Z

I really appreciate your concern.

Me, You or no one else should be even questioned for exercising our very basic civil rights - instead we are either threatened with death by Islamists or threatened with imprisonment by the law and police.

We must all stand up to this and defend our rights. Let's say they hold you responsible for this instead of me; what should I do? Sit back and watch freedom on trial? It is not about me or you per se, it is about everyone's rights - rights that have been fought for.

Dear Peter we all have to be prepared more than ever before to defend our rights. We must not be pushed back by Islamists' death threats or the UK government's police and court.

We must make this court case, a defeat for Islamists and the UK government and a victory for civilised humanity!

Hoping for your support during the campaign we are organising and for a successful outcome.

Warmest regards
Reza Moradi

Blaxploitation

2006-03-31T18:02:00.000Z

I am indebted to the blogger drinking from home for this post, which comes via the pub philosopher. It refers to a piece on the Black Information Link (BLINK) website, written by Shirin Aguiar-Holloway. Ms Aguiar-Holloway is a lot more significant than she knows in the history of the Free Expression Rally. But more on that later.

Here's how the piece starts:

A sea of white faces
by Shirin Aguiar-Holloway
30/3/2006

FREEDOM FOR WHO? That was the question being asked after an all-white 'Freedom March' took place in London.

Eh?

Ms Aguiar-Holloway telephoned me twice in the run up to the rally. So I thought I'd return the compliment, and telephone her. I was put through without any problem, but she was audibly taken aback by the fact that I'd called her. I explained that I thought her article was the most racist thing I'd seen since that drunken night when a series of know-thy-enemy links led me to the website of White Aryan Resistance. And I said I'd like to ask her a couple of questions.

She said that she normally asked, rather than answered. No kidding? But I wanted to ask anyway. She told me there was someone in her organisation who fielded press questions. But then, I'm not a member of the press, so I persisted.

Question One:

Are you aware that the rally in London was a lot more racially diverse than the counter rally in Birmingham?

Answer:

So, that's your first question?

True. Was she going to answer it?

There's someone here to answer questions. I can't speak for BLINK

I'm not asking you to. You wrote the piece.

[silence]

So you're not going to answer the question?

No. What's the next question?

Will you answer it?

She wouldn't. So I was put through to the person who does answer questions, Lester Holloway. Lester turns out to be the editor of BLINK. I asked him question one again, but he wouldn't answer. He did, though, offer me a right of reply. I am going to take that up, but will drag this out over two posts, so it can wait. There is even a reason for this.

Notwithstanding, I asked Lester my second question:

Does the validity of what someone has to say depend on the colour of their skin?

Lester did answer this:

No.

So why the emphasis on skin colour - to the exclusion of all else - in their article?

Lester wouldn't answer. OK, Last try:

Is "All white on the day" a racist caption? (It accompanies a photograph of the rally)

And Lester did answer:

No, because it reflects the racial composition of the march.

He added, apropos of the whole piece:

I deny it was racist.

You will, perhaps, have noticed how much, during this conversation, we discussed the issue of free speech and the statement of principle. Nor did the BLINK piece. It was ONLY concerned with the racial composition of the rally. Oddly, they were less concerned with the racial composition of the Birmingham Rally, one of the most racially homogenous assemblies ever seen in this country. Even the clothes of the attendees were the same colour.

Why does this matter? After all, we can dismiss black bigots as readily as white ones.

Because I don't think the Holloways are bigots. I know that seems like a bizarre piece of self-delusion, but I have actually talked with them. They seemed like very nice, courteous, educated people who care very much about issues of race and equality, and might also care about freedom of expression. That's why Shirin was more important than she knows. She was one of three journalists (the others were from the BBC's Asian Network and Sunrise Radio) who made me ask people not to bring the cartoons to the rally. It had bugger all to do with MAC, who have just been using what they have perceived as my weakness to dig themselves into the most astonishing crater, for no very obvious reason.

It was instead these clever, cosmopolitan, accomplished young women for whom it just didn't compute that the cartoons might not be a hideous racist, BNP attack on Muslims in particular, and every other person with a better than average suntan in general.

Shirin, when she wrote the second piece, knew that I had asked people not to bring cartoons solely to help include Muslims who might have otherwise felt intimidated, because I had told her this on the telephone during our second conversation, but this knowledge failed to penetrate the carapace of her paranoia and her racist assumptions about white people. She knew that of nine speakers, only five were white, yet she still called that Rally "all-white". She knew that there were lots of people there who were not white, yet she still called the rally "all-white". She knew that the Birmingham Rally was entirely racially homogenous, but she drew no attention to that fact because the race in question was not white.

There can be no more pure and complete an example of racism. But I remain convinced that these two people are decent.

They are the type of people we need to get on board, somehow, sometime. Because Freedom of Speech and Expression have nothing at all to do with race or culture. They are universal. And the people the Holloways are tacitly supporting would remove these freedoms from them, as well as from us.

It is going to be a long haul, though.

Kurdish Prisoner of Conscience

2006-03-31T10:41:00.000Z

Sonic has pointed out the plight of Kurdish writer Dr Kamal Qadir, who has been jailed for defaming the Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani.

Amnesty are campaigning about this case, which is great. Because they have failed completely in their duty to campaign about similar repression in Europe, we have had to become active. However, we encourage everyone to support this Amnesty campaign.

Islamophobiaphobia

2006-03-30T13:51:00.000Z

The following was the entirety of a tape-recorded interview I did with a journalist who was working for an Arabic media organisation:

Journalist: Do you think there is such a thing as Islamophobia?
Me: Yes.
Journalist (visibly disappointed): Oh.
(pause)
Journalist: Can you find me someone here who doesn't?
Me: I doubt it.
Journalist: Oh. OK. Thanks.
(Interview ends)

Little Atoms

2006-03-30T13:43:00.000Z

The Little Atoms special about the Rally can be downloaded from here.

A Must-Resist

2006-03-30T09:02:00.000Z

Jen sent an email last week, pointing out the horrible potential of The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. This isn't directly an issue that concerns freedom of expression, but it is potentially so far reaching that it transcends the subject. After all. What good is freedom of expression if the government can simply bypass Parliament?

Read more here.

Public Meeting & University Panels

2006-03-30T08:50:00.000Z

We have a venue in central London, and a date will be announced as soon as the booking is confirmed. It will be a Saturday.

For those who cannot easily make central London, we will hold a series of Panels in Universities around the country. A lecturer has been good enough to email and offer to help get the ball rolling in his college, and we would very much welcome similar emails from others in similar positions.

New Blog

2006-03-30T08:26:00.000Z

I notice an important new blog has come online, at http://toonophobia.blogspot.com.

Blasphemy

2006-03-29T14:56:00.000Z

Paul Emmerson has emailed in to suggest that instead of just exhibiting the Danish cartoons we should:

in the same physical space have a video showing ‘The Life Of Brian’ and whichever Woody Allen movie is most irreverent to Jews. If you can also find a movie that shows Hindu gods, even if it isn’t humorous, so much the better.
...
have the text of the Church’s judgment against Galileo prominently displayed.

Maybe call the exhibition "Blasphemy".

There was at one time a contractual issue that prevented the Life of Brian from being shown, and there would be licensing and performing rights issues. But what do you think, in principle?

Political Party

2006-03-29T14:37:00.000Z

I thought this was very true, in an earlier post:

Whereas the enemies of free expression delight in actively striving to suppress freedoms, free expression's supporters wish simply to enjoy their freedoms and find it onerous to have to actively defend them.

I also noticed a lot of humour and high spirits on Saturday.

This made me think... Fascists aren't a lot of fun. Religious nuts are no fun at all. The indecent left are possibly the least fun thing on the planet. Watching the bullfighter, reading some of the placards and T-shirts and then chatting with people in the pub later, I thought: this is fun. These would be good people to invite to a party. A political party. Music, stand-up and (short) speeches. Broaden it out and try to involve some of the people who can't quite be bothered with politics at the moment.

I know there will be some groans at this idea, but the problem is that a lot of our most natural supporters are out enjoying themselves. Political participation and electoral turnouts are at an all time low. Into the void step the swivel-eyed loonies. How do we stop this happening?

I can think of worse answers than: hold a party.

Public Meeting

2006-03-29T14:34:00.000Z

We plan to hold a public meeting to address some of the future plans. Please email us or use the comments to help us get an idea of numbers, so we can book the right size venue.

Stay Tuned

2006-03-29T14:17:00.000Z

The Little Atoms one hour special about the rally will be broadcast tonight on Resonance 104.4fm at 7pm. You can listen on the radio at 104.4fm in London, or online at www.resonancefm.com.

Don't miss it.

Police Complaints Authority

2006-03-29T14:06:00.000Z

We liaised at great length with the police over the question of the display of cartoons. They made it clear that they did NOT consider that to display the Danish cartoons would in itself be a problem.

Now we have a completely foreseeable situation in which one belligerent onlooker who, I have no doubt, came to Trafalgar Square on Saturday for no other reason than to look for the cartoons and complain if they were there, saw them and complained.

I believe that the police should either have warned of this when we were seeking guidance from them so that we could have informed everyone who was thinking of attending, or taken no action when this onlooker complained.

I am therefore drafting a complaint to the Police Complaints Authority. I believe this policy must have been discussed at the highest levels in the Metropolitan Police, because of its political sensitivity, so the complaint will be against the Commissioner, Ian Blair.

What next

2006-03-29T11:30:00.000Z

The statement of principle at the start of this campaign calls twice on "our elected representatives". If we are going to get effective change, we need to bring the imperative of freedom of expression home to them. At the moment, the main organisations who are lobbying on this issue do so with a view to introducing new restrictions on freedom.

So we propose drawing up a detailed manifesto and sending it to every member of the House of Commons. We will create and maintain a public database that shows which MPs agree with the manifesto and which do not.

We can then lobby the ones who do not.

Going further, there will be some by-elections during the life of this Parliament. It seems realistic, based on the experience of this rally, to seek to raise funds and identify suitable candidates for any constituency in which the likely winner will not sign the manifesto. Let's continue to keep this free of party politics. If we have a Labour safe seat, our candidate will take the Labour whip on all issues except those that involve freedom of expression. If it's a Tory seat, they'll take the Tory whip, and so on. Electors will be able to support freedom of expression without compromising their party affiliations.

So, what might be in the manifesto?

We would seek a constitutional protection for freedom of expression in the UK, lobby against attempts to restrict freedoms by the EU and the UN. (We have to work with like-minded people overseas.)

Blasphemy (common) law is wrong in itself, reduces our freedom of expression and creates inequity that can be used to back calls for new restrictions on our freedoms, such as the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill. So we need the abolition of the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel. Other people are already doing this, so we need to work with them and add to rather than duplicate their campaigns.

The Lords Spiritual should be abolished. Again, these create inequity and the last thing we need is representatives of other religions in the Lords, legislating for restrictions of our freedoms.

In general, there should be no special privileges for religions of any kind. We would seek the disestablishment of the Church of England.

In fact, there should be no special privilges for any group. All legislation that bans forms of speech should be repealed. This includes incitement to racial hatred.

When the police told The Spectator that they couldn't guarantee the safety of its staff, after a cartoon was published on their website, they were not telling the truth. In fact, they wouldn't protect the Spectator's staff. They protect lots of people - government ministers, members of the Royal family, diplomats and civil servants and others. They choose not to protect law-abiding people whose lives have been threatened. The consequence was that the cartoon was withdrawn. Instead, the police should protect anyone who is threatened and they should pursue the aggressors remorselessly, using all means at their disposal.

If a bounty is put on someone's life by a person in another country, where extradition treaties exist, these should be used to bring the bounty-offerer to justice. Where extradition treaties do not exist, the incentivisation of murder should be treated as a crime against humanity, with an international court to try them, and diplomatic consequences for any country harbouring such people.

Labi Siffre

2006-03-29T09:55:00.000Z

A lot of people have been asking for Labi Siffre's speech. We'll be making other speeches available too, but for the moment, here is Labi's:

Transcript of the “March for Free Expression” speech given by Labi Siffre (Trafalgar Square 25/03/06)

The texts for my speech are taken from my blog in poetry form: “Labi Siffre – Poetry Into The Light”

it matters little that something is true, or not
till someone says you must live a certain way
because they believe something is true, or not

The Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw has said, "There is freedom of speech, we all respect that. But there is not any obligation to insult or to be gratuitously inflammatory. We have to be very careful about showing the proper respect.

Well, I say, not all beliefs are worthy of respect. Racist beliefs, homophobic beliefs, sexist beliefs, beliefs claiming the inferiority of the disabled, and claims to knowledge of the existence of a God, none of these are worthy of respect.

I reject the craven philosophies, “I am sincere ... so I must be right”
and “I am offended ... so you must stop”.

When someone says, “I know God exists and so, you must behave in a certain way: that is offensive, insulting, inflammatory and unworthy of respect. But I would not campaign to ban their right to proclaim their beliefs, no matter how offensive I judge those beliefs to be.

I stand here able to speak in this way because a lot of people, many of whom would not have approved of me, died, so that I could have the right of “freedom of expression”. I have a duty to defend that right they gave their lives for.

To begin with the lie, “I know god exists” makes you an extremist.

*

When anyone attacks, by insisting that their dishonest and offensive claims to knowledge of “god” be “precious and sacred” to me

i will oppose your vacuous regal prose,
and them, vigorously

*

Consider : it is impossible to blaspheme
without proof of god’s existence

Consider : if you apologise
when you have nothing
to apologise for

of what value are your apologies
when you do
have something to apologise for

Consider : Christianity, Islam, Sikhism,
Judaism, Hinduism, the worship of
the little green goblin from the planet absurdity
none of these is a country
none of these is an ethnicity

they are political philosophies
used to persuade or tell people
how they should live

to criticize, ridicule, lampoon
or insult them, or the belief in them,
is not racist

And finally, consider :
In an age when the most powerful man on the planet (armed with weapons of mass destruction) by his own admission believes he receives instruction directly from God

In an age when Christian believers in “Rapture” and Islamic believers in “the return of the hidden Imam” believe it right to speed us to salvation by promoting the chaos and destruction of the apocalypse

In such an age, not only do we have a right to challenge, criticize, caricature and satirize Muhammad, Jesus, Yahweh and other theistic concepts ... we have a duty to do so.

http://www.intothelight.info/

ozz@intothelight.info

Reza Moradi

2006-03-28T10:04:00.000Z

I know there is a lot of concern about Reza Moradi's summons. I have been in contact with the police and with Maryam Namazie. As soon as there is some news, I will post about it.

Contribution #2: Aeneas

2006-03-27T19:29:00.000Z

This was posted as three separate comments.

Part One:

The very next thing that we should campaign on is immediate and it is urgent, namely, the dropping of all charges against Reza Moradi. Are the cartoons illegal? If not, then why has this man been summoned to court? Are there other reasons that we have not been told about? If it’s just because someone was offended then I’d go further than Polish Solidarity with Denmark went – the entire population of the world should appear in court. Everyone has caused some degree of offence at some point in his or her life.

The fact that the vast majority of people didn’t show up in cartoon t-shirts, yet I imagine most people felt that people should have been allowed to if they wanted to, showed a great deal of restraint on our part and a good degree of respect towards the sensitivities of the Muslim Community. Arresting someone for making a statement, following our collective restraint is, at least in my mind, a provocation that does nothing to dispel the atmosphere of fear and suspicion that exists in many minds.

Part Two:

After the events of 9/11 I think that many Muslims feared that there would be a backlash, and the continued activities of fanatics around the world is not improving the situation. These events have also increased fears in the West that Islam wants to rule the world. Displaying the cartoons became a symbol of resistance to this perceived threat on one side and on the other of a perceived backlash.

If for no other reason that to get them into the open and reduce the fear that surrounds them, I believe that the cartoons should be published in Britain, but not in a way that provokes fear as to the motives for showing them. We have enough to fear on both sides of this debate from our own Government that seems intent on taking more and more liberty from everybody. The Iraq war provoked fear on one side, and the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill had a similar effect on the other. ID cards probably will be feared by many in both “groups”. Is the fear that is being created a deliberate act in order to rob us of more and more of all our rights and freedoms, which has been suggested elsewhere?

Part Three:

The reaction to the cartoons and the apparent lack of response from the Government and the Police to do anything about it, is what forced me to become active in this cause. I felt fear that my culture was under threat, just like the Muslims did. I felt myself been drawn further and further to the right, and some of the anger might have come across in some of my posts. Provocative posts from the other side and the almost ubiquitous misuse of the word racist intensified this fear and with it my anger. The decision on the cartoons and the treatment of those who took them to the rally didn’t make me less fearful either. If I felt myself been dragged to the right because of these fears, then I would imagine a similar reaction from Muslims. This drift to both of these extremes must stop, and the damage that has already been done reversed. I don’t want to give up liberal principles and only have the choice between two different forms of totalitarianism.

I have given the issues a great deal of thought, and have worried about them. I think Peter’s decision has ultimately, over time, made me pause and think, and move away from the precipice. For this Peter, I thank you. We must succeed to protect freedom of expression for the benefit of all, and to enable both “groups” or “sides” to become one and to live without fear. I believe that starting with the concept of Ijtihad as mentioned in my previous post (before the three-part one) is a good starting point because it seems to represent a liberal Islam that can be distinguished from the extreme variety and such a discussion in my opinion will encourage liberal Muslims to become involved in our campaign. It’s worth a try.

Contribution #1: And Rosta

2006-03-27T19:09:00.000Z

This the first of a series of posts from people who have contributed ideas and analysis by email or in the comments section.

Dear Organizers,

You did an excellent job. Whereas the enemies of free expression delight in actively striving to suppress freedoms, free expression's supporters wish simply to enjoy their freedoms and find it onerous to have to actively defend them. (As a trade union rep I know how hard it is to mobilize members who would rather enjoy their protections without having to fight for them.) But we have to make a start and we need leaders to step forward as you have done.

The enemies of free speech have the backing of vast organizational infrastructures. The defenders of free speech don't -- yet. The rally showed that there are a few hundred people -- and a dozen principled organizations -- who in collaboration and coalition can work to build that organization.

I can't see the Voltaireans ever managing to hold bigger rallies than religious groups. Instead the defenders of freedom of expression need to build organized branches of support in key areas of society:

* in the universities
* in the press
* among elected politicians
* in the major political parties
* among religious groups

If the rally drew a line in the sand, this is what has to happen to defend that line.

While it is clear that the rally's organizers had a tricky job -- the need to galvanize support yet avoid press coverage presenting the rally as some anti-muslim BNP event, it will be important to avoid red-herrings: we must be able to defend the right to free expression without having to pass judgement on the beliefs of those whose rights we defend, and without having to pass judgement on the way some people choose to exercise their right.

Fraternally,

--And Rosta.