This attack on free speech will fuel Muslim hostility If Britain's proposed laws on inciting terrorism were applied fairly, those who incite wars of aggression would also be in the dock
Salim Lone Thursday September 22, 2005 The Guardian Since the London terror attacks in July, Tony Blair has dramatically elevated the question of "incitement" by aggressively defining it as one of the root causes of extremism. Last week he took his campaign to the UN in New York, where his fellow heads of state unanimously approved his resolution calling on a ban on incitement to terrorism but - George Bush apart - failed to show much enthusiasm. Despite the muted response, Blair has opened an important front in the struggle to suppress those who advocate terrorism. But there are serious concerns worldwide about the way the incitement campaign is being presented - specifically that it is intended to squash legitimate Muslim expression. As Stephen Hadley, the US national security adviser, wrote last month: "Muslims are the prize that the terrorists hope to claim." Blair's campaign is an indication that both he and the US are worried that they are losing the battle for the minds of the world's billion-plus Muslims, despite the west's huge advantage in setting its agenda. Blair's campaign began right after July 7 with an astonishing attempt to silence those exploring any link between British policies in the Middle East and the growth of domestic Muslim militancy. Scholars and commentators followed the lead of Manchester University's Professor Norman Geras and condemned as "fellow travellers" those who sought to understand how British-born and -educated men could turn to terror. Such explanations imparted some legitimacy to terrorist acts, they argued. In the US this campaign took a more ominous turn. Tom Friedman, a columnist for the New York Times, wrote that the "primary terrorism problem we face today can effectively be addressed only by a war of ideas within Islam". His solution was to support "life-affirming Muslims" through a new US state department "quarterly 'War of Ideas Report', which would focus on those religious leaders and writers who are inciting violence". Quoting James Rubin, the former US state department spokesman, Friedman wrote that the list should also include "the excuse-makers ... who come out after every major terrorist incident ... to explain why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explain why the terrorists acted. [The excuse-makers] are just one notch less despicable than the terrorists." Few dispute the need to outlaw incitement to terrorism. But judging from the nature of the support Blair's initiative has received, it may threaten free speech, the bedrock of democracy and the rule of law. Terms such as "potential" and "indirect" incitement could include any advocacy of armed resistance. All mainstream British Muslim leaders stood with Blair in condemning domestic Muslim extremism in July, but many now worry about where this campaign and the proposed laws will lead. In any event, the world has not yet agreed what constitutes "terrorism". the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, tried to simplify matters by asserting that the killing of civilians was a terrorist act, but that was rightly rejected by the general assembly. The word "innocent", contained in the original draft, was left out. What about the US security firm Blackwater's security guards? What about armed Israeli civilians who create settlements on occupied Palestinian land? The kind of language proposed in the British legislation could easily characterise a call to resist allied occupation soldiers in Iraq as incitement. Is force now to be the preserve of the powerful? The threat posed to freedom of expression aside, it is alarming that Blair seems to be focusing only on Muslim actions. Indeed, writers such as Friedman explicitly state that it is religious figures advocating violence who should be exposed. The many western scholars and writers who incite their countries to undertake wars of aggression are not to be affected by anti-incitement legislation. Such incitement is more deadly due to the awesome destructive power of the states that are being urged, invariably, to attack a much weaker country. Recall, for example, the crescendo of scholarly and media agitation in the US for the war against Iraq. Particularly compelling was a large advertisement placed by the NBC television network in newspapers, headlined: "Saddam: America's most dangerous enemy." The ad asserted: "Saddam Hussein may have enough chemical and biological weapons to kill every man, woman and child on earth." Mainstream US networks broadcast calls for vigorous action against Muslims as a way to combat terror, one recent theme being the bombing of selected mosques whenever a terrorist strikes in the west. Is it any wonder there was such popular American support for the Iraq war? Such "incitement" is combined with outrageous attacks on Islam itself. The writer Oriana Fallaci recently asserted that there is no difference between Muslim extremists and Islam - and still had no trouble winning an audience with Pope Benedict. David Cameron, the rising Tory star, compared militant Islam to the Nazi threat in the 1930s. Bush and Blair have repeatedly pointed to their cultures' compassionate values, and condemned the barbarity of Muslim militants. Such talk offends many mainstream Muslims, not only militants. As both Stephen Hadley and Thomas Friedman have asserted, these mainstream Muslims hold the key to winning the war against terror, since many identify with the causes but not the actions the militants espouse. But nothing that the US and the UK are doing is winning over moderate Muslim opinion. The two leaders' refusal to countenance a speedy end to the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and the threats aimed at Iran and Syria are achieving the opposite - and so making it harder for Muslims to turn against the extremists. Blair's new militancy on the subject seems designed to win stronger domestic support through capitalising on genuine fears about terror, based on a conviction that the use of force against Muslim states will weaken terror. Terrorism is a scourge and it must be fought tooth and nail. But Blair and Bush are seeking answers in the wrong places. The US is deeply unpopular internationally. Blair, who so far has been seen around the world as subservient to President Bush, is emerging as a tough player in his own right. Weakened by the Iraq war, Blair will win some temporary support nationally with this toughness. But he is taking his country even further down the road to Muslim hostility. ยท Salim Lone is a former spokesman for the UN mission in Iraq [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1575520,00.html ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/uTGrlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe : [EMAIL PROTECTED] List owner : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
