In a sense yes because the following:
"they have helped create a new culture of self-censorship".
He means, a culture of people biting their (own) tongues. You talked, in an earlier post, about promoting "a moral commitment to self-censorship. I know I do." I think I asked you what it is that you want to say but don't. Because that's what self censorship means. I suspect that there's nothing
racist you want to say but don't, because you aren't racist. And this is the core of our mutual misunderstanding here. Self censorship does nothing to combat racist if you aren't racist! And if someone is racist, it still doesn't combat their racism, it just teaches them to keep quiet about it. "Good", you might say, and in certain circumstances it is, but in the longer term you want to be able to encourage people to confront the assumptions behind their racism. (Note also, I'm talking here about individual racism - I do think you can use different tactics in your arsenal against organised racism - because that is an organisation seeking to oppress).
Could just as well be said about racism due to the fact we live in a multi-racial society. We can quibble about whether the term "culture of self-censorship" is used in its proper sense, but it's pretty clear what he is talking about. That moral commitment exists on Urban. Racists get banned and nobody ever objects. That's not a criticism, but I wonder why those who are impressed by this article don't complain when racists get banned.
Because Urban75 isn't society; it's the Editor's front room.
I think Malik's abstract discussion of free speech obscures the distinctions he wishes to make. He doesn't have objections to challenging racism.
That's right, because free speech isn't about only one person or one statement having it - others can and do and must reply - that's what free speech means. (I talked about this in
my post a while back, when I said it's a misunderstanding that many people have).
I'll give you an example. When Farage came to Edinburgh, he was met with lively protests. Some in the media and in politics (including George Galloway) said the protesters were denying Farage freedom of speech. No they wren't - they were exercising theirs.
But the radical way he has formulated freedom of expression and his tying it to the importance of cultural criticism of minorities leaves him in a muddle.
With respect, no, I think it's you that's in the muddle. Not because I'm disagreeing with your tenor, but because I think you're misinterpreting what he's actually saying, both giving his "self censorship" a wider sense than he gives it, and restricting what "free speech" means.
And while we're on terms, you used one I have problems with - "Islamophobia". I've had run-ins on here before about this, but I think it's exactly part of the problem as I see it. Islamophobia is not analogous with anti Semitism. For that you'd need something like "Muslimophobia" (a term nobody uses, but which I wish they would). The trouble is that "Islam" is a religion, a philosophy. I don't think there's anything wrong with hating or being afraid of a philosophy, a set of ideas. As an atheist, there is much I dislike about Islam. Just as there is much I dislike about Judaism, but I wouldn't want to be called an anti Semite. This fudging of terms is being widened out by the neoliberals in power to include political ideas. Disliking political ideas can now be hate speech. (See the example I gave of a man arrested and sentenced for heckling Cameron about austerity). Those in political power are using these sort of notions to limit what we're allowed to challenge. That's a problem for us all, from progressives within minority communities, to wider movements for defence against austerity attacks, and those advocating social change. That's why free speech and freedom of expression is tried up in this. If we agree to limitations in one sphere because we misinterpret it as an anti racist measure, then we end up limiting our ability to defend ourselves.
It's a reasonable question to which I am not competent to answer, but does Charlie Hebdo have a record of racism? And its a question I want to ask before I declare, "Je suis Charlie Hebdo."
I quite agree. Which is why I've never said "je suis charlie". I don't think it's necessary to adopt that slogan in order to defend the principle of free speech.
