I think there’s something very worried happening
as it were on the left, you know.
It used to be that it was the conservatives
both in America and Europe who used to criticize
people for criticizing religion, you know,
that used to be a right wing politic.
Now it’s become a left wing politic that
somehow – and I think the argument goes
that mostly groups in America and Western
Europe are often economically disadvantaged
and suffer from various kinds of prejudice
and racism and have difficult lives and therefore
to criticize the religion is to further attack
them and that shouldn’t be done.
And I mean that’s as best as I can put that
argument and I think that was the argument
in that Affleck issue.
And I think it was the argument in the division
within PEN American Center about honoring
Charlie Hebdo and it crops up over and over
again.
I mean it happened just to a certain extent
when the trouble was surrounding me.
But actually less so than in those days the
argument was – the criticisms were still
mostly from the right, from people like, you
know, the Cardinal of New York or the chief
rabbi of Great Britain or the Pope, you know.
All of whom found it perfectly possible to
sympathize with Islamic religious leaders
about me.
So and that taught me something interesting
about the unity of the God Squad, you know.
Now it seems that this liberal spirit of appeasement
of political correctness is a new problem.
Because of course it’s obviously quite right
to say that communities that are discriminated
against and oppressed and economically disadvantaged
need to have those issues looked at, you know,
and we need to try to deal with those issues.
That’s not the same thing as saying you
can’t criticize ideas they seem to hold.
If you can’t ring fence ideas.
It’s one thing to say people must not be
discriminated against but to say that ideas
become illegitimate or legitimate because
they’re held by disadvantaged people is
– it’s just a flaw.
It’s very important to remember that when
free expression is diminished or restricted
it’s usually minority groups that suffer
first.
It’s their free expression that is restricted
before the majorities.
So it’s always in the interest of minority
communities to defend free expression because
their own rights are involved.
And if by doing that they have to put up with
a certain amount of criticism of their own
ideas then that just goes with the territory.
And it’s very worrying to see well-meaning
people, people who are coming from a good
place, joining in with the world of censorship
and therefore ending up in a very bad place.
I think it’s perfectly legitimate to be
highly critical of religion in general and
in particular right now the use is being made
of the Islamic religion because of, I mean,
what’s happening in the world, you know.
I think to say that that’s not to do with
Islam is just a logical impossibility.
Of course it is.
If everybody engaged in acts of Islamic terrorism
says that they’re doing it in the name of
Islam who are we to say they’re not.
I mean now of course what they mean by Islam
might well not be what most Muslims mean by
Islam.
But it’s still a form of Islam and it’s
a form of Islam that’s become unbelievably
powerful in the last 25 and 30 years.
A form of Islam that if that oppresses and
kills Muslims more than anyone else.
That’s to say most of the Muslim deaths
in the world right now are not caused by American
drones.
They’re caused by Islamic attacks on Muslims
of another type, you know.
Shiite attacks on Sunnis.
Sunni attacks on Shiites.
Most of the oppression of Muslims in the world
right now is carried out by other Muslims,
you know.
Whether it’s the Taliban in Afghanistan
or, you know, the Ayatollah or wherever it
might be.
But to say that this is not Islam is to misname
the problem.
The problem is that there’s been a mutation
in Islam which has become unusually virulent
and powerful.
And it needs to be dealt with but in order
to deal with it we have to first call it by
its true name.
