Chidakasha

Why is the insistence that no one should confess support for Palestine Action a matter of such urgency for the British government? The arrests of protestors, let alone this interference in the publishing of an author’s unrelated work, can only bring British law and government into disrepute. The proper purpose of law is to ensure justice in the relations between people and to regulate behaviour to ensure public safety. Law must also, if it has a moral foundation, take into account not only what it considers to be the public good but also the natural rights of the individual which must include freedom of opinion and expression of opinion. Whether it was right to ‘proscribe’ membership of Palestine Action some of whose members did carry out acts of violence, that is a very different thing to persecuting people for expressing support for that organisation. It is clear at this time much of the supposed support for Palestine Action has become support for the Palestinian people and for the principle of freedom of expression.

I would be interested in knowing who in government or politics advocates the arrest of people for expressing opinion and what is their moral justification for their position.

---

It increasingly looks like some entity is conducting a campaign of legal terror against opponents of the Israeli regime and its genocide of the Palestian people.

“You can’t play a melody on a single string.”

I did this with minimal editing from a vid on instagram – It is shocking how little emphasis there is on international issues like AI, conflict and issues of climate change and environmental collapse that threaten the existence of civilisation and perhaps human life on this planet.

This is the nature of being a soldier in any conflict. If they were to empathise with the ‘enemy’ they would be incapable of following orders. To join a military is to outsource your conscience. Cruelty is permitted because it is authorised.

But this does not just apply to soldiers. When we, civilians, permit any authority, military, political, religious or the social consensus to determine how we understand and respond to a situation that is presented to us, that authority stands in place of our conscience and overrides empathy. And in the absence of conscience – empathy plus ethics – the person we are harming is no longer a fully sentient person and neither are we.

I am reminded of the MIlgram Experiment. It’s well known but its implications should, I think, be more fully explored if we want to understand this moment in human history.

A reminder that the US has been planning a war against Iran for decades. Israel and Trump have a lot to answer for but the American animus towards Iran has deeper roots as Gen. Wesley Clark famously revealed in 2007.

If anyone would like to comment .. I’d welcome that. There is a context to this. People were stabbed and the assailant was a mentally disturbed person. But just looking at the video I wonder if people would judge the behaviour of the police ‘necessary violence’ – I would call it extreme and I think that kicking a man who is on the ground repeatedly in the head is disturbing. Zack Polansky was right to question this degree of violence. I don’t think that he or anyone should apologise for questioning violence whether our conclusion is justified or not.

Chidakasha, the space of the mind, is one of my oldest websites .. and I haven’t written on it this whole year. The thing is I have too many websites – and I post a lot on Facebook. But this is the personal website and I’m going to start writing here too.

Let this be my remembrance on this day of remembrance. Let me remember all the lives wasted in human wars, let me remember the courage of those who fought against injustice and of those who retained their love of humanity in the face of the worst of human cruelty. But above all let me remember the children of Gaza, of Sudan, of Ukraine and of all the other slaughters of innocence present and past. Gaza where a crime unprecedented in this century is being perpetrated before our eyes where children aged 5 to 9 years old are the group that has suffered the most deaths. Gaza, may it live forever in our shared consciousness and conscience. Gaza, may it be the atrocitie to end atrocities. Let us remember Gaza because in the words of James Baldwin, “The children are always ours, every single one of them, all over the globe; and I am beginning to suspect that whoever is incapable of recognizing this may be incapable of morality.”

The Islamophobe argued that it is permissible to castigate Muslims for being Muslims in the same way that it would be permissible to castigate Nazis for being Nazis but not Jews for being Jews because Muslims are not a racial group while Jews are:

“First of all, everything I have said against Islam is directed against a CULTURE which has to be LEARNED, and not against any group of PEOPLE who have features that they are BORN WITH and cannot change.” ~ Islamophobe.

I answered:

Neither being a Muslim nor being a Jew, is based on particularities of appearance – thus if we associate ‘race’ with physical appearance then neither being Jewish nor being Muslim can be considered belonging to a ‘racial’ group. The term ethnicity is wider than ‘race’ in its sense of physical appearance, wide enough to be applied to both Muslims and Jews. Just as there are Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews there are Arab, Bengali and Punjabi Muslims – these being the largest heritage groups confessing to, respectively, Judaism and Islam. Too, there are denominational or sectarian distinctions within the confessions that cut across the cultural differences.

While a white person qua white or a black person qua black cannot change the physical features that define them as such, they are, absent the prejudices of others, free to be whatever they choose to be. Counterintuitively, perhaps, it is much harder (psychologically not necessarily societally) to break away from the determinations of our religio-cultural affiliations, ethnicities if you like, than from those of appearance. The philosopher and educator Ninian Smart identified what he called the ‘seven dimensions of religion’ and what I suggest might be better called the ‘seven dimensions of religio-cultural ethnicity’.

The Seven Dimensions:

Ritual: Forms and orders of ceremonies (private and/or public) (often regarded as revealed)

Narrative and Mythic: stories (often regarded as revealed) that work on several levels. Sometimes narratives fit together into a fairly complete and systematic interpretation of the universe and human’s place in it.

Experiential and emotional: dread, guilt, awe, mystery, devotion, liberation, ecstasy, inner peace, bliss (private)

Social and Institutional: belief system is shared and attitudes practiced by a group. Often rules for identifying community membership and participation (public)

Ethical and legal: Rules about human behavior (often regarded as revealed from supernatural realm)

Doctrinal and philosophical: systematic formulation of religious teachings in an intellectually coherent form

Material: ordinary objects or places that symbolize or manifest the sacred or supernatural

I would say that these dimensions are common to both the Muslim and Judaic faiths and equally distinguish both from political movements such as Nazism. Further, despite present and historical atrociousness and absurdities in their doctrines and practice, both of these religions alongside all religions have inspired much compassion, consciousness, conscience and creativity in many of their adherents throughout history.

In addition to this religio-cultural aspect there is also the fact that the great religions are what we can consider, following Samuel Huntington’s suggestion, civilisational cultures. I’ve seen varying graphical representation of Huntington’s thesis and attach one of these to illustrate that thesis. There are comments I could make about it but I don’t want to distract from the central point, that we can draw from both Smart and Huntington, that Islam, Judaism and the other great religions represent memetic heritages at least as integral to the sense of being of individuals as their genetics. Islamophobia must be understood to be as harmful to a person’s sense of being as would be any denigration (I use the word consciously) founded on genetically determined variations in appearance. For these reasons while it is within the bounds of respect to criticise certain aspects of Islam or Judaism it is not within the bounds of respect or reason to attack wholesale either or any of the major religions. Similarly while we may properly, and must properly, condemn bad actors and believers regardless of their religion, we must not paint those who are innocent as bad actors and belivers simply because they have in common an ethno-cultural-civilisational heritage shared with millions and billions of other human beings. That’s not respectful, reasonable or right.

The following was written in response to a post on my https://www.facebook.com/groups/ConsciousCompassionateCreativeConversation group suggesting that Muslims were not a race but brainwashed members of a violent cult and therefore it is not racist to castigate them as a group whereas Jews are a race of people and therefore it would be racist to speak of them in a similar way.

Dear Paul,

With regard to your view that Jews are a ‘race’ whereas Muslims are not with its consequent implication that castigation of Muslims as Muslims (Islamophobia) is not racist while castigation of Jews as Jews (Antisemitism) is racist, I offer the following clarifications and observations.

I consider ‘race’ to be a construct—an abstraction based on appearance. Certain types have been abstracted based on colour and, largely, facial distinctions. I understand that these ‘types’ have been identified as ‘Negroid,’ ‘Caucasoid,’ ‘Mongoloid,’ and others. I also understand that these terms have fallen out of general use because it is now, rightly, considered distasteful to categorise people according to appearance. In any case, such categorisation has little biological significance since we are one species, as defined by our ability to successfully interbreed. Having done so, there is a spectrum or continuum between racial identifications abstracted from appearance. It is a choice—and, I believe, a disastrous one—to elevate these fluid abstractions to the status of naturally or divinely determined absolutes.

History and geography also play a part in what some people consider race, allowing Shakespeare to speak of an ‘English breed’ in his famed paean to nationalism and identity:

“This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle,

This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,

This other Eden, demi-paradise,

This fortress built by Nature for herself

Against infection and the hand of war,

This happy breed of men, this little world,

This precious stone set in the silver sea,

Which serves it in the office of a wall,

Or as a moat defensive to a house,

Against the envy of less happier lands,

This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,”

I quote this not only to name-drop but because of its unparalleled eloquence in evoking the attraction of racial and national identification—the belief that, because of appearance, history, or geography, one is somehow a member of a ‘happier breed of men’.

To return to the question of whether Jews are a ‘race,’ I do not consider them such. First (and foremost) because I regard the whole concept of race as confusing and unhelpful. Second, those who identify as Jews are highly diverse in appearance, with a majority seeming European, a minority of Middle Eastern appearance, and a smaller minority of African appearance. Whatever the claimed genetic evidence or mythos, it is appearance that counts. Finally, it is possible to stop being a Jew because one can stop identifying as a Jew and others can stop identifying one as a Jew. As a ‘Black’ man, I can stop identifying as ‘Black’ as much as I like, but it won’t prevent you or anyone else from seeing me as a Black man.

And that’s the crux of the matter, returning us to your characterisation of Muslims. You identify a Muslim as a Muslim, giving that identity more significance than the person’s identity as a human being and moral agent. This is why I believe you are truly Islamophobic. I do not identify anyone as a Jew unless they make a point of it; I see them as human beings and moral agents, capable of moral choice regardless of heritage. This is why, despite finding aspects of both Muslim and Jewish doctrine disagreeable, I do not consider myself either Islamophobic or antisemitic. To drive the point home, let me quote another great English poet, Kipling:

“Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,

Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgement Seat;

But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,

When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!”

Finally, Paul, I must say that although I find your views erroneous and often distasteful, I nevertheless thank you for expressing them. They serve me by allowing me to review and reaffirm my own values. This service is best expressed in the words of John Stuart Mill, with whom I entirely agree and on which I think we might both concur:

Mill gives four reasons why we should not deter the expression of divergent ideas:

“First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.

Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.

Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.

And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.”