Great news for democracy in Turkey
In a stunning reversal of every historical precedent, Turkey’s constitutional court has rejected a motion to ban the ruling AK Parti. More later, but for now let it suffice to say that I think this is a marvellous result for democratic politics in Turkey, which should be celebrated by all progressives and socialists. Let us hope that the forthcoming verdict on the left-wing DT Parti goes the same way.
Three Versions of Brel’s “Next”
Alex Harvey performs the song with malevolent relish to a rock cabaret with strings backing. His voice goes from wheedling to rasp, from ruefulness to rage, in the Glaswegian accent which hangs onto words like “arses”. Brilliant.
Scott Walker half declaims and half sings with precise diction. Scott Walker did an album of Brel songs but that heavy orchestration doesn’t suit them and both he and the arrangement are far too polished for such rawness. I could only find half a video for his interpretation on YouTube but found the song here. Scott Walker has got a fine voice, but this angry, bitter song does not need a fine voice.
Here’s the man himself, Brel in concert. I don’t know how Brel’s accent would sound to a Parisian –like Glaswegian to a Londoner? – but I love his harsh nasal “suivaaaaahnt”. He brays it like a donkey. Minimal accompaniment, and so it should be for a song like this.
Istanbul bombings – was Ergenekon to blame?
Most of the media coverage since Sunday’s bombings in Istanbul (which killed some 16 people) has been dominated by speculation that either the Kurdish nationalist PKK or one of the Islamic terrorist groups active in Turkey may have been responsible. Given that the knee-jerk reaction of Kemalist nationalists is to blame the PKK for everything of this kind, and that other reactionaries of a more Western flavour have a tendency to cry “Islamic Terrorism”, it was inevitable that these two groups would be flagged up as suspects. Indeed, neither would I discount either possibility, for all the predictability of the sourced that have raised them. However, in the course of yesterday another intriguing possibility was raised.
Bulent Kenes, writing on Comment is Free, suggests that the shadowy ultra-nationalist Ergenekon network, which is currently involved in a fight to the death with the ruling Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi, may have had a role in the bombings. He points out that the 2,455 page document indicting Ergenekon points out the organisation’s links not only with the PKK, but also with the “leftist” Mahir Cayan cultists of the DHKP-C, and also with Islamist terror organisations such as Turkish Hezbollah (as an aside, not linked to the Lebanese organisation of the same name). In the context of the current trials, both literal and of strength, between Ergenekon and the AKP, the ultra-nationalists would certainly be helped by a convenient extremist attack in Turkey’s largest city.
If this all seems implausible then I would ask you to bear in mind two things. Firstly, it has been done before, as demonstrated by various governments’ sponsorship of terror groups worldwide for all sorts of reasons. Early Israeli support for Hamas in an effort to break the PLO would make a very clear comparison with what Kenes and others suggest Ergekon is trying to do here. Secondly, Turkey is a country which almost (but not quite) forms an “exception that proves the rule” about grand conspiracies. There is a highly politicised “Deep State” in Turkey; this is both widely documented and commonly accepted. Ergenekon is a current, public manifestation of that long standing phenomenon. Indeed the only surprises or suspicions for me are the links raised in the Ergenekon document between said shadowy ultra-nationalists and groups such as the DHKP-C. For all that the latter group are self-flagellating cultists (their speciality is having their own members starve themselves to death en masse in Turkish jails, with no obvious demand other than “the revolution” or some such), their political record of written attacks on the “contra-guerilla” structures of the Deep State has been totally consistent. Also, there is something about the Ergenekon document that seems remarkably convenient in that it lumps together quite literally all of the AK Parti’s most fierce traditional enemies into one big, eradicable mass. Yet for all that suspicion, the notion that Ergenekon was behind Sunday’s attacks remains far from implausible.
In conclusion, what to make of this theory? I am frankly not sure. However what I do believe is that Sunday’s attacks were far too conveniently timed to be unconnected to the current constitutional battle within Turkey. Whether an extremist group acted alone or was backed by one of the protagonists, the attacks can only have helped Ergenekon’s members and harmed the legitimately elected AK Parti government. As a consequence it remains an open question whether the stories circulating about Ergenekon’s involvement are based in truth or in spin fed by AKP supporters to credulous journalists who would believe anything of the Deep State. It is to be hoped at the very least that the deaths of so many innocents in Istanbul will not be forgotten in the course of Turkey’s struggle towards the sort of democratic politics and civil freedoms that those of us in “the west” take for granted.
The term “Islamofascism” will no longer be banned at the Graun
It all started with quite a sensible article in the Graun, by Gary Younge.
I sent a comment in to Comment Is Free (CIF), the Graun’s highly successful website. Unfortunately, I didn’t keep a copy, as it never occurred to me that it would be deleted. But it was, by the “Community Moderator”, whoever s/he may be.
My offending CIF comment started by stating that Gary Younge’s piece was “thoughtful” but marred by the “standard liberal/left casual dismissal of the term ‘Islamofascism'”; Younge had described it as, “that desperately belligerent phrase that some hurl about in the hope that it may one day land on a coherent meaning.”
I replied to this, on CIF, attempting to give the phrase a “coherent meaning” by citing the evidence presented by Ed Husain in his excellent book The Islamist, and making reference to Hizb ut-Tahrir, Jamat-e-Islami (in Britain and Bangladesh) and the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots, the Muslim Association of Britain and the British Muslim Initiative; I stated that all these (including the “respectable” MAB and the BMI) were clerical fascist organisations, comparable to the “respectable” BNP. I closed by noting that the main victims of such clerical fascism are not white Guardian-readers, but women, gays and democrats within the Muslim “community”.
This comment was deleted.
I could find no obvious way of complaining, so sent an email to an innocent CIF functionary, Ms J****, whose email address was on their site:
Dear Ms J****,
I’m sure that you are not the appropriate person to write to about this, but having scoured the Guardian’s website I cannot find a “complaints” address. A comment of mine (non-abusive, non-racist, etc) has been deleted from the comments under Gary Younge’s most recent column without explanation. I wish to pursue this matter. Who at the Guardian do I contact in order to complain?
Your co-operation in this matter would be much appreciated. Many thanks in anticipation,
Charlie Farley
***************************************************************************************************
Dear User,
The paragraph “Bigotry towards ethnic minorities, subjugation of women, hatred of gays, denial of the right of Israel to even exist, murderous hostility to organised labour – all these are the classic characteristics of both European fascism and current Islamofascism” was deemed to be in violation of the community standards – we do not deem the use of the word ‘islamofascism’ acceptable or useful in intelligent debate, especially when made in sweeping generalisations about all members of a religion.
Regards
Moderator
*****************************************************************************************************
Dear Moderator,
So you are saying that by definition use of the term “islamofascism” renders a posting unacceptable? Please note as well that my original posting was not about “all members of a religion” as a cursory reading of it would have made clear. It was about Islamism (a political ideology), not Islam (a religion).
Whilst I thank you for taking the trouble to reply, I have to say that I find your response completely unaccepatable and wish to take this matter further. Please advise as to your complaints policy.
Yours
Charlie Farlie
*********************************************************************************************************
Dear Charlie,
Thanks for your message. I am writing as senior moderator to confirm that on Comment Is Free moderators do remove comments that use the word ‘Islamofascism’, as an inflammatory and innaccurate term. You are welcome to repost your comment, amending Islamofascism to Islamism, to reflect your meaning accurately, and the revised version will be allowed to stand. If you wish to query this decision further, I can refer your complaint on.
Best wishes,
S****
Moderator
**********************************************************************************************************
Thank you S****:
I find this policy decision extraordinary, and clearly a form of political censorship based upon a subjective judgement. Would the same ban apply to the well-established Marxist term “clerical fascism”?
The policy is especially outrageous in the context of the Gary Younge article I was replying to: Mr Younge’s piece contained what amounted to a challenge to those who (in his words) “hurl about” the term islamofascism “in the hope that it might one day land on a coherent meaning”, to provide a “coherent meaning”: I was attempting to do just that. If comments defending the use of the term are in fact subject to a blanket ban, perhaps columnists like Gary Younge should be instructed not to issue such challenges?
And yes: I would like you to refer my complaint on.
Yours
Charlie Farley
****************************************************************************************************************
Dear Charlie,
Thanks for your message. Your point about the context is useful. I will discuss this with CIF and let you know the outcome.
Best wishes
S****
***************************************************************************************************************
Dear S****,
Has there been any progress as regards my complaint?
I note that Seamas Milne has a piece in today’s paper in which he defends Islamism, denounces Muslims (like Ed Husain) who reject Islamism, and describes the term Islamofascist as “ignorantly branded”. I presume that the blanket ban on use of, or defence of, the term Islamofascism means that I cannot reply? Or that if I do, it will once again be deleted?
Yours
Charlie Farley
************************************************************************************************************
Dear Charlie,
I discussed this with the team yesterday, who came to the decision that moderation should take better account of context in future. So if the term is used aggressively, offensively or gratuitously it may still come down. But where it is discussed cogently in the context of a rational and relevant argument, it should remain. Please let me know if you encounter any further problems with this.
Best wishes,
S****
***************************************************************************************************************
Dear S****,
Thank you for that, which seems to me to be a reasonable decision. I have to say, however, that in the light of the first response I received from a moderator (“We do not deem the use of the word ‘Islamofascism’ acceptable or useful in intelligent debate, especially when made in sweeping generalisations about all members of a religion”), I am still worried that the presumption is against use of the term and that there are some moderators who seem to be predisposed to delete the term regardles of context – and who are quite willing to to deliberately misrepresent the motives of people who use the term. I shall be putting this to the test in the course of future contributions to CIF.
Finally, I would like to reproduce this exchange of correspondence on a blog I contribute to (Shiraz Socialist) with typos corrected and email addresses deleted. I trust that will be OK by you?
Many thanks,
Charlie
****************************************************************************************************************
Dear Charlie,
Thanks for your response. Clearly, I did not enter into this exchange in the expectation that it would be published. However, if you do decide to publish it, I would appreciate the removal of sensitive details, including email addresses and names.
Best wishes,
S****
Johnny Griffin, little giant of the tenor
R.I.P. Johnny Griffin, 24 April 1928 – 25 July 2008
“Athough he is fully conversant with the tenor tradition of Hawkins, Byas, Webster and Young, it has often been remarked how close in spirit Griffin’s playing is to that of Charlie Parker. The headlong rush of ideas, and the rhythmic variety and freedom that go with them, all point in this direction. In addition his tone combines a vocalised sound with a slightly hysterical edge that, at his best, can evoke almost uncontrollable exhileration -except perhaps for other tenor players, since Griffin is one of the fastest and most accurate ever on his instrument.” – Brian Priestley, Jazz- The Rough Guide, 1995.
Here’s Johnny… with one of the few tenorists who could keep up with him: Eddie ‘Lockjaw’ Davis (1921-1986). Johnny’s the little guy on the left who solos second:
Did they pay him for this banal crap?
A pretentious sub-Marxist pseudo-academic sucks up to his party boss:
“He shows that the USSR, fat from being concerned with emancipatory politics, adopted a manipulative sance towards left-wing movements, encouraged loyal parties to limit their radicalism and to connive in pro-colonial policies. In fact, his principle diagnosis here is that the twin pincers of Stalinism and fascism crushed the tradition of ‘socialism from below’ mid-century, and that this tradition was partially revived in the ‘New Left’ movements of the 1960’s. Thus, if the postwar strength of the USSR did not confirm the socialist case, Harman maintains, its collapse did not disprove it.”
OOh me-oooh-my, what masterful, original analysis! Did the New Statesman pay Lenny Seymour real money for such profound insights as that? And did they know that the book he’s reviewing was written by one of his own party bosses? Still, the Karadzic sympathiser and genocide-minimiser Seymour does get a bit bold right at the end of his puff and actually ventures a mild criticism of Harman for “defend (ing) a version of Marx’s conception of the ‘Asiatic mode of production’.” Sadly, Leading Intellekshull Comrade Lenny doesn’t deign to expand upon that point: was Marx wrong about the Asiatic Mode or what? Pray educate us, oh great post-Marxist banalyst Mr Lenny “Seymour” Gobshite.
Dinah: Send Me To The ‘Lectric Chair
When I came in tonight, the telly was on and -amazingly- showing a documentary about Dinah Washington: pity I was down the pub for most of it.
Here the ‘Queen of the Blues’ remembers the ‘Empress’ in a defiant number: what a voice!
Shuggy on workfare
I was going to get around to writing something about New Labour’s latest attack (fully supported, of course, by the Tories) on the poorest and most vulnerable in society. But Shuggy at the Sots has beaten me to it and I’ve nothing to add to what he says in an excellent, thoughtful piece. Read it!
It’s becoming increasingly difficult to motivate a vote for Labour, isn’t it?
Shiraz Socialist 