One of my greatest frustrations in many of the ongoing (endless?) polemical debates I hold with others and myself is when someone tries to hold two absolutely contradictory points of view (without necessarily even acknowledging the tension/paradox of such a position). The most common example of this of course comes from Jewish supporters of Monarchy in the UK, who invariably use two arguments which absolutely cancel each other out. Point 1: (within the Jewish context) - it is uncharitable, inconsiderate, rude, ungrateful to call for the end of monarchy after all this country did for us, taking in our grandparents, great-grandparents, parents, whoever it was. As Jews we owe loyalty to this country which has been so good to us. Point 2: (outside of Jewish context and in complete contradiction to the first point) - there's no reason to get rid of the monarchy - they have absolutely no effect on government policy and it is ridiculous to suggest that the monarchy makes the UK less democratic. The obvious contradiction, of course, arises from the fact that if the Monarchy are irrelevant to the actions of the government, then we have no duty of loyalty to the Monarchy for taking in our parents, grandparents or great grandparents, but rather to the government. (I have blogged about this frustrating example of para-idiocy before).
So - as I say - that is one obvious example of the attempt to hold the rope of an argument from both ends. I can live with this - I expect people who support monarchy to disregard logic (i would write, "no offence", but actually... ). The problem comes (for me) when people I usually agree with start doing the same thing. And so I turn to the Guardian Newspaper, with whom, my love-hate relationship continues. Today I read an article, which I was drawn to, because I understood immediately that its intention was good, namely, this piece by a woman called Anne Aly, urging us not to label the gunman in the incident of the Lindt Cafe in Sydney, "a terrorist". The argument she expresses is that he is really a deranged individual, and to call him a terrorist would benefit the cause of ISIS. The argument which most lefty liberals like me inherently understood is that each time the anti-liberal press gets to report on a "terrorist" incident, they usually do so in a way which encourages people to go and attack innocent minority communities, and this is bad. I was torn about the article. It was clear to me the intention was good, but the means, "Don't call him a terrorist" and the idea that the reason was because it would bolster ISIS seemed a bit dishonest. And more than anything, it reminded me of another Guardian article by the self-publicist / feminist Jessica Valenti in which she made a hash of repeating the basic points made in this article from the New Statesmen about the killings in Isla Vista, by a young white male. In her article, Valenti argues the exact opposite - that it is immoral to attribute the Isla Vista killer's actions to mental illness (though he was known to be in treatment, unlike the killer in Sydney). In the original New Statesmen article, the author, Laurie Penny, actually calls the Isla Vista killings terrorism.
Now don't get me wrong - I am comparing three different articles all written by different people. I am not trying to claim that any of these people hold the opinions of the others (though my guess is that Laurie Penny and Jessica Valenti would agree with each other). And I realise that just because the Guardian agrees to publish both Valenti and Aly, this doesn't mean "the Guardian" agrees with both opinion pieces. I understand how comment sections of newspapers work. BUT, and there is still a "but" - every regular reader of the Guardian would recognise both Valenti's article and that of Aly as coming straight from the horse's mouth of the Guardian's worldview. Both innately reflect the political position of the Guardian. And this is telling.
When the "liberal left" (for want of a better term, and one in which I include myself), is talking about male violence against women, it is comfortable with (it even promotes) the idea that this violence MUST be seen in the context of a sexist misogynist society. I would totally agree with this standpoint. Why, when talking about a gunman, who very obviously comes from a particular ideological background, with a particular ideological agenda, demands to speak with the prime minister, hangs a pan-Islamist flag and asks for an Isis flag to be flown from the building, how is it possible that the same ideological camp would ask for this act of violence to be DE-contextualised? In this area, it is clear that "the left" has lost its way. Our desire to protect our Muslim brothers and sisters from the hate they will face following this incident is admirable, particularly the marvelous, #illridewithyou movement (I know the critique of it being patronising, but let's not overdo the cynicism). But we must divorce our desire to protect minorities from hate and our desire to objectively analyse social movements. ISIS, and Islamic extremism generally, has unearthed a new weapon against the west - the lone actor, inspired by hate, with little to no supervision. This is true terror - completely unpredictable, no obvious target, just a ticking time-bomb of violent hate. It is true that Man Haron Monis probably received no direct orders from anyone, but to pretend that his actions are in no way connected to geo-political reality is a distortion of truth which serves no-one apart from two small hateful groups. It serves Islamic extremist groups because they cannot be blamed for such an act, and hence can continue to rely on the support of Australian liberals. But it also serves the extreme fringe of the supposedly Liberal left who have become so entrenched in their ideologically held positions that they can no longer see the world as it is. There is a certain section of the liberal left (and it seems the Guardian is part of it) in which THE ENEMY is now so clearly identified, and the mantra of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is so completely ingrained, that all actual logic has been completely surrendered. In this scenario, the fact that the gunmen was a known anti-American activist. The fact that he supported a cause which was known to be anti-American, anti-Imperialist, and most importantly of all, Anti-Israel, means he must deserve some sympathy in the eyes of good Liberal Guardianistas.
It is not the gunman who needs to be viewed as a deranged individual in need of sympathy and mental health care. I think it's the author.
