Revealed: the fatal flaw Leading article Kenneth…

The Anna Karenina theory

Economy
Alf Young
Tolstoy has entered the debate on Britain’s fiscal policies

Film
Dharmendra Singh awards five stars to ‘Blue Valentine’

Kicked out of
the mosque

Free speech
Anthony Silkoff
A bewildering experience
in Glasgow


Life of George
Big John’s funeral

Did he kill Keats?

Person of the Week
James Clark
Profile by Barbara Millar

Gridlock

The Richard Wild series

10.02.11
No. 365

Life of George

 
[1]

A call came through on my mobile. ‘Big John Rennie’s been murdered,’ said a voice, ‘his body’s being wheeled past me right now.’

[2]

Eddie and I shared a wordless journey on the way to Big John’s funeral. Strangely, the distant words of Kenneth Roy returned unbidden. Leaning forward, he had said: ‘You go to many funerals’. The accompanying look made me feel guilty and disbelieved.
     Considering the attitudes to life, and death, in certain sub-cultures, it would be even stranger if no-one dressed darkly at least three times a year. For some it’s yet another opportunity to parade their emotions in Armani black.
     John is the only friend of the year to die from unnatural causes, the others (innocent fellows all) were, at best, untimely and inconsiderate.
     Deep sadness turned to annoyance when a lone piper kick-started his instrument. Regardless of intentions or expertise, for me the racket conjures the vision of someone abusing a seagull. Towards the end, the sound of a female bawling a karaoke ballad was another layer of unnecessary noise to filter out.
     Given the circumstances of John’s demise, it wasn’t surprising to see knots of serious mourners bending their heads together. Grapevine information was shared and listened to with slow, thoughtful nods. (With only one man in custody, others would do well to escape into the fiscal’s warm embrace.)
     Sub-cultures, like all incestuous cabals, are peopled by those who observe and perpetuate accepted modes of dress and codes of behaviour. Wearing his customary pale blue jerkin and wrinkled jeans, it’s easy to watch Billy Bad News dig holes amongst the thousand-strong crowd. Billy’s too rich and ignorant to see he doesn’t belong.

Free speech

Kicked out of the mosque

Anthony Silkoff

I have a terrible habit of going looking for a fight. Not the physical kind, mind you; as a self-confessed short bloke I’d rarely emerge victorious. But give me a controversial issue and I can’t resist throwing a few polemical punches.

     As well as comparing people to Hitler on Facebook comments, I find that the most entertaining political rows are alcohol-propelled. The example that jumps to mind was one evening at a Sauchiehall Street pub, when a complete stranger and I engaged in an hour-long altercation on the human rights of disabled people. I argued that they had rights, he disagreed; it ended when he wished cancer on me, but I loved every vitriol-filled minute.
     Of course, all of this makes me a terrible dinner party guest, given that my favourite topics are religion, politics or, for some variety, religious politics. However, while I can understand some people wanting to eat their supper in peace, there are times and places where debate and disagreement play a vital societal role, and I despair to see these occasions quashed.
     Which is why I was so disturbed to be kicked out of Glasgow Central Mosque in January. I certainly hadn’t turned up to disturb a prayer service, in fact three colleagues and I had been invited to a public event where George Galloway and others were speaking about the Israeli attack on Gaza. I’ll admit, I’m no fan of Galloway. In fact, I’d prepared a sentence or two for the Q&A session; I was going to ask how he could justify handing cash to Hamas, while they violate the human rights of Palestinians.  
     However the four of us never heard the speeches, let alone the Q&A which, as I later heard, allowed pre-selected written questions only. Within minutes of entering this huge public event run by Friends of al-Aqsa, I was approached and told that without a ‘printed invitation’ (such a thing did not exist) I would have to leave the premises. My colleagues were simply told ‘we didn’t realise you were with this guy (’twas I)…you’ll have to leave too’.
     We left without a fight, passing dozens of other members of the public entering the mosque, and feeling rather bewildered at what had just happened. It’s possible that we were recognised and targeted as volunteers with the Palestinian-Israeli OneVoice Movement, whose biggest crime would be listening to the narrative of both sides. I suppose the person who kicked us out must have known we might come armed with dangerous facts and alternative opinions, the likes of which are not welcome at politically homogeneous events such as this. End of debate.
     The real worry is that this was no isolated incident. When we previously ran a public event at Glasgow University in 2008, featuring Israeli and Palestinian speakers, supposedly pro-Palestinian activists staged a protest outside, megaphones and all, urging people not to attend.  I was relieved that no one listened and more than 200 people showed up to join in the discussion, without any pre-selection, but it was still frustrating that open debate is such anathema for certain groups.

Just as Lieberman wants to suppress discussion of Israel’s past, those crushing debate in Scotland hope to suppress dissent from their narrative of the conflict. It’s a very short-sighted tactic, certainly not one conducive to peace, and that’s before one looks at it through the freedom-of-speech lens.

     What brings me to write this now is the most recent occurrence of this phenomenon. Over at Edinburgh University, the Jewish Society had invited Ishmael Khaldi, billed as ‘Israel’s First Bedouin Diplomat’, to speak on 2 February. I couldn’t attend anyway, due to commitments in Glasgow, but from the event’s description (‘Ishmael Khaldi will describe the many advantages minorities in Israel enjoy compared to the surrounding countries’) and his bio (he’s an advisor to Israel’s ridiculous foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman), I could tell this wouldn’t be a speaker I’d warm to.  
     I suspected that the showcasing of Ishmael Khaldi (‘Look! A Muslim likes us!’) by the Israeli government bears unfortunate similarities to the parading of Naturei Karta (‘Look! They’re Jewish and they like me!’) by President Ahmedinejad.  Indeed, I was hoping that Mr Khaldi might be questioned by opponents on how he feels about his boss, Mr Lieberman, promoting the forced signing of an Arab-only loyalty pledge. I also wondered if Mr Khaldi agrees that Arab Knesset members who fly black flags to commemorate the Nakba should be executed: another flourish from Lieberman.  
     No one could witness this discussion, however.  Just as he started speaking, Mr Khaldi was surrounded by protesters chanting ‘Israel is a racist state!’, forcing the event to be abandoned within the first hour. End of debate. I’m puzzled by the logic of this approach; if the aim of these activists is to make a persuasive case for Palestine, they certainly won’t have persuaded any ‘floating voters’ by this outburst. Furthermore, any supporters of Israel who attended will, from their point of view, have had their pre-existing views confirmed: that pro-Palestinians are uninterested in dialogue, and hence, uninterested in peace.
     Just as Mr Lieberman wants to suppress discussion of Israel’s past, those crushing debate in Scotland hope to suppress dissent from their narrative of the conflict. It’s a very short-sighted tactic, certainly not one conducive to peace, and that’s before one looks at it through the freedom-of-speech lens.
     I’m not going to dwell on the philosophical argument (hence no Voltaire quotes here) but let’s look at an example; I really wanted to see Nick Griffin appear on ‘Question Time’. I wanted to see him on BBC1 because I knew he’d make a fool of himself.  The angry anti-BNP protestors outside the studio did an unintentionally good job of making Griffin look like the victim. Luckily, Griffin’s performance inside the studio made clear what an unreformed relic he is; the deafening silence as he squirmed to avoid the holocaust question was worth the licence fee alone.
     So, I rest my case. The likes of Griffin will hang themselves with a short length of broadcasting rope. If Khaldi was going to defend the indefensible, make a fool of him with tough questions, not inane chants. As for the continued targeting of OneVoice, I take comfort knowing that we peace activists are seen as such a threat to the polarised consensus. Opportunities for debate should be relished, and you’ll find me in the pub if you disagree.

Anthony Silkoff is a post-graduate student of human rights and international politics at Glasgow University. He is a former UK and Ireland Young Thinker of the Year – the annual competition with which SR is associated. Anthony is a member of a Scottish Review panel of former delegates of the programme – which also includes Kris Anderson, Gordon Lawrie and Thom Sherrington. Each contributes a monthly article