14.07.2004

Livingstone pulls the strings

London's mayor has personally invited sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi to speak at the European Social Forum, reports Tina Becker, and he continues to make other demands

As October 14 and the ESF draws closer, it becomes more and more obvious that Ken Livingstone is pulling the strings. At this week’s Assembly for the protection of hijab’ he used the opportunity to “personally invite” sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi to “speak at the European Social Forum”. Presumably Livingstone believes that, having donated £250,000 of taxpayers’ money to the ESF, he himself now has the right to decide who can, and who cannot, speak.

Having no working class or socialist programme - not even the semblance of one - ‘Red Ken’ makes great play of his commitment to multiculturalism, feminism, anti-fascism, the environment, etc. He personally opened the pro-hijab assembly, organised by the Muslim Association of Britain, which took place on Monday July 12 in City Hall, the headquarters of the Greater London Authority. Undoubtedly his invitation to al-Qaradawi, the keynote speaker, is another example of populism and pandering to muslim clerics (after his disgraceful call on RMT workers on the London underground to cross the picket line on June 30, some might say a bit of pandering to the left might be in order).

Of course, Livingstone has no right to invite al-Qaradawi or anybody else to the ESF. It is up to all the accountable groups involved in the event to decide which speakers we want to hear - and that after discussion in Britain and Europe, through the ESF programme group.

Al-Qaradawi might be a crowd puller. His visit to Britain has been accompanied by hysterical press coverage. The Sun and the Daily Mail in particular went into overdrive, calling him the “sheikh of hate” and an “islamic nutter”, and demanding that Livingstone cancel the hijab assembly altogether. A totally different view was given by the mayor himself, who referred to him as a “moderate” quoted out of context. Livingstone has claimed his positions had been misrepresented and that he had never called for homosexuals to be stoned.

Al-Qaradawi himself, however, has not disputed that he has described homosexuality as “a disease that needs a cure”, that this “cure” could be death; nor that it would be acceptable in some circumstances for a man to beat his wife. According to BBC Monitoring, al-Qaradawi said last year: “Oh god, destroy the usurper Jews, the vile crusaders and infidels.” He said the killing of the American telecom engineer, Nick Berg, by islamic militants in Iraq, had to be seen “in the right context”. He has, however, condemned decapitations, the twin towers attacks and suicide bombings outside Israel (all quotes from The Times July 7).

No doubt, as a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaradawi’s positions are hardly compatible with those of democratic and secular socialists. However, that does not mean that the left should demand a ban on al-Qaradawi entering Britain, as gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has done. Neither should we necessarily declare that he should not speak at the ESF.
There must, however, be strict conditions. If the democratically accountable bodies of the ESF decide al-Qaradawi should speak, he must not be allowed to go unchallenged - what about Peter Tatchell debating with him? Would al-Qaradawi find that acceptable?

In general we are against no platforming reactionaries, including muslim fundamentalists and even fascists. The only way to completely overcome backward ideas is, of course, to change the social conditions which produce them. Meanwhile, in furthering that objective, we should champion open debate and rational discussion.

The government’s plans to introduce a law to “ban incitement to religious hatred” must also be strongly opposed in this context. Home secretary David Blunkett announced on July 7 that this proposed law would “defend every faith” and make the “vilification of islam” a crime - unlike sikhs and jews, muslims are not covered by existing ‘race hate’ legislation. The christian faith is already protected by the absurd blasphemy laws, which prohibits giving offence to those who practise it. Predictably, it is argued that the christian-only blasphemy laws are inappropriate for a multicultural society, where all religions should have equal status and the right to be respected.

There are two main reasons why socialists should oppose such laws. Firstly, they represent an attack on free speech - giving the authorities the right to decide what can and cannot be said - and cedes them powers that, in all likelihood, will eventually be used against progressives and working class militants.

Secondly, individuals ought to have the right to embrace or reject religion, which must therefore be open to scrutiny, criticism and even condemnation. That does not, of course, mean that discrimination against muslims or buddhists because of their religious views is acceptable - just that those views ought to be contested.

In discussing these questions, we might find that al-Qaradawi has a useful contribution to make at the ESF - in any case that is not up to Livingstone.

Small, but beautiful?
At the July 7 coordinating committee meeting, many ESF activists were stunned to hear that there will only be space for 152 plenary meetings and seminars at the ESF in October - less than half the number held at last year’s event. The GLA’s representative at the meeting claimed that this was because “all the commercial providers of translation equipment across Europe” put together could not manage to equip more than 20 rooms at the same time.

This cannot be true: representatives from Babels (the volunteer organisation that will oversee translations at the ESF) were told at a separate meeting that hiring equipment from outside the UK was too expensive - there were certain “budget restraints” to be considered. Of course, the coordinating committee has yet to be presented with a budget. Those not involved in the ‘inner circle’ (around the Socialist Workers Party and Livingstone’s well paid GLA officials from Socialist Action) are simply informed about certain decisions long after they have been made.

For example, we were told last week that an “events management company will be employed” to oversee the event. It looks as if a job tender has already been sent around various companies - without any prior discussion of the need for such a company at any ESF committee. Also, there are apparently plans for a “massive concert” on the last day of the ESF and, again, nobody quite knows who is organising this and who the performers will be - Livingstone maybe?

The GLA’s £250,000 donation is turning out to be something of a poisoned chalice: as there is still hardly any other money available, Livingstone can exercise almost total control over the event - via his loyal and uncritical minions in Socialist Action. The GLA’s donation will be spent on what he chooses - not what those actually involved in setting up the ESF have in mind.

In the process, the whole character of the event has changed dramatically in the last few months. Undoubtedly, it will go ahead. But hardly as the inspiring and liberating left festival we have seen in the last two years. Critical forces have been sidelined and excluded, decisions are made by a few selected Livingstone loyalists and unfortunately some groups have decided to withdraw altogether. The question of facilitating European-wide networks has been totally sidelined and the whole event is taking on the shape of a bureaucratic Livingstone-style rally with its own somewhat strange agenda.

Like our French and Italian comrades, we must insist on the ESF’s political independence. If that means we have to forego the GLA’s donation, then so be it. The ESF is after all not just a single event, but a long-term project to bring together progressive and left forces across Britain and Europe on a higher political level. Livingstone has made it very clear that he is not interested in any such thing.