The starting point for this story is usefully summarised in the Independent.
In on online exchange last week, Fry said Prof Dawkins was justified in singling out Islam for more criticism than other religions, tweeting: “Wonder why. Oh, have a look around the world and see them slaughtering each other, let alone others. So charming to women too …”
Some people (not unreasonably) prefer to use the term anti-Muslim bigotry rather than Islamophobia because they feel the latter term cramps open discussion of Islam, which ought not to be protected from criticism. Fry’s tweet could, I think, be seen as an example of anti-Muslim bigotry. This does not mean that he is personally bigoted against individual Muslims, simply that he expressed himself in a rather ill-judged way. (For similar reasons I agree with Owen Jones’s criticisms of Richard Dawkins when he said ‘Who the hell do these Muslims think they are?’ – you can read his argument here.)
Stephen Fry has now responded, in a piece called ‘Am I an Islamophobe?’. He begins by explaining that he and Richard Dawkins had been criticised for not attacking Islam – clearly by someone who didn’t follow Dawkins very carefully.
They think this proves that we are cowards because Christians only meekly turn the other cheek, whereas Muslims put bombs on trains, in cars and go around shrieking ‘Allahu Akbar!’ as they detonate themselves and busloads of innocent men, women and children.
That’s quite – tonally uncertain. Although it seems designed to be satirical at some level, and perhaps satirical of those who characterise religions and their followers so starkly, it’s maybe not the best way of winning over his critics. (And I suspect that that is not in fact his goal – this piece seems addressed to those who fully support his stance.)
It’s also quite striking that, when noting which theists he finds agreeable, he picks out followers of two branches of Christianity and one of Judaism – and that’s it. (And it’s interesting that he makes this point in relation to followers of the sects/religions, not the belief systems themselves).
He doesn’t quote his original tweet, but alludes to it here:
Anyway, I made the fundamental mistake of tweeting (just to show I wasn’t the coward they assumed I was) that of course I was against those Muslims who slaughtered, bombed and treated women in such charming ways.
The addition of the word ‘those’ – i.e. ‘those Muslims’ changes or at least softens the impact, so is a little misleading. He also uses hyperbole to deflect criticism:
Sometimes it’s just a reflex tweet from someone who hasn’t put any thought into it, on other occasions the tweet claims that my saying a single word against any kind of Muslim is Islamophobia of the kind that feeds the vilely racist bigots of the EDL and BNP.
and ends up suggesting indignantly that criticisms of his tweet represent an attempt to stifle debate and free speech:
It is a topsy-turvy smothering of debate and an Orwellian denial of free-speech to declare that speaking out against violence will cause violence.
He concludes with a polemical attack on extremists and fanatics of all stripes – which is fine, and I don’t think many reasonable people would have found anything to complain about in such sentiments, although Fry’s rhetoric does rather imply that anyone who criticises even violent extremism is liable to accusations of Islamophobia – the tweet at the top of this page reinforces that point. I was reminded of the similarly misleading way in which it was reported that David Ward was being censured for criticising Israel.
Of course there really are Muslims who want to clamp down on free speech (to a greater or lesser degree) and there are also people whose hair trigger sensitivities and/or dishonesty will indeed lead to unfounded charges of Islamophobia. But I don’t think it is unreasonable – or in any way an attack on free speech – to have articulated a concern about the way Fry framed his first tweet.
