I sense an element of sadness and despair in this question which I share. It’s not just the writer Nick has become which saddens me, but also that we have lost the writer he used to be. This is apparent if you read the article linked to above attacking not just Anthony Browne but the government’s record on the treatment of asylum seekers. It’s an excellent, powerful and well argued article and Nick was consistently excellent on this issue in the government’s first few years in power. Now he moans because we are squeamish about deporting people who might be subject to torture.

And he didn’t just swallow the Euston Manifesto line on muscular liberalism, he helped write the bloody thing. Which reminds me of another volte-face:

From the EM
We reject without qualification the anti-Americanism now infecting so much left-liberal (and some conservative) thinking.

From the New Statesman in 2002
Why it is right to be anti-American by Nick Cohen

Nick, whatever happened to you?

You said this ré Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

The death threats from Islamists her espousal of feminism brought earned her nothing but insults from Dutch leftists and English liberals.

Not from me it didn’t. And I think of myself as a liberal. Scottish liberal right enough, does that make a difference?

Why do you assume that the Islington party set ever were truly liberal?

It seems to me that it is you, and they, that have changed, adopting a new political philosophy, because it is the fashion of the day. You follow a few others down that path, Hitchins, for instance. Or in our own back yard, David T.

It seems to me that you swallowed, hook, line and sinker, the Euston Manifesto concept of robust liberalism and have been unable to surrender that opinion ever since. It has merit, but it also has huge flaws, the Iraq death toll being one of them.

Nick, what happens to journalists of a certain age?

You’d know, better than any of us.

http://www.democratiya.com/review.asp?reviews_id=246

I have no sympathy at all for the Jamaat lot, but I’m afraid trying to pretend that you were just criticising them won’t wash Nick.

This article, as many of your recent articles, was about bashing the left because apparently they’re too soft on Islamists for you. So you not only ignore all the work that has been done in the past but also that the left has actually been quite vocal in defending traditional liberal values.

It seems you don’t want to listen Nick, hence your gruff dismissal of Sunder’s reply. Why don’t you ask Shiraz or Ed if they’ve had support from me. Why not ask Shiraz if he’s ever contacted the Fabians or IPPR?

And lastly, could you please explain your turnaround on Anthony Browne?

Well, the fact that this your view is made clear by it being in a column with your name attached to it. The point Sunder Katwala was raising was about the connection (or lack of it) between your instincts and prejudices and the real life facts of what the Fabian Society have been doing.

The impression I get from this exchange is that on the ‘ignoring liberal Muslims’ charge, anyone on the liberal-left is not only guilty until proven innocent, they’re guilty until imbued with the mystical power to reverse deeply ingrained default positions.

Of course, the major point is that those of us doing serious work for the last four years (including Sunny, Fabians, IPPR, City Circle and so many others) do want Nick Cohen and others to give some profile and effort to that, instead of talking bollocks.

I believe that Ed Husain and the Quillam Foundation are likely to prove one important voice, assuming they will be attempting to engage seriously with the liberal-left rather than just writing lucrative columns denouncing it. (Ed Husain is a Fabian, as it happens, whereas we have not had any contact from Maher, and nor have IPPR). And I welcome that and will engage with it – democratically, which will often means reasonable and legitimate disagreement about means even when broad ends are shared – if they engage seriously with the rest of us. As long as we don’t send the message that you have to have been an extremist to have something to say about the common citizenship we need to root out extremism, because that would be wrong, counter-productive and unfair to all of those who have had a strong consistent commitment to democracy.

So maybe there is some bridge-building and democratic arguing to be done, which might one day provide Nick Cohen with a route back to constructive advocacy, as well as highlighting where we all fail. (Just because he sometimes wildly missing the target – as with his extreme generalisations, and unwarranted attack on us – I don’t think that means that none of his targets are significant ones). There should be common ground on extremism, without calling the rest of us extremists and appeasers when we are not, and Sunny in particular has always been good on that too, in my view.

You write an article claiming that the liberal left is betraying moderate muslims. You hold up Policy Exchange and Ed Husain as examples of people who are doing the right thing and quote their view that the Fabians would never publish their material, a view which you implicitly endorse in your article (and explicitly endorse above despite Sunder providing substantial evidence that this is incorrect). Therefore is it not reasonable for the reader to infer that the reason the Fabians would not publish such material is that they are part of the liberal left which is betraying moderate muslims?

And do you think it surprising that many of the liberal left are going to be less than sympathetic towards you when you are constantly portaying us a terrorist-hugging, extremist-appeasing, Jew-hating traitors to the liberal cause?

Sunny, this is completely ridiculous. Read what I wrote.

Oooh, let’s! Let’s!

The death threats from Islamists [Ayaan Hirsi Ali's] espousal of feminism brought earned her nothing but insults from Dutch leftists and English liberals. She ended up working for a conservative institute in Washington because her natural allies would not offer her their protection and support.

Except that criticism from Buruma and Garton Ash appeared months after it was announced that she’d work for the AEI.

When I asked Shiraz Maher, the co-author of the Policy Exchange report, why he had not offered his work to the leftish Fabians or Institute for Public Policy Research, he guffawed. They would never print what he wrote.”

Except that, as Sunder Katwala wrote at length, there’s no particular reason to believe this.

Sure, some lefties might have a more sceptical attitude than you towards those who appear to be opposing radical Islamism. But, then…

If Butt and Malik are prosecuted, how the jihadis will laugh at the stupidity of a country that can’t tell its allies from its enemies. ‘Look,’ they will say to their recruits, ‘look at what happens to Muslims who go over to their side. Are they thanked? Are they honoured?

…maybe that’s wise.

Incidentally, it is nice to be able to question writers in the comments thread, isn’t it.

based on what? The entire point of the Fabian response to your piece was to point out how wrongheaded, and how detached from the realm of facts, this view is, Mr Cohen.

The fact that your initial response was to run off to Harry’s Place to copy and paste a load of tangential stuff, including a rather regrattble piece of childish mudslinging from Martin Amis, none of which proves anything about the Fabian Society – before accusing your detractors of being hysterical – says it all.

And in any case, after the first post you said ‘I rest my case’. Not quite good enough, was it, in retrospect, Nick?

I fully expect to see a one-eyed, pro-Cohen account of all this in the next Private Eye by the way. Maybe under the byline of ‘Ratbiter’.

Apparently, in direct contrast to his previous post, he wasn’t actually talking about the Fabians *at all* (even though he mentioned them by name and wrote a very long blog post outlining his non-existent case against them, all lifted verbatim from harry’s place).

The fact that the Fabians responded to hisbeing mentioned in his work as fascist-appeasers, however, and that they detailed the myriad flaws in his logic, is now Nick’s proof that they appease facism! Apparently evn posting rebuttals to Cohen’s claims proves that you are a terrorist-appeaser.

and Oliver Kamm, who seems to be Nick’s personal bodyguard nowadays, has weighed in – according to Ollie, pointing out that Iraq was cited by a 7/7 bomber as *one of* the reasons for the attacks (ie not the only reason) is anti-democratic, too.

I’m not sure what’s going on over on Planet Cohen (orbited by the moon of Kamm), but it certainly doesn’t involve reading, or thinking.

Planet Business-As-Usual-For-Nick-Cohen

Step One – Nick makes some ridiculously overblown allegation about “liberal betrayal”, often based on material lifted from Harry’s Place;

Step Two – Nick reads a response that details his many, many factual and logical errors;

Step Three – Nick ignores the response entirely; posts unrelated material that proves absolutely bugger all and pretends he was actually talking about something else, usually an unnamed and nebulous “Islamist-appeasing liberal left”.

Step Four – “I rest my case”.

Outside of Mel Philips, I have a hard time thinking of a working journalist who relies so heavily on anecdotes, spurious conjecture, smears by association or telepathic powers of mind reading.

The “tolerant”verses of the Koran were “abrogated”( God changed his mind ) at the end of the Meccan period,when Mohammed became militarily stonger.
Regards