The Art of Denial, or ‘When is a Denial not a Denial’?

Much of modern life operates by exploiting a level of trust that dates from an earlier, more honest age. Advertising, public relations and professional politics are very good at this. They think (and they are right) that if you make something look good, people will believe it is good.

I think it was the Clinton campaign, back in 1992, that perfected the art of the ‘non-denial denial’, a statement in response to a difficulty which appeared to be a denial of what was alleged against the candidate, but actually wasn’t. It wasn’t directly dishonest. Indeed, the people who issued them probably believed they were adequate and honest responses to the problem  It worked because most people wouldn’t read it carefully, especially your own sympathisers who merely wanted reassurance.

This thought has been stimulated by my correspondence with Mr ‘W’, which may be studied in all its detail on the previous thread (‘A Question to the Scoffers’)

And I thought it would be a pity if my long reply to him, posted on Thursday night, were restricted only to those who were following that argument. I offer it more as a case study than as a further episode in the Hasan controversy.

Here it is:

Mr ‘W’ issues a denial of something that I have not attributed to him. He says: ‘Mr Hitchens, I didn't say that Mr. Hasan denied making the statement. ‘

This is a non-denial denial.

I never stated that Mr ‘W’ said that Mr Hasan denied saying the words.

The words are recorded, and were incontrovertibly spoken. Mr Hasan wouldn’t do anything so silly as to deny having said them.. And I wouldn’t think or suggest that Mr Hasan had done anything so silly as to deny having said them.. And Mr ‘W’ wouldn’t think Mr Hasan had done anything so silly as to deny having said them. And I wouldn’t think Mr W would do anything so silly as to suggest that Mr Hasan had done anything so silly as to deny having said them. Mr Hasan said them. Nobody doubts it. That is the difficulty he is in (and the difficulty in which Mr W seems anxious to join him).

I do hope that is clear.

Mr W is therefore *rebutting a point I haven’t made*

And he is *failing to rebut a point I have made*. Namely, where has Mr Hasan said he doesn’t think what he has said he thinks? And what words has he used to do so? And do they constitute a denial?

I said , correctly, that Mr W maintained that Mr Hasan denied thinking what he had said in the statement. And so he does.

For example, in his previous posting, Mr W said : ‘Again I would say that he apparently doesn't think this since he denies it in his rebuttal’. In an earlier posting he said ‘Mr. Hasan denies holding this view’. In two earlier postings, he said :‘Since Mr. Hasan denies holding this view’ and (perhaps most interestingly of all, apparently thinking ahead on Mr Hasan’s behalf): ‘Since Mr. Hasan would presumably deny this’. But then his mind was already made up before any of these postings, for he had begun his onslaught by saying’ This is simply a smear and a clear misrepresentation of his actual views.’

Mr W says :’I said that he does not view Christians as inferior to Muslims in the way your article suggests.' Does my article suggest that?

The impression given of Mr Hasan's views is basically misleading. Mr Hasan says, "The claim that I view non-Muslims as somehow inferior or unequal is not just absurd and offensive but would come as a bit of shock to the hundreds of non-Muslims I have worked with in the British media over the past decade [...]" That looks like a denial of the basic premise of your article to me. If you have read his work, do you really think that he, 'appears to believe that most of us are cows, because we are not Muslims'?

Well, let us examine this. Mr Hasan begins by referring to :’The claim’

**What ‘claim’? There is no claim. There is a fact. Mr Hasan’s actual words, absolutely uncomplimentary to non-Muslims *whether he applies them to Muslims as well, or not* are accurately quoted from an undisputed recording. There is no claim. There is a quotation.

‘ that I view non-Muslims as somehow inferior or unequal’

I haven’t said that he said that. I have reproduced and fairly summarised the words he actually used. The words he undeniably used were different from the words he now seeks to discuss. He didn’t mention inequality or inferiority. But he was *absolutely* uncomplimentary about non-Muslims. It wasn’t a *comparison* (inferior and unequal are words of comparison). It was an *absolute* statement. He used the expressions ‘cattle’ and ‘animals’

Read it:

‘‘The kuffar, the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and stubborn to the teachings of Islam, the rational message of the Koran; they are described in the Koran as “a people of no intelligence”, Allah describes them as not of no morality, not as people of no belief – people of “no intelligence” – because they’re incapable of the intellectual effort it requires to shake off those blind prejudices, to shake off those easy assumptions about this world, about the existence of God. In this respect, the Koran describes the atheists as “cattle”, as cattle of those who grow the crops and do not stop and wonder about this world.’

Where does this *compare* non-believers with Muslims? It doesn't. It makes an absolute statement.

The second separate quotation is as follows :’ ‘Once we lose the moral high-ground we are no different from the rest of the non-Muslims; from the rest of those human beings who live their lives as animals, bending any rule to fulfil any desire.’

Here too, there is no suggestion of inferiority or inequality. It is an *absolute* statement, which in some circumstances applies to Mr Hasan’s co-religionists as well.

That is what I have quoted him as saying. These words are in general not complimentary when applied to human beings. If someone calls you ’cattle’, it is not a compliment, even if he later says that others are cattle too. .I have not used the words ‘inferior’ or unequal’. But nor has he in his speeches.

That is why this is not a denial.

He has not retracted or withdrawn the words, though he has expressed some regret about the wording. The fact that he may have similar strictures for some of his fellow Muslims does not negate the fact that he applied these strictures to non-Muslims. A second’s thought demonstrates that this is so.

Further, to say that something is ‘absurd’ or ‘offensive’ is not, in fact, to say that it is not true. I am not sure how the inference could be axiomatically said to be ‘absurd’ as it is a legitimate reading of the words. It was New Labour’s favourite technique to dismiss (true) stories as ‘nonsense’, in the justified hope that most people would think this was an actual denial. As to being ‘offensive’ this word has been reduced from a roar to a squeak by decades of verbal inflation. Offensive to whom, and why?

As to the words coming ‘as a bit of shock to the hundreds of non-Muslims I have worked with in the British media over the past decade [...]’, that may well have been the case. But once again, it doesn’t constitute a denial, does it?.

I might also draw the attention of Mr ‘W’ to the statement which Mr Hasan chose to send me in his defence, which I published in full and unamended:

‘The remarks you refer to have been taken wholly out of context, as they were aimed at Muslims and non-Muslims alike. In hindsight, I accept that they could and should have been phrased better. I have always been a strong supporter of religious pluralism and a secular society and I would urge your readers to judge me on my large body of published work.’

Well, as it happens, it is clear from the published quotations that he is referring to Muslims as well as non-Muslims. The second passage is unambiguous about that. As for religious pluralism and a secular society, what have they to do with the matter under discussion? Not a lot, actually.

By the way, if the boot was on the other foot, and Bishop Bloggs was on the carpet for dissing some other religion at a meeting of the Mother's Union, , do you think anyone would take one tenth as much trouble to examine the details as I am doing here? The poor Bishop would be hidden away in a monastery, ruined and sobbing, within 12 hours, never to re-emerge.