The Teddy Bear Saga and Islamic Response

An Oman based blog I like to read by Suburban Other Oman recently mentioned surprise at the lack of responses by Muslims criticising (or even questioning) the obviously wacky verdict in Sudan on the infamous Teddy Bear case. Especially absent were such comments on the great 130+ blog comments that were sponsored by Amjad on the topic Amjads Teddy Blog

I think this is exactly symptomatic of the growing problem Islam has with regard to Free Speech. Many, many Muslims thought the verdict in Sudan was totally crazy and bad for Islam [or even not Islamic at all], and were more than willing to explain that in private. But they are in fear of saying anything in public, or even on-line, that could possibly be construed by anyone as being even slightly anti-Islamic. Very afraid.

The reason, of course, is that if any crazy long beard accuses you of being blasphemous, even if the accusation is totally unfair and untrue, you are at serious risk of having crowds of baying 'faithful' demanding your death. So, obviously much better and smarter to just keep your head down, shut up and keep such toughts to yourself or people you can trust.

This is perhaps one reason why the comparison is being made between the actions of such extremists through the new phrase 'IslamoFascism'. One similarity being pointed to is with the early days of the 3rd Reich in Germany, when no-one spoke out about what was going on for fear of being arrested, beaten or killed themselves. The famous quote attributed to the Irish born British Politian Edmund Burke seems most appropriate in this situation: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

IMHO its about time reasonable and mainstream Muslims retake their right to speak their opinions and have respectful discussions and debate without fear of such accusations. Before its too late. The alternative is to leave the space to the extremists and give everyone the opinion that all Islam is as crazed as they are. Which is certainly not true.

There are just not enough well spoken, intelligent, sensible, moderate (and preferably who look good on TV) Muslims making their case in the public forums of the West in a form that is politically smart. And that hurts the case of reason everywhere.

Aside: An excellent essay here casts doubt on whether this was an actual quote from Burke or is a self purpetuating myth. The quote's popularity does say something about the power and resonance of this particular meme.

Sex and Free Speech - Savage Love

Just a little mini-post. I’d like to share one of my favourite web columns, not only because it’s funny, kinky and thought provoking, but also because the column is not only online but is published in several newspapers every week in the States. Yet another example to help explain how free speech works in the real world. It’s a sex advice column called Savage Love and is extremely explicit, so don’t look if you don’t want to read about straights, gays, fetishes and real sexual activities and desires and the problems that they create. But if you’re OK with that, I highly recommend checking it out.

Savage Love

Just for fucks sake don’t tell Omantel or they’ll block it and I really wouldn’t like to have to use a proxy server to read it every time. OK? It’ll be our little secret.

What I find an interesting thought experiment is to imagine a similar column in the Week... Now THAT would be a sign of changing values!

Free Speech and Blasphemy

On my earlier post on Free Speech and Islam, and the importance of being able to offend people to protect the right of free speech, Blue Chi made a good point, 'What about blasphemy then?'

It is true that in some European countries Blasphemy (though you should note, usually only against the Christian faith) is, in theory, illegal, but it is usually because of very old laws that would not be used today and have just never been formally repealed. As you'll detect, I'm more in favour of the USA system, which is more liberal and you can be as blasphemous as you like.

To the question of making blasphemy illegal, my response would be:
1/ Why? I'd have thought that God was big and powerful enough to defend him/her self. What's wrong with good old lightening bolts for christ's sake?
2/ Exactly what is blasphemy? Who decides? You? Some judge? The head Mullah of Iran? Or Sudan? My crazy neighbour? How offensive do you have to be to be officially blasphemous?
3/ Which religions deserve such protection? Just the big 3 of Christianity/Islaam/Judaism? What about Mormons? Hindus? Or Scientologists? Or Moonies? Rastafarianism? Or just the one that is true?
4/ What about the intra-religious schisms? Is a Shiite follower allowed to call a Sunni an apostate and state his religion is total crap and point out the prescribed penalty for being an apostate? What about Protestants who don't agree with the Catholics that the Holy Mass transmogrifies bread into the physical flesh of Christ? Is being atheist a religion?
5/ Is legalising homosexuality blasphemous? Abortion? Sex education? Evolution? What about a really good joke about 'a Priest, A Rabi and an Immam'?
6/ What's the punishment for blasphemy? Death? Fine? Lashing?

It's a total mess of a law and of an idea.

Much better, IMHO, is that people who choose to believe in supernatural beings [or who choose to believe in an absence of supernatural beings] get a thicker skin and have faith that their god (or gods) can look after themselves. The Christians seem to have taken this approach over the past few 100 years, and thus today content themselves with peaceful protest. For example, as the Catholics did over the movie 'The last temptation of Christ' or 'The Life of Brian'. Can you imagine the reponse to a muslim version of the Life of Brian? I’d predict a serious lack of humour.

In fact, maybe it's just the atheists and the Buddhists who need legal protection, as after all, they are the only ones without an activist superpowerful god to protect them. ;-)

Similarly, some European countries make it illegal to 'Deny the Holocaust', mainly as a way of more easily controlling those pesky neo-nazis (who do admittedly have a history of acting in rather problematic ways, like shooting people and taking over the country and invading their neighbours). Again, rather than extending such restrictive laws to such dubious realms as religious protection, I would rather repeal them.

I'll repeat – I do not think that protecting everybody from being offended is a basis for controlling people's speech. And that includes religion. Any religion. Including yours Blue Chi.

Free Speach and Islam (1)

One of the biggest cultural differences I’ve come across in the Middle East is the huge problem of getting across to locals what freedom of speech means in [most of] the West. In many ways the tradition is strongest in the USA and to a certain extent the UK, and their cultural derivatives NZ, Australia, Canada, etc. When combined with the principal of separation of Church and State, it leaves many Muslims baffled (as the Danes discovered recently).

Caution: If you’re reading this, please ensure you’ve first read the bit here on the right hand side of this blog about not being easily offended. You’ve been warned.

Free Speech means, of course, many things and has wonderful complications and subtleties, but to me it means that one is generally free to criticize public officials or Government policies, free to voice opinions about, say, human behaviour, science, religion or politics, and basically being free to offend people.

Now, that doesn’t mean I think you can or should get away with saying [or printing] whatever you want. Shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded cinema, urging a crowd to commit violent acts (who then go and commit such acts), or knowingly and purposely defaming someone (lying) to the extent that they suffer damage and can demonstrate that what was said or printed are untrue and damaged them, are some classic examples of common limitations. Pornography has always been a tough call, as have politically extreme views [we must kill all the XXXX for example].

But simply offending people, even knowingly, is not commonly illegal in the West. After all, it’s so butt-fuckingly god-damn easy to do. [see?] Comedians would be out of business for a start. And artists. And opposition politicians. And anyone whose religion is at odds with the majority, or the ruling class, or even the self appointed leaders of that religion. And usually the people concerned have to actually try to get offended anyway, by going to the comedy club, or watching the programme, or going to that website, etc. Essentially by choosing to seek to be offended.

And it seems someone is always being offended by something, somewhere.
Want to discuss the morals and legalities of homosexual men and gay marriage in a grown-up and dispassionate way? That gets you offending the Muslims, Christian fundamentalists, homophobes and various others right away by even suggesting that one should have such a debate in the first place.
Want to give good advice, especially to young people, on how to avoid getting HIV/AIDS that goes beyond ‘don’t exchange bodily fluids at all ever’ and might mention condoms, or oral sex – there you go, lots of people offended.

Want to name your cat after your best-friend who lives down the street? Probably OK, as long as he isn’t called Mohammed, (although he might be offended personally if it’s an ugly and or female cat).

Anyway, it seems many people just don’t get it – the protections we have as a society (in the West at least) against tyranny, oppression [both political and religious] and invasions of privacy are founded on the fundamental right to offend people. And that includes Muslims, Jews, Christians, Atheists, Evolutionists, Liberals, right wing nutters – everybody.

All these arseholes who I’ve seen recently trying to justify the lashing/deportation/guilt of this teacher in Sudan (who named a teddy bear Mohammed) are good examples. They offend the hell out of me with their stupid, parochial, bigoted, arrogant, dark-ages, nonsensical, finger-pointing, and supernatural attempted justifications. Saying things that will unfortunately have a real impact, not just for these children and their poor teacher, but for people in Sudan who need aid and help and possibly even for totally blameless moderate muslims elsewhere.

But I don’t see that my being offended is a good reason, or even a kinda-valid reason, to stop them saying it. Lots of things offend me. And in some ways I’d rather we all get to know what totally whacked-out fuck-up idiots are out there thaks to their transparent display of the crazy ideas they believe to be logical or justifiable.

Worst thing? They probably have driving licenses too. Evil Bastards. Just to be clear - those of you who think the teacher deserves any punishment for calling a teddy bear Mohammed are in my opinion totally insane.

To Quote Wikipedia:
The most important justification for free speech is a general liberal or libertarian presumption against coercing individuals from living how they please and doing what they want. However, a number of more specific justifications are commonly proposed. For example, Justice McLachlin of the Canadian Supreme Court identified the following in R. v. Keegstra, a 1990 case on hate speech:

Free speech promotes: "The free flow of ideas essential to political democracy and democratic institutions and limits the ability of the state to subvert other rights and freedoms.
It promotes a marketplace of ideas, which includes, but is not limited to, the search for truth.
It is intrinsically valuable as part of the self-actualisation of speakers and listeners.
It is justified by the dangers for good government of allowing its suppression.”
End quote

More research and debate on Free Speech and what it means can be found at the excellent website of the American Civil Liberties Union ACLU_Free Speech