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