Of Course You Can, Except When You Can’t
Back to the real world, where cartoons ‘are’ representations of Mohammed – some depressing oxymoronism from Jack Straw. Of course we respect free speech, but you can’t say that; of course everyone has a right to free speech, but no one can insult religion. Well which is it, bub? It ain’t both! I’m not a free speech absolutist, as I’ve said many times, but this idea that free speech is okay as long as it doesn’t offend anyone is sheer jam tomorrow. If we can’t say anything that might offend someone, our speech is pretty damn restricted, isn’t it!
Speaking after talks with the Sudanese foreign minister, Mr Straw said: “There is freedom of speech, we all respect that. But there is not any obligation to insult or to be gratuitously inflammatory. I believe that the republication of these cartoons has been insulting, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong. There are taboos in every religion. It is not the case that there is open season in respect of all aspects of Christian rites and rituals in the name of free speech.
Oh? Really? What does he mean? That it’s illegal to say ‘offensive’ things about some aspects of Christian rites and rituals? (Perhaps he’s thinking of the dear blasphemy law.) Does he mean that if one says ‘offensive’ things about some aspects of Christian rites and rituals, the result will be violent riots and death threats, and that that’s a good thing? If neither of those, what does he mean? What, exactly, does he mean?
Nor is it the case that there is open season in respect of rights and rituals of the Jewish religion, the Hindu religion, the Sikh religion. It should not be the case in respect of the Islamic religion either. We have to be very careful about showing the proper respect in this situation.
Do we? Why? And why doesn’t that work the other way? Why don’t people who want to prevent free speech on the subject of religion have to be very careful about showing the proper respect for our beliefs? Because we don’t chant ‘”7/7 is on its way” while also waving placards and burning flags, during a march through London to the Danish, French and German embassies’? Because we don’t threaten to blow up 57 random people as revenge for our feeling offended?
More bullying oxymoronism, this sample from Bunglawala.
UK Muslims have denied that the reaction to the cartoons’ reproduction has been a threat to freedom of speech. It was a “question of exercising good judgement”, said Inayat Bunglawala, from the Muslim Council of Britain…”Of course Europe has the right to freedom of speech, and of course newspapers have the right to publish offensive cartoons. This was really a question about exercising good judgment,” he said. “Knowing full well the nature of these cartoons, they were offensive, deeply offensive to millions of Muslims, these newspaper editors should have exercised better judgment.”
But of course Europe has the right to freedom of speech, and of course the reaction to the cartoons is not a threat to freedom of speech. How silly! Of course you can have your pesky freedom of speech! You just can’t say anything we don’t like, that’s all! What is the big stinking deal?
That is a really massively irritating trope – that saying you can have free speech and then instantly saying the opposite, in the very same breath. At leas they could have the honesty to say what they mean – ‘No, you can’t have free speech, because you say things we don’t like, so you have to shut up. And shut up about your free speech, too.’
I’ve had exactly the same thought Mediawatchwatch has had – remembering Stephen Fry at the Hay Festival last summer, talking with Hitchens, talking about the two words that have taken on a creepy resonance (and I knew what they were before he said them), ‘offended’ and ‘respect’. And I can hear him saying what Mediawatchwatch quotes him saying – ‘So you’re offended. So fucking what?’
I dunno, there seems to be this mental block in the minds of the religious nutters that goes something like ‘yes, you others can have your freedom of speech, but only as long as you use it to say nice things. Whereas we can say – and do – whatever we like about you because we have the authority of the Bible, the Koran, the Ladhifeah or whatever behind us.
Witness Sacrawnie (or whatever his name is) and his… well, outraged shock, I suppose, that he could be brought to task over his recent comments about homosexuals, ‘but it says so in the Holy book’ is seen as some sort of ‘get out of jail free’ card. A trump card.
As for feeling ‘offended’, I am offended every day by the heaps of religious, proto-religious and pseudo-religious bollocks that pour down all around me. I can put up with that – through gritted-teeth admittedly – so why can’t they do the same?
Is it because they feel – as I do – that this recent outbreak of religious fundamentalism is the swansong, if not the death-rattle, of religion and they fear for their power slipping away?
As for Jack Straw, I’m tempted to start a campaign demanding that he apologise for his outright betrayal of the principals of freedom of speech that he – as a democratically-elected politician should put above all else.
As I’ve said elsewhere, if Jack Straw had a flag I’d burn it.
There seems to be something wrong with the UK’s media. With the partial exception of the BBC no- one has printed these cartoons. A particularly craven attitude may I say?
As for Mr Straw he is simply being a Labourite. ONe thing that makes me scream is the assumption that Labour has EVER cared about free speech or civil liberties. The Labour party’s DNA doesn’t have a single free speech gene in it.
Just for the record can I say that I didn’t think the cartoons were particularly good?
Not so long ago (a year or so) I heard Jack Straw parenthetically mutter the words “Peace be upon him” after mentioning the prophet Mohammed.
I nearly threw up on the spot.
A poster from a demo in demo in the UK yesterday said “Kill those who insult Islam”. Another urged that such people be beheaded. It is all very strange: in the same week thart the British parliament voted on the religious hatred bill, which Muslims like these are all in favour of, that they then publically call for people to be killed and that no one, least of all the police, thinks it even worth commenting on. I thought there were laws against incitement to violence for any reason?
P Power – Michelle Malkin (who I do NOT normally read, mind you) has a bunch of photos from recent demos at http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004448.htm. Some wonderful quotes from placards:
“Freedom go to Hell”
“Be prepared for the REAL Holocaust!” (nice one!)
“Butcher those who mock Islam”
“Slay those who insult Islam”
“Massacre those who insult Islam”
“Exterminate those who slander Islam”
“Annihilate those who insult Islam”
And so on. Someone’s been busy with a dictionary.
It’s all very disgusting, but note that most of those people never saw the cartoons in question, or saw fake ones spread around that Danish Imam who has been stirring up things for reasons I cannot fathom. What I hope for is that at some point part of the muslim minority in the West gets sick enough of the antics of their co-religionists to send a clear signal. And get rid of their spokespersons: who tend to be either ultra-reactionary Imams discontent with any civilization that does not stone adulteresses at the city gates, or spoilt “progressive” career politicians who have been cuddled too much by an over-indulgent Left, and found out that being drama queens, unfortunately, works. There have been SOME hopeful signals, but I’m hoping for more.
It is ironic that these protestors represent a picture of Islam that is far worse than anything depicted in those cartoons.
OB – Nice to you on this subject. I would say I _am_ a free speech fundamentalist, excluding only speech that becomes an action in directly causing harm to another person, but I totally agree on this one. Free speech does include the right to offend. And any faith which cannot stand any satire or caricature to such an extent that it sends its adherants in a violent frenzy seems, may I say, not a very solid faith.
This may not be true in all cases, but I wonder how many Muslim leaders who feel mollified by “understanding” statements by Western figures of the Jack Straw variety realise what probably lies behind many of those statements. Just as I don’t automatically understand all the codes inherent in the speech of a Muslim, so, as a Westerner, I do get the coded message underlying, I feel, a great many of the statements about respect and rubbish like “there is not any obligation to insult.” The message I’m hearing under all that is “please, for heaven’s sake, don’t annoy them, they’re ignorant childlike barbarians who are unable to control their tempers, there’s nothing we can do about it, but if you insist on waving your freedoms arounds we’re the ones who will end up paying the price and cleaning up the mess because they’re not responsible, accountable human beings like we are.” And I have the feeling that precisely because of these differences in the cultural codes of speech, the Muslim leaders strengthening the hands of those who talk like that have simply not twigged how unbelievably condescending they’re actually being. I can’t compare it to anything other than a parent telling the older child to lay off the younger one because “you’re big already and should know better.”
“these newspaper editors should have exercised better judgment.”
Reminds me of the climax of “Spellbound,” when Leo G. Carroll congratulates Ingrid Bergman for having figured out he’s the murderer and then tells her she’s not so smart for having told him when they’re alone together…
The quote from Bunglawala translates as “yes, it’s your right, but you’re stupid if you exercise it knowing we’ll become violent and exercise rights we don’t have within the law to shut your gobs.”
Merlijn, yes…I’m tempted to be a free speech absolutist but (like a lot of people, of course) I worry about the transition zone between speech that directly causes harm and speech that causes harm over the long haul. You know, Mill’s example of calling the corn factor a robber of the poor in a newspaper and doing so in front of a mob in front of the corn factor’s house. It’s just that it’s not always obvious where it’s safe to draw that line.
It’s quite consistent to say that publishing these cartoons is legal, but that it’s nasty and/or ill-advised to do so. Thing is, though, when the person offering the latter caution is in the government, it moves from being pragmatic advice and into the territory of a decree from the authorities.
No doubt Straw would say his comments were meant no more strongly than healthy eating recommendations, but all the same I have this image of him gathering editors around and saying “With great power comes great responsibility…”
Yes, but that’s not what they’re saying. They don’t say ‘it’s legal but you/we shouldn’t do it.’ They say ‘of course we believe in free speech but you shouldn’t do it’ – which is not quite so consistent.
A few years ago Sinead O’Connor tore up a picture of the Pope on the live television show “Saturday Night Live”. Much outrage was expressed by Catholics and non-Catholics alike – with many saying that as much as she was entitled to her opinions and the right to express them freely she should not have done so in such a gratuitous fashion.
But that brings up the question of context – is free speech to be excercised only in certain situations, in front of certain audiences, only at certain times?
And further, who is the arbitrator for deciding if the speech is simply an opinion expressed or something designed to deliberately offend or ignite an inflammatory response?
Well, ‘We believe in free speech’ can be taken in two ways: as ‘We support everyone having the right to speak free from legal constraints’ or ‘We support everyone having the right to speak free from other people’s comments that they shouldn’t have said that’.
The second seems self-contradictory, so my understanding was that Straw intended the first meaning. If so, ‘You shouldn’t do it’ is perfectly logically consistent as a non-binding piece of advice.
Although coming hot on the heels of the incitement to religious hatred malarkey, one could easily take his words as hinting at support for legal crackdowns. In which case, “There is freedom of speech, we all respect that” is just a lie.
sorry – exercised not excercised
Another thought related to Mill’s corn factor example above. There are more ways today to do what corresponds to denouncing the corn factor in front of a mob outside his house – specifically the internet, live text messaging, etc. I think we saw this in the Australian beach fiasco a few weeks back.
Matt, yeah, and above all radio – as in the Balkans, Rwanda, and Birmingham just a few weeks ago. (And wasn’t there some radio involvement in the Australian thing too? Or am I misremembering? I didn’t really follow it.) Radio can be absolutely lethal.
“Well, ‘We believe in free speech’ can be taken in two ways”
Or, more likely, I think, it can be taken both ways or neither depending on which is most convenient. In other words, it’s deliberately vague and ambiguous – I think. It’s waffle. It’s there-there head-pattery, which being interpreted, means shut up. It means ‘we know we’re supposed to say free speech yes, so free speech yes, but shut up.’ And since he is in fact a government minister, his shut up has more clout than most people’s shut up. So I think it’s pretty sinister, frankly.
It would be less sinister if he’d just said ‘Look, shut up, or a lot of people will get killed. Shut up because we’re afraid.’ It’s all this re-defining of what free speech is that’s sinister – this having it both ways – this claiming to respect the principle while in the same breath gutting it – so that the unwary will think ‘well that’s all right, he respects the principle, we just have to be careful, and shut up, that’s all.’
Vague and ambiguous waffle? From a New Labour minister? Trying to have it both ways? Heaven forfend!
I wonder whether we might be moving towards something like what they have in the US, where there can be a fair amount of extra-legal de facto restriction on public expression of certain views, such as ‘unpatriotic’ criticism of war leaders or perceived snubs to various identity groups.
Are you saying I’m pointing out the obvious? Yet again? Heaven forfend!
Yeah – it’s very US – as dear Tocqueville so rudely pointed out so long ago – much public wheezing about freeeedom along with much social pressure to shut the hell up. It’s something that makes me enormously tired.
I blame Joe Lieberman.
Maybe the U.S. and the U.K. should get together with Al Quaeda for an allied operation to liberate Denmark from the forces oppressing the faithful there. God forbid the tyrannical force of free speech should spread.
The Jordanian editor who published the cartoons has now been arrested.
Arrested! Jeezis. No doubt he’ll be executed before tomorrow.
I heard him on PM or The World Tonight yesterday – he hadn’t even expected to be fired.
My memory may be a little fuzzy on this, but I seem to remember some rural landowners allowing public use of private roads crossing their property. They would, however, reaffirm their ownership of the road by closing it one day a year lest it become a “public right of way”.
So,in a way, we who value freedom of speech must periodically reaffirm our ownership of that right. That is how I saw Larry Flynt’s pornography case many years ago.
One other thought. Had it been the Quakers who were offended, more restraint may have been shown all around. Since it is the muslims, there is a bit of a “f**k you” component to all this.
Yes, but if it had been Quakers who were offended, they would have been offended in a considerably gentler way – as a matter of faot if they had been offended they probably would have kept their offense to themselves, as a matter of principle. They’re not very big on coercion and bullying, much less threats, much less arson and violence. They’re also not very big on making a fetish of their own beliefs in order to beat everyone else over the head with them. Of course there’s a ‘fuck you’ component to all this, and for good reason (as well as, no doubt, plenty of bad reason).
There was a spokesman for a Muslim organisation on BBC News last night – didn’t catch name or position unfortunately – who compared the protesters to the opportunistic thugs of the BNP. Shame he’s not Foreign Secretary…
Like Merlijn, I am a free speech fundamentalist. To me, freedom of speech is fundamental to liberal democracy and we aren’t doing anyone any favours by curtailing it to suit whichever minority happens to shout the loudest.
To answer OB’s question about causing harm. I agree that there is a grey area when deciding what is or isn’t incitement – but that’s what we have courts for.
re: OB on Jack Straw, above:
There are times for “shut up, or a lot of people will get killed” and it’s usually wartime. A lot of these stupid things being said about there being no obligation to offend emanate from people desperate to avoid openly recognising that at least a part of Muslim society worldwide is at war with the core values of the West.
Why can’t people understand that we need to respect a person’s right to their beliefs – but we do NOT have to respect their beliefs – get it??? I totally respect my parents’ right to believe their religion (my dad’s a minister), but I have NO RESPECT for their RELIGION whatsoever. When non-believers make jokes about religion, the believers should allow it to be water off a duck’s back. It’s only when THEIR OWN KIND take jabs at their religion, that religious people should become concerned. Freedom of speech includes making fun of anyone’s religion (that’s not your own) because that hurts NO ONE. Trampling on someone’s RIGHT TO THEIR BELIEF is what must be protected – not the belief itself. GET IT??? THANKS
The hypocritical irony of the Muslim protest is mind-numbing. This is a religion whose holiest book routinely insults any and all other religions:
Gods of all other religions shall be the fuel of Hell (21:98-100)
All Gods except Allah are created, dead and false, they all lead to hell (16:20-21, 25:17-19, 29:41-42,37:22-25)
Islamic states such Saudi Arabia completely ban the practice of any religion except Islam. Even in Islamic dominated countries that allow other religions, they are under steady pressure to convert and are severely limited. Yet these people expected us to cow before them over their childish temper tantrums. Of course, unlike our children, their tantrums include beheading, stoning and large explosions. We must remember that it is the goal of Islam to extend Dar al Islam (them – the House of Islam) over Dar al Harb (us – the House of War) by any means necessary.