“Is this the right way to handle blasphemy?”
The BBC reports on the response to its own horrible question:
The BBC has apologised after a tweet from the Asian Network account asked, “What is the right punishment for blasphemy?”.
The tweet provoked criticism that the BBC appeared to be endorsing harsh restrictions on speech.
Well no. The BBC appeared to be endorsing the whole idea that dissent from religion should be impermissible and illegal and should be harshly punished. That’s what the BBC appeared to be doing.
In an apology posted on Twitter, the network said it intended to debate concerns about blasphemy on social media in Pakistan.
“We never intended to imply that blasphemy should be punished,” it said.
The post on Twitter was intended to publicise the station’s Big Debate programme with presenter Shazia Awan.
Fine but come on, they’re not children, they’re not Donald Trump. Surely the problem with phrasing the question that way should have been blindingly obvious. People get murdered for this fictional crime of “blasphemy.” The BBC shouldn’t be in the business of starting from the assumption that “blasphemy” is a real thing and also a crime.
It was prompted by a BBC report that Pakistan had asked Facebook to help investigate “blasphemous content” posted on the social network by Pakistanis.
In her opening script, presenter Shazia Awan said: “Today I want to talk about blasphemy. What is the right punishment for blasphemy?”
Explaining the context of Facebook’s visit to Pakistan and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s call for a social media crackdown, she asked: “Is this the right way to handle blasphemy? Or do you think that freedom of speech should trump all else?”
Talk about loaded questions. The first question assumes that blasphemy is real and bad. The second assumes that blasphemy is real and among the worst things.
Critics ranging from human rights campaigners to secularist organisations challenged the premise that it should carry any punishment.
Iranian-born secularist and human rights campaigner Maryam Namazie said on Twitter: “Disgraceful that @bbcasiannetwork @ShaziaAwan would ask what ‘punishment’ should be for blasphemy. You know people get killed for it.”
In Pakistan, blasphemy – the act of insulting or showing lack of reverence for God or a religion – can carry the death penalty and those accused can face intense public anger. Britain abolished its blasphemy laws in 2008.
Apparently the BBC hasn’t learned to adjust to this new reality yet.
The National Secularism Society described the tweet as “absolutely appalling”, while BuzzFeed science writer Tom Chivers said: “This feels a VERY odd question for the BBC to ask. Even ‘should blasphemy be punishable’ would be less when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife”.
It’s really quite horrifying, and the limp apology doesn’t reassure.
This is a false dichotomy. You have blasphemy – you have freedom of speech – you have hundreds (thousands) of other things. This is not either/or.
I do not think there is any way we should “handle” blasphemy. Leave it the hell alone; it’s just a difference of opinion about an unseen, silent deity.
I do not necessarily think free speech should trump “all else”. It should not trample on people’s rights. I do not have the right to stand up in front of an armed crowd and shout “Kill all the people who disagree with me! Now!” and then send those armed people out to do that. I do not believe free speech should include the right to declare a fatwa on someone for writing a book, for drawing a cartoon, or for wearing short sleeved shirts and miniskirts. Words have consequences, and we do have to suffer consequences if we use words to incite violence against others. But the atheist blogger, the cartoonist, Taslima Nasrin, Salman Rushdie – they were not inciting violence. They were simply expressing opinions or writing fiction other people did not like.
Blasphemy has no consequences against the blasphemed. It should have no consequences against the blasphemer.
Incitement to senseless violence, on the other hand, should be very strictly and openly punished. Without delay or fake excuses; which only make the crime worse.
I think the right punishment for blasphemy – and for all the other “crimes” in your list – should be for the person making the complaint to be quietly taken away and be made to listen to an explanation of why they are not crimes. The explanation should be repeated as often as necessary, i.e. until they genuinely see the point. People engaged in protesting non-crimes should not be allowed to interact with anybody else until they have done so.
I appreciate that such a provision would strongly resemble Stalin’s and Pol Pot’s reeducation camps, but I really do think freedom of speech trumps* everything else.
* Sorry to drag him into it.