13 April 2011 (Free Speech Trampled)
The UK has arrested a right-wing extremist politician for burning a Qur'an (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/09/bnp-candidate-arrested-quran-burning).
Burning the Qur'an is a way of expressing disapproval of Islam. People have a fundamental right to express this opinion, or any other. To arrest people for expression of opinions is an act worthy of China or Iran. The UK government has violated the rights of Britons on behalf of murderous foreign fanatics.
The particular Briton arrested this time may be a fanatic of a different stripe. He may be a racist. If so, those views discredit him, but they do not excuse censorship.
I too disapprove of certain aspects of Islam, such as its contempt for women, and its contempt for the religious freedom of everyone (including Muslims). I express this condemnation in a more articulate fashion, writing words rather than burning words, to make a clearer point. But if the latter is criminalized, how long can it take before the former is criminalized too?
Plus, of course, how do we know that a book is the Qur'an? Is it enough if someone tells us so (someone we are strongly opposed to, for instance)? Is it enough if the cover is visible with words to the effect "This is the Qur'an"?
Then comes the bit that only the unabridged Qur'an in Arabic is holy (to orthodox Muslims, at least). Translations are not (to orthodox Muslims; or to anyone else, probably, except fanatics).
And then comes the cultural notion of what is disrespect. Among the Zorastrians and Hindus (and probably Buddhists and Jains), fire is regarded as holy. The colours white and black can both represent mourning. Must we be able to understand the language of a book-burner before we know what he or she is doing?
Is it disrespect meant by the protagonist that we oppose? Or disrespect according to our conventions, irrespective of whether or not said protagonist is aware of our conventions?
And after all those layers, we still have the fundamental question of whether, a hundred years after the Death of God was first proclaimed, we still are willing to bring about the death of humans who differ from our view of what a God looks like, how many there are, where he was born, whether he thinks that the Ugandans and Mongolians are His Chosen People, what his name and gender is (or are), whether he had sex, got drunk, stole, lied, revels in gore etc..
And then another one of those questions - whether we truly mean it when we say we are all free, or are only so as long as we don't upset some really violent groups. The latter is the thin edge of the wedge. We must defend against all attacks on freedom, even the ones where we do not feel that the potential victims are decent chaps.
Of course, if someone were to accost us on the street and burn a copy of the Qur'an, or Vanity Fair, or of any other publication much admired, in front of our faces, it would be offensive. We value our private sphere. However, if someone uploads videos thereof , where symbols precious to many are abused, on an internet site, then it appears to be childlishly easy to avoid these videos. If someone sends us graphic photographs, clearly meant to offend and upset, in the mail - then that's hate crime, and we have laws against it.
PS: In this regard, another interesting article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/10/nick-cohen-religion-science) on the special place that religion appears to occupy in our supposedly secular polity and consciousness; it suggests that the notion "that you must respect the privacy of ideologies that mandate violence, the subjugation of women and the persecution of homosexuals and treat them as if they were beyond criticism and scientific refutation – is the most cowardly evasion of intellectual duty of our day."
No comments:
Post a Comment