Defending against every attack on freedom

Richard Stallmann, or rms, as he is known to many, recent posted the following thoughts next to this link (http://stallman.org/archives/2011-jan-apr.html#13%20April%202011%20%28Free%20Speech%20Trampled%29) on his website, about a Briton arrested in the UK for burning the Qu'ran :

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."

The context of crime - and how to change it

The Pulitzer-prize winning reporter, Mr. Kristof, of the New York Times, reported yesterday of a shocking case of teenage rape, followed by a fatwa and corporal punishment – of the underage victim, leading to her death. (http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/when-a-girl-is-executed-for-being-raped/)

A summary of the case, from the article:

"A 14-year-old Bangladeshi girl, Hena,allegedly was ambushed when she went to an outdoor toilet, gagged, beaten and raped by an older man in her village (who was actually her cousin). They were caught by wife of the alleged rapist, and the wife then beat Hena up. An imam at a local mosque issued a fatwa saying that Hena was guilty of adultery and must be punished, and a village makeshift court sentenced Hena to 100 lashes in a public whipping....Hena collapsed after 70 lashes and was taken to the hospital. She died a week later,.....The doctors recorded her death as a suicide."

Such a tragic and nauseating scenario appears to be a consequence of antiquated notions of morality, gender relations, local government and punishment.

But "tragic" and "nauseating" only because we have different opinions on these issues. It was, for the overwhelming majority of those involved, perfectly acceptable – obviously. Perhaps even righteous.

The collective pronouns above ("we") and below ("our") refer to the basic tenets of Western civilization, in the year 2011.

If we wish to convince the sub-society mentioned in this example of the superior value of our opinions (our system of ethics, fundamental rights, open debate, gender equality etc.), we probably need to start with understanding the socio-economic parameters of their context.

For example, the outdoor toilets mentioned in the report. If one has little or no privacy whilst defecating, and considers this to be the natural state of affairs, and knows of no other, one probably tends not to worry too much about personal space. If one has little to eat, one probably does not have qualms about eating from a shared vessel. If one is forced to live with parents, siblings, the uncle and a grandmother in a single-roomed house, one has probably not been brought up to knock at a door before entering.

And if men perform the economically more valuable tasks, then women are looked down upon. Or, at least, a more plausible case is made for this sort of discrimination.

And if one hasn't had the time to introspect, one probably hasn't bothered borrowing books on philosophy and human rights from the local well-stocked library with high-speed internet access. Oh, there isn't one?

The more hardships we endure, the more animal-like we become. Compare Sanskrit “bubhukshita kim na karoti papam” (“What sin is it that a hungry one does not commit?”, Sukasaptati) and Latin “Homo homini lupus” (“Man is a wolf to his fellow man”, Asinaria).

Habits and customs form easily, even in matters that were once distasteful. This from personal accounts, written by intellectuals, of long incarceration – Primo Levi, Albert Speer.

And then comes another wildcard into play – religion. Religious texts often are not in accord with our ideas of equality, personal freedom, tolerance and justice.

The answer lies not in banning religious texts (this would probably be the reaction of the sub-society under discussion), but in presenting the alternative – through education, north-south and east-west interaction, through inter-religious debate, through economical justice, through art and literature, through subsidized housing that is in keeping with basic human dignities etc..

At some point, the innate love of freedom – and we must believe that it is innate – will prevail.