It's a free world, after all
In response to Omar Hasmi, Felix 1344
I read Omar Hashmi's comment in last week's Felix with some interest. I was hoping to read a well-balanced view from someone in Imperial's Muslim community about the whole Danish cartoon saga. I have some sympathy for both sides in this debate between freedom of expression and respect for people's beliefs. Unfortunately I found his careless stream of consciousness to be rather worrying.
Starting positively with a call for the debate, the article then slides towards authoritarianism, drawing from a diverse collection of inappropriate and irrelevant examples to argue, apparently, for media censorship by the government. I appreciate that Britain still has blasphemy laws on the books, but the last time someone was imprisoned under the law was 1922.
As a Christian, I personally face plenty of mockery from friends for my beliefs. Yet I do not turn against them in anger, because most often their ridicule betrays ignorance of Christian beliefs than simple malicious intent. Unfortunately I have a worrying feeling that many indignant Muslims have `missed the point', so to speak, about free speech. I do not believe that the European newspapers had a "political motivation" to "kick [Islam] in the balls". Instead, I suspect, it was an act of defiance against a politically-correct atmosphere that prevented any criticism of Islamic beliefs, fostered in fact as an ashamed response to such inhumanities as in Guatanamo that he mentions. All decent people recoil in horror at those abuses, but to conflate the problems of the `war on terror ' with the question of free speech is careless.
Let us consider the following verses from the Christian bible (1 Peter 3:15-16): "...Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." There are two points here that we would all do well to remember: that firstly you will win no converts to your point of view if you are unable to respond to questioning with reasoned arguments, and that secondly if you overreact and `lose your cool' when people challenge your position then they will feel (rightly or wrongly) justified in dismissing you as ignorant. If on the other hand you show patience and understanding, people may yet "be ashamed of their slander".
Therefore, I ask, surely a restraint brought about by people's consciences is one Omar would rather see, than one imposed by an authoritarian government? He is right that "there are man made limits to the spoken word", but these are only truly effective if they are freely self-imposed. If we are forever turning to the government to intervene when we feel insulted then we are abdicating our duty as free subjects to exercise our judgement as members of wider communities.
Mockery of royalty is a good case in point. I for one am rather fond of our Queen, and would not want to insult her. But the point is that I can without fear of violent or legal retribution. That is what it means to have freedom of speech. Not that I can go round insulting people with impunity, for social factors such as others' esteem for me and my own conscience will keep me in check. But if I want to stand up, take the risk, and say something controversial for a cause I believe to be worthy, I should not have to fear for government censure (unless of course I am inciting people to commit criminal acts). Poking fun at "one of the most revered figures in history " is fair game: it is up to Omar and other Muslims to explain why Mohammed is deserving of such peculiar reverence, in the same way that I must argue the case for Christ when He is mocked. Respect for your beliefs must be earned by personal effort, not demanded as a right.
