Free speech

"The idea of universal rights—the idea of rights that are universal to all people because they correspond to our natures as human beings, not to where we live or what our cultural background is—is an incredibly important one. This belief is being challenged by apostles of cultural relativism who refuse to accept that such rights exist. If you look at those who employ this idea, it turns out to be Robert Mugabe, the leaders of China, the leaders of Singapore, the Taliban, Ayatollah Khomeini. It is a dangerous belief that everything is relative and therefore these people should be allowed to kill because it’s their culture to kill."

"I think we live in a bad age for the free speech argument. Many of us have internalized the censorship argument, which is that it is better to shut people up than to let them say things that we don’t like. This is a dangerous slippery slope, because people of good intentions and high principles can see censorship as a way of advancing their cause and not as a terrible mistake. Yet bad ideas don’t cease to exist by not being expressed. They fester and become more powerful...."

– Salman Rushdie, in an interview with Reason.

- - - - - - - - - -

"All religions deserve equal freedom of worship and practice but none deserve the right to freedom from criticism. It is absolutely right and reasonable that religions should be protected from threatening language, behaviour and written material but I support the amendment to retain the right to abuse and insult, because of the essentially irrational nature of religious beliefs. That is not to dismiss them: indeed, I'm a great believer that the most important and most sustaining things in life are essentially irrational. Love, beauty, art, friendship, music, spirituality of whatever form, these things make no rational sense yet they are more important than any qualities that are rationally measurable...

... However, it's their irrational nature that leaves religious beliefs wide open to interpretation, allowing occasionally practices to be established that are wholly contrary to the mores of a civilised, liberal society...

... Those practices must remain open to the widest critique, including what could be perceived as insult or abuse...

... The problem is judging what constitutes insult or abuse in an irrational realm. Race is a rational concept, He is of that race, She is of this; and it is not difficult to judge with reasonable objectivity what constitutes insult and abuse. Such judgments are almost impossible with the irrational quality of religion: where for some, any critique of their religious practice constitutes an insult, to question anything is an abuse...

... freedom of expression is being allowed to cause trouble, or create discomfort, or offence, as long as your words or behaviour are not threatening...

... The very nature of a religion is that you subscribe to its beliefs at the expense of some of your individual free expression, the degree of sacrifice required depending on the nature of the faith, so it is hardly surprising that it is factions within religious communities who have lobbied so hard for this legislation. Those who are most keen to stifle the free expression of others are often those who do not enjoy true freedom of expression themselves. And therefore fear it...

... Ridiculous, outmoded or hateful religious practices need to be criticised and exposed. But because you cannot criticise practices without implicating the practitioners, practitioners are bound to be caught in the crossfire and in my opinion, they should just accept that. If the exposure of hateful or ridiculous religious practices generates dislike of that religion's followers, they should accept that also and not seek legal immunity. They cannot renounce responsibility for their practices. They should defend them, justify them, or correct them...

– Rowan Atkinson, in a speech to British MPs on the proposed (and beaten) bill on religious hatred.

Comments

[Merv]

No one say it's wrong to question religion. (Though I don't think any side will win), but drawing cartoons on their god? Its just a bit too ridiculous.

It's like engaging in a varsity debate, and your team resorting to drawing cartoons of the opposititon, to win.

[budak]

One may disagree whether those cartoons (which are admittedly rather crude) were rightly or wrongly published, but I think it's telling that in certain segments, the response has been both disproportionate and indiscriminate, giving to proof to the cartoons' caricaturisations, as it were.

Putting aside the issue of offensiveness (a line which I think at least some of the cartoons step over, and for which there are surely more meaningful and civilised responses than violence and threats), there is also the question of why taboos within a certain faith should be applied to non-adherents, especially when a cursory look at historical records shows a wealth of depictions of supposed undepictable personalities. One might also question the ongoing use of caricature and demonisation of other faiths and races in countries such as Saudi Arabia and much of the Arab press as a sign that some people don't play by their own rules.

And on making fun of deities, surely a mighty being would be well able to heap eternal vengeance on guilty souls if this being so desires? What does a display of earthly wrath achieve other than reaffirming the offended's sense of righteous religiousity?

[Merv]

One might wonder what would the response be if it was not cartoons, but a 5 page 'serious' editorial about Muslim Extremisim.

Would that get so violent a resonse?

Its very different innit?

[budak]

It's worth pondering, but still, I find it hard to accept (based on exchanges elsewhere) that some would deem it 'understandable' (although it's heartening that other Muslim groups have condemned the violence) that these destructive acts and threats are carried out on Danes simply because the cartoons appeared in a Danish paper. Isn't that applying the same kind of collective responsibility that these protestors are accusing Westerners of doing, in seeing no difference between any Muslim/Dane and a terrorist/provocator?

I think some are also seeing a problem in the act of questioning (or ridiculing) faiths. There is a fine (and tenuous) line between criticising a faith and criticising one's faith. I think the latter act is illiberal, as faith is a personal matter. The problem, however, is that criticisms of beliefs or acts performed in the name of a faith are equated with a personal affront. If an individual deems belief in the literal creation of life (rather than evolution) as a cornerstone of his religion, could he not accuse those who point out the incongruity of Genesis with scientific evidence as offending his faith?

[ivan]

That's a low blow... ;)

Politics aside, if you threaten the very core of a person's life, would he not react accordingly?

Given the history of religious blasphemy and the violent backlash, what did Jyllands-Posten expect, tea and crumpets?

Anyway:

So wann werden Sie und der missus für das Mittagessen frei sein? Werden wir Ang Mo Kio sagen?

[budak]

low blow meh? I neber cast aspersions on any good doctor's faith leh. On the other hand...

Therein lies the problem. Some groups continue to see violence as the sole and legitimate means of countering detractors, even as they tolerate open preaching of hate and holy war amongst themselves. Where it happens within a country, there's not much one can do about it. But when these cries extend beyond borders, it's valid to ask why such primal reactions are preferred to more civilised routes of protest as well as why secular systems should be subject to religious proscriptions.

[ivan]

Like I said before lor, violence has resolved more conflicts and disagreements than any other means in our sad history.

"What worked for my grandfather, works for me" sort of thing.

There is nothing like a call to war to organize and galvanize the common man.

"Let's sit down and discuss this over tea" lacks a certain dramatic quality to it.

[budak]

that's the tragedy of man.

lunch at AMK ah?? ask my boss la.

"Some groups continue to see violence as the sole and legitimate means of countering detractors, even as they tolerate open preaching of hate and holy war amongst themselves."

>> Yep. I suppose that's why Bush calls his acts of democracy evangelism his "crusades".

"Where it happens within a country, there's not much one can do about it. But when these cries extend beyond borders, it's valid to ask why such primal reactions are preferred to more civilised routes of protest as well as why secular systems should be subject to religious proscriptions."

>> My guess: cos talking is reserved for fellas who already have nukes?

*SQUEAK*

[mrs budak]

Ivan, got MSN?

[ivan]

ng_ivan[at]yahooDotCom

[noself]

I think it's worth pointing out the original 3 cartoons (the rest were sent off in a package by some Dutch imans who wanted to provoke a reaction it seems) were specifically created to give voice to the author's frustration over his inability to find an illustrator of the Prophet Muhammad because they feared reprisals by these violent, extremist fundamentalist.

And um...is it really so wrong to lampoon suicide bombers expecting to have 72 virgins in heaven?