" Insults to him [Mohammed] were traditionally held by Muslim jurists to be equivalent to disbelief - and disbelief was a crime that merited Hell.
Not that there was anything within the Koran itself that necessarily mandated it as a capital offence. "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills, let him believe; and whoever wills, let him disbelieve."
While under normal circumstances I am perfectly happy not to mock beliefs that other people hold dear, these are far from normal circumstances. As I tweeted yesterday, the right to draw Muhammad without being shot is quite as precious to many of us in the West as Islam presumably is to the Charlie Hebdo killers.
We too have our values - and if we are not willing to stand up for them, then they risk being lost to us. When it comes to defining l'infâme, I for one have no doubt whose side I am on."
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30714702
I doubt most people regard the Middle Eastern conflicts as purely religious. Where other extremists are unambiguous (the Klu Klux Klan, for example), they are reported as religious extremism.
ReplyDelete"Mocking differences in any other form is called Racism, sexism, homophobia or more simply bullying."
There's a difference between mockery and abuse, but sometimes the line between the two is very fine indeed. I believe that freedom of speech without the freedom to mock, insult and offend is no freedom at all. As Ricky Gervais succinctly put it, "Just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right." When an offence is given, who is to say who's right and who's wrong ? Far better to allow insults on both sides than pronounce what may be a mistaken judgement in favour of one side or another.
Sometimes, the truth is painful. See also : https://plus.google.com/103860147871348309151/posts/5cZmnGF9uG4
Without mockery of things like racism, sexism, and homophobia, I believe society would be far worse off. Those terms have now become insults precisely because we've enjoyed the freedom of speech to criticise existing ideals - it wasn't so long ago that those things were normal. Women couldn't vote, homosexuality was illegal... To borrow Socrates again, "A life without self-examination is not worth living." Without the sometimes painful challenge of criticising society, social progress is impossible. I would say that allowing mockery of our most deeply held beliefs is essential.
The flip side of this is that we still have to allow people to make statements we don't like. I, for instance, can't stand Creationism. As a scientist, Creationism mocks everything I stand for. But that doesn't mean I want to ban it. Rather I trust that the majority of society agrees with me and joins with me in mocking them back.
"what I do question is the wisdom of mocking for the sake of public entertainment a culture who's citizens or relations live in war zones, oppressed regions or regimes , torment and or despair.....and not expect blowback?"
Absolutely we should not expect blowback - everyone is entitled to not get shot for expressing their beliefs. Muslims have been allowed to hold protest placards declaring things like, "Behead those who insult Islam". No-one went on a killing spree as a result of this. We must absolutely insist that all members of society respect the right to free speech; we should never allow those with an extremist, twisted ideology to tell us what we can and can't say.
The western hemisphere currently enjoys one of the most free societies in human history. I believe it is precisely because of this freedom that we have not only the most technologically advanced nations on Earth but also those which are far more tolerant than those ruled by dictators, monarchs and fanatics. By any objective, measurable parameter, the standard of living in the western world is better now than it has been in almost all of history. Long may it continue - je suis Charlie.
Qualia Project Respectfully, I don't think my reply was selective; as for interpretative, I don't see how I can avoid that. Just like everyone else, I respond to things as I interpret them, I see nothing unsual about that.
ReplyDeleteIf it is a choice between freedom of speech and toleration of other cultures, then I choose freedom of speech every time. For the reasons I have explained, free speech is a cornerstone of Western civilization and something I think is worth defending. But I do not think that is the case - rather, freedom of speech allows other cultures to express themselves in a way not otherwise possible. "They" are equally free to say things that "we" may not like.
There are always limits to how far free speech can go. If someone publically declares, "I am going to kill John Smith", then that person will be arrested. That is the most extreme example - an unveiled, personal threat, which most Western societies take issue with. If someone says, "I hate John Smith, he's an utter scumbag", then that is merely an insult, and few people would demand action. Of course, if that person keeps repeating that statement, it may be viewed as harassment (i.e. abuse), for which society has appropriate responses.
Now what about if someone says, "I hate John Smith's values" ? That, to my mind, is categorically different from an attack (verbal or otherwise) on John Smith himself - no matter how often it is repeated. John Smith simply has to deal with the fact that not everyone agrees with what he believes; everyone in society is in exactly the same position one way or another. We see similar attacks all the time, both on the established Christian culture and (much more emphatically) on contemporary politics. Indeed, I would say such insults and mockery are essential to keep politicians in their place (and we even see high personal mockery of individual politicians, particularly in America - very few people, including the politicians themselves, try and stop this). Legislation to prevent this would be incredibly dangerous - who decides who should be protected ?
In the case of minority cultures, I believe the same applies. Attacking their values may be unpleasant, but you cannot force people to like the values of others. For one thing, it is entirely possible that those values ARE dangerous and need to be called out. Protecting an ideological belief from criticism is, in my opinion, morally wrong. No-one would suggest, for example, that we ban people from insulting the Tailban or the Klu Klux Klan or neo-Nazis (do not misunderstand me - obviously mainstream Muslims are thoroughly decent human beings, it's fanatics of any religion who are the problem). Furthermore, trying to restrict what can and can't be said is hugely counterproductive - you only have to look at the crowds in Paris to see that.
That said, I would agree that we should discourage people from the rather childish insulting tactics that Charlie Hebdo is famous for. Its strongly anti-theistic slant is something I disapprove of, for reasons I'll go into in detail in a future post (also, I have yet to see a single commentator own up to admitting to liking Charlie Hebdo). But I think we must do this through dialogue, not legislation. We need people like Omid Djalili to help explain to people the nature of the targets they are so cruelly attacking - only through understanding will we achieve tolerance. At the same time, we cannot let any religion, be it mainstream or extremist, tell non believers what it can and cannot do.
As for cultural annihilation I feel that is somewhat tangential. All I'll say is that any two closely-integrated cultures will inevitably influence each other. You can't stop change.
I have absolutely no idea what French arms exports have got to do with my opinions regarding free speech.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be offended by something. What, I'm not sure. However, for the record, let me clarify something just in case you have misinterpreted :
ReplyDeleteI do not like the mockery which is frequently directed toward other cultures (and particularly religions). I think the world would be a happier place if it didn't happen. I merely contend that we must allow it to have a free and tolerant society for everyone.
However, I have to say that pointing to a broad list of books is evasive, even cryptic. The central issue of what I wrote is that free speech is a good thing and that the right to offend must extend to mockery and even insults of other cultures. You appear to disagree with the latter part of that statement. Ideally, I would like you to explain why in your own words, but if you could at least point out a specific book that puts forth the counter-argument, I'll consider reading it. Having read the blurbs, it's not at all obvious to me which one would be the most relevant.
I'll go further : if you provide a free web article which sets out your stance, I promise to read it.
Still brave of you Rhys. Huzzah!
ReplyDeleteIt's like being afraid of mice, or the dark.