There is a debate here that is worth exploring.
The grotesque murder of people for publishing cartoons of the prophet Mohamed is undoubtedly wrong. Most people, Muslims included, find those acts barbaric and reprehensible.
However those cartoons were offensive to many Muslims and perhaps deliberately so.
The debate is whether, in a free country with the right of freedom of speech, it is right to intentionally cause offense.
In the West we have a long tradition of lampooning, ridiculing and belittling our politicians, religious leaders and celebrities. Despite the fact that this causes offense to the targets of these lampoons and their followers.
We hold this right to be sacrosanct and a tenet of freedom of speech which is the basis of a free society and our democracy. This freedom, tolerance and democracy is why so many want to come and live here.
However, out of respect for our Muslim minority at what is a sensitive time, taking account of their particular sensitivity in this area, would it not be judicious to moderate this right instead of being inflammatory?
On one hand we have a group of people who are adamant that enough is enough and a point needs to be made; freedom of speech is non-negotiable. We need to publish whatever we want with impunity. Threats of violence will not dissuade us. It is a right.
On the other hand we have a group of devoutly religious people who feel angered, threatened and blamed. They feel they are under attack and grouped in with the barbaric thugs who have misused their religion, but they are also extremely offended and upset.
Are we presenting the Islamists an excuse? Are we fuelling more converts to extremism?
Or are we standing firm in the face of violence and showing we will not be cowed?
What are your views?
Interesting as I feel the media now adds to the extremes and it is made black or white. Really it is all a bit too grey apart from the tragedy of the deaths there seems to be a lot of hate and anger in the young Muslims and the young are often angry especially when faced with unemployment. And then there is the idealism of free speech. Why the French couldn’t have just gone for egalite, liberte fraternite, but the slogan Charlie took off in emotional outrage. Enough’s enough.We have bigger battles to fight on those French words and on our environment.
Thank you for your contribution Georgina. I agree. The world is full of even bigger issues than this. The environment, overpopulation, equality, tolerance and justice have to be fought for.
Freedom of speech is not absolute in English law. It is a criminal offence to incite racial hatred, for example and some would say in a rational society freedom of speech should not be unfettered. For many people their religion is a fundamental part of their being and self-esteem. To mock it is to mock them, to mock their essence – the reason for their being in the world. Islam does not support a violent reaction in those circumstances and that is why the vast majority of Muslims condemn the murders in Paris. How would you feel is someone posted a cartoon of Roy Harper with an underage girl and posed the question “Is this man a nonce? All will be decided in due course by due process of law”?
Thanks for that Bede. I appreciate the contribution. There is obviously a balance between freedom of speech and a person’s strongly held views. While sometimes it may be appropriate to cause offense it is usual to take people’s feelings into account before doing so. Things that are deliberately inflammatory should be considered carefully. To needlessly upset people seems crass. To stand up for important rights seems justified. There is a conflict here. What most people are agreed on is that resorting to violence is wrong.
The law of the land should decide. If there is incitement to hatred then the courts would deal with it. That’s why we have a legal system and not theocracy or anarchy.
As for personal attacks on people or their beliefs and actions then we have libel and slander laws as well. I wouldn’t be pleased if someone made statements that I found personally offensive or affronted my beliefs but I wouldn’t buy a gun and kill innocent people.
I don’t think we have a choice because being moderate only means that the extremists will try to get more “freedom” but for them freedom means islamic laws in France, veiled girls allowed in schools and of course punishing acts they consider contrary to their vision of islam… which means that as a blogging woman I’m probably already causing offence. But we must only insist on our right to having a laic country and insist that people respect French laws first and their religion second, We must also protect muslims from other extremists. That wil be hard.
Thank you for your thoughts. I hear what you are saying. Religious fanaticism must never be allowed to pervade a free society. We are secular and have no wish to be back under the restrictions and fascism of a theocracy. It is a question of how to remain tolerant in the face of violence, threats and coercion without giving in to those threats.
Ideally I would like to live in an open society where a range of views is respected, there is open debate and nobody is persecuted.
The law should be the judge. Violence is always wrong and so is the imposition of views and beliefs on individuals.
Religion should never intrude into the State, schools or be used to indoctrinate young children. In my view it is a personal choice. Once people seek to impose it on others it all becomes about power.
Yes I agree, if I’m offended I can always turn to the law. It’s sad that some young people in French schools didn’t even want to respect the 1mn of silence because they felt offended so they think that the journalists deserved it.
Nobody deserves to be murdered. Not in France, England, The United States, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria or elsewhere.
Being murdered for drawing a cartoon, no matter how offensive, is obscene. The people who commit barbaric acts like that feel justified because of what they see as a war against Islam, the use of drones, the invasion of the Gulf States etc. But nothing justifies barbarism and intolerance.
All those who commit atrocities against civilians deserve to be killed and those in charge like Blair & Bush should be tried as war criminals for starting a war in breach of International Law. All members of the so-called Islamic Caliphate and their camp followers deserve to be butchered. They are scum and their lives serve no useful purpose. To behead children is unforgiveable. The terrorism is not essentially about religion. They are killing indiscriminately – Jewish, Christian & Muslim alike. Of the 12 people shot at Charlie Hebdo, 3 were Muslim. That’s a higher proportion than the French population. The vast majority of civilians killed in the so-called religious wars have been Muslims. It is not about Islam. That is just a façade. It is an attempted power grab by manipulators who purport to be defending Islam and are backed by wealthy individuals from the rich oil-producing states. The terrorists who die like Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid are naïve frontline fodder who have been conned. The problem is not with Islam or the millions who follow the guidelines of Islam. You must feel exhilerated, Opher, to find yourself in bed with the upstanding icon Rupert Murdoch!!
I think I agree with everything you say apart, of course, from the Murdoch jibe. I’m not sure where that comes from. I despise the man and all he stands for and does.
My stance is simple. I am opposed to all religions. I think they are outmoded and defunct. They are responsible for a lot of trouble, are misused by States and powerful leaders and have no foundation. The idea of God, an afterlife and mystical powers are irrational. I have no time for them. But at the same time I am completely tolerant of all religions as long as they do not indoctrinate children, practice coercion, use violence, or exploit the unfortunate. Religion and belief should be the personal choice of individuals. I am not opposed to Islam anymore than any other religion. While I actively oppose them in principle I am not opposed to people having religious b4eliefs and worshipping. Some of my best friends are Muslims, Christians and Jews. I don’t just like atheists.
I am opposed to all sorts of violence, including wars instigated by Bush and Blair, and the barbaric butchery being carried out by misguided Islamists, Boko Haram, ISIS and others around the world.
I’m not sure why you think that opposition to religious fanaticism and violence puts me in bed with Murdoch?
If some one desires expert view about blogging and site-building then i advise him/her
to pay a visit this web site, Keep up the good work.
I’ll check it out.
Thanks for your marvelous posting! I quite enjoyed reading it,
you’re a great author.I will be sure to bookmark your blog and will often come
back in the future. I want to encourage that you continue your great job, have
a nice afternoon!
Thank you for your encouragement. I do my best. Hopefully you will continue to enjoy it. All the best – Opher.