Let's Make Some Noise
I'm sure y'all have heard about the Mohammed cartoon controversy that has caused violence or mass protest around the Muslim world. Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (man, I really want to change my middle name -- Michael is so un-onomatopoeic!) wrote a piece in the International Herald Tribune last Friday on the subject. ( full article here)
an excerpt:
Reprinting the cartoons in order to make a point about free speech is an act of senseless brinkmanship. It is also a disservice to democracy. It sends a conflicting message to the Muslim community: that in a democracy, it is permissible to offend Islam.My first thought when I read this was that the prez doesn't know what he's talking about. It is permissible in democracy to offend the Muslim community or anybody else -- that's one thing that "freedom of speech" allows. So, maybe this proves that Islam and democracy don't mix well....
This message damages efforts to prove that democracy and Islam go together. The average Muslim who prays five times a day needs to be convinced that the democracy he is embracing, and is expected to defend, also protects and respects Islam's sacred symbols. Otherwise, democracy will not be of much interest to him.
Upon further review, however, I decided that maybe he's not so far off the mark. After all, we in the Western world, for good or bad, also have our unoffendable groups -- gays, blacks, fat people, etc., etc. Look at John Rocker, the baseball pitcher. He got fined, suspended and ordered into psychological testing for the comments made in this Sports Illustrated article. Even after he came back, the stigma placed on him helped turn a young All-star caliber pitcher into a washout.
More recently, there's the preacher in Sweden who got convicted of violating hate crime laws for calling homosexuality a "cancerous tumor" on society during a sermon at his church. He was sentenced to a month in prison. (the conviction was overturned on appeal, and the Swedish Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appeals court.)
Meanwhile, it seems like its perfectly fine or even expected to trash some groups --mainstream religions, "rednecks", people with "unacceptable" radical ideas, tall people :), etc. Last year, I went to a special exhibit at the International Spy Museum (which I highly recommend) about terrorism in the U.S. One section covered the Ku Klux Klan -- from its beginning through its heyday to its current state. These days it is pretty weak, but it still holds rallies and apparently uses non-violent means to promote its ideas. At the end of that section, a computer survey questioned people about their views of the KKK and freedom of speech. The survey results showed that almost everyone believed strongly in freedom of speech, but I was a little surprised to see that more than 80 percent of the survey-takers would outlaw white supremacist groups, even those that are non-violent. Now, I'm no fan of the KKK, but should they be criminalized for their ideas? Does everyone have a right to free speech and thought?
In Western democratic practice, it seems like the ones who are truly protected are the ones who scream the loudest (or get one of the "professionally offended" to scream for them). If that's the case, maybe these violent Muslim protesters have the right idea after all....
What do you think?
posted by david @ 2/14/2006 07:30:00 AM
9 comments
9 Comments:
Many good questions. First, I think that democracy and theocracy as a general rule never mix well. Most Muslims would be perfectly happy under a theocratic government. They take tradition and laws of their religion very seriously. Much like the orthodox Jews in the Old testament.
Secondly, the squeaky wheel always gets the grease. But if our society truly embraces freedom of speech, we must let any and everything be free speech. Even so-called "hate speech." Though, I'll admit, it makes me cringe a little to say that . . .
Shayna, I agree with point #2, but not necessarily #1. Democracy and Islam might mix, because it appears (to me anyway) that a democratic culture chooses which dissenters it wants to tolerate and which it wants to marginalize. So, a democratic Muslim society might decide it will be grudgingly sympathetic to the "rights" of Muslim extremists, but effectively push those with anti-Islamic views right out of the society. Compare to how our society is sympathetic to the rights of gays (acceptable fringe), but comes down hard on bigots (unacceptable fringe).
For a real-world example, we can look at the Palestinians. Islamic extremism goes over well there, but I imagine that a Jew living among the Palestinians would find little tolerance or protection in the society or under the Palestinian government. This despite the fact that the government is democratically elected.
I understand what you're saying, but I guess I'm thinking about the fundamentalist Muslims. Because look at America, Christian fundamentalism runs policy to an extent. I think Muslims extremists may be less than thrilled with the religious freedom that democracy brings.
Here's a question to ponder:
The Bill of Rights gives many rights (or freedoms) to citizens in our country. We have the freedom to exercise those rights. But do we have the freedom to impose those rights on others?
good question - going with my previous line of thought, I'd say no, or at least we shouldn't expect other cultures to necessarily accept such an imposition -- each culture collectively decides what rights they value (irregardless of whatever laws we may place on their books).
Our own culture has even de-emphasized (in my opinion) one of the ten amendments on the Bill of Rights:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Some of the Middle Eastern nations, involved in the demonstrations, fail to fully grasp the concept of free speech. Free speech is a right guaranteed by governments and exercised by people.
I found it interesting that the demonstrators protesting at the Dutch and other European embassies were demanding formal apologies from the governments. The European governments were in no real position to do so. Whereas in many Muslim nations there is a lack of free speech and the government controls the press. If such a relationship existed in Europe, yes, the governments could easily apologize. The real picture is much more complicated and doesn’t fit the paradigm found in these Middle Eastern countries.
I also find Europe’s take on free speech really interesting. In France, headscarves and cruxifixes are banned. While in Germany, the Nazi party, swatstikas, and even Scientology are outlawed. Though they may support a noble aim, the grounds for these prohibitions are tenuous and suspect. I think it becomes a slippery slope when a government limits free speech of any kind. The border keeps on being pushed back. When does the line become fixed? This is an issue that every nation struggles with. I won’t argue with the Supreme Court figuring this stuff out for me.
Interesting discussion, Dave. I like what you said in your response to Hannah that..."we shouldn't expect other cultures to necessarily accept such an imposition -- each culture collectively decides what rights they value (irregardless of whatever laws we may place on their books). " The role of law should be to protect the inherent rights of its citizens - and prosecute any thing/one that threatens those rights. But that's a pretty fine line - especially when you're thinking about a democracy vs a theocracy. At what point does disagreeing with someone's way of life (homosexuality, religion, etc etc) actually threaten one of their inherent rights? It seems like that's where your point that each culture collectively decides its values, comes in. I love Anne's question of when should we draw a line in free speech? Even though we disagree with the Nazi and KKK line of thinking, why should we prohibit their "right" to free speech? (I can't believe I'm saying this!) At what point do their words cease to be simply words and turn into a violation of someone else's inherent right?
Good stuff, Dave. Check out some of the discussions in the London Times and the BBC about the cartoons. The British perspective is quite interesting.
Like all freedoms, freedom of speech carries a price. In addition to being able to say things that others do not like, you will have to hear things that you do not like. Anybody who cannot accept that trade-off doesn't deserve freedom of speech.
Post a Comment
<< Home