Subscribe to Desicritics
The Freedom To Be Offended - Part 2
Atanu Dey
"CAESAR: Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature."
--George Bernard Shaw in "Caesar and Cleopatra"
Following up on my previous post, a reader commented that the "tough part is choosing where exactly to draw the line between legal and illegal."
It is tough only if that line is arbitrarily drawn according to the whims and fancies of mobs. In most societies, it is drawn after due consideration and enshrined in some institution often called the constitution.
The line between what is legal and what is not is drawn by the society in question. It is the law of the land and determining whether an act is legal or not is the job of the courts of the land. Each society has a some mechanism in place for deciding what is permissible and what is not. The important point to note is that laws vary from place to place. What is legal and permissible is local; there is no global standard that can, or even should, be applied. Problems arise when one does not appreciate that distinction.
For instance, Danish society is governed by Danish law, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia by Islamic law. The attempt by Danes to impose Danish law in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would be as insane as the attempt by the Saudi Arabians to impose Islamic law in Denmark.
Let me repeat the last bit.
I would be as much out of place if I insist that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia discard the Koran as the constitution of the land as I would be if I insist that Denmark adopt Sharia as the law of the land.
The Saudis don't allow the religious books of any other religion, including those of other monotheistic faiths, within their borders. That is what their law says, which is a reflection of the will of their people. They are absolutely and fundamentally entitled to make their own laws and impose them within their borders. If you don't like it, you are welcome to not live in Saudi Arabia. But if you live in Saudi Arabia, you have to live in accordance with the laws of that country. However, if the Saudi Arabians wish to impose that same law in another society, they are absolutely and fundamentally wrong and should be put in their place with the greatest of haste and the least amount of fuss.
The freedom of expression is granted to the citizens of Denmark by the citizens of Denmark. If you don't like the Danish exercising that right within the borders of Denmark, if you are offended by their freedom to read and write what they please subject to Danish law, tough luck. You are free to not associate with the Danes and their freedom to express themselves. In a liberal society, freedom of expression is a non-negotiable right. That right is a result of enlightenment and I will be damned if I do not speak up for that remarkable event. My only prayer is that one day — hopefully within my own lifetime — India would have the right to free expression.
One of the most specious arguments trotted out at this juncture is that there are limits to free speech and that shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is an example of a practical and necessary limitation of free speech. First, shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is dangerous only if the society consists of panic-stricken idiots, as someone remarked. Second, if there is a fire in the theatre, that is precisely what one should shout. Finally in the absence of a fire, if shouting "fire" leads to panic and harm, the correct response is not to outlaw free speech, or to argue for limiting free speech, but to punish according to the laws of the land for false speech. Blurring the distinction between false speech and free speech does not get us too far.
Shouting "fire" any time the mood strikes you in a crowded theatre is no more an expression of free speech than defecating in the conference room is an expression of the freedom to use the toilet.
The current spat is about an attempt to impose the narrow viewpoint of a particular people globally. It is an attempt to apply Islamic restrictions on non-Islamic people. Any compromise on resisting such a vile move is a dangerous and slippery slope. Today it is a cartoon, tomorrow it will be what I should read, and the day after what I should wear. For it could be argued in a few years' time that people eating during a certain time is an offense according to Islam, and so no one should eat during those times.
Just to make it perfectly clear: I am all in favor of Islamic law in Islamic countries. More power to them. But when they attempt to impose their will on my land, I will fight them to the bitter end. The dhimmis may lower their trousers and bend over. Not me.
The Freedom To Be Offended - Part 2
RSS:
- Subscribe to RSS 2.0 feeds for:
- » Comments on this article
- » Culture
- » Culture: Religion
- » Culture: Society
- » Politics: Laws
- » Politics: World
- » Desicritics.org articles by Atanu Dey
- » All Opinion articles
- » All Desicritics.org articles
indiacorporatewatch
URL
February 3, 2006
12:55 AM
While the US and Britain pummel the great cities of the Middle East into dust, is the best the world can do is attack the soul of Islam like scavengers and parasites at a feast on a corpse?
I'm neither Xian nor Muslim, but as we watch the assault upon Islam, its people, and destruction of its culture by western interests is the best that those living elsewhere can offer as emphathy is to paint graffitti on its Prophet? If that is so, then pity the future! Free speech without morality is and will always be profane.
http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/2/2/121852/5125
dkaps
URL
February 3, 2006
01:23 AM
ICW:
Its fairly obvious that you come with a baggage to the argument. When Atanu argues on law of the land to be the ONLY judge of the legality of the actions within those borders, where does Morality come in? And btw, Morality is a whore among words - everyone abuses it while enjoying its "fruits"! I have yet to see an absolute Morality!! So, please do not raise the Moral bogey.. its meaningless.. Bush uses it, Osama uses it, Hitler used it, Aurangzeb used it.. everyone who wants to justify ANYTHING uses this bogey!
Argue on the rational point.. of legality.. and stop this "Lie Dance" - when one argues Freedom of Speech .. you jump to the lawful.. when one argues legality.. you jump over to Morality!! Stay right there and hold your point!!
This incident has irked me as well as much as it has many other folks! Tomorrow it will be something else.
The problem is - and I personally think its most unfortunate for the Muslims - that there is NO way that the problems in Islam can be addressed to a positive end! There is NO scope for a Raja Ram Mohan Roy or Dayananda Sarawati.. to shout out loud and say "The King has NO clothes"!! For such a reformer by very act of reforming becomes a non-believer. So either live with it.. or be condemned!
Cheers,
dkaps
Drishtikone.com
mayank
URL
February 3, 2006
01:41 AM
dkaps:
No religion allows questioning of the things mentioned in its religious books. It is considered the word from God. Protestants had to face flak, so did Hindu reformists. Even today one sees the propogation of "Creationism" to support the bible, even when the evolution theory has been proven right by so many evidences.
dkaps
URL
February 3, 2006
02:17 AM
mayank:
to face the "flak" is one thing.. to block out the reformer from the faith is quite another!
And Evolution and Creationism is inherently a meaningless debate. And by the way.. Evolution is a "Theory".. not the truth. So, while I do believe there is an "Intelligence" - I also concede that it cannot be "taught" - only experienced. Involution without Evolution and vice versa are oxymoronic expressions!
Cheers,
desh
gazelle
URL
February 3, 2006
05:30 AM
Atanu,
I think you underestimate the nature of the opposition to the saudi laws within saudi arabia. The whole eastern provinces are shia and are the first to condemn them, along with people not benefiring/associated with the once nurtured, saudi religious police - the hated muttawas - now in decline.
Saudi arabia can only move towards greater individual and social freedoms. they had their first local elections (sigh!).
Similarly the Danish Left has criticised the irresponsibility of the media.
Neither Saudi Arabia nor Denmark are monolithic or unchanging.
No one is for restricting the freedom of expression, except the ill-informed, but some are for increasing tolerance, learning about each other, and mutual self-respect.
I think the case reveals a deep-seated Danish racism. Ask an Indian friend in Denmark. S/he will tell you that his has been a problem or a while for non-muslim 'ethnics'.
best
reformist muslim
URL
February 3, 2006
05:57 AM
As I and some other Muslim bloggers have suggested, the bigger issue here is the underlying xenophobic sentiment in Denmark which allowed such cartoons (in particular the one with the Prophet wearing a ticking turban) to be published without condemnation from 'danish' people. This is distinct from suggesting that 'blasphemous' comments be censored.
AkaRoundPeg
URL
February 3, 2006
08:06 AM
Well said. My sentiments exactly.
I live in Oman and all Danish products are off the shelves. Supermarkets have large signs that read 'Danish Products not sold here.'
The locals are very proud of the boycott (see www.omanforum.com for 2-3 threads on the topic) and see the boycott as a victory of Islam.
There is a poll on at Omanforum in which they ask if those that drew the cartoon deserve ... hold your breath....death penalty!
John B. Chilton
URL
February 4, 2006
08:47 AM
It's a tad more caustic, but I hear a resonance between your post and this comment:
sisu: Overcoming fatwah fear: "I think the Danish ambassador should issue an apology. In the largest Christian church in Saudi Arabia."
Aaman
URL
February 17, 2006
07:59 AM
This post has been chosen as a Desicritics Editors' Pick - enjoy the adulation of your fans:)
Atanu Dey
URL
February 17, 2006
08:30 AM
"reformist muslim" writes that the he and "other Muslim bloggers have suggested, the bigger issue here is the underlying xenophobic sentiment in Denmark..."
Could you please indicate the links that lead to yours and other Muslim bloggers' pieces which deal with the "underlying zenophobia" of, say, Saudi Arabia? Surely you know that "foreigners" are not even allowed within some city limits. Also, you must know that it is forbidden to even bring "holy" books of other religions into Saudi Arabia. Where and when have Muslims within and outside Saudi Arabia ever seen it as "underlying zenophobia"? If Muslims can so zealously guard their heritage and their way of life, surely it is more than a tad hypocritical to complain if the Danes feel more than a bit threatened by Islam trying to impose restrictions on the Danish way of life.
How would Muslims react if Denmark were to outlaw mosques? As Chilton pointed out in a comment above, the Danes should offer to apologize from the largest Christian church in Saudi Arabia for the insult that Muslims feel by the publication of the cartoons.
If you cannot see the rank zenophobia that permeates Islamic society, if you don't realize that that zenophobia is way way older than the ones that you so strenuously underline, I am not sure that we ever share the same objective reality.
Vikas Chowdhry
URL
February 17, 2006
08:45 AM
"But when they attempt to impose their will on my land, I will fight them to the bitter end."
I agree with you - but I think with rapidly changing demographics, the West is wondering - "What does it mean anymore for this land to be my land?" India will face this problem even more acutely.
After all, when Rushdie's book was banned, a majority of Indians did not want that ban but the government bowed to the minority. So in effect, it was a successful imposition of the will of the Muslims on the entire country of India. What were we able to do?
Nachiketa
URL
February 17, 2006
02:06 PM
Every religion has its crackpots; Hindus have Bal Thackeray (though more of a political figure who uses religion), Christians have Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberts, Jews have a bunch too. Concerns rise when the proportion of crackpots in a religion get so high that they drown out the moderates.
Is Islam approaching that critical tipping point, or has it already passed it?
Add your comment
(Or ping: http://desicritics.org/tb/244)