Four Anglican bishops serving in northeastern Africa and Cyprus have written the United Nations asking that “an international declaration be negotiated that outlaws the intentional and deliberate insulting or defamation of persons (such as prophets), symbols, texts and constructs of belief deemed holy by people of faith.” They make this proposal in response to the recent movie on Muhammad and “similar offensive incidents [which] have occurred in some European countries” and ”evoked massive and violent responses worldwide.”
It is a bad idea, a very bad idea, on many levels. For one thing, such a law would violate the Western ideal of free speech we should not give up. For another, it would quickly be used to suppress not only “deliberate insulting or defamation” but reasonable criticism and disagreement. One man’s well- and kindly-argued belief that another man is in error can be to that other man insult and defamation, especially if he has no natural appreciation for the free exchange of ideas.
What if, for example, someone pursuing higher critical studies of the Koran decides that much of it is made up, the way for two centuries now many people have argued that much of the gospel story is made up? What about the basic Christian proclamation of the uniqueness of Christ as the Savior of the world, which, however nuanced and with however great an understanding of the value of other religions (as described in Nostra Aetate, for example), still declares that other religions are deeply mistaken? Would not those ideas be taken by the followers of the religions criticized as insult and defamation?
And why should only the beliefs of the religious be protected? Shouldn’t the “constructs of belief” of secular people be equally protected? If they believe that, say, the practice of homosexuality is a human good, shouldn’t they be protected from the insult and defamation of those who insist it isn’t?
Restrictions on free speech only expand. Nearly everyone, understandably, wants his ideas protected and freed from public evaluation. A proposal that begins with the hope that people will stop insulting Mohammad will grow to include limits on all sorts of ideas the proposers never intended. Except, of course, in the West, limits on attacks on Christianity. We will not see the solicitude extending to Islam and even to secular commitments extended, or extended very often or very far, to Christianity.
It is significant that the bishops, one of whom is a former colleague of mine, write solely about incidents of Muslims reacting violently to ideas or works they don’t like. We don’t see Christians, or Jews, or Buddhists, or Sikhs, or anyone else responding to ideas by rioting, much less by rioting against and killing people who don’t have anything to do with the ideas they dislike. There’s a reason many people are making jokes like “Remember the time we stormed the British embassy when The Life of Brian came out, and pulled down their flag and beat up all those guys working there? That’ll teach them not to insult our faith. It was gre . . . oh wait, we didn’t do that.”
It is a bad thing when violence and the constant threat of violence lead people to concede unilaterally an important part of their culture and law to placate those who do not think like that. That tells the world, and the violent themselves, nothing good.
Thanks go to William Tighe for the link from the Anglican blog Stand Firm, which took the story from the Anglican.tv blog.
September 19th, 2012 | 12:50 pm
Thank you, David, for defending freedom of speech. And very eloquently, too. If we bow to violence and threats, any group wanting special privileges will be able to threaten and kill others into submission. And worst of all, ensure that the person exercising his free speech rights will be blamed for it. After all, you just know that group X does not appreciate you criticizing them, so you are responsible for the killings that result from not pre-emptively bowing to them.
September 19th, 2012 | 1:26 pm
Such a prohibition has an intractable problem. Religious claims are often mutually condemning. The Koran reads that Jesus really didn’t die on the cross, but only appeared to do so. This is an insult and defamation of the Christ. The Apostle Paul wrote that anyone who brings another gospel than the one which he had preached to the Galatians should be eternally condemned. This is an insult and defamation of Islam which presents itself as another gospel. Judaism believes that there is no God but One. Mormonism believes that there are many gods, and what’s more they say that Abraham believed so as well.
If one were to take this prohibition seriously, one could try affirming that no religion is true (which would insult them all), or that all religions were true (which would insult them all), or that there is no such thing as truth (which would insult them all).
If enacted would not we all have to be silenced? Or is this the idea?
September 19th, 2012 | 6:15 pm
Disappointing article
First it would be nice if it used English: ‘written to the United Nations’. Not getting that right put me off.
Then it assumes that freedom of speech is a pre-eminent issue, rather than one among many. That is a very American view, and not necessarily a Christian one.
What about love for neighbour?
September 19th, 2012 | 11:02 pm
This is how it starts. A well meaning good guy offers a seemingly good idea to help calm things down the then the law comes back and bits the same good guy in the future. This would be used to stifle evangelism in every country that is post-christian and Islamic.
September 20th, 2012 | 7:34 am
For one thing, such a law would violate the Western ideal of free speech we should not give up.
What David Mills fails to note is that the United States is an outlier when it comes to freedom of speech. For example, according to Wikipedia, France (where there is currently a controversy over anti-Muslim cartoons) has the following restrictions on speech:
Charlie Hebdo is the French magazine that just published the anti-Muslim cartoons.
For another, it would quickly be used to suppress not only “deliberate insulting or defamation” but reasonable criticism and disagreement. One man’s well- and kindly-argued belief that another man is in error can be to that other man insult and defamation, especially if he has no natural appreciation for the free exchange of ideas.
As I said, America is an outlier when it comes to freedom of speech. If the above are the dangers of not having American-style, near-absolute freedom of speech, it is already too late for almost any other country in the world.
I think of myself as close to a free-speech absolutist when it comes to the United States, but I can see why countries with other traditions would not want to follow in our footsteps.
September 20th, 2012 | 8:07 am
William: What about love for neighbour?
So end free speech, lest people hurt the feelings of Muslims by telling them the truth about their religion? Actual love for one’s neighbor is combating all the harm that is done throughout the world, because of Islam.
Just a short while ago, a 14-year-old Christian girl with Down’s Syndrome was facing the death penalty in Pakistan for ‘blasphemy’, but of course we hear nothing about that from the politically correct cultural relativists.
September 20th, 2012 | 8:31 am
William: First it would be nice if it used English: ‘written to the United Nations’. Not getting that right put me off.
You should send a letter to the Lord Chamberlain’s men, demanding that their senior playwright learn to “use English”. I quote from Henry IV, Part I:
“He writes me here that inward sickness (continued)”
Henry IV, Part I 4.1.31 (Third Arden)
And to James Joyce:
“I wish somebody would write me a loveletter”
Ulysses
September 20th, 2012 | 10:20 am
“What about love for neighbour?”
Do you think governments can compel love?
September 20th, 2012 | 10:55 am
Who decides what statements are offensive and which are not? The United Nations?
By even discussing this proposal we are telling the radical Islamic world–kill people, destroy property and you will get whatever you want.
September 20th, 2012 | 11:31 am
Laura: Who decides what statements are offensive and which are not? The United Nations?
Mobs in Egypt and Libya will do that, thank you very much. But to give a rough indication of what the sovereign mob will decide…
Offensive:
- cartoons depicting Muhammad
- any criticism of Islam
Not offensive:
- “Freedom go to hell”
- “Europe you will pay, extermination is on its way.”
- “Behead those who insult Islam”
- “Europe, take some lessons from 9/11″
- “Be prepared for the *real* Holocaust”
- “Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answer”
(all these slogans were used by Islamists in their 2006 London demonstration against the Danish cartoons)
September 20th, 2012 | 4:52 pm
David Nickol: I didn’t say, but I didn’t fail to note. It’s not actually a relevant point. If many Western countries have never completely adopted or have moved away from the Western tradition of free speech — including France, one of the nations in which it developed — that is a problem, but it doesn’t negate the point of the importance of upholding that tradition.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact