MATTERS OF CIVILITY

Islam, Blasphemy and Civility of Discourse

A few Sundays back a protest took place in Whitehall central London. The protest, called by an organisation called The Muslim Action Forum, was against the cartoon depiction of Mohammed produced on the front cover of Charlie Hebdo magazine. The demand the protesters were making was for an innocuous sounding ‘global civility.’

Well who could object to civility, only on closer examination this ‘civility’ turns out to be something of a one way street. Civility on these terms does not consist of Muslims accepting that free speech might sometimes present ideas/images that might make them feel uncomfortable,but that as citizens of a free country accepting that this is one of the elements with which they must contend. No, civility demands accepting that religious, especially Muslim, sensitivities trumps all. Above all it means a blasphemy law. No negative comments and absolutely no depiction of the founder of the religion of Islam. Though they also insist on the same level of protection being given to ‘all major world religions [whom] are deserving of a right to some protection over their most sacred figures.’

Of course, we now do have a blasphemy law, though it is not on the statute book, nor did it pass through the normal parliamentary procedures. No, this law is a gangster law enforced at gunpoint. This ‘law’ has about it the simplicity and clarity of a clenched fist, offend what we hold sacred and we will kill you. In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo Massacre this demonstration felt, how can I put this, well downright uncivil, discourteous and yes offensive.

Here then is my Email Exchange with MAF, (I have corrected one or stylistic errors, spelling mistakes and sought to make the sense of what I am saying clearer perhaps than in my original emails. Consequently, the text of my final email differs slightly from the one sent to MAF. Though the points made are exactly the same). 

Dear MAF,

On seeing publicity referring to your demonstration on Sunday I visited your website. To my astonishment, I could find no condemnation of the mass murder that took place at the offices of Charlie Hebdo. I would have thought that any demand for 'global civility' would commence from the starting point that it is never acceptable to resort to violence just because someone says something or draws a cartoon that you find deeply offensive. Indeed I am of the opinion that mass murder is downright uncivil. Though you chose to slur these same victims with the accusation that it is they who were 'uncivilised.'

Your website slurs a number of others including the Jyllands-Posten newspaper and Salman Rushdie, though make no mention of the death threats these people face. In my naivete, I had assumed that murdering someone was a somewhat uncivilized form of expression.

 You are of course free, in this country which is not a totalitarian theocratic state, to protest, just as I am free to protest against attempts to impose a blasphemy law by the threat of violence.

 I should add that your website gives the impression that a blasphemy law protecting Christianity is currently in force. It is not it was abolished in 2008.

 Yours civilly

 Alex Talbot

Dear Alex Talbot,

Many thanks for your message. Our literature that we were disseminating throughout the protest and in our correspondence to all political figures gives clear condemnation of the violence that extremists have undertaken, which have nothing to do with the spirit or rulings of Islamic Law. Islamic leaders and scholars worldwide have condemned these actions of ISIS and it is of course, an uncivil and destructive route to take vengeance through killings.

 Our campaign for Global Civility highlights that with Freedom of Expression comes a responsibility to not cause harm and damage others (i.e. through libel, slander, and hate crimes); the attack upon a sacred figure whom over a billion people love and revere is abusive and insensitive infringes upon our basic human right to mutual respect. We believe all major world religions are deserving of a right to some protection over their most sacred figures.

 Thank you for pointing out the discrepancies you notice in the website; they have been noted and amendments will be made accordingly.

 Best Regards,

The MAF Team

Dear MAF,

Thank you for your prompt response to my email and my apologies for my considerably less than prompt reply.  I am pleased to hear that you have condemned the Paris attacks and I hope that you have likewise condemned the more recent violent attacks on free speech in Copenhagen. You say that ‘the violence that extremists have undertaken…[has] nothing to do with the spirit or rulings of Islamic Law.’ It is clear that some of your coreligionists do not accept this and clearly, seek to enforce a blasphemy law at the point of a gun.

I am afraid I feel there seems to be some misunderstanding of the nature of free expression in your email. You say that ‘with Freedom of Expression comes a responsibility to not cause harm and damage others,’ going on to cite slander, libel laws and hate crimes. Respecting libel law in this country these, restrictions are too great and indeed are in my opinion repressive, allowing large corporations to stifle criticism. These laws clearly need reform and a start has been made in this area. If by ' hate crimes' you mean hate speech I feel this to be more problematic,- though it is clearly unacceptable to threaten or abuse someone purely for their race, sexuality, religious belief or lack thereof, -can  denigrating what someone 'believes,' even holds dear, really be categorized as a crime? 

As to ‘not cause harm and damage others,’ I am not sure what this means, though it seems to imply that people have a right not to be offended. No such right exists. The formula is simple and oft repeated. In a free country citizens enjoy the right to believe what you wish, practice and proselytize those beliefs unmolested, providing that exercising these freedoms does not interfere with the rights of others.What you do not have is the right to demand that those beliefs themselves be respected.

 You go on to argue that ‘all major world religions are deserving of a right to some protection over their most sacred figures.’ In short you want to further curb free speech by introducing a blasphemy law.

Before I take issue with this, an extraordinarily bad idea, I am curious to know why you think only ‘major world religions,’ should enjoy such protection. I am afraid numbers are no help here. You describe Mohamed as a ‘sacred figure whom over a billion people love and revere,’ this may be true, however, I can point to the figures of Mao and Stalin, murderous tyrants, whom millions, indeed in China Billions, also revered and held dear.  You perhaps find the analogy offensive, well that is the price of free speech and open discourse. 

No, I am more concerned with the protection of minorities than the major faiths. For is it not extremely discriminatory and indeed insulting to other faiths, to afford protection only to the great monotheisms? I can assure you that Yazidis, Zoroastrians, Mormons and the Baha’is all hold their beliefs just as dearly as I presume you hold yours. What then about Scientologists or pagans, would you deny them any such protection on the grounds that their beliefs are ‘not valid?’ They would reply that in their eyes neither are yours. Finally what about agnostics and unbelievers like myself, are we to receive no protection from those who seek to abuse, denigrate and defame us? 

I think you can see where I am going with this, once you start to protect one set of ‘most sacred figures,’ you must in justice extend that protection to others. Soon you reach the absurdity of a state of affairs where no one feels able to comment on any one else’s ‘dearly held’ beliefs.  Blasphemy laws are to free speech what weed killer is to dandelions and crabgrass.  

But even if we go down the road you suggested what will you say when a Muslim or Jew is accused of blasphemy for denying the divinity of Christ, - a belief not only dear but central to the Christian faith? One man’s blasphemy is another man’s profound truth.

Islam has lasted a long time, indeed has prospered. I think it ought to be able to withstand the occasional satirical cartoon. If it should crumble in the face of ridicule would it really be the faith of which its adherents make such extraordinary claims?

I believe that all ideas, including religious ones, prosper, or indeed in some cases, perish, in sunlight, that is in the open discourse of a free society. This, along with the reasons outlined above, is why I oppose a blasphemy law.

In some countries, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to name but two, I would receive the death penalty for expressing such views, is this really the model you wish to emulate?

Yours sincerely

Alex Talbot