If I were Salman Rushdie, I would still be very scarred. It seems that insults against Islam remain a tiny bit off limits when it comes to public rhetoric. The episodes of civil unrest after the re-publication of the Danish cartoons show that much needs to be done to encourage further debate and discussion. Indeed, what the Danish cartoons did was further alienate decent recourse, which otherwise may have helped mutual understanding.
Hold on - I hear you say - it was the cartoonist exercising their freedom of speech that curbed decent recourse? Indeed it was. Far from taking a scholarly attempt at trying to understand Islam and then come back with criticisms or misunderstandings, the artists were simply having some fun at poking at one of the most revered figures in history, further engraving into society that belligerent and ignorant attitude that Islam is nothing but a backward, oppressive, barbaric and ultimately insane religion.
Is this all that supposed free speech has come too? Not surprising either! After all, there are so many subject that are off limits to free speech, perhaps there are few things left to talk about, leaving only minor insults to those that don't have the drive to exercise any freedom of thought. From incitement to racial hatred to libel laws, from the Official Secrets Act to incitement to violence, from banning images of child abuse to the proposed glorification of terrorism, British society has no shortage of laws that censor speech.
Further, there was little outcry from advocates of free speech when the British government took out an unprecedented injunction stopping publication of the infamous Al-Jazeera memo. Under Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, it was deemed against the public good for us to openly know that President Bush wanted to bomb the Al-Jazeera headquarters in Qatar. [Insert Bush and Blair rant here] Similarly, when the Austrian chancellor condemned the publication of sexually-graphic images of the Britain's Queen Elizabeth II, George W Bush and Jacques Chirac in January 2006 there was no libertarian outcry. Die Welt, the German newspaper that on free-speech grounds took a "principled stand" to publish the controversial cartoons, would never be permitted by law or social pressures to publish anti-semitic cartoons or question holocaust statistics, and neither would it be seen as culturally appropriate. The historian David Irving is imprisoned for raising the issue of holocaust denial. Not that I agree with him, but it serves as an example that he exercised the wrong free speech. France claims to be a protector of freedom while simultaneously denying Muslim women the right to wear the headscarf in schools, their religious obligation. It seems that there are man made limits to the spoken word.
What this shows is that every society weighs the right of speech against other important values such as justice, security, dignity, or building community cohesion. Similarly, if freedom triumphed over every other value, no one would be forced to pay tuition fees, taxes, bills or do anything for that matter. The media would not censor pictures of dead soldiers out of concern for their families. Failing to place a principled limit on freedom would lead to a free-for-all. Civilisation would fall, lies, deceit, moral vice and uncertainty would rein. Total freedom would not even recognise the right to life of members of society, if I wanted to kill/hit/insult you, then why not? I am free. Every society has its important symbols of reverence. For Muslims it is Mohammed (pbuh) and the Qur'an. For Americans it could be the constitution and the Flag. For the British it could be the flag or the Royal family. Needless to say, I would not think it appropriate by any standard to insult the Queen in the name of free speech or legitimate discourse, or her mum. But there is political motivation behind these cartoons. Any government can censor its media if the cause is great enough. So why was there an attack? With the backdrop of invasion, occupation, desecration of holy books and the humiliation in Abu Ghraib and Guantànamo Bay, it seems like another proverbial kick in the balls. It is as if the abuse meted out by gratuitously republishing the images across Europe was done in the expectation that they would cause a little more damage in the broken pride of a beaten people. In real life you can't abuse Islam and expect Muslims to just get up again and walk away. The subsequent violence was wrong and not mandated by Islam, but perhaps the next demonstrations will have more of a direction against the corrupt governments continually hurting their people, much more than the cartoons could ever hurt the pride of Islam. If the pro-Hammas reaction is any yard-stick, it seems that the Middle East is turning away from corrupt governance and towards political Islam, be it the Iraqi Islamic Democracy, Iranian Islamic Republic or even a possible Caliphate model. No matter the name, Islam is slowly becoming the sole source of legislation. The pressure will continue to rise. Let us all make sure that our heads remain securely screwed on.
