For those of us working in the field of
intercultural dialogue and understanding, it has been a frustrating few
weeks. Just as you think progress is
being made between communities, global events peg you back displaying once again
the vulnerability of human endeavours in trying to achieve peaceful coexistence
and showing the very challenges that need to be overcome in order to ensure
that the wheels are kept on the track.
For me this past two weeks has shown two
different perspectives on the issue of the Freedom of Speech and how difficult
it is to draw acceptable boundaries of such freedoms that people can readily
and wholeheartedly agree on.
The first perspective of course has been the
production of a so called film that insults the Prophet Muhammed (Peace Be Upon
Him - PBUH) which has evoked much heated debate on all sides of the spectrum. The riots across the globe aimed seemingly at
this miniscule inflammatory film, has shown an outrage over the insult of the
Prophet and a slight on the entire religion of Islam. For
those on the outside, it is not easy to understand the reverence that Muslims
have for the Prophet (PBUH) in particular. It is hard to explain in words but suffice to
say that any insult on the person or
character of the Prophet (or indeed any of the other Prophets before) goes to very heart of denigrating the very
nature and identity of Islam and Muslims. Whilst the overall response was
largely civil, groups
here and there went on rampages and caused damage to public buildings, burnt
flags and in the case of Bengazi in Libya, killed the US Ambassador and 3 other
embassy staff. As is to and should always be expected, those small groups
ultimately monopolized the media coverage, and it has been portrayed that the
entire Arab/Muslim populations went on the rampage and engaged in a violent
reaction to the film, when actually the truth was different. This has been pounced upon by apologists for
the film, who use the Freedom of Speech as an excuse, to show that Muslims are either anti Freedom of Speech, or only
supportive of such freedoms unless it affects them.
The second perspective which perhaps has been
missed globally but has certainly occupied headlines here in the UK has been
the incidents related to the production
of photos of the Duchess of Cambridge sunbathing topless. Here again there have been small incidents of
protest and in fact a quick reaction from the Royal Family who have been quick to portray this as an
invasion of privacy and brought about legal proceedings to end it.
In the wake of the current debate in the UK on privacy and the role of the media these
two seemingly different incidents throw interesting issues to discuss and
debate.
The first is the issue of the freedom of speech
which has been used in both the cases.
The argument goes is that we are free to say and do whatever (as long as
it is not incitement to hatred or violence) and this includes things that we
would find distasteful. However how true
is that statement? In the UK over the
last two weeks, there have been two
cases of things being posted on Facebook
which have been deemed offensive and insulting resulting in the questioning and
the imprisonment of those responsible.
The case with the royal family is about the right to privacy. So there emerges from this a sense of some
moral and ethical boundaries which are put in place by society and cannot be
crossed without there being some legal or judicial implications. So whilst it is deemed ‘proper’ to insult a
religion or one of its holiest people / practices in the name of free speech
regardless of whether it offends and insults the very private beliefs of its
adherents, it is not ‘acceptable’ to publish photos of a topless Duchess or
talk in a derogatory manner about the deaths of policewomen or soldiers killed
in combat.
One of the real issues for me that arises
from this whole series of sad incidents is the fact that we need to
collectively redraw the moral and ethical boundaries of free speech that takes
into account the growing role of religion in the public sphere and that society
doesn’t feel pushes them into. Where
does religious thought lie? By insulting
the very fabric of faith, do you somehow invade the privacy of people? Is that acceptable? How can we have a
conversation that can criticise without offending people? How do we address the concept of freedom of
speech, when something is done deliberately to insult and provoke? The film which was a pathetic, poorly produced,
cheap and highly insulting piece of work has been unanimously described as far
from being an extremely poor production with no relation to art, no artistic or
cultural message and has been agreed that the film aimed to insult, offend and
maybe even stir problems and bring about violence and riots in the manner that
we unfortunately saw. Whilst the
objective of inciting hatred and insulting was undeniable, can it still be
defended under the freedom of speech?
What if something that denied the Holocaust was produced in the same
lines?
The second issue is perhaps a little bit more
subtle and deserves some deeper reflection.
Whilst at
the very base level, the protests have reflected real anger at an insult to the
Prophet (PBUH) and by extension an insult to Islam, it would also be naive to
analyse what happened last week with the same lens and to not consider the
concept of context.
In
almost all the countries were the riots took place and where it became violent,
one cannot ignore the aspect of power dynamics and issues of governance. Underlying all of these protests and riots is
a deep sense of frustration and tiredness of an oppressed people who have been
subjugated to trials and tribulations where their only identity and escape has
been their faith and belief. As Myriam
Francois wrote
“Broken by poverty, threatened by
drones, caught in the war between al Qaida and the US, to many Arab Muslims,
the film represents an attack on the last shelter of dignity - sacred beliefs -
when all else has been desecrated”.
The protests
mirror similar protests
held in the early twentieth century in India against British colonial powers
when it was felt that the occupying colonial power was denigrating the beliefs
and identity of its subjects ( as situation that led to the infamous Indian
Mutiny). Hence in order to understand
the reason for the protests, one must not forget the context that has
contributed to a mass dehumanisation of a group of people who feel that an insult to their religion is just another
step in their colonial and neo colonial subjugation.
The issue thus
becomes that these debates of the freedom of speech has to be considered within
the wider and more complex and evolving social and cultural context where class,
race and faith are central. Lacking access to a public forum, often these
protestors are seeking alternative means to make their voices heard and have
their cultural and religious sensibilities recognised in the public sphere as a
means of also protesting against the very nature of their current plights.
This was originally published in State of Formation
