The Belief in Free Speech

This post is half in response to Russ MacDonald’s post “That’s Blasphemy” and half in response to the appalling terrorist attacks this week in Mumbai.

While reading MacDonald’s article and then shortly thereafter seeing reports of the bloodshed in India I began thinking about the very thin line that exists between discourse and action as well as how this is related to the boundary between belief and conflict.

MacDonald characterizes free speech as “sacred” and insists on the necessity of its preservation. The connection is also made by MacDonald between speech and belief and the inherent danger implied by their restriction i.e. thought control, persecution one’s convictions.

These dangers, as evidenced by the UN’s recent “blasphemy”, are not restricted to fiction (1984 comes quickly to mind), but are clearly a reality. I understand everyone’s concern about the control of what we say or believe but on the other hand, as I have already mentioned, the boundary between talking and doing is often exceedingly thin.

The question raised by MacDonald’s blog is: Is free speech a unanimous, unbounded right or are there instances where free speech can, and should be limited?

Personally, I believe in the power of the word. I believe that words are indescribably (pardon the irony) more powerful than any weapon and, contrary to cliché-correctness, have the potential to speak louder than actions. Words can be used to convince, control, or even break a person down. In this context I also believe in, despite the power of words, the liberty to express oneself freely. At the same time however, due to the power and meaningfulness of words, I also believe there are times where people would be better off if they kept they’re mouth shut.

The recent news out of Mumbai is that the well-organized attacks were carried out by a group of terrorists that call themselves “Deccan Mujahedeen” which in English translates roughly to “strugglers from Deccan” which is a plateau in Southern India. As with any terrorist attack this one defies all logic despite appearing to be rooted in religious differences. The group of Deccan Mujahedeen, who many are speculating might be fronting for another, larger terrorist group, are a group of essentially unknown Muslim men (although boys might be a more appropriate term as many have described them as being very young) that are, to this point, only known by their name and their belief.

It seems that even in these most random, irrational acts of violence, that there is a belief to be fought for and a name to hide behind. When terrorism strikes through acts of violence these are the first things people want to know. A name and a belief. Who and why?

What does this mean for free speech then? Even deeper, what does this mean for our right to believe and think? It seems logical that perhaps certain dangerous or seditious beliefs should be restricted in some way. (I am not in any way suggesting this be done)Yet this raises another question of what is worse, the potential violence incurred by these beliefs or the restriction upon our freedom?

When there is a terrorist attack it is usually the not the terrorist act but the backlash that is most destructive. In the terrible attacks in America on September 11th, 2001 almost 3000 people lost their lives. However in the even more terrible wars in Afghanistan and Iraq well over one million people have been killed to this point.

Over the past seven years there have been different names in front of different beliefs and through all this killing and devastation it seems that words begin to lose their power. Even the beliefs which are being fought for become forgotten amongst the loss and grief of those affected by the war. Yet in the end it will only be words that solve the conflict. Peace will not come from the silence left by exploding bombs. Only with the proclamation of the belief in peace, can peace actually be brought about.
Although terrorists such as the ones in Mumbai will try and reinforce their beliefs with violence they will not succeed for a belief is nothing without words and it is in this sense that MacDonald is completely right when he discusses the sacredness of free speech and the absurdity of impinging on it to protect a belief.

That's Blasphemy

The United Nations has recently comitted blasphemy, by ruling against sacred Free Speech. They recently backed an anti-blasphemy measure that was being pushed forward by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Combating Defamation of Religions was passed 85-50 in a key UN committee. While their decision is non-binding, it clears the way for Islamic and other nations to move forward on the issue. Pakistani Ambassador Masood Kham has stated that the OIC is looking to implement a 'new instrument or convention' on member states, which would be a binding resolution.

The OIC laments that Islam is often wrongly associated, particularly in the West, with human rights violations and terrorism, and this measure "underscores the need to combat defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional, and international levels (Ottawa Citizen, Nov 25, A1)." However passing laws that restrict freedom of speech is no way to change people's views on your human rights violations.

What this law does is shift the focus of protecting the rights of the individual to protecting the idea that is religion itself. People should be free to practice whichever religion they choose and say and think what they choose, and this is now at stake. Of particular concern is the inclusion of the term 'defamation,' which carries legal significance. In order for defamation to occur, the statement must not just be offensive, but also be false. That requires a value judgement of religious principles, and deciding that they are 'truth.'

At the heart of the issue is still the idea that a state can control the thoughts and will of the people, and this resolution (with UN backing!) sets that ideal back. Iran has even stated they are considering a draft amendment that would impose capital punishment for apostasy (renunciation of one's beliefs or principles). No state should have any business in who is thinking or believing what. Only when those beliefs descend to the level of inciting violence should the state have any reason to intervene. This resolution brings to mind the various European laws against Holocaust Denial. They have effectively made it illegal to believe something, which in itself is more terrifying than Holocaust Denial itself. It is also, theoretically, a law which you may not be able to avoid breaking.

I am not in favour of denying or diminishing the atrocities of the Holocaust. I do believe, however, that every person should have every right to hold such beliefs, and even share them with other people. I believe that every person should have the unalienable right to blaspheme if they so choose, and even flat out renounce their beliefs, without the fear of execution. These should be universal goals of human rights, and the United Nations should in no way condone measures that restrict these rights in any way. And for that, they have commited blasphemy, against the sanctity of Human Rights.

RM