|
The principals of free speech and freedom of expression are
often proudly touted by Western countries as being fundamentals
of their democracies. At the same time most citizens of those
democracies truly believe they enjoy those rights. In reality,
nothing could be further from the truth. Almost all Western
nations have put restrictions on free speech if it is used to
incite others to commit illegal acts or is deeply offensive to
some sectors of society.
In the US, Americans’ constitutional right to free speech can be
suspended if deemed likely to incite imminent lawless action. In
Britain the glorification of terrorism is a crime. In Germany,
Austria and France Holocaust denial is a serious offence that
can land the perpetrator in jail.
Austria, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland,
Italy, Spain, Switzerland, the Netherlands and some US states
all have laws against blasphemy. And most countries have ways of
silencing their own media when governments fear embarrassing
revelations or leaks affecting national security issues.
Absolute freedom of expression is just an illusion. Most of us
enjoy degrees of it but unless one is reclusive enough to
retreat to a lonely mountain peak or wealthy enough to buy an
island and live on it, such freedom is simply a non-existent
ideal. Those of us who have to live within complex societies
understand that one man’s freedom of expression can often be
hurtful to someone else or may adversely impact other people.
If you don’t believe me try shouting “fire!” in a crowded cinema
or theatre in the US and see what happens. First, though, I
would suggest you ensure you have enough money with you to pay
your bail bond. Indeed, there, someone was imprisoned for
cracking a sick joke featuring the President while individuals
have been barred from airplanes and malls simply for wearing
anti-war T-shirts.
Yet, for some unfathomable reason, both Denmark and the
Netherlands give carte blanche to bigoted Islamophobic
individuals to malign Islam and its Prophet (PHUH) in newspapers
and films in the name of free speech.
Prior to the Internet release of an anti-Islamic film produced
by Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders the government of the
Netherlands raised its country’s terrorism threat level,
expressed concerns for its troops serving in Afghanistan and
beefed up security for Wilders and cabinet members.
The Dutch Foreign Minister was so concerned about political and
economic repercussions that he went out of his way to meet with
ambassadors from 30 Muslim nations so as to explain the
Netherlands’ position: rejection of the film’s message while
supporting Mr. Wilders’ right to free speech.
The Minister also told them that even if the Netherlands wanted
to ban the film’s airing, it could not do so under laws
currently on the statute books. This, however, is open to
argument since the country does have a law against blasphemy,
which, by the way, the cabinet is trying to quash rather than
revive.
Moreover, Article 137 of the Netherlands’ penal code prohibits
discriminatory defamation, incitement to hatred and insults
expressed publicly for the purpose of discriminating on racial
and other grounds. Put simply, if its government had truly
wanted to prevent the film from seeing the light of day, it
could probably have done so via legal challenges.
For many people around the world, and Moslems in particular, it
is difficult to understand why both Denmark and the Netherlands
treat freedom of expression as being sacrosanct even if this
means the national security and economy of their respective
nations as well as their standing in the Muslim world are
imperilled.
For instance, a well-known Danish outlet in Cairo has had to
drop the word “Danish” from its logo while its Danish manageress
now refers to herself as Swedish when asked her nationality.
Danish butter and cheese have also become scarce commodities on
the shelves of Egyptian supermarkets. I would suspect this trend
is repeated to various degrees throughout the Arab world.
It’s not that I don’t understand and even sympathize with those
who defend free speech in open democratic societies it is just
that if this is, indeed, the standard, it should be applied to
anything and everything without barriers or conditions.
Unfortunately, this principle is, instead, being used
selectively and it’s little wonder Muslims believe they are
being singled out and targeted.
It appears that in certain liberal Western nations, petty
racists and bigots and hiding behind free speech/freedom of
expression even as they deliberately go out of their way to
viciously cut into people’s sensibilities or trigger
inter-religious/inter-racial hatreds.
And even worse, governments are giving their full protection to
such hate figures even though their ‘works’ are triggering
international backlashes detrimental to their fellow citizens
and often serve as recruiting tools for extremist groups bent on
revenge.
In the interests of objectivity I forced myself to watch Mr.
Wilders’ film “Fitna” on the Internet. As anticipated, it turned
out to be pure hate-filled drivel designed to widen the existing
rift between Muslims and non-Muslims in the Netherlands.
Thankfully, it premiered to a limited audience since Dutch
networks and cinemas refused to air it and turned out to be a
damp squib as far as reaction went.
Mr. Wilders’ motives in pouring such anti-Islamic venom into 15
minutes are still not clear but usually bigots behave in a
certain way because they can.
Take the Syrian-born American psychiatrist Wafa Sultan, for
instance, who was included in Time Magazine’s list of the 100
most influential people ‘whose power, talent or moral example is
transforming the world’. Ms. Sultan was named due to “her
willingness to express openly critical views on Islamic
extremism that are widely shared but rarely aired by other
Muslims” stated Time.
In fact, Ms. Sultan isn’t just a critic of Islam she told the
right-wing writer David Horowitz that she has decided to “fight
Islam, not the political Islam, not the militant Islam, not the
radical Islam, not the Wahhabi Islam, but Islam itself”.
Recently, she used an invitation to appear on Al Jazeera’s
discussion program “The Opposite Direction” – hosted by Faisal
Al Qassem - as a platform to spout her anti-Islamic propaganda
and insult Muslims, although prior to 1979 when her professor
was killed by extremists she adhered to the teachings of Sunni
Islam.
Wafa Sultan is now a poster child for Islam haters and has even
been invited to Jerusalem by the American Jewish Congress. Her
appearance on the show elicited thousands of emails from
outraged Muslims shocked at her attacks on their religion and
history. Many viewers thought she should have been cut-off in
mid-sentence. Once again, I watched the show and felt nothing
but pity for a woman so obviously consumed by self hate and her
own sense of inferiority.
There will be those who will say Faisal Al Qassem was right to
let her have her say no matter how hurtful to his other guest
Ibrahim Al-Khouli and to viewers. It’s worth noting that when
Islam is attacked, Muslims are unable to respond in kind because
Islam respects all religions and beliefs.
No Muslim would even dream of insulting other religions’
prophets and messengers. No Muslim would make a film that
negatively characterised Christianity or Judaism and no Muslim
would create cartoon depictions of Biblical figures revered by
Christians or Jews, fellow Peoples of the Book.
Free speech should never be construed as a licence to hurt or
insult others who are often wounded to the core when their
beliefs are ridiculed or their prophets defamed. Muslims are not
out to limit free expression elsewhere.
They are merely asking for a little courtesy and respect for
their religion and for themselves. Even in the most democratic
of democracies that shouldn’t be too much to ask.
|
