Yesterday AmbroseBurnside had a diary called Newspaper editor jailed for "hurting Muslims' feelings".
Now the journalist who wrote the piece that "hurt muslims", Johann Hari has reacted to the riots his column has caused. His response: The answer to the problems of free speech is always more free speech
As Johann Hari lives in England he is not under imminent threat to get arrested, but he has been warned he will be so if he ever goes to India. Hari is a very talented young journalist with a strong focus on human rights who has reported from many risky areas. In 2007 Amnesty International named him Newspaper Journalist of the Year.
Rather than reading the rest of this diary you should read his excellent defense of free speech linked to above.
The reason why I am writing this diary is because I was really shocked and scared yesterday to see all the all the good kossacks who commented in AmbroseBurnsides diary - not to defend the brave human rights fighter Johann Hari and the two arrested indians, but to defend the religious fascists.
Johann Hari responds to his critics in this way:
The argument that I was "asking for it" seems a little like saying a woman wearing a short skirt is "asking" to be raped. Or, as Salman Rushdie wrote when he received far, far worse threats simply for writing a novel (and a masterpiece at that): "When Osip Mandelstam wrote his poem against Stalin, did he ‘know what he was doing' and so deserve his death? When the students filled Tiananmen Square to ask for freedom, were they not also, and knowingly, asking for the murderous repression that resulted? When Terry Waite was taken hostage, hadn't he been ‘asking for it'?" When fanatics threaten violence against people who simply use words, you should not blame the victim.
I always thought Americans very especially strong advocates of free speech. But I understand from yesterday´s reading that many obviously see free speech more of a constitutional and american right rather than a human right.
Now, I myself can be somewhat critical to the widespread idea that the "human rights" are infallable (that idea almost make "human rights" a religion in itself). And I also have some understanding for the argument that not all countries are "ready" for full democracy and implementation of all human rights.
Especially I understand the argument that we in the west should not force democracy and human rights upon other nations. The fight for human rights have to start from within. As westerns however, we should always defend and support those people who do fight for human rights within a country. When someone is put in prison for expressing their views, our sympathy should be with the arrested, not with those who put them there.
Critizing religon can also be even more important in some non-western countries than in ours because religion may be more important there and very mixed with politics.
In countries like Saudi-Arabia and Iran just to suggest that religion and politics should be separated will be seen as an attack on the official religon. It´s almost impossible to criticize the governments there without being attacked of attacking the religon the government support.
Some say India needs restrictions on free speech because it is a multireligous country and restrictions are neede to avoid conflicts and riots.
This may be right in a short run. But there is something extremely flawed with religous people who think they have the right to violently attack their critics . And in the long run only free speech and an open debate can help correct this flaws. Reasonable religious people should have no problems living together.
And violence comes in many forms. Daily surpession of women or low caste is also a kind of violence. Criticism of some ascpect of the religous tradion may be needed to stop this kind of surpression. Even denying people the right to express their true opinions of different religions can be seen as violence against the human spirit.
The same argument some use for India could also be used to restrict free speech in our very own societies.
An attack on religon in a western country can cause riots in a country far away, as seen for instance with the Mohammed caricaturs.
Government in western countries may want to restrict free expression to avoid political and economic conflicts with less tolerant nations. When the government tries to limit our freedom because of this, we should not accept it.
Nor should we accept the idea that as our western countries get more multireligious we need resrictons on free speech to avoid conflicts within our own borders.
An attempt to restrict free speech for these reasons happened in Norway where I am from. Just before christmas 2008 our left-centrist government made a very bad prepared proposal to ban "qualified attacks on religions". The MSM initially ignored this proposal , so it was bloggers (including one very right-wing and anti-islamic) who first started to protest. But when the protests first started people from all over the political spectrum joined in. Not even the Norwegian Church wanted a law against attack on religion.
So I am happy to tell we defended the right to free speech. Norway has an old law against blasphemia which is to be repealed, and the goverment has now given up to replace this with a more modern one. Attacking individuals/groups of people because of their religion however can be illegal in the same way as attacking people because of their race can be.
Conclusion:
All the world´s main religions claim to be inherently good and peaceful. We should take this claim seriously. When people use violence to "protect" their religion, they should no longer be seen as good religious people but as evil fascists who betray their religion.
Now, of course, many of the ordinary people who fights violently for their religion are often ignorant more than evil, just like many ordinary nazi members were more ignorant than evil. The ones we really should go after are the religous leaders. All religious leaders who encourage or accept violence in their religion´s name should be condemned as the fascists they truly are.