Of course, we support free speech. But ... (Muhammad cartoons

Of course, we support free speech. But ...

National Post
Mon 20 Feb 2006
Page: A12
Section: Editorials
Byline: Lorne Gunter

On Saturday, Bob Fulford reminded readers of George Bernard Shaw's claim that all great truths begin life as blasphemies. Free speech, therefore, cannot be curtailed in the name of religious dogmas. Otherwise tomorrow's truths may be crushed as today's sacrileges. As an argument for why we must defend the right of newspapers and magazines to publish the Danish cartoons that allegedly defame the Muslim prophet Muhammad, Bob's column is as good as any I've read. If you didn't read it, dig Saturday's Post out of the blue box and give it a look.

Shaw and Fulford get it: Without the right to challenge authority, to voice heresies, to enflame, rile and outrage, free speech is a hollow promise.

Unfortunately, the feckless response of far too many in our political and cultural establishments shows they have a poor grasp of freedom of expression, and even less understanding of what is at stake over the Muhammad caricatures.

When confronted with questions about the drawings and whether or not Canadian publications should reprint them, the standard response of far too many of Canada's political and cultural leaders has been, "Of course, we are in favour of free speech. But ..."

The "but" is usually followed by some admonition that free speech must be practised "responsibly" or in the service of the greater public good.

Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister, proclaimed free speech "a right that all Canadians enjoy," but regretted "the publication of this material in several media outlets," because "this issue is divisive."

Ah, yes, let's have free speech only over those non-divisive issues on which we all agree (and about which, therefore, we would not need to speak freely).

Peter MacKay, the foreign minister, went further. "Freedom of expression is a legally enshrined principle in Canada," he said. "But it must be exercised responsibly," and with "respect for cultural diversity."

Nice words. The Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations even praised MacKay for striking "the right note between freedom of speech and responsible freedom of speech."

It's his "but" that's the key, though. Anyone who claims to be in favour of free speech "but," isn't truly in favour of free speech. Typically, he means he is only in favour of speech he agrees with; or speech that falls within parameters he finds acceptable; or speech that doesn't disturb the calm, challenge too many assumptions or anger those who will riot, burn down embassies and fly jetliners into buildings.

Mohamed Elmasry, national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC), said about the Western Standard magazine's decision to reproduce eight of the 12 Danish cartoons in its current issue, that the magazine and its defenders were wrong to insist "freedom of speech trumps political correctness."

But since politically correct speech is speech that has been deemed acceptable by the political class, then permitting political correctness to trump free speech means authorizing the political establishment to determine what speech is and isn't fit for public utterance. Pretty soon, the only speech that will be allowed is that which doesn't threaten their hold on power.

The primacy of political correctness might make the CIC happy now: The underdog cause of Canadian Muslims is in favour with the political classes at the moment. But what happens if Muslims' plight falls out of favour? How would Dr. Elmasry feel about the superiority of political correctness if he and his organization suddenly found themselves on the outs with the arbiters of intellectual fashion?

Free speech is not just the right to say "Good morning!," it is also the right to say "Sod off!" Or "Your god is nuts." We are in danger of losing it if we permit it to be limited by what others find either worthy or inoffensive.

Passing judgment on the Western Standard's decision, one letter writer to the Vancouver Province insisted "I agree with freedom of the press, but this publisher is not demonstrating that principle," because the cartoons have "absolutely no press value." Instead, the magazine should "publish something that has some literary value."

But where is the philosopher king who can say with certainty what has "press value" and "literary value?"

I for one will not compromise my freedom to the mobs in the Muslim world, nor the Western world's purveyors of PC.

Here's the Robert Fulford piece referred to by Lorne Gunter above for those without access to the National Post's pay-to-view website content:

Blasphemy has set us free

Robert Fulford
National Post
Saturday, February 18, 2006

We may not be able to prove George Bernard Shaw's claim that all great truths begin as blasphemies. Still, it's closer to accuracy than the opposite, which would be something like: When in doubt, consult the authorities. As we know too well, the authorities often get it wrong. History demonstrates the priceless value of blasphemy. That's one reason why anyone now trying to revive anti-blasphemy laws should be seen as an enemy of progress as well as an enemy of freedom.

In 1633 Galileo was tried for heresy by the Roman Catholic Church and forced to repudiate his claim that the Earth moves around the Sun; 359 years later, in 1992, a Vatican commission decided that, on second thought, Galileo had it right. Everyone agreed that was very nice of the Vatican, admitting they were wrong and all. In the middle of the 19th century Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection looked clearly blasphemous to many Christians; it still does, to some.

But then, Christianity began as blasphemy. In the Gospel (Mark, 14:61) the high priest asks Jesus, "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" and Jesus answers Yes. The high priest claims that's proof enough -- "Ye have heard his blasphemy"; crucifixion follows.

Blasphemy, or something like it, stands near the centre of modern culture. The first page of Joyce's Ulysses, the greatest 20th-century novel, plunges us into what any Catholic will recognize as a parody of the Eucharist, with an appropriate Latin quote to underline the point. Denunciations of religious practice in Strindberg's early stories drew a costly, complicated but finally unsuccessful suit for blasphemy. (Strindberg was often said to have a persecution complex, but he was, after all, persecuted.)

The major figures in modern cinema, from Luis Bunuel to Martin Scorsese, assume that religion can be treated with the same abrasive imagination they bring to other subjects. In Viridiana, the film that created Bunuel's mature reputation 45 years ago, a gang of drunken, slobbering beggars play a record of Handel's Messiah in a rich man's house while they enact their own Last Supper, following Leonardo's seating plan. Scorsese (a Roman Catholic by heritage, like Joyce and Bunuel), moved deep into blasphemy with The Last Temptation of Christ, which he made 18 years ago from the famous/notorious Nikos Kazantzakis novel. People like the Monty Python gang in England correctly consider it their right to parody religious belief, as in their Life of Brian.

Many countries have anti-blasphemy laws, which long ago fell into disuse. Today many Muslims, and some non-Muslims, want to make it a crime, once more, to deny the existence of God, scoff at scripture or otherwise offend the faithful, any faithful. A Muslim lawyer in Norway said the other day that his adopted country needs anti-blasphemy regulations to protect minorities against derisive and hateful expression. "The point," he said, "is not to restrict freedom of speech." (A good rule: anyone who says that is in the process of doing just that.) We are heading toward the creation of a new human right, the right not to be offended. But surely we all know that to live is to be offended. As a humanist I'm offended by a rule forcing women to cover their faces.

The proposal to punish blasphemy implies that we should avoid showing disrespect for any religion. But what (to put the question in a way that many Muslims will instantly understand) if a religion doesn't deserve respect? What if it deserves to be treated as, for example, Christianity is treated in Pakistan? That's one place that won't need any new rules in this field, Pakistani law being already more than adequate.

In 2003 a court in the Punjab city of Faisalabad sentenced Ranjha Masih, an illiterate 52-year-old Roman Catholic floor-sweeper, to life in prison because he may have thrown stones at a wall on which were written Koranic verses mentioning Mohammed -- and, just to prove they were serious, the police tore down his house as well, leaving his wife and five children homeless. He had been arrested five years earlier, during a memorial procession honouring Bishop John Joseph, who committed suicide to protest Pakistan's treatment of Christians.

This should make Muslim propagandists hesitate to seek legal remedies: The more we discuss the subject, the more we will learn about religious laws in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other centres of bigotry. As for the West, it can maintain its integrity only if it insists that freedom of religion includes the freedom to blaspheme.

the high priest asks Jesus, "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" and Jesus answers Yes. The high priest claims that's proof enough -- "Ye have heard his blasphemy"; crucifixion follows

I'll go him one better. Jesus didn't just answer "yes"; He answered "I AM" -- and it was at least the second time He had answered that way. Prior, he had responded to the bigshots who said: "You are not yet 50 years old and you claim to know Abraham?" That's when He said, ungrammatically, but most cosmically correctly: "Before Abraham was, I AM".
Now, to some, that may seem no great shakes; but to those bigshots, He was claiming to be One and the Same with that Voice from the burning bush Which proclaimed, "I AM THAT I AM". Which made it either blasphemy, or true. I hold it to be the ultimate Truth of the universe. But, I understand that there are still billions who reject it. I wish that were not so, but I'm OK with it. I just resolve to be more persuasive -- more by actions than by words, but words (and movies and books and articles and blog posts and cartoons, they're OK, too, if true)...

I can't remember who it was that came up with this idea, but I thought I'd throw it out to y'all anyway.

In a nutshell, the word "but" is actually not a conjunction, as you were told during saturday morning cartoons, (Conjunction Junction, what's your function?) Rather, it is actually an acronym for the phrase "Behold the Ultimate Truth". You see, any time you see a sentance like several of those used in the article above, if you substitute "behold the ultimate truth" in blace of the "but", you have a pretty a pretty good idea that the second half of the sentance is what the writer or speaker really believes. Try it out! You'll find things ever so much more understandable!

My apologies who those of you who now have the conjunction song running through your head.

I have more problems with Fulford's expressed position than with Gunter's.
The former is a long-time secular humanist who - for all his convenient crocodile tears about anti-Christian persecution in this particular article - can quite happily and just as easily rationalize virtually any outrage committed against Christianity as "art" and/or "free speech".
IMHO, neither of them has an especially strong grasp on the concept of liberty versus license either.

I'm uncertain as to where I heard it, but the sentiment:

"The most important speech to protect is that with which you DISAGREE!"

is where I stand on this issue.

When something offends me, I avoid it. I don't run raging through the streets screaming "kill the apostate", I deny them the attention they crave, and spend my time and money doing things that I DON'T find offensive. If asked, I'll give my opinion, but otherwise I walk away, never to grace (or darken LOL) that establishment again.

Everything I have found about The War of the Twelve 'Toons ( links, blogs, quips, quotes, aggravating pictures ) is located here- click the Pic, and scroll backwards:

Be sure to read the "fan" mail LGF operative "zombie" has gotten from The Alleged Religion of Peace about his picture archive:

ZOMBIETIME.com: "MOHAMMED IMAGE ARCHIVE Reader Email Responses"

"www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/"

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

I’m reposting our link to an LGF slideshow of The Dreaded Cartoons of Blasphemy. link: 383 comments

"But is an eraser. It erases the statement preceding it."

This would often be correct "however" (a leading "but" substitute?) it can also be used as a qualifier which separates liberty from license in cases of alleged "free speech" .

No action is, by definition, "free".
In physics actions generate reactions & in life they cause - sometimes negative - consequences.

Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is a classic example:
You're "free" to exercise the liberty of doing so "but" be prepared for the consequences of taking license with the freedoms (& personal safety) of others.

As I'd prefer not to suffer public affronts to my Catholic Faith, I think long & hard before offering same against others' Beliefs.

"However", the application of "the Golden Rule" in one's life should rightly be a matter of personal conviction and not something governments attempt to mandate.

So-called "hate crimes" laws are wrong & ill-conceived on two counts - aside from amounting to double jeopardy - in their attempts to impose public morality as well as in undermining the democratic ideal through their creation of assorted "politically correct" classes of "victims".

"As I'd prefer not to suffer public affronts to my Catholic Faith, I think long & hard before offering same against others' Beliefs."

Fully agree and thank you. I too would rather be respected than that all too Canadian word "tolerated".

Small l Liberals don't believe in and never have believed in real free speech. They want the freedom to use God's name in vane, show pornographic material, or to libel Christians and conservatives. But when it comes to Global Warming, talking about poverty, talking the real truth about tobacco, they will be the first to curtail free speech. The Ayn Rand Institute pamphlet defending Israel's right to exist was halted at the Canadian border because they suspected it as "hate" literature.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.