Online Opinion

[Previous entry: "Isn't It Terrible?"] [Next entry: "Freedom is a two-way street"]

Freedom to Offend

This last week we've been gifted a little glimpse of the future. Our government wishes us to live in a world where offending religious sensibilities is a criminal offence. Okay, the offence needs to be shown to display or cause hatred. That seems to be little deterrent to the religious zealot.

The now-infamous Danish Mohammed cartoons have caused world-wide protest, death threats, censorship, and at least one death. The claims against them appear to be that (a) portraying the prophet is offensive, and (b) that portraying the prophet as a man of violence is offensive.

Lets look at those charges separately, starting with the latter. Violence has frequently been performed in Mohammed's name. From Saladin to bin Laden many have justified violence against the infidel, especially to cleanse their holy land. Not to mention the violence regularly carried out against the lewd, adulterous, homosexual, or drunk. Mohammed's teachings have been used to justify many offensive acts. Let Islam address its own attachment of violence to the prophet before it complains of others pointing out the link.

As for the former, Muslim social mores cannot be a basis for free speech. Islamic thought has found everything from women's hair to homosexuality offensive. The remainder of the world cannot take this into account. Our freedom to dress, speak, and love as we will demands that those of strong religious conviction confine their morals to themselves.

None of this is specific to Islam, of course. Christian extremists are just as keen to enforce their morality on the rest of us. Normally, such zealots invoke mirth from us. Surely we should treat Muslims exactly the same?

As for the cartoons themselves, I have no idea if they are offensive, or whether they were published deliberately to offend. I haven't seen them. I'm not allowed to. That's the major objection. Thoughts and ideas can be offensive, and need to be combated. If we are denied access to those ideas in the first place, we cannot decide for ourselves.

Personally I find many religious convictions to be deeply offensive. To a lesser extent, much of the content of certain UK newspapers is equally offensive. Should I have the right to suppress the publication of such material? Of course not. Instead I should (and do) confine my response to the arena of debate. Censorship serves no one.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.