I recall as a young child being told by my father that I lived in a land where free speech was not only allowed, but revered. We could say anything we liked – so long as it was true or fair comment. We could say anything we liked even if it offended people, because, freedom of speech means that offensive views can be seen clearly for what they are. That is why we tolerate people preaching extreme views such as fascism and communism. See it for what it is and the reasonable majority will condemn it. Prevent free speech and it hides in the shadows; elusive, whispered, alluring to the uninitiated and weak of mind who see it as somehow exciting and, because it it forbidden, there must be something in it.
It strikes me that forty years ago, we knew something that has become lost in recent years. So neutered have we become by political correctness, Newspeak and identity politics that speaking our mind has become a homicide victim. I have deplored on this platform before the Religious hatred bill – because it will stifle free speech for all the reasons just stated. One of the supporters of this noxious bill is Sir Iqbal Sacranie. It is deeply unfortunate that he feels we should be stifled in our criticism of his religion – or, to put it another way; why does he feel that his religious beliefs need to be protected from criticism by weight of law? Not because they are misogynistic, medieval and repressive, surely? At that time, Sacranie had this to say about the matter of free speech that he found objectionable:
‘There is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist. This is deeply offensive. Saying Muslims are terrorists would be covered by this provision’.
Of course, while the nutjobs such as Abu Hamza manage to vilify Islam without any help from us, Sir Iqbal comes across as the epitome of reason. Until, that is, the buttons are pressed…
Recently when appearing on Radio 4 he dared to speak his mind on the matter of homosexuality:
“If you look into the scientific evidence that has been available in terms of the various forms of other illnesses and diseases that are there, surely it points out that, where homosexuality is practised, there is a greater concern in that area.”
Asked if homosexuality was harmful to society, he said: “Certainly it is a practice that doesn’t, in terms of health, in terms of the moral issues that comes along in a society – it is. It is not acceptable.”
Of course, you may find his views on the matter objectionable. I do. You may even expect a leading Muslim to hold such views; I did. However, I believe he has the right to hold those views and, if asked, to express them with impunity. Unfortunately for him, as with Lynette Burrows speaking on the same issue – with similar views:
During the programme, she said she did not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. She added that placing boys with two homosexuals for adoption was as obvious a risk as placing a girl with two heterosexual men who offered themselves as parents. “It is a risk,” she said. “You would not give a small girl to two men.”
the thought police have been called in by complainants to investigate outrageous views that have dared to speak their name…
Ah, now is the biter bit. Sir Iqbal Sacranie would like us to be condemned for speaking our minds about his religion, but the very tool he would use, the sanction of the state to stifle free speech, is being used against his homophobia. What Sir Iqbal has learned is that no one should have the right not to be offended. Don’t like what I say? Move on, don’t listen or, if you wish, challenge. That’s how free speech works. Yet there are those who will phone into the radio or television station or the police because they have been offended by something someone has said. Of course, in this instance, it is probable that someone is making a point – and a good one it is, indeed.
I don’t know whether I should be mourning the loss of free speech or rolling around on the floor at the object lesson Sir Iqbal has been forced to learn…
The scariest thing of all is that there are so many people who either don’t know or don’t care about our disappearing freedoms.
I think I’ve seen this argument before. We don’t seem to have understood the difference between insulting and criticising. Whilst the latter should be perfectly acceptable in a western democracy, the former is bound to lead to aggro, especially in a modern ‘multi-cultural’ society, where large minorities of people have been brought up in a more conservative family environment.
Take the case of the murdered film-maker in Holland. The self-styled ‘radical libertarian’ didn’t even have the sense to see that his depiction of verses from the Qoran on a woman’s naked body would outrage many muslims – and rightly so, too, in my opinion. Equally, his assassin hadn’t grasped the fundamental concept of a western society – the right to free speech – too well, either. So it was all rather sadly inevitable, really.
The result? We’re seeing it now – clamping down on all expressions that might cause offence. The PC brigade are moving in fast, in many different guises (anti-terrorist, anti-anti-gay). Soon it’ll be like the former Yugoslavia, where only a totalitarian system and a firm dictator could hold all the disparate elements together.
Well, if you wanted a ‘multi-cultural’ society, you’re gonna get it – in a desperate shade of grey!
”’Longrider replies: Oh, I understand the difference well enough. However, free speech must include the right to be insulting and ridiculing, otherwise there is no freedom. Free speech means that people will say things we don’t like; find deeply offensive or abhorrent. We have the freedom to rebut accordingly. Any attempt to clamp down on that freedom leads to ever more repression as someone, somewhere will decide that it is insulting to their beliefs – and it probably is.”’
”’The film maker in question should be allowed to make his film and indeed allowed to offend Muslims – or any other religious group. The idea that religious belief should be sacrosanct and immune from criticism, insult and ridicule is itself an offence against free expression. If a belief system cannot rise above such statements without recourse to the thought police, it isn’t much cop.”’
So, Longrider, if I stand outside your house and call you a wanker, if I shout that your partner has slept with the Devil, and your Mother fucked pigs, would that be OK? Do I have the right to insult you and your family like that?
I guess you would say No – so where do we draw the line about insulting and offending people (two concepts which are not necessarily the same)? Insulting a moslem’s religion is tantamount to insulting their family, especially in some parts of the world. They are brought up in an all-engulfing environment of Allah, who is responsible for everything, and has to be defended.
I mean, do you think you have the ‘right’ to stand outside a synagogue, or attend a moslem wedding, bearing a pig’s head on a stick?
”’Longrider replies: Actually, yes, you do have the right; providing what you say is either factually true or fair comment. If it is defamatory, I have legal redress.”’
”’Just as the odious Fred Phelps has the right to protest his views at gay weddings and funerals. Bad taste, yes, but they are tolerated for the reasons I have stated. But obnoxious though his views are I stand absolutely by his right to voice them. And if you felt that you wanted to stand outside a Muslim wedding bearing a pig’s head, I would regard you as crass, but within your rights to express yourself. Providing you are on public property and not causing a breach of the peace, that right must remain sacrosanct in a free society. Peoples’ religious views and beliefs are not above freedom of speech. If Muslims are offended because I or anyone else criticises their religion, that’s just too bad.”’
Ah, Longrider – I guess that’s the difference between us. You prefer to live in a fairy-tale world where abstract notions such as free speech are held to be higher than the basic premise of ‘law and order’ and ‘civilisation’. I prefer to strive for a sensible world where I can bring up my kids safely.
”’Longrider replies: There is nothing even remotely ””fairy tale”” or ”abstract” about the principle of free speech. Your vision owes more to Orwellian thought crime than law and order. The day people can be arrested and prosecuted for thought crime is a poor one for civilisation indeed. How do you fancy Stalin’s USSR or Hitler’s Nazi Germany? They didn’t tolerate free speech either. Still, I guess the PC brigade will do the dirty deed sooner later. Good luck to you in your utopia – I’ll be gone to somewhere more civilised where people can speak their minds and not be bullied by religious groups that don’t tolerate dissent.”’
I think we’ll have to agree to differ on this one, LR, but I would just like to restate my point that in a multicultural society we are going to have to rethink some of our core values and be more tolerant to those who hold very different opinions and lifestyles to our own. If this mean biting our lip now and again, so be it – it will avoid tension and dispell potential voilence.
As I write, I’m reminded of a scene I saw in Malaga, Spain, some 25 years ago. A street-side kiosk was displaying a copy of a satirical Spanish magazine, which featured a pregnant Prince Charles, and Princess Diana in a rather unflattering pose. Two English skinheads had spotted it, and were arguing that the kiosk owner should not be selling that sort of ‘unpatriotic’ stuff.
Unfortunately, the skinheads didn’t speak any Spanish, and the poor magazine seller had no English. It was very comical to see them remonstrating with each other, though, and I think that sort of satire, wedged between uncomprehending different cultures, should be retained.
It’s far better to use satire than insults, I reckon.
”’Longrider replies: Satire is frequently insulting – Spitting Image springs to mind. Even Bremner, Bird and Fortune cross the line to make their points. And quite right, too. If people move to another country, they should expect to adapt to the cultures and values of the host nation – not expect the host nation to bow to theirs. Our values include free speech – which some incoming cultures find offensive. So be it. They must learn to accept that we speak our minds and that they might not like it.”’
”’Which goes back to my original piece. Sir Iqbal Sacranie says things about homosexuality that some find offensive. So be it. That is his view based upon his religious belief. In this country, he is at liberty to speak his mind. Well, he should be. Certainly, I am unaware that he has broken any laws. And I will defend absolutely, his right to say what he believes – just as others must be free to criticise or even ridicule Islam”’
”’The biting of lips must be a personal matter and not one imposed by the weight of law.”’