The following piece has been reproduced with the permission of the author. Law is Cool does not necessarily advocate or promote the views contained within.
Freedom of hate speech
by Soroush Seifi
08-Apr-2008
Hey people…you want to become famous and get attention?
Well, it seems that one of the easiest way to fame in 2008 is Islam bashing.
Recent attempts at fear mongering, hate, and uneducated characterizations of Islam include the newly released Dutch films, “Fitna the Movie: Geert Wilders‘ film about the Quran” and the cartoon, “The life of Mohammad,” by Iranian-Dutch politician Ehsan Jami. Both of these directors are public figures in the Netherlands.
It seems that anyone who once dreamed of gaining fame can simply generalize Islam as a hateful religion and make negative and offensive comments.
I have to point out that criticism of people’s ways is fair. People make mistakes and go astray. We intrude on one another’s forms of pleasures and step on one another’s rights as human beings. And pointing out the flaws of others for the sake of devaluing them is not a difficult task.
To be constructive, however, is a much more daunting but valuable endeavour, especially for artists and public figures who want to practice freedom of speech and make the world more livable for all human-kind.
I believe that it is unfortunate and shameful on the part of weak artists who strive to gain attention under the pretext of freedom of speech.
I celebrate freedom of speech, but I speak within the realm of constructive and positive feedback. I speak within the realm of love, of dialogue, of discussion.
I have met some Muslim fanatics in my time at various Mosques and religious centres. However, instead of making fun of them and offending them, I have tried to understand them and make them listen to my interpretations of the Quran.
I believe that the distinction is the difference between freedom of speech and “freedom of hate speech.”
I believe that Islam, after all, is simply a way of life. Bringing up fanatical and misguided interpretations of any way of life – including Islam – and using those exceptions as a fear mongering tool is the undertone of Islam-bashers’ new line of business: they sell hatred, not love; they want to separate people instead of bringing us together.
If the Dutch film makers were really educated intellectuals who sought to make the world a better place; and if they truly wanted to express themselves, I suggest that they should have simply sought to take the best things out of every religion and every philosophy and changed their own selves instead of bashing others’ potential for wrong doings.
I will change the world by changing myself.
Sareshi, you’re bashing the artists who are bashing Islam. You’re telling them they shouldn’t bash Islam, and then you bash them. Have you tried to understand them? You’re doing exactly the same thing that you accuse the artists of doing.
Further, you havn’t refuted any of the facts or arguments that the artists have put forward against Islam. Christianity has been thouroughly bashed, criticized, critiqued, blamed, misrepresented by many artists and scholars throughout the last century. In Western society, it’s fair game to attack a religion. Certainly, Christianity has been attacked ad infinitum. Join the club. It’s all part of a free society: you’re going to hear opinions that drive you crazy.
Finally, you throw the word “hatred” around too easily. Just because someone criticizes a religion, it doesn’t make them “haters”. It’s fair game to criticize a religion because religions attempt to recruit new members and spread its beliefs. By nature, Islam, like Christianity, wants to convert the whole World to its belief. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what religions do. But if religions intend to convert people, they have to be ready to hear their detractors in public. Otherwise, you don’t have separation of Church (or Mosque) and state.
If you read the article, I am simply trying to observe what these artists have done and in return, I am expressing how I would try to change the world/change people in a more constructive fashion.
I dont know why you conclude that Jen didnt “read the article”. Her point remains; we must be free to criticize religion–religion generally and specific religions, both for their teachings and how they are actually practiced in the real world. Its easy to get caught up with fluffly concepts like “constructive and positive feedback” and the “realm of love”. The reality is that sometimes criticism of religion needs to be blunt, frank, and offensive. In fact the most basic criticism of all religions–their lack of evidentiary foundation and reason for believing–will usually come across as profoundly insulting to your average religious person.
When I hear that polygamous mormon sects are allowing routine sexual abuse of minors I can’t sugar coat how disturbing that is.
When I read passages from the Bible, the Koran, the Torah or whatever that preach hatred, contempt and sometimes even violence against non-believers, homosexuals or whomever I am going to conclude that that religion has serious defects (no matter how many theologians try to obfuscate clear and unequivocal language with empty appeals to context),
When I see poll results showing that religious communities (be they evangelical Christians or conservative Muslims) support theocratic ideas I am not going to have a positive view of the teachings of that religion. When I see religious leaders like Charles McVety advocate for the denial of rights for gays and lesbians, or Mohammed Elmasry advocate for laws to criminalize mockery of religious prophets I cant escapt the conclusion that their religion had something about it.
The fact of the matter is that conservative religiosity is one of the most influential factors in the character of a society–particularly the level of freedom enjoyed (there is an inverse correlation). Im simply not willing to put religious teachings, and the actions of the religious beyond criticism.
Yes, you must be free to criticize, but what is the intention of an ignorant criticism.
A bully criticizes because he has the right to criticize. His point however, in my opinion, is not to look at the positive aspects of your personality, but he rather concentrate exclusively on your ugly side.
“The whole picture.”
Soroush:
that some people will abuse the right to criticize is self-evident. just as self-evident is that some people will abuse their religion for improper goals. in both cases, I would submit, the “cure” is worst than the disease.
if we’re going to have government evaluate what criticism is constructive, or ignorant, this would be a severe blow to freedom. similarly, if we decide that because some people use religion for illegitimate purposes the government ought to monitor every preacher and religious edict, that would equally be a severe blow to freedom.
so get ready for criticism of your religion, both legitimate and illegitimate, constructive and non-constructive. there is no other way, unless you want to live in Saudi Arabia of course.
Hey Soroush, can I have your take on Israel’s 60th anniversary? Did you throw a big party to celebrate?
Here’s a clue, if you want to criticize Israel, you have to let us criticize Islam.
Who determines if criticism is “ignorant”? You? Me? When I say “all religion lacks any evidentiary foundation whatsoever and is a product of unreason” a lot of religious folk will tell me I’m ignorant yet to me that statement is so self-evidently true that it shouldnt even require mention.
Putting aside for the moment that I see very little of a “positive aspect” to religion and the teachings of the major religions; there is enough fawning over religion that its critics don’t need to. Their are enough people running around bleating about how their religion or religion in general is “beautiful”, “peaceful” and “loving”. I’m not concerned with that. I’m concerned with the fact that religions by the clear and unequivocal language of their texts quite often teach profoundly immoral things, and in the name of their religion people do other profoundly immoral things.
The “bully” throws around terms like “hate” and “prejudice” to insulate their views and the teachings of their religion from criticism.
Agnostic: I don’t know and neither do you.
Who cares about what is written in some damn Koran or Bible? I certainly don’t.
Souroush, many Christians were shocked by Dan Brown’s ‘Da Vinci Code’. Dan Brown wrote some extremely offensive things about Christianity, and specifically the Roman Catholic Church. Even some Muslims in India staged a protest to show their displeasure at how Dan Brown portrayed Jesus.
Does that mean that Dan Brown was ‘promoting hatred’, or ‘hateful’, or ‘spreading hate’? Does that mean that Dan Brown ‘hates’ Christians? I don’t think so.
Too many seem to be crying wolf these days. If they don’t like an opinion, they cry “spreading hate”!!!
The take away point is that every religion has something good to offer. Why don’t people attempt to learn the best things out of every religion and apply it to their lives? Why do people instead sit down and figure out flaws in others’ ideas, personalities, and way of lives? Wouldn’t we get along better if we stopped creating hierarchy and judging every notion…are we perfect ourselves?
These are the questions that must be asked before you should have the right to criticize other people, religions, philosophies, without even attempting to learn anything positive from those peoples,religions, and ideas. Let’s learn to listen to each other instead of looking for flaws.
Let’s stop showing off…lowering others and criticizing others will not give you authority, power, nor will it make the world a better place.
“The take away point is that every religion has something good to offer. ”
And most/all have many many negative aspects. There are plenty of people fawning over how “peaceful” and “loving”; and not enough critiquing and critically evaluating. There is no reason why critics of religion always have to precede their remarks with fluff about all the good things.
Soroush, I would like to comment on your sentence here:
“These are the questions that must be asked before you should have the right to criticize other people, religions, philosophies, without even attempting to learn anything positive from those peoples,religions, and ideas.”
What you are proposing in that sentence is government control of free speech. You can’t legislate community. You can’t force people with the threat of the state punishment to be “nice” to each other. Communists have tried that and failed miserably. If Islam is going to survive and thrive in Western societies, it’s going to have to be able to take the hits of criticizm, and bashings of its detractors: just like Christianity does.
Christianity gets bashed up and down, it gets mocked, it gets ridiculed, it gets blamed for all kinds of ills in the World. But quietly, it continues on in its work: tending to the poor, and preaching what it believes to be true. Is Islam humble enough to do the same without striking back? Without crying to the Human Rights Commissions? Without calling for censorship and special treatment?
Law is Cool: Just to step in here briefly (we’re glad people are talking). The government controls free speech all the time, and always has. We have tons of cases on the subject. Politically speech is the least restricted; other forms, including commercial and expression likely to engender disdain and danger towards discernable minorities, is not.
This is not something new.
Publications that imply that certain religious communities “…and its members are inferior, dangerous, and pose a threat to the community [or] …likely to expose them to hatred and contempt” are likely to be considered discriminatory (Carson v. Knucwentwecw Society [2006] B.C.J. No. 3102 at para. 4).
Furthermore, “…discriminatory expression is of low value, being in conflict with the core values behind the s. 2(b) guarantee of freedom of expression. Those values are the search for truth, the protection of individual autonomy and self-development, and the promotion of public participation in social and political decision-making (Irwin Toy, supra, at 976).
Discriminatory speech is incompatible with the search for truth…. “(Kempling v. British Columbia College of Teachers [2004] B.C.J. No. 173 at paras 95-96).
There is little point of us weighing in on the issue, because the courts already have.