Freedom of Speech.

I've been watching the conflict caused by the publication of a series of cartoons published in the Danish press (and others) quite closely. My understanding may be slightly inaccurate, but it appears that a Danish newspaper produced a series of cartoons depicting how Islam is viewed by the cartoons' producers. Unfortunately, some of the cartoons appear misguided, islamaphobic and blasphemous. Or at least that's how many see them. The artists may have been attempting irony or humour, I'm not sure, but the most offensive cartoon, that I saw, depicted Islam's prophet Mohammed with a bomb on his head instead of a turban. Although I'm not a Muslim, I can understand how this is offensive, and see no humour there whatsoever.

The conflict is a textbook example of a number of issues within today's society. I will attempt to address some of them below.

The Social Responsibility of the Media
The cartoons mentioned above were drawn, I assume, by individuals; the bomb-turban cartoon was an individual's opinion on Islam, or perhaps their view on how people see Islam - either way it was their interpretation. When the papers reproduced that cartoon, they were perpetuating it. The cartoon may have been aligned with the views of the editorial staff of the paper, or perhaps the paper was being liberal and offering all opinions - the Freedom of Speech. This is not relevant to this part of my discussion. The fact is they, along with a number of other papers, published the cartoons.

The question is: should the media have published these images at all? Do they have a responsibility to act appropriately toward their readers for the good of society? At this point, I don't think freedom of speech enters the debate. They may have a right to show the images (I'll look at this later) but should they?

The newspapers in question have a fairly wide circulation. As such, they are fairly influential. Though there is no law defining their position, the papers as a collective of biased reporters (biased in the sense of having an opinion, not in the sense of being left or right) have a direct effect on public opinion. The public may 'believe' the media. Anyone with such power has an obvious moral obligation to use it appropriately. Now where morality lies in a post-modern debate is a different kettle of fish, but to a reasonable level we can expect the papers to act morally, in the broadest sense of the word. Of course, with that established (although not argued too pursuasively), the question becomes 'Did the paper act morally?' or perhaps a less frothy question would be 'Was the paper justified in its action, or inaction?'

The difficulty with this conflict is that on the one hand, the paper has a responsibility (as outlined above) to promote and propogate free speech, on the other it has the responsibility to refrain from segregating minorities and insulting religious groups. Which is right? Individual freedom over a religious attack? A Western government with no religious affiliation would likely argue that Freedom of Speech is of a higher importance, a religious state may argue either way. To be more precise, Denmark would argue that Freedom of Speech is of utmost concern, Islamic states would argue that attacks on the state's religion are more important than total Freedom of Speech (where defamatory to Islam). Hence the fundamental conflict of agreement. In a Western, non-Islamic state such as Denmark, where a core ethic is to uphold freedom of speech, the media have a responsibility to promote and reflect this. But, as I will explain later, it is not that simple.

Position of the State
To consider the postion of freedom of speech may seem straight-forward at first glance, and indeed it is, in a fully Westernised society. This is, at least metaphorically if not literally, a part of the constitution. However, the notion of a fully Westernised society is a myth, indeed an oxymoron. Multicultural society cannot be fully Westernised; it ceases to exist outside multiculturality. Recently, in the UK, we have seen a slight restriction of the freedom of speech - coincedentally just as this conflict ignited - namely restriction where religious or racial hatred is incited. This in itself has been a flash point for confrontation. This serves to highlight to volatility and sensitivity of this issue. It is a political merge point where East meets West. Both groups have to be satisfied. In a perfect world, the regulation would not be required - people would not say such hateful or misdirected cartoons. Unfortunately, a minority, for example the BNP, have a tendency to see minorities in a less favourable light than most others. That is why these restrictions exist. To protect minorities, so that their liberty is not prohibited by some else liberty. It's a sore point, admittedly, and nobody likes to have their liberty compromised. But if the compromise is in the face of hatred and bigotry, then it is less distasteful. One can consider that those who should wish to incite hatred may have a point, or a feasible argument, but in Western Democratic society that is not tolerated. Only the future will tell whether we were right or wrong, but society's current modus operandi is attempting to head toward equality.

So where does the Danish goevernement stand in this conflict? The protesters are requesting a public apology from the Danish Government. But the Danish government did not print the images, a privately-run newspaper did. However, if the newspaper is not going to act responsibly toward the Danish people, the government will step in. This is not to suggest that a nanny-state is acceptable, rather the safety and security of the country needs to be prioritised. In this case, against the paper and to some extent against freedom of speech. There is nothing to stop the paper reprinting the cartoons or offending Muslims again. But were they to do that, the government would again have to make the call as to whether their action was for the best regarding Danish society, indeed the world. Emancipation may be restricted, but it is nothing more than damage limitation. What is not illegal, is not always allowable.

Is it right for the government to apologise for the people of its country? In a word, yes. Denmark is a democratic state. The people elected the government to speak on its behalf. Democracy is not perfect, but it has been a step in the right direction. If the government deem it appropriate for the people, by the powers of democracy, it is appropriate for the people. This may be one of the flaws of democracy, but again; that is where society is.

The state also has the responsibility as educator, and in this guise is responsible for educating people against discrimintation. This does not amount to teaching Islam or Christianity or any other denomination, rather education toward integration. Indeed this is not just localised to the area of education, but can be incorporated throughout the government's domain. With such procedures in place, conflicts are less likely to occur. It is less likely that blasphemous cartoons would be created or printed and their potency to those whom it may influence negatively would be reduced. This may appear overly naive or idealistic, but the reality is in the reduction not the removal.

Freedom of Speech
The Danish paper has the right to free speech, to say what it wants about most matters. But to have a right, does no mean one should exploit it. Up until a few years ago, a case of marital rape would not stand up in court. It was a man's right to sexual intercourse with his wife. Admittedly, things have changed. But the point is, many would feel it wrong to forcefully indulge in intercourse, irrespective of the marital commitment. The same is true here, the paper had the right, but exploited it. There was no valid reason for publication; the cons far outweighed the pros. It was not an exercise in free speech, it was a disregard for minorities. Something especially sensitive in Europe, where Islamaphobia often runs deep. This exploitation has been perpetuated by other newspapers, who have printed the cartoons under the guise of freedom of speech.

Such opportunities to test the limits of free speech come about only under such circumstances. How can one test the limits with entering the realm of controversy? The argument here is, why test it?

Race versus Religion
A number of people have decoupled race and religion as separated by choice of membership. Races are protected as there exists no choice over affiliation. This is a fair point, indeed mechanisms are in place for this. Faith is a tricky subject, how useful or 'free' choice is when choosing religion is debatable, but the salient point here is that irrespective of the choice, one should have the right to not be discriminated against because of them choices (again, mechanisms exist to stop those choices being exploited). Take for example Transvestites, this is a matter of choice, but to discriminate against transvestites would be frowned upon. Choice is not a boundary against anti-discrimination, rather it is a reason for anti-discrimination.

Comparisons with other Religions
The problem is not just in the realm of the papers, a number of protestors are also causing significant concern. This is relegated to the realm of extremists, but is still a big problem. And increases Islamaphobia. It is inevitable that every time Muslims rebel people will say 'Christians wouldn't do that'. This may be partially true; there is a great deal of hate in some of the protesting; 'Behead those who Mock Islam' and suchlike. Whether this exists to provoke a response, or is a true emotion may only be investigated on a per-person basis. Either way, this is again relegated to the fringes of Islam. The majority of Christians and Muslims alike feel offended by blasphomy against their religions, some may protest. One may argue that such 'harmful' fringe groups don't exist within other religious groups. This is not strictly true. Fundamentalism exists outside Islam, only in different forms, a lot of which can be traced to the scriptures upon which their religions are based. The religions are different; the spliter groups formed from it will be different. This leaves the notion of how they are different. The most prominent example being terrorism. Few will deny that Terrorism is a hideous act, and has caused some of the worst attrocities in history. Extermists validate it through religion, and in the post-modern, non-religious world this is illegitimate. But compare this to the number of Catholic Africans who have died, or will die, from AIDS, under the instruction that contraception is sinful. One can argue that those killed by terrorism were innocent bystanders, who had no choice over their death, but the same can be said for those dying of AIDS, with little education or real desire to not contract AIDS. When hearing of the number of Africans dying of AIDS, does one think "It's their own fault?" No, we sympathise. This by no means validates terrorism, and by no means validates Catholicism's position on contraception (which incidentally, is not so clear cut in most Christian denominations). No, this detaches religious disparities from 'harmful' outcomes. It is problem that is intrinsic to most religions.

Another comparison, and justification, people often make is with programs such as South Park or Jerry Springer the Opera, wherein protest is much less firey (as of writing five Afghan's have been killed as a direct result of the cartoons). But again, it is a different situation, it is more integral and accepted within society. This does not mean that Christians are more accepting or less easily offended, indeed many people are equally offended. It may just be that Christians are less likely to get a reaction from those who are causing the offense; the protest against Jerry Springer the Opera gained very little. Furthermore, Christians in the west do not feel like a minority in the same way that muslims do. The connections between Islam and society are much closer than between Christianity and society.

The history and evolution of religions have to be considered. Christianity went through a series of upheavels; the reformation, the crusades. Not too long ago in the history of Christianity blasphemy was punishable by death - the death of Christ being a pertinent example. Why then should we expect Islam to be different. Such conflicts should not be looked at from Western eyes, as Western society is deeply influenced by Christianity, other perspective need to be viewed. Islam is not Christianity, it has different views, different ideals. It is wrong for Western society to judge Islam, and deem it uncivilised or the society less developed. It is just different. Perhaps in 500 years' time it will be more liberal - only time will tell. This does not make it wrong.

The difficulty here comes when one tries to rectify the problem by changing the religion. If one alters religion to better fit society, then there is a bias toward the interpretation. This is even more prominent when the restrictions are relaxed, such as contraception; which may promote promiscuity; it certainly did in the 50's/60's with the introduction of the birth control pill. But this is perhaps a different issue.

A balance between the different ideals is created through the law, muslims living in the UK, have to abide by the laws here. That is not at issue. Some muslims break the law in the name of religion, but this is a minority of individuals who have interpreted Islam with certain differences. The Islamic majority will attest to that. Either way, the law restricts the 'harmful' acts.

The problems with Islam, as compared to the problems of other religions should not be assessed as an Islamic problem, it all revolves around perverted interpretations of religious texts.

Conclusion
The 20th Century saw a number of incompatibilities in society, each has been and is being confronted; racism, sexism, homophobia. What society is dealing with now is a battle against religious discrimination, whether it is society's constant need for segregation, or the battle against each area of discrimination is another topic, either way discrimination is still rife in society, and needs addressing. Is it worth jeopardising freedom of speech for it? Well, that depends on who and how the freedom is utilised, but generally yes. Liberty, that when exploited, can segregate and discriminate is not a liberty that should be offered lightly. Emancipation is vital to societal progression, but emancipation should bear emanicpation, not discrimination.