The shocking news of Theo van Gogh's murder came as a blow to the campaigns for freedom of speech. Among all those people who are grieving over van Gogh, including his sponsor Ayaan Hirsi Ali, there are possibly very few people who would turn their attention to the roots of the disaster. What are the limits of free speech? Is this freedom equally available to all people regardless of faith, race and gender to express their views? Should these views be expressed in any manner regardless of what goes on around us? These are very serious questions which need to be conscientiously and accountably addressed by politicians and intellectuals alike. A couple of years ago, Stanley Fish had critically spoken about the flaws of freedom of speech. In an interview in the Australian Humanities Review, titled There is no such thing as free speech, he had strongly shaken the foundations of the stereotype understandings of free speech. However, there is little sign of any tangible progress or change in understanding and applying principles of free speech. Instead, it appears that under the pretext of free speech, there is a tendency of disturbing the sensitivities of certain ethnic and religious groups by directly offending their religious beliefs.
Theo van Gogh was murdered by someone, who had found his recent short film offensive to Muslims. The 10 minute film was shown on Dutch prim-time television and triggered an outcry of Muslims in the Netherlands. The filmmaker who has been notoriously known as a controversial figure was hailed by his colleagues as a champion of free speech. The question still remains open as to what are the legal restrictions of speaking offensively of people's faith. In an atmosphere where the very idea of denying the Holocaust is considered a crime against humanity and people like Roger Garudy were condemned for casting doubt on the authenticity of the Holocaust massacres, it is indeed thought provoking that a filmmaker can easily go ahead with offending Muslims. Apparently, a fanatic Muslim is responsible for the murder, but indeed, one has to ask if the Dutch TV has no responsibility in this regard. If they had not broadcast this offensive film, for which they can still be sued on the basis of offensive remarks against people's religion, may be today van Gogh was still alive. Looking at the issue from a different angle, would it be permissible for a filmmaker to create images of Biblical texts on the body of a naked woman, with the objective of defending human rights? Are the biblical injunctions, within the Jewish tradition, less offensive and less violent that what appears to be in the Quran? The whole point I am trying to make is that first of all, what exists in history and tradition cannot be considered as an excuse for attacking the contents of a religious scripture. If such a thing had happened in the Western world, what would be the reaction of the law? Obviously, the reaction would not be the inconceivable death penalty. However, charges could be brought up for expressing offensive and discriminative remarks against ethnic and religious groups, which is illegal under the current laws in the Western world.
There is a very difficult task before the politicians and the intellectuals here. On the one hand, both Muslim and non-Muslims generally condemn murder under any excuse. There is no legal or religious justification for killing a person. Even of there was a fatwa issued decreeing execution it could have gone through its process of negotiation. However, the difficult task lies in both condemning murder and protesting against the violation of law. If a law can be applicable to Christians and Jews, why should it not be applicable to Muslims, in the same way? There have been numerous protests against 'Passions of the Christ' and 'The Last Temptation of Christ'. However, the big difference between these films and 'Submission' is that in van Gogh's film, verses of the Quran are directly quoted by a half naked woman, with transparent veil, recounting her sad story. This approach is directly attacking the verses of the Quran rather than an interpretation of it. The paradox here is that free speech has become an excuse for racial and religious discrimination, offense and slander. If the Dutch media and legal system had not dismissively laughed off the offensive methods of van Gogh earlier, they might have saved his life and bridged the deepening gulf between the Muslims and the non-Muslims living in the Netherlands. One cannot defend human rights and free speech by upsetting and offending large numbers of people. There is a prevalent fallacy depicting the majority of Muslims as fundamentalist and obscurantist people who are alien to liberal and intellectual approaches to faith and this film is clear evidence to it. Is it permissible under the existing laws to offend people on the basis of race, gender and faith? Is this case not an embodiment of this infringement? This indifference in being equitable to all people may eventually fuel fanatic reactions which are best understood in the context of political events occurring around us today. Verses of the Quran are holy and sacred to over a billion Muslims around the world. These Muslims have various and pluralistic interpretations of the same verses. The Islamic world does not represent a monolithic and narrow-minded understanding of faith. Yet, the film challenges the Muslims as if they share a stereotype about women all throughout the world. The same pluralism exists among followers of other faiths as well, but you would hardly see such a blatant offence to other faith.
This appalling disaster, both in terms of van Gogh's murder and his outrageous film, requires the intellectuals and politicians to be more sensitive to cultural differences and to observe fairly the principles of free speech and human rights.
Related links:
Grief and anger over Theo's murder
Wikipedia on Theo van Gogh
New York Times on Submission
Gunman kills Dutch film director
Freedom of Speech bashed (Malakut, Persian)
Comments
Stanley Fish's book (and the interview you have given a link to is simply about that book), and to be more precise, the chapter in that book he named as such (There is no such thing as free speech, and it's a good thing too) doesn't have much to do with "criticising" the freedom of speech. Fish has a completely theoretic standpoint and in that chapter he questions the theoretical possibility of freedom of speech.
Posted by: Anon | November 18, 2004 10:33 PM
The problem is, Muslims, or at least a dangerous small percentage of them, have shown time and again that they have a low threshold for taking offence. This sensitivity is known as gheyrat and is very much lauded in Islamic cultures. Also, and this is a different issue, their intolerance of whatever may be interpreted as slightly offensive manifests itself in quite brutal, sometimes barbaric, ways. I say it's a different issue, because you may be ticked off by what someone says or does, but that shouldn't necessarily prompt you to kill that person. Apparently, killing is not so much of an issue in Islamic cultures.
Posted by: Anon | November 18, 2004 10:06 PM