My latest article: on the Aisha controversy
An extract from the article:
And yet it’s unarguable that a prickly feeling of censorship still hangs over us, not just with Muslims but other religious minorities too. Remember Bezhti? How about MF Husain? If you think only Muslims get angry over perceived religious offence, then think again.
To some extent, we do need some controversies to play out and the clash over free expression to happen so that people understand the boundaries. We can’t expect Muslims, or any religious minority, to like what is being said, but we can expect them to protest peacefully. And largely we’re getting to that stage, until we reach a point where those shrieking about a clash of civilisations become irrelevant, people start becoming less jumpy, normal self-censorship comes back into play, and the Daily Mail finds another minority group to pick on. Then we’ll come full circle.
But until then, this necessary clash over free speech has been delayed for another time. But it is inevitable and it is necessary and we’ll all be fine after it. Let’s just get it over with.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: British Identity, Civil liberties, Media, Religion
It’s been fairly quiet this one compared to your average Muslim censorship controversy. But I could be wrong. Have they killed any nuns in Nigeria yet?
Heard the one about Rushdie stopping the copper from publishing his memoirs about protecting him from the fatwa? What is it with Muslim authors and free speech.
Sunny:
“We can’t expect Muslims, or any religious minority, to like what is being said, but we can expect them to protest peacefully.”
Why do you, in the first place, expect Muslims will protest something? Yes, some have protested against, say, the cartoons, but so have Hindus over other stuff. There are people who protest and people who don’t.
“There are people who protest and people who don’t.”
However, although Muslims have not cornered the market in violent intimidation (Bezhti being a case in point), clearly some religions are easier to take a pot shot at, without, as it were, expecting a pot shot in return.
Didn’t the man behind Jerry Springer, which caused no end of loud, if peaceful, protest, recently say he wouldn’t do the same with respect to Islam? I can’t believe it’s for lack of burqha jokes.
“clearly some religions are easier to take a pot shot at, without, as it were, expecting a pot shot in return.”
In your comment, meaning Islam, right? I disagree. Hinduism is also great for cheap shots, and people do have a go. In terms of responses to jokes/caricatures/etc in ‘poor taste’, I would say that it’s more the political climate rather than the religion itself.
After the Danish cartoon incident and Salmon Rushdie, it is slightly disingenuous to compare writing “non-authorised” Islam books, with pretty much every other religion. I agree with Sunny in that this is a necessary debate, but one that is special relevant in Islam.
Ravi -
I wasn’t aware that anyone had received death threats over ‘Jesus Camp’.
I take it that the ‘ease’ of ‘pot shots’ was a comment about reaction to, rather than intrinsic humour of, criticism of a particular religion.
Sunny, by normal self-censorship I take it you mean the ordinary social mechanisms by which reasonably civilised people avoid giving gratuitous offence. I’m all in favour of that.
But in the current case of the publishers’ self-censorship it is more a matter of having so internalised the threat that a hysterical phone call from a self-serving academic is enough to have a book spiked. That sends the clearest possible signal that bullying works.
There was no suggestion that courtesy or consideration were factors – just fear. Fear even without a threat, fear that it’s the muslims.
It’s this kind of pusillanimity which gives fresh impetus to the rage-boys and their handlers, just when, as you say, it seems that people are moving on from that approach there comes apparent evidence that it works. Do it often enough and eventually you won’t need to do it at all.
As for it being peculiarly a problem with islam, in the UK no other religious group makes plausible threats of violence but elsewhere in the world it is rather more of a free for all. Given the right socio-political conditions any religion will play that card, which is why that card must always be picked up, torn into little pieces and thrown back in their faces.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2546788/Suicide-bomber-novel-censored-from-Muslim-writing-competition-claims-author-Max-Malik.html
What do you think of this? Don, especially interested to know what you think, given your response
Riazat – I got that press release too. I’ll talk to you about that offline, later.
Don:
As for it being peculiarly a problem with islam, in the UK no other religious group makes plausible threats of violence but elsewhere in the world it is rather more of a free for all.
Well… this isn’t strictly true. Hindus and Sikhs aren’t any more tolerant to religious insults, believe it or not. I know this from personal experience, and in India there’s controversy every other day when a Sikh or Hindu mob goes on the rampage.
I’m not denying there need to be more controversies around free speech, though I do think atheists don’t necessarily understand the mentality of religious people all that well.
I think that’s what I was saying.
Your Cif articles always give me a fuzzy warm feeling of agreement and understanding. The world ain’t such a bad place! No-one’s going to die alone being half-eaten by a dog!
And this one is no different.
Riazat, Sunny,
Is there a suggestion that that story in the Telegraph originated from a press release?
Good article, Sunny. I like your “come on then” attitude.
riazat,
Looks like a similar case, so my reponse would be the same.
What Don said – #7.
Johan Hari has a brilliant article on this in the Independent, too
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-we-need-to-stop-being-such-cowards-about-islam-894361.html
It’s all religions that take offense .. http://bukovsky-archives.net/sakharov2.html
I don’t know whats worse when it’s a minority group or the majority.
Believe it or not Sunny I think we actually agree on something
though I’m not quite sure what you mean by this ..
“we do need some controversies to play out and the clash over free expression to happen so that people understand the boundaries. We can’t expect Muslims, or any religious minority, to like what is being said, but we can expect them to protest peacefully
As an artist … I know art is a reflection of society.
Like -reality is seen and an attempt to project back through what ever medium is made. It is meant to invoke thought and feeling in others. Is that what people protest? Being made to think and feel?
Maybe there is a difference between free “speech” and “expression”.
normal self-censorship comes back into play
Why does the argument always seem to be how to keep things the same? When people have a deep conviction to anything I assume they know the truth, or they should before putting it on display… the goal of philosophy is to find the truth….how do I self-censor- myself? That would mean I would have to stop asking why..
three chapters left before I finish my book.
when the fatwa comes, hide me?
thank you for the link marvin … I saw it after I had already posted, but it says what I feel about being able to question people freely, in non violent ways and deserving non violent answers.
I don’t agree with everything he says though, he is doing the same thing everyone else does by adding his own personal opinion in on the time and culture –
another view on the story here…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121797979078815073.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
@Refresh – I like the “that that” construction in your comment, it works nicely.
@Sunny – yes we need to talk about it. Ooh – secret discussions! This debate – Jewel in the Medina etc – is really interesting. It seems that there is plenty of material – written/visual – that has either offended Muslims or is perceived by someone [whether Muslim or non-Muslim] as being likely to offend. The response from the Channel 4 spokesman – on hearing that some Shias were unhappy – was that whatever they did on Islam was likely to upset someone so did that mean they should just avoid any treatment of the religion? What do you think? (genuine question and not a rhetorical one)
Riazat, thanks.
It took awhile to perfect.
Is someone gonna publish my novel about Guru Nanak and Krishna having gay sex with each other on the bones of corpses at Aushwitz?
Anything else would be caving into religious censorship!!
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/mar2006/corr-m03.shtml