While they exist harmoniously on paper, free expression and religion often conflict in practice, and free speech is often trampled in the name of protecting religious sensibilities — whether through self-censorship or legislation that censors.

History offers many examples of religious freedom being repressed too. Both free expression and religious freedom need protection from those who would meddle with them. And they are not necessarily incompatible.

Over 200 years ago, the United States’ founding fathers grouped together freedom of worship and freedom of speech. The US Constitution’s First Amendment, adopted in 1791, made sure that the Congress couldn’t pass laws establishing religions or prohibiting their free exercise, or abridging freedom of speech, press and assembly.

More recently, both religion and free expression were offered protection by The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) drafted in 1949. It outlines the ways in which both free expression and religious freedom should be protected in Articles 18 and 19. Article 18 protects an individual’s right to “freedom of thought, conscience, and religion” and the freedom to change religion or beliefs. Article 19 states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Why is it, then, that for centuries — from the Spanish Inquisition to the Satanic Verses — free speech and religion have been cast as opponents? Index on Censorship has explored, and will continue to explore, this crucial question.

Offence

Muslims gathered in Malaysia’s capital to protest against the controversial Innocence of Muslims film (Demotix)

Sporadically explosive conflicts arrise when words or images offensive to believers spark a violent response, the most recent example being the reaction to the controversial Innocence of Muslims film. Index has stated before that the majority of states restrain by law distinct and direct incitements to violence; however, causing offence doesn’t constitute an incitement to violence, much less a good excuse to react with violence. Yet violent protests sparked by the YouTube film led many countries to push for the video to be taken down. As the controversy unfolded, digital platforms took centre stage in an age-old debate on where the line is drawn on free speech.

The kind of connectivity provided by the web means a video uploaded in California can lead to riots in Cairo. Real-time transmission, real-time unrest. It presents a serious challenge for hosts of user-generated content like YouTube and Facebook.

Before the web, British-Indian writer Salman Rushdie’s “blasphemous” 1988 novel — The Satanic Verses — sparked protests and earned its author a death sentence from Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, who called upon Muslims to assassinate the novelist, his publishers, and anyone else associated with the book. The Japanese translator of the Satanic Verses was killed, and Rushdie’s Norwegian publisher was shot and wounded, leading some to think twice about publishing works potentially “offensive to Islam”.

These fears were renewed after the 2005 decision of Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten to publish caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, which were protested about in riots worldwide, largely initiated as a result of agitation by Danish clerics.

The Jewel of Medina, a historical novel about the life of Muhammad’s wife Aisha was due to be published by Random House in the US in 2008, but it was pulled when an academic warned the publishers of a possible violent backlash to the novel. After the UK-based publisher Gibson Square decided to take on the novel, Islamic extremists attempted to firebomb the home of the company’s chief executive. More recently, ex-Muslim and author of The Young Atheist’s Handbook Alom Shaha wrote that initially, staff at Biteback publishing had reservations about releasing his book in the UK. Upon being presented with the book, one staff member’s reaction was, “we can’t publish this, we’ll get firebombed”.

Protecting religious sensitivities at price of free expression

Many countries have legislation designed to quell religious tensions and any ensuing violence.

India, for example, has a Penal Code with provisions to protect “religious feelings”, making “acts” or “words” that could disturb religious sensitivities punishable by law. However, while such laws exist to address prevent sectarian violence their vagueness means that they can also be used by groups to shut down free expression. This opens up a question, which is when do states have the right to censor for public order reasons even if the actual piece of writing, art or public display is not a direct incitement to violence.

Indian artist and Index award winner was forced to leave his native India in the 1990s after being threatened for his work

In the 1990s, Indian artist and Index award winner MF Husain was the subject of a violent intimidation campaign after painting Hindu gods and goddesses naked. He received death threats and had his work vandalised. Hundreds of complaints were brought against the artist, leading to his prosecution under sections 295 and 153A of India’s Penal Code, which outlaw insulting religions, as well as promoting animosity between religious groups. Locally these laws are justified as an effort to control sectarian violence. While the cases against Husain were eventually thrown out, the spectre of new legal battles combined with violent threats and harassment pushed Husain to flee his home country. He never returned, and died in exile last year.

Across the world restrictions on free expression are imposed using laws designed to protect religious sensitivities.

Pakistan’s blasphemy laws are notorious for being abused to silence and persecute the country’s religious minorities. Although the country’s Penal Code has always had a section on religious offence, clauses added in the 1980s set a high price for blasphemy or membership of the Ahmadi sect of Islam — an Islamic reformist movement. These laws, including a possible death sentence for insulting the Muslim prophet Muhammad, have been slammed by civil society inside and outside of Pakistan.

A report issued in September by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, says that blasphemy laws should be repealed. Controls on free speech in order to protect religious sensibility seem to run parallel to controls on religion.

Globally, restrictions on religious expression have increased according to a report released last month by the Pew Research Center. In 2010, the study found that 75 per cent of the world’s population lived in countries where restrictions placed on religious practice were rated as either “high” or “very high”. The study found that the greatest restrictions on religion take place in the world’s most heavily populated countries — India, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, and Russia stood out on the list.

Outrage and incitement to religious hatred

In 1977 Christian campaigner Mary Whitehouse successfully brought charges against the publishers of a magazine that printed a graphic sexual poem about Jesus Christ

In 2007, the UK introduced the offence of “incitement to religious hatred”, which some feared was merely a replacement for the scrapped blasphemy law, made more wide-ranging by covering not just Christianity but all religions. The last conviction under that law was the infamous 1977 Gay News case, where Christian campaigner Mary Whitehouse brought a successful private prosecution against the publishers of Gay News magazine for publishing a poem describing a Roman soldier’s fantasy of sex with Jesus Christ.

In the UK, one of the most pernicious means by which restrictions on free speech have grown tighter has been through the use of incitement laws, both incitement to hatred and incitement to violence and murder. In some cases, as in the outlawing of incitement to religious hatred through the Racial and Religious Hatred Act, the law is being used to censor genuine debate. In other cases, incitement law is being used to shut down protest, as in the convictions of Muslim protestors Mizanur Rahman and Umran Javed for inciting racial hatred and ‘soliciting murder’ during a rally in London against the publications of the Danish Muhammed cartoons. Over the past decade, the government has used the law both to expand the notion of ‘hatred’ and broaden the meaning of ‘incitement’. Much of what is deemed ‘hatred’ today is in fact the giving of offence. And should’t the giving of offence be viewed as a normal and acceptable part of plural society?

In 2009, Ireland created for the first time a specific blasphemy offence. This law states a person is guilty of blasphemy if

“he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and

(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.”

This wording was later used as a template for attempts to introduce the idea of “defamation of religion” as an offence at the United Nations. The attempt to introduce this concept failed, but the UN Human Rights Council did pass a resolution condemning “intolerance, negative stereotyping, stigmatisation, discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against, persons based on religion or belief”.

On the other hand, according to Frank La Rue, quoted by Journalism & Intolerance said: “blasphemy is a horrible cultural phenomenon but, again, should not be censored or limited by criminal law. I would like to oppose blasphemy in general by being respectful, but that’s something you build in the culture and the traditions and the habits of the people, but not something you put in the criminal code. Then it becomes censorship.”

Crushing religious freedom

Other European countries have had their own free speech versus religion battle when a push towards bans on the veil or niqab began, infringing on choices of Muslim women. France’s controversial ban on the niqab went into effect last year. Offenders must pay a 150 € fine or take French citizenship classes. There have been similar discussions in the Netherlands, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and Belgium. Such bans are not restricted to Europe — in 2010 Syria banned face veils from university campuses. From 1998 – 2010, Turkey banned headscarves from university campuses. In fact, Turkey has a much wider ban on headscarves in public buildings, a ban the government faces difficulties overturning though it would like to. Just as troubling — countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia have strict dress codes for women that visitors must comply with as well.

Both enforced secularism and enforced religiosity constitute a form of censorship; the key word being “enforced” as opposed to “free”. Whether it is tackling enforced religion, religious offence, hatred and incitement to violence, or enforced secularism, only a constructive approach to free speech can genuinely guarantee freedom of conscience and belief, whether in one god, many or none.

Also read:

Kenan Malik on The Satanic Verses and free speech and Why free expression is now seen as an enemy of liberty

We need to talk about Islam says Alom Shaha

Salil Tripathi on how Pakistan’s deadly blasphemy laws have killed free speech

Michael Nugent on why Ireland’s 2009 blasphemy law is a backward step

The post Religion and free speech: it’s complicated appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Fearing extremists reacting violently to the publication of books deemed to be offensive to Islam, many publishers have thought twice about what they release about the religion. Author of The Young Atheist’s Handbook Alom Shaha says it’s time to discuss faith properly

It’s not just staff at Biteback who may have been concerned about publishing my book — according to a senior editor at one of the largest international publishers, who claimed to be personally keen to give me a deal, she was unable to convince her colleagues to agree because a “number of people” in the company would be “uncomfortable” about it. She then went on to explain that by “uncomfortable” she really meant “afraid”.

So, what is it about my book that has elicited such a response from people whose work it is to trade in ideas? Have I penned an incendiary tome that “insults” Islam or otherwise risks “offending” Muslims? Well, I don’t think I’ve done any such thing — I’ve simply written an account of how and why I came to be an atheist. It’s much less an attack on religion than it is a celebration of atheism. But the fact that it is written by someone from a Muslim background seems to have been sufficient to make some people afraid of publishing it. And that is surely an unacceptable state of affairs; we seem to have gone from a time when publishers and booksellers stood shoulder to shoulder in defence of free speech to publish and sell The Satanic Verses, despite the very real threat of violence, to a time when an entirely innocuous book like mine can be rejected for publication because people fear it will lead to violent repercussions.

Perhaps publishers cannot be blamed for being cautious? After all, as recently as September 2008 the offices of Gibson Square were indeed firebombed just as it was about to publish The Jewel of Medina, a fictional account of the life of Mohammed’s youngest wife, by Sherry Jones. But, as both Kenan Malik and Nick Cohen have described elsewhere, the firebombing may not have been caused so much by the “offensive” nature of the book as much as by the fact that the book was publicly announced to be offensive by a Western and non-Muslim academic. It may have been the case that the book would largely have been ignored by Muslims had it not been for the publicity generated by this — having been pronounced offensive, it then almost required at least one fanatic to act. Jones believes that “If Random House had simply published my book, I don’t think there would have been any trouble. The real problem is not that Muslims are offended but that people think they will be.”

I’ve encountered the idea that Muslims will be offended by my book from numerous people — from the publishers who looked at my proposal to the people who have interviewed me since publication and even from some friends. The only people who have not suggested that the book might be offensive to Muslims are Muslims themselves. Not a single Muslim has come forward to say that he or she has been offended by my book. The most strongly worded email I’ve received is one that expressed pity that I had “lost the one truth path” and the hope that “Allah would guide [me] back to it”.

Many of my childhood friends are Muslims and none of them has taken offence at the book. And this should come as no surprise. The idea that Muslims are particularly sensitive to criticism is one that has been blown out of all proportion. It is patronising to ordinary Muslims like my friends and it is one that has created an insidious climate of self-censorship amongst people who really should know better.

We need to talk about Islam, not because of some misguided notion that it threatens our western way of life but because we cannot ignore a set of ideas which holds such importance to so many people. Islam must be critiqued just as other ideas are, but perhaps even more importantly, Muslims and non-Muslims alike must have access to diverse points of views if public discourse about these matters is to be meaningful and well-informed. The publication of my book by Biteback was not brave, nor was it an attempt to court controversy for the sake of book sales. Rather, it was a decision made by people who love books and ideas, who felt that my story was one worth telling and that it would find an audience — and this, surely, is the only consideration publishers should have when deciding whether or not to publish a book.

Alom Shaha is a writer, science teacher, filmmaker and author of The Young Atheist’s Handbook. He tweets from @alomshaha

MORE ON THIS THEME:

Kenan Malik wrote about the impact of the Satanic Verses controversy on free expression and Islam for Index on Censorship magazine in 2008. Read his article here 

Jewel of Medina author Sherry Jones wrote for Index on Censorship about fears over distributing her 2008 novel about prophet Muhammad’s youngest wife, Aisha. Read her article here 

The post We need to talk about Islam appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Three jailed for attack on publisher appeared first on Index on Censorship.

“Aren’t you scared?” I get asked this question all the time, most recently in the wake of the news that three radical extremist Muslim men conspired to set fire to the home office of Gibson Square, the London publisher that had been set to publish my novel The Jewel of Medina last October.

The full story of this attack is unnerving, to say the least. The driver of the getaway cab, Abbas Taj, is noted for dressing his baby girl in an “I Love al-Qaeda” hat, among other public displays of support for terrorism. According to the Times, he waved banners at protests against the infamous Danish cartoons promising a 9/11 in Europe and calling for death to those who “insult Islam”

Taj’s two accomplices pleaded guilty last month to the so-called “firebombing” and admitted that plans to publish “The Jewel of Medina” were the reason why.

The response to the attack in Britain was quite amazing. Apparently eager to give credibility to the most extreme of the extremists, some journalists contacted Anjem Choudary, a noted radical who predicted the “death penalty” for me and my publishers, apparently without reading my book.

As anyone who has read The Jewel of Medina knows, it does not insult Islam — a fact that enrages Islamophobes enough to have one radio talk-show host calling me a “wack job”, among other similarly flattering names.

Whether or not my book is respectful, however, has little to do with the real issue here. For, although the extremists lost in court, they have apparently won where it really counts — in the UK’s book stores.

After Gibson Square’s publisher announced, a couple of weeks after the arson attempt, that he was indefinitely postponing publication of The Jewel of Medina — following in the footsteps of Random House in the US — I awarded world English publication rights to Beaufort Books, my US publishing house whose publisher and small staff have supported my book unwaveringly, despite hate mail, lawsuit threats, and Mr Choudary’s own assertion that not only I, but my publishers, might deserve to die.

Beaufort publisher Eric Kampmann and associate publisher Margot Atwell headed to the London Book Fair in April with a full display of The Jewel of Medina and confidence that they would find the right distributor to supply stores in the UK with the book. But — no. Everyone, it seems, is too afraid.

Forget the fact that The Jewel of Medina has been published in seven countries, including Denmark, with no threats or repercussions of any kind. Well, ok. In Serbia a conservative mufti protested the book two days after its release last August and issued threats grave enough to cause my publisher there to withdraw it from publication. But that mufti hadn’t read The Jewel of Medina because he merely repeated false rumours that the book contains “brutal acts of pornography”.

The people of Serbia spoke loudly and clearly against censorship. So did the press, and other groups including moderate Muslims. Beobook re-released the sold-out The Jewel of Medina one month after it discontinued publication, and it rocketed to the top of the country’s best-seller lists, where it remained for at least four months. It’s still selling so well that Aleksandar Jasic anticipates a fifth printing in June.

What made the difference in Serbia? The memory of fascist dictator Slobodan Milosevic apparently remains fresh in the public consciousness. Freedom of speech is the same as freedom: “We believe that this kind of censorship is very dangerous – the next step is that any crazy group in the world can threaten to kill someone if the book/article/picture is published,” an editor at the Serbian daily newspaper Blic said to me.

Despite the efforts of extremist groups, The Jewel of Medina has not been banned in the UK. Nor should it be, in spite of the country’s crackdown on those seen as an insult to Islam. The book isn’t insulting. I had hoped it would be a bridge-builder between non-Muslims and Muslims — something it appears the UK could really use right now.

These three Muslim thugs who tried to torch the British people’s right to read a book would be easy to shrug off as isolated cases, as simple bullies. The fact is, though, that soon after that attack, extremist groups in the UK exerted an organised effort to keep The Jewel of Medina out of British bookstores. Luke Johnson, chairman of Borders UK, wrote in the Financial Times online that his company had received threats that it would “suffer” if Borders UK sold The Jewel of Medina. Check it out at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f0cfbbc8-a559-11dd-b4f5-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1.

“Surely, in a civilised society, we cannot allow thuggish behaviour to intimidate us. Otherwise we could all end up being tyrannised by violent and vocal minorities, cowed into submission in pursuit of a comfortable life. How then would humanity and invention progress?” Mr Johnson wrote.

The implication is that, given the opportunity, Borders UK would, indeed, sell The Jewel of Medina. Unfortunately, it seems, they won’t have the chance in the near future. The “thugs” have accomplished their task — and freedom of speech, the first freedom to go when fascism gets a foothold, has taken a blow in the western world.

Unless ….

Unless the people of Great Britain, and the press, follow Serbia’s lead and speak out against those who are limiting their right to read, think, speak, listen, debate, discuss, criticise and, yet, insult. After all, those who would stop free speech and expression for the rest of us certainly feel they have the right to make threats and to incite violence. It’s ironic that their voices, used to squelch dissent, are the ones being heard, and heeded, the most. I hope the people of the UK can find the power, and the courage, to raise an outcry against censorship.

“Use it, or lose it,” the saying goes. Extremists are using — abusing, even —their right to free speech. Now it’s time for the rest of us, including moderate Muslims and the press, who cherish our culture and our freedom to raise a cry louder than that of radicals, so we don’t lose that most precious, and crucial of freedoms.

Am I afraid? Sure, I’ve had some dark nights since the controversy erupted over my book. Getting hate mail and death threats and having nuts call for your assassination online is very unnerving. But then I shake it off. Some things are worse than death. And if we give in to intimidation and threats — to fear — we lose everything. So, as I’ve said before, I try to think not about how I’ll die, but about how I want to live: with courage, with love, and with a voice that speaks loudly, and clearly, for freedom.

The post Sherry Jones: “We must speak out for free speech” appeared first on Index on Censorship.

I want to start by looking at two events which I think marked a turning point for free speech — and global attitudes towards it. Both happened last year — coincidentally at the same time.

First, in March, the UN Human Rights Council redefined the role of its special rapporteur on freedom of expression –– declaring that he should monitor abuses of the right to free expression when they form an act of racial or religious discrimination. This has insidiously turned the rapporteur into a potential enemy of the very human right he is supposed to defend: someone whose job is no longer simply to monitor abuses to free speech, but to consider that human right as itself an abuse. At the same time, the council passed a resolution, condemning what it called a ‘campaign of defamation of religions’ and calling on governments to take action.

That very same month, in fact just the day before the resolution on the special rapporteur, the Dutch politician Geert Wilders released his film Fitna online. Wilders — for those of you lucky enough not to know him –– is a platinum blond provocateur — who has made a reputation for himself attacking Islam. He wants Muslim immigration to the Netherlands to be stopped. ‘Islam is the Trojan Horse in Europe,’ he told the Dutch parliament in 2007. ‘If we do not stop Islamification now, Eurabia and Netherabia will just be a matter of time.’ His film Fitna was a crude piece of propaganda –– equating Islam with violence. No Dutch public broadcaster screened it. Although the Dutch Muslim Broadcasting Association did in fact offer to show it –– if they could view it first for illegal content and if Wilders would take part in a debate. But Wilders turned down that invitation. And the Dutch press centre offered too –– but wanted Wilders to pay for security costs. Again he refused.

There were, at the time, apocalyptic predictions of another outcry of Danish cartoons proportions –– but that scenario failed to materialise. The film was a damp squib. Nevertheless, the secretary general of the United Nations, Ban ki-Moon weighed in to the row and described it as ‘offensively anti-Islamic’ — adding for clarity ‘the right of free expression is not at stake here’.

All of this was made all the more pointed by the timing. Last year was the 60th anniversary of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. But here was the global guardian of these rights undermining them. So entrenched has the notion become that that there is a right not to be offended, that neither the secretary general nor the council seemed to feel any need to argue for or justify their position.

And our government, just two weeks ago, reinforced that position when they banned Geert Wilders from coming into the country. I must say though that I was puzzled by Lord Pearson inviting him over now to show the film, nearly a year after the event. I have my suspicions that the Lords may not have known how to watch YouTube.

But the UK government’s reasons for keeping Wilders out –– that his opinions threaten community security and therefore public security –– is also becoming a common refrain when it comes to critics of religion –– a justification for limiting free speech and a powerful argument for censorship.

We saw the same argument, again last year, when Random House dropped The Jewel of Medina. A historical romance about the Prophet Mohammed’s relationship with Ayesha. In a statement, the publisher said that ‘the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment’ –– as a result, they would not be publishing the book ‘for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel’. Now I wouldn’t of course dispute the fact that these are serious considerations that have to be made, but the irony is that it’s this pre-emptive censorship (whether it’s deciding not to publish or to ban someone from coming into the country) which serves to inflame the situation –– because of the publicity that comes with the ban.

But it is the Random House or UN Human Rights Council view that now prevails: potentially offensive speech is so dangerous that it cannot be given a platform. Our liberty is better served by deploying censorship rather than protecting the right to free speech.

This is the Alice in Wonderland world of human rights. Where you the best way to exercise your rights is by having them denied.

One of the most astute writers on this issue, Kenan Malik, has observed that a profound shift has taken place in our attitude to free speech. He has written that it is no longer seen as an inherent good, necessary for expressing moral autonomy, maintaining social progress and safeguarding our other freedoms. It’s come to be seen as damaging: as a problem. And, I would add, it is the voices who want to limit free speech that are now occupying the moral high ground –– not the human rights defenders.

We published a special issue of Index on Censorship last year marking the 60th anniversary of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. And we asked one of the most distinguished international defenders of free speech, Aryeh Neier, to write a piece for us. Neier was for many years executive director of Human Rights Watch. And is now president of the Open Society Institute. Neier was a refugee from Nazi Germany. Yet as head of the American Civil Liberties Union in the 70s, he took a controversial stand on one of the most famous free speech battles of the past 60 years –– the right of neo-Nazis to march through a predominantly Jewish neighbourhood –– a neighbourhood not just of Jews, but of Holocaust survivors. In looking back at that storm, he wrote for Index: ‘Ensuring that all may speak freely, no matter how repugnant their views, prevents the authorities from using the pretext that they are blocking hate speech as a means to censor expression that actually disturbs them for other reasons.’

Standing up for repugnant views can put you in a very uncomfortable position. At Index on Censorship over the past year we’ve had to stand up for racists and Holocaust deniers. My colleague Padraig Reidy was somewhat disturbed to get a Christmas card from one of the leading Holocaust deniers, with a most delightful photograph of Hitler’s favourite apologists at the notorious conference on the Holocaust in Tehran three years ago. And a free DVD with David Irving on the cover in handcuffs. And I’ve had the honour of being described as charming by the BNP.

They think we’re their friends.

We’re not.

But we do know that the discomfort this entails is necessary for a free and open society –– a society that acknowledges the universal right to free speech and doesn’t cut the cloth of human rights to fit the preoccupations and politics of our time.

The post Modern Liberty: free speech must be for all appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Gibson Square confirms suspension of Jewel of Medina publication appeared first on Index on Censorship.

This is not the first time that Rynja, owner of a small, independent publishing house, has shown himself to have more gumption and appetite for controversy than the big boys. Four years ago, he published Craig Unger’s House of Bush, House of Saud after Random House, once again, pulled out – this time for fear of libel action. He is also the publisher of OJ Simpson’s If I Did It and Alexander Litvinenko’s Blowing Up Russia.

Rynja’s support for free speech is proving to be exceptional, as is his courage in standing up to bullies, at a time when other publishers will surrender at any intimation of legal action – particularly from litigious Saudis. Rynja, who trained as a lawyer, has shown that capitulation need not be inevitable. I can only hope that the shocking attack on his office will not dim his determination — but he will need support.

Random House dropped The Jewel of Medina in anticipation that offence might be caused in an extraordinary instance of pre-emptive censorship. Let’s remember the similarly dire predictions that were made when Geert Wilders released his provocative film Fitna, which links Islam to terrorism – it was in fact a non-event.

Yet, in this instance, the row that ensued once the story broke about Sherry Jones’s novel has, like a self-fulfilling prophecy, served to escalate the very scenario that Random House was apparently seeking to avert. It is most telling that they sent a work of fiction out to academics for approval in the first place — since when was a historian, however smart and literate, a suitable judge of whether a novel should or should not be published? Surely the only grounds for publishing a novel are whether it is of literary merit? One of the academics they consulted, Denise Spellberg, was reported as saying: ‘You can’t play with a sacred history and turn it into soft-core pornography.’ Why not? This is one person’s subjective view of a novel — it should not be grounds for censorship.

Random House’s actions show just how far we have lost our way in this debate over free expression and Islam: the level of intimidation, fear and self-censorship is such that one of the biggest publishers in the world no longer felt able to publish a work of creative imagination without some kind of dispensation. Jones’s book does not claim to be a piece of history — it’s a work of invention.

It was also disingenuous of Random House to suggest that the novel might incite violence. Certain members of the population might choose to commit an act of violence, but that is not the same as the book itself inciting violence. To pass the responsibility in this way to the novel was a betrayal of the author and of free speech. So it was left to a small publisher, with none of the resources a major publishing house can enjoy in such a time of crisis, to stand up for principles. Now that Rynja has come under attack, it is more necessary than ever to counter any justification of censorship on the grounds of offence (that may or may not be caused) and to condemn any intimidation tactics.

This whole affair — from Random House’s decision to drop the book, to the attack this weekend – is evidence of a worrying trend. Twenty years since The Satanic Verses was published, in the 60th-anniversary year of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, we are facing a crisis for free expression. Yet the threat comes not only from those who commit acts of violence, but from those who ostensibly support human rights.

Respect for religion has now become acceptable grounds for censorship; even the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, has declared that free speech should respect religious sensibilities, while the UN human rights council passed a resolution earlier this year condemning defamation of religion and calling for governments to prohibit it. As the writer Kenan Malik has so astutely pointed out: ‘In the post-Rushdie world, speech has come to be seen not intrinsically as a good but inherently as a problem because it can offend as well as harm …’ Censorship, and self-censorship, Malik observes, have become the norm. What we have seen, over the past two decades, is an insidious new argument for curbing free speech become increasingly acceptable.

Martin Rynja has consistently set an example to us all in not being cowed by outrage, convention and legal action. It’s an independent spirit that we urgently need to cherish, support and emulate — and it’s not only free speech groups like Index on Censorship that should be standing up for him.

This article was originally published in the Guardian

The post Respect for religion makes censorship the norm appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Three held over publisher attack appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Aisha book returns to Serbian bookshops appeared first on Index on Censorship.

For those of you unaware of the film, it’s a historical epic starring Anthony Quinn as the prophet Mohammed’s uncle Hamza, while the starring role of Mohammed goes to, well, no one.

Likewise, Khadija, Aisha, Hafsah and the other wives, and the rest of the prophet’s immediate family, including sons-in-law. In a neat trick, perhaps later picked up by the makers of Peep Show, scenes which demand Mohammed’s presence are presented through his eyes, thereby negating the need to portray him. A little light organ music also helps denote the prophet.

The film was a moderate success, garnering an Academy Award nomination for its soundtrack, and can still be bought on VHS in many Islamic shops (at least in my part of the world) today.

Sadly, even this ultra-respectful portrayal of Mohammed and the early days of Islam did not pass without controversy. In March 1977, a group of American Muslims took control of three buildings in Washington DC, demanding among other things that the film, which they believed to be sacrilegious, be banned from US cinemas. The siege ended with the deaths of two people, a young radio reporter and a police officer.

As I’ve said, the film is still available, and popular, today, so it would seem that the actions of this small group in Washington DC did not reflect the views of most of the Muslim people around the world, who seem to have been able to grasp the basic concept that if you don’t like the sound of a film, you probably shouldn’t watch it (and of course, if you do like the sound of it, go see it).

I’m quite sure that the top brass at Random House apply this principle to themselves, unerringly sophisticated people as they must be. So why, in the case of Sherry Jones’s The Jewel of Medina, can they not imagine their fellow men to be equally discerning?

Two reasons — or perhaps one: the first the nice, obvious line, is ‘sensitivity’. No one in their right minds is opposed to sensitivity, are they? No. Being mindful of other people’s feelings is A Good Thing. Not pushing your opinions, or indeed values, certainly helps in the smooth running of a society. Which is why, enthusiastic about pork products as many of us may be, it’s only neo-Nazis who lob pig’s blood at mosques or synagogues. But we should be wary of crossing the line between sensitivity and self-censorship.

The other reason, and, in truth, the single, underlying reason, is fear. Fear of the marauding Muslims looking for any excuse to burn a few effigies and bomb a few buildings. And this is the far more worrying aspect. In the minds of far too many in the western world, ‘the Muslim’ is driven by deep, irrational, unknowable passions. And by ‘the Muslim’, ‘all Muslims’ is meant. The Muslim takes his religion far, far more seriously than any other: ‘the Muslim’ is quick to take up arms, to denounce, to hate in the name of his faith. The Muslim is closed to critical thinking.

This is, of course, a very convenient trick: once one has displayed one’s understanding of ‘the Muslim’s’ psyche, one doesn’t actually have to go any further: you understand the Muslim world now, so you don’t actually have to understand the difference between Hizb ut Tahrir and Jamaat e Islami, or Hamas and Hezbollah, and you certainly don’t have to attempt to comprehend the millions of Muslims who bear allegiance to none of these groups. You don’t have to look at the motivations, reasons, and politics behind, say, the Salman Rushdie fatwa or the MoToons riots because you know that the spirit of ‘the Muslim’ is unknowable. And you can condemn anyone who does try to decipher the politics, or who dissents from your paragon of angry, placard-waving, flag-burning Muslim as an Uncle Tom or a neo-con (because, apparently, in today’s world, the opposite of Muslim is neo-conservative).

Of course, those who would support the suppression of Jones’s book, or at least call for greater sensitivity, may point out that the riots over the MoToons did happen, and that people did die because of The Satanic Verses. Is it worth risking all that over again, just to publish a book that mightn’t, y’know, be even that good?

Well, possibly not: but possibly they are looking at the wrong examples. Earlier this year, Dutch demagogue Geert Wilders announced that he was to release a short film called Fitna, which would critique the Quran and expose its sadistic nature, as well as the dangers of the ‘Islamification’ of Europe. After much fuss, and to and fro, Fitna eventually appeared on the Internet. Unsurprisingly, it was rubbish. Perhaps more surprisingly, very little happened next. A few Muslim governments made the token gesture of banning it, and a few weeks later, everyone had forgotten about the whole sorry thing: the political groups that had organised the MoToons riots simply could not muster the support: in short, people refused to be wound up by such an obvious wind-up. A sign of maturity that one hopes could be matched by one of the world’s largest publishing houses.

The post Sense and sensitivity appeared first on Index on Censorship.