18 Jun 2010 | Uncategorized
Home Secratary Theresa May has issued an exclusion order for the controversial Muslim preacher Zakir Naik.
At first glance this is similar to the ban on Dutch MP Geert WIlders imposed when he was due to show his film Fitna in the House of Lords last year. The ban on Wilders, whose film juxtaposed verses from the Koran with images of terrorist atrocities, backfired on two counts. First, it simply made him a free speech martyr and drew attention to his scare-mongering views that were freely available on the Internet. Secondly, it wasn’t sustainable — Wilders won an appeal against the ban at the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. In retrospect (and as it seemed at the time too) it would have been far better to have let Wilders have his say, and to have met his arguments with counterarguments and evidence. I made a podcast about this criticising the Government action at the time (Listen here)
Does that mean that on free speech grounds we should discourage the UK Government from imposing a ban on Naik? Here’s a possible difference between the cases: Naik has reputedly expressed sympathy for Osama Bin Laden’s terrorism and seems in some of his pronouncements to be advocating actual violence against Americans and against those who change their religion.
If that is correct, then there may be good reason for a ban. The most obvious acceptable limit to free speech is the point at which a speaker incites violence. Yet, the situation gets more complicated. Naik has issued a press release in which he “unequivocally condemns acts of violence including 9/11, 7/7 and 7/11.”
So, should we take the press release as a sincere statement of his current position? If so, is it reasonable to ban him for views that he has apparently jettisoned if indeed he ever held them? This is not an easy case to decide. Perhaps allowing him to speak in Britain while monitoring closely the content of his oratory will in the end be the least worst option.
2 Jun 2010 | Index Index, minipost
Following criticism from Muslim groups, the Mail & Guardian newspaper has apologised for publishing a satirical cartoon depicting the prophet Mohammed, and have agreed to refrain from publishing images of him in the future.. The cartoon, by resident illustrator Zapiro, sparked fierce debate and anger when it was published as part of the Facebook-organised Draw Mohammed Day on May 20. The newspaper’s apology comes after a meeting between editorial staff and the United Muslim Forum of South Africa.
24 May 2010 | Index Index, minipost
Quebec’s legislature has introduced a bill which could ban woman wearing the niqab face veil if they wish to access public services in the province. Public debate on the controversial Bill 94 has been suspended until August after more than 60 recommendations were received in the first three days of testimony. It is now unlikely that the bill will be voted into law before the end of the current legislative session in June.
21 May 2010 | Uncategorized
The scale of the internet censorship imposed in Pakistan is startling. The supposed sacrilege of depicting Muhammad is once more the trigger. The government there has blocked first Facebook and now YouTube in reaction to the popular “Everybody Draw Muhammad” day that took off on Facebook and then went viral. Other social network sites including Flickr have had restrictions put on them.
The provocative idea was itself a reaction to the recent censorship of a South Park episode that had angered some Muslims because it showed their prophet in a bear outfit. The new protest seems to have achieved its desired effect. Escalation seems inevitable.
The Pakistani government’s solution is foolish, not just because it curbs freedom of speech, but also because it will result in far more images of Muhammad in circulation and far more people looking at them (I’m sure I’m not the only one to have Googled “Everybody Draw Muhammad” this morning). Presumably this is the opposite of what they want to achieve.
It is disconcerting that in yesterday’s Guardian the journalist Declan Walsh wrote
At one level, the controversy pits free speech fundamentalists in the west against religious extremists in Pakistan
The phrase “free speech fundamentalists” here is sloppy rhetoric. Presumably a “free speech fundamentalist” would be someone who believed that total freedom of speech was an absolute right that shouldn’t be compromised under any circumstances. He or she would tolerate direct incitements to violence, disclosure of official secrets, false advertising, and much more. But you don’t have to be a fundamentalist in this or any sense to believe that broad brush internet censorship is morally wrong as well as completely counterproductive.
The Pakistani censorship isn’t just an issue for free speech fundamentalists (if indeed they exist), but one for free speech moderates and advocates of openness everywhere.
