Here is today’s column in USA Today on the Obama Administration’s decision to join the U.N. Human Rights Council and support Egypt in recognizing limits on free speech for those who insult or denigrate religion. While the exception was included in a resolution heralding free speech, it was viewed as a major victory for Muslim countries seeking to establish an international blasphemy law.
Around the world, free speech is being sacrificed on the altar of religion. Whether defined as hate speech, discrimination or simple blasphemy, governments are declaring unlimited free speech as the enemy of freedom of religion. This growing movement has reached the United Nations, where religiously conservative countries received a boost in their campaign to pass an international blasphemy law. It came from the most unlikely of places: the United States.
While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for any “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” The exception was made as part of a resolution supporting free speech that passed this month, but it is the exception, not the rule that worries civil libertarians. Though the resolution was passed unanimously, European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the issue of protecting religions from criticism. It is viewed as a transparent bid to appeal to the “Muslim street” and our Arab allies, with the administration seeking greater coexistence through the curtailment of objectionable speech. Though it has no direct enforcement (and is weaker than earlier versions), it is still viewed as a victory for those who sought to juxtapose and balance the rights of speech and religion.
A ‘misused’ freedom?
In the resolution, the administration aligned itself with Egypt, which has long been criticized for prosecuting artists, activists and journalists for insulting Islam. For example, Egypt recently banned a journal that published respected poet Helmi Salem merely because one of his poems compared God to a villager who feeds ducks and milks cows. The Egyptian ambassador to the U.N., Hisham Badr, wasted no time in heralding the new consensus with the U.S. that “freedom of expression has been sometimes misused” and showing that the “true nature of this right” must yield government limitations.
His U.S. counterpart, Douglas Griffiths, heralded “this joint project with Egypt” and supported the resolution to achieve “tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” While not expressly endorsing blasphemy prosecutions, the administration departed from other Western allies in supporting efforts to balance free speech against the protecting of religious groups.
Thinly disguised blasphemy laws are often defended as necessary to protect the ideals of tolerance and pluralism. They ignore the fact that the laws achieve tolerance through the ultimate act of intolerance: criminalizing the ability of some individuals to denounce sacred or sensitive values. We do not need free speech to protect popular thoughts or popular people. It is designed to protect those who challenge the majority and its institutions. Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech — the literal sacred institution of society.
Blasphemy prosecutions in the West appear to have increased after the riots by Muslims following the publication of cartoons disrespecting prophet Mohammed in Denmark in 2005. Rioters killed Christians, burned churches and called for the execution of the cartoonists. While Western countries publicly defended free speech, some quietly moved to deter those who’d cause further controversies through unpopular speech.
In Britain, it is a crime to “abuse” or “threaten” a religion under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. A 15-year-old boy was charged last year for holding up a sign outside a Scientology building declaring, “Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult. “In France, famed actress Brigitte Bardot was convicted for saying in 2006 that Muslims were ruining France in a letter to then-Interior Minister (and now President) Nicolas Sarkozy. This year, Ireland joined this self-destructive trend with a blasphemy law that calls for the prosecution of anyone who writes or utters views deemed “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 he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.”
‘Blasphemy’ incidents
Consider just a few such Western “blasphemy” cases in the past two years:
• In Holland, Dutch prosecutors arrested cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot for insulting Christians and Muslims with cartoons, including one that caricatured a Christian fundamentalist and a Muslim fundamentalist as zombies who want to marry and attend gay rallies.
• In Canada, the Alberta human rights commission punished the Rev. Stephen Boission and the Concerned Christian Coalition for anti-gay speech, not only awarding damages but also censuring future speech that the commission deems inappropriate.
• In Italy, comedian Sabina Guzzanti was put under criminal investigation for joking at a rally that “in 20 years, the pope will be where he ought to be — in hell, tormented by great big poofter (gay) devils, and very active ones.”
• In London, an aide to British Foreign Secretary David Miliband was arrested for “inciting religious hatred” at his gym by shouting obscenities about Jews while watching news reports of Israel’s bombardment of Gaza.Also, Dutch politician Geert Wilders was barred from entering Britain as a “threat to public policy, public security or public health” because he made a movie describing the Quran as a “fascist” book and Islam as a violent religion.
• In Poland, Catholic magazine Gosc Niedzielny was fined $11,000 for inciting “contempt, hostility and malice”by comparing the abortion of a woman to the medical experiments at Auschwitz.
The “blasphemy” cases include the prosecution of writers for calling Mohammed a “pedophile” because of his marriage to 6-year-old Aisha (which was consummated when she was 9). A far-right legislator in Austria, a publisher in India and a city councilman in Finland have been prosecuted for repeating this view of the historical record.
In the flipside of the cartoon controversy, Dutch prosecutors this year have brought charges against the Arab European League for a cartoon questioning the Holocaust.
What’s next?
Private companies and institutions are following suit in what could be seen as responding to the Egyptian-U.S. call for greater “responsibility” in controlling speech. For example, in an act of unprecedented cowardice and self-censorship, Yale University Press published The Cartoons That Shook the World, a book by Jytte Klausen on the original Mohammed cartoons. Yale, however, (over Klausen’s objections) cut the actual pictures of the cartoons. It was akin to publishing a book on the Sistine Chapel while barring any images of the paintings.
The public and private curtailment on religious criticism threatens religious and secular speakers alike. However, the fear is that, when speech becomes sacrilegious, only the religious will have true free speech. It is a danger that has become all the more real after the decision of the Obama administration to join in the effort to craft a new faith-based speech standard. It is now up to Congress and the public to be heard before the world leaves free speech with little more than a hope and a prayer.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors.
USA Today: October 19, 2009
Dar,
Oh, where to begin! This might sound harsh but IMHO (brace yourself Dar), it would appear that you have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe reading this before your next post will be of some help. Enjoy Dar, facts are wonderful things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Freedom_of_speech
Meant “right to life” not “life to life”.
I’ve yet to see any denial of the fact that “spreading American freedom of speech” is really spreading “recent modern American urban liberal secular values”.
Every society in history technically has “freedom of speech”, in the sense that people are allowed to talk about most subjects. Even in Stalinist USSR people generally could talk about food, family, sports, etc….
At the same time, all societies place certain limits on that freedom, based on its own particular moral standards and traditions.
So, when one society goes to another and states “you must adopt (our version of) freedom of speech” it’s really stating “you must adopt our morals and traditions (which are the reason for our current definitions and standards of freedom of speech)”.
So I ask, based on what? Why is that particular version of American freedom of speech now the “right” one?
Yes there are certain truly universal rights, such as a life to life and eating/drining/sleeping through one’s own means.
But otherwise most of the “rights” that America has are pecular to its own history and traditions and whose imposition over-seas cannot be defended.
Take abortion. TO many left-wing Americans it is a “right”, based on the notion that “women have rights over their own bodies” and ofcourse “fetuses are not alive”. Fine.
But if America were to try to impose abortion over-seas because it believes in a “woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body”, and that it’s all about “women’s rights”, it would in sense be assaulting that other culture’s moral views on life and trying to impose its own vision on when/where life starts.
The poster “nal” wrote of “moral relativism” and a”slipper slope”.
Now let us suppose another society/nation, where notions of sexuality are different.For them nudity and sexuality is an innate human trait found from birth. As such, pedophilia, prostitution and open displays of sex/pornography (such as on basic television) are all acceptable to them. To them is is part of one’s behavioral/speech rights.
Is such a nation were to come to the US and proclaim that it has more freedom (which it does, in a sense), and as such America should adopt its freedoms, it would in sense be telling America to adopt its views on sexuality/modesty. And just like with this Egyptian-blasphemy case, it would have no real argument in favor of such as imposition other than that it is “more freedom” (which in a sense it is).
I cannot support such actions. Unless one can make a solid rational/moral argument, not for the some vague “freedom of speech”, but for the actual would-be imposed cultural values that lie underneath it, then no on thise Egyptian case.
Eliane M:
“I’m not sure how you’ve determined that people who value religion as an important moral guide in their lives make up a minority of this country’s inhabitants. Many people go about worshiping their God quietly. They don’t wear their religion on their sleeves.”
************************
You have encountered the moral smugness and persecution complex of those who believe with intense fervor that they know the “way,” the demographic facts notwithstanding. Note the value laden implication that while there might be more Christians among the populace, only a chosen, morally enlightened few consider their religion “an important moral guide.” Their “way,” of course, is dictated by their magic books and the often-time illiterate interpretations of their soothsayers. There is no arguing or discussion with them because their books tells them so and equate non-believers with the devil. Good luck in this debate!
Dar–
I’m not sure how you’ve determined that people who value religion as an important moral guide in their lives make up a minority of this country’s inhabitants. Many people go about worshiping their God quietly. They don’t wear their religion on their sleeves.
Regarding fundamentalist Christians: Even if they aren’t a majority here, they have become quite an influential minority. If I object to some of the things some of the fundamentalists do, I think I should have the right to speak out against their actions…in my own country.
You say that honor killings and eight-year-old brides are a different story. How so? If such things are allowed to occur in my country, I believe I should have the freedom to speak out against them.
Christian heretics were once tortured, drawn and quartered, burned at the stake. That was hundreds of years ago. That happened in an “older” European society. Some “old” societies may believe slavery is okay or treating women as chattel is acceptable. You may consider such moral. I do not. Let’s just call that a difference of opinion.
BTW, I’m not an “urban America.”
Dar: “One can be am moral “absolutist” and still accept that other culture’s have different standards.”
And that’s fine, so long as such standards are left to the superstition riddled countries and cults that actively practice their religions as extensions of government policy elsewhere. The point that several posters are making is that when respect for religion reaches into other (specifically this one), secular societies and threatens the legally codified civil rights of non-believers there is a problem. That vague edicts from world bodies or specific decisions like the ones cited in the Professors article further degrade the Constitution’s protection of citizens speech here in America is unacceptable and such ‘respect’ should be rejected in favor of free expression.
Also, when child brides, stoning women to death for adultery or for being raped, honor killings and a structure of laws prohibiting civil rights to women is so pervasive as to reduce them to chattel are built on a religious framework which is the foundation of a government then such things are not different issues. They are a direct result of religion as government structure- a theocracy. America is not a theoracy and should not entertain such notions as workable trade-offs with the Constitution under the banner of respect or hate speech laws.
The issue isn’t exporting the western template to others (you will find serious opposition to the concept of ‘nation building’ on other threads and topics here) the problem is importing such pre-intellectual values here under the guise of respect.
DAR: “More specifically, why should it be that of some 30-40 year old mind-set born from drugged-up hippies and pseudo-marzists,…”
I can’t cop to drugged-up these days but if by ‘marzist’ you mean a particularly strong, nearly irresistible attraction to the dark chocolate Mars bars, well, mea culpa. A thick dark creamy coating of chocolate over a silky, melt in your mouth whipped nougat center- like biting into a chocolate covered cloud… yea, I’m a marzist straight up; no ‘pseudo’ about it. And damn proud of it. You insult my Marzism at your own peril sir.
To Elaine M.,
Christian fundementalists, or atleast people who value religion as an important moral guide in their lives, make up a minority in this country.
Further, “honor killings and eight-year-old brides” are a different issue.
—–
To Gyges:
Egyptian anti-blasphemy laws have been a part of Egyptian, and indeed much of the regional and world history, for centuries and even millennia.
—–
To nal:
First of all, “moral relativism” and “moral absolutism” are vague terms that don’t reflect real-life conplexities.
One can be am moral “absolutist” and still accept that other cutlures have different standards.
One should ask, IF there is to be one absolute moral standard globally,why should it be America’s? More specificalyl, why should it be that of some 30-40 year old mind-set born from drugged-up hippies and pseudo-marzists, over the centuries- and millinia-old ones of the Old World?
Most societies through-out history showed respect to religion, only recent American/Western societies have decided other-wise. Fine, but why should that be now the new “normal” in global moral standards?
Sorry, but “freedom of speech” as defined by America is just “American urban cultural values” in disguise.
Fine for urban Americans, not so for 5,000+ year old societies.
Excellent column.
So, you don’t believe in universal human rights. You seem to be arguing for moral relativism. Now that’s a slippery slope.
While a diversity of values should be tolerated, there should be limits to what is acceptable behavior. Thoughts are the real target of the blasphemy laws. Criticism is merely the manifestation of thoughts. Freedom of thinking is a universal human right.
The very fact that religion uses violence, or the threat of violence, to suppress criticism, is evidence of its moral bankruptcy.
Dar,
Who’s religion is important in Egypt, the individual’s or the state’s?
The thing is, religions wax and wane. Today’s State Religion is tomorrow’s oppressed minority and today’s oppressed minority is tomorrow’s rulers. Look at the history of England, or Rome. Freedom of Speech doesn’t just protect the majority, it protects the minority, today you might favor your religion’s laws, tomorrow you may protest the tyranny of another’s.
That’s sort of a moot point though, the proposal isn’t to spread American “Freedom of speech” it’s to spread Egyptian anti-blasphemy laws.
Dar–
You wrote: In other words, most Egyptians value religion, most Americans don’t think religion plays to an important a role in their lives.
************
I would have to disagree with your statement that “most Americans don’t think religion plays to (too?) an important role in their lives.” Just check out cable television here. You’ll find plenty of televangelists talking and singing about God every day/night of the week. The ranks of fundamentalist Christians seem to be growing by the minute. These same Christians want to impose their religious views about creation science on the rest of us–and on our public school students. They want certain types of books banned from school and public libraries and school reading lists. I think I should have the right to speak out against any religion that wants to prescribe what I should believe…what kinds of movies can be screened in public theaters…what kinds of books other people’s children should be allowed to read, etc.
Maybe freedom of speech does “represent a specific and Western philosophy.” I would like that freedom of speech not to be encumbered with a “watch what you say about religion threat.”
I’m not a proponent of porn–neither am I a proponent of “honor killings” or eight-year-old brides.
Cultures and individuals within a culture don’t exist in a vacuum. They possess morals and traditions.
You seem to think that the America’s “freedom of speech” beliefs are divorced from any moral foundation, but rather than being an amoral practice, freedom of speech represents an affirmation of certain morals, namely those of America.
In other words, most Egyptians value religion, most Americans don’t think religion plays to an important a role in their lives. If “freedom of speech” were to gbe imposed on Egypt than that would represent an imposition on the American view of religion. It would be America telling Egypt “you think religion is sacred enough that it shouldn’t be insulted,; we don’t, therefore you shouldn’t either”.
Same with porn. Allowing porn would not be simply some amoral freedom, but rather would represent an imposition of a certain value or belief, namely that modesty and chastity are out=moded and you should adopt our views of the human body and sexual relations”.
I hope I have been clear. “Freedom fo speech” isn’t some neutral universal tool, but does represent a specific (and Western” philosophy.
It is wrong only if one supports the principle of freedom of speech and its corollary, the freedom of thought.
We sure wouldn’t want the rest of the world to adopt the principle of free thought. That’s a slippery slope that could lead to … (I’ll have to get back to you on that.)
Either you believe in the principle that humans are endowed with certain unalienable rights, or you don’t. The best way to teach the world about that great principle is to stand up for it.
On its face it seems that this would outlaw a robust secular statement that all religions are cults and all religious adherents are delusional. This seems to be an assault on free speech that favors all religion and shields it from disparaging comment. Having hate speech being extended to religion (a matter of choice) in the US and this position makes me agree with Jill and wonder along with Gyges, who will protect my speech when I liken religious belief to mental illness?
Why is this wrong?
Is the whole world now to adopt American culture and morals?
What next, those damned evil Egyptians just won’t allow porn to be sold in their newsstands?
I agree that the West has its own moral-legal; code which allows blasphemies, but it’s vile to try to impose that on other countries.
Why not invade and occupy them, so as to teach them the great value of “Western liberal secular democracy”?
Do you suppose the Pope’s comments when he quoted a 14th Century Byzantine emperor who said the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only “evil and inhuman” things, would be covered?
Do you suppose Mr. Blair’s anti-Atheist statements would be covered?
Elaine,
Those are all really good points. Most certainly it would only be wrong to “blaspheme” against certain religions, thus violating not only free speech but the establishment clause.
Well you know the Northern Baptist say there ain’t “NO HELL” and the Southern Baptist say “The Hell there Ain’t” now is this Blasphemy? I am guilty as charged…..
Who will be the “blasphemy” police in the US who will determine what is/or is not anti-religious speech? Will there be any consequences for those who dare to “insult or denigrate religion?” Will all religions be safe from blasphemy and criticism? Or just certain specified religions?