Source: Time
By Qasim Rashid is an attorney, author of EXTREMIST, and national spokesperson for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA.
There’s an important history behind America’s free speech laws to which the anti-Islam hate group behind the “Draw Muhammad Contest,” is wholly ignorant. While the Islamophobe leading this hate group believes she’s a free speech champion, remarkably comparing herself to Rosa Parks, in reality America’s current free speech model developed as an attempt to protect — not demonize — religious and racial minorities. “U.S. law only began to protect hateful speech during the 1960s,” writes Garrett Epps. “Southern state governments were trying to criminalize the civil-rights movement for its advocacy of change. White Southerners claimed that the teachings of figures like Martin Luther King or Malcolm X were ‘hate speech’ and would produce ‘race war.’”
Courts sided with American icons like Dr. King, Malcolm X, and Rosa Parks, not because they advocated unpopular ideas of hatred or destruction — but because they faced ongoing hatred and destruction at the hands of racist white southerners. As the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League, and leading Jewish American Rabbis note, Geller represents the antithesis of the moral courage that was Rosa Parks.
Repeated demonization can inspire violence. This is a fact. “During the Holocaust, the Nazis went beyond making us social outcasts; they systematically slaughtered our people with unspeakable cruelty. Because we know so well what it is like to be outcasts, we must never, through our deeds or words, make others into modern-day lepers,”says Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the largest Jewish denomination in North America. “[W]hat [Geller] does, what she represents, has no place in a Jewish community that is built on tolerance and understanding.”
Categories: Americas, Free speach, Free Speech, Highlight
Although I think the ‘draw Mohammed’ comp was nothing more than an attempt to goad, it wasn’t hate speech. One of the fundamental tents of free speech is that it includes things which may insult or offend. That’s the reality for all of us.
Organised religion is incredibly powerful, and is not above criticism, ridicule, and challenge.
United States free speech exceptions
European Convention of Human Rights
I think many of the exceptions for freedom of speech are tackled in the Article 10 of European Convention of Human Rights.
This Article provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society”. This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas, but allows restrictions for:
We would certainly need the best legal minds humanity can offer to give concrete and legalistic details of the above exceptions that may be acceptable to people of all faiths, ethnicities and nationalities.
If the Supreme Court Justices do not come to our rescue, may be a good and an accomplished writer can help out with a best selling book. But, the key is to at least, win the moderates, in all the established religions of the world and among the agnostics and atheists.
Certain restrictions with “freedom of expression” is good but what should do with those writtings and tafaseers of ulemah which not only present the wrong picture of Islam but also motivate muslim youths to become so called jehadi. Secndly,almost everyone talks about peaceful teachings of Islam but do they strongly react when hindu temple is demolished or a jew is killed as they react in “muslim case”.
How ironic that my comment on free speech keeps being deleted. I’ll try again…
“We would certainly need the best legal minds humanity can offer to give concrete and legalistic details of the above exceptions that may be acceptable to people of all faiths, ethnicities and nationalities.”
The above is a nice idea, but simply not possible. There is no ‘one size fits all’ list of exceptions that would satisfy every individual on the planet. Instead, we have to take a common sense approach, which is, that the only exceptions should be speech that incites violence, hatred etc. In western Europe that’s largely what we already have, although I don’t necessarily agree with every exception in every state.
‘Feeling a bit offended’ however, is not an acceptable (or workable) exception.
Criminal behavior under any circumstances is not accptable. Killing someone is not acceptable no matter how much he offended you with his speech. Having said that those who insult others in public can count on some consequence. As the Pope rightly said that if you insult someone’s mother you can expect a punch in the face. Although punching someone in the face because he insulted your mother is not legal.
Inciting hate is not a commendable act nor serves any public good. It is not a debate or argument. An event which is solely aimed at hurting someone is despicable.
We would not allow a rally with the sole stated purpose of insulting someone based upon their race. But if during a rally someone hurled abuses, he will not be punished.
The issue of free speech is complicated but not without a solution. The most simple exceptions to free speech in the area of religion could be abusing, ridiculing or making fun of the founders of major religions such as Krishna, Budha, Ibraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad etc. (All those who are considered founders of religions). It is not necessary to insult any of these to make your point or argument. You can have a vigorous debate without being abusive. Hate is not an argument.
@ Lutf:
“The issue of free speech is complicated but not without a solution. The most simple exceptions to free speech in the area of religion could be abusing, ridiculing or making fun of the founders of major religions such as Krishna, Budha, Ibraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad etc. (All those who are considered founders of religions). It is not necessary to insult any of these to make your point or argument. You can have a vigorous debate without being abusive. Hate is not an argument.”
I find your comment rather baffling. What makes religion so special? Why should religion be immune from criticism, ridicule, or challenge? I notice you’re not advocating this for other, non-religious, beliefs and views – why the double standard?
Ridiculing a belief system is not the same as hating its advocates. And something isn’t automatically “hate speech” just because it happens to offend some people from a certain group. Take the Charlie Hebdo cover the week after 12 of its staff had been slaughtered in cold blood – it was hugely magnanimous; there was no “hate” there.
With respect, I think you underestimate the importance of freedom of speech, including the freedom to offend, in the West. We all benefit from it, including those who practice religion.
By the way, many people, myself included, believe the Pope is wrong. I’m pretty sure Jesus would disagree too; after all, it was he who advocated turning the other cheek.
@ Syed Aftab Alam
You make a really good point. Sometimes we’re “selectively outraged” at things that in the grand scheme of things, really don’t matter; yet we don’t get nearly as agitated by the stuff that really does matter, like the examples you give.
@ Lutf:
“The issue of free speech is complicated but not without a solution. The most simple exceptions to free speech in the area of religion could be abusing, ridiculing or making fun of the founders of major religions such as Krishna, Budha, Ibraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad etc. (All those who are considered founders of religions). It is not necessary to insult any of these to make your point or argument. You can have a vigorous debate without being abusive. Hate is not an argument.”
With respect, I find your comment rather baffling. I wonder, what makes religion so special? Why should religion be immune from criticism, ridicule, or challenge? It appears you’re not advocating this for other, non-religious, beliefs and views – why the double standard?
Ridiculing a belief system is not the same as hating its advocates. And something isn’t automatically “hate speech” just because it happens to offend some people from a certain group. Take the Charlie Hebdo cover the week after 12 of its staff had been slaughtered in cold blood – it was hugely magnanimous; there was no “hate” there.
With respect, I think you underestimate the importance of freedom of speech, including the freedom to offend, in the West. We all benefit from it, including those who practice religion.
In addition, many people, myself included, believe the Pope is wrong. I’m pretty sure Jesus would disagree too; after all, it was he who advocated turning the other cheek.
Since the discussion was in the context of religion, I mentioned only religious exceptions. I think the press here already observes self censorship in the area of race. You will not find some derogatory racial terms used in the mainline press. If these terms are spotted in the speech or writings of anyone, they are taken to task.
I am not advocating any laws in this area, but just like racially insensitive language is avoided and the perpetrators do not find any support, decency demands that same should be observed in other areas of sensitivities.
Once again Pope put it perfectly. If you abuse someone’s mother you can expect a punch in the face, although it may not be legal.
And once again, hate is not an argument. We can have all the discussion and argument without insulting each other.
Promoting common decency and respect in the society is more important than trying to accommodate some bigot and foul mouth.
There should be no restriction on debate or presenting your view without insults and bigotry.
What is obscenity and pornography and what is bigotry can sometimes be hard to define.
Let me quote from Wikipedia in regards to obscenity:
Having said all this, checks and balances in an open society and a good faith discussion by all parties may help us define speech which is free yet not hateful or inciting towards one religious group or the other.
@Lutf:
“I think the press here already observes self censorship in the area of race. You will not find some derogatory racial terms used in the mainline press. If these terms are spotted in the speech or writings of anyone, they are taken to task.”
__I largely agree that you won’t find derogatory racial labels in the mainstream press, but nor will you find derogatory religious labels either. Also, we’re conflating two quite different things here. Race and religion aren’t comparable – one is a pre-defined characteristic; the other is a choice to subscribe to a particular ideology.
“ … but just like racially insensitive language is avoided and the perpetrators do not find any support, decency demands that same should be observed in other areas of sensitivities.”
__But using racially derogatory language is not the same as criticising or ridiculing an ideology, a set of ideas or beliefs – be they religious or secular. It’s just not a comparison that stands up. One inherently relates to a group of people; the other relates to a set of beliefs that some people choose to subscribe to.
“Once again Pope put it perfectly. If you abuse someone’s mother you can expect a punch in the face, although it may not be legal.”
__I cannot agree. It’s not only illegal; it’s immoral. Some might say it’s the language of a terrorist apologist. We can use that “excuse” for everything that upsets us – an unfavourable book, film, or restaurant review; criticism of someone’s football team; political party; favourite band; clothing… the list is endless. Offence is caused every second of every day. If we all took the Pope’s line, there’d be anarchy.
“And once again, hate is not an argument. We can have all the discussion and argument without insulting each other.”
__I’m not sure anyone’s saying “hate is an argument”. As I said above “Ridiculing a belief system is not the same as hating its advocates. And something isn’t automatically “hate speech” just because it happens to offend some people from a certain group.” We could all claim “hate” every time someone offended us, it wouldn’t mean it is.
“Promoting common decency and respect in the society is more important than trying to accommodate some bigot and foul mouth.
There should be no restriction on debate or presenting your view without insults and bigotry.”
__But who decides what is “common decency and respect”? Who defines what constitutes a bigot? Everyone’s idea will be different. For example, many people find much of the content and teachings of the Bible and Koran offensive and bigoted. Does that mean the books and their teachings should no longer be permissible?
The Muslim Times’ Collection to Show, Islam or the Holy Quran are Not Anti-Semitic
Two Hundred Verses about Compassionate Living in the Quran
@AL
Argument just for the sake of argument is wasting time. So let us see how you view Pamela Geller and her life goal to ridicule and disrespect Islam and incite Muslims.
@Lutf
It’s not “argument for the sake of argument”; it’s a discussion. I’ve challenged each of your points – it’s your prerogative as to whether you engage.
As for how I view Pamela Geller; I know very little about her. However, it strikes me that her “draw Mohammed” competition was an unnecessary attempt to goad, as I put in my first comment at the top of this thread.
However, what I think of her isn’t the point. The point is this: just because I don’t agree with, or even like, what someone has to say, it doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to say it. This principle is one of the cornerstones of a tolerant, free, civilised society.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall’s quote is cited frequently in discussion on freedom of speech, but that’s because it sums it up perfectly:
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
Karen Armstrong on Sam Harris and Bill Maher: “It fills me with despair, because this is the sort of talk that led to the concentration camps”
@AL
Your comment makes it clear that we are not far apart in our position. We agree on most major points.
I did not think that you will take a different position. Insulting someone on the street is inviting a fight. No decent and smart person does it.
Pamela Geller, on the other hand is trying to make a name for herself by insulting and provoking a group a religion. If we follow the money trail, it will not surprise me that this is her primary source of earnings.
Politicians have learned to make provocations. It brings in money. I am not in the business of hate and wish that people will find a better profession.