Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Remember that column by Johann Hari that I wrote about, the one protesting the push for laws against the "defamation" of religion and discussing the dangers of passing such laws? India seems to have ducked into the punch, arresting a newspaper editor for publishing the column on the grounds that it incited hatred against Islam.
An Indian newspaper called The Statesman - one of the oldest and most venerable dailies in the country - thought this accorded with the rich Indian tradition of secularism, and reprinted the article. That night, four thousand Islamic fundamentalists began to riot outside their offices, calling for me, the editor, and the publisher to be arrested - or worse. They brought Central Calcutta to a standstill. A typical supporter of the riots, Abdus Subhan, said he was "prepared to lay down his life, if necessary, to protect the honour of the Prophet" and I should be sent "to hell if he chooses not to respect any religion or religious symbol? He has no liberty to vilify or blaspheme any religion or its icons on grounds of freedom of speech."Then, two days ago, the editor and publisher were indeed arrested. They have been charged - in the world's largest democracy, with a constitution supposedly guaranteeing a right to free speech - with "deliberately acting with malicious intent to outrage religious feelings". I am told I too will be arrested if I go to Calcutta.
Point proven, eh? His response is pitch perfect:
It's worth going through the arguments put forward by the rioting fundamentalists, because they will keep recurring in the twenty-first century as secularism is assaulted again and again. They said I had upset "the harmony" of India, and it could only be restored by my arrest. But this is a lop-sided vision of "harmony". It would mean that religious fundamentalists are free to say whatever they want - and the rest of us have to shut up and agree.The protestors said I deliberately set out to "offend" them, and I am supposed to say that, no, no offence was intended. But the honest truth is more complicated. Offending fundamentalists isn't my goal - but if it is an inevitable side-effect of defending human rights, so be it. If fanatics who believe Muslim women should be imprisoned in their homes and gay people should be killed are insulted by my arguments, I don't resile from it. Nothing worth saying is inoffensive to everyone.
You do not have a right to be ring-fenced from offence. Every day, I am offended - not least by ancient religious texts filled with hate-speech. But I am glad, because I know that the price of taking offence is that I can give it too, if that is where the facts lead me. But again, the protestors propose a lop-sided world. They do not propose to stop voicing their own heinously offensive views about women's rights or homosexuality, but we have to shut up and take it - or we are the ones being "insulting".
I would go even further. I liked the response of Ezra Levant when a "human rights" commission in Canada brought him up on charges for reprinting the infamous Danish caricatures and asked him what his intent was in publishing them:
We published those cartoons for the intention and purpose of exercising our inalienable rights as free-born Albertans to publish whatever the hell we want no matter what the hell you think. I've probably given 200 interviews with people other than the state where I give a very thoughtful and nuanced expression of my intent. But the only thing I have to say to the government about why I published it is because it's my bloody right to do so. And it's my right to do so for reasonable intentions and it's my right to do so for extremely unreasonable purposes. I refuse to concede to you that what my political thoughts in my mind are or my heart are will determine whether or not an artifact is legal or illegal.
I don't care how noxious Levant's political views on other things might be, this is precisely the right tone to take when the government threatens our freedoms.
It's also worth going through the arguments of the Western defenders of these protestors, because they too aren't going away. Already I have had e-mails and bloggers saying I was "asking for it" by writing a "needlessly provocative" article. When there is a disagreement and one side uses violence, it is a reassuring rhetorical stance to claim both sides are in the wrong, and you take a happy position somewhere in the middle. But is this true? I wrote an article defending human rights, and stating simple facts. Fanatics want to arrest or kill me for it. Is there equivalence here?The argument that I was "asking for it" seems a little like saying a woman wearing a short skirt is "asking" to be raped. Or, as Salman Rushdie wrote when he received far, far worse threats simply for writing a novel (and a masterpiece at that): "When Osip Mandelstam wrote his poem against Stalin, did he 'know what he was doing' and so deserve his death? When the students filled Tiananmen Square to ask for freedom, were they not also, and knowingly, asking for the murderous repression that resulted? When Terry Waite was taken hostage, hadn't he been 'asking for it'?" When fanatics threaten violence against people who simply use words, you should not blame the victim.
Quite so.
Politics
Comments
I am Spartacus too!
Posted by: J-Dog | February 17, 2009 9:43 AM
That Levant quote is going in my file.
Posted by: Ranson | February 17, 2009 9:55 AM
Hari hits the nail square with this statement
Sometimes I really do wish I was a student again - I'd be third from the left with the molotov.
Posted by: TonyC | February 17, 2009 10:02 AM
I'm Brian... and so's my wife!
Posted by: Spidergrackle | February 17, 2009 10:20 AM
Anyone else terrified by how common this type of this is becoming? I couldn't possibly agree more with Levant's tone, and delivery.
Posted by: stevogvsu | February 17, 2009 10:35 AM
Posted by: WScott | February 17, 2009 10:36 AM
Really J-Dog? Well I'm really Marcus Licinius Crassus! -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 17, 2009 10:37 AM
How typical of bullies to claim that standing up to them is an offensive, and that their threatened violence is entirely blameless and right. Its sad to think that the horror and violence Europe saw during the Wars of Reformation may be repeated elsewhere before the reasonableness of secular government is recognized.
Posted by: Julian | February 17, 2009 11:49 AM
Repeated elsewhere?! Given the amount of appeasement coming from our own public officials, it may have to be repeated here.
If you want to avoid that, stop it before it goes any further. Make sure that any official who appeases such behavior is opposed vigorously (recalled, if possible), and anyone who mealy-mouths about such things is called on it in no uncertain terms. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | February 17, 2009 2:53 PM
Julian - where's Europe coming from? The stories in Ed's post happened in India and Canada.
Posted by: Der Bruno Stroszek | February 17, 2009 2:55 PM
Der Bruno Stroszek:
I believe that Julian was citing the Protestant and Catholic Reformations in Europe and the subsequent wars as an example of the dangers inherent in using the power of the state to suppress blasphemy.
Posted by: Martian Buddy | February 17, 2009 3:48 PM
India's retarded response reminds me of a saying from one of my favorite authors, Jacques Dupuis SJ. To paraphrase:
There is a fine line between community and conformity.
Posted by: Twin-Skies | February 17, 2009 7:49 PM
Just a quick note: Johann Hari is remarkably good at finding exactly the quotes to support his beliefs about other people. Good to the point that Private Eye* fact checked him a year ago. The results (as for most Private Eye Street of Shame stars) did not look good for Hari. (Which is a pity as I generally agree with him).
* Difficult to explain to a non-Brit. A magazine that mixes satire with fact checking the government, the newspapers, and just about any institution it can set its sights on. The Libel Courts** know most of the staff of Private Eye by name (or used to - most people have caught on to the fact that suing Private Eye gives you a few followups). But it isn't an entirely reliable source (it took Wakefield's side in the MMR fiasco for one). The closest I can think of would be a cross between a much more aggressive version of The Daily Show and Mad Magazine.
** And no, our out of control libel system doesn't shut them down. IIRC they were responsible for a serious improvement when in order to prevent them from mounting a defence, someone hired or found other employment for every lawyer at Carter-Ruck (or obvious variation according to Private Eye, in whom they feature regularly (anyone would think Private Eye had a grudge...)), which were at the time the only major libel lawyers in the country. At which point everyone else decided that that wasn't on...
Posted by: Francis | February 18, 2009 1:13 PM
As a friend once put it, could the rest of us just be provided a list of what doesn't offend followers of Islam, radical or otherwise? It's probably a much shorter list than what does offend them, and would make a useful pocket reference. Of course, it's more likely to be used in a *ahem* contrarian manner, given the proclivities of the people I know. Free speech and all that.
Of course, every time I relate this idea, I can't help but have a Terry Pratchett flashback; I see a little note floating down to Death that says, "Some of the sheep..."
[/nerd]
Posted by: Ranson | February 18, 2009 3:56 PM
The law in question is designed to prevent criticism of all religions and is used far more frequently in relation to Hinduism than in relation to Islam.
If the critics of this law lived in a country where in the recent past thousands died in religious violence, they might take a different view of the matter.
Posted by: Ian Gould | February 18, 2009 6:00 PM
Please don't conflate Ezra Levant with this. Levant deliberately set out to piss people off, and then whined about it when exactly what he expected happened.
He turned a fact-finding procedure into a circus. Worse, he then proceeded to continue to whine as though the Human Rights Commission had actually done something other than entirely vindicate him.
The two cases are not similar.
Posted by: Metro | February 18, 2009 6:50 PM
The entire HRC was a circus before he ever set foot there.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | February 18, 2009 8:00 PM
In recent days, Ed has made two posts decrying restrictionson the freedom of speech of people engaging in criticism of Islam.
I'm curious as to why, for example, the 10 journalists murdered so far this year are considered less noteworthy.
Can anyone tell me why, these cases are worse than the Turkish army's continuing intimidation of members of the Justice and Development Party. (Including, for example, blocking Abdullah Gul's first nomination for President in 2007 despite the fact his candidacy was supported by a Parliamentary majority.
I'm sure it can't be because Gul is a devout Muslim and the Turkish army is secularist.
I'm also curious as to why these Indian abuses of freedom of expression from the 2008 Annual report of Reporters without Borders are apparently less egregious than the arrest of the Statesman staff.
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=25651
"hree staff members on the Tamil-language newspaper Dinakaran were killed in May in an arson attack on offices of the Madurai-based daily in Tamil Nadu state, in the south-east of the country. The culprits - supporters of MK Azhagiri, one of the sons of Kalaignar Karunanidhi, Tamil Nadu chief minister - acted after the daily published an opinion poll putting one of his brothers at the head of a list of possible successors to their father. The building also houses Sun TV and the newspaper Tamil Murasu. The case provided an appalling demonstration of the contempt towards press independence felt by some political militants and religious followers.
In April, a group of activists, the Hindu Rashtriya Sena, raided the offices of Star TV in Mumbai and used hammers to smash computers, cameras, windows and furniture after the station broadcast programmes about inter-religious marriage. The magazine Outlook in Mumbai was attacked in August by six militants of the extremist Hindu party Shiv Sena. They threatened reprisals against staff that were present for including the movement’s founder, Bal Thackeray, in a list of “villains” Indians, carried in a special edition marking the 60th anniversary of Indian independence. The article was illustrated with a cartoon showing him dressed as Adolf Hitler...
The regions plagued by Maoist guerrillas suffered the highest number of press freedom violations. A local human rights organisation FFDA (www.ffdaindia.in) released a report during the year on the situation in the Chhattisgarh state in central India, where security forces are clashing with Maoist rebels. Village militia or police has threatened several journalists there and the state government passed a law that punishes journalists with a three-year prison sentence for reporting on Maoist activities."
Posted by: Ian Gould | February 19, 2009 5:32 AM
@Engineer Poet
The HRC vindicated Levant--the only money he paid out was to the lawyer HE insisted on bringing. The first complaint was dropped, the second dismissed.
Not only vindicated, but defended. By the HRC. How about that, eh?
The Human Rights Councils exist in order to ensure that justice can come to people who can't afford lawyers. Whether they're making statements people might want to shut up or threatened by statements someone else has made.
I bookmarked this comment from the Friendly Atheist because it explains the situation fairly succinctly.
Posted by: Metro | February 19, 2009 7:18 PM
There were no violent acts. There was not even a verbal assault. Boissoin was put on trial (without any right to counsel), ordered to pay a substantial sum (to someone whose only harm was being offended) and served with a life-long gag order for his opinions. Now I agree that Boissoin is a repulsive character, but if anyone can be hauled in front of a tribunal (paid for with government funds, at no cost to any plaintiff) on the basis of words deemed insufficiently P.C., we are all at risk. (Boissoin isn't alone; the name Bill Whatcott* popped up while I was trying to find specifics.)
These penalties only seem to apply to Westerners; Muslims regularly call for jihad, throwing homosexuals from buildings, killing Jews, stoning anyone of insufficient sexual purity and a host of things without the HRCs ever bothering to investigate, let alone impose fines and gags. If the HRCs were any less biased there would be Muslims fleeing Canada as fast as they could go.
See www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2008-1215-alessio-hate_crime_racket.htm for more.
As much as I am prone to sympathize with a fellow atheist, I have to say that it appears that he is very dangerously wrong. Allowing people to bring libel actions at their own expense is one thing; allowing the resources of the government to be used against someone for opinions is so far down the slippery slope you can't see the edge.* I think there's an argument for removing Whatcott from nursing practice because he has demonstrably delusional beliefs about the medical consequences of condoms, but that's based on risk to his patients, not what he says on his own time.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | February 19, 2009 9:28 PM