Thanks for Not Speaking Freely
Answer: When people are encouraged not to "abuse" free speech by saying things which might be considered offensive or impolite, even if they are true.
Overt censorship and repression isn't the only way for eliminate free speech. It's also possible to get people to voluntarily abandon free speech by telling them that the free exercise of their right to express themselves is really an "abuse" of their rights when others object violently enough. Many are claiming, for example, that it's wrong to say things which will offend Muslims and lead to Muslims becoming violent — including criticisms of Muslims being violent.
Akbar Ahmed is a good example of the trend of "supporting" free speech, but not really "supporting" it when speech offends people's religious sensibilities:
Although I totally support free speech and freedom of expression, and have been saying so publicly, all of us need to be sensitive to the culture and traditions of other faiths. I am not talking of a purely academic or idealistic discussion but the possibility of people losing their lives as a result of some perceived attack on faith made across the world. I believe that the lives lost and the properties destroyed—including mosques and churches—after the Danish cartoons controversy erupted could have been avoided had there been people of greater wisdom and compassion at the start of the crisis.
Source: Newsweek
What on earth does it mean to be "sensitive" to the "culture and traditions of other faiths"? It appears to mean that we shouldn't exercise our free speech to criticize other cultures and religious traditions where free speech isn't valued. That's the conclusion I draw from Akbar Ahmed's suggestion that Muslim violence wouldn't have occurred if the Danish cartoons, some of which criticized Muslim violence, hadn't been published. So the message is: be "sensitive" to religious sensibilities and don't criticize religious violence, otherwise you'll encourage religious violence.
As the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy observes:
Ahmed's "can't we all get along?" tone sugarcoats a chilling message: you really shouldn't exercise free speech, because people will kill you for dissing their invisible friends. ... Sorry, but when people murder their fellow man because of cartoons, why should we be "sensitive" about the belief system that drove them to it? If I kill someone because I didn't like yesterday's "Family Circus," I can't reasonably expect people to be sympathetic.
Akbar Ahmed's conclusion to his editorial is just as chilling:
It is time for Muslims to reciprocate these gestures. As a Muslim committed to interfaith dialogue, I would appeal to the president of Iran not to make provocative remarks about the Holocaust nor to threaten the Jewish population with extermination. It is time for all of us to think about the boldness of the theater owners in Germany. They did, after all, stop a production of Mozart, the quintessential iconic Germanic figure, in order to express their belief in the dialogue of and understanding between civilizations.
He is referring to the decision of the German Opera in Berlin to cancel a 200-year-old work by Mozart in which the main figure at the end carries out the severed head of Muhammed. It's not an anti-Muslim statement because he's also carrying the heads of other religious figures in order to represent his separation from religion. Still, this very old opera was cancelled on the fear that Muslims would be offended enough to cause violence.
Akbar Ahmed, who claims to "support free speech and freedom of expression," praises this self-censorship. He goes on to tell Muslims that because people in the West have chosen to censor a work by one of the greatest musicians in European history out of fear of violence, Muslims should reciprocate by not praising mass-murder, the Holocaust, and the extermination of Jews.
Yeah, that sounds like an even exchange. Consider the situation of Robert Redeker, a writer and high school philosophy teacher in France who is under police protection now because he wrote an editorial criticizing Islam:
Entitled "Faced with Islamist intimidations, what should the free world do?," Redeker's article called the Koran "a book of extraordinary violence" that shows the prophet Mohammad to have been "a pitiless warlord, pillager, massacrer of Jews and polygamist." The very day the piece came out, Redeker started receiving e-mail death threats. In a letter to a friend published this week in Le Monde, Redeker wrote that one website condemning him to death included a map showing exactly where he and his family lived, along with photos of him and his workplaces.
In the letter, published as part of an appeal of support signed by French intellectuals including Bernard-Henri Lévy, André Glucksmann and Elisabeth Badinter, Redeker writes that he and his family are being forced to move every two days. "I'm a homeless person," he complains. "I exercised a constitutional right, and I'm being punished for it right here on the territory of the Republic."
Source: Time
Right or wrong, Redeker shouldn't have to fear for his life and the lives of his family simply because he expressed a negative opinion about Islam. Muslims are entirely justified in wanting to be treated with dignity and equality in Europe, but that will never happen so long as criticism of Islam and Muslims — even erroneous and unjustified criticism — leads to situations like this. Muslims can and should object to criticisms they dislike and think are wrong, but they should use words rather than violence. Otherwise, they simply show that the critics are right.
Unfortunately, there are some in France who are unwilling to support Redeker's right to express his opinions:
Support for Redeker has been widespread — but sometimes nuanced. Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin called his situation "unacceptable," a message forcefully echoed by French newspapers and teachers' unions. The minister of education, however, said that state employees should be "prudent, moderate and wise in all circumstances" — an implicit criticism that infuriated many of Redeker's supporters.
There was a touch of blame-the-victim in some Muslim reaction, too. Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Mosque of Paris and president of the French Council of the Muslim Religion, told TIME that Redeker had made "grave errors" in treating questions of religion in a "purely subjective manner." But, he said, "we have to respond with arguments, not threats of violence. I deplore the situation he is in."
It is true that when acting in their official capacity, state employees should be prudent and moderate in what they say. Redeker is a school teacher and while teaching he should be careful about what he says — including about Islam. When speaking for himself on his own time, however, he should have the same freedom as everyone else. Redeker and his family aren't in hiding because he teaches at a state school and his status as a state employee is irrelevant to his situation. I think that de Villepin only brought it up as an excuse — and a poor one, at that — to suggest that Redeker was wrong.
Muslims aren't alone in trying to censor the views of critics — Christians commonly reach for the blunt weapon of censorship as well. Christians, though, don't as often reach for threats of physical violence as well. They used to do so more often, but basic civil rights have become entrenched enough in the West and they have little choice anymore but to accept the presence of even strident attacks on their religion. It's not due to any intrinsic virtue in Christianity or Christians that prevents threats of violence, but simply a long history of not having any other option but to live with the critics. Muslims, including those in the West, haven't all learned this lesson yet.
Of course, we shouldn’t assume that Muslim threats of violence against critics is only an attack on the criticism. It sounds like a cliche to say that "the issue isn't the issue," but these are cases where that might be true. Threats of violence sometimes seem to be more common in places where Muslims are predominantly poor, predominantly an underclass, and not very well integrated into society. We don't see so many threats in America, for example, where many Muslims are doing very well socially and economically. I don't think that's entirely a coincidence: when Muslims' social and economic position is precarious, any criticism may seem to be much more of a threat which they will react to in kind.
This doesn't excuse the threats and my statement above that Muslims will have to learn to live with criticism in the West, just as Christians do, still stands. It may however explain why such vicious threats and violence occur — and it may suggest some ways to address these problems which won't appear to be immediately obvious or relevant. If Muslims can be made to feel more like real members of society, then the criticism won't seem like personal attacks. Of course, so long as Muslims react violently to criticism which Christians already accept for themselves, then Christians aren't likely to want to accept those Muslims as equal members of society. So who is going to make the first move?
More About Islam:
Comments
Lest anyone misconstrue my linked article, my point isn’t to single out Muslims. I think we’d live in a happier and safer world if no religion were considered beyond reproach, be it the chooser of chosen people or the blesser of America.
We are all bombarded my many thousands of lies every day, and most of them are meant to sell something. These are protected by free speech although they should not be. Every deliberate lie is a theft. And all these thefts are leading us to over-consume and waste limited resources.