Freedom of expression

The rebuttal session has been quite lively during which our debaters further extended their arguments while also countering each other’s. We have seen robust and calculated arguments of both sides put forward in a very smart manner. However, voting trend has been still heavily against the motion and 81% of the participants believe that freedom of expression does not give right to insult. As we enter into the closing session, let me just highlight what’s been said by each of the participants for our audience who have just joined in.

Defending the motion, Ms. Stauffer responded to the arguments made against the motion in a very dynamic way by highlighting important questions on the arguments of opposite side and expanding her arguments further. She emphasised that the freedom to insult is not a duty to insult and the fact that one can carry such an insult does not mean one will. While responding to Dr. Klug’s guest remarks, she highlighted that UNDHR does not have binding force and is merely a document outlining idealistic world. Further elucidating her argument, she maintained that rude and abusive people may be the truth tellers and help society to evolve its outdated thinking. Restricting such voices for fear of causing offense limits honest necessary discourse. In response to the opposition arguments against inflammatory speech, Ms. Stauffer suggested that “a great deal of good can come from such offensive speech: being forced to confront distasteful beliefs helps us, as a society, determine what we are comfortable with, and what we aren’t”. She made it clear that what is something insulting to one person or a small minority cannot be the yardstick by which freedom of expression is measured. Ms. Stauffer also argued that hate speech and insulting ideas are two different things. Hate speech may actually harm people by inciting violence against them, whereas, insulting ideas simply hurts your feelings, something you can easily survive with. In conclusion, Ms. Stauffer again, highlighted that insulting someone may have unpleasant consequences i.e. losing job, friendship or even life but “we should trust each other enough to test boundaries: we can handle it”.

Opposing the motion, Dr. Doig also presented well-articulated arguments. While countering Ms. Stauffer’s argument that legal restrictions on right to insult would make it more difficult to examine the criminal misbehaviour (for example, paedophilia among Catholic priests); he argued that laws against defamation already allow an individual to present the truth of the allegation. Dr. Doig expressed that hate speech is of two kinds. One directed against an individual; referencing again the case of Virginia v. Black, he criticised the court’s decision and urged that burning of cross near the home of an African-American should be punishable without looking into the intent of the cross burner. Dr. Doig mentioned another case Elonis v United States, in which a husband was convicted of making threats to his wife where the husband argued that he did not intend to carry out those attacks. Dr. Doing appreciated Canadian rule of law on Freedom of Expression that, we should give importance to individual dignity and cultural and group identity while restricting hate speech. In the end, Dr. Doig condemned the efforts of Pamela Geller and her allies, quoting New York Times categorizing those acts against Muslims as ‘bigotry and hatred’. He thus opposes the protection of First Amendment given to those who inflict “deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism.”

During the rebuttal session, we were also pleased to be joined by renowned journalist and human rights activist Ms. Lauren Booth, who participated with some interesting remarks. Sharing her personal experiences, as well as of her children, encountering hatred in the society, she asked that “why should it ever be a protected element of society to hurt, persecute or defame a person, a faith or a much beloved and important spiritual icon?” Ms Booth, in response to Ms Stauffer’s argument, said that deciding not to buy a degrading publication or changing a TV channel where such speech is being practiced, is simply not enough to counter the effect. She raised the questions about the effects it has on the people reading or watching such publication, inflamed by the contents and may repeat those insults as a consequence. Ms. Booth concluded while saying that insults are not a defence of free speech but rather a failing of our ability to know and respect one another.

We also had some really interesting comments and questions from our respected audience who continue to energetically participate in this timely debate. Amongst many others, Mr. Wajid Ali seems to have been raising the same question regarding insult and hateful expression, that how if one restricts himself or ignores such expression, going to prevent it from happening again. On the other hand, participants siding with the proposition, like Ms. Daniella believe that there’s not a clear or mutual regulation deciding what is offensive or insulting expression, thus one can ignore it rather than suppressing this crucial right, as Ms. Stauffer proposes.

As the debate enters its closing phase, our debaters will now present their final statements. We look forward to a very interesting closing session.

At the time of my writing these closing remarks, my defense of the motion is losing—badly. Only 18% of people agree with my position, with more than 80% roundly disagreeing. It seems that the majority of those participating in this debate do not find my arguments at all persuasive.

I am, of course, disappointed, but I’m gratified to see the high level of passionate discourse this topic is provoking. If people disagree with me, that’s OK. At least they are taking the time to respond and engage, and maybe over the long term, they’ll start to consider the issue from a different angle…or, maybe not. 

Dr. Doig, Ms. Booth and some of the commenters have all noted that the principle of freedom of expression is selectively protected at best, and to this sentiment, I cannot disagree. Governments and lawmakers, guided as ever by self-interest, do a rather patchy job of making policy and enforcing their own legislation. Also, as this debate is taking place in a self-identified Muslim forum, it is understandable that so many people are relating to the proposition of “insults” from an Islam-centric focus. It is undeniable that ever since September 11th, there has been a terribly unfortunate global trend towards of giving “legitimacy” to those that would insult the Islamic faith and its adherents. It is here that Ms. Booth’s comments on the widespread of acceptance of casual racism because it’s “all in good fun” are especially poignant. I would like to state unreservedly: I understand why the topic is so sensitive, and I empathize. 

However, here’s the thing: I think you can handle it. I think you, as the followers of the second most-populous religious affiliation in the world, with all of its glorious history and fascinating diversity, can withstand some scattered, offensive attacks from the ignorant and misguided. I think you will be able to embrace your inner emotional courage and brush off distasteful cartoons drawn by elderly French men, or hateful public “debates” sponsored by publicity-seeking Dutch politicians. Is it fair that the responsibility NOT to react to being shifted to you? No. It’s not. But if we just let the crackpots natter away on the margins without reacting, their influence becomes more and more diminished until it is non-existent.

Moreover, it’s NOT just adherents of Islam that get insulted. Everyone does. African-Americans, gays, Hindus, women, Arabs, Jews, lesbians, Sikhs, Germans, transgender people, Buddhists, Inuits…everyone. All of us have, at one point or another, been subjected to demeaning comments or sentiments by our fellow human beings. The fact remains that in a crowded world of 7 billion souls of different religions, races, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, and political beliefs, it is impossible that we won’t rub each other the wrong way sometimes. 

Humans are tribalistic creatures by the mere fact of evolution—for millennia, the only way to survive was to tightly align ourselves with those who were exactly like us. In the 21st century, this is no longer the case, and yet we still kind of PREFER to hang out with our own kind (however that term is defined). Nevertheless, in this modern era of cheap travel and instantaneous communication, we will bump into each other more often than ever. Tensions are, inevitably, going to arise—as they have for thousands upon thousands of years. Thankfully, the go-to response no longer has to be violence. 

Freedom of expression must include the right to insult, because there is no alternative. Artificially curtailing freedom of expression for fear of causing insult gives those in power far too much arbitrary influence. Governments (whether democratically elected or not) never like to have their policies questioned, and if they can cut off dissent behind the convenient veneer of anti-hate speech or blasphemy laws, they will. As I have maintained throughout this debate, my position is NOT that using your freedom of expression should never have consequences—it historically has, it currently does, and it will continue to do so. But any restrictions on freedom of expression must be necessary and proportionate to the possible harm caused. 

If the envisioned harm is that somebody’s words will incite widespread violence or hostility against a particular minority group, then it seems eminently reasonable to have some restrictions on such speech. But even here, this is qualified to that kind of speech which may have widespread or lasting violent effects. If we cede our personal agency to powerbrokers to cherry pick and criminalize those isolated statements here or there that they find offensive, we will regret it. There is no guarantee that the rulers and the ruled will have the same opinions as to what is “insulting.” 

I will conclude by picking up on something Dr. Doig mentioned: it is true that phenomena like the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are inevitably going to “give the extremists more fuel;” however, the most important word in this whole sentence is “extremists.” Why are we letting the most extreme versions of humanity decide what is and what is not acceptable? Such people are necessarily on the fringe, because their views are so far removed from what is considered normal that they can’t congregate here in the melting pot with the rest of us. If we pander to them—if we allow them to decide what is and what isn’t “insulting”—the world will be a scary, divisive, and violent place. The best response to such perversion is openness, transparency, and the free exchange of opinions. Yes, occasionally, your feathers might get ruffled—inevitably, mine will too. But I’d rather stand here beside you feeling temporarily out of sorts, than stand far away from you behind a wall, with “my own kind.” Collectively, we can figure out what we, as humanity, are willing to accept. Those ideas that are bigoted, ill-intentioned and harmful will fade away over time, as they always have. So, be brave. Become comfortable with the idea of being “insulted.” Take power back from the extremists. Together, we can do this.

This has been, I believe, an excellent exchange of views on the problem of insulting speech and hateful expression generally. In my closing statement, I want to direct attention in particular to Hilary Stauffer’s thoughtful Rebuttal remarks and the insightful comments of Lauren Booth, and as space permits I will refer to the interesting observations of readers who have joined in the debate.

In her rebuttal, Hilary Stauffer points out, correctly in my view, that “rude and abusive people” may be “truth-tellers” who help society challenge “superstitious or outdated thinking.” She then seems to defend the value of rap lyrics that “demean and objectify women” as well as “inaccurate stereotypes of Blacks, Jews and Muslims”; there I disagree. Yet soon after, she takes a stand much closer to mine: “When we are confronted with opinions, thoughts or belief systems that do more harm than good,” she argues, we can decide collectively that “such speech should be regulated” – though such restrictions should be “the last resort”.

However, Ms. Stauffer concludes with a comment that I feel sure does not represent her actual position – “What is insulting to one person or a small minority cannot be the yardstick by which freedom of expression is measured.” This conclusion is quite different from my view, and from the position that the U.S. courts and observers abroad have taken for many decades: Minorities, such as Blacks and Muslims in the US, must be protected from abusive majorities, so that they retain equal rights and opportunities.

Our Featured Guest, Lauren Booth, underscores via the experience of her young children the importance of protecting members of minority groups from being called “terrorists” -- or “coons” or “kikes” or other terms that are abusive. And she points out that insults directed toward Muslims or Jews or others, on TV and in print, may lead some viewers to be “inflamed” by the verbal attacks and may lead them to “shout and repeat the insults they have read or heard”, a kind of contagion that undermines the ability of diverse people to live and work in harmony.

However, I cannot embrace the position, which Ms. Booth finds acceptable, that insulting Islam, Christianity or Judaism should be “punishable by up to seven years in prison” – the law in Qatar, where she currently lives. The threat of that kind of punishment is likely to lead citizens to remain silent even if they see the need (for example) to criticize priests in the Catholic Church who abuse children and the Cardinals and Popes who have protected those priests. Nor can I accept the position in the Pakistan Penal Code that specifies that any “derogatory remarks” directed at Mohammad “shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life”. Let me add, based on my readings, that laws such as that of Qatar (and Pakistan and some other countries) are probably not in accord with the position of Mohammad or of the Qur’an. When confronted by those who called him a madman or a liar, the Holy Prophet forgave them and said that any punishment would occur in the Afterlife.

Ms. Stauffer makes an important distinction between criticizing policies of governments and religions (acceptable) and insulting individuals and groups – for example, an assertion that “all” Muslims are terrorists, or that all Jews are thieves (not acceptable). Jes Broeng, Yasir Khan and others who have entered the debate tend to agree with this distinction. This leads to the question, how should insults directed toward individuals and groups, and hateful expression generally, be treated – by closing our ears to the insulters, as Ms. Stauffer suggests in her comment on the Charlie Hebdo cartoons; or by letting them flourish but countering them with more speech, as Professor Stone urges; or by regulating and in some cases using fines and other punishments to reduce the contamination they bring to public discourse.

My own view is that the third option is preferable. To take a very recent example, the Nazi chants (“Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas”) at a Dutch soccer game in April should have led to fines levied on the chanters, with escalating fines for future incidents.

Those who oppose restrictions on free expression often take the position that Professor Stone (a leading expert on free speech) expresses in his comment in this debate: “Once we permit a majority of our fellow citizens to decide which ideas” can be subject to penalties, “we’re in for a nightmare”; Stone conjectures that then blacks and whites could no longer intermarry in Alabama, abortion would be declared illegal in Texas, gay marriage would be barred in Mississippi.

However, most of the commentators during this debate can see the likely benefits of some restrictions without envisioning Stone’s “nightmare”. For evidence supporting this position we can turn to Canada, where – as I indicated in my opening statement – an active and independent judicial system weighs “freedom of expression” in the context of “respect for the inherent dignity” of all individuals and “respect for cultural and group identity”. Hate propaganda is therefore subject to legal restrictions, including fines and jail terms. Yet Canada’s hate-speech law is used only occasionally and, careful observers have concluded, spirited debate on matters political and religious still occurs – but in a spirit of mutual respect, without the vile and provocative language sometimes found in the United States and some other nations.

Debaters, guests and users’ statements and comments are their independent thoughts, opinions, beliefs, viewpoints and are not necessarily that of MUSLIM Institute's.