February 4th, 2006
Take any emotive political or religious issue and throw it into the public consciousness, and you’re guaranteed to get a rentamob along to stir things up – and a group of radical Muslims managed precisely that in London this week. A mob in Damascus burns down the Danish embassy, and this is seen as standard fare for that part of the world – people will see the news and say that the natives around those parts are always waving their arms in the air, shouting Jihad and burning flags. A mob in London threatens blood on the streets, beheadings, and terrorist attacks in the mould of 7/7, and suddenly everyone in Western Europe has an opinion.
Police didn’t arrest protesters in London for fear of provoking more violent protests, and then moderate Muslims appeared on the news complaining that the police did nothing, disavowing themselves of behaviour they described as reprehensible. The Church of England thinks it has problems with a split over gay priests – Islam is split between extremists who would subjugate the western world with sharia law and behead all infidels, and the majority of moderate Muslims who deny having anything to do with them. Talk about identity crisis.
The reason why police in London didn’t arrest the protesters? We’re walking on egg shells around Islam, contrary to the ongoing assertions of Muslim commentators in the news that everyone is looking for reasons to attack their religion. The UK is a tolerant place, but the recent protests over a satirical cartoon have been disproportionately violent, angry and threatening, and even if they have been by a vocal few, they’ve invited widespread disgust and disbelief. This is one of the greatest problems with discussing Islam, more than any other religion – even peaceful, moderate Muslims are quick to take offence, and hypersensitive to criticism and the slightest suggestion that Islam and extremism are linked – but news footage shows fundamentalist rentamobs burning flags, out on the streets shouting hate at the slightest provocation, and harbouring bigoted and anachronistic opinions. Nevertheless we don’t hear of any internal dialogue to resolve these issues within Islam – partly because moderate Muslims in many places are threatened and brutally repressed by extremists.
The argument for publishing the cartoons of Muhammad in the Danish press is that in Europe we have a secular society which encourages debate, satire and discussion, regardless of the creed that might be under discussion. The argument against is that the publication of any image of the Prophet is absolutely forbidden by an Islamic law that seeks to prevent idolatry of a false image of a perfect being – that, and the obvious offence that might be derived from showing the Prophet with a turban shaped like a bomb. This whole situation is born of a fundamental clash of cultures, and religion once more plays its part in making sure that this is one of those never-ending arguments. Nevertheless, Denmark, and Europe, is not subject to the law of Islam, and most reasonable people would say that their right to free speech, or satire, should be as sacred as Muhammad is to a Muslim, and that curtailing free speech means it is no longer free.
The irony of the current situation is that it is being played out just as BNP activists in the UK have been acquitted of race hate charges. Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, successfully defended himself on the basis that in our society he is allowed freedom of speech, precisely the freedom of speech that the government would seek to curtail with their (fortunately) failed religious hatred bill. And yes, I know race hatred is different to religious hatred, but don’t actually think they are that different at all. When extremist Muslims are threatening beheadings in London and our most prominent champion of free speech is the leader of the BNP, it’s tempting to think we’re all going to hell in a hand basket – but Griffin, Danish newspapers, and Muslims are all entitled to say what they like. The problem is that the people who shout the loudest are usually the people with the most poorly-informed, bigoted and dangerous opinions, but you’ve no more right to censor people on the basis of their being a moron than you do on the basis of their offending anyone.
“I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire
Related articles:
My photos are ending up all over the place. This photo, taken on the road to Cape Tribulation from Cairns in Australia, is the latest wallpaper for an automatic desktop wallpaper changing application, so may be flashing up on the desktops of people in places far and wide.
I’m even more chuffed, though, to find out that my photo of a pair of Kereru, New Zealand native wood pigeons, is going to be included in an exhibition on the Maori lunar calendar at the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa in Wellington, NZ, and will be there for about the next ten years, which may just give me enough time to go and see it for myself.
This video scares me deeply
Quite Random is the blog of Nathan Nelson, a human male who lives in the UK and is not entirely sure what he's going to do when he grows up but is interested in international development, photography, secularism, technology, music and movies and other things anyone of his age would be.
