We are going to lose the war with fanatical Islamism, and here’s how

CHARLIE HEBDO. A month ago, no one had even heard of it here in North America. And now? The magazine is selling millions of copies, many of them States-side. I see that for roughly $16,000 you can buy the first post-attack edition on eBay.

Is this a victory for free speech? I don’t know. I enjoy the irony that attacking the publication has only made it more widely circulated than ever before. Maybe that’s a victory for viral marketing, publicity and Capitalism. As for freedom of speech, I’ve lost count of the editorials here in the West explaining decisions not to show the offending covers. They are all of a cloth, and go something like this:

– The covers have no news value
– The images are readily available elsewhere, if you must see them
– The cartoons are deliberately offensive and in poor taste
– Viewers and readers will have their sentiments outraged

Now, there is no human right that says your cartoon must be shown on the news. And I agree that the images I have seen are strenuously rude and calculated to cause offence. I gather the Pope himself said, in an offhanded way, you should expect a punch for being so rude. (I’ll have more to say on that.)  But the arguments against showing the covers, above, don’t hold their marbles. Here’s why.

The covers have no news value

If you’re hosting a news program and find yourself saying, “this thing I’m talking about on the news, right now, has no news value,” then don’t expect to be taken seriously. Exactly this happened on PBS NewsHour Friday. The news value of the Charlie Hebdo covers is self-evident. You know what doesn’t have news value? The stuff that isn’t making the news. See how that works? You can argue with me about the judgements of news editors, but I don’t think you can deny that Charlie Hebdo is a for-real news item.

The images are readily available elsewhere, if you must see them

So what? Since when do you open the New York Times expecting to be told that you can read about something in the Wall Street Journal. Seriously, Main Street Media? You’re going to skip on printing the covers because , aw shucks, someone else went ahead and did it for you? Again, I can’t take you seriously. I call bullshit on this one.

The cartoons are deliberately offensive and in poor taste

Who is deciding for me what’s too offensive for my tender mind to handle? Who is censoring the news clean of the stuff I’m apparently not adult enough to take?

The guardians are.

Iran is “led” by something called the velayat-e-faqih. Do you know what that means? It’s the “Guardianship [velayat] of the Cleric [faqih].” Everyone in Iran is a ward of the state. The clerics are their guardians. The leaders make sure that the people are protected from anything un-Islamic. And, fortunately, they do a lousy job of it—but they do try.

Here’s a news flash: we don’t need freedom of speech laws to protect nice, friendly, middle-of-the road, feel-good consensus views. No one has to be placed under round-the-clock armed guard protection for writing books called “It’s a Swell Idea to Call Your Mother Once in a While” or “Ice Cream Goes Great with Apple Pie.” Non-offensive, non-challenging, non-controversial views protect themselves, by being boring and useless.

Once you decide to not protect the rude ideas, you’ve hollowed out free speech. It no longer exists. It’s a big joke. You’re saying, “I will bravely stand up for your right to say that puppies are cute.” B.I.G. D.E.A.L.

Here’s the truth: media people are afraid. I had coffee with a journalist friend of mine, and he told me there are now guards roaming the news floor. I get it. The world is scary. So admit, media execs, that this is about risking the loss of readers and revenue, and maybe even an attack. Be honest.

Back to the Pope. He says that if someone makes a rude comment about his mother, that person should expect a punch. I agree with the Pope on this one, and since I’ve never cared for Jesus’ stupid and dangerous teaching to turn the other cheek, I applaud His Holiness for advocating the defending of one’s mother.

But guess what? Punching someone is assault. In most jurisdictions, it’s illegal. And wrong. You might well be charged with a crime. If you seriously injured that person, you could spend time in jail—even though (in my view) you were justified in hitting him.

There’s also a difference, or should be, between attacking the ideas and behaviour of the mighty and powerful in print, and insulting someone’s poor mother. If the Pope can’t see the difference, he probably is not fit to pronounce on nuanced matters like spirituality, faith and theology. Maybe he should take up boxing instead.

Let’s get this straight. Islam is a religion of two billion followers. It claims for itself to be the final revelation of God. Mohammed claimed to be God’s Prophet, and his words are held by his billions of followers to establish eternal and universal truths whose authority commands our total obedience. Perceived disobedience, or even unorthodoxy, can lead to your disfigurement and death. Entire countries are now governed by clerics, under a harsh form of Islamic law called Sharia.

Does this sound like a poor, vulnerable target to you? No way. Islam has enormous social, ideological and military power. And it’s a set of ideas, some of which are stupid, irrational, dangerous and cruel. The same is true, in my opinion, of every other religion.

Anyone working for a satirical magazine whose purpose is to critique powerful and potentially dangerous ideas has a duty to ridicule the excesses of Islam’s self-appointed spokespersons and enforcers. It’s nothing at all like telling someone his mother is fat. I repeat: nothing at all. Unless, of course, this fat mother claims to have given virginal birth to a god who rose from the dead and took a magic-carpet ride in outer space before coming back to dictate The Bible 3.0—and that if you don’t believe all of this, you are an infidel who deserves death. Or, if they are feeling generous, maybe just to be a persecuted minority of second-class non-citizens.

Viewers and readers will have their sentiments outraged

Dear offended religious people: do you know that I have my sentiments outraged daily by the things you do and say? It’s true. I am outraged when I see Catholic propaganda that says we should ban assisted suicide because suffering is a beautiful gift from God. (If so God is a lousy gifter: He should have a Returns Policy.) I am offended when clerics and priests say that atheism is destroying civilization and that earthquakes are punishment for gay marriage and “you can’t be a good person if you don’t have God in your heart.” People actually have said that last one to my face, and every time I barf a little into my mouth.

There are so many religious ideas I find offensive and barbaric that I could write a book listing them. (Note to self.) I can’t get through lunch without  some offensive religious idea or pronouncement drifting into my personal space. My head is pounding as I type this, because I can think of hundreds of examples.

Do I insist that these offensive ideas be banned from being reported in the media? No, I don’t. I accept the fact that not everyone agrees with me. I deal with it by going to the market place of ideas, where I appeal to reason and argumentation. Some of the people on the other side of the argument believe that, with God on their side, they have the right and even duty to kill me for my views. (Someone described as a “Saudi Muslim leader” is going to the courts instead—that’s a somewhat encouraging novelty.) I notice these are also the people who are most vocal about not criticizing religion or offending religious sensibilities.

So to recap: I get to be offended every day by religious ideas and action, but—for goodness sake!—don’t say anything rude about religion, because that’s mean and offensive and in poor taste. Racist, even. Notice how it’s been mostly liberal, free-speech types who’ve caved in to this idea that we shouldn’t offend religious sensibilities. They point out to me that I wouldn’t tolerate anti-Semitism, ignoring the fact that I’ve protected the free speech of those losers, too. Because it is speech. If it’s something more than that, I’m open to the conversation. Just keep in mind that banishing speech does not solve any real-world problem—it only makes your precious sentiments feel better.

The next person to ban an “Islamophobic” university campus publication will most likely be wearing an “I am Charlie” pin on her lapel. It’s a truism worth repeating: the barbarians never charge the gate—it’s always opened from the inside, by self-loathing people who secretly wish for the destruction of their society.

This week the gate opened. All of the nice liberals have decided it’s more important to be deferential to religious sensibilities than it is to take a controversial stand for freedom of speech.

That’s exactly how we are going to lose this battle, folks.

Find me on Twitter. Check out my latest book.

like-share

4 responses to “We are going to lose the war with fanatical Islamism, and here’s how

  1. Dear Dawne,

    Excellent and perceptive questions!

    The Mahmood story would be unbelievable if you hadn’t spent time immersed in campus politics. I’ve always considered myself “on the left,” even toward the radical end. Humourlessness is something I got used to there, along with a tendency toward cliched thinking. His satire probably did offend, for reasons it isn’t hard to deduce. The academic left believes you can change reality by changing language, and to some degree this has validity. The excesses he mocks are however very familiar to me. I think it’s a sad comment that an anonymous complaint could shut down a column. By the way, the anonymous bit matters to me. Maybe I’m old fashioned, but unless there is physical danger involved, an accuser should face the accused. There is an added menace in this hiding in the shadows business. The whole things stinks.

    On hate crimes—this one is tough. I’ve written on the issue here https://waynekspear.com/2013/03/01/how-thought-crime-came-to-canada/

    and here https://waynekspear.com/2011/02/10/i-give-you-mr-charles-mcvety/

    In Canada, the Criminal Code 13(1) identifies “hate messages” as an indictable offence. The clause has already been given force by recent court rulings.

    I’m uncomfortable with the language of hate speech. There are good historical reasons for hate crime legislation, but I maintain that 13(1) opens the door for potential abuses of unpopular or minority views by vocal or organized majorities. Or even silencing of speech by a militant minority. In the Whatcott case I argued that he should have protection of his speech and that his views should be discredited and trounced by the free speech of those, like me, who abhor what he has to say. That’s my solution to hateful speech: a healthy, vigorous, constructive public refutation. Otherwise these guys retreat into the cracks, where they recruit like-minded creeps in the dark crevices of our world. Silencing an unpleasant and hateful idea doesn’t work. My objections are practical.

    Some years ago, the writer Christopher Hitchens was here in Toronto and gave what I consider the textbook summation of the free speech position. You can look it up on YouTube. I forget who originally published it, but it was a three-part video and it began with him saying “fire” in a crowded room.

    All the best. Thank-you for the useful and thought-provoking questions.

    Like

  2. Have you heard of Omar Mahmood? Just wondering what your thoughts are on his situation. I’m also wondering what your view are concerning the relationship between hate speech and free speech.

    By the way, I love your quote: I’ll take the free market of ideas over violence and censorship, any time, any place. It’s too bad more people don’t agree with you.

    Like

  3. Thank-you, Ben. I wonder, of how much consequence was Charlie Hebdo before it was made a celebrity cause? Probably most French ignored it, until a few malcontents made it seem much more than it was. The marketplace of ideas, when allowed to operate, works like that. It assigns the discredited or poorly-made or just bizarre arguments to the fringes, and rewards thoughtfulness and relevance and taste. I’ll take the free market of ideas over violence and censorship, any time, any place. Cheers, -W.

    Like

  4. “The cartoons are deliberately offensive and in poor taste”–and therefore an editor can, by his/her own sensibility and judgment, choose not to run it without being accused of censorship. Rather, it is restraint, and a wise restraint. Not running the cartoon: also a form of free expression.

    Freedom of expression is incontestable. It needs no defense or explanation & those who would obstruct the freedom may be called any number of names, none of which improves on the fact that self-expression is a sacred right. But this sacred right is also nuanced. It is a right to be exercised with conscience. For every expression, there is an impression. In the case of Charlie Hebdo, I get the impression of an organization that is intolerant, crude, hateful: as backward as the backwardness it attempts to mock.

    Like

◌ You can write stuff down here ⬇

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s