Depictions of the Prophet Muhammad and Freedom of Religion

Following the attacks in Paris made on the Charlie Hebdo staff, there has been a clear need to restate and reaffirm the need and importance of freedom of speech: the freedom to question, parody, and puncture any ideology is an essential part of democracy and a healthy society. However, some questioned the wisdom of publishing (or even re-publishing) the images of Muhammad on the Charlie Hebdo covers (for example, Jonathan Freedland  and Joseph Harker of the Guardian) because they thought it would cause needless offence to a very large number of Muslims - maybe even the “vast majority of Muslims around the world”. But to argue that the cartoons shouldn’t be re-published because they might offend a large number of people is to simply reinforce a religious taboo; it’s an argument to make blasphemy an acceptable restriction on free speech. This makes it more difficult for those who are not offended to express themselves as Maajid Nawaz found when he went onto Twitter to say that he didn’t find one of the Jesus and Mo cartoons offensive. He was expressing an opinion about his own faith and for this he received death threats. If it becomes normal in the media, and in public life in general to take blasphemy seriously, then this will in fact restrict the freedom of Muslims to express their faith as happened with Nawaz.

For anyone who might think there is a need to be sensitive to the feelings of Muslims that are against depictions of Muhammad because of the general prohibition of it in Islam, and who do not want to offend a large number of these Muslims by reproducing the pictures in question, they should remember another principle; one that is inextricably linked to free speech - freedom of religion. Respecting this prohibition is insensitive to the diversity of opinion and practice in Islam. Not only that, it fosters the conditions in which an idea is immune from being challenged by anyone - especially other Muslims. A tradition of depicting the prophet in some Islamic art does exist. For some Muslims it is part of their worship. They should be allowed to create and admire these images without fear of censorship or fear of violence. A prohibition which silences critics, or anyone who wants to break any of these taboos for whatever reason, is only helping one group of Muslims force their interpretation on the rest of the Muslim population and everybody else. By taking the demands and actions of one group of Muslims seriously (and taking it as the general opinion of all Muslims) narrows the definition of Islam and makes it harder for others to express their thoughts on it and to practice it how they wish. It smothers diversity within the religion and any dissenting voices. The prohibition of the depiction of Muhammad is open to interpretation for those that want to follow it. Whether this interpretation is correct or not (and that goes for any rule that a religion sets out), it does not need to be followed by everybody. Even if it were undeniable that scripture prohibited depiction, that would not mean that people have to follow it. And even if the majority of Muslims find it offensive as is claimed, it still does not mean all Muslims or anyone else must observe it. With freedom of religion comes the right to interpret your religion as you want to and to practice it in the way you want to. This means you don’t have to follow all the rules that you don’t think are important, and nobody should be able to make you. Whether it is extremists, conservative Muslims, or anyone else who thinks that nobody should be depicting Muhammad, they are all damaging the diversity of practice in Islam and making it harder for other Muslims to express their faith in different ways. For Muslims who want to be able to discuss, develop, and express their faith without limits to doing so, there needs to be a commitment to freedom of religion and ultimately freedom of speech.

 

 

Why Julien Blanc should not have been denied entry to the UK

            Despite his rhetoric being not only ridiculous and laughable but also foul and repellent, Julien Blanc should not have been blocked from coming to the UK. Blanc was set to hold seminars giving dating advice that many took strong objection to and believed would encourage misogyny and sexual harassment. He was denied a visa by the Home Office after a petition on Change.org, which gathered more than 150,000 signatures, requested he not be let into the country. Stopping him appearing in person does not effectively challenge harmful attitudes towards women (it certainly won’t stop him doing his seminars via webcam or people accessing his videos online). In fact, it avoids having the arguments that need to be had in explaining why these attitudes are harmful. He needs to be able to speak so he can be challenged. That could have been protests outside the meetings or even audience members asking hard questions at the seminars. However, this is not the only problem with him being blocked. The other problem lies with the reasoning behind the call to block him. The petition on Change.org by Caroline Charles claimed that:

            “Blanc’s misogynistic ‘pick-up techniques’ directly exploit vulnerable men who buy into rape culture and end up believing that this is an appropriate way to behave.”

So not only are women vulnerable and possible victims of his advice to men but so are the men themselves. For Charles, they need someone to step in and shield them from ideas that may harm them and others. Telling people that it is for their own good that they don’t get to see something potentially harmful is just infantilising them. Those wanting to stop Julien Blanc from saying the kind of things he says do not trust people to hear them and behave responsibly. From the wording of the petition, they don’t think that people are even capable.

This inclination to stop speakers because of their perceived threat to culture and society is a wrongheaded approach to challenging unpleasant ideas. It doesn’t really challenge them at all. From the way this affair has been handled it gives the impression that his talks are so effective that they cannot be withstood and so must be totally avoided. People who are going to them simply aren’t up to thinking critically as their minds have become enfeebled by a belief in rape culture. If that is the case then Blanc should be discredited for all to see. Even if some men did go out and behave appallingly after one of Julien Blanc’s seminars, they would be responsible for their own actions and they should be criticised and prosecuted. On the whole though, people should be trusted to go see Julien Blanc’s nonsense without feeling a desire to harass or cause harm to women afterwards. And if they do, the law should deal with them. Julien Blanc is responsible for his own actions too and should be arrested if someone wants to press charges against him if he has assaulted them. There is no point in free speech if you only allow views that you think help maintain or create a good or better society.

To make any credible progress in the fight for women’s rights and overall equality, misogynists must be allowed to speak so the debates and arguments against them can be had. If the beliefs of misogynists are not defeated by better arguments, then the beliefs of liberals are imposed as a dogma. If there is no fight, then liberal beliefs become orthodoxy and people will not support them because they believe them but because they have no choice but to do so. The arguments for equality and feminism need to be kept alive for us to live up to them, not simply conform to them.