We live in a time…
Consider the paradox of our times. We live in a time of peerless communication, where news is instantaneous, and more information – and disinformation – is available on the Internet for all, at all times. The Information and Communications Technology (ICT) revolution is creating a more connected world, a more informed world, and a world with much more in common than we ever had before. Yet, it is a world where the individual differences are being asserted, sometimes benevolently as when common bonds help promote solidarity and social support. Sometimes negatively, when the result is to accentuate the exclusionary character of the boundaries of where the “us” ends and the “them” begins. These new “frontiers of the mind” contrast sharply with the evidence of our common humanity. Yet they are there, these “murderous identities” as Amin Maalouf referred to them.
UNESCO was created on the premise of the need to know other cultures to avoid the horrors of war. Yet, today, sixty years later, the wars we are witnessing are all between people who have grown up together, who know each other as neighbors, and have lived together for generations.
We live in a time where people are being murdered on the basis of their ethnic or religious affiliation. Ethnic and/or religious cleansing is an ugly reality.
We live in a time where a local event or activity in one place can have repercussions halfway around the planet, sometimes to the level of life and death.
We live in a time where the collective memory of the atrocities of the past century should inform our actions in the new century…
We live in a time where, despite enormous advances, humanity still seems determined to repeat past errors and horrors …
We live in a time were despite our collective commitment to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), military spending is still 14 times greater than development spending.
We live in a time where more is known by more people than at any time before…where democracy and freedom of expression have been formally recognized as central themes for all societies with the possible exception of a few remaining outposts of totalitarianism such as north Korea and Myanmar…
Perceived risks:
We also live in a time where hate mongering, pedophilia, disinformation and every other form of eminently undesirable material can use the same new technologies to spread their poison to the unsuspecting and the young…
There are those who view such possibilities with justified alarm and want to rush to curb the extent of free speech by legislation.
There are those who actively constrain it by societal pressure that can lead to ostracism, social sanctions an even assassination for those holding contrarian views.
There are those who actively use these fears to promote their own political agendas.
How does one generate the sense of societal responsibility that can protect minorities from abuse and avoid potential conflict, while reinforcing the conviction of the need to protect freedom of expression? That, in many ways, is the dilemma facing all democratic societies in the beginning of this new century.
The issues are exacerbated because of the potential and the peril of the revolution in Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) that give many more people the opportunity to express themselves, yet provide the means of dissemination of messages of hatred and fear.
The problems are magnified because of the accelerating pace of change in our societies, and change is always uncomfortable for the people who have to endure it. It brings uncertainty, and with it anxiety and fear.
Fear of the unknown, fear of the future, fear of the other…
It is in such circumstance that people seek the false security of group identities. These tend to simplify our complex pluri-dimensional realities into one-dimensional labels and create Amin Maalouf’s “murderous identities” – for the other side of the identity coin is the exclusionary, intolerant and insecure character of these types of self-definitions.
The need to defend that against any attack, real or perceived, or real because it is perceived to be so..
Changing times are precisely the times where conventions are flouted, and boundaries tested. It is in such times that we redefine the acceptable. Changing times impose a process of weeding out the old-fashioned from the timeless, the wheat from the chaff. Such a process inevitably touches the raw nerves of the insecure, and the probing and testing unavoidably hurts many to the quick. The temptation to close the windows, to shut out the disturbing message becomes exceptionally strong. But it is precisely at these times that tolerance of the contrarian view must be maximized.
Do not legislate against free speech in a moment of fear or of appeasement.
Do not forget that the best cure for the ills of free speech is more free speech.
The timely tests that come our way are but reminders that the fight for freedom of expression is never done. Victories are tenuous. Ground once gained must be regained or defended against the attacks of those who believe in an inherent right to curtail the freedom of others...
We in the BA intend to live up to that high standard that Voltaire stated and that the ACLU applied:
I may disagree with your views, but I will lay down my life to defend your right to express your views.
The Virtues of Free Speech:
I say to my country-men and my co-religionists: do not underestimate the benefits that you get from free speech:
• The rights of Muslims in the west are no less protected by free speech than are those of minorities in the Muslim world.
• The rights of those who would reform religion must be protected no less than the rights of those who would defend tradition and maintain the status quo. Each is advancing the right cause as he or she sees the right to be.
But in this tolerant and open framework there are some exceptions. It is time to call things by their rightful names: discrimination cannot and should not be tolerated.
Let us recognize that the claims of cultural specificity that would deprive women of their basic human rights, or mutilate girls in the name of convention, should not be given sanction, especially by those who, like myself, are proud of their Arab and Muslim identity and do not want to see the essence of that tradition debased by such claims.
Let us recognize that no society has progressed without making a major effort at empowering its women, through education and the end of discrimination.
This is not “tradition” that is being defended, it is a distorted form of political pseudo-theological “inquisition” that is being proposed, that would limit the freedoms of the non-Muslim minorities and would circumscribe the Muslim majority within the confines of dogmas articulated by a tiny minority.
Freedom of expression is sacred.
For believers everywhere I say: remember that the word of God was spread by the ability of his prophets to spread the message and to be heard. They encountered opposition and coercion from those who would silence them.
The prophet Muhammad (p) spent 13 years in Mecca under the persecution of the Quraish and then emigrated to Madina with his few converts. The war with Quraish started with the prophet being able to muster only 300 men at Badr. In the subsequent six years, from his base in Madina the prophet confronted the Quraish at Hodaibeia with only 2,000 men. He made a truce that many of his followers considered too onerous on the Muslims but he insisted that he wanted peace, not war.
Two years later, it was the Quraish who broke the peace, and then the prophet marched on Mecca with 10,000 men, entered the city without a fight and gave an amnesty to all his former enemies.
In the two years of peace, where the freedom of speech for the Prophet and his disciples was allowed, the number of Muslims quintupled!
Within another two years of additional peace all the tribes of the Arabian peninsula had converted to Islam. Who can say that Islam was spread by the sword?
Security and freedom:
It is a truism that all communities, all nations are more tolerant when they feel secure. In the United States, when confronted with the specter of the civil war Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt interred 100,000 Americans of Japanese descent. In the 1950s US paranoia about communism tolerated the rise of McCarthyism. In response to the horrible events of 11 September 2001, the Patriot act was passed, abridging many of the legal protections of citizens.
To these cases, I say: remember the words of one of the wisest of the founding fathers of the US, Benjamin Franklin who said:
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
Restating the issues:
Can a democratic society withstand any amount of free speech? Should we not be concerned by the demonization of minorities leading to monstrosities such as the Holocaust in Europe or genocide in Rwanda? Should fear of repetition of such action lead to curbs on free speech? Is there a limit on hate speech and how do you define it and who has the authority for setting such limits?>
What about nascent democracies where societies have important cleavages, and groups watch each other with suspicion? When are democracies strong enough to withstand the full onslaught of free speech?
But can any democracy function without free speech?
My views:
Personally, I believe that there should be no limit on free speech except the standard libel and slander laws.
It is best to think of issues surrounding regulations of free speech as guidelines for behavior rather than legally criminalized actions. Intemperate words, like boorish behavior is best countered by a societal rejection than a legal sanction. No one has yet been able to define the boundaries of acceptable speech in a legally precise and defensible manner.
So, how should societies raise awareness about the dangers of hate speech and generate the kind of social consensus that would close out the possibilities of the hate speech moving to incitement and ultimately evil against the targeted minorities?
I believe that it is through the emphasis on both human rights and the importance of freedom of speech as the first freedom.
A case in point would be the role of the ACLU in defending the American Nazi Party’s right to peacefully demonstrate in Skokie Illinois in 1978/79. This famous case in the USA showed Jews defending the freedom of speech (and assembly) rights of the Nazis. They epitomized the Voltairian ideal. The ACLU initially lost a lot of members but ultimately emerged stronger for having stood on principle.
Today in many parts of the Arab and Muslim worlds, we have the problem of a language of extremism that is inciting people to violent action. Should such speech be protected?
Ideas must be defeated by ideas. The place to debate them is the market-place of ideas, not in the courts. Legal restrictions should be on actions, and on incitement to action. Now how far does one go in prohibiting incitement to action? The slippery slope to censorship of ideas deemed dangerous or seditious is clear.
Laws to prohibit the articulation of an idea are not only an engagement on a dangerous path, but also they are counterproductive. Take the prohibition against denial of the Holocaust, an understandable reaction to the horrors of Nazi actions in Europe. It gives the Holocaust deniers, horrible as they may be, grist to their mill: “See, they must legislate to forbid us from speaking because they cannot respond to our arguments”. We now see another law being passed in France to forbid the denial of the genocide against the Armenians in the early part of the 20th century. Given so many arguments including the impact of colonialism, communism, and so many other episodes of human history, how do we define the boundaries of acceptable legislation of this sort? Indeed, is any such legislation acceptable?
Affirmation of principles:
And so, from this podium, today, I say clearly and unambiguously, that freedom of speech must be protected. For freedom of speech is the single guarantor of progress; and from freedom of speech all aspects of good governance flow. There can be no transparency or accountability or participation or pluralism without freedom of speech protected by law, under the rule of law.
And from this podium, today, I say clearly and unambiguously, that freedom of speech is at risk.
It is at risk from potential legislation to limit its application, starting many countries on a slippery slope of restriction and censorship.
It is at risk from intolerant social attitudes that decry offenses, real or imagined, and value their peace of mind more than they value the potential benefits of free speech. They should see these offenses as the short term price we pay for the long term benefits society gets from free speech.
It is at risk because the misunderstandings between the cultures of the world are increasing polarizations and limiting understanding. Whether because it serves their purposes or because they react to perceived grievances, some people are actively rejecting openness and the rising misunderstandings are creating tensions that will find their expression in curtailment of speech that is considered hateful.
It is at risk and it must be protected.
It must be protected by the practice of free speech in an ongoing fashion. That is part of democracy as well. Indeed, democracy is not just about the views of the majority prevailing…. It is about protecting the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority... it is about creating a space where the marketplace of ideas can function in a level playing field. It is about creating a civil discourse that allows the contrarian view to be heard and promotes pluralism without turning our public sphere into a battleground.
Without free speech no search for truth is possible, no discovery of truth is useful, and no progress is possible. Without free speech progress is checked and the nations no longer march forward toward the nobler life which the future holds for people. Better a thousand-fold abuse of speech than a denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the human race. [Attributed to CHARLES BRADLAUGH.—Edmund Fuller, Thesaurus of Quotations, p. 398 (1941). Unverified].
With free speech, we can forge a future that was best expressed by the immortal words of Tagore in his Gitanjali. We can create a future where…
Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;
Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken into fragments by narrow domestic walls;
Where words come from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the desert sand of dead habit;
Where the mind is led … into ever-widening thought and action ---
Into that heaven of freedom, …, let my country awake.