The debate over the limits of free
speech, which is a tenet of liberal democratic societies, will erupt every time
an ignorant person seeking fame and controversy commits the abhorrent act of
burning and desecrating
the Quran. By doing so, that person — under the guise
of freedom of expression — hopes to trigger the anger and condemnation of
millions of Muslims all over the world. And that is exactly what usually
happens.
اضافة اعلان
Put aside the possibility that such
acts feed extremists on all sides and may lead to retaliatory and criminal acts
that cannot be justified, as in the cases of the Danish newspaper
Jyllands-Posten which published derogatory cartoons depicting Prophet Mohammad
(PBUH) in 2005 and the same with Charlie Hebdo magazine in France in 2012. In
both cases, there was retaliation, and in the case of Charlie Hebdo, it led to
a deadly outcome.
Last week a far-right Swedish
politician
burnt a copy of the Quran in Stockholm. The government denounced the
act but underlined that what he had done came under his right to free speech.
Since then, the politician who committed the vile act claimed to have received
death threats.
Muslims must express anger and
disgust without incitementIt is easy for western politicians
to claim that burning the Quran or lampooning the Prophet cannot be banned
because it would be a violation of democratic principles. But the issue is much
more complicated than that. There are limits to one’s freedom of expression if
it insults the beliefs of millions. Ironically, Muslims, even those living in
western democracies, would not dare desecrate the Bible or insult Jesus Christ.
There are limits to one’s freedom of expression if it insults the beliefs of millions. Ironically, Muslims, even those living in western democracies, would not dare desecrate the Bible or insult Jesus Christ.
On the other hand,
Muslims should condemn acts of violence against those who insult them. They should seek to
demonstrate religious tolerance even as they express anger and dismay at anyone
who attacks their beliefs.
Those seeking fame by attacking the
faith of billions of people will only receive notoriety. By doing so, they do
not belittle Islam or diminish its influence across nations. It is the right of
Muslims to express anger and disgust at such acts, but their protests must not
lead to incitement.
The debate over free speech should
be an ongoing one. It must not be initiated only when a fanatic insults
Muslims and their faith. The reality is that there are limits to free speech in the
West. It is only when the issue of insulting Islam is raised that politicians
say that their hands are tied.
The UN Strategy and Plan of Action
on Hate Speech defines hate speech as …“any kind of communication in speech,
writing or behavior, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language
with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other
words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, color, descent,
gender or other identity factors.”
The debate over free speech should be an ongoing one. It must not be initiated only when a fanatic insults Muslims and their faith.
But the UN admits that, to date,
there is no universal definition of hate speech under international human
rights law. The concept is still under discussion, especially in relation to
freedom of opinion and expression, non-discrimination, and equality.
While the US Supreme Court considers
hate speech protected under the First Amendment and has rejected government
attempts to criminalize it, social media platforms censor posts by users that
it categorizes as hate speech that calls for incitement. Former President
Donald Trump was banned from Twitter and Facebook for violating community
rules.
Still, in 2021 the US House of
Representatives adopted a bill entitled Preventing anti-Semitic Hate Crimes and
expanded the Department of Justice’s powers to investigate hate crimes against
Jews.
In the UK, any crime can be
prosecuted as a hate crime if the offender has either: demonstrated hostility
based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or transgender
identity or been motivated by hostility based on race, religion, disability,
sexual orientation, or transgender identity.
In France, the Law on the
Freedom of the Press of 29 July 1881 guarantees freedom of the press, subject to several
prohibitions. Article 24 prohibits anyone from publicly inciting another to
discriminate against, or to hate or to harm, a person or a group for belonging
or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a
religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap. Articles 32
and 33 prohibit anyone from publicly defaming or insulting a person or group
for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation,
a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap.
Limits on free speechIn fact, 16 European countries,
along with Canada and
Israel, have laws against Holocaust denial. Just like
anti-Semitism is considered a hate crime in a number of European countries,
Muslims living there should seek to enact laws that consider insulting their
faith as a hate crime that leads to incitement and violence.
The claim that burning the Quran falls under free speech is hypocritical. Just as western countries have enacted laws criminalizing anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, and those discriminating against LGBT people; they can take the extra step to protect those who are discriminated against because of their faith or those who have become the subject of hate speech because of their religion.
The claim that burning the Quran
falls under free speech is hypocritical. Just as western countries have enacted
laws criminalizing anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, and those discriminating
against LGBT people; they can take the extra step to protect those who are
discriminated against because of their faith or those who have become the subject
of hate speech because of their religion.
At the end of the day, these
societies had imposed limits on free speech when they saw the need to do so.
The priority must be given to protecting all members of society because the
right of one man must not come at the expense of the rights of others.
Osama Al Sharif is a journalist and political commentator based
in Amman. This OPED was previously published on Gulf News.
Read more Opinion and Analysis
Jordan News
.jpg)
.jpg)
