Freedom of Speech

I was reading Michael Brull in the New Matilda this morning and his writing echoed much of what I have been thinking about lately in light of the Charlie Hebdo murders and the overwhelming public support of what is viewed in the West as the fight for the Freedom of Speech and Democracy. He wrote; “Our defence of 'freedom of speech' appears to be qualified by whether or not we actually find the speech offensive.”

I am worried you see, about the fact that I know it is forbidden for Islam to make visual representations of any kind of the prophet. It is akin to the notion of Christian idolatry. But they are far more serious about adhering to the proscription as the worldwide sale of millions of dollars worth of iconic tat from twee paintings of Jesus to shell clad images of the Virgin Mary to Christians can attest.

I find some of the cartoons of the Charlie Hebdo magazine offensive myself. But what is the West’s response to the killings? To up the ante and if the terrorists find that offensive, let them take a gander at THIS and promptly distribute even more repugnant material. It seems a puerile reaction at best and a plain nasty one at worst. It is not merely disturbing the terrorists but millions of adherents of Islam.

When we strictly stick to the tenets of FOS those offended are required to remain silent and tolerant of the offenders. Unless of course the majority or the more powerful decide that it is not ok and they are offended in which case they rush to sue for defamation and shout down the offenders. One such was our own illustrious leader who wanted to ‘red card’ Islamist imams who were preaching ‘anti-Australian values’. How dare they! But if there is a standing principle for FOS then anyone can say anything.

Even AG Brandis was spouting about attacks on FOS in free societies yet had himself pushed for laws that Pearson of Human Rights Watch Australia called infringements of basic rights that would criminalise normal journalistic behaviour and imprison whistleblowers and human rights activists.  

Eugene Robinson wrote in the Washington Post about Obama mistaking news for espionage and warned of the dangers of governmental clamp downs on whistleblowers in 2013. In the Huffington Post, John Cusack coined the phrase ‘the Snowden Principle’ whereby he suggested that the government views data leaks as a crime whereas the leaker will view it from the viewpoint of the right of the people to know what their governments do in the shadows, in their name. And Snowden wasn’t the first NSA official to sound the alarm about corruption in the the higher echelons of US infrastructure. Thomas Drake, winner of the Sam Adams Award for Integrity in Intelligence warned of this in 2008 the coverage of which is outlined in the Free Speech Debate.

 It seems that FOS is promoted by the rich and powerful so long as it adheres to their agendas.

Brull also writes,

 “But let us revisit Abbott’s comment about it all being a part of a free society that “from time to time people will be upset, offended, insulted, humiliated”. The courts have explicitly held that “the freedom of speech citizens of this country enjoy does not include the freedom to publish material calculated to offend, insult or humiliate or intimidate people because of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin”. 

 He goes on to say, “If it doesn’t make you uncomfortable, you are probably supporting something that you agree with. This doesn’t demonstrate a meaningful commitment to freedom of speech…”

 That seems eminently sensible to me. Apparently a former cartoonist at Charlie Hebdo was fired for espousing anti-Semitic sentiments. Why is it wrong for the Jews but not Islam?

I am not for one minute condoning what those vile creatures did in Paris. Murder is unacceptable in any circumstance.

But I am struggling with my values and trying to divine an ethical stance. What does FOS really mean? If it is a blanket principle then we can say whatever we like. If there are laws against incitement and offense then we must be consistent. In order to enrage the small number of terrorists we are risking offending the vast majority of Muslims. How can we say that is ok?

Murtaza Hussein a Canadian journalist wrote in Twitlonger today "freedom" also means the freedom from suffering insult and humiliation to the things that are most cherished [by] them.”

 I think we need a serious debate and a good long think about what we really believe in rather than start shouting in a knee-jerk reaction to the horrific violence spuriously incited by our insistence on OUR KIND of Freedom Of Speech.