When does freedom of expression become the right to provoke? This question has been lingering in my mind since the publication of the Mohammed cartoons three years ago and this was stirred recently with the release of ‘Fitna’, a very controversial anti-Islamic film by Dutch politician Geert Wilders. Not surprisingly, the Mohammed cartoons caused a big uproar all over the world. Some of the demonstrations turned violent. Wilders says he hopes his film does not result in violence but, and this is what caught my eye, “should this happen, which I don’t hope, then it’s the people who use violence or threats who are responsible.” This assertion not only challenges the principle of causality but also portrays the arrogance of its speaker. If not for the gravity of the matter, it would have been laughable how Wilders shifts the blame to the targets of his vitriol.
Writing about the flap over the Danish cartoons, Gary Younge, a US correspondent of The Guardian who also writes a monthly column for The Nation, captured this clearly in his 2006 piece titled ‘The Right to be Offended’. He wrote: “Muslims were in effect being vilified twice–once through the original cartoons and then again for having the gall to protest them. Such logic recalls the words of the late South African black nationalist Steve Biko: ‘Not only are whites kicking us; they are telling us how to react to being kicked’”.
Of particular concern to me, however, is the recent ruling by a Dutch court that ‘Fitna’ is legal and its maker is allowed to exercise his freedom of expression (Fitna by the way means gossip in Swahili). Of course there is nothing groundbreaking about this ruling considering that independent courts worldwide have in most cases upheld the right of individuals to express themselves. I haven’t had an opportunity to go through the ruling, but based on media reports I have looked at it seems to me that the equally important right to religion was downplayed in the case. A court spokesman reportedly said: “There is a grey area involving some of Wilders’ statements, which could be provocative, but he is not crossing the line.” The tricky question here is where to draw the line between the competing rights of expression and religion.
Although I don’t want to impute any motives on the court’s verdict, it’s curious (at least to me) that the honourable court ruled in favour of Wilders, who in word and in deed has averred that he wants to stem the growing Islamic influence in the West. Wilder’s argument is based on the false premise that Islam and Western democracy are incongruous. Discussing this with some of my fellow Mundusians (Erasmus Mundus students), it came as a surprise that some of them are absolutists, who believe the Fitna and Mohammed cartoon controversies should solely be about freedom of expression, arguing that Islam shouldn’t be immune to criticism and satire. I however beg to disagree. Freedom of expression is not and shouldn’t be a license to provoke. I therefore fully agree with Gary that “freedom of speech equates to neither an obligation to offend nor a duty to be insensitive”. I also believe that those who are offended have a right to protest. In this regard, I want to end with another quote from Gary: “The right to offend must come with at least one consequent right and one subsequent responsibility. People must have the right to be offended, and those bold enough to knowingly cause offense should be bold enough to weather the consequences, so long as the aggrieved respond within the law”.
