- 18 Sep 2012
Pakistan requests Interpol to criminalise ‘sacrilegious material’ - 20 Sep 2012
Anti-Islam film fury: Announcing national holiday, govt joins protest - 18 Sep 2012
YouTube ban restricts rights of Pakistanis: Human rights organisation - 20 Sep 2012
Ishq-e-Rasool (pbuh) Day: Petrol pumps, CNG stations to remain closed on Friday
- RSS
- Today's Paper
- Subscribe
- beta 2.1
Alerts
Of free speech and mobs
There will always be people like the LA filmmaker, but protesters need to be told they can't loot, arson and riot.
The writer is a senior journalist and has held several editorial positions including most recently at The Friday Times. He is currently senior adviser, outreach, at the Sustainable Development Policy Institute
In his recent interviews, Salman Rushdie has spoken about free speech as the defining feature of a free society. That works fine as a general statement of purpose and as a broad principle. But to imply, as Mr Rushdie and many others do, that freedom of speech is an absolute right is simply wrong.
The classic denunciation of the Rushdie perspective, also known as the ‘harm principle’, is in JS Mill’s, “On Liberty”. According to Mill, “[T]he only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others … [This is because the] only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
Mill’s formulation, however, goes too far. The reality is that any act or action that goes beyond the person of someone and can impact others in any way must be subject to some reasonable scrutiny or legal-administrative measures. The concept is simple: no expression or action can be granted total freedom unless it is entirely subjective; and even within that framework, most legal-normative systems do not permit suicides, indicating a limit on subjective action too.
Still, as a broad benchmark, the subjective can be granted more freedom: Rushdie could have written a diary and no one would have noticed. But since he is an author who likes to publish and likes to be in everyone’s face, and since he chose to unburden himself of his creativity in a way that didn’t go down well with a large majority of Muslims across states and cultures, countries had to ban his book to prevent rioting and other acts of civil disturbances.
This happens with films all the time. Directors will either let censors delete scenes of gratuitous violence or sex or resign themselves to niche viewership. The debate can go on, as it always does, but the essential point is that freedom as an absolute concept does not exist. Instead, freedoms are always subjected to various legal-normative constraints. Of course, limits vary across societies as do the ‘values’ for which members of a society would be ready to stand up, but totality of freedom is as mythical as free trade, and correctly so.
But there’s another side to the story as well — the threat of violence. The only acceptable way to ‘kill’ Mr Rushdie, or any other writer, would be for a critic to hang them for half-baked magical realism or lack of plot or whatever else critics think constitutes a crime against high literature. Unfortunately, the world is full of bad books and mankind has found no workable filter to prevent the bad ones from getting to the market.
Now we have, in addition to bad books, the Internet, a space so unconstrained for the most part that its promiscuity would easily surpass that of a traditional brothel. So what does one do? Some regulatory mechanisms can be put in place but total policing is neither possible nor desirable. This means that there is no way to stop people like this terrible man in LA who has started a fire, literally and figuratively, that is raging across continents. What does one do with this kind of person?
It would seem to me that laws can be employed to convince such people that starting ‘fires’ is not a good idea. But while it is important to do so, expecting hate speech or actions to consequently disappear entirely would be unrealistic. And that brings us to what Muslim-majority states and societies need to do: they need to treat mobs as mobs. Protestors must be told that they cannot indulge in looting and arson and rioting to protest the behaviour of someone in LA. Also, the West can’t be defeated by killing other ‘Muslims’.
Pakistan does not have the choice of disconnecting from the rest of the world. But if it is to stay connected, it needs to put into place its own laws to deal with offensive content, irrespective of the enforceability of such laws. More importantly, we need to separate the medium from the message and respond to offensive messages without isolating ourselves.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 21st, 2012.
Read more:
AntiIslamfilm
Reader Comments (52)
Opinion Latest Stories
Onward, after the elections
May the new governments complete their tenures so that they have enough time to implement their manifestos.
Milk — it does a body good
As a mother and a Pakistani, I stand by my conviction that milk is not a luxury or a privilege, but a right of all.
Female officer transferred
The courage of individuals who resist the culture of corruption gives hope that corruption can one day be uprooted.
New fault lines
The fact that some parties could not campaign or hold public political activities in 3 provinces is totally forgotten.
Building strong bridges
A united effort needs to be forged to take the country forward without hindrance.
Economic ties with China (II)
Pakistanis should focus on reaching to a level where other countries, not only China will also want to invest.
Economic ties with China
Our trade with China runs into billions of dollars and that is something which is not worthless.
Fight now, negotiate later
Government must gain military advantage over jihadists to be able to dictate terms so that negotiations lead to peace.
Talking to the Taliban
Are we simply going to ask outlaws to put down their arms and join the mainstream of the country’s politics?
Recent Slideshows
More in Opinion
Defending the PML-N’s performance
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, redistributed or derived from.
Unless otherwise stated, all content is copyrighted © 2013 The Express Tribune News Network.
Technical feedback? [email protected]
The west has freedom of speech; Pakistan has freedom of reaction. One can go through its entire history to find such freedom with rulers whether amry or civilians and also with a vast majority of its Muslim population.
Recommend
where was the analysis to place curb on free speech?….
pathetic mr. ijaz….don’t write what masters are saying…because they say a lot of things….
we can convinently quote this or that to prove our point….
and, the bottomline is that the world is in 21st century, and is unwilling to return to 7th century because muslims may object to their ways…..there is only one way: muslims need to enter to 21st century.
Recommend
It is the free speech and expression that gives the expression of religious faith. Otherwise, supplication to ones religious expression is the death and destruction of others beliefs and ideas, religion or otherwise.
The critics are persecuted for eons and if PAK wants to restrict their minds by imposing censorship on her citizens, which she has been doing effectively, then there is no end in sight for enlightenment of her citizens.
What is considered hate speech by one can also be considered as valid criticism by others. After all, does not Islamic faith criticize the faiths of others since its origin; Why can’t others consider the tenants of Islam as hate speech?
The mobs are zealots and the Ulema negotiating their release from PAK police who arrested them says it all.
“It would seem to me that laws can be employed to convince such people that starting ‘fires’ is not a good idea.” – what a convenient logic; if the same laws were to be employed then there won’t be any more mosques built in the west.
Recommend
“……treat mobs as mobs…..” —- fix these thugs with the fiercest state power, it has got to be done before it’s too late——-this is what common sense would dictate, “treat mobs as mobs..”!
Recommend
My question is if usa,for example decide to put some restrictions on freedom of speech,what would be the reaction of the society and to what extant,
And second,abuse of freedom of speech by evil chracters is not a potential threat to the existance of this law, though majority that enjoys this right is civilised and know how to use it.
And what if in future any such incidence provkes muslim world to a level that freedom of speech(In usa) turns into freedom of actions.
Good article and regards to the author.
Recommend
Muslims of the world are historically anachronistic beings thrown into the wilderness and desolation of postmodern times by the cruel waves of history!Recommend
“But to imply, as Mr Rushdie and many others do, that freedom of speech is an absolute right is simply wrong.”
When and where did Rushdie say freedom of speech is an absolute right?
Mill was a proponent of utilitarianism, a theory developed by Jeremy Bentham. Mills arguments in On Liberty are based on principle of utility (greatest-happiness principle), and not on appeals to natural rights. Mill tried to rebut the objection that utilitarianism cannot account for individual rights, by arguing that protecting individual rights is the best way to increase the sum of happiness in the long run. Is Mill right? Either way, is this really the reason why we should not violate people’s basic rights?
Free speech in American in not absolute, but an inalienable right.
Recommend
Muslims have once again proved that religous people in general, and Muslims in particular cannot be expected to act rationally. However – I find it interesting that the West (parts of Europe, to be precise) understand the Jewish sentiment and make holocaust denial a crime. They also understand the sentiments of the parents of soldiers killed in combat and find a guy guilty of posting an ‘offensive’ message on facebook when he says “all soldiers should die and go to hell”. To a great extent, I would have to agree with Mr. Ijaz here.
Recommend
@sabi: Freedom of speech is an INALIENABLE RIGHT in America. It cannot be taken away or a given away by the possessor.
Recommend
Since you believe in ‘reasonable curbs on freedom of speech, who exactly should decide what is reasonable?
1. Islam believes in conversion and yet considers apostasy as a crime punishable by death. I do not consider this as reasonable.
2. For a people that have always complained when actions of Muslims are used to characterize Islam, there is nohesitation in characterizing the action of one criminal to represent actions of entire West. I do not consider this as reasonable.
3. I consider it unreasonable that Muslims demand the imposition of anti-blasphemy laws in countries that have holocaust denial laws without in turn promising that all countries with anti-blasphemy laws will implement holocaust denial laws.
4. I consider it unreasonablee to expect all Pakistanis wanting a Pakistani passport to decry the Ahmadi prophet including Ahmadis wanting the passport.
5. I consider it unreasonable that Pakistan studies contains so much bile against Hindus.
6. I also consider it unreasonable that people like Ghaznavi and Aurangzeb who destroyed Hindu temples are glorified in Pakistan as a matter of state policy – not for any god or kind actions of their but precisely because they destroyed these temples.
7. I consider the numerous youtube videos that show Muslims breaking the idols of Hindu Gods as unreasonable.
So are you going to modify your laws, textbooks and speech based on what I consider unreasonable? Didn’t think so.
Recommend
Ejaz Haider critiquing Rushdie is like Zaid Hamid critiquing Winston Churchill
Recommend
@author: First, check for the right to live on one’s own terms in this side of the world..then let’s talk about free speech lessons of west..
Recommend
@gp65:
Spot on, I have to more than 100% agree with you. This is time that Muslims should be shown a big wide mirror. And I do think that this movie is completely crap. But at the same time Muslims are very much over-reacting. This world doesnt run according to your ways. All the countries and people of various religions have also criticised this movie. So muslims also respect, or I should say they should learn to respect other religions, and only protest agianst that per who made this movie and not other countries, communities, religions, races etc.
Recommend
Would author promote reasonable curb on video depicting atrocities in Myanmar video emanating from Pakistan and other hate material sent to people from North East India? I do not think so because shoe is now on the other foot. Talk is cheap and walk is difficult.
Recommend
EH please read Kamran Safi opinion on the same page please
Recommend
Dear sir, free speech cannot and will not be sacrificed because some lunatics get violent. If people criticize you, introspect and correct yourself. Better option.
Recommend
Ejaz…….. A turncoat
But ŵhy ?
Recommend
Every society has a limit on freedom of speech based on their values. this limit varies from country to country.
if one abuses to other in USA this is an offence and the abuser is liable to be sued and punishable.
USA give freedom of expression to criticize on groups, faith, religion, cultures, values
One society can not impose their version of limit of freedom of speech on others and be termed unfair and shall be un acceptable.
Yes, one is in his /her right to ban/ restrict the materials which is crossing their limit of freedom of expression and also can legislate so thought the mediums too are aware of it and can effectively restrict it for display.
Recommend
Mr. Ejaz Haider:
It is easy to manufacture rage. Thackereys in Mumbai do this all the time.
Let us say, A few of us take exception to what you say in this article, whip up a frenzy and kill a few people, does it in any way take away your right to say it? If so, all it will take is a few goons to stop any speech.
Bottom line – who will decide what is beyond the pale? Could any new faith/belief/thought be born without challenging the old?
And also, why don’t you think the problem is more to do with the intolerant violence of a few, instead of free speech itself? Why not punish those who break the law in name of protest?
Recommend
This means that there is no way to stop people like this terrible man in LA who has started a fire, literally and figuratively, that is raging across continents. What does one do with this kind of person?
Go back 1400 years and probably the ‘Holies’ of the age were asking the same question- What does one do with this kind of person?
Or closer to our times. 500 years back the Vatican was asking about Gallileo – What does one do with this kind of person?
The answer in both cases is -NOTHING- if their ideas have any substance in them, they will survive, else they will die out.
Only time will tell.
Recommend
“freedom as an absolute concept does not exist”
May be so in other parts of the world, but in the land of the free it is an inalienable right.
The US SC has consistently viewed the English common law that restricts citizens rights with the an enlightened view of a republic.
In ruling in favor of citizens’ right to express their discontent in a US flag burning case (Johnson Vs Texas) the US SC affirms the first amendment right once again and states,
“if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.”
If an US flag, to which every US citizen swear an oath of allegiance every day in school, is subordinate to the first amendment rights, then what else can supersede the first amendment?
Recommend
Good and thoughtfull piece.
Recommend
The Muslim world thinks the Right to get offended is its. Well, if tomorrow, Ahmadis consider an offense to not consider themselves Muslims, what will you do?
Check mate?
That is why Free Speech is utterly Free. If you start placing restrictions, then there is no telling where the restrictions will stop.
Recommend
There is much that Muslims can learn from the comments on this well-written piece by EH. I hope they will do so, just as, I am sure, EH will.
It is high time Muslims learnt how to look inwards in contemplation. No one can change others. All can change themselves. Just look at the irony of Pakistan having to shut all cellular services on the occasion of Youm-e-Ishq-e-Rasool. Does this not indicate the need to change?
Recommend
gp65,
In your position,I would have raised same points to the followers of politicle Islam as counter argument.However instead of generalising, It would have been fair, to be more precised,to say ‘your version of Islam’;
There is a widespread misconception about holocaust laws as merely a protection for the sentiments of jews,which is not entirely correct.The main purpose to mend this law was to shut the door for Nazis and their sympathysers to make their comeback by abusing the right of freedom of speech.To avoid any controversy which might effect Germans ambitions to build Germany free of hatred with much emphasis on human rights irrespective of cast, creed,religion,race,colour,a little cut on freedom of speech was a necessity of the time.This law of holocaust has served double purpose,1; it has helped Grmans to build Germany without being doubleminded because of possible objective opposition to their goals.2;this law has satisfied Jews sentiments who have sufferd a lot.To kill two birds with one stone.Germans are the biggest beneficiary of this law.
Regards
Recommend
Sabi:
“My question is if usa,for example decide to put some restrictions on freedom of speech,what would be the reaction of the society and to what extant?”
Let me tell you what will happen:
If the congress enacted such a law, the Supreme Court will not take more than a day to strike it down!
You can bet on that!
..Peace
Recommend
@sabi:
…………“My question is if usa,for example decide to put some restrictions on freedom of speech,what would be the reaction of the society and to what extant,”…………The reaction will be same if you try to change blasphemy law in Pakistan. For Pakistanis, Islam is religion, for West freedom is more or equally important as religion.
Recommend
@Author : Ejaz I hope the responses here have opened your eyes.
Recommend
@sabi:
Here is a clear unequivocal answer to your question”
The first amendment says:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The word “congress” also means “people”.
That is even if the people of US want restrictions on their freedom it wil be unconstitutional because “it is an inalienable right” and cannot be taken away or restricted even if they wanted.
Recommend
Mr Ijaz,
I have been an admirer of your articles but I could not make much sense out of this one. You state: “The reality is that any act or action that goes beyond the person of someone and can impact others in any way must be subject to some reasonable scrutiny or legal-administrative measures. The concept is simple: no expression or action can be granted total freedom unless it is entirely subjective; and even within that framework, most legal-normative systems do not permit suicides, indicating a limit on subjective action too.”
If this is to be accepted then it would mean that the people of Mecca objecting to the preaching of Islam were right all along because the prophet was telling them that they were worshipping useless idols which were venerated by them. Defitintely this would have hurt the feelings of those pagans of yore. Not only this but the Koran itself contains verses that will hurt the feelings of Christians, Jews, Hindus and atheists.
Recommend
Free speech is an inalienable right especially in Islam. However if a member of society starts abusing your family, culture or religion do you not agree that those rights are misused??. Any civilised society that wants to protect itself from “free-speech terrorists” should as it allows for social harmony and more respect for each others cultures and ignorance of mindless extremists. These faceless opinion makers have the right of an opinion but no respect nor relevance.
Recommend
One of the best articles I have read lately on the subject matterRecommend
why to practice freedom of speech by hurting the feelings of 1.6 billion Muslims,, and what freedom are people talking about, being a Muslim means submitting your will to almighty God and when you do so you are not free any more,, you have to act and behave in a way which God told you to do,, and for USA i mean every year they gain billions of dollars from our land at least we Muslims should be courageous enough to put some sanctions on their trade or anything which makes them think to stop these kind of acts.
well written Mr. Ejaz
Recommend
Ejaz, You confuse me! Where is real Ejaz? Bold, straight forward & to the point. Stop following master’s voice.Recommend
How about implementing this first in Pak itself by removing hate content from the school textbooks??
Recommend
I’m afraid anybody who would have agreed with this article is presently out throwing rocks and burning tyres.
Recommend
@Kumail: You should read the Quran to understand who abuses other cultures and religions.
Recommend
“But to imply, as Mr Rushdie and many others do, that freedom of speech is an absolute right is simply wrong.”
I’d like to see you try and stop me. You wouldn’t get far and would have to live with it. Having opinions is human nature, so, yes, it’s an absolute and natural right until someone tries to take it away. Which, I might add, will end in complete failure regardless of what any angry Muslim does or says to the US.Recommend
Looks like shooting of Part 2 of “Innocence of Muslims” is going on in the Islamic world, especially in Pakistan.
No need to ban this and that on the internet; theater of movie is right in front of Ijaz and other citizens of Pakistan to see by themselves without any censorship..
Recommend
@Imran Con
“I’d like to see you try and stop me.”
had admin pressed ‘delete’ next to your comment, your comment would have found itself right in the recycle bin.
Recommend
Muslims all over the world are crying about how their feelings are hurt when someone maligns Islam.Please note that everyone has feelings
A Hindu feels hurt when u talk about idolators and openly say about destroying them…
A Christian feels hurt when you demote Jesus Christ as a Prophet when he’s actually a Messiah according to them
A Jew feels hurt when there are several verses in Quran talking ill of them and comparing them with pigs
A Buddhist feels hurt when u say that Jihad,visiting hajj is a way to paradise when they believe salvation in nirvana
An atheist feels hurt when you say u there is a God,when they dont believe in any
So shall we all start protesting against muslims and islam….Please note that the most technologically advanced countries are non muslim countries
Unfortunately,most people of other religion believe in tolerance and free speech…thats why there is a bit of order in the world
Recommend
@sabi: “gp65,
In your position,I would have raised same points to the followers of politicle Islam as counter argument.However instead of generalising, It would have been fair, to be more precised,to say ‘your version of Islam’;”
That is a fair comment. Please read my post with that change.
Recommend
@Sky Walker: “The reaction will be same if you try to change blasphemy law in Pakistan. For Pakistanis, Islam is religion, for West freedom is more or equally important as religion”
I agree with one part of your statement where you say that in US constutution and freedom of expression is as much a part of core belief as adherence to Quran in Muslim countries.
I do not however believe that the reaction would be same. Americans do not go on a rampage everytime the American flag is burnt in Pakistan. If they did act violent, or harmed any innocent Pakistani in US, the law would take action.
In US it isimportant to protect ALL believers (whether they choose to believe in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or atheism) but not important to protect any specific belief. In Imany Muslim majority countries, it is the exact opposite: important to protect one specific belief but no protection is granted to believers whose belief system differs from Islam.
Recommend
@1984 who writes “A Christian feels hurt when you demote Jesus Christ as a Prophet when he’s actually a Messiah according to them”
Your point is taken. However, Christians consider Jesus as the son of god and not just a Messiah. A Messiah is also a prophet.
Recommend
@Kumail: “Free speech is an inalienable right especially in Islam.”
I do not claim to be an Islamic expert. So I will say that what you say is certainly not practised in Muslim majority countries.
– If a Muslim, says that he now no longer wishes to be a Muslim, is that speech protected? No.
– If an Ahmadi says he is a Muslim, is that speech protected? No.
– What if Judaism or Christianity or Hinduism had the concept of khatme naboowat? New religions can only come into existence by questioning the ideas of older religions. Yet laws related to khatme naboowat in Muslim majorityy nations do not allow this.
I do not think you understand the meaning of inalienable rights? OR did you mean that the ‘inalienable rights’ are only for the Muslims t do as they please and there are no rights for others who choose to believe differently?
Recommend
I am sure there is a hidden hand internationaly which is flaring this throughout the world spreading gasioline on fire and inciting mob. The concept that nothing can be said against a religios entity is bogus.During his own life people threw stone on Prophet Mohammad or put thorns on his walk way. Did the muslims of that time came on streets and started burning things. Muslims are so sensetive that no body mocks their religion while they mock other religions. most recent example disfiguring and destroying buddha’s statues in Afghanistan.Not a single muslim leader condemmned that act.Muslim deserves how world is treating them
Recommend
@gp65:
Your analysis is always excellent and thought provoking.
Recommend
@mr. righty rightist:
Sorry,my bad…
When I was a kid,I saw the movie about Jesus Christ,where the 3 wise men look at the bright star and say “The Messiah is born” ,and then in the next scene they say to the King “The new king of Jews has arrived”
Recommend
@ashok: Thank you . The converse is also true. I do enjoy yours posts which are succinct, balanced and well articulated.
Recommend
@gp65:
When I said “Inalienable rights” I was referring to Islam’s application to everyone (e.g. Muslim, Hindu etc) to practise free speech, looks like someone couldn’t grasp a sentence.
Oh no here comes the argument of how muslim countries do this and that…….. grow up!! . The biggest problem with muslim countries nowadays is that they don’t even follow their own laws, if they did you’ll see the rights of the Ahmadi, Hindu, Christian prop up and be made a positive example of evrywhere. But no the Muslim world is governed my hypocrites, dictators and contractors who only see cash and zero wisdom or no regard for Islamic law. No society has complete freedom of speech, in Europe by law you cannot even question the Jewish holocaust where more than a thousand researchers, journalists etc are in jail without trial!!. As far as expression is concerned there are some schools here in Australia where you cannot wear a turban, head-scarf or even a Jewish worship hat (whereas by law you can), again where is complete freedom?. There are many examples for every country, so stop your senseless bashing of only Islamic countries as this problem is rampant everywhere regardless of religion, ethnicity or colour.
Oh yeah one more thing, you said “If a Muslim, says that he now no longer wishes to be a Muslim, is that speech protected? No.”, actually Islamic law does allow for one to leave the Islamic religion so yes that speech is protected; unfortunately you based your argument on some extremists who decided to kill anyone who left therefore invalid statement.
Recommend
Of Free Speech and Mobs
Both are mutually exclusive. If you have Mobs then you can not have Free Speech.
Which one prevails in Pakistan? Isn’t that apparent?
The author perhaps would like the rest of the world to emulate Pakistan.
Recommend
Let’s stop trying to put a squre peg in a round hole.
The concept of free speech as understood in the west and much of the non-muslim world is incompatible with Islam. Let’s leave them with their beliefs and value system where they are in majority, while the rest of the world protect theirs.
Recommend