Once More… Freedom of Expression
Diana Mukkaled

Over the past few weeks, the issue of freedom of expression and its limits has pre-occupied the European press and public opinion. There was the issue of the Danish cartoons that defamed Islam that were published first in Denmark, then in European newspapers, and finally in newspapers around the world. There was also the sentencing of the British historian David Irving to three years imprisonment for the denial of the Holocaust. Finally, the pending case against the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, which has seen his suspension until a verdict is issued for comparing a Jewish journalist to concentration camp guard. The journalist filed a lawsuit against the mayor.

Each of the three cases has its particular circumstances; however, what is common between them is that their repercussions led to wide yet decisively settled debate in Europe about what is and is not permitted within expression of opinions and beliefs.

This is a pretty good opinion piece from Diana Mukkaled in Asharq Alawsat. She does a creditable job in trying to distinguish three issues that have become conflated in the minds of many Arabs: the Danish cartoons, David Irving’s jailing for “Holocaust denial”, and the suspension of London Mayor Livingston from duties for comparing a Jewish reporter with a “concentration camp guard”.

These three things, though they have some similarity, are not the same.

Livingston’s case is a simple matter of slander, coupled with insensitivity. As a politician, he needs to know better. His punishment is suitably political. If he had, instead, likened the reporter to one of Stalin’s henchmen, Livingston would have received the same rebuke. He showed himself startlingly inept, however, by making his comparison to a Nazi. This matter is only periferal to religion, but definitely involves “free speech” and its limits. You cannot slander people without consequence, even if the slander is not criminal.

David Irving’s case does involve freedom of speech, with overtones of religion. The Holocaust is a defining point in Western history. It tends to be seen as exclusively an attack on Jews, but it was more than that. It was an attack on “the other.” Anyone who was not in the ideal mold of the “Aryan Race” was liable to destruction. While we tend, now, to concentrate on the Jews who perished, there were many others included in it. Poles, for instance, were killed because they were Poles–over 3 million of them. Gypsies, Gays, “mentally defectives”, and others were all swept up and obliterated. It’s religious overtones are both real and to a degree exaggerated. Though Hitler made it perfectly clear that he wanted to rid the earth of Jews, he also had no place for Slavs (other than as slaves) and others.

While I find represehensible Irving’s conclusions about the Holocaust (which even he qualifies), I think he has the right to his beliefs and the right to publicly state them. Here, Austrian law is at fault.

I understand that the fear of recidivist Nazism is at the heart of these “Holocaust Denial Laws.” There may well have been a time when the peculiar circumstances of Austria (part of the Nazi Reich) needed those laws. With the Second World War now 60 years in the past, however, I think this law has passed its time and intent.

Rather than jailing him, the proper response to Irving is to ignore him or to ridicule him. He does have the right to say what he believes, no matter how wrong it may be.

The Danish cartoon issue, though, is very different though it also involves both free speech and religious sentiment.

Here, two values, held by two different groups, come in direct conflict. The sanctity of the Prophet Mohammed is honestly and deeply felt by Muslims, non-extremist Muslims as well as the jihadis. The cartoons represented an insult to what they deemed of inestimable value.

The “secular sanctity” Of free speech, however, is also and equally felt. This belief, at its deepest, holds that nothing is immune to critical, even deprecatory and parodic comment. That includes all religious sentiment.

Mukkaled tries to bring these issues into some sort of focus. I think she doesn’t quite succeed. But she makes an important observation (emphasis added):

The Danish cartoons uproar drove Europeans to ask themselves an essential question: is freedom of expression only granted to those with whom we agree? The other pivotal question is could freedom of expression become a shield for those who intentionally or otherwise seek to defame other religions and cultures? The debate is rampant today in Europe, is absolute freedom of expression desirable and should it be entrenched, or should lawsuits continue against those who view their opinions whether these opinions are valid or demonstrate utter foolishness? The Europeans are entering a detrimental debate over what is and what is not permitted. We Arabs on the other hand can do nothing but sit and watch as we are too far behind to ask these kinds of vital questions.