Opinion piece by Taleen El Gharib, Staff Writer

November 18th, 2020

Disclaimer: This article is in no way condoning targeted hate speech, racism, islamophobia, xenophobia, or other violent forms of discrimination against certain individuals, religions, values, beliefs, and/or cultures. Kindly read this article with a clear distinction between freedom of speech and hate speech in mind. Criticism and discrimination do not and should not intermingle under any circumstances.

 

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 states: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

The right to freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental human rights. However, it is not absolute and is subject to many restrictions when it jeopardizes the wellbeing of the community.

 

The sad truth is, if you think you can express any opinion you want freely without fear, you are very wrong. Speech is only free when it doesn’t harm your community, but who really dictates what is harmful and what isn’t? Under what criteria are opinions labeled as right or wrong?

 

In many countries around the world, expressing dislike towards a certain politician could put the instigator in harm's way. Criticizing radical groups or disagreeing with the ideals of the majority is immediately labeled as an attempt to suppress their freedom to express those opinions, but what about the critics themselves? Are they not being suppressed of their right to an opinion? It’s like being a Democrat in a neighborhood full of Republicans. There will be a point where opinions clash.

This distorts our understanding of what freedom really is. Perhaps it is not so much a freedom as it is a privilege. Why are we advocating for a “false” freedom then?

 

Back in 2005, Denmark experienced the worst foreign policy crisis since the Second World War. The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy sparked outrage among the Muslim communities in Denmark and all over the world after 12 cartoons depicting Muhammad were published (having pictures of Muhammed, or any other prophet, encourages the worship of idols, which is prohibited in Islam). Apart from the prohibition of pictures in Islam, the cartoons depicted Muhammad as a terrorist – that was what sparked controversy and forced Danish imams to reach out to Muslim leaders around the world to address the issue. The Danish newspaper was infamous for its stance against immigrants and it included hundreds of pejorative articles about them. However, the timeline of this crisis contains an outlier, as the narrative often excludes the murder of film director, Theo Van Gogh, in 2004 for his movie “Submission” (which is the direct translation of the word ‘Islam’) at the hands of Mohammed Bouyeri.

Patterns have since been noticed.

 

In 2015, two armed Muslim brothers infiltrated the headquarters of the French newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, killing 12 people and injuring 11 others for publishing depictions of Muhammad. The magazine refused to stop its attacks on Islam, as the editorial staff believed the religion itself threatened democracy. Charlie Hebdo’s editor gave the following statement: “France isn’t divided between Muslims and non-Muslims, between believers and non-believers, between people with French roots and French people of immigrant backgrounds,” he said. “No, France is divided between democrats and anti-democrats.”

 

The recent attack in 2020 that involved the decapitation of teacher Samuel Paty sounded almost unfathomable. Paty was beheaded by Abdullah Anzorov, a Muslim Russian refugee, for showing cartoons depicting Muhammad fromCharlie Hebdo during his lecture. Ironically, the lecture was on freedom of speech. Anti-France protests erupted in many countries, including Pakistan, Lebanon, Turkey and India because Macron defended the freedom “of speech, of thought, of drawing”.

 

It is clear that the freedom of expression comes with offending certain groups, ideas, values, or traditions. You cannot advocate for freedom of speech only for the opinions that coincide with yours. You must advocate for freedom of speech even when those opinions are offensive to you.

 

An article by fellow staff writer, Farah Termos, titled France: Islamophobia or Freedom of Speech? pointed out the obvious hypocrisy: Islamic extremists were quick to riot against depictions of Muhammed and Macron’s statement advocating freedom of expression, yet remain silent about the ethnic cleansing of Uighur Muslims in China and aggressions against Muslims in Kashmir. 

Clearly, expression bears far more power than violence in terms of influence. Violence has only one language, but words speak to many.

 

The idea that freedom to offend is not part of the definition of freedom of expression must be erased completely from people’s dictionaries. The existence of opposing opinions is the purest and most basic essence of our being, and it is what maintains individuality and diversity of the mind. What follows freedom of expression, including the freedom to offend, is a gradual erasure of the invisible lines separating different communities. Judgment is inevitable, but the consequences of such judgments can redefine our existence in multicultural communities while living in an era where globalization is prevalent. 

 

For this reason, the existence of freedom of speech with restrictions as to not offend others seems ludicrous and completely eliminates the purpose behind it. Calling it ‘freedom’ becomes misleading and defeats the purpose. Without differences in opinions, beliefs, and ideas, a society much like Orwell’s “1984” or Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451” becomes scarily tangible and eventually, a reality. To restrict such freedom is to restrict thought, uniqueness, the possibility of growth, eradicating ignorance, and establishing far more progressive communities of well-rounded individuals. 

 

A world without criticism will put newspapers out of business. The Phoenix Daily will cease to exist. Our purpose to educate the youth and demonstrate our capacity to tackle a broad spectrum of national and international affairs becomes futile. The ultimate goal of an independent newspaper that strives for intellectuality (and is not neutral) does not wish to abolish the opposing opinion, but to open up doors to a far more rich and diverse perspective. 

 

Nelson Mandela said, “Education is the most powerful weapon with which you can change the world.” 

 

Violent retaliation against criticism does not educate; neither does insisting on criticism without the intention to educate. In such a case, the law of all or none could ultimately be applied to freedom of speech: either express it in its truest form, or do not benefit from this freedom at all. 

 

Each corner of the world has its own ideas on what is right and wrong, what must be censored, what is appropriate; there is no clear, universal definition of any of what was previously listed, as it differs from culture to culture, individual to individual. Why must there be restrictions to freedom of speech? Why is it viewed as a threat rather than an asset?