Return to freedom of speech

 It is quite some time since DZ has posted about one of his favourite subjects, article 10 of the human rights act, which grants freedom of speech, and the efforts of some, particularly the religiously motivated, to supress it.

But two events recently have occurred that illustrate, not only those attempts at suppression, but the utter cowardice shown by governments, officials and the media in failing to resist it.

The first is in India. India until 2019 had a law against blasphemy, but this was repealed in July of that year. It also has the right to freedom of speech, so you would have thought that criticising religions would be acceptable. You’d be wrong.

Napur Sharma, an Indian lawyer and politician, during a televised debate, apparently made comments about Mohammed which were perceived by many muslims as insulting. The backlash, including suspension from her party in India, can be read here. To a certain extent I’m not particularly surprised at the response in India. But what has surprised me has been the reaction in other countries.

In 2005 a Danish newspaper published a series of cartoons depicting Mohammed, which led to protests around the world. Danish embassies were attacked and in 2015 a French newspaper which published the cartoons was attacked by Islamic militants who killed 12 people. In the UK, and elsewhere, in 2005 there was widespread vigorous defence of the right to freedom of speech exercised in publication of these cartoons, but at the same time, in an act of supreme cowardice, no newspaper actually published them. Two very small circulation magazines did, but subsequently recalled and pulped all copies. So despite all the bleating about protecting the right to publish, no-one actually had the balls to publish. These cartoons are now easily found on the internet. Including here.

And so it is now. Despite statements defending freedom of speech DZ has been unable to find on the web an actual quote of her words. Multiple media outlets, including the BBC have covered the story but have declined to actually publish a quote as they “don’t wish to cause offence”. So we’re not allowed to decide for ourselves how offensive the statement might be to less bigoted minds.

From what little information filters through it appears that Ms Sharma commented on the relationship between Mohammed and one of his wives.

Unlike Jesus there is no doubt that Mohammed was a real person who actually existed. It is widely believed that, when he was in his 50’s he married Aisha, who was six years old at the time. It is also documented that he consummated that marriage just three years later. This seems to be accepted as fact and Ms Sharma’s crime was to describe this sequence of events in a negative light. And for doing so she has received rape and death threats, been generally vilified, and has probably lost her political future. I do wonder, how do you put a positive spin on a man approaching 60 who rapes a 9 year old girl? Because let’s not forget, in any civilised country, fucking a child is, by definition,  rape.

The second instance concerns a recently released film, “The lady of Heaven” which depicts both Mohammed and one of his daughters. A small cinema chain, Cineworld, has cancelled showings of the film due to vociferous protests by relatively small numbers of aggressive muslims  who describe the film as “blasphemous”. No specific content in the film has been singled out as particularly offensive so it’s difficult to know what the protests are actually about. I don’t suppose that any of the protestors have actually seen the film. But Cineworld have decided not to show the film to ensure the safety of it's employees. That is they are submitting to threats of violence. The message here is clear. Scream, shout, threaten, intimidate and you’ll get your way.

Once again this odd spineless obsession with not hurting someone’s feelings in case they stab you, has taken precedence over a hard legal right. We should hang our heads in the shame of the abject coward.