By Hariz Aftab
Recognized as a human right under article 19 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and as a human rights law in International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) ‘Freedom of Speech’ or the ‘Freedom of Expression’ is the right of citizens of a country to speak, communicate without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction regardless of the medium. It can also be stated as “the right to express an opinion in public without being restrained or censored.” According to Article 19 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by United Nations, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This right includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
In classical times in Athens, capital of Greece, 2,500 years ago, a preeminent and consequential Greek Statesman, orator and general of Athens during the Golden Age eulogised the free thought. Homer, an acclaimed Greek poetic figure personally backed the right. The Roman Republic as well valued the right to free speech. This particular right has been esteemed during the olden days and almost inconceivably misemployed while in contemporary times the right is infringed beyond the bounds.
There are in duration slander, liable, diatribes and sometimes hate speeches as well harboured under the right to free speech. Fox News’s Brian Kilmeade saying “Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims” to Dutch politician Geert Wilders reviving contest of drawing the Islamic Prophet on 29th of December 2019 in order to mock him, duo get away with their slurs. A requisite question that requires to be addressed is if slander, liable, mockery and hate speech are comprehended under the right to free speech from a progressive western perspective? With a similar mode of action, David Irving an English author should not have been arrested in Austria for holocaust denial because he has his right to free speech. Ironically, not one person stands for Irving unlike in case of Geert and Brian. The double standards are pellucid. Astonishingly, ‘holocaust denial’ or simply the denial of the figure of ‘6 million’ is criminalized in 16 Western countries perceived as standard-bearers of democracy, secularism and human rights. The setup is not identical when there are issues of Muslim community involved and at times the politicians, pseudo experts, far-right groups, activists and other people in West get away with obnoxious debasing and demonization of Muslim community, their faith, their religious books and their Prophet. Many Western countries have laws framed against defamation of individuals but they do not extend to the limit western Muslims demand and indubitably, such a demand won’t be met.
Instead of reacting emotionally, unintellectually to it like threatening perpetrators, burning embassies, doing what previously has been carried out at Charlie Hebdo magazine’s office, promiscuous protests that lead to chaos in cities, attempting to kill the people involved in the affair or hurling similar insults back, there is something what the Muslims around the globe can opt for in a mature and dignified way.
The first and foremost progressive way is to write oftentimes about the issue on all prevalent media and communication platforms, educate people about it, making the issue of the defamation of the Islamic prophet or the Muslim community in general a taboo, just so, one who does pay the price not legally but socially. The most efficacious model in front of Muslims is that of the earnest endeavor of Jewish community to make anti-Semitism a legally and socially imposed taboo. Another example is that of actor Michael Richards whose racist remarks against African-American people were not upheld by anybody as freedom of speech and that no doubt is a successful determined attempt on part of African-American people. What a person could say about them 50 years ago in the United States, he/she cannot utter such sayings now. African-American people have fought at length to establish speaking ill of them a taboo. These two models are there in front of the Muslim community as guides to a progressive way of countering defamation if all kinds. An additional way is to give not a response to such people because this is not an unfamiliar and recently made issue. This existed in the past as I have indicated in my former write-up ‘Roots in History.’ On 19th and 20th May 2010, Pakistan’s Telecommunication Authority imposed ban on Facebook, Wikipedia, YouTube and Flickr in response to an organized competition entitled “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day” on Facebook in a bid to contain “blasphemous” material. Similarly, France and Germany are reported to block posts concerned with the Holocaust denial. This is indeed a well thought-out non-conservative way to counter all blasphemy and diatribes rather than making laws that have been misused as often as not like in Pakistan.
Muslims should also pay heed to the Islamic way of reacting to such happenings in the light of the life of the Islamic Prophets. Every time a person passed by Noah, he laughed and joked him. Jethro used to be labelled a madman and lunatic. Prophet Muhammad himself used to be called a liar, a poet and a madman who is taught by others. Not one among these Prophets flew in rage and dered the people who hurled abuses and insulting remarks at them. Neither they had a whit of vengeance for a personal reason like this and bore all like men with maturity and dignity. In the third chapter it is said that as these things will continue to happen in the near future. Even if a Muslim is to argue with people, he according to sixteenth chapter of the Quran has to argue in a way that is the ‘best’ and the God says in the fifteenth chapter that He will take care of the mockers Himself.
During the time this is happening, current radical advocates of free speech have a model of classical times to take under consideration when the magistrates in the ancient city of Greece kept eyes on libelous, blasphemous and atheistic (not to be considered in modern times) writings only. No person in earliest form of Greek Comedy could be disparaged. Roman senate imprisoned Gnaeus Naevius, a Roman comedy dramatist for slandering particular individuals. He was released only when he publically withdrew his defamatory comments. The Emperor Augustus himself ordered the burning of libelous books and imposed penalties upon the writers. Similar actions were taken against those by Roman authorities who used to dishonor gods worshipped by the people. Some of the oldest and most famous countries have been opposed to any form of licensing till the emergence of Roman Catholic court known as Inquisition. The licensing here in contemporaneous context can be viewed synonymous with the regulations and limitations for freedom of speech that unfortunately are missing and people assume liable, slander, insult and hate speech all to be upheld as the acts of free speech.
However, the Muslim community should not call for exile, imprisonment or stern laws passed against such people, rather they should make it a cultural line with the employment of liberal and progressive tactics that nobody would cross for the fear of social stigma attached to the perpetrators.
Hariz Aftab is a student and Independent researcher and can be reached at aftabhariz@gmail.com
