From the Cambridge Evening News (U.K.):
The 19-year-old second year student at Clare College was in hiding today (Friday, 09 February) after printing the racist cartoon and other vile material.
The article is said to be so inflammatory the undergraduate has been taken to a secret location for his own safety.
Today (Friday, 09 February), senior college officials were locked in urgent talks about how the material came to be published and what action to take against the student at the centre of the scandal....
The student magazine, Clareification, printed a cropped copy of the cartoon of the prophet Mohammed next to a photo of the president of the Union of Clare Students.
The cartoon was captioned with the president's name and vice versa.
There was also comment suggesting one was a "violent paedophile" and the other was "a prophet of God, great leader and an example to us all."
The cartoon was the same one which caused riots across the world when it was printed in a Danish newspaper....
The paper had been renamed Crucification for a special edition on religious satire.
The front page included headlines stating: "Ayatollah rethinks stance on misunderstood Rushdie".
On page six, pictures were shown of Muslims holding placards reading: "Behead those who insult Islam" and "Freedom go to Hell."
Enraged students have bombarded the Union of Clare Students with complaints and vice-president of the university's Islamic society described it as "hugely offensive" and "crude unabashed prejudice." ...
Read the whole story for the full picture.
Here's my question: I understand the British have a different free speech tradition than ours; they're not bound by our First Amendment jurisprudence; there are indeed some speech restrictions that we forbid but that other democracies can tolerate and still preserve a vibrant marketplace of ideas, and means for democratic self-government.
But can anyone tell me just what European (including English) students, and citizens more broadly, are free to say about Islam without fear of expulsion from college, or even potentially criminal punishment (as has been discussed in other cases of harsh criticism of Islam)? Islam is an ideology, an ideology which may have a great impact on life and government in Europe. For European self-government and public debate to work, Islam needs to be discussed forthrightly and unreservedly much like libertarianism or Socialism or Communism or atheism or Christianity need to be discussed. Doubtless much critical discussion of it is still possible today without the risk of punishment (I even set aside for purposes of this post the risk of violent retaliation by private individuals).
But how is a European to know just what he is free to say, and what may be condemned as "race-hate" or "anti-Islamic material" or whatever else? Is a publication, for instance, free to republish the Mohammed cartoons in order to discuss whether they are indeed "racist," and for that matter what they mean? Is a publication free to publish any images of Mohammed, or is it barred from doing so on the grounds that some Muslims might find even non-hostile images insulting? What exactly can be said without the reasonable fear of punishment?
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Governments -- Don't "Inflexibly Cling[] To Free Speech ... With Absolute Disregard for Religious Feelings":
- McLean's Article on the Campaign to Create an International Law Norm Banning "Defamation of Religion":
- Opinion Preliminarily Enjoining SFSU Civility Code...
- SFSU Republicans Will Face No Punishment:
- Cambridge Student "at the Centre of a Race-Hate Probe After Printing Anti-Islamic Material":
- The New Anti-Blasphemy Laws:...
- The Effort to Ban "Defamation of Religion" and the Democracy Deficit of International Law:
- Baltimore Hebrew University Professor Supporting Legal Penalties for "Negative Depiction of Religion":
- A New International Law "Value" -- Freedom from "Defamation of Religions"?
1. Allahu Akbar.
2. Jews and Christians are pigs and monkeys.
Variations of 1) and 2) might be allowed, if we feel tolerant that day.
I understand that Europe has a very different understanding of free speech than we do (e.g., prohibiting denial of the Holocaust, banning various neo-Nazi or Communist parties, etc.). However, it does look like there is significantly less tolerance towards individuals who offend Islam than there is towards those who offend Christianity of Judaism. The question then is, are the Islamic fanatics who rioted last year over the cartoons and their ilk succeeding in actually silencing the voices of European citizens? Does that mean that in Europe, if one wants to be really effective against political opponents, all one needs to do is cause general mayhem? If so, that puts European traditions in a very precarious situation.
Or maybe, we have to shut down all of Christianity, because it insults both its Jewish roots, and the Roman Gods it supplemented.
Or maybe we should just go back to animism, and worship the rocks and trees, which is where it all started...
Oh, my bad. We have already reached that state, with the religion of environmentalism.
Thanks for mentioning this. So often on Volokh people shake their heads about speech restrictions in Europe as if they're new, necessarily improper under the other country's laws, or somehow particularly worrisome.
Quite often, as in this case, they are none of the above. The fact is that Europeans have been restraining free speech for eons, and have suffered -- and continue to suffer -- the consequences of these idiotic policies. This will continue. My apathy knows no bounds.
But you can't. See, that's the point. The policy is set by what "causes" this violence. That is, the state has already declared complete surrender to Islam. NOTHING is acceptable.
"I don't understand your assertion that Islam is an ideology"
Christianity is also an ideology, as is Judaism, hiduism, and communism. These ideologies, should they b embraced at the state level, have huge political consequences.
Second, the newspaper itself uses the phrase "racist cartoon and other vile material" to describe the offending content. Concerns about blatant editorializing aside, this is truly remarkable: In an issue devoted to religious satire, only the satire directed against Islam is deemed racist. Again, it would be useful to have descriptions of the other offending material for comparison, but one wonders why, given the context, Islam occupies a different category. Even if one accepts that Christianity is a universal religion in a unique sense, wouldn't any rationale for treating satire of Islam as racist necessarily require condemning satire of all non-Christian religions as such? I mean, the adherents of Hinduism, for example, are probably less racially diverse than the adherents of Islam. I really do not get this.
Apparently, the whole thing was nothing but a slur on Islam because there is not a single mention of any other religion being satired. You would think it would be newsworthy to include how much of the edition satired each religion and point out that it's only the Muslims that are bitching about anything.
But, of course, that would also be an insult to Islam. Claiming they have no sense of humor.
Clearly there is a one way street in Europe and England now as regards free speech: parodying, lampooning, and critiquing some religions, philosophies, politics, and theories, is acceptable. Doing the same to others is not. That's not free speech.
The other side of the Atlantic is sinking into a new form of pre-medieval barbarism. Perhaps Wahabi and Ayatollah Islams are the perfect new religions for these pathetic people who are working so hard to destroy the polity and culture they inherited from their more worthy ancestors.
The Swiss led that charge to the bottom long ago. See, e.g., their lovely policies regarding train travel,, bank deposits, and works of art.
Causing general mayhem is a cherished European tradition.
Fixed that for you Zarkov...
(european countries with their speech restrictions) "still preserve a vibrant marketplace of ideas, and means for democratic self-government."
i think not. this is exactly why we have a 1st amendment, to protect offensive speech - speech that challenges, offends, invokes thought, etc.
european countries simply do not have that anymore. when you can be prosecuted for "hate speech" or "vilification of religion" for saying that Allah eats kittens, there is no "vibrant marketplace of ideas"
(note: I am not aware that Allah eats kittens. It was to make a point)
Which begs another question: if we self-censor our speech out of fear of violent reprisals, at what point do we begin to censor our other activities in order to accomodate an increasingly militant and confident group?
The Cambridge Evening News is a small-town paper which makes the most sensational story out of whatever news it has to hand, as well as being fairly populist and right-wing. So, its qualitative opinions ("vile material", etc) should be taken with a pinch of salt.
But now, we are all Danish. A determined subset, at least, of one religion will use maximum noise, threat, and force to try to impose their dogma on those of us who don't belong to the religion.
England has no blasphemy law any longer, and while there are recent moves towards laws against inciting religious hatred, and long-standing laws against inciting racial hatred, merely being offensive about a religion is not a crime.
I can only continue to quote Flemming Rose, editor of Jyllands Posten as interviewed in the Washington Post:
But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. European Human Rights law also enshrines this idea.
Past precedent is that being rude, or even merely not entirely respectful, of Islam in the UK is not a crime, for example Salman Rushdie was never considered to have done anything wrong, and nor is producing plays critical of the Church of England a crime.
Inciting racial hatred, on which the idea of inciting religious hatred is being based, is to threaten harm to people on the basis of their race; being rude about them is not inciting racial hatred, nor is writing The Bell Curve to justify they are inferior.
The student has, at worst, broken College rules about "causing trouble" or "being rude", but they are not the law of the land.
Thank you. That fixed was needed and much appreciated.
This was considered controversial in its day (late 1970s). It was banned in some countries, cinemas which showed it were picketed by Christian and Jewish religious people, etc, the producers and distributors were harried by the religious people mocked in the film.
these speech restrictions in the UK, Canada, etc. are absurd. they don;'t have a free marketplace of ideas. they have a free marketplace as long as you don't offend the wrong people.
it is ironic that you mention the bell curve. a similar theory (about racial differences) was mentioned by a professor in a canadian college about his R-K hypotheses, that basically had to do with the idea that asians were more evolved than whites, and whites were more evolved than blacks.
he was prosecuted in canada under their racial hate crime laws - unsuccessfully.
the Life of Brian is a good example. Can u imagine any UK filmmaker making a "Life of Mohammed" that was similarly themed?
of course not. that would incite "racial hatred".
I've blogged about this here.
After all, there are many different races that practice Islam. The implied assumption by this college is that "Islam = Arab," which would be a tremendous insult to Khomeini.
I charge the college with a racial slur against Persians by claiming they are no different from Arabs, and for ignoring that wonderful patchwork quilt of peace that is Islam.... /sarc
One thing that does differentiate us from our ancestors is our realization that free speech and an open airing of differences can avoid the potential conflict and slaughter. We even have experience that demonstrates this. I suggest stiffling such speech will only increase the probabilty of the slaughter.
Some on the Islamic side have said the time for talking is over. Now some on the Western side are also saying there is no room for talk. So, what does history tell us is left?
Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, et al. have been minority religions subject to vicious treatment under evil hegemonic straight white male christians. Therefore, such religions deserve protection in the West by means of anti-racist laws that encourage tolerance and respect for diversity.
Also, those who are ballooning the Clare College incident into something more than it's not are forgetting that it took place at a university, where the politically correct crowd is much more influential than in other contexts. (As someone else pointed out, look at the San Francisco State.)
Lastly, there's also difference between a bunch of people getting offended at someone's speech and the state restricting that speech. The article tells us that the former has happened in Cambridge, not the latter. We know that "enraged students" complained to the student union, and that an officer of the Islamic society condemned the article -- as well he should -- and that the student has gone into hiding. The article says nothing about Cambridge sanctioning him. Methinks that some of the contributors to this thread would argue not merely that Nazis have the right to march in Skokie, Illinois, but that the good citizens of that town have a constitutional duty to welcome them with rose petals. As we know, in the real world, things don't work that way.
...and would you tell us precisely what is wrong with opening an Arabic language school, please? And do you have similar objections to French schools, Mandarin schools, etc.?
Temoc, Pim has stopped all criticism of Islam.
christianity includes (deluded) people of color
Whatup,
I assume you are being sarcastic, but I have seen many posts just like yours on less educated sites than this... but as an interesting historical note, Ethiopia was the second Christian nation. The rest of your post is obviously in jest.
Really? How do you interpret this bit?
The part in bold certainly seems to imply they are going to sanction him.
You tell me, where do you see an objection?
It appears to me that no European is actually free to say anything about Islam, because there is no way to anticipate what will antagonize the adherents of Islam. What Europeans say about Islam is at the sufferance of Islam.
Notice that this student has gone into hiding. European law, even English law, apparently cannot be relied upon to protect its own citizens from Islamic anger. This first became evident when Great Britain failed to protect Salman Rushdie. But now, the law does not merely fail to protect - it actively assists Islam.
So what we have is a situation where the government permits - indeed, essentially conspires with - religious zealots to persecute non-violent citizens who mock or criticize Islam. How long will it be before Europeans start converting to Islam in order to be safe from Islam?
Maybe we are hinting by commentary that this is supposed to be "insulting." So Muslims on your marks! Go! get the swords etc.
I bet Muslims do not even read the paper. And those that do read it do not care.
Reminds me of the Rushdie case. Khomeini did not know of the 'Satanic Verses' for months because it really was not his type of literature. Then some idiot told him that papers in India and Pakistan had discovered an 'insult' to Islam and that the helpful Indian government had already banned the work in question. Next thing you know, there was a Fatwa and Rushdie was kissing the Scotland Yard ass. And, Khomeini-- he never read the book.
Lesson: ignore this stuff and enjoy the fun writing. Explaining or hinting about the 'insult' is what gets the beast riled up. Next time, professor Volokh should link to it as, for instance, a 'wonderfully interesting piece on the joy of being a Muslim.' They will never know and may even recommend it to others as a guide. And, this is what Europeans including the blockhead officials who are busy overreacting at the College, are free to say.
That would seem quite possible. On the other hand, it seems to me that it is also possible that the neo-fascist government could be Islamic. It wouldn't be the first time a political minority managed to terrorize its way into contol of a European government. What's needed for either scenario is a charismatic leader.
That raises the question: if he is in hiding, does he have good grounds to do so?
Answer: Rushdie
While the professor's post raises a curious question for an exam, it it otherwise irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is that critics of Islam in England stand a very good chance of being killed by Muslims and a very bad chance of receiving protection from the government.
That sounds a lot like "we treat our black people well. Some of them are even free men."
If fear and PC keep criticism of Islam out of the mainstream, the fact that some of it manages to seep in nevertheless, so that fear and PC are not 100% effective, really isn't any sort of defense.
That's exactly the point. In contrast to being "picketed" and "harried" (horrors!) if someone tried to make a movie that insulted Mohammed the Islamofascist-American community would slaughter her. That's why the "brave" New York Times will print national security secrets, mock anyone religious, but will not dare put up those cartoons. For all the bluff, the liberals know that while right-wing boogeymen may "picket" or make Bill Keller "harried" - the Islamofascists who live in the United States would park carbombs at 98th and West End.
The only solution is the deIslamification of the West. I think the Gaza evacuations serve as a good precedent. For the sake of peace, the Islamofascists must leave. Peacefully, or otherwise.
The short answer is, I believe, no.
At least in England and Wales, which is the jurisdiction I know best. The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 made it a specific criminal offence to use threatening words or behaviour, or to display any written material which is threatening, if you intend thereby to stir up religious hatred.
This was modified during the Bill's passage in to law by the House of Lords - against the Blair Government's wishes - to remove a chunk about "abusive or insulting" material, and to add the requirement for an intent to stir up religious hatred. The original Bill merely required the possibility of such hatred being stirred up.
Obviously, the law is very new and there's no case law yet (to my knowledge), so precisely what is and is not covered by this Act is yet to be determined. The intention of many of those behind the Lords amendment was to avoid criminalising just such satire as discussed here, but whether that's what the law will do in practice remains to be seen.
On the other hand, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - which is now part of UK domestic law as well as EU law - provides for the right to freedom of expression, subject to "restrictions necessary in a democratic society". It's theoretically possible that a challenge might be brought against the Act under this provision, but my money wouldn't be on it.
That's just legal sanctions, of course. The effect of extra-legal threats of violence have been discussed widely in this thread already. And bodies such as Universities and Colleges have wide powers to impose disciplinary action for actions that are entirely legal.
Islam is a religion. Islamism is an ideology.
Really, a "very good chance"? Please recite each instance in, say, the last 50 years, of a critic of Islam in the United Kingdom who has been killed by a Muslim.
Every critic of Islamofascism lives in fear in the U.S., U.K., and the West. The Islamofascists have through violence, thuggery and threats begun their colonization. Unless we meet CAIR and their thugs with the same level of venom and violence that Ibrahim Hooper (yemach shemum), and the other Islamofascists profess, we will be living under the wicked Sharia before the century's out.
since when has the NYT taken that stance? they didn't with Serrano's Piss Christ, they didn't with the virgin mary covered in dung, and they depicted the NYC mayor as some sort of fascist for claiming that maybe such art that is clearly offensive to religious people should not be publically funded.
the double standard is amazing with them
Am I nuts, or is Rushdie still alive?
Every critic of Islamofascism lives in fear in the U.S., U.K., and the West.
Do you actually live in fear? Is that why you suggest that "we meet CAIR and their thugs with the same level of venom and violence that Ibrahim Hooper (yemach shemum), and the other Islamofascists profess"? What sort of violence are you actually proposing "we" apply to CAIR?
try taking a picture of the prophet muhammed, smearing it in dung and urine and stamping on it with dirty feet, in plain view of the public.
if you can honestly say that you would do this WITHOUT fear in the US, the UK etc. then i would agree with you.
And when is a Muslim going to be arrested for threatening Christians?
Rushdie is alive and teaching at Emory U. in Atlanta.
I suspect most people (including myself) wouldn't do that to a picture of Jesus "without fear" either, so I'm unclear on your point.
Actually, if I were to do that to a picture of Jesus, my only fear would be the possibility of being trampled to death by government agencies wanting to give me grants.
Well, when people draw cartoons, Islamofascists marched with signs that read "Behead those who insult islam" and according to Wikipedia: "Altogether, at least 139 people were killed in protests,[47] mainly in Nigeria, Libya, Pakistan and Afghanistan." htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_riots
I think that us Dhimmis should learn from our Islamofascist overlords and respond the same way when those that worship Mohammed as a god insult us.
Yes, please do look at what at became of him because he criticized Muslims.
Just Dropping By: people already HAVE done this sort of things with christ images, apparently without fear. they get editorials praising their daring in the NYT
there was the piss christ exhibit by serrano (crucifix dunked in urine), the virgin mary painting that was covered in dung ( i forget the "artist's" name on this one) etc.
i think it's a GOOD thing that people do not act violently towards those who criticize their religion. and the only religion i am aware of, where one needs fear for their safety when doing such 'art' is ISLAM
when Sinead OConnor cslled the pope "the enemy" and ripped up a picture of him, she was CRITICIZED
i am not aware that anybody tried to kill her
i double dog dare you to do the same thing with a picture of Mohammed
The Left has demonstrated that they only respect those who will actively engage in extreme violence. Thus their love for Baader-Meinhoff, Fidel, and Islamism, while they denigrate Christians and Jews. They have encouraged Sikh extremists to use violence to end a play that they opposed.
This is a very bad idea, as it grants a heckler's veto and encourages violence and terrorism rather than a civil society where everyone can politely think that others are heathens who are going to hell or confused people with imaginary friends. This will end very badly for the Left, but they never learned from their past mistakes, so why should they do better this time?
Do you think that the 4 Islamist murderers who died that day along with their victims were all the murderous Islamists in the UK, or that Salman Rushdie is alive today because there were none who presented with the opportunity to kill him would not have done so?
Or did you only mean to quibble about "probabilities," that is "very good chance"? Because the likelihood that any one of us in the USA or UK will die as a result of terrorism is small, do you think fears in this regard are overblown?
["The only thing that is relevant is that critics of Islam in England stand a very good chance of being killed by Muslims"
Really, a "very good chance"? Please recite each instance in, say, the last 50 years, of a critic of Islam in the United Kingdom who has been killed by a Muslim.]
England is not exactly overrun with outspoken critics of Islam. The British government's offer of protection to Rushdie was tepid. Considerably less enthusiastic than its offers of heartbalm to 'outraged' Muslims.
Why do you think that the victims of the violent riots by the Islamofascism were "overwhelmingly protestors themselves".
I don't know. All I know is that Just Dropping By asked for "each instance in, say, the last 50 years, of a critic of Islam in the United Kingdom who has been killed by a Muslim." You gave one name, of a man who, whatever he may have feared, and however reasonably, is not only alive and well but living and working in a disclosed, known location. Remember, my concern is not that criticism of Islamic extremism is inappropriate, but that it should be honest and serious. Pithy but inaccurate one-liners are neither. Feel free to try to answer JDB's question again.
The British government's offer of protection to Rushdie was tepid. Considerably less enthusiastic than its offers of heartbalm to 'outraged' Muslims.
Didn't Britain cut off diplomatic ties with Iran over the Rushdie fatwa? I have a hard time reconciling that serious step with your simplistic characterization of the facts. Again, I'm not defending those who irrationally and reprehensibly threatened the man's life, but you're not offering any useful criticism of those people by throwing out his name like a shibboleth.
We know that Rushdie was threatened. But when you say, "The only thing that is relevant is that critics of Islam in England stand a very good chance of being killed by Muslims and a very bad chance of receiving protection from the government," we also know that's not true. You dilute the useful and necessary message by burying it in heated rhetoric.
1) stirring up hatred of Islam among westerners, or
2) stirring up hatred of westerners among Muslims?
Does this make any difference in the application of the UK law against stirring up racial hatred? It seems to me that European governments are trying to rein in their skinheads and other minority-bashers, but end up providing cover for minorities that riot in the streets whenever they are subject to the same sort of criticism that everyone in the west has to put up with.
I bet they sent a stiff note, too.