Simon Jenkins in the Guardian 16th August 2022, writes about the problems of free speech in the age of the internet and ‘social media’. Its title is “Do you want free speech to thrive? Then it has to be regulated, now more than ever”. The piece is prompted by the assault on writer Salman Rushdie by 24 year old Hadi Matar.
A ‘fatwa’ was ordered against him by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, on the 14th February 1989.. He had ordered Mr Rushdie to be killed for writing the Satanic Verses, which the cleric claimed was an insult to Islam. A $2.8 million bounty was put on Mr Rushdie’s head. Three months later the Ayatollah, himself, died on the 3rd June 1989. He was 89 years old. At the time, the Ayatollah was the Supreme Leader of the State of Iran.
Khomeini’s own father had been murdered in 1903 and he spent 15 years in exile for his opposition to the Shah of Iran. On the 1st February 1979, he returned in triumph to Iran and was apparently greeted, according to BBC reports, by a joyous crowd of 5 million people. In the tenth year of his leadership he issued the following decree:
Fatwa issued 14 February 1989
I would like to inform all the intrepid Muslims in the world that the author of the book entitled The Satanic Verses, which has been compiled, printed and published in opposition to Islam, the Prophet and the Qur'an, as well as those publishers who were aware of its contents, have been declared madhur el dam [those whose blood must be shed]. I call on all zealous Muslims to execute them quickly, wherever they find them, so that no-one will dare to insult Islam again. Whoever is killed in this path will be regarded as a martyr.
So it was not just Mr Rushdie who faced assassination, and indeed the Japanese translator of the work, Hitoshi Igarashi, was killed on the 12th July 1991.
 |
| Igarashi |
Clearly, anyone associated with the work is still in peril some 31 years after the murder of Mr Igarashi, and 33 years since the fatwa was ordered. Hadi Matar is but 24 years old. According to Wikipedia Hadi Matar is a 24-year-old American citizen. His parents are Lebanese and migrated from Yaroun, in the south of the country, but Matar was born in the US, the town’s mayor told Reuters.
According to NBC News, citing law enforcement sources, he was born in California but recently moved to New Jersey. FBI agents were spotted entering a property in Fairview, New Jersey, believed to be Matar’s address. A boxing club manager in New Jersey told AP news agency that Matar had joined in April but emailed her several days ago to request his membership be cancelled, saying he “wouldn’t be coming back for a while”. Gym owner Desmond Boyle said he saw “nothing violent” about Matar, and described him as polite and quiet. However, he said Matar looked “tremendously sad” and had not wanted to integrate into the group. “He had this look every time he came in. It looked like it was the worst day of his life,” Mr Boyle said. It is not clear whether he had a previous criminal record.
None of this indicates just what young Hadi was thinking when he attacked Mr Rushdie. Could he have been conscious of the Ayatollah’s edict? Difficult to say. He has pleaded Not Guilty, so either he or his lawyer has made a decision to provide a legal excuse for the assault, or at least an explanation as to why he believes his action was without criminal liability. Whether what he will say, in the end, has any connection with freedom of speech is still open to question.
Suffice it to say that the presumption the attack was in response to a fatwa, or was motivated to silence what Mr Rushdie has to say, has been put forward. It may be entirely wrong; however, the defence of Free Speech is nonetheless a very welcome proposition. Any examination of the power of words is of importance. It is even more so, when those supporting Mr Rushdie extol the idea that he “speaks truth to power”. The idea of speaking freely, truth to power is under the greatest threat in the United Kingdom at present, particularly when one considers the legislation the current Conservative Government have in mind, to curb protest of any kind, and to opt out of Human Rights because “lefty lawyers’ are preventing them from doing what they want. A direct quote from Rishi Sunak. Free speech enshrined in law, and with the force of law, is as important as it gets.
In the United States the matter is specified in the First Amendment of the Constitution:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The principles expressed in this very first amendment are just as deep rooted in the history of the United Kingdom, as they are in America; indeed, they were born in the United Kingdom well before the Constitution was written. It is a case of the Common Law being specifically made written law, and forming part of the foundational document of a nation.
Many citizens have forgotten the full force and range of the commitment made to the nation by the composition of those 45 words. As good as the ideas are, they do allow for a multiplicity of opinions, some of which are in total opposition to the very freedoms the amendment is meant to protect. Hence, Mr Jenkins cautionary statement: “Do you want free speech to thrive? Then it has to be regulated, now more than ever”.
With that in mind, when it comes to free speech, what does one do about hate speech? What does one do about incitement? What does one do about troublesome and worrying words? How does one define insulting words and behaviour? These are all matters that have been the subject of a number of laws intended to improve behaviour and relationships between people. Such legislation and regulation of behaviour and thought is the most problematic and requires a great deal of thought before prohibitions are put in place.
The freedoms mentioned in that First Amendment are now held out as imperative in most of the Western European democracies. They are in the process of being eroded. World events are not helping, and some world leaders are taking advantage of distractions to curb any possibility of these sentiments surviving. It is the citizen’s duty to be on guard. We each, and every one, of us have a duty of care to ensure that free speech will thrive. This is why, in my view, the hate speech and incitement to violence, from the likes of Donald Trump, is harmful in the extreme and should lead to a criminal prosecution, just as the attempts by the likes of Sunak and Truss to pursue repressive legislation, should be weeded out of parliament.
There is a clear distinction between speech intended to promote hatred, bigotry, violence and repression and speech intended to proffer opinion, education, instruction, good will, peace and fellowship or simple nostalgia. Such speech must convey truth and expose lies and deceit.
Speaking truth to power is futile unless there is some serious listening going on. I’m afraid the current crop of demagogues and would be prime ministers are deaf and dumb.. The thunder rolls over my head as I write this blog. Is it a portent of things to come? More of this anon.
No comments:
Post a Comment