The Danish Cartoons and Free Speech
Chris Barrigar Thursday, 30 March 2006
Flags in flames, embassies burning — the images on the nightly news seem to provide compelling evidence that Islamic and Western values, particularly around freedom of speech, can never truly co-exist. This, the 'deep conflict' view of relations between Islam and the West, is the view promoted by many in light of the global conflict over the unflattering Danish cartoons of Muhammad.
This is, though, a dangerous misreading in several respects, the most significant of which is the assumption that there exists a homogenous understanding in the Western world of the nature of free speech. In truth there are two Western concepts of free speech — and these are deeply at conflict with each other. One is the libertarian view, whereby free speech is an absolute right and should not be constrained for any reason at all. This is the view of those who criticized the Danish paper Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten for apologizing to Muslims for its cartoons. As applied to the media, this position says that, in a democracy, the media must be free to offend, free to blaspheme, free to satirize as it sees fit. Of late, this has been quickly followed by the 'lighten up' argument — everyone is subject to satire, including national leaders and other religions, 'So, Muslims, lighten up!'.
There is, however, a second view of free speech — the communitarian view, which in fact is the more widespread view in the West. On this view, free speech has a purpose beyond itself, namely to benefit the well-being of society. Healthy societies protect freedom of speech as a strong right, but not an absolute right. That this is the dominant Western view is seen in the limits democracies do put on free speech, by laws which prohibit, for instance, 'hate speech' against others, lying under oath, lying on income tax or census forms, making jokes at airport security about carrying a concealed weapon, or, in the USA, yelling "fire" in a public place when there is no fire.
Though our freedoms and legal rights have been hard-won though history, the reason for such restrictions on free speech is straightforward: the overall well-being of society requires that on occasion we limit our claim to these rights, whether such limits are imposed by law, by social convention, or by personal self-restraint. Indeed, we see this not only in our laws but also in our daily language. In our day-to-day relationships at home or work we often constrain ourselves to say things in a way that is constructive or helpful rather than insulting or destructive. We constrain ourselves because we know such self-restraint, such civility, is best for the sake of making relationships work.
Christian faith promotes what we could call the 'Christian communitarian' view, in which we acknowledge that "rights" exist but also accept that in certain circumstances we should not claim or exercise a right because doing so would be inconsistent with a greater good. The first theological indicator of this truth comes from Jesus, who chose not to exercise his divine right to escape humiliation and crucifixion. He chose not to exercise this right because he sought a collective purpose greater than his own self-interest, namely the redemption and atonement made possible for humanity through his death.
Another theological indicator comes from Paul, who on a number of occasions spoke of his right to a particular beneficial treatment but did not exercise the right. His primary discussion is in 1 Cor 9:12-15, where he speaks of his rights as a missionary to various forms of support from local churches: 'But we did not use this right [of support from you]...I have not used any of these rights...'. In effect, Paul sacrificed these rights for a higher purpose, namely the work of the kingdom of God., In another instance he did exercise his rights, namely his legal right as a Roman citizen to trial before Caesar (Acts 25:11). But even in this case his choice was based on a higher purpose — the opportunity to share the Gospel at the highest possible legal-political level: 'The Lord stood near Paul and said, "Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome"'. Paul exercised his right to be heard in Rome not for his own freedom (see Acts 26:32 where he could have been set free), but for kingdom purposes. In short, Paul always decides whether or not to exercise his rights on the basis not of his own self-interest but on the basis of some higher purpose.
Issues of rights are also mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., Rom. 9:21; Gal.4:5; 2 Thess. 3:9). The New Testament recognizes the concept of rights, yet always subsumes these under the purposes of God, such as redemption, sanctification, and shalom. This is precisely the basis for Paul's commands in Gal.5:13: 'Use your freedom not for self-indulgence but to serve one another'.
Within a Christian theology of shalom, we may propose a significant place for what Richard Mouw has called a theology and practice of 'Christian civility'. Such Christian civility would include the recognition that sometimes shalom will be best served by exercising one's rights, while at other times shalom will be best served by not exercising these rights. This principle, which we could call the principle of civil self-restraint, is also recognized by the Oxford Declaration on Christian Faith and Economics, which comments, 'In becoming Christians, we may choose to forego our rights out of love for others and in trust of God's providential care [although this] does not mean that such rights cease to exist. Christians may endure the violation of their rights with great courage but work vigorously for the identical rights of others in similar circumstances'. (See www.casi.org.nz/statements.)
Importantly, the principle of civil self-restraint is applicable not just to individuals but to groups and institutions as well — including, for purposes of this discussion, the media. Unfortunately, however, some commentators have given self-restraint in the media the pejorative label 'self-censorship'. Such a label is wrongheaded because it fails to recognize the importance of self-restraint for the sake of society's well-being.
The case of the Danish cartoons is a case in point. This controversy has arisen through a particular form of media communication, namely public satire. Like free speech, public satire is not an end in itself but serves a 'higher' end, namely the well-being of society. While satire is a valuable means of social critique, like all areas of human activity it too must be subject to ethics: when satire actually undermines the well-being of society, satire itself needs to be critiqued.
Do the Danish cartoons benefit the well-being of society? Clearly, no. On the one hand, our concern cannot be to appease the violent Muslims, for satire can certainly be pointed at them as much as at anyone else. Nonetheless, despite television images of global violence in response to the cartoons, the vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving, and these peaceable Muslims have been deeply offended. The ethics of public satire dictate that satire must be intended to reform, rather than merely mock, those whom it lampoons. If the cartoons were intended constructively, to prompt Muslims to self-examination and reform of their role in the world, they deeply misgauged how to achieve this. Instead, the cartoons passed from effective satire to mockery and offence.
It is here that absolutists respond, 'Muslims should lighten up, get thicker skin'. But who are any of us to tell others, 'Don't be insulted'? Virtually every person, including satirists and cartoonists, has a psychological point at which they will feel insulted by particular comments or attitudes of others. In apologizing for causing offence, the editors of Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten showed more good sense about the well-being of society than those who persist in exercising their supposed right to absolute free speech by reproducing the offensive cartoons.
Conclusion
The root of the cartoon conflict is not a clash between two incompatible civilizations, even though there certainly is a clash between parts of two civilizations. More fundamentally, the Danish cartoons have exposed the deep internal conflict within both Islam and the West — and a significant source of these problems is the clash between libertarian and communitarian accounts of freedom of speech.
A Christian response to this is the ministry of shalom-building. To begin this task, Christians and moderate Westerners would do well to work with moderate Muslims to develop a shared civilizational philosophy. In fact, here I am building on a proposal by the Turkish Muslim theologian Bilal Sambur, who has proposed precisely such an effort. This should begin by developing an account of freedom which avoids both extremes of Islamic absolutism (too little freedom) and Western absolutism (excessive libertarian freedom). Christians involved in international affairs are well placed to lead this effort, which would be a contribution of immense significance to both Western and Muslim civilizations.