A Thinking Man

There are often calls for banning by ‘blind’ people who want to ban others but ensure that their own work is never banned. In their self-righteousness they fail to see the contradictions in their own position.

A recent example is Geert Wilders, the far-right founder of the Party for Freedom. Appealing to the higher authority of freedom of expression, the anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant politician has expressed his determination to release his anti-Quran film. Meanwhile, the same champion of freedom of expression has gone from demanding the censoring of the Quran to calling for its outright banning. So, the same man who wants the freedom to release a film that will almost certainly lead to rioting, death, and economic sanctions for his country, wants to deprive the freedom of millions to read their holy book. As Homer Simpson would say: “D’oh!”

Wilder’s reasoning is that, apparently, the Quran is similar to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. He claimed: “The book incites hatred and killing and, therefore, has no place in our legal order.”

I have no particular interest in defending the Quran per se, but there are several things wrong with Wilder’s position. First, it ignores the fact that the vast bulk of the Quran has nothing to do with violence and war. Secondly, there is the problem of consistency. In the Netherlands, for instance, it is legal to own and lend copies of Hitler’s autobiography. Thirdly, there is the problem of scope. Should we purge our libraries of any form of military or revolutionary literature and, while we’re at it, ban violent films and music. Comparing like with like, why does Wilders wish to outlaw the Quran and not the Bible or the Torah, which also have their own concepts of what constitutes holy and just war? In fact, the Bible even contains passages justifying the slaughter of “sinners” and Judaism defines two types of acceptable war: milchemet mitzva (commanded by God) and milchehmet reshut (expansionary war).

If Wilders’ position is inconsistent and problematic, so too are the calls for banning coming from the other side. Muslims of course, people have a right to express any insult they feel peacefully. But why the calls for collective punishment, such as sanctions? Why don’t the faithful to leave the “sinners” to get their just desserts when they go to meet their maker? Perhaps they not possess enough faith to leave matters to divine justice.

So, is banning ever a good thing? At the moment I am still wrestling with this one. So far, I have had three tentative thoughts, though I hesitate to call them conclusions. Doubtless, some of you will be able to see my own inconsistencies and the holes in my arguments.

First, I instinctively want to recoil from all arguments which say you should ban things because of what other people might do or what they actually do. My starting point is that blackmail should be resisted wherever possible, and that something as important as freedom of speech should not be sacrificed for hypothetical or actual bullying. I argued elsewhere for the right of invited speakers to be allowed to speak, despite the bullying attempts of freethinkers to stop them (see Big Storm in a Little Tea Cup, and Liberal Facism).

I fully accept that in the process many people (including innocents) may suffer. Much of the real suffering because of the wars after the reformation might have been avoided if the reformation had not happened. However, in broad terms, it is arguable that it was important to resist the corruption and limiting influence of the Roman Catholic Church at the time.

I also understand that it is easy for me to say that from the comfort and safety of my study. However difficult it is to work out in detail, I do feel that the absolute, “I must avoid upsetting others at all costs” is too expensive a mantra to ultimately accept both for an individual and for society. If adults decide to get upset about something, that is their right, but I want to refuse, for as long as possible, to let that influence my fundamental human rights and the rights of others in a liberal society.

Secondly, having written the above, I accept that nobody exists in isolation. Scientists are accountable for their work, why shouldn’t artists and writers and musicians also be accountable to the larger community? It may be that creative people sometimes create something that is just too destructive for a society to bear at that time - something which seriously threatens the majority. Scientists have the knowledge in many parts of the world on how to destroy the planet, yet governments place serious restrictions on who has access to that knowledge and how it is used. It isn’t too difficult to imagine a creative, artistic event that would be just too difficult for any society to handle. If, for example, Iran were to say to Geert Wilders, “Show your film, and we will detonate a nuclear weapon in the Holland,” and if they demonstrably had the capability, I would argue that there was a reasonable case for temporarily banning Wilders’ film

Thirdly, perhaps the clearest case for banning involves the exploitation of innocents. Anything which deliberately causes people to suffer against their will, or exploits children or the vulnerable, I think should be prohibited. I can’t see any way in which liberal freedom can be used as a defense against child pornography, for example. The individual’s right for safety is almost always greater than the right of someone else to speak.

Of course, I am immediately aware of the possible conflict between my third and first argument. In resisting bullying by others, there may be suffering, including that of innocent people. I don’t know how to resolve this apparent conflict. Perhaps there may be a common thread running through the possible suffering of point one and the suffering in point three. In trying to end the suffering of the exploited, you are trying to stop something that most people would regard as evil and are working for the good of society. In trying to avoid, but at the same time being ready to accept, a degree of suffering in resisting bullies, you are also working for the greater good of society.

My second argument about accountablility to the majority is pragmatically recognising that there are some occasions when it isn’t worth working it for the greater good of society if it means that that society would be destroyed in the process. There is no point in trying to cut off your nose to spite your face.

If you have read thus far, you deserve a rest. Have a great weekend!

(Information Source: Khaled Diab - Hell hath more fury)

Tags: Adolf Hitler, banning, bible, conflict, Geert Wilders, Holland, Judaism, Mein Kampf, Netherlands, prohibition, Quran, rights, suffering, Torah