I posted this up some time ago during the Pastor Rony Tan Buddhist incident, in the light of the recent questions about the Sedition Act being invoked against those criticise Islam, I thought it would be good to revisit this post.
Although Rowan Atkinson is well known for his role in Mr. Bean, Blackadder and other standup satires, some of which are against religions, he is also an Oxford graduate and below reproduced is his speech defending the freedom to insult religions to the House of the Lords, made in the context of new legislations against religious hatred.
My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Those of us who have opposed this measure since its introduction in 2001 have never had a problem with its alleged intent, viz. to counter the expression of racial hatred under the disguise of religious hatred. Rather, our problem was always the legislation’s breathtaking scope and reach far beyond that intent.
The prime motivating energy for the Bill seemed to come not from communities seeking protection from bullying by the British National Party but from individuals with a more aggressive, fundamentalist agenda. Those who have sought, from the very day of the publication in 1989 of Salman Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses, to immunise religions against criticism and ridicule – or at least to promote legislation that is so sinister and intimidating, it can provide that immunity without even the need to prosecute anyone. In other words, to impose self-censorship.
The starting point for my objections to this Bill is to argue with its supposedly inarguable premise: the ‘ooh Yes Religious Hatred, that sounds like a bad thing, let’s have a law against that’. As hatred is defined as intense dislike, what is wrong with inciting intense dislike of a religion, if the activities or teachings of that religion are so outrageous, irrational or abusive of human rights that they deserve to be intensely disliked?
The Government has often spoken of how under existing legislation, Jews and Sikhs are protected from religious hatred on the basis of their race and that this Bill seeks merely to extend that protection to others. The problem that that ignores is that race and religion are fundamentally different concepts – you cannot choose your race, you can choose your religion – and even if for many the line dividing their race from their religion is blurred in the eyes of the law. A sharp line can and should be drawn.
If Jews and Sikhs are protected from criticism of their religious beliefs or religious activities, then that is a wrong and the idea of extending that to other religions is also a wrong. To criticise people for their race is manifestly irrational but to criticise their religion, that is a right.
The freedom to criticise or ridicule ideas – even if they are sincerely held beliefs – is a fundamental freedom and a law which says that you can ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas, is a very odd law indeed. It promotes the idea that there should be a right not to be offended, when I think that the right to offend is far more important than a right not to be offended.
The only moderating influence on this legislation will be the Attorney General, who can veto prosecutions. Yet how can the Office of the Attorney General, an instrument of government, be expected to take only a judicial view of cases brought before him and not be influenced by the political ambitions of his employer?
The ease with which one religious group or another could be favoured or disfavoured is clear. You many not know that there is an Anti-Vilification law in a state in Australia, where a Witch successfully brought a prosecution against a Christian pastor for vilification of her religion. Now the government has assured us that our Attorney General would veto such a frivolous prosecution.
However, you can imagine that if, one day, electoral research by the party in government revealed that there were a surprising number of witches living in a number of marginal constituencies whose votes could be of considerable benefit to the party at the next general election, then such a prosecution might suddenly seem a more attractive and less frivolous idea to the Attorney General than it had previously. The potential for abuse is manifest.
It is time for the Government to listen. It has made no attempt to address any of these concerns – other than to deflect the criticism with the most anodyne rebuttals.
The Government says you will continue to be able to criticise or ridicule religion. Where in the Bill does it say that? Where is the clause that even implies that kind of freedom of expression? How can such bland reassurances carry any authority when there is no wording in the bill to support them and the chief promoters and supporters of this legislation, in consultation with whom the thing was drafted, have always taken the opposite view. They don’t think that religions should be ridiculed. They don’t think that religions should be criticised or insulted. That is why they have lobbied for this legislation for so many years and unlike the government are not blind to its potential to achieve those aims.
The problem with this Bill is its imbalance. It represents the relentless pursuit of the interests of a tiny minority of the population with, so far, no consideration or quarter being given to the concerns of the baffled majority. This is not to belittle the concerns of the minority which can be and should be accommodated but good government is also about doing everything in your power to accommodate the concerns of those most affected by your legislative ambitions. And this is simply not happening.
That is what these amendments are about. They do not affect the essence of the Bill – they seek only to provide reassurance and above all to protect freedom of speech, from which not just a minority will benefit, nor just a majority, but every single one of us.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article580686.ece
As with every field of human activity, be it the sciences or philosophy or religion, this rule holds true,
"Unquestioning agreement and lack of argumentativeness are always sure signs that a tradition has stagnated."
Buddhists must start learning to accept and receive caricature, to answer the false ones and to accept the true ones, as Christians always had through the centuries. For the minute a tradition starts to invoke the law to protect itself against criticism and caricature, it is a slippery slope down to stagnation
The problem that that ignores is that race and religion are fundamentally different concepts – you cannot choose your race, you can choose your religion – and even if for many the line dividing their race from their religion is blurred in the eyes of the law. A sharp line can and should be drawn.
ReplyDeleteThat is wrong. Religion can form an integral part of an ethnic group's identity. For instance, Malay-Muslims.
If Jews and Sikhs are protected from criticism of their religious beliefs or religious activities, then that is a wrong and the idea of extending that to other religions is also a wrong. To criticise people for their race is manifestly irrational but to criticise their religion, that is a right.
This is a highly warped argument. How to draw the line when some consider religions to be markers of their identities?
Buddhists must start learning to accept and receive caricature, to answer the false ones and to accept the true ones, as Christians always had through the centuries.
Perhaps. But this doesn't justify a Muslim or Christian criticizing Buddhism; it only shows that Buddhists or anyone professing a religion must learn to criticize their own traditions, and not accept them unthinkingly. I don't see any reason why members of other communities can or should take on this role.
Yes, I think Rowan Atkinson does note that "and even if for many the line dividing their race from their religion is blurred in the eyes of the law. A sharp line can and should be drawn."
ReplyDeleteI guess I would reply that even if religion does form a fundamental part of an ethnic group's identity, I would go beyond Rowan Atkinson and argue that ethnic practices are not beyond criticism as well. Note for example the British clamping down upon the Indian's practice of immolating the wives of dead husbands. The Indians did argue that it was part of their culture, ethnicity and all that, but ethnicity is, I would argue, no defence from criticism and critique.
One's identity, religious, ethnic, or otherwise, is to put it bluntly, not sacred and is never above criticism and correction.
"Perhaps. But this doesn't justify a Muslim or Christian criticizing Buddhism; it only shows that Buddhists or anyone professing a religion must learn to criticize their own traditions, and not accept them unthinkingly. I don't see any reason why members of other communities can or should take on this role."
That is like saying only PAP members can criticise PAP policies. :P
there is no conclusive evidence to indicate PAP members consistently criticise their own policies. and from empirical data gathered from other grps/institutions, only a handful of outliers actually bother to throw peanut shells and tomatoes at themselves. if everyone was tt believed and practised absolute self-criticism, it would also mean we could save us from ourselves...which is impossible
ReplyDeleteOne's identity, religious, ethnic, or otherwise, is to put it bluntly, not sacred and is never above criticism and correction.
ReplyDelete"Criticism and correction" by whom? By the PAP govt? By a member totally unrelated to the ethnic community?
As I mentioned previously, many people consider religion to be a essential component of their identities. Unless they are the progressive and receptive type - and even if so, they are bound to be uncomfortable when another fellow from a different community goes to them and says, "Hey, this is not right. You should do this and that".
This opens up a potential faultline for conflict. Unless the issue is life-and-death, I don't think anyone - including the state - should intervene. So for example, former MM Lee telling Muslims to 'integrate' by eating with others - it's simply superficial and uncalled for.
Besides, no race or religion is monolithic. There are bound to be progressives or conservations etc. Leave it to them to decide how to move on.
That is like saying only PAP members can criticise PAP policies. :P
This statement is a red herring. PAP policies will affect the whole country, of course anyone has the right to criticize or comment. Unless religious issues affect the whole country too, I don't think outsiders should kaypoh and try to intervene in other communities.
@ eternalhap
ReplyDeleteJust to let u know, my wife is a pure breed malay in Singapore and she is not a muslim. Malay unlike the arabs are not muslim initially until trader from middle east comes and introduce the islamic faith. Then the Malays embraced it.
I feel malay can choose their religion should they want to. Just that there r many from the community resist the idea.
"This opens up a potential faultline for conflict. Unless the issue is life-and-death, I don't think anyone - including the state - should intervene."
ReplyDeleteBut sometimes religions and ethnic practices do imply issues which are of public significance. For example in Britain, they recently ruled to give marital benefits to the other wives of Muslim man's polygamous marriage. Granted, not exactly life and death, but it would be ridiculous to say that therefore the polygamous practices of this ethnic community is therefore not open to criticism.
Therefore nothing is sacred, all is open to criticism and examination and discourse, no matter how "essential" a community or ethnic group may treat those components or practices. It is only from open and free discourse and discussion and actual engagement (not just sweeping everything under the carpet with a blanket don't touch and don't say anything policy), whereby we can ascertain which one is compatible with the public space, which ones are tolerable and which ones will cost the civic space too much to permit.
We can't avoid conflict by pretending that these practices have no public significance, they do, and the sooner who learn to engage them publicly, the better we are at learning about the nuances of each issue. Without learning to appreciate the nuances and wishing for absolute and blanket simplistic solutions, we are only setting ourselves up for a ham-fisted response.
As for religious issues, a religion which is worth criticising would obviously be a religion which has public significance and import, and therefore, will affect all of us. A religion with no public significance, would not be a religion worth criticising.
Therefore nothing is sacred, all is open to criticism and examination and discourse, no matter how "essential" a community or ethnic group may treat those components or practices.
ReplyDeleteAgain, you missed my point - I mentioned, "Criticism and correction" by whom? By the PAP govt? By a member totally unrelated to the ethnic community?
Who should criticize? On what issues, how to draw the line? How should the community under scrutiny respond? You claim "nothing is sacred", but does everyone think similarly? Why should they think like you do?
But you've your point of view, I accept.
My belief is that it is no one's business to meddle in the affairs of another community, unless there are repercussions on others. Life-and-death issues, to exaggerate. For instance, the Human Organ Transplant Act - the S'pore govt had to sort the issue of organ donation with the Malay-Muslim religious leaders, since organ transplants don't err recognize ethnic/religious or whatever boundaries. This is justified meddling because it concerns everyone in S'pore.
"Nothing is sacred" might be true - then let those in the community criticize themselves. No religion is monolithic, there are bound to be traditionalists, liberals etc competing for influences. I don't see why, unless it is an issue of great importance, for outsider XYZ to be kaypoh.
It is only from open and free discourse and discussion and actual engagement (not just sweeping everything under the carpet with a blanket don't touch and don't say anything policy), whereby we can ascertain which one is compatible with the public space, which ones are tolerable and which ones will cost the civic space too much to permit.
Sounds good on the surface. Still, this is all too fuzzy.
As for religious issues, a religion which is worth criticising would obviously be a religion which has public significance and import, and therefore, will affect all of us.
True, especially when fundamental human rights are affected. I might be ignorant, but I've usually seen religious criticism being frivolous and plainly ignorant. That's life.
"Who should criticize? On what issues, how to draw the line? How should the community under scrutiny respond? You claim "nothing is sacred", but does everyone think similarly? Why should they think like you do?"
ReplyDeleteAs I said, there is no blanket answer for all these. It depends on the particular issues itself, the line and boundary has to be determined by the concrete particularity of each case and each issue. There simply isn't a one-size-fits-all solution to all these such as a, don't meddle at all.
And you've ready given an example in the organ transplant issue about how we go about engaging a particular issue. All I would need to add is, we need discussion, dialogue and even criticism in order to determine whether a religious/ethinic community's practices would have "repercussions on others", and that would involve some very tough questions and criticisms on the boundaries of the community's and it's interaction with the civic/public space. Therefore criticism is a necessary precursor to establishing the religious/ethnic's community's practices "repercussions on others".
I've never said that a religion is monolithic, yet there seems to be a potential inconsistency in your position. You claim that a religion is not monolithic, but yet you also claim that we should never intrude into that religion's community, which assumes that that religion community has a very clear, definite and unified shape and boundary for it to even constitute a community for us to defer our judgements to. The two claims are incompatible. Either a religious community has a sufficient integrity and unity in order for us to identify it as a community, which would then imply that that religion is somewhat "monolithic", or the religion is so utterly pluralistic and broad that it loses all meaning of what constitutes itself. Which then, I can claim to be a very very liberal Muslims who happens to believe in the divinity of Christ and therefore claim to be a member of the Islamic community and have the right to criticise it. You can't have it both ways I'm afraid.
"True, especially when fundamental human rights are affected. I might be ignorant, but I've usually seen religious criticism being frivolous and plainly ignorant. That's life."
I'm skeptical of fundamental human rights, but still, just because there is bad criticism does not thereby imply that we should have no criticism, just as just because there is bad criticism of PAP does not thereby imply that we should have no criticism of PAP.