27 Muslim groups in Denmark have announced their intent to sue the newspaper Jyllands-Posten for defamation in a Danish court, and also plan to “report Denmark to the UN Commissioner on Human Rights for failing to prosecute the newspaper that first published controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad”. (Jenny Booth and news agencies, “Danish Muslims sue over Muhammad cartoons”, The Times (U.K.), Mar. 17). Earlier coverage: Mar. 4, Feb. 14 (Muslims in Calgary, Alberta plan to sue), Feb. 10, etc.
Posts Tagged ‘hate speech’
Calgary Muslims may sue over cartoons
“The head of Calgary’s Muslim community is considering a civil lawsuit against two local publishers for reprinting controversial Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad — images that have sparked deadly riots overseas. “Syed Soharwardy, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, said he would consult lawyers to see whether it was possible to sue the Jewish Free Press and conservative Western Standard, which have published the cartoons; the general-circulation Calgary Herald has not. More: Feb. 10, etc. (Emma Poole, Calgary Herald/National Post, Feb. 13).
Why they aren’t running the cartoons
The Boston Phoenix (“World of Pain”, Feb. 9) tells readers that “frankly, the primary reason” it isn’t going to run the Danish Muhammed cartoons:
Out of fear of retaliation from the international brotherhood of radical and bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do. …Simply stated, we are being terrorized, and as deeply as we believe in the principles of free speech and a free press, we could not in good conscience place the men and women who work at the Phoenix and its related companies in physical jeopardy. As we feel forced, literally, to bend to maniacal pressure, this may be the darkest moment in our 40-year publishing history.
Somewhere there’s probably an issue of vicarious/employer liability lurking in here — if printing the cartoons did lead to violence, the Phoenix’s owners might well end up having to pay. But of course the venerable alt-weekly’s stance is practically a profile in courage compared with that of editors, publishers, governments and university officials in many other places, including South Africa (bans publication of images), Sweden (reported to have shut down website carrying them), Canada’s Prince Edward Island (university confiscates student newspaper, edict forbids weblog comments) and so on (Michelle Malkin roundup, Feb. 9). Commentaries worth reading: Krauthammer, Kinsley, and, from a different perspective, a commenter at Andrew Sullivan’s. (More on the cartoons here and here.)
Update: U.K. Commons revolt on bill curbing religious speech
Civil libertarians take a stand in Britain: by single-vote margins, the House of Commons has surprisingly voted to water down significantly the bill introduced by the Blair government to attach legal penalties to various types of speech critical of religion. In particular, the bill “was stripped of measures to outlaw ‘abusive and insulting’ language and behaviour as well as the crime of ‘recklessness’ in actions that incite religious hatred.” Earlier, the House of Lords had heeded protests from free-speech advocates including comedian Rowan Atkinson by lending its support to amendments to the bill. “In a humiliating blow to Mr Blair, who has a 65-seat Commons majority, 21 Labour rebels voted with Opposition MPs while at least 40 more were absent or abstained.” (David Charter, “Religious hate Bill lost after Blair fails to vote”, The Times, Feb. 1; Greg Hurst and David Charter, “Racial hatred Bill threatens our civil liberties, say rebels”, Feb. 1; Greg Hurst and Ruth Gledhill , “How comic’s supporters kept their heads down and used their cunning”, Feb. 2). Earlier coverage: Jul. 16, 2004; Jun. 11, Jun. 27, Aug. 17, Oct. 19, and Oct. 29, 2005.
The Blair government’s primary motivation for the bill is considered to be to cater to the sensitivities of British Muslims, and many commentators (such as Charles Moore) make the obvious connection with the situation in Denmark (see Feb. 1). Meanwhile, violent threats continue against Danes, cartoonists, and liberal-minded Europeans generally. And some 500 lawyers in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, are supporting a project “to take legal action against” those who insult or demean the founder of their religion with one goal being “to enact laws that would incriminate abuse of religions and prophets in all countries,” as a spokesman puts it. (P.K. Abdul Ghafour & Abdul Maqsood Mirza, “Lawyers Vow Legal Action in Cartoons Row”, Arab News, Feb. 4). Michelle Malkin has much, much more (plus this).
Speechcrime at Scottish newspapers
A newspaper in Barrhead, Renfrewshire, Scotland, “is the subject of a racial complaint being investigated by police. It follows a page one article headed Gypsy Fear,” in which the paper, the Barrhead News, claimed the town “could be swamped by gypsies from across Europe” following the establishment of a local encampment by French travellers. (Iain Wilson, “Racist complaint against newspaper”, The Herald (Glasgow), Aug. 11). And a second law enforcement action against published speechcrime has progressed farther than the mere investigation stage:
Alan Buchan, editor of North East Weekly, a free paper based in Peterhead, was recently charged under the Public Order Act, which gives the police powers to arrest anyone whom they suspect of publishing or distributing written material that is threatening, abusive, or insulting and intended to stir up racial hatred.
His paper published an editorial headlined “Perverts and Refugees” which said that a massive refugee camp could be built in the region and highlighted perceived local concerns about what this might mean for the community.
He is scheduled to appear at Peterhead Sheriff Court on September 1.
Buchan says his arrest “harks back to the activities of the old USSR”. (Guy Dixon and Terry Murden, “MediaFile” (second item), The Scotsman, Aug. 14)(via Norvell)
Notable quote
The whole point of the rule of law is the certainty it gives the citizen. There is no greater injustice than for a citizen to be unable to determine what legal consequences would flow from an action contemplated.
— Matthew Parris, writing on the vaguely worded speech-prohibitions in the British Government’s proposed Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. (“This is no sort of way to make a law -– and no sort of law to make”, The Times (U.K.), Jun. 25). For more on the legislation, see Jul. 16, 2004 and Jun. 11, 2005.
Update: Oriana Fallaci
Blasphemy laws vs. free speech: The courageous Italian journalist has been ordered by a judge in Bergamo, Italy, to stand trial on charges of defaming Islam in her book “The Strength of Reason”. (Marta Falconi, “Judge Orders Italian Author to Stand Trial”, AP/San Francisco Chronicle, May 25; Stefan Beck, New Criterion “Armavirumque”, May 25; Jun. 11-12, 2002). For more on European blasphemy and “hate speech” laws, see Aug. 23-25, 2002 (prominent French author tried and acquitted on charges of “insulting Islam”); Mar. 17, 2005. For similar proposals in Great Britain, see “Rushdie fears govt bill will undermine freedom of speech”, ABC (Australian), Jun. 10; Jul. 16, 2004.
Blasphemy laws
Europe has them, and we’re lucky we don’t, says James Lileks (“Leave the Anti-Blasphemy Laws in Europe”, syndicated/Newhouse, Mar. 16).
UK religious insult bill
Britain’s Home Secretary defends the proposed incursion on free speech (David Blunkett, “Religious hatred is no laughing matter”, The Observer, Dec. 12) while a Spectator writer questions whether Blunkett has been “behaving in a manner that suggests he is as mad as a box of frogs” (Rod Liddle, “Ha ha! You can’t insult Islam but I can”, The Sunday Times, Dec. 12). See Jul. 16 and (Australia) Dec. 3. Plus: Matthew Parris weighs in (“Mockery, calumny and scorn: these are the weapons to fight zealots”, The Times, Dec. 11) (via Andrew Stuttaford).
Religious vilification laws
In 2001, despite alarms from free-speech advocates, the Australian state of Victoria enacted a “‘Racial and Religious Toleration Act” which provides in part:
(1) A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.
Now various religious enthusiasts are in court accusing each other of false teachings, and inevitably so, since some faiths 1) hold proselytizing to be an obligation of believers and 2) hold it to be an essential part of this task to argue to potential converts that there is something seriously wrong with or deficient about other faiths. “Amir Butler, executive director of the Australian Muslim Public Affairs Committee, wrote: ‘All these anti-vilification laws have achieved is to provide a legalistic weapon by which religious groups can silence their ideological opponents, rather than engaging in debate and discussion. …Who, after all, would give credence to a religion that appears so fragile it can only exist if protected by a bodyguard of lawyers?'” (Neil Addison, “Divided before the law”, Nov. 17). U.K. home secretary David Blunkett has proposed similar legislation; see Jul. 16. (Reworded Jan. 17 to reflect a reader’s objection; see letter to the editor of that date).