In Memoriam: Theo van Gogh
Today it is two years ago that Theo van Gogh has been assasinated by Mohammed B. Although there is no offical commemoration of his death, several webmagazins today are dedicated to Theo van Gogh, his death and his legacy. Very impressive is Peaktalks week of Van Gogh. In several articles Pieter Dorsman pays attention to the film Submission I and his relationship with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the monument for Theo van Gogh, the threat to free speech, the investigation of the attack and he has written a review of Buruma’s book Murder in Amsterdam. The articles might not all be really objective but in general they are fair and balanced.
One of the things that stands out of course, and Dorsman is very clear in that, is the issue of free speech. He quotes one of my favorite writers at Spiked, Munira Mirza, who wrote:
Controversial issues require heated debates, not conformity of opinion. Projecting the worst-case scenario of race riots can end up encouraging a form of self-censorship. If people are given scare stories about public reaction, they may be less likely to stick their head above the parapet. This allows ill-informed opinions to reign and prejudices to fester. We need to have a much more positive conception of free speech, particularly the kind that ruffles feathers and arouses passions. A healthy democracy can only work if people are not afraid to disagree, even if that means taking a not-very-gentle tone.
Dorsman sees that as something Van Gogh could agree with. He is probably right in that. Mirza states that:
Interestingly, what many of these comments reflect is a belief that there is a ‘right’ or ‘civilised’ way to have a debate on these issues, and that the slightest word out of place might spark a massive race riot. Straw’s critics have not necessarily attacked his arguments about the wearing of the veil; rather, they have accused him and his supporters of saying things the wrong way and not treading carefully enough around people’s sensitivities. Their argument is that we need a debate that is responsible, respectful and does not cause discomfort – in other words, nothing that might cause a bit of disagreement or dissension, lest things spin out of control.
Public discussion about race issues is often circumscribed by the fear of exacerbating tensions. This week, for instance, the Home Office released figures which showed that almost half of all victims of racially motivated murders were white (3). Police officials admitted there is a reluctance to discuss these figures publicly, in case the evidence is seized upon by far-right groups and used to sow discontent. In Monday’s Channel 4 debate on Muslims and free speech, human rights lawyer Imran Khan repeated the oft-made argument that the right to free speech could be dangerous for Muslims, and that the Danish cartoons encouraged violent attacks on Muslim communities.
I do understand the reluctance to play the ‘race card’ but on the other hand problems should be addressed. That requires sometimes to say harsh or controversial things. Focusing too much on religion, ethnic or racial identity is however dangerous because it frames conflicts and people in a one-sided manner. Ethnic conflicts usually become ethnic during the conflict when politicians and spokespersons play the ethnic card; these conflicts are usually not ethnic from the start. Framing in ethnic terms however can raise the stakes for those involved and can lead to emotions that get out of control. It is like opening a box of Pandora. But not necessarily as Mirza acknowledges:
The predictions of race riots, however, do not bear out in reality. The overwhelming public response to debates about the Danish cartoons and the veil has been relatively calm. The odd Islamist cranks in Al-Mujaharoun or the racist bigots of the British National Party are by far the minority in public opinion. This is even the case in countries like Holland, where debate about the Muslim population has been particularly feverish. Ian Buruma, in his new book on the murder of controversial film director Theo van Gogh, Murder in Amsterdam, writes how in the immediate aftermath of van Gogh’s murder, fears of riots by Dutch commentators were exaggerated: ‘In fact, the country wasn’t burning at all…. The “civil war†that some feared, the pogroms on Muslim areas, the retaliations by newly recruited jihadis, none of this actually happened. Most people kept their cool.’ A recent Pew survey examining relations between Muslim and non-Muslim populations throughout the world found that both groups retained solidly favourable attitudes towards each other, despite fears of escalating tensions (4).
And indeed the claim for restricting free speech can sometimes be used as a tool to protect the status quo which is usually detrimental for those people that are on the negative side of the power relationship anyway
When political figures and community activists call for ‘civilised’ debate or ‘the right kind of dialogue’, what they are effectively saying is that any opinion deemed too controversial is a risk to public safety. The merit of the actual argument comes secondary to the alleged danger it might cause. This is the worst of both worlds: debate is denigrated because the issue itself is not thrashed out, but instead silenced by a ‘You can’t say that!’ statement of disapproval; and free speech is undermined by the idea that words can easily lead to violence and harm. Ideas are brushed under the carpet, and speech is problematised.
It is sort of pavlov reaction to attack the person and not the message that is just as detrimental as insulting people. There should be some middle way but that seems to be difficult with regard to Islam because it is a highly politicized topic.
