Oriana Fallaci faces trial for offending Muslims

[Dilettante]

Legendary Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci will be tried in her own country for her reportedly offensive verbal attacks on Islam in her latest book "La Forza della Ragione" (The Force of Reason"). I have not read the book yet, so I can't judge the contents, but in the past she has written that there is no good Islam, that Europe is becoming an Islamic colony, that Western culture is superior to Islamic culture, and that Muslim immigrants "multiply like rats". Though her language is certainly inflammatory, and she has been accused of distorting facts to convey her message, she has not, as far as I am aware of, attacked a race (again, I have not read her latest book). She has attacked a religion. Apparently there is a law in Italy against this. She is not the first European author to stand trial for it: Michel Houllebecq was tried in France for saying something disrespectful about Islam a few years ago, and Fallaci herself has been in the same position before. Both were acquitted in the past.
Meanwhile, people routinely attack (verbally and in print) the political creed of other people, and we see nothing wrong in it. Should religious creed enjoy special legal protection? Or should we be free to attack anyone's ideas, religious or otherwise?
Should freedom of speech cover attacking other people's beliefs without distinction or should religious beliefs be protected from criticism?

[ST88]

Meanwhile, people routinely attack (verbally and in print) the political creed of other people, and we see nothing wrong in it. Should religious creed enjoy special legal protection? Or should we be free to attack anyone's ideas, religious or otherwise?
Should freedom of speech cover attacking other people's beliefs without distinction or should religious beliefs be protected from criticism?

I think the idea that religion is a closely held personal belief system has tainted this issue. Politics has to do with where you think your country or society is going, but religion has to do with where you, personally, think you are going. It was drilled into our heads very young that there are no wrong opinons, only different ones. So tolerance came to include the acceptance of the eccentric, the irrational, and the bizarre: "Different strokes for different folks." And if religion is a personal matter, why would I care if someone believed that s/he were cannibalizing Christ by munching on a zwieback?

By attacking someone's politics, you are taking an active interest in the direction of your own society. This affects you directly. However, by attacking someone for their religious viewpoint, you are, in effect, attacking them personally. Opinions on what sort of beings we are, are held very close to the self. I think this is partly because of the combination of faith and doubt that religion requires. These emotional responses seem to be very basic to human nature, and so attacks on them are met with very basic human drives. In my opinion, there is no way around this except to acknowledge it and move on. And no one is ever going to do that.

Because I do not have a religion, and do not feel capable of religion, I see little difference between a religious and a political attack on my own worldview. I can distinguish them, of course, but they affect me on the same level. "You stinking liberal!" feels the same as "You stinking atheist!" when either epithet is processed in my brain (and not just because neither one is entirely accurate). So perhaps my view on this is too removed from what actually goes on inside a Believer. But it seems to me that punitive laws that proffer special treatment for the religious among us are misguided and amount to little more than pandering. States shouldn't be in the business of enforcing religious rules -- this particular case seems to be about breaking the laws of blasphemy. So there's someone who is willing to publish that Islam is a threat to the Western World? I say let them make the case and let others who disagree with her publish their own tracts. Islam is not a threat to the Western World because...

I'm not familiar with the book either, nor do I know what the laws in Italy are. But I think that prosecuting someone for "causing offense" to someone else through their words is taking political correctness a bit too far.

[Dilettante]

Thanks for your response. I must praise the thorough way you have of examining an issue! I basically agree that attacking ideas (religious, political, or otherwise) should be allowed--perhaps even encouraged--if we want to advance our knowledge and be able to know what the good and bad points of a certain position or ideology are. Of course such an "attack" should be in the context of rational debate. But even irrational attacks on other people's ideology should not be criminalized.

However, I think religion does have a dimension that is not strictly personal. I would not feel entirely comfortable living in a society where most people adhered to an extremely irrational form of religion, even if they just put up with me and didn't try to convert me to it. Religion does have a social dimension, and in the past at least, it has played a key role in the structuring of countless societies and civilizations. Similarly, politics does have, at least to most people I know, an intensely personal, emotional dimension. You can always find "true blue" supporters for whom their political beliefs take strong moral, quasireligious characteristics. Perhaps it is because politics and religion tend to overlap in some areas that it's so difficult (and yet so important) to draw the line of separation between the two. This is specially true in the case of Islam. There is no arab word for "secular". Algerians had to invent one.

As for Islam being a threat to Western culture, probably what most of us here in Europe fear is precisely the absence of a tradition of secularism in Islamic countries. The Shariah court affair in Canada is a good example of the kind of conflicts which could arise.

[ST88]

However, I think religion does have a dimension that is not strictly personal. I would not feel entirely comfortable living in a society where most people adhered to an extremely irrational form of religion, even if they just put up with me and didn't try to convert me to it. Religion does have a social dimension, and in the past at least, it has played a key role in the structuring of countless societies and civilizations. Similarly, politics does have, at least to most people I know, an intensely personal, emotional dimension. You can always find "true blue" supporters for whom their political beliefs take strong moral, quasireligious characteristics. Perhaps it is because politics and religion tend to overlap in some areas that it's so difficult (and yet so important) to draw the line of separation between the two. This is specially true in the case of Islam. There is no arab word for "secular". Algerians had to invent one.

The overlap of politics and religion seems to be a recent phenomenon. I would hazard a guess that not too long ago they were one and the same in the Western World also -- Henry VIII comes to mind.

My own take on this is that government has to be practical. Government is in the business of regulating and controlling actions, whereas religion is in the business of regulating and controlling thoughts. In a secular government, thoughts and ideas absent action are de facto not harmful unless they are accompanied by action. But in a religious framework, thinking the wrong way seems itself to be a heinous crime, regardless of action. Bible say: good deeds without faith mean nothing. For a government to take on the role of enforcing religious laws, it needs to be able to get inside heads. If it tries to regulate actions based on a religious framework, it will fail because it can't force a way of thinking onto a population, it can only force the outward actions onto the population, thereby negating the purpose of religion.

As for Islam being a threat to Western culture, probably what most of us here in Europe fear is precisely the absence of a tradition of secularism in Islamic countries. The Shariah court affair in Canada is a good example of the kind of conflicts which could arise.

There used to be a secular Islamic country -- Iraq. But we took care of that.

[QED]

I worry that this sort of restriction on individual freedoms will ultimately lead to an unhealthy bias: Islam is very vocal in defending its interests and stops at little to maintain its stance. We don't see anything near as comprehensive coming from other doctrines, so in the interests of balance I think that nobody should not be prevented from publishing their opinions in any way.

The bias I speak of is particularly problematical when we invent arbitrary "no-go zones". It provides potential safe-havens for those who would abuse them in the interests of conducting illegitimate acts. For example in the UK there have been episodes where the Police were prohibited from removing certain forms of head-dress from certain ethnic groups during body-searches. This immediately provided the perfect sanctuary for all forms of illicit substances and became a bit of a joke. It is my fear that more serious advantages might be gained through more serious examples of this form of protectionism.

The recent Finsbury Park mosque debacle is a more serious example where more openness might well have been beneficial to the larger community. For this reason I believe that nothing should be beyond question, and everything ought to be left to stand on its own merits.