The Guardian, UK
Oct 13 2006

A world without taboos
Is modern society as enlightened as it’s champions like to believe?
Ralf Dahrendorf

October 13, 2006 07:30 PM |
Not long ago, one might have concluded that, at least in Europe,
there were no taboos left. A process that had begun with the
Enlightenment had now reached the point at which "anything goes".
Particularly in the arts, there were no apparent limits to showing
what even a generation ago would have been regarded as highly
offensive.

Two generations ago, most countries had censors who not only tried to
prevent younger people from seeing certain films, but who actually
banned books. From the 1960s, such proscriptions weakened until, in
the end, explicit sexuality, violence, blasphemy – while upsetting to
some people – were tolerated as a part of the enlightened world.

Or were they? Are there really no limits? Outside Europe, the
"anything goes" attitude was never fully accepted. And there were
limits in Europe, too. The historian David Irving is still in
detention in Austria for the crime of Holocaust denial. This is, to
be sure, a special case. The denial of a well-documented truth may
lead to new crimes. But is the answer to the old question, "What is
truth?" always so clear?

What exactly are we doing if we insist on Turkey’s acknowledgement
that the Armenian genocide did take place as a condition of its
membership in the European Union? Are we so sure of Darwin’s theories
of evolution that we should ban alternative notions of genesis from
schools?

Those concerned with freedom of speech have always wondered about its
limits. One such limit is the incitement to violence. The man who
gets up in a crowded theatre and shouts, "Fire!" when there is none
is guilty of what happens in the resulting stampede. But what if
there actually is a fire?

This is the context in which we may see the invasion of Islamic
taboos into the enlightened, mostly non-Islamic world. From the fatwa
on Salman Rushdie for The Satanic Verses to the killing of a nun in
Somalia in response to Pope Benedict’s Regensburg lecture and the
Berlin Opera’s cancellation of a performance of Mozart’s Idomeneo,
with its severed heads of religious founders, including Muhammad, we
have seen violence and intimidation used to defend a particular
religion’s taboos.

There are questions here that are not easily answered by civilised
defenders of the Enlightenment. Toleration and respect for people who
have their own beliefs are right and perhaps necessary to preserve an
enlightened world. But there is the other side to consider. Violent
responses to unwelcome views are never justified and cannot be
accepted. Those who argue that suicide bombers express understandable
grudges have themselves sold out their freedom. Self-censorship is
worse than censorship itself, because it sacrifices freedom
voluntarily.

This means that we have to defend Salman Rushdie and the Danish
cartoonists and the friends of Idomeneo , whether we like them or
not. If anyone does not like them, there are all the instruments of
public debate and of critical discourse that an enlightened community
has at its disposal. It is also true that we do not have to buy any
particular book or listen to an opera. What a poor world it would be
if anything that might offend any group could no longer be said! A
multicultural society that accepts every taboo of its diverse groups
would have little to talk about.

The kind of reaction we have seen recently to expressions of views
that are offensive to some does not bode well for the future of
liberty. It is as if a new wave of counter-enlightenment is sweeping
the world, with the most restrictive views dominating the scene.
Against such reactions, enlightened views must be reasserted
strongly. Defending the right of all people to say things even if one
detests their views is one of the first principles of liberty.

Thus, Idomeneo must be performed, and Salman Rushdie must be
published. Whether an editor publishes cartoons offensive to
believers in Muhammad (or Christ, for that matter) is a matter of
judgment, almost of taste. I might not do it, but I would
nevertheless defend the right of someone who decides otherwise. It is
debatable whether recent incidents of this kind require a "dialogue
between religions." Public debate making clear cases one way or the
other seems more appropriate than conciliation. The gains of
enlightened discourse are too precious to be turned into negotiable
values. Defending those gains is the task that we now face.

Project Syndicate, 2006.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress