The Daily Star, Lebanon
Oct 14 2006
Don’t negotiate over the gains of enlightened discourse
By Ralf Dahrendorf
Commentary by
Saturday, October 14, 2006
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. Since the 1960’s, such proscriptions have 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 theater 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 XVI’s Regensburg lecture and the
Berlin Opera’s cancellation of a performance of Mozart’s "Idomeneo,"
with its severed heads of religious founders, including Mohammad, we
have seen violence and intimidation used to defend a particular
religion’s taboos.
There are questions here that are not easily answered by civilized
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 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 counterenlightenment 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 Rushdie must be published.
Whether an editor publishes cartoons offensive to believers in
Mohammad (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.
Ralf Dahrendorf, a former European commissioner from Germany, is a
member of the British House of Lords, a former rector of the London
School of Economics, and a former warden of St. Antony’s College,
Oxford. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration
with Project Syndicate ().