Shahbaz Bhatti, John Galliano, and Matthew Snyder were the subjects of news stories from three different continents this week. What links them together is the question of how the state should relate to speech that offends and the larger question of protecting the religious and political freedom of those who don't share the majority's point of view. Shahbaz Bhatti, Pakistan's minister for minorities, was assassinated by a team of gunmen in downtown Islamabad on Wednesday. Bhatti, a Christian, had publicly supported the cause of Asia Bibi, the Christian woman sentenced to death for allegedly insulting Muhammad. Bhatti's killers left pamphlets at the scene of the crime referring to him as an “infidel Christian” and threatening others who might challenge the blasphemy laws: “With the blessing of Allah, the mujahideen will send each of you to hell.” Bhatti was the second minister assassinated in two months for opposition for championing this cause. John Galliano, the British fashion designer, recently made anti-Semitic remarks on at least two separate occasions, one of which was captured on video and broadcast on YouTube. In the video, the obviously drunk Galliano can be heard saying to other restaurant diners, presumably Jewish, “I love Hitler. People like you would be dead. Your mothers, your forefathers would all be ******* gassed.” For these remarks, Christian Dior fired him and the Paris police arrested him. In France, it is against the law to issue “public insults based on the origin, religious affiliation, race or ethnicity” of another person. For this criminal offense, he could be sentenced to six months in prison and fined the equivalent of $35,000. Matthew Snyder, a twenty-year-old marine killed in Iraq, became the subject of a Supreme Court decision handed down on Wednesday. Alongside the road near where his funeral was held, members of the Westboro Baptist Church held up signs proclaiming “Thank God for dead soldiers,” “You're Going to Hell”, and other offensive slogans based on the Church members' belief that the military's tolerance of homosexuality will bring down God's wrath on America. Snyder's father sued the church members for intentional infliction of emotional distress. In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the church members' right to issue public insults. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote on behalf of the majority, “As a Nation we have chosen…to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.” This week, Pakistan, France, and the United States have shown us three different ways of dealing with offensive speech. Speech which Pakistani Muslims deem to be blasphemous is punishable by death. Even the threat of an accusation of blasphemy is enough to silence many in Pakistan's minority communities, while those who disagree with the law may be gunned down in the streets. Speech which insults French Christians, Muslims, or Jews is punishable by imprisonment and a fine. (Even in Great Britain and Canada, inciting hatred against people on the basis of their race or religion is against the law.) But in America speech that insults others is protected. From the world's perspective on religiously or racially offensive speech, the United States is the odd man out. Yet this is one area where the U.S. needs to resist the urge to join with Europe, Muslim countries, and the rest of the international community. America – to remain America – needs to stand for its commitment to the protection of free speech, even if that means standing alone. The kind of speech that most needs protection is speech that offends a ruler, an ideology, a political party, an ethnic group, or a religion. In Muslim-majority countries, the American conception of free speech will continue to be an issue for many years to come precisely because it is at odds with many mainstream interpretations of shari'ah. One notorious example of this conflict, which became an issue on both sides of the Atlantic, was the case of the Danish cartoons. That controversy was never resolved. It will surely return, in one form or another. This is an issue to watch for as new governments emerge in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere in the Arab world. What will be their position regarding apostasy, blasphemy, and full participation in political and public life by Muslim sects and Christian minorities? If the United States promotes its views on freedom of speech and freedom of religion, it will likely find itself at odds with the newly-empowered majorities in North Africa and the Middle East. Autocratic rulers in that region have a long history of protecting minorities when doing so serves their financial and political interests. Once those rulers are gone, unleashed popular passions can result in persecution and expulsion of foreigners and minorities. This is a global phenomenon, but given the turmoil in the Middle East today, its specific manifestations in that region merit our attention. Consider, for example, the fate of the large non-Arab communities in Alexandria who had been critical to the city's economic and cultural life for a thousand years prior to the Nasserite revolution of the 1950s. Within a few years of the nationalists' take-over, the vast majority of the city's Greeks, Italians, Armenians, French, English, and Jews had left Egypt, never to return. Who might be driven out of the region following this round of political upheaval? Can action be taken now to prevent such an outcome? America's track record on standing up for civil liberties to Arab autocrats and monarchs has been inconsistent at best. That task will not be made easier as the U.S. attempts both to nurture and to curry favor with Arab democracies-in-the-making. American officials and NGOs working in the region could serve a useful purpose by warning the new governments against the potential tyranny of the majority and by working with them to develop safeguards for freedom of religion and speech. Read more from Michael Lame on his rethinkme blog BM
