Is It Alright to Cause Offence?

On the 27th of March, Dutch parliamentarian and leader of the Party for Freedom Geert Wilders premiered his film ’Fitna’, intending to use it as a vehicle to explore verses in the Koran he believes could easily be misconstrued as incitements for violence and terrorism.

Though innocuously titled – the title comes from the Arabic word meaning ‘disagreement among people’ or ‘test of faith in times of trial’ - in the film Wilders explores the rise of Islamic militancy and extremism, and the threats they pose to democracy, free speech and civil liberties in the Netherlands as a whole.

There have been protests across the Muslim world which, fair enough, is to be expected: any person or group in a democratic society who feel hard done by are free to make their grievances known by peaceful means.

And it was a given that that this work would raise eyebrows, since objections to Wilders’ political views, his stance on Islam and its relevance in the Netherlands, as well as his intention to make this controversial film had long been in existence and were really nothing new.

What seems to have gradually become the norm in situations where the Muslim faith is involved is the use of violence or the threat of it as a means of suppressing critics. Sadly, that has been no different in this case.

As a consequence of his outspoken views, Wilders has suffered regular death threats, and is under round-the-clock guard after a number of attempts on his life.

Of course, the problem with this harsh response is that instead of quelling criticism, this approach has the opposite effect of raising more questions about practitioners of a religion which seemingly condones and encourages the use of force as a means of achieving its goals.

Criticism and dissent is not tolerated, and those who dare partake of such are literally made to feel the wrath of the faithful.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the chilling case of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was murdered by a militant on the streets of Amsterdam in November 2004. His crime? Making the movie ‘Submission’, which looked at the issue of violence against women in Islamic societies.

Now, I should state here that I am not a fan of either Wilders or the late van Gogh. Wilders belongs to the far right of the political spectrum - his style being openly provocative and outlandish – and though he may feel that he has valid points to make, my opinion is that he chooses to do so in a manner which is generally intended to evoke a negative response.

He favours, among other things, restricted immigration to the Netherlands, a ban on the Koran in the country because he sees it as conflicting with Dutch law, mandatory life sentences after three violent criminal acts, and has compared the Koran to Hitler’s autobiographical tome Mein Kampf.

Van Gogh was also a controversial figure who rejected all religious and moral principles and regularly ruffled feathers, not just with his outspoken views, but with an unrepentant penchant for the obnoxious.

In the Western world in particular, the concept of only thinking, saying or publishing concepts considered acceptable and inoffensive is unthinkable, and the boundaries of press freedom and decency are pushed further each day.

But in spite of all this, do we have the right to offend others? Or, does any one religion have the right to be exempted from all questioning and criticism, freed from any ridicule?

I think not, as free speech has the advantage of keeping people in check. It brings things to the fore that may not necessarily be apparent from one perspective, and it ensures that totalitarianism, be it in a household, organisation, society or country, never has the opportunity to thrive.

Its beauty lies in the fact that it provides an environment where everyone – male or female, rich or poor, young or old, religious or non-religious – is equal by virtue of being human, can make their views known and hear those of those of others without fear of recrimination.

And there are certainly some pretty outrageous views out there: the tenets of free speech which we admire and uphold in the democratic process of government, for example, is the same one that enables members of the infamous British National Party, holocaust deniers, and even Islamic militants to speak andmake themselves heard. Indeed, the price we pay for free speech may be that we also unwittingly provide a platform for such extreme views.

But we have the right to agree or disagree with each other without recourse to violence and bloodshed.

I will argue that to whom much is given much is expected, and there is clearly a requirement for both the proponents and beneficiaries of free speech to use it responsibly, without resorting to cheap or populist rhetoric which insults sensibilities and causes offence for its own sake. Often, only a thin line seperates one from the other, and people will always – consciously or unconsciously – cross that line.

Notwithstanding, no one ideology can be ringfenced through a culture of fear and intimidation. Moderate Muslims must begin to make their voices heard above the battle cry of their misguided and bloodthirsty compatriots, and prove that they possess the maturity to live peacefully in a world where the man on the street is not necessarily saying what they want to hear.