GENEVE
Por Olav Fykse Tveit
What are we to say after the Paris attacks – as discussions about religion, democratic principles of freedom of speech, and prevention of terrorism are again on the agenda?
Of course, we must condemn the Paris attacks, as have all sectors of society in Europe and beyond. But the attacks should also spark some soul-searching by all of us, including governments, journalists, religious leaders, and concerned persons everywhere. Based on some of my observations from international and interreligious work in the World Council of Churches, I raise these five awkward questions:
Freedom of expression for what and for whom? True, freedom of speech is indeed a universal human right. But it is also a right that always has been seen in relation to other rights and therefore also to some restrictions on how to exercise it.
In the final analysis, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are also about power. We should have this right to be critical and honest in order to nurture the common good. Free speech is a way to help establish and ensure justice and peace by redressing imbalances of power. Therefore, we also have to use it with accountability.
Nobody can ignore this question, even when we might disagree about the answers: How are we serving or harming justice and peace for all through what we say and publish?
The Western discussion can seem narrow. Often the people who need freedom of expression most—the poor, the disenfranchised, women and minorities—are those who have the least access to it and suffer most when they attempt to exercise it. Yet freedom of expression is poorly or selectively enforced in many countries, even those parading in Paris last week. Historically, freedom of the press has been of limited value to the impoverished, since they have not controlled presses or the means of distribution. Rights relevant to the poor have centred on freedom of speech and assembly, and also of religion.
Do we sometimes use freedom of expression as a license for prejudice? Satire can say more than many ordinary words about those who are powerful. In times of dictatorships, we have seen how satire (illegal in those countries) can be a way for people to tell the truth about those in power. But even after the tragedy in Paris, which hit both a satirical magazine and the Jewish community, this is not the time to leave all self-critique behind. Journalists and others, also politicians, must query whether, calling for more satire or critique, they can be fanning flames of hatred, xenophobia, or ethnic and religious prejudice. Even if it that is not their intention.
Another example I have seen of why freedom of speech must be dealt with as more than a formality is the pretence of neutrality invoked by Japanese authorities to the hate-speech against Koreans in Japan. The thin line between hate speech and violence is weak, and there are historical examples of how this can easily become a tragedy, as it was for the Jews in Europe in the twentieth century and continues to be today.
Should religions be above criticism? Let’s face it: Religion has been and is part of the problem. Because of the long and sad history of all religions in causing or at least being used to legitimize violence, even today, religious life and practices cannot be exempt from critique and satire.
Yet what is the point of offending millions of Muslims, for example, with caricatures of Mohammed? Isn’t it counterproductive to the larger purpose of satire and critique? How does offending Muslims’ deepest values build mutual trust with fellow citizens in a multi-religious society? How is that serving the objective of nurturing an international culture that gives space for freedom of speech?
Today, the rights of religious communities and individuals are under heavy pressure in many countries, and restrictions and sanctions are increasing drastically. People need the right to criticize such governments, without fear of reprisal. A further polarization between cultures and religions is not helpful to address these challenges. But this is probably what the terrorists want to see happen.
The freedom to criticize is also significant for churches and others so that we can speak against those who abuse and misuse power to establish injustice, violence, suppression, and tyranny. It is our duty to speak out for those critics, particularly for those who cannot do so themselves and need the support of a common voice.
Why do we imagine that God needs protection? Laws cannot protect God, who cannot be hurt by the likes of us. But they should protect human beings—our rights, our dignity, our conditions for life together. The blasphemy laws in Pakistan, which the WCC has condemned several times, create a poisoned atmosphere and can be used as a pretext for persecution of Christian minorities, as well as of Muslims.
The important lesson I learned from working inter-religiously during the cartoon crisis in 2005/6 in Norway was that we have to stand together protecting the right to freedom of speech, just as we need to be very clear in our condemnation of violence. This is for the common good of all parties. But we also require efforts to create a culture of communication where we recognize one another`s dignity, beliefs, and traditions.
Are we forgetting the larger picture? Paris is not the only scene of brutal terror and killing of innocent civilians. Boko Haram probably killed 2000 people last week in Nigeria. How many are killed by terrorist actions and military actions from the state of Syria, and in Syria and Iraq by the so-called ISIS, not just now but during the last three years? The larger context of terrorism is injustice and disrespect.
In this larger picture we have to see how the people of all religions present in Iraq and Syria are suffering from the long-term negative effects of both international military interventions and the lack of willingness from the big players in and outside the region to get together to establish the political solutions that are needed. These and other unsolved conflicts provide space for extreme intolerance and terrorism.
If we want to build an international society of justice and peace, of course we need to counteract those who want to undermine these efforts by splitting us through terror and violence. But we also need to contribute positively to processes of justice and peace. One component is a culture of mutually accountable communication, in freedom and with respect and dignity.
Olav Fykse Tveit is general secretary of the World Council of Churches, Geneva.