Defending Free Speech

The 1979 English comedy film Monty Python’s Life of Brian was advertised in Sweden as “The film so funny that it was banned in Norway”. It is a religious satire that parodies the life of Jesus Christ as it tells the story of a young Jewish man called Brian Cohen who lives in the same era and location as Jesus Christ and is mistaken for the Saviour. A British magazine describes the film as the greatest comedy film of all time. The film has many hilarious scenes that can be dubbed blasphemous by Christians. After its release, the movie was banned for some time in a few countries like Ireland and Norway and some States in the U.S. But there was no street protest, no flag burning, no embassy attacks and no killing. In February 2007, the Church of St. Thomas the Martyr in Newcastle upon Tyne in England screened the film in the church, defying the opposition from some Christian groups. Rev. Jonathan Adams, one of the clergy of the church, defended the screening saying that the film was not mocking Jesus but highlighted hypocrisy and stupidity that can affect religion.

I often feel that our world would have been lot more peaceful and happier if there had been more people like Rev. Jonathan Adams who advocate and tolerate free speech that is so fundamental in secular democracy. Unfortunately, we have lot of clerics and priests who will incite mobs to attack expression of personal freedoms. Zealots as they are, they cannot be expected to behave differently. But I can’t understand when even sensible and secular-minded people argue that religion is outside the purview of criticism and satire in works of art and literature or in public discourse. Why should religion be given such a privilege? Should religion and religious issues be viewed as off-limits or too sacred to be satirised or criticised?

A secular democracy cannot function without a collective awareness among its adherents that their beliefs, however passionately they may hold them, are just opinions in the realm of public discourse. No belief or opinion or view is marked out as issues excluded from criticism or ridicule in this realm. You cannot expect such a realm of openness and debate in a country such as the erstwhile Soviet Union where Communism was the official ‘theology’ and where any expression of opinion or view that was against the official political dogma would be treated as blasphemous. Those who argue that religion should be respected and kept out of this realm of public discourse are tacitly acknowledging the privileging of religious dogmas when they say that nothing should be said or done that will hurt the sentiments of believers.

Like any other set of ideas and views, religion is not outside the dominion of public discourse. In fact, it is too important a subject to be excluded from public debate and scrutiny. If my neighbour gives away his under-aged daughter in marriage and justifies it in the name of his or her religion, I cannot simply say that it is a purely private issue. It is a social issue no less important than any other issues that come up for public debate in various forms, as a subject of satire, of public scrutiny and of critique. Should I respect the call for ban on stem cell research by some groups of believers and turn a blind eye to the fact that the research will have a great impact on treatment of ailments such as Parkinson’s disease? Should I ignore the social implications of religious beliefs on a naïve argument that I should not hurt the sentiments of the faithful?

A secular democracy allows room for dissent. If what I say can be proved to be defamatory under the secular law, I can be prosecuted and punished. But calling for my death is stifling free speech. The argument that we should censor ourselves if what we want to say or do is going to hurt the sentiments of believers is worse. If respect for established belief systems had been the thumb rule of every society, there would not have been much social progress.

Here is a quote from the satirical movie directed by Terry Jones that Rev. Jonathan Adams has allowed to screen in his church:

Wise Man #1: Ahem

Brian’s Mother: Oh!

(She falls over in chair)

Brian’s Mother: Who are you?

Wise Man #2: We are three wise men.

Brian’s Mother: What?

Wise Man #1: We are three wise men.

Brian’s Mother: Well, what are you doing creeping around a cow shed at two o’clock in the morning? That doesn’t sound very wise to me.

If anybody feels that his or her sentiments are hurt by this satiric dialogue and other similar scenes in the film, blame the sentiments that are so vulnerable to be hurt.