Hate speech

by Amjad Nazeer

Time and again, Ulema in Pakistan reiterate their ‘right’ to propagate Islam the way they think it right. Extremist religious groups defending Mumtaz Qadri, who killed Salman Taseer also argue around the ‘rights’ and ‘duties’ of every Muslim to guard the prestige of Islam whatsoever

Perhaps, sensitive to the ‘anti-Muslim bias becoming a norm in Britain’, as expressed by Sayeeda Warsi, the first Cabinet Minister originating from Pakistan, her Government barred pastor Terry Jones - earlier causing an outrage in the Muslim world for his intent to burn Quran - from entering into Britain. He was going to join hands with the far right groups like, ‘English Defence League (EDL)’ and ‘England is Ours (EIO)’, planning anti-Muslim rallies here next month. Likewise, Zakir Naik - a widely known Islamic orator and the founder of ‘Islamic Research Centre’, India - was already banned somewhat earlier. He was invited by an orthodox Islamic charity to deliver a series of talks.

The former was regretted for campaigning against ‘Islam as an evil faith’ and the latter for decreeing ‘death penalty for apostates’ and his ‘dubious statements on terrorism’ in some of his speeches earlier. Mr. Naik is also an outright protagonist of ‘Islamic supremacy’ against Judaism and Christianity and Mr. Jones believes that ‘Muslims pave the way to hell’ for denying Christ’s status as the son of God and ‘they are the ones causing trouble in Europe’.
‘Banning an entry that might cause violence or public disorder is a step to ensure public good,’ said the Home Office. In response, both of the clerics and their aides resort to human rights arguments saying, their ‘freedom of expression,’ ‘freedom of religion’ and ‘the right to mobility,’ has been violated. Valid arguments but we need to think it over before reaching any conclusions. We also need to explore the difference between universal applicability of ‘right to free expression’ and problems with its’ pragmatic manoeuvring? But it is squarely relevant to share a couple of more examples of the kind.
Time and again, Ulema in Pakistan reiterate their ‘right’ to propagate Islam the way they think it right. Extremist religious groups defending Mumtaz Qadri, who killed the provincial Governor, Salman Taseer, for striving a clemency for an accused Christian woman, Asia Noreen, and amending the blasphemy law, also argue around the ‘rights’ and ‘duties’ of every Muslim to guard the prestige of Islam whatsoever. ‘Therefore the self-confessed assassin be released honourably’, most of them believe.
Far right Hindu groups, Bajrang Dal and Rashtrya Swamisevak Sangh, made pulled in the ‘rights’ rhetoric over the talk of outlawing them from Britain back in 2008. On the other hand the saffron sena brutally attempts to silence every other form of creative, artistic and intellectual expression in India at every possible occasion. Quite recently they have posted hate mails to Delhi Art Gallery for displaying MF Hussain’s - famed as Picasso of India - paintings in the largest art summit of India. To them, some of his images depicting Hindu goddesses in sensually striking manner appear sacrilegious. The painter has been intimidated and his work destroyed more than once, eventually forcing him into exile.
Assaulting the famous writer and activist Arundhati Roy’s house, foiling the plans to install Charlie Chaplain’s Statue in Karnataka for his Christina denomination, killing the peace-promoting puppeteer Safdar Hashmi in 1989 are just a few examples of their offensive against the ‘freedom of thought’ and ‘expression’. Several books, films, theatres and other forms of cultural and artistic expressions are on their hate-demand to be banned. Minorities’, particularly Muslim and Christians’, right to religious freedom, is already constrained. Reverse anti-Muslim bias into anti-Hindu bias, and you will get a picture that is even worse in Pakistan on every count.
Deplorably enough, the far right groups from each side almost always employ selective clauses of ‘human rights’ if and when suited. Putting things in perspective, I must say quote that ‘rights’ are ‘interdependent’, ‘indivisible’ and ‘universal’ indifferent to the identities or associations of a person or group. A person is entitled to every right by the virtue of being ‘human’ whoever and wherever s/he come from and is obliged to extent the same to everyone else. Regarding faith, it is not the majority only rather every individual or group has the right to ‘freedom of ‘thought,’ ‘conscience’ and ‘religion’ without discrimination (Article 9).
Labelling a religion as ‘the source of evil’ is not ‘freedom of speech’ but ‘hate speech,’ apprehensible by human rights law. Rallying against ‘Muslim citizens’ and ‘construction of Mosques’ as planned by EDL, and EIO is not a ‘right to assembly’ but constraining others’ ‘religious freedom’ and incitement to ‘hatred’ and racism,’ often leading to violence. Adopting such a position entirely goes against the ‘right to equality’ and ‘human dignity’. Article 21 of ‘Civil and Political Rights’ itself constrains ‘freedom of expression’ and ‘assembly,’ in case it is likely to cause public unrest, and member states are obliged to take appropriate measures. If one group holds the Quran ‘responsible for 9/11 - as believed by Terry Jones and his British cohorts, ‘and the other believes that Yahaood-o-Nasara can never be sincere to them and ‘the Bible and Torah are the corrupted scriptures’ as widely held by Muslims, things might turn chaotic in the world. Their relationships would always go from bad to worse, culminating in disastrous consequences.
Similarly, justifying acts of terror openly or ambiguously is justifying violence one way or the other. If an apostate is ‘a traitor’ condemned to death, as advocated by Zakir Naik and some other radical clerics, then the ‘right to change one’s faith whatever a person likes to’ as prescribed by principled of human rights and ‘ones right to life’ - sanctified by human rights philosophy even in case of criminal offense - are consciously suspended. If someone is bent upon proving the ‘supremacy’ of one’s faith, a significant injunction of the ‘equality of faith’ and ‘respect for every religion’ is seriously compromised?
Intellectual, cultural and creative expressions are also forms of expression that deserve complete freedom like the freedom of religious expression. Intellectual, artistic and creative emblems and inscriptions are the markers of a civilized society. The subcontinental plateau, spread across India and Pakistan, has been a fertile ground for art, literature and religious plurality for thousands of years. It must be allowed to maintain its’ spirit and flourish on its’ cultural legacy. Self-proclaimed custodians of its tradition, like Rashtrya and Jamat-e-Islami have no right to smother its’ soul for their political gains. The right to culture as embraced by economic-social and cultural rights, lays particular emphasis on the right to intellectual and creative freedom, that must be upheld in any case.
Most assumptions of far right Christian, Hindu and Muslim groups and clerics held against each other fly into the face of fundamental principles of human rights. Where ‘freedom of expression’ becomes ‘incitement to violence’ it is no more a ‘right’ but an ‘offence’. Short of ‘a right’ ‘freedom of assembly’ and ‘right to mobility’ if organised against a group equals ‘racial mobilization’ as planned by EDL and EIO in England, Bajaran Dal and RSS in India or as demonstrated by the radical Islamic parties like Jamat-e-Islami, Jamiat Ulama-e-Islam and their followers in Pakistan.
‘Rights’ and ‘freedoms’ in terms of ‘acts’ and ‘expressions’ can only be enjoyed in equilibrium with each other and each others’ faith. ‘Being at peace with one’s fellow beings’ as preached by holy Quran, Gaeta and the Bible is fundamental tenet of human rights too. ‘Unity of soul’ and ‘equality of being’ is part of Christian, Hindu and Islamic faith and also affirmed by the philosophy of human rights. ‘There is no compulsion in deen’ is clearly stated in Holy Quran and is more or less similar to ‘the human rights provision of ‘freedom of religion’. Rights, we must assure ourselves, are not a reserve of a race, a religious group or class but a complement of ‘citizenship’ and ‘humanness’. Respecting all rights at all times for all people might halt mutual biases ‘becoming a norm’.
Echoing Sayeeda Warsi’s apprehensions, anti-minority-faith in Pakistan, India and several other countries is almost becoming a norm. Might turn far more disastrous, if not brought to an end on time. Democratic and pluralist governments are obliged to take measures to stop the spread of interfaith prejudices in their respective countries. Religio-political organizations and known pastors and preachers also have a significant role to play, if they genuinely respect freedom of expression and mobility. It is an opportunity, they must cease upon.

Amjad Nazeer did  M.A in Anthropology from Quid-e-Azam University in 1995. He produced several articles and booklets to promote 'peace', 'human rights' and 'democratization' in Pakistan. Presently doing M.A in Human Rights from Roehampton University, London.