|
About Anas Altikriti
In recent weeks, the UK has staged a number of events that included calls for bans emerging from various corners. The Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who was prevented from entering the UK earlier this year, won an appeal at an immigration tribunal that allowed him to visit London and spout his abhorrent, racist rhetoric demonizing Islam and attacking the Muslim culture. Wary of accusations of racism, he was of course careful to mention that he has no ill will toward Muslims themselves and that he is only attacking their ideology, faith, and religion!
A Series of Welcomes & Bans
More recently, the BBC caused a heated debate that resulted in angry protests outside its main broadcasting center in London when it set a historic political precedence by allowing Nick Griffin, leader of the racist British National Party (BNP), to join a panel of political commentators on its weekly flagship program Question Time. This, once again, stimulated a discussion about whether Griffin should be banned from enjoying such a high-profile appearance on the public broadcasting.
On the other hand, last year, the government banned Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi from entering the UK when he came to seek medical treatment; a Conservative politician recently promised to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir if his party wins the coming elections; numerous calls for a ban on the burqa have been made following the French president's bid in last summer; and the list goes on.
Criteria of Banning
Questioning the efficacy as well as morality of banning an organization, individual, or document based on any particular premise is becoming more pressing in light of the more and more such calls for banning being made from all sides. It is time that Muslims of Europe — particularly those belonging to communities with established political, media, and campaigning organizations and projects — discuss the criteria upon which a ban should be sought.
Living and interacting in Western, liberal democratic societies has a price for everyone involved, including accepting that there will inevitably be some matters that will be deemed inappropriate and unacceptable to certain sections of society. With the evolution of the concept of freedom (which now includes, on some occasions, the freedom to cause offence), the tariff becomes considerably higher.
Obviously, the offence and probably even the actual damage caused by the rhetoric and ideas of those who promote hatred, division, supremacy, and violence (regardless of their religion, ideology, or ethnic origin) are what civilized societies should collectively regard as beyond the pale.
A Way of Promotion
| Does democratic freedom deem it acceptable that certain parties openly offend sections of society on the basis of their race, color, or creed? |
But surely one must consider the effectiveness of banning and weigh the pros and cons. On numerous occasions, it has been proven that banning, or even calling for banning, of a particular matter directly led to a successful promotion of that matter.
A famous Arabic proverb implies that all that is prohibited is desired. One only has to recall Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses of the late 80s and the more recent obscene Danish cartoons to see how a mismanaged protest and banning campaign can often be counterproductive. That of course does not suggest that protesting or expressing anger was or is questionable in these cases; it is only the format and structure of these campaigns, as well as the actual calls for bans to be brought in, that are questionable.
It was interesting to hear Tony Benn (a veteran left-wing politician and president of the Stop the War Coalition, which led the demonstrations against the BBC for inviting Griffin to appear on Question Time) actually defending the BBC's position. Benn argued that banning Griffin would have played perfectly into the hands of his fascist party and made them look like political martyrs, hence strengthening their appeal and support. He contended that to defeat the BNP, one has to argue and defeat their ideas and policies under the public's scrutiny and attention.
Furthermore, in light of the revolution in technology and communications, which has made no person, idea, or image beyond reach, would it not be foolish to assume that banning any particular persons or ideas will somehow banish them from public conscience? Put bluntly, banning doesn't work.
All Is Not To Be Allowed
However, there is also an argument that a certain level of responsibility toward the public must remain in place, and that public platforms must not be afforded to people or parties that can cause serious offence and might even lead to division, hatred, and violence.
It is true that the BNP has a public website that anyone can reach, but why should they be afforded an air of respectability and allowed to access millions of homes at the cost of the TV license-paying public? Does democratic freedom deem it acceptable that certain parties openly offend sections of society on the basis of their race, color, or creed? Is it not acceptable to argue that certain ideas, images, and even people are incompatible with and sometimes damaging to a particular society's sensitivities, traditions, and values and are therefore fit for banning?
Those who protested against the BBC's move argue that when the French nationalist Jean-Marie Le Pen was afforded such publicity in France, his popularity doubled overnight. Already, figures are suggesting that Griffin's BNP might have made even greater gains as a result of Griffin's appearance on the BBC. The evidence is one poll conducted after the broadcast of this particular episode of Question Time: It shows that one in five Britons "would consider" voting for the BNP, though most commentators agree that Griffin put in a very poor performance and that he was embarrassingly exposed by questions from the panel, as well as the audience.
An Infinite Freedom?
To ban or not to ban, in either case, the Muslim communities of Europe have a serious stake and they must decide where they will stand. Along with the support of banning those who cause offence and incite hatred or violence against Muslims and other ethnic minorities comes the responsibility of not committing the same against any other section of society.
Should the society as a whole decide that its freedoms are infinite and that anyone should be allowed to say or state what they want whenever they wish, it should then accept whatever comes from "the other side" as unsavory as it might taste.
Do you agree with Tony Benn's argument that banning Griffin from appearing on Question Time could have played into the hands of the BNP and strengthened the party's appeal?
|
