Rowan Williams – Apologist for Evil

I don’t have much to add to DK’s and Harry Haddock’s evisceration of Rowan Williams’ appalling comments on free speech. Williams’ stupid suggestion that religions be protected from the criticisms of others is bad enough. And, I suppose, I cannot be too surprised that this foolish man would wish to replace our outdated blasphemy laws with something else rather than sweep them aside completely. He has, after all, made similar suggestions before about the sensitivities of the religious.

Now, frankly, I don’t give two hoots what people believe. In a liberal democracy, they can practice whatever belief system takes their fancy and as a liberal (in the classical sense) I would vigorously defend their right to do so. But, importantly, in a liberal democracy, non-believers have the right to criticise and ridicule without concerning themselves about the offended sensibilities of those believers. That is how freedom of speech works. There is always the right of rebuttal – that, too is how freedom of speech works.

Perhaps what angers me most is the repugnant attempt to draw a moral equivalence between those who stood by Salman Rushdie’s freedom of speech and those who sought to murder him:

Webster points out how in 1989/90 Muslim groups in the UK took to a relatively militant response to Rushdie as and when it became clear that the literary and political establishment had nothing to say to their sense that their faith had been publicly and damagingly misrepresented and their sensibilities shaken. For groups like those in West Yorkshire who were at the forefront of militant reaction in Britain, the overwhelming feeling that animated their protests was that they, as a disadvantaged minority with the most limited access to any sort of public voice, were being left at the mercy of a powerful elite determined to tell them what their faith really amounted to and to remind them that they had to get used to being seen – never mind the realities of their social and economic position here – as essentially the representatives of a foreign and threatening power. The same is true of the furore over the Danish cartoons: the Muslim community in Denmark is neither large nor militant, yet the cartoon issue was framed as if these products were a sign of courageous defiance towards a hegemonic power.

They were not a disadvantaged minority and they had exactly the same right to freedom of speech as you and I. There is absolutely no moral equivalence between them and the publishing world or the political establishment; those who took a “relatively” militant response were advocating murder. How this is “relatively” militant escapes me. They had no right whatsoever to expect the publishing world to respond to the “misrepresentation” of their faith. If their faith is so weak, then it certainly does not deserve defence anyway – and I said as much at the time. Salman Rushdie had every right to publish the Satanic Verses and the Danes had nothing whatsoever to apologise for over the cartoons depicting the evil medieval tyrant Mohammed. The only appropriate response to these people who feel slighted, insulted or offended because their faith is ridiculed is: Too bad, grow up and get over yourselves.

What you do not do – absolutely do not do – is enable their behaviour. You remind them that freedom of speech is paramount and continue to vigorously defend it. Freedom of speech is far more important than the sensitivities of religious believers. This is something that Rowan Williams would rapidly discover should this country ever become a part of the desired Muslim Caliphate. Try being the Archbishop of Canterbury then, old bean… You might want to ask the Egyptian Christians what it’s like before spouting off guff like this in future.

Footnote: It is somewhat disturbing that in a matter of days, I’ve noted at least three demands for a restriction on freedom of speech.