I have often been involved in heated discussions about the nature and existence of censorship in our country. Recent PLPN attempts at appeasing the crowd of baying artists who claim to be oppressed when it comes to our censorship laws were often the trigger for such conversations. I tend to hold the opinion that most censorship is in your head and that this, coupled with the need for basic criminal offences that need not be extended to the sphere of the stage (I understand the rationale behind a blasphemy law but not the nonsensical application thereof to a dramatic performance), is where most of our censorship really is.
My suggestion to “provoke” the law and its jurisprudence very often finds the boringly repetitive argument of “it is easy to be a sofa critic” thrown at me. The truth remains though that a large part of our artistic and intellectual community are virtually advocating for some form of nihil obstat from the state – a permission to be naughty. I tend to draw on the tried and tested “provocations” by Banksy as an example but today I’d like to give another historic parallel. Here is an extract from Niall Ferguson’s “Civilisation”, in the hope that it could continue to “provoke” this discussion.
“The revolutions of 1848 were even more widespread. People took to the streets in Berlin, Dresden, Hanover, Karlsruhe, Kassel, Munich, Stuttgart and Vienna, as well as in Milan, Naples, Turin and Venice. It was a revolution led by intellectuals disenchanted above all with the limits imposed on free expression by the royal regimes restored in 1815. Typically, the composer Richard Wagner and the Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin did their bit for the ‘world conflagration’ by plotting to write a blasphemous opera together.
Wagner had, according to his autobiography ‘conceive[d] the plan of a tragedy for the ideal stage of the future, entitled Jesus of Nazareth. Bakunin begged me to spare him any details; and when I sought to win him over to my project a few verbal hints, he wished me luck, but insisted that I must at all costs make Jesus appear as a weak character. As for the music of the piece, he advised me, amid all the variations, to use only one set of phrases, namely: for the tenor, “Off with His head!”; for the soprano, “Hang Him!”; and for the basso continuo, “Fire!, fire”‘. The anecdote nicely captures the overheated spirit of 1848.”
10 replies on “Blasphemy and Censorship”
“I understand the rationale behind a blasphemy law”.
I don’t. Please explain.
It’s simple really Kenneth. To begin with understanding something does not mean agreeing with it. I can understand that a lawmaker in a particular context feels the need to protect a particular section of public mores such as prohibiting the public vilification or offense against a religious sentiment. It is after all just the reinforcement or corollary of a more basic freedom and right – all fundamental rights are given to the extent that they do not cause offense or harm to others. A blasphemy law is simply more specific, specifying the context within which you can cause offense – in this case religious sentiment. Not too difficult a concept I hope.
Not too difficult a concept at all.
However the rationale behind it is either self-defeating or inevitably discriminatory. For if blasphemy laws’ rationale was to prevent offence, then, considering the plurality of religious beliefs and unbelief, the same rationale would necessarily lead to the prohibition of discussing religion at all. Slippery slope and all that.
Having that said, the true “rationale” behind blasphemy laws is simply that discrimination between religions is permissible since all that matters is the majority opinion and/or the opinion of those in power.
So in conclusion, while the concept is not too difficult, it does not make sense at all.
To you. It does not make sense to you.
Of course. Am I correct in assuming it does not make sense to you either, meaning that it does not make for a compelling case in support of blasphemy laws (to put it mildly)?
It is here that you are grossly mistaken: “It is after all just the reinforcement or corollary of a more basic freedom and right – all fundamental rights are given to the extent that they DO NOT CAUSE OFFENCE…(my caps)”
I’ve never come across this elsewhere, and for good reason. If true, it would be an argument for the total negation of fundamental rights.
You will find Kenneth that it is a fundamental concept when it comes to fundamental rights that such rights are granted with the only limit being that in the exercise thereof no harm is brought unto others (by prejudicing their enjoyment of rights) . The fact that you have never come across this elsewhere simply means that you have not been searching in the right places. It is not only true, it is a basic principle upon which the very granting of fundamental rights is based. In order to help you with your search I’ll point you to article 32 of Malta’s constitution, particularly the closing phrase…
32. Whereas every person in Malta is entitled to the
fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, that is to say,
the right, whatever his race, place of origin, political opinions,
colour, creed or sex, but subject to respect for the rights and
freedoms of others and for the public interest, to each and all of the
following, namely –
(a) life, liberty, security of the person, the enjoyment of
property and the protection of the law;
(b) freedom of conscience, of expression and of peaceful
assembly and association; and
(c) respect for his private and family life,
the subsequent provisions of this Chapter shall have effect for the
purpose of affording protection to the aforesaid rights and freedoms,
subject to such limitations of that protection as are
contained in those provisions being limitations designed to ensure
that the enjoyment of the said rights and freedoms by any
individual does not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others or
the public interest.
“You will find Kenneth that it is a fundamental concept when it comes to fundamental rights that such rights are granted with the only limit being that in the exercise thereof no harm is brought unto others”
Of course, but that is not what you wrote. What you wrote is that “all fundamental rights are given to the extent that they DO NOT CAUSE OFFENSE or harm. Now, where exactly does it say that?
I don’t know, maybe the “or harm” at the end of the sentence was too much of a giveaway. I’ll try being more hermeneutic next time.
No problem at all. It is only the “offense” part that I objected to. And I think you’ll agree with me on this point. For if it were a fundamental right of anyone not to be offended, then there would be very little one could write about politics and religion without being immoral (since most of what one would write would infringe one’s fundamenta right not to be offended).
That was my whole point, and I don’t think I’m being pedantic either. But I’m glad we cleared that up.
On another note but on the same topic, when I write against blasphemy laws, I define blasphemy as anything said or written that goes against something that some people hold sacred. I’m not speaking of swearing or offending just for the sake of causing offense.