When such deeply valued universal rights such as free speech are abused in the name of advancing some morally dubious argument such as religious figures being fair game for irreverent pursuits, one has to pause and ask exactly what is going on. Is Western-style democracy on trial here or is it the case that Muslims are just stuck in a medieval mindset (as some Western intellectuals would have us believe), and that they need to get with the programme?
What is needed is an interrogation of what constitutes inalienable and universal freedoms and rights to the extent that even basic recourse to respect for religious beliefs becomes victim to the discourse around the principle of freedom of expression. Can there be such a thing as an absolute right without reciprocal conditions? I believe not, and in a world that holds faith and religion to be intrinsic to human existence, it would be naïve to ignore the role these play in shaping our lived realities.
It cannot be disputed that the constitutions of virtually all nations guarantee two basic rights among a host of others, freedom of expression and freedom of religious practice. Most of these constitutions also prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, creed, religion and disability.
Western journalistic ethics and indeed the public space have historically claimed that religion and faith are personal issues, and therefore there should be a separation between church and state, which means the state should not impose any form of restriction on how the media covers issues relating to religion or any subject for that matter. But many states also have laws that regulate blasphemy and religious intolerance. The question is, if ordinary citizens are to be subjected to such laws, does a free press remain immune from prosecution, even when it clearly contravenes these laws? Where does the fine line between “carte blanche” and “insensitivity” begin and end?
The cartoon incident presents two fundamental lessons around freedom of expression. Firstly, that even a free press has to have some rules and boundaries, and abide by these. In this case, the Western media needs to acquire some sensitivity training around what is permissible according to the Islamic faith and what is not. Drawing the image of the Prophet Muhammad in any form whatsoever is not permitted.
When the “free press” contravenes a basic divine injunction like this that Muslims hold as sacrosanct, then they must expect to be challenged on it.
Secondly, the argument that the right to freedom of expression can treat religion (whichever one it may be) as fodder for journalistic creativity and “push” boundaries can only serve to further advance moral decay in a global community where we arguably still hold some truths to be self- evident, regardless of which community we come from.
Lubna Nadvi is a lecturer at the School of Politics, University of KwaZulu-Natal