Every fourth citizen of Sweden supports a legal ban on offending religious symbols.
The Swedish newsmagazine Fokus recently polled a representative part of the population asking: Do you think it should be allowed or forbidden to publish pictures offending religious symbols?
62 pct. insisted that it shouldn’t be prohibited, but 25 pct. called for a ban. That’s an alarmingly high number. The figure is even higher among women, and the ban receive its highest support among the the most disadvantaged part of the population. Less than half of them insist on the right to offend religious symbols.
The poll was taken in the aftermath of the Swedish cartoon crisis that erupted in August and September when Al Qaida in Iraq called for the killing of Swedish artist Lars Vilks because he made a drawing of the prophet Mohammed as a dog that was published in a local newspaper.
Governments of the Muslim world demanded that Sweden passes new blasphemy laws criminalizing ridiculing of religion
It’s my guess that a majority of the Swedes supporting this ban haven’t seriously considered the consequences of their position. They just want to appease aggresive voices. But in doing so they tacitly support severe limitations on the right to free speech.
By the way, I don’t recall anyone in Sweden trying to appease Israel’s ambassador Zvi Mazel when he in 2004 took action against a piece of art at the Historical Museum in Stockholm. The installation called Snow White consisted of a boat floating in a rectangular basin filled with red water signifying blood. The boat contained a card with a portrait of the Palestinian suicide bomber Hanadi Jaradat on one side and ”Snow White” written on the other. The action was widely condemned in the Swedish press.
In 1998 Swedish photo artist Elisabeth Ohlson Wallin at an exhibition titled Ecce Homo presented a picture of Jesus in the company of gays and aids-victims. It caused protests from some Christians, but the exhibition wasn’t cancelled, and it was shown around Europe over the next two years.
During the Swedish cartoon crisis the government’s legal counselor revealed his limited understanding of the right to free speech.
“Just because something is allowed on a legal level, that doesn’t mean that you think it is desireable,” Göran Lambertz told the newsmagazine Fokus.
May I remind the legal counselor about George Orwells’ words: The right to free speech only means something, if it implies the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear. Consensus-building isn’t the right approach when it comes to defining what is acceptable and non-acceptable speech.
Every responsible editor would insist that the limits of the right to free speech have to be challenged and tested every day.
The Swedes may have forgotten, but the country in fact adopted its first legal document on abolition of censorship and the right to free speech in 1766.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
8 Comments
1. tanstaafl:The right to free speech only means something, if it implies the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear. Consensus-building isn’t the right approach when it comes to defining what is acceptable and non-acceptable speech.
To the mentality of the (apparently ever growing) Politically Correct mentality in America, only certain kinds of speech and thought are, in fact, free.
Any speech not in keeping with the pre-approved agenda (dogma) may be freely shouted down, drowned out or, even, threatened.
This is a bigger threat to the continuance of the American version of a democratic Republic than is Islamofascism.
Very probably, Sweden suffers some of the same challenges.
Oct 28, 2007 - 1:23 am 2. Jeb:Do you think it should be allowed or forbidden to publish pictures offending religious symbols?
Oct 28, 2007 - 6:11 pm 3. Yaakov Watkins:Ask the same question limited to Judeo-Christian symbols in the US and you are likely to get similar results.
The right of free speech does not include the right to make anyone listen to what you have to say.
Free speech was conceived as protecting political speech. The arts got tacked on because the Supreme Court decided that some people can’t make an effective political speech unless they use artistic smut.
There have always been limits and there should be limits because the pen is mightier than the sword and can do drastic and unfair damage.
On the other hand, if Moslems transgress those limits, they should be shut down.
Oct 28, 2007 - 8:13 pm 4. Superman:“This is a bigger threat to the continuance of the American version of a democratic Republic than is Islamofascism.”
The fact for europe however (and i guess the US too), is that everybody can make fun of christian symbols without being threatened. Only when it comes to islam, the problem exist. Not only from muslims but also from the politically correct politicians and medias.
Oct 28, 2007 - 9:33 pm 5. weSwinger:The only reason we have this problem, is because of the increasing number of muslims in europe.
In re: Jeb’s question. If I can extrapolate. . . There is a big difference between an artist being allowed to portray something offensive and using publicly funded space to display it.
The avant-garde has always made a living offending bourgeois sensibilities. People who protest these outrages in socially sanctioned ways are perfectly within their rights as well. (Although I believe, that like children, these artistic transgressors are better ignored. Getting any rise at all out of the public is their entire joy.) OTOH, when our Islamic neighbors or any other group uses threats of violence to stifle artistic expression, they have crossed the civil society line, and are opening themselves to retaliatory violence (civil authority preferred. . .).
Oct 28, 2007 - 9:43 pm 6. Jeb:There is certainly a difference in degree if not in kind, but that is peripheral to my point.
Oct 28, 2007 - 10:46 pm 7. Martin Lindeskog:Ask the same question in the US but reword it to apply to Judeo-Christian symbols, the flag or say a pun on a general’s name and you will almost certainly get at least 22% who would support the restrictions.
Why is it scary in Sweden, but acceptable here?
I wrote about Zvi Mazel in my post, Modern Trash at Museum. I think that Lars Vilks Muhammed dog sketch is trash too, but I defend his right to express himself, i.e. free speech.
Best Premises,
Martin Lindeskog - American in spirit.
Oct 29, 2007 - 3:56 am 8. Mats Lindblom:Gothenburg, Sweden.
http://www.bloggernews.net/111003 For the past 14 days there has been a Cyberwar between Sweden and Turkey involving the Muhammed Dog
Nov 2, 2007 - 12:10 am