|
A muslim right to censorship?
A senior journalist’s letter to publisher of SA Independent newspapers - questioninhg the Group's public apology for publishing a feature on the Muslim cartoon furore. The feature appeared in the London Independent, but when it was published locally the Muslim Joint Council came to object. . . and local Management backed off.
" I write this letter in good faith, without malice or mischief. It is a pity
I must begin this way - defensively - but I must for the conditions of
anxiety that actions of the past week have thrust on this newsroom.
I regret the collective agreement of senior editors of the Independent
Group, acting in our name, to apologise for a piece of journalism that, by
any measure, is excellent in its detachment, consideration, contextuality,
research, tone and import, and to state publicly that publishing such
journalism amounts to a lapse of judgement.
I regret the failure of the editors to defend that particular piece; the
integrity of Paul Vallely; the integrity of Sunday Argus; journalism of
that kind in general; our right to publish such journalism, and our
responsibility, as journalists, to choose whether or not to do so,
irrespective of who threatens us not to.
This defence should have been conducted to the hilt; it is the basis of our
respect and, indeed, our respectfulness. Freedom of speech is the safeguard of all freedoms; every day of every year we are its custodians. The health of democracy - and the health of our business - depends on it.
That we did not establish these fundamentals as the basis of our engagement with the Muslim Judicial Council is a travesty of the principles on which we claim to stand.
Where do we stand now? Who else will we be anxious not to offend? The
Christian Right has been quick to note our new stance. On what basis will
we resist its insistence on equivalent allowances for anything it deems
offensive? Will we draw back on Darwinian science, since there are those
who claim it is heresy? On what basis will readers be confident that
whatever else we write about Islam from here on will not have been imposed on us, censored, approved by clerical authorities or in any other way expunged of elements they ordinarily trust us to reveal.
How will they know that, from here on, we will not opt as a matter of
routine for inoffensive journalism enfeebled by cowardice? Even if it is
soundly judged, how will readers know? Inoffensive journalism ought to be a contradiction in terms. But will we be trusted not to be tame, and what are the consequences of having declared our willingness to succumb to whoever threatens us on the strength of our offensiveness?
In enlightened civilised society there can be no such thing as a right not
to be offended, yet we have implicitly conceded the very reverse. Worse, we have allowed the entirely fallacious impression to be formed that what is offensive is equivalent to hate speech. Hate speech, our Constitution tells us, is explicitly "advocacy of hatred based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion and that constitutes an incitement to cause harm". There are
absolutely no grounds on which a legal case against Paul Vallely's
journalism as an instance of hate speech could possibly succeed, however
offensive certain sections of the population may have found it to be.
It is possible there was insufficient time before the Independent Group met the MJC to consider all these things.
There was certainly need for a pause - and perhaps a wider discussion -
before we apologised for publishing excellent journalism.
We can quibble about whether or not "fuck" should have been used - how
distinguishable is it, really, from a prudish "f..."? - or whether or not
removing this vividly shocking paragraph, as some have suggested (and
perhaps not without reason) would have been anything but a sop to taste. It would certainly have markedly reduced the profound import of Vallely's piece. Retaining it is entirely defensible: it is accurate, germane, not gratuitous. It is no doubt trite to say "it tells it like it is" , but this
is unmistakably true.
We would have done well to turn to the great thinkers on freedom for
guidance on these difficult matters.
Here is John Stuart Mill addressing this very question: "Strange it is,
that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion,
but object to their being 'pushed to an extreme'; not seeing that unless
the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case."
This is the defence that the Independent Group failed to advance, and,
having failed to advance it, the impression exists - and it may be wrong -
that we have capitulated to narrow thinking and the rule of fear.
I am not suggesting that any newspaper can embark on a grand crusade – and I use the laden image deliberately - of pure and scholarly freedom that ignores the sentiments of its society and the risks that arise from
inflaming them. But let us engage, and engage on the basis of first
principles.
Perhaps there was more to the meeting with the Muslim Judicial Council than we (in the newsroom) know, but we do not know, because we have not been told. And nor have our readers.
We - and our readers have every reason to see it in the same light - are
neither sure of what we are against nor what we are for. Do our principles
now depend on the risks we face? Are our principles no longer our most
precious asset?
There is a fear that by our apparently supine instincts, we parody the very
name of our company.
And let's not forget that our readers are seldom, and not easily, fooled.
Over and again, in the past 26 years, I have seen editors and newspaper
executives assume too carelessly that readers are insensible. The truth is
they know spinelessness wherever they see it, they know cant whenever they hear it, and they smell rank commercial interest without even having to sniff for it. Which is not to say that any of these factors had a hand in
our dealings with the MJC.
But, as things stand, the risk in this saga is that we will seem to have
caved in like a damp tissue, and with as much moral fibre.
Perhaps, as I say, it was not so. But it risks seeming so ... and that
would be a sad day for journalism, and for the robust, honest, authentic,
measured, respectful conversation we claim to have an interest in
sustaining in this society.
Finally, in the silence we now bring upon ourselves, the greatest peril is
that we will confirm in the minds of many readers that the world of Islam
is precisely the malignant mystery, the frightening enigma, they have long and wrongly thought it was (the very subject, ironically, of Paul Vallely's considered piece).
I suggest that by our response we unwittingly demonstrate a profound
disregard for Islam, for what we know about human affairs is that we do
not respect what we fear, what we fear we have no regard for, we do not
embrace or engage with what we fear, we spurn it.
In the newsroom, there are already silences and simmering suspicions.
Instead of insisting on debate, engaging creatively in a respectful and
self-respecting contest of ideas, we do Islam this disservice, that we
imply we do not have enough trust in its adherents to respond with
intellectual maturity or spiritual wisdom, and do not grant them an
opportunity to show either.
The question is, what have we achieved? We have, as far as I can judge,
bought breathing space with an assurance we cannot mean if we are to remain true to the principles of our profession. And have we not invited our detractors to extract more from us at any time in the future than we should be prepared to cede?
There is, for instance, an important story to be written about the role of
the MJC in the politics of the Muslim community of the Cape, and the extent to which the cartoons furore has been an opportunity for it to be seen to be exercising the leadership that rivals are challenging it for.
But this is a story - of quite an ordinary kind, it should be said - that
will not be written, or certainly not written as it should ordinarily be
written - with detachment and disinterest and an absence of anxiety about
ill-defined consequences - because we have seemed, so lightly, to cede our claim to such journalism.
It is distressing to me, and ought to be to you, too, that this letter is
something of a minority reaction, representing a now faintly quixotic
aspect of your newsrooms. It is perceived as a risk. If anything confirms
in me the conviction that this debate must be had, it is this falling back,
this reticence and reluctance to engage. Without it, what are we worth?
I regret this turn of events. But - lest I am misunderstood, or, worse,
misjudged - I say again, I register my regret in good faith and out of
loyalty to your offices.
Sincerely
|
