New math: cartoons equal bloodshed.

I suppose I should begin this column with an apology. My writing has, on occasion, offended some people. And for that I apologize.

There was a time when I would have shrugged off hurt feelings. I would say I was merely exercising my right of free expression and that if anyone was offended, tough. Write a letter to the editor. Send me a nasty e-mail. Cancel your subscription. Start a blog and insult me for all the world to see. Do whatever you like but don't expect me to give a veto over what I write to anyone's feelings.

But no more. Now I know that just because I have the right to speak my mind does not mean that I have the right to offend anyone. I now know that to offend someone with what I write is an act so grave it is equal to rioting, burning down buildings and threatening to murder innocent people.

I did not know that. But now my eyes have been opened by a press release issued by no lesser authority than the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

In the release, issued Wednesday, top UN human-rights officials declared that they "strongly deplore the depictions of the Prophet Muhammad (in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten) and are distressed by the grave offence they have caused to members of the Muslim community. They are equally concerned by the reactions that followed the publications, including those acts of violence and intolerance that have targeted members of different religious communities."

The key phrase here is "equally concerned." The UN's top human-rights officials are just as disturbed by the publication of offensive cartoons as they are by rioting, arson and death threats.

Equally concerned.

Equally.

Put offensive cartoons on one side of the scale, mayhem and bloodshed on the other, and the two sides neatly balance. They are equal.
[Top]

I must say I found this just a little surprising. I had assumed fire, bullets and terror would outweigh cartoons on the scale of nasty things people inflict on each other. But, hey, they're the experts.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects both free religion and free speech, the UN officials noted. But "while both rights should be equally respected, the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It requires good judgment, tolerance and a sense of responsibility."

Funny thing is, the ICCPR's statement about free speech being subject to "special duties and responsibilities" also says that any restrictions on free speech can only be those "provided by law." Denmark has no law forbidding what the Danish newspaper did. So I'm not sure what relevance this has. It does sound impressive, though.

Another puzzler is that line about "good judgment, tolerance and a sense of responsibility." It doesn't come from the ICCPR. I don't know where it came from, to be honest. But it also sounds impressive.

The really odd thing, however, is the fact that the experts' words of caution apply only to one right and not the other. The roots of this controversy lie in the fact that many Muslims think that a Muslim taboo should be obeyed by people who don't share their faith -- even non-Muslims who live in non-Muslim countries far from the Muslim world -- and are offended when they don't.

That sure doesn't sound like they are exercising "good judgment, tolerance and a sense of responsibility." In fact, it sounds like they are being arrogant, outrageous and absurd.

No matter, says the UN. Just don't go crazy with that free speech stuff.

Like I said, this whole line of thinking was a revelation for me. And the delightful thing is that I have a Canadian to thank for it.
[Top]

Louise Arbour, former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, is the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The press release was not in her name but it was issued by her officials through her office. And it's clear it reflects her thinking.

In early December, Ms. Arbour responded in a letter to an Islamic organization that had complained to the UN about the cartoons. "I understand your attitude to the images that appeared in the newspaper," she wrote. "I find alarming any behaviours that disregard the beliefs of others. This kind of thing is unacceptable."

I have to admit my first thought when I read that statement was, "thank Christ she's not on the Supreme Court any more." But then I realized some people might find that offensive. So I thought about slipping in a quick word of gratitude to Allah as well, but given the current circumstances, maybe not. A nice, generic "thank God" would do, I suppose, except I am a secular humanist who believes all religions are dangerous nonsense so I could be accused of hypocrisy, which offends lots of people, and taking the Lord's name in vain, which would outrage a whole bunch more.

So I decided to not thank anyone for the fact that Ms. Arbour and her censorious views are no longer shaping the laws of this country. I will just say I am pleased.

If that offends anyone, I apologize. Please don't kill me.

But if you do, we're even.

Dan Gardner*'s column appears Wednesdays and Fridays.
E-mail: dgardner@thecitizen.canwest.com

Back to Columns

Home

Copyright © 2005  Dan Gardner
Website Design & Management by:  GRA Web Site Design Ottawa