Sarkozy on free speech

I’m a little late on this story, but note an important legal case in France, reported this morning by Associated Press:

A state attorney Thursday called for the dismissal of a court case brought by French Muslims against a satirical weekly that printed caricatures of the Prophet Mohamed, saying the cartoons denounce terrorists' use of the Muslim faith but do not damage Islam. The trial, which opened Wednesday, has drawn nationwide attention in a country with Europe's largest Muslim community and a strong commitment to freedom of expression and secularism. Journalists and politicians have testified and Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy sent a letter of support for the weekly, Charlie-Hebdo.

The report goes on to say that “Sarkozy, who wrote the letter on campaign paper and not ministry stationary [sic], said he preferred 'an excess of caricatures to an absence of caricatures.'"

I find Sarkozy’s intervention admirable. It is also a sobering reminder that French political culture does not only place a premium on free speech but also pays it due regard. That is, artistic expression is recognised as integral to a free society. It is not merely one good to be traded off against a supposed need to ameliorate the mental anguish suffered by those who find their beliefs mocked. Can you imagine a British politician, let alone a politician of the front line, making a similar intervention to defend a writer or a newspaper against the spurious charge of “publicly abusing a group of people because of their religion”? I can’t either.

As this is “Nick Cohen Week” on my web site, I shall quote my comrade on this broad issue as well, from a column a few months ago:

What we are seeing is rival fundamentalists egging each other on in a politics of competitive grievance. Every time one secures a victory, the others realise they can’t be left behind. If satirists are frightened of having a go at Islam because they believe they may be killed - and they are - why shouldn’t Christian fundamentalists decide to become more menacing?

A comedian who takes a pop at the Pope sends the subliminal message: ‘We can deride your religion as despicable because we know you are not so despicable you will resort to violence.’ There is a limit to how long the ultras for any religion will put up with that before they change the ground rules.

After abusive Sikh men closed Behzti, Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti’s play about the abuse of Sikh women by Sikh men, Christian Voice upped the ante against Jerry Springer: The Opera. It had previously run at the National Theatre for months without attracting protest. But when BBC2 came to broadcast it, London Christians imitated Birmingham Sikhs and BBC executives suddenly needed the protection of private security guards.

It is astonishing that these developments pass with so little protest. It is scandalous that our politicians not only fail to defend free expression but collude in its suppression. I quoted recently the writer Agnès Poirier's spirited rejection of the identity politics promoted by the friends of Ken Livingstone. See also, then, a fine piece Agnès wrote for Libération a couple of years ago explaining for French readers the controversy surrounding one of the events that Nick mentions, the cancellation of the play Behzti after protests by Sikhs (emphasis added):

Dans une situation pareille, on attend d’un gouvernement qu’il défende l’auteur menacé. Pourtant, des institutions et du gouvernement, on n’aura entendu que des propos lénifiants. Fiona McTaggart, sous-secrétaire d’Etat à l’égalité raciale, s’est ainsi félicité du retour au calme dès l’annonce de l’annulation des représentations sans un mot pour l’auteur menacée de mort.

When writers are under threat, what matters to our government - to any conceivable British government, let alone the British media - is that strong feelings be calmed, and mental hurt assuaged. There is no equivalent in politics of M. Sarkozy's stand, and little in the communications media of what is felt instinctively by commentators in France or Germany. I wish it were not so, but it is.

UPDATE: Much as I support M. Sarkozy's stand, I'm uneasy at the reported defence offered by the state lawyer. According to the AP report:

The state prosecutor - whose role in court is to defend French law - argued in favor of the magazine, which on Feb. 8, 2006, printed three caricatures - two of them reprints of those carried by a Danish newspaper in 2005 that stoked anger across the Islamic world. One caricature was an original.

"It is not faith in Islam that was stigmatized by these caricatures. It is not an attack on religious convictions as such,'' said prosecutor Anne de Fontette.

This defence will inevitably divert court deliberations and public discussion into the question whether the caricatures do indeed stigmatise faith in Islam. That is a shame. On the general issue rather than the specific case, the proper response for public commentators and policy makers to a complaint that faith in Islam (or any other religion) has been stigmatised is "so what?" There is nothing wrong, and certainly nothing that the state should be concerned about, in offending the sensibilities of the faithful. I don't go out of my way to do it, and have indeed tried to separate the secularist argument for separating church and state from the argument (which I also subscribe to) for atheism. But neither does it cause me even an instant of worry that I might stimulate "religious hatred".