Out of the way

Like many people wondering about the recent brouhaha over cartoons of Mohammed, Mediumgeek has been talking about the ideas of freedom of expression and freedom from persecution or deliberate insult or defamation. They raise some complicated questions.

The first is pretty straightforward to understand. Abraham Lincoln apparently pointed out that the right of freedom of action was fine, and covered the right to punch me in the nose. But that the right expired at thee point my nose begins - in other words, you're free to do what you want so long as it hurts nobody. Unfortunately that papers over a pretty complex question - what hurts other people?

It seems patently obvious that the cartoons (which I have only read described, not seen) were fairly childishly insulting. In Australia they would be a clear case for looking at the laws against inciting racial or religious hatred - the laws that in Europe are regularly used to suppress neo-nazis in particular. At least, it seems that way to me.

I have friends who are extremely sensitive to criticism (as they perceive it) on whatever they are sensitive about. Jews defending Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Christians who think racism is not funny. Atheists who don't like jokes where children are the butt. Muslims who are appalled by sexist attempts at humour. Men who will get drunk and swear like a trooper, about how appalled they are by women who do the same. People who, like Kevin Kline's character in "a Fish called Wanda" react violently to any suggestion they are not a genius.

Most of these people are extremely easy going about other issues. You can call one an idiot, another will make a joke that I find offensive. All of us are ignorant of some things - not always the same things. The simple answer is that I try not to deliberately offend people. There are things I will say in private company that I won't write in this (or any other) public forum. The language of a construction site is not necessarily the language of tea with my Granny, nor a mostly-women's sewing circle I know (who would make the construction workers blanch, I suspect).

By the same token, I expect of my friends that they will gently but firmly point out to me where they think I am going wrong. I may disagree, or ignore their advice. But I hope that I generally accept it as advice, and do not react with rudeness, violence, or otherwise "shoot the messenger".

When it comes to dealing with groups of people, the same rules apply. If you don't know someone well, you are likely to be a little more circumspect, and you are likely to accept a degree of frankness and even rudeness from your friends that you would not tolerate in the same way from a stranger.

One of the questions is whether there is something in Islam that means the responses are different to those one expects of Christians. I find it hard to see anything in practice. In principle Islam seems to authorise violence against non-believers in some ways that Christianity does not, but in practice I don't see any real religious justification for most violence practiced. There are obvious differences in what each religion promotes, but just as the famous argument goes against racism, the range of differences among muslims themselves is far greater than the differences between islam, christianity, and judaism, and there is not a lot more seperating various forms of animism, hinduism, buddhism, zoroastrianism, and a collection of other common religions (all of which are in principle much more different that the three great religions "ال كتب").

I was born and grew up in the era when Little Black Sambo (a story that has since been modified to tone down its racist overtones) was still posted around the walls of the pancake parlour. I went to a school where female teachers were not given a pension on the basis that they should be supported in their old age by their better-paid husbands anyway. When Steve Biko was beaten to death for suggesting that black people had the right to ask for equality in their country. When black and asian people were not allowed to immigrate to Australia because they were asian.

A lot of the problem, I think, comes from believing that people are "the other". It's not a hard belief to develop. Many people in Europe can grow up not knowing any practising muslims closely, not understanding what their hindu colleagues actually believe, or what goes on in a synagogue, in the same way that many lebanese people can grow up not knowing any actual americans or icelanders, or japanese people may not really learn what the main ideas of christianity are, let alone why anyone actually thinks they make sense.

We live in a media-dominated world. TV, radio, newspapers. And everyone seeking a little fame with their blog is a part of it. In order to sell more mass-media, many people resort to finding something more outrageous than ever before. Or at least more outrageous, more provocative, than the everyday. In journalism it is the work of an instant to dig up one person who is marginalised in their own society, and use their words to whip up a frenzy. In Australia, it was done in Sydney recently. A few well-placed idiots pandering to a few particularly nasty ideas unleashed a week of mob violence that began with a small fringe of the white majority going on a rampage against middle eastern immigrants (or people who had dark hair and a bit of a tan, at least). In a quiet, settled, free, democratic and mulitcultural society, it took a week to bring under control, and fears of a new outbreak made a real difference to Australia Day celebrations over a month later.

When a few tens of thousands of people in an already trigger-happy society ruled with a lot of violent intervention from outside burn a building or two, it is not cause for celebration. It is a step backwards. On the other hand, it is hardly representative of a culture, or even a city. Does it make more or less sense to burn a building because it represents a government that allegedly permits persecution of muslims, or to burn a building because it allegedly represents people who wear a different coloured shirt when they kick a ball around a paddock? I don't think either make much sense. Nor that they are different in any meaningful way, or representative of people.

Dialogue and consensus are extremely slow ways of getting things done. They take so long that it is almost certain that during the course of them one or more groups will do something outrageous. Something that can serve as an excuse to break off discussion if someone is looking for an excuse. Something that complicates the discussion for anyone making a serious effort to resolve things through dialogue. It is also open to abuse. Any side can act in bad faith, and use the time to stall, to get a better position when they do withdraw.

They are also very difficult. They require a lot of understanding, and that can in turn require a lot of learning. When they are being carried on by representatives, there is the added burden that what the representatives are learning and doing needs to be communicated to, and agreed by, theose who are being represented.

Justice is a tricky concept to define. It is even harder to agree on - most people have some innate ideas about what is just, but very few have a really coherent idea, let alone any idea how to reconcile that with the ideas that others have, which can involve some very different and initially unknown basic precepts.

So we come to the question of deciding where my nose begins. Should it be decided by mob violence? Can it be decided unilaterally by those who have a clearly more effective, more powerful method? Should we simply extend all the barriers, and prohibit anything that upsets anyone? Can we ask an impartial observer to tell us? (What do we do if their answer is obviously wrong?)

One of the things that several thousand years of moral philosophy and legal development has done is to attempt ever more ambitious answers to the question. In the last century or so attempts have been made to deal with the question on a worldwide scale, and more recently real recognition has been given to the idea that the world includes all the poeple in it, not just the rich ones or the ones like me or the ones who believe in the right approach or philosophy. There is still a way to go, but we seem to have learned a few things on the way.

And this is before we start to deal more seriously with the question of art, the role of the fool, the ones who can question what everyone believes as sacred and obvious truth. The place of insanity in a rational society, and the way that a society defines its members.

Because if we live in a global village we had better make sure we don't declare half the village outlaws - since Sherwood forest became a suburb, we still have to live with them. And the history of Sparta suggests that declaring war on ourselves as a zero-sum game is just a fancy name for suicide.

Being slow to criticise, and trying to base that criticism on real understanding, is constructive. Reacting slowly, and positively to criticism is helpful. Trying to resolve our flaws, and remove the grounds for criticism, is a good move if we think our criticism should in turn have any effect. The big trick is balancing our freedom with respect for others, balancing a natural desire for harmony with a sense for removing the injustice that inevitably breeds discord and trouble.

There are various guidelines for it. Most religions have a set. They don't work without people applying intelligent and dynamic interpretation.

So, anyone got the perfect pavlova recipé?