SECULAR INTOLERANCE
A tail of two controversies
CARSON JEREMA STAFF
The balance between respecting diversity and the right to express, critique and dissent freely, has generated much debate and discussion over the past several months. The controversy over satirical cartoons of the Islamic prophet Mohammed, and recent Hollywood blockbuster The Da Vinci Code have forced many to consider, or re-consider, how much they value the secularized state.
The Mohammed cartoons which sparked mass protest (some peaceful, some violent) earlier this year, recently made headlines again. Indigo Books, the parent company of Chapters and Coles bookstores, decided not to carry the June issue of Harper’s magazine, because it features the reprinting of the 12 caricatures, first published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands- Posten.
Indigo’s official reason was that the cartoons could potentially offend Muslims. The caricatures are seen by some as offensive and even blasphemous because of a taboo in Islam against portraying Mohammed, and because some think they imply that Islam is a violent faith. One of the caricatures portrays the Prophet with a bomb in his turban.
But, as Indigo’s executive is surely aware, Harper’s and other publications like it serve a valuable purpose: they inform, offer analysis and stir debate. The featured article analyzing the cartoons, written by New York cartoonist Art Spielgelman, does exactly what a magazine like Harper’s is supposed to do.
Restricting distribution, as Indigo has done in the case of Harper’s, is tantamount to preventing publication, and thus, to outright censorship. It is simply a question of degree of censorship: Harper’s may not have been formerly censored by the government, but pulling it from the shelves of one of the biggest book chains in Canada has the potential to decrease readership in a country that values the separation of religious and secular values.
Harper’s intent was not to insult, but to offer an informed discussion on a topic of important relevance, and Indigo has done the public a great disservice. But, even if the intent was to insult, censorship or restricting distribution tacitly implies that it is legitimate to allow religious views to guide policy, be it in government or in business.
A more worrisome, even Orwellian, reaction to the cartoon controversy was made by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The OIC has proposed that the United Nations Human Rights Council include a special reference in its Charter to “actions against religions, prophets and beliefs.” But what is considered blasphemous can be highly subjective, and outlawing it limits the freedom to criticize, and object to the mores of organized religion.
As in the case of the Mohammed cartoons, the 2003 novel and recently released film The Da Vinci Code, has the power to provoke and repulse the devout. The novel/movie that follows the premise that Jesus Christ was married and produced offspring is seen by many Christians as scurrilous ridiculing of the central figure in Christendom, just as some Muslims view the Jyllands-Posten cartoons as an erroneous mockery of the central figure in Islam.
Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown purports to truly believe the pseudo-history he draws from and presents in his novel. While both religious and secular scholars have exposed the premise followed by Brown as a hoax, it continues to intrigue millions as a possible alternative history of Christianity, something that many church leaders are working to curtail.
And similar to calls for the ban of the Danish cartoons, though on a much smaller scale, there was no shortage of Christians calling for movie theatres to forgo screening when the film was first released.
While there has been some protest in North America and Europe, where protest against the film has been greatest is in Asia. Members of Pakistan’s small Christian minority took to the streets to call for a global ban. The Da Vinci Code was banned in parts of India, and barely passed censors in Thailand. In Canada, the idea of censoring a film because it falls out of step with Christian beliefs (I suspect) would be anathema to our devoutly secular society.
Censoring The Da Vinci Code out of respect for Christians should theoretically be no different than censoring the Mohammed cartoons out of respect for Muslims, but that is obviously not the case. One decision would be seen as an act of understanding while the other an authoritarian abuse of power.
The controversial elements of The Da Vinci Code and the Mohammed cartoons are, of course, different and unique in their own respects. The caricatures of Mohammed have the power to offend beyond the religious and have been criticized for being racist, while The Da Vinci Code is a fictitious story based on an erroneous interpretation of history. However, the central issue is undoubtedly similar, as both are vilified for scorning chief religious figures.
The question is essentially a very simple one: should the religious views of one group or another hold sway over other beliefs? Respecting diversity, an argument often given in favour of suppressing the Mohammed cartoons, is indeed a form of tolerance. But respecting diversity to the point that limits the right to express, critique and dissent reeks of the intolerance we as a society so proudly claim to oppose.
