“Muslim Süß”, human dignity and the limits of liberty
A lot has been said lately about the Muhammad-Cartoons, originally published in the Danish daily Jyllands Posten, that created regime-casted outrages throughout the dicatorships in the Middle East. European editors held high the flag of the freedom of speech, insisting that we are the West that we have the right to speak freely, and that political satire must be regarded as a specially protected instrument of expressing opinion, as satire can transmit truths, which otherwise would be regarded as an offense.
I concur to all of these arguments. A free press is essential for a working democracy and a functional civil society. It is one of the most valuable achievements of western culture and probably the major reason for the liberty we enjoy today. No doubt!
Yet, too little has been said about the limits of liberty. We commonly agree today with Kant, Mill, Bentham, Smith, Berlin and all the other fathers of modern liberalism, that one’s liberty ends, where it violates the life, property and human dignity of others. But, all too often, we seem to not understand what the philosophers really had to tell. That the limits of liberty are not always factual or clearly visible. That they are not lines between easy perceivable antagonisms, like alive/killed, give/take or independent/dependent. That they do have a meaning.
We worship the sanctity of life not because every individual "is" autonomous, but because it "wants to be" autonomous; the sanctity of property not because we "do" possess, but because we "want" to possess; the sanctity of human dignity not because we "are" dignified, but because we "want" to live a dignified life, a humane life. Thus, the limits of liberty take on an essential social function. In a liberal society that freed itself from primordial and constructed hierarchies, like the rule of tribal elders, monarchy, tyranny, fascism or dictatorship they guaranty the persistence of social life, as we cannot want that everyone is allowed to kill others, to steal from others or to violate the dignity of others. If this was the case, we either would be doomed or had to return to less liberal modes of organizing social life. This is the fundamental message of Kant’s categorical imperative.
The cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in the Jyllands Posten therefore are not merely a matter of bad taste or simple reciprocity. For the first, they violate the dignity of every single Muslim in the world, as depicting Muhammad as a terrorist unambigously implies that every single Muslim in the world "is" a terrorist. There is no second way of interpretation, wherefore the campaign started by Jyllands Posten fatally reminds of the caricatures the Nazis drew of Jews in the beginning of national socialism. Would anyone today dare to say that these caricatures were protected by the freedom of speech? Would anyone dare to say that the seeding of hatred against a whole entity, might this be a class, religion, race or whatever, is protected by the freedom of speech? Of course the quality of the then antizionist propaganda of the Nazis was way worse, "unthinkable" as Hannah Arendt once said. But does the fact that the people behind the campaign, those who circle the pictures around the internet, those who identify with it, saying "yes, you’re right, they’re all bastards", do not have the power yet to reach out and make true what they are wishing for…, does it make the ideology shown behind the Muhammad-Cartoons any better? For this reason, the argument that Islamist Cartoons depicting Israel and the West are much worse, is not even worth a second thought. Does this in any way legitimate to leave our high standards of liberalism behind and to climb down to the abyss of communication that was and is common in dictatorial regimes?
Even if the majority of the European public may think that Jylland Posten was right and even if one can single out Muslim groups who do not feel offended by the cartoons, the violation of dignity cannot be reversed or denied. This is, because liberty is the one thing making our western democracies special and the limits of liberty, which are codified in most constitutions as fundamental human and civil rights, have been designed to avert exactly such developments like the one being on its way now: "a tyranny of the majority". Violations of the limits of liberty cannot be measured by the quantity of affirmations and repudiations. In a liberal society they have to be universal. Otherwise we should not call our societies liberal anymore!
In their passion for liberty, European editors should be aware of the fact that Jyllands Posten is a far right-leaning newspaper, which more than once offered a forum for testified Neo-Nazis and published opinions considered unconstitutional in many European countries. They should also be aware of the fact that Jylland Posten anticipated the commotion it was going to cause. Five of the twelve initially published cartoons already delt with the reaction in the Muslim world. Thus, the editors knew what they are going to do. They had a clear goal and they achieved it. It was a well coordinated, intentional provocation. A seeding of hatred in the classical "us"-against-"them" scheme that is archetype for anachronistic illiberal regimes.
If we continue down this road and do not distance ourselves from the cartoons and their underlying intentions, we risk to step into the trap of a straightforward and untamed libertarianism, confusing liberty with the unlimited right for everything. In an irrational feeling of cultural superiority "we" would pay "them" out with the same coin, we abominate so much. Is this how we want to perceive our identity as the "Free West"?
Update: Dialog International takes on the topic with some well-balanced remarks. Read it here.
I concur to all of these arguments. A free press is essential for a working democracy and a functional civil society. It is one of the most valuable achievements of western culture and probably the major reason for the liberty we enjoy today. No doubt!
Yet, too little has been said about the limits of liberty. We commonly agree today with Kant, Mill, Bentham, Smith, Berlin and all the other fathers of modern liberalism, that one’s liberty ends, where it violates the life, property and human dignity of others. But, all too often, we seem to not understand what the philosophers really had to tell. That the limits of liberty are not always factual or clearly visible. That they are not lines between easy perceivable antagonisms, like alive/killed, give/take or independent/dependent. That they do have a meaning.
We worship the sanctity of life not because every individual "is" autonomous, but because it "wants to be" autonomous; the sanctity of property not because we "do" possess, but because we "want" to possess; the sanctity of human dignity not because we "are" dignified, but because we "want" to live a dignified life, a humane life. Thus, the limits of liberty take on an essential social function. In a liberal society that freed itself from primordial and constructed hierarchies, like the rule of tribal elders, monarchy, tyranny, fascism or dictatorship they guaranty the persistence of social life, as we cannot want that everyone is allowed to kill others, to steal from others or to violate the dignity of others. If this was the case, we either would be doomed or had to return to less liberal modes of organizing social life. This is the fundamental message of Kant’s categorical imperative.
The cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in the Jyllands Posten therefore are not merely a matter of bad taste or simple reciprocity. For the first, they violate the dignity of every single Muslim in the world, as depicting Muhammad as a terrorist unambigously implies that every single Muslim in the world "is" a terrorist. There is no second way of interpretation, wherefore the campaign started by Jyllands Posten fatally reminds of the caricatures the Nazis drew of Jews in the beginning of national socialism. Would anyone today dare to say that these caricatures were protected by the freedom of speech? Would anyone dare to say that the seeding of hatred against a whole entity, might this be a class, religion, race or whatever, is protected by the freedom of speech? Of course the quality of the then antizionist propaganda of the Nazis was way worse, "unthinkable" as Hannah Arendt once said. But does the fact that the people behind the campaign, those who circle the pictures around the internet, those who identify with it, saying "yes, you’re right, they’re all bastards", do not have the power yet to reach out and make true what they are wishing for…, does it make the ideology shown behind the Muhammad-Cartoons any better? For this reason, the argument that Islamist Cartoons depicting Israel and the West are much worse, is not even worth a second thought. Does this in any way legitimate to leave our high standards of liberalism behind and to climb down to the abyss of communication that was and is common in dictatorial regimes?
Even if the majority of the European public may think that Jylland Posten was right and even if one can single out Muslim groups who do not feel offended by the cartoons, the violation of dignity cannot be reversed or denied. This is, because liberty is the one thing making our western democracies special and the limits of liberty, which are codified in most constitutions as fundamental human and civil rights, have been designed to avert exactly such developments like the one being on its way now: "a tyranny of the majority". Violations of the limits of liberty cannot be measured by the quantity of affirmations and repudiations. In a liberal society they have to be universal. Otherwise we should not call our societies liberal anymore!
In their passion for liberty, European editors should be aware of the fact that Jyllands Posten is a far right-leaning newspaper, which more than once offered a forum for testified Neo-Nazis and published opinions considered unconstitutional in many European countries. They should also be aware of the fact that Jylland Posten anticipated the commotion it was going to cause. Five of the twelve initially published cartoons already delt with the reaction in the Muslim world. Thus, the editors knew what they are going to do. They had a clear goal and they achieved it. It was a well coordinated, intentional provocation. A seeding of hatred in the classical "us"-against-"them" scheme that is archetype for anachronistic illiberal regimes.
If we continue down this road and do not distance ourselves from the cartoons and their underlying intentions, we risk to step into the trap of a straightforward and untamed libertarianism, confusing liberty with the unlimited right for everything. In an irrational feeling of cultural superiority "we" would pay "them" out with the same coin, we abominate so much. Is this how we want to perceive our identity as the "Free West"?
Update: Dialog International takes on the topic with some well-balanced remarks. Read it here.
Baumwolltaschen
