Censorship as a dictionary definition means “the
suppression or deletion of objectionable information, as determined by the censor”[1]. There
is no denying that in the age of liberal democracy and extensive human rights,
censorship becomes much more unwarranted for individuals and societies.
Censorship can be said to have lost its logic and function due to globalization
and increasing communicational facilities such as the internet. Today, we can
easily follow the news in our own country or in other countries very distant to
ourselves from international television channels and internet. In this kind of
a situation, the logic of censorship, bans and restrictions should be
questioned and better understood. However, censorship still exists especially
in political and religious areas. Since religion is a sacred area, criticism
towards religions and religious institutions become a much more controversial
topic. In this assignment, I am going to discuss whether censorship on religion
is necessary or not in the light of two important texts; John Stuart Mill’s “On
Liberty” and Gary Willis’ “In Praise of Censure”.
John Stuart Mill as an important philosopher
known as one of the forefathers of liberalism advocates a “harm principle” to
balance the problems of censorship. According
to this harm principle, an individual is free to think and do anything he/she
wants unless his/her actions begin to cause harm for other members of the
society. “That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised
over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm
to others” (Mill, pg 5). In his opinion, the state should appear at that point
and restrict some rights of the individual that causes harm for others for the sake
of the society. Unless someone’s behaviors cause harm for others, the state
should be respectful towards all kinds of ideas, behaviors and should not try
to raise its ideal citizens but instead should make efforts to create a
peaceful environment in which individuals can live freely according to their
own choices, desires. Mill believes in the necessity of different opinions,
different tastes both for an individual and for the society and gives great
importance to freedom of expression. “But the peculiar evil of silencing the
expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race, posterity as well
as the existing generation - those who dissent from the opinion, still more
than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived the opportunity
of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a
benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by
its collision with error” (Mill, pg 7-8). In Mill’s view, liberties should
cover the domains of consciousness, liberty of thought and feeling on
scientific, moral and theological levels (Mill, pg 6). It clearly shows that
Mill gives great importance to religious freedoms. He is against restrictions
on three main bases. First of all, the different idea may be true though the
majority of people support the contrary idea. Secondly, an opposing view may
not be correct but it may and very commonly does have a portion of truth. Thirdly,
in order to understand the essence of our views, we need to understand the
opposing views (Mill, pg 8). So, it is clear that in Mill’s view censorship on
religion will only be justified if it aims to prevent a damage to be done to
other individuals and society. Mill also adds that this principle would be
available for an enlightened society, not for barbarians who need despotic
governments.
Garry Willis on the
other hand, in his article “In Praise of Censure” approaches to the subject
from a different angle. He tries to show that even the liberals do not accept
complete freedom of opinion since nationalists and racists could also use this
liberty for their own aims. “But the most interesting movement to limit speech
is directed at defamatory utterances against blacks, homosexuals, Jews, women,
or other stigmatizable groups” (Willis, pg 19). According to Willis, this shows
that censorship can be very beneficial and liberals should be more careful in
defending pornography and marginal tendencies in the name of freedom of speech.
According to Garry Willis; “A false ideal of tolerance has not only outlawed
censorship but discouraged censoriousness” (Willis, pg 20). Willis is angry
towards liberals since they do not show the same attention towards
disrespectful speeches against moral and religious values. In fact, in his
opinion “one of the great mistakes of liberals in recent decades has been the
ceding of moral concern to right-wingers” (Willis, pg 21). So, in Willis’ view
censorship should be used frequently when there is an attack towards the
society’s moral and religious views and liberals should understand that
morality is equally important to anti-racism and non-discrimination.
After analyzing these
two texts, we can discuss whether religious censorship could be made or not.
Here I support Mill’s “harm principle” and think that all views even religious
ones should be tolerated if they do not cause harm to individuals and society.
A view can be different but it will not necessarily make harm to society. These
views should be accepted as part of criticism and should be tolerated. However,
offensive and provocative views that create problems within the society and
between the individuals should not be accepted since they would cause harm. For
instance, the caricature of Prophet Mohammed that was published in a Danish
newspaper should be accepted as provocative and offensive since it humiliates
all Muslims and create problems between Christians and Muslims in the world. However,
criticism towards Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist group Al-Queda would be naturally
accepted since it tries to protect society and individuals from violence
propaganda and false interpretation of Islam. Willis might be right in
defending morality but he should also accept that in a globalizing world, some
rules and norms that are thought to be morally beneficial can become expired
and criticism made in a democratic way would not cause harm to people.
We can compare and
contrast two different approaches to religious censorship by giving examples
from European Union and Syria in the light of two important sources; Barbara
Larkin’s “International Religious
Freedom (2000): Report to Congress by the Department” book and Manny
Paraschos’ “Religion, Religious
Expression and the Law in European Union” article. Paraschos points out some
problems of European democracy concerning religious freedom but he still admits
that EU countries by legal-judicial ways had guaranteed the religious freedom.
For instance, European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in
its article 9 express that, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or
belief or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others in
public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching,
practice and observance” (Paraschos, pg 18). Paraschos also claims that EU
countries have some deficiencies concerning religious freedoms such as the state’s
interference into the religion mostly caused because of their Church dominated
background. For instance, “offensive religious expression” is criminalized in
EU countries by protecting the religious sensibilities of the majority
(Paraschos, pg 18). However, EU standards are still very developed and high. We
see that restriction is based on the idea of protecting majority’s good and not
causing harm to anyone. In this way, EU approach is similar to Mill’s “harm
principle”. However, looking at Syria
the picture seems completely different.
Although Syrian
constitution seems to provide freedom of religion, the government imposes many
restrictions on people. For instance, although there are some other religions
in the society, the constitution requires the president to be a Muslim (Larkin,
pg 479). There is no state religion and the country seems to be a secular one
but the president must be a Muslim and this shows how Syrian system works in
discriminatory way. Moreover, “Jews are barred from government employment and
do not have military service obligations” (Larkin, pg 480). This shows that the
country is in fact not secular and does not consider Jews as first-class
citizens. There can be some political reasons behind this such as the
Palestine-Israel conflict, but it still is a discriminatory application. For
instance, Syrian government had previously “arrested several members of
Jehovah’s Witnesses as they gathered for religious meetings in 1997” (Larkin,
pg 480). This shows that Syrian government works unlike European governments
with the mentality of preventing people to believe in other religions although
they do not cause harm. The meetings of Jews could hardly be described as a
problem since they only practice their beliefs and do not cause harm to other
people.
Finally, in my
opinion Mill’s approach to the problem is more plausible and religious
censorship could only be accepted on the basis of preventing harm. Criticism
should always be accepted and it will in fact help ourselves to check and
develop our views. However, offensive and provocative contents should not be
accepted as part of criticism. European countries’ system which is similar to
Mill’s understanding seems much more plausible and democratic than Syrian type
of governing.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-
Mill, John
Stuart, “On Liberty ”
-
Willis, Gary , “In Praise of
Censure”
- Paraschos,
Manny, “Religion, Religious Expression and the Law in European Union” in Thierstein,
Joel & Kamalipour Yahya R. (ed.), 2000, “Religion, Law and Freedom: A Global
Perspective”, Praeger/Greenwood
- Larkin,
Barbara, 2000, “International Religious Freedom (2000): Report to Congress by
the Department”, Joint Committee Print
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder