This is a very interesting article by Sadanand Dhume in the WSJ.
Dhume commends Britain’s decision to ban Zakir Naik and criticises India for failing to do the same in regard to his record of hate speech. Dhume identifies two reasons why the Indian Left has failed to apply its own rules on the boundaries between free-speech and that which can be considered hate-speech.
1) The unthinking readiness to deferentially accept hate speech as free speech when the speaker claims the specious title of being a “religious figure”.
2) The inability to criticise proponents of hate speech by Muslim extremists, because they are loathe to be misinterpreted as “Islamophobic” and sympathetic to the far-right Hindutva interests.
What Dhume may not realise is the situation in Indian is very similar to the situation here in Britain. Islamists are treated with all the deference they demand and allowed to hold objectionable views which they are often allowed to propagate publicly with impunity. Any criticism of this practice is shut down by invoking “Islamophobia” as an outrage to “Muslim feelings”.
But this doesn’t fully explain Dr. Naik’s escape from criticism. It helps that Indians appear to have trouble distinguishing between free speech and hate speech. In a Western democracy, demanding the murder of homosexuals and the second-class treatment of non-Muslims would likely attract public censure or a law suit. In India, it goes unchallenged as long as it has a religious imprimatur. However, create a book or a painting that ruffles religious sentiment, as the writer Taslima Nasreen and the painter M. F. Husain both discovered, and either the government or a mob of pious vigilantes will strive to muzzle you.
In general, India accords extra deference to allegedly holy men of all stripes unlike, say, France, which strives to keep religion out of the public square. Taxpayers subsidize the Haj pilgrimage for pious Muslims and a similar, albeit much less expensive, journey for Hindus to a sacred lake in Tibet. This reflexive deference effectively grants the likes of Dr. Naik—along with all manner of Hindu and Christian charlatans—protection against the kind of robust scrutiny he would face in most other democracies.
Finally, unlike Hindu bigots, such as the World Hindu Council’s Praveen Togadia, whose fiercest critics tend to be fellow Hindus, radical Muslims go largely unchallenged. The vast majority of Indian Muslims remain moderate, but their leaders are often fundamentalists and the community has done a poor job of policing its own ranks. Moreover, most of India’s purportedly secular intelligentsia remains loath to criticize Islam, even in its most radical form, lest this be interpreted as sympathy for Hindu nationalism.
Unless this changes, unless Indians find the ability to criticize a radical Islamic preacher such as Dr. Naik as robustly as they would his Hindu equivalent, the idea of Indian secularism will remain deeply flawed.
5 Comments
India was the first country to ban the Satanic Verses and has completely failed to protect artists such MF Husain and Taslima Nasrin from Hindutva fundamentalism.
Meanwhile it can take no action on this nasty piece of extremist camel-dung. If it were up to me, he would be banged up in a room with the families of the victims of the Mumbai terrrorist massacre. And they would be free to get medieval on his miserable medieval ass with gas blowtorches and pliars.
[...] Taslima Nasrin from Hindutva fundamentalism.
Eh? Now I’ve heard everything. Sigh.
India [...] has completely failed to protect [...] Taslima Nasrin from Hindutva fundamentalism.
Could someone please explain this assertion? Was it the Hindutva fundos who got the Commie government of West Bengal to ban her books? Was it the Hindutva fundos who hounded her out of the country with death threats?
I mean, really. I had no idea.
qidniz
You are right, I am wrong my dear. Chill out, yaar.
I wrote “hindutva” when I meant to write West Bengal government, which failed her completely in 2008 and expelled from her home in WB, after being influenced by the violent threats of various jihadi groups.
Charge the Committee of Experts with Hate Speech
Press Statement
1. Introduction
The Christian Church leaders in Kenya appreciate that the unity of the family and the nation is of great
importance. Indeed various scriptures in the Bible speak to this understanding, including:
“How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity” (Psalm 133: 1)
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God” (Matthew 5:9)
“If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Romans 12: 18)
Having been thus informed by the scriptures, the Christian church in Kenya has over the years worked for
peace in our country.
We are therefore greatly concerned that the National Cohesion and Integration Commission is presenting
an image of a body that is being used to further sectarian political interests rather than fostering national
unity. We therefore today wish to address the nation on the question of hate speech and the application of
the law by the NCIC.
2. Definition of Hate Speech
Chapter 13 (1) of the National Cohesion and Integration Act reads:
“A person who –
(a) uses threatening, abusing or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material;
(b) publishes or distributes written material; …
which is threatening, abusive or insulting or involves the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or
behaviour commit an offence if such person intends thereby to stir up ethnic hatred, or having regard to all
the circumstances, ethnic hatred is likely to be stirred up.”
3. Selective Application of the Hate Speech Law
Appreciating the legal interpretation of hate speech as per Kenyan law, it is disconcerting to note that the
National Cohesion and Integration Commission has failed to justly and fairly implement the law. It is our
considered conviction that the first group of people who should have been arrested and charged for hate
speech in Kenya is the Committee of Experts. This is because the Committee included in the proposed
new constitution articles which when interpreted or explained may be considered to be hate speech by
some people. We here present the following references.
4. Hate Speech in the Proposed New Constitution
Article 63(1) states – “Community land shall vest in and be held by communities identified on the basis of
ethnicity, culture or similar community of interest.” The simple and direct interpretation of this article is that
tribal enclaves will be recognized in the law, and that in these areas, specific tribes will have pre-eminence
over the others. Tribes wishing to evict “outsiders” from their areas will only need to invoke the constitution
once this draft is passed. Inserting this article in the draft constitution deliberately set up the state for ethnic
hatred and violence, and the Committee of Experts should be charged with hate speech for this.
Article 63(2)(d)(ii) states that community land is land that is “ancestral lands and lands traditionally
occupied by hunter-gatherer communities”. By stating that “ancestral lands” will be classified as community
land, then Kenyans will be at pains to identify their ancestral lands since that is where they will be expected
to settle and live. The provision thus nullifies the right of Kenyans to move and buy land and settle
anywhere in the country. Realising that all land clashes in the history of Kenya were premised on the
Kenyan Christian Church Leaders
2
notion that some people had settled on the “ancestral” land of others, then this provision will set up the
country for unending ethnic-based land clashes. For setting the stage for ethnic violence in our beloved
nation, the Committee of Experts should be charged with hate speech.
Article 67(2)(e) provides that the National Land Commission will “initiate investigations, on its own initiative
or on a complaint, into present or historical land injustices, and recommend appropriate redress”. A
constant complaint in every instance of violence in Kenya is that there are historical land injustices that
have not been corrected. The definition of the historical injustices is that there are Kenyans who have
settled in the ancestral lands of other tribes. This is most pronounced in the Rift Valley. The question that is
being asked is, when the National Land Commission investigates and rules against any immigrant
communities in favour of the ancestral ones, what will happen to those who have settled away from their
original ancestral land? This provision will be the channel through which the government will be compelled
to help evict the Kenyans who were not evicted from their lands through the ethnic violence in the past. For
setting our nation on the path of self destruction, the Committee of Experts should be made to take
responsibility.
5. Conclusion
Having considered these examples of hate speech integrated in the proposed new constitution, we
challenge the National Cohesion and Integration Commission to stop serving as a political tool for the
government and apply the law unequivocally. The selective application of the law has already shown that
in the eyes of the Commission, only the persons opposing the proposed constitution are guilty of hate
speech. Such a practice will only destroy an institution that was meant to foster the peaceful future of our
nation.
Our prayer remains what we often sing in the National Anthem: “Oh God of all creation, bless this our land
and nation, justice be our shield and defender, may we dwell in unity, peace and liberty, plenty be found
within our borders”.
For more visit our web site; http://www.kenyachristianchurchforum.org