Dear Diary,
The penalty for naming a teddy-bear has now been set at 15 days imprisonment, followed by deportation. At present this sentencing guideline is only applicable in the Sudan, but I expect the Government to attempt to implement it here as soon as they can. Plainly, there will have to be some deference to national sensitivities. Accordingly, the prohibited names in this country will include Gordon, Harriet and IfIcanhaveyourmoneyIwon’trevealyour-trueidentity.
This may be a good time to ask whether people have a right not to be offended. On the assumption – bizarre though it plainly is – that allowing a group of very young children to name a teddy-bear Mohammed is offensive, so what? It seems clear that the role of the teddy-bear in Sudanese society is not quite the same as in the UK, but that is a good reason to consider that when this lady permitted the name to be selected she was not commiting a crime. The urge to believe someone guilty rather than innocent is repulsive wherever it rears its head. That the urge might manifest itself in relation to blasphemy in the Sudan or rape in the UK should simply serve to emphasise that the presumption of innocence is the mark of a civilised society.
It is noteworthy that Muslims in the UK have largely condemned the decision to prosecute. The condemnation is based on the proposition that the Sudan does not properly apply Sharia, rather than that Sharia has inbuilt limitations which makes it an inappropriate system at a time when there is general agreement that people should not be stoned, nor parts of them amputated. That various governing elites do not agree with their populace about this is nothing new. All bad governments enforce bad legislation, which perhaps explains why Gordon felt so comfortable sitting down with the Saudis. Whilst our bad legislation is not as awful as theirs, this seems to be ultimately a matter of degree – something I regret being able to say but which seems appropriate when Gordy and his mates want to detain people for 56 days without charge.
It also seems to me to be a hopeful sign that the condemnation within the Muslim world depends on the interpretation of Sharia. Those who dismiss Sharia law as simply inapplicable or inappropriate will never be able to reach common ground with believing Muslims, to whom the Sharia is the word of the Almighty. Interpretation of Sharia, on the other hand, offers hope that, in due course, those who insist that Sharia law dictates death and destruction, will be out-argued and out-voted by those who find the idea of a God who wants savage punishments owes more to the dark desires of inadequate humanity than to God Himself.
Ultimately, if I want to call my pet Mohammed that would be insensitive, rude, insulting and provocative. But it would not be criminal and it would be best met by explanation, exhortation and, if I remain unresponsive, exclusion from polite company. The trend to meet it with demonstration, demonisation and, if at all possible, defenestration, should be resisted.
It may be rude and insensitive to call your pet Muhammad, VM, but surely the only rational response of liberals to this bear nonsense is immediately to rename all animals – pets, toys, working pigs, whatever – Muhammad.
Dogs called Muhammad will especially drive the likes of Hizb-ut-Tahrir mad, if I know my extremists.
Bang on.
Good thing to come out of this: it makes the more hardline, mad aspects of Islam as it is practiced in some places look stupid to everyone who lives in the UK, whatever their faith.
Bad thing to come out of this: being such a ludicrous example, people aren’t taking the proper message, which is even if she had called the teddy bear Muhammed in a deliberate plot to make said prophet look ridiculous, or even if she’d said things which were much worse about him, it isn’t something that should be dealt with as criminal law. It might make the children’s parents ask for her removal as a teacher, but criticising religion to any degree shouldn’t land you in jail.
This is relevant to what’s happening in our own politics. Being gay, I’m a supposed soft target for our own home-grown hate mongers. How to change their minds? By befriending and engaging them, or by locking them up in prison? I’d rather roll my eyes at homophobic idiots than have them pilloried and embittered.
[...] One of my favourite bloggers, who is a Victorian Maiden no less, talks a great deal of sense here about the recent row in the Sudan. All of her points hold true, but not, I’m afraid, in the [...]
Dear VM,
Perhaps I was wrong to compare your style unfavourably with that of Mr George Grossmith.
The juxtaposition of your posts on the Oxford Union and Sheila Gibbons is most exquisite.
One moment you speak gaily of giving Mr Luke Tryl a kicking. Then you tell us:
‘The trend to meet it with demonstration, demonisation and, if at all possible, defenestration, should be resisted.’
Bravo.
Ah it was in fact me and not VM who suggested that Tryl should be given a (verbal) kicking. This is the only problem with having a joint blog, to some extent the two become one (but I can assure you, not in a Biblical sense).
Dear James,
I can do no better than to repeat a comment I made on the other thread.
There is a difference between the right not to be offended (which is non-existent) and not exercising your own right to offend.
The former potentially results in an inhibition to free speech and must thus be resisted. The latter is about behaving like a human being and is to be encouraged.
Too much of this debate ignores the fact that one can have a right to say something and yet properly fail to exercise it in particular circumstances and particular venues. I know what Grirvine is going to say. How does hearing it (again) make the world a better place?
There is a real difference between being upset because some fancied slight has been done to one’s beliefs and because some fool says that the Nazis did not exterminate enough people to amount to one death a day until the year 38445. I very much hope that is obvious.
I find the comparisons between the Tryl idioicy and Ms Gibbons utterly facile. They have proved to be an excuse for those who want to trumpet their own cleverness at the expense of analysis and thought. Tryl invited two criminals to advance his own exposure. In so doing he advanced their agenda and ignored those with every right to be distraught at what they said. That is bad.
The Sudanese chose to be upset by what was, at worst, ignorance. They thus sought to advance their agenda and ignored Ms Gibbons to whom the worst (whatever that turned out to be) was going to happen. That is bad.
This should be clear to those who are able to think clearly. These unpleasant things are actually happening to real people. Yet it is somehow aceptable for carping, capering jesters to treat it as a game. I despair.