DEBATT 18 september skrev Stefan Olsson i Frivärld Magasin om onödiga provokationer. Signaturen John, som valt att vara anonym, angriper här några av Olssons resonemang. På artikeln följer en motreplik av Stefan Olsson.
Accusing Stefan Olsson of relativism in his attempt to have it both ways in the latest of the Muhammad controversies might be predictable but it is certainly necessary. Evelyn Waugh wrote “To understand all is to forgive all” in Brideshead Revisited, which is a crass statement. It is perfectly achievable to understand without forgiving. Yet that act is seldom practiced by apologetics and pseudo-liberals (the rhetoric reek right-wing populism I admit, but feels justified nonetheless) in the Swedish public debate.
Both are bad but one is worse, the essence of Olsson’s argument. Taking no side but the side of two sides to every story, Olsson end up at the inevitable conclusion that while violence is inexcusable (this would coincidentally have been a good place to end the article), provocateurs should not walk away scot-free.
Fire in a crowded theater! Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famous response to the limits of free speech, because indeed there should be one. Where someone claims that limit to be, however, is as good a test as any on the adherence to fundamental liberal values. For Olsson that line seems to fall right under common courtesy. If you happen to end up at the same dinner table as a deeply religious Muslim, he says, you will obviously not speak ill of the Prophet det hör inte till god ton: a matter of etiquette which also ought to be observed at the international banquet. This is defeatism in guise of politeness. At Olsson’s evening events, do we also shake the hands of fascist hosts, compliment the dress of totalitarianism and humor drunken nationalists out of our good manners, too?
In homage to Holmes, he goes on to make argument (although it is rather a statement with innuendos) that the video controversy can put others in harm’s way. This is the only foundation on which an argument against freedom of speech should ever be made. But, it too must be subject to reasonable qualification. If the conclusion of this trial is any less than an unyielding acknowledgement that the response is disastrously out of proportion to the inflicted injury we allow anti-democratic forces to draw the limit of freedom with potentially calamitous consequences.
Olsson confirms his biased allegiance to religion by giving Pussy Riot thumbs up for not offending the Russian Orthodox Church in their opposition against autocracy. And, they were actually artistic and creative, as opposed to the crude and ridicules video parody of Mohammed. This is the concern of critics of performance, not allegedly liberal writers in the context of freedom of speech. So let us add quality of the provocation to courtesy in things Mr. Olsson deems appropriate caveats to us expressing our rights.
Besides, and not to linger too long on this point, the awkward contrasting with Pussy Riot awakes other facets of his argument, as well. Would Pussy Riot’s riot be illegitimate if they in their performance defamed the Church (which, by the way, is a known ally of the president)? Would the Mohammed video be met with as much of Olsson’s suspicion had it instead of the Prophet employed Voltaire, Spinoza, Marx, Lenin or any other figurehead of ideas as its protagonist? Does it become something other than a legitimate expression of our freedom if a sufficiently large group of people becomes sufficiently pissed off?
The piece on the Mohammed video is a regrettable start on Frivärld Magasin publications. It is relativistic account of what ought to be absolute and cast considerable doubt on their claim to support liberal values.
As a closing note it must be brought to attention the perhaps most cringingly illiberal formulation of Olsson’s. The internet has made it impossible, he argues, to censor anything. Thus we cannot rely on the state to intervene. Consider the implications of this argument. Should we, had it been a possibility, allow state censoring in this case? One gets the uneasy feeling that Stefan Olsson’s answer would be yes.
/John
Signaturen John (som valt att vara anonym) menar i sin replik att jag begår synden att ”relativisera” försvaret av yttrandefriheten när jag kritiserar dem som provocerat fram den våldsamma protestvåg som nu sveper fram över den muslimska värden. Det liberala försvaret för yttrandefriheten måste vara absolut.
Nu kallar jag mig visserligen inte liberal, utan konservativ, och uppfattar mig därför inte som skyldig att följa en på förhand uppgjord ideologisk planritning, men är precis som liberalerna övertygad om att yttrandefriheten är en genuint god princip värd att försvara in i det sista. Emellertid är yttrandefriheten inte den enda moraliska princip som är värd att försvara. Att skydda människoliv är lika viktig princip. Protestvågen över världen har orsakat ett antal dödsfall. Att vägra tumma på yttrandefriheten för att skydda för att förhindra ytterligare blodspillan vore att ”relativisera” dessa människors liv.
Att jag rekommenderar återhållsamhet med förolämpningar är inte detsamma som att jag begär att staten ska ingripa. Som framgår av artikeln menar jag att återhållsamhet är en dygd som vi som enskilda individer bör leva efter. De flesta av oss gör redan det så det kan inte vara någon stor uppoffring att bete sig mot muslimer i andra delar av världen på samma vis som vi beter oss mot våra grannar, arbetskamrater eller familjemedlemmar i vår omedelbara närhet.
Stefan Olsson
Chef, Frivärld
