Kendra Kusick/the Gauntlet

Why the worst offence means poor defence

Publication YearIssue Date 

Johann Hari wrote an article in The Independent three weeks ago, evaluating the right to criticize religion. Islamic countries are demanding that the definition be changed for the United Nations Rapporteur on Human Rights, so that offence to religions can be stifled. The Cairo Declaration seeks to enforce shariah law, whereby critiques of Islam will not be tolerated. Offended Muslims violently rioted for a week after The Statesman, a Kolkata-based newspaper, reprinted Hari's article. The violence only subsided when the editor was arrested.

The editor, as well as the publisher, were charged in court for the deliberate act of outraging religious feelings. In India, and an increasing number of countries, offence is against the rules. Should this right be considered a right at all?

Hari asks some tough questions, as should be done when a moral system is employed that allows child marriage, the stoning of gays and promotes the torture of those who attempt to reform Islam. The rationale behind these beliefs is not forthcoming, besides the claim that they are divinely inspired. The fundamentalists find it offensive that the inspiration should be called into question, but that doesn't mean we should stop questioning.

The foundation that Hari is building upon is the right to criticize. It is one of the fundamental values of free society and it involves trade-offs. Although people should have the right to free speech, everyone else has the right to counter the statement with another, perhaps better defended, one. As Hari notes, it is only in this way that ideas can be solidified; if someone is wrong, new evidence should change their mind. But if a better argument doesn't exist, then the original claim is strengthened by a successful defence against the opposing views. The right to blaspheme is just as valid as the right to question politics, economics and ethics.

What if you have no evidence for your claim? According to the system above, you should change your view. Yes, but it is such a good idea, you say, and you really want it to be true. Wouldn't it be easier just to silence the opposition?

Indeed it would, and the best tactic is to claim that your feelings have been hurt, that you've been offended. We are seeing around the world, from the intellectually bankrupt, exactly this tactic.

The same cowardice is being exhibited by those who oppose Campus Pro-Life's right to demonstrate. People are offended when they see the images posted, which means they should be taken down. Of course it wasn't reasoned discourse, but that should make it all the more easy to show why they're wrong. In any case, I don't need the spineless lot at the Students' Union telling me right and wrong.

To the religious, offence is a one way street. As Rob Breakenridge points out, while Bishop Fred Henry correctly argues that CPL should be allowed to demonstrate, he immediately plays the hurt-feelings card when the issue changes to something he disagrees with (the atheist bus ads, for instance).

Atheists don't want dialogue, Henry states, but debate. Well, it follows that when two opposing positions exist, one of them is wrong, and the quickest way to sort it out is to weigh the evidence. His pussyfooting demonstrates that he either knows the shallowness of his argument or he refuses to let his mind consider it at all. In either case, when he is ready for a confrontation I will happily oblige.





talking about the right to criticize is perfect.

Eric Mathison: you are a shitty polemecist with a hard-on for soapboxing in the Opinions section.

Instead of choosing to inform yourself about subject matter and forming cohesive and intelligent ideas, equally weighing both sides and choosing to present your case fairly, you act like one of the innumerable internet trollboys and go "omg religion sux amirite ya boyyyyyyz!"

As an atheist myself, I find it disgusting that people like you are representing me in our student newspaper. You are bad at what you do. Straight up bad. It's disheartening to know that writers like you can get away with your annoying, polarized claptrap.

Whoa there Belligerent.
If there's one thing I dislike more than poor spelling (try 'polemicist' to gain respect for your argument), it's insubstantial name-calling and finger-pointing as a substitute for rational debate.

Alongside your crude and unnecessary sexual allusions, you've somehow adopted the misguided notion that Eric Mathison 'represents' you, merely because of his atheism. We might put Hitler and Stalin in the same category, but I don't feel the need to be represented by them in any sense of the word. I'm just speaking for myself here though, before you get worked up again.

Oh yes, and aside from the irony of your own (excessively abusive) soapboxing, I should point out that the traditional nature of an Opinions piece is, in fact, to give an opinion. Unfortunately for you, that generally means reading Mathison's opinion when you flip to that section of the Gauntlet.

Luckily, he chose print journalism rather than soap boxes, so that easily offended atheists can avert their eyes.
You'd do well to follow your own advice, sir.