EDITORIAL: Freedom, as it is commonly understood ends where the rights of other person begin. Last week in Sweden a man was allowed to use freedom of speech to offend and disturb Muslims everywhere by burning pages of the Holy Quran next to a Stockholm mosque.
Later in a statement Swedish foreign ministry condemned the incident calling it an Islamophobic, offensive, and disrespectful act and a clear provocation, though adding that Sweden has a “constitutionally protected right to freedom of assembly, expression and demonstration.” It went on to claim that expressions of racism, xenophobia and related intolerance have no place in Sweden or in Europe.
What was permitted cannot be defensible yet condemnable at the same time. Stockholm needs to have some clarity regarding this particular matter. It should comply with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, that says “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”
While the latest incident in Sweden — the third in recent years — has caused anger and dismay across the Muslim world, the 57-member Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) held an ‘extraordinary’ meeting on Sunday in Jeddah. Though such provocations in the past have been setting Muslim sentiments aflame, this is the first time the OIC has resolved to “send constant reminders to the international community regarding the urgent application of international law, which clearly prohibits any advocacy of religious hatred”.
The meeting also urged member states to take unified and collective measures to prevent the recurrence of incidents of desecration of the holy book. One of its members, Turkiye, is in a position at this point in time to put pressure where it matters to Western countries: NATO membership for Sweden and Finland.
Although he has certain other objections to Sweden’s bid, after the Stockholm incident President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has issued a stern warning ahead of a scheduled meeting with the two countries as they await inclusion in that military alliance. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has also reacted to the incident calling it ‘objectionable’, but not ‘illegal’. If something is objectionable it must be wrong, and needs to be set right.
Understandably, free speech, a core democratic value, can offend or shock any section of society or the state. However, Western nations that allow acts of hostility towards Muslim surely do differentiate between hate speech and freedom of speech. An obvious example is denial of holocaust which can invite opprobrium and ostracism in most cases.
And in the EU countries freedom of expression notwithstanding, it is a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment. Anti-Semitic statements are also regarded as abuse of rights. In any event, wilful insult of another people’s religion falls within the definition of hatred that must be prohibited by law – a goal the OIC has to make achievable through consistent, cooperative efforts.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.