We Care Less and Less About Freedom of Speech

We care less about free speech than we did in 1989. The shock when the fatwa was issued back then was palpable. Harold Pinter, to his credit, loudly denounced the book burners that appeared on our screens, referred to Rushdie as ‘a man of indomitable spirit’, and reminded those calling for his death where UK law stood. Rushdie then went into hiding, protected by the government that he, like Pinter, had been fiercely critical of. 

It was presumed that everyone approved of this. A liberal democracy holds very few things as non-negotiable fundamentals, but here was one. We have the right to criticise, to ridicule and to complain. Authors of fiction are not harmed for expressing themselves. 

Not everyone took such an unequivocal line. There were those who denounced the fatwa but still thought the book should be banned. 

As incredible as it may seem, the then editor of Private Eye, Richard Ingrams, agreed. In support of this view he cited a work by Shabbir Akhtar, a Muslim philosopher, called Careful with Muhammad. Aghast and intrigued, I read this book. Its argument seemed to be that one could not be authentically Muslim and accept the publication of the Satanic Verses. And so it had to be banned, or at least Muslims had to call for its banning, because to do otherwise would be, in effect, to say that you cannot be authentically Muslim in the UK.

This was news to the devout mother of a Muslim family I was friends with, who said she was praying for Khomeni to die before he caused any more trouble.

Others accepted that Rushdie had to be protected and the book couldn't be banned. And yet they bent over backwards to excuse and explain the violent demonstrations demanding his death. They acknowledged the line in the sand, but drew it ever so faintly. 

The fear and uncertainty in their response was certainly understandable, even if, in retrospect, it seems wrong. 

The same year I saw far right stickers in Rochdale saying ‘Salman Rushdie - born in India, making trouble in the UK, Repatriation Now!’  

Not long after, the Independent Magazine, when it was still a great newspaper, had a regular feature, Heroes and Villains. Norman Tebbit (he of the cricket test) nominated Salman Rushdie as a villain, for his ungrateful attacks on the UK government, prior to it becoming his chief protector. Rushdie had, in Tebbit’s estimation, made no contribution to the UK except to drain its resources and stir up trouble. 

Melvyn Bragg wrote a furious response the next week, listing the benefits that the UK had reaped from works such as Midnight’s Children. Would, wrote Bragg, that all contributions to the UK were as great as Rushdie’s.

Solidarity with Rushie was certainly not universal in 1989 and the years afterwards when he was in hiding.  Our fearful responses made sense at the time. The eighties had been a time of vicious racism, and Britain’s Asian community were perceived as especially vulnerable to this.  Violence and abuse aimed at Asian people was commonplace in many towns and cities, and casual racism was still socially acceptable, as long as it was only in the form of jokes. And anyone who remembers being at school then will know that the jokes about Asians were particularly vile.

It was, therefore, difficult to stand with Rushdie too loudly. Painstaking care was taken over words of defence. Most people agonised over the potential for their words to give comfort to the National Front and their supporters. There was support for Rushdie but it was muted. 

Back then we were afraid that supporting Rushdie too noisily would make life difficult, or worse, for UK Muslims. That fear remains, but now, as well as worrying about the consequences for British Muslims, we fear the actions of Islamist terrorism. Since the ‘Rushdie affair’ began in 1989 we have become horribly used to murderous attacks in the name of Islam, some of them, such as the Charlie Hebdo massacres, reprisals for the same crime Rushdie is accused of. 

It was hard to stand up for free speech back then, it’s even harder now. 

Something else has changed since then. The freedom to say what you want about other peoples' beliefs without being physically harmed or prosecuted ought to be a bedrock of liberal democracy. But this freedom is not so precious any more.  

A new generation of critical theorists, and those who repeat their mantras, are not so keen on freedom of speech and the other liberal fundamentals. And that’s putting it mildly. Delve deeper into their works and you will see that they despise liberalism.  Sadly, this has not been understood by many older liberals, who tend to give their support to the causes and ideas of the younger generation reflexively.  

We are religious liberals, living in a culture that is becoming increasingly illiberal. 

I’d like to think that, as religious liberals, we would take a clear and courageous stand for freedom. That may happen, but it will be far from united and less than consistent. 

How can it be when we have become so inured to death threats against authors? JK Rowling can paper her house with letters and emails saying she will be raped and killed for her views on transgender rights and women's safe spaces. Other female writers, who take a similar view, get the same treatment - though male writers who say the same things rarely get targeted in the same way. We know how wrong this is but we can’t bring ourselves to say it.

Many people will respond to this with a weary shrug before pointing out how wrong, how hateful they find JK Rowling's views. But if that is your view then isn't that the whole point? We don't kill people who offend us and we don't stop them from stating their point of view.  

We need to speak out against those who would sack, cancel and silence those they disagree with, as well as those who send them death threats.

We need to tolerate people that offend us. If you only tolerate the people you agree with then you are not practicing tolerance. 

We need to speak out against those who would ban the Satanic Verses as well as those who would kill its author. 

We won’t do it.

We are not in a good place. There is now such a tremendous will to silence those we disagree with. 33 years on from the shock of Ayatollah Khomeni’s fatwa, it seems we are moving in his direction.  Politics has become a fundamentalist religion, and everyone's fingers are hovering over their keyboards pursuing the heretics, apostates and even threatening death for blasphemy. 

It is impossible to stand against religious fascism if you are part of a stampede to silence your opponents. 

Are we liberals or not? Do we believe in the power of reason to persuade? Do we believe in tolerance or not?

May God preserve Salman Rushdie.  Please buy the Satanic Verses, and not a second hand copy. Let the official sales record that the more the darkness tries to overcome the light, the more brightly the light shines.