Should threats of violence drive censorship in the UK?

Question

A novel, which was to be published on 12th August by the journalist Sherry Jones, has been scrapped because of fears it could provoke violence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7551598.stm

The book is about the Prophet Muhammad's child bride A'isha, and the publishers said the book 'might be offensive' to some Muslims, and 'could incite acts of violence'.

Should a minority of people be able to wield such a great power that they are able to tell the rest of society what ideas they are allowed to communicate?

To me this is going back to the bad old days of heresy laws, where moral codes forbade anything seen as disrespectful to religion being said.

What do you think?

Answer 1

i don care i live in ireland

Answer 2

they already do.

Answer 3

When the apartheid government in South Africa was overthrown people celebrated the coming of black majority rule. Those same people now seek to deny us white majority rule in UK. They pander to the members of a specific religion that is a minority in this country, so that now we are beholden to a minority in a way that harkens back to the days of South African apartheid. Not only that, this religion treats women in a manner diametrically opposed to the philosophies driving western femanism. Yet people who are shrill in support of women's rights are strangely muted when it comes to the espousing of muslim women's rights. WHY ?????

Answer 4

The book's publication had been postponed because a leading authority on the life of Aisha claimed the book to be grossly misleading on matters pertaining to her and Muhammad’s life; which would as a result serve to unfairly stigmatise a religion, a religious community and offend its subscribers. A second consideration was that any subsequent controversy around the book could amount to violence.

As someone who has studied Pre Islamic and Islamic Arab history I can tell you that this book is an e.g. of factually contorted information serving to defame two key figures of world history.

Our legal system allows for someone to be sued for defamation if they incorrectly tarnish a living person’s reputation; but just because a defamed party is dead it shouldn't mean an offender is free to destroy that deceased persons name.

Freedom of speech is an inalienable civil right and for those in positions of influence and authority - that right coincides with an equally important responsibility - not to use it as a shield to unfairly defame communities and people. There should especially be a need to meet a benchmark of professionalism for works of a factual nature - which historical narrative in large part is.

Who thinks a book akin to the 'protocols of zion' could be published today? That book is 'supposed' to be a story - but it unfairly stigmatises a community as, inadvertently, does 'jewel of medina'.

If we can have Ofcom as a regulating body to maintain standards of professionalism for digital material then I wish there could be a standard to maintain SOME professionalism for written material also.

A responsibility to respect the good reputation and not to infringe the rights and liberties of others goes hand in hand with freedom of speech.

Answer 5

It seems violence gets you want you want nowadays.

Answer 6

Here we go again, being held to ransom by a minority.  I do feel some level of sympathy for these people though - living in a world where it is almost impossible to tolerate others opinions without wanting to be violent against them must be hard and rather restricting to ones personal development.  

This isn't the first time, you have already mentioned the cartoon fiasco, before that we had the play that was banned a couple of years ago and before that, the murder of a film director because there was something in the film that some muslims found offensive.  

Personally, I find the way they treat their women rather offensive but it would never incite me to commit a crime against them.  

Answer 7

It isn't the law that prevented the book from coming out.  It's the fear the publishers have of being fire-bombed.

In the same week as Richard Dawkins was accused of being islamophobic for daring to suggest that muslim children are being taught creationism as fact when there is simply no evidence for it.  

And the muslim response is that "evolutionism" is racist.  They call it white man's science because Darwin was white..  That is a racist statement in itself.  Many extreme muslims want us to live according the their faith and their moral teachings.  I call that fascism.

Answer 8

If you give in to threats like this then you encourage more.  Publish the book and prosecute the terrorists.  Life in solitary confinement might teach them the error of their ways.

Answer 9

I think Britain is becoming a non-christian country and so the Views of Muslims take precedence.  Why are you against the muslims?  Islam is very tolerant religion and they only kill non muslims.

Answer 10

where does it say a threat was made???

it says FEARS of violence.

Answer 11

Ummm sorry but havent you noticed you cant say anything questioning Islam without them threatening to behead someone???

No I believe there should be no censorship, but when it comes to Islam, you cant say anything without them freaking out.

Even when they teach students in their islamic school to call jews and christians pigs, you cant say anything....

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/mu...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29HU3j7r9...

http://a1.com.mk/video-home.asp?VideoID=...

Answer 12

Let the book burning begin.

Yeah there are so far ahead of us in human rights aren't they.

They have free speech as long as they agree with what is being said.

We should encounter acts of violence with equal acts of violence if that's really what they want.

Answer 13

I think Kamran is right when he says it was a decision based on what the publishers feared might happen.

As far as I am aware there has no been no threat made by any group or individual.

The publishers were given feedback on the book by an american professor of Islamic history, Denise Spellberg. In her opinion the book was more controversial than the Satanic Verses had been and would pose a threat to national security.

Her view was not shared by a muslim writer, Asra Nomani who said she was saddened by the publishers decision.  

Answer 14

The publishers definitely should not have pulled the book if their only reason was they thought it might incite acts of violence.

We have pornography laws and film censorship because some things might upset or disturb or be offensive to some part of the population. If the publishers thought the book might upset or disturb or be offensive to some British Muslims, then they were right to pull it. But that wouldn't be a *religious* or sectarian issue - just one of censorship. Inciting acts of violence is a separate issue - a criminal matter for the police to deal with, not something a publisher should be getting involved with.