Berlijn-toespraak Hirsi Ali: The Right to Offend

[Dr. Marc-Alexander Fluks]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

Hieronder de Berlijn-toespraak van AHA.

Eerste zin: 'I am here to defend the right to offend'. Dat laat aan duide-
lijkheid dus niets te wensen over. Nu gaan we het krijgen !

Halverwege het stuk herhaalt ze haar recht nog eens - illustrerende dat
ze op dat punt nog niet aan de verdediging ervan is toegekomen. Ook daarna
blijft het onderwerp van haar voordracht geheel onbesproken. Wie zoekt op
'I', 'defend', 'right' en 'offend' komt bedrogen uit.

AHA produceert en passant wel deze aardige borderline-kronkel,
    They will claim we are mentally unstable and should not be taken
    seriously.
Dit is precies datgene dat ze haar eigen zus toedicht. Daar kwam geen echt
geen 'they' aan te pas... ze deed het allemaal zelf.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bron:  NRC Handelsblad
Datum: 10 februari 2006
URL:   http://www.nrc.nl/opinie/article215732.ece


The Right to Offend
-------------------
Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I am here to defend the right to offend.

It is my conviction that the vulnerable enterprise called democracy cannot
exist without free expression, particularly in the media. Journalists must
not forgo the obligation of free speech, which people in other hemispheres
are denied.

I am of the opinion that it was correct to publish the cartoons of
Muhammad in Jyllands Posten and it was right to re-publish them in other
papers across Europe.

Let me reprise the history of this affair. The author of a children's
book on the prophet Muhammad could find no illustrators for his book. He
claimed that illustrators were censoring themselves for fear of violence
by Muslims who claimed no-one, anywhere, should be allowed to depict the
prophet. Jyllands Posten decided to investigate this. They - rightly -
felt that such self-censorship has far-reaching consequences for democracy.

It was their duty as journalists to solicit and publish drawings of the
prophet Muhammad.

Shame on those papers and TV channels who lacked the courage to show their
readers the caricatures in The Cartoon Affair. These intellectuals live
off free speech but they accept censorship. They hide their mediocrity of
mind behind noble-sounding terms such as 'responsibility' and 'sensitivity'.

Shame on those politicians who stated that publishing and re-publishing
the drawings was 'unnecessary', 'insensitive', 'disrespectful'
and 'wrong'. I am of the opinion that Prime Minister Anders Fogh
Rasmussen of Denmark acted correctly when he refused to meet with
representatives of tyrannical regimes who demanded from him that he limit
the powers of the press. Today we should stand by him morally and
materially. He is an example to all other European leaders. I wish my
prime minister had Rasmussen's guts.

Shame on those European companies in the Middle East that advertised 'we
are not Danish' or 'we don't sell Danish products'. This is
cowardice. Nestle chocolates will never taste the same after this, will
they? The EU member states should compensate Danish companies for the
damage they have suffered from boycotts.

Liberty does not come cheap. A few million Euros is worth paying for the
defence of free speech. If our governments neglect to help our
Scandinavian friends then I hope citizens will organise a donation
campaign for Danish companies.

We have been flooded with opinions on how tasteless and tactless the
cartoons are - views emphasising that the cartoons only led to violence
and discord. What good has come of the cartoons, so many wonder loudly?

Well, publication of the cartoons confirmed that there is widespread fear
among authors, filmmakers, cartoonists and journalists who wish to
describe, analyse or criticise intolerant aspects of Islam all over Europe.

It has also revealed the presence of a considerable minority in Europe who
do not understand or will not accept the workings of liberal democracy.
These people - many of whom hold European citizenship - have
campaigned for censorship, for boycotts, for violence, and for new laws to
ban 'Islamophobia'.

The cartoons revealed to the public eye that there are countries willing
to violate diplomatic rules for political expediency. Evil governments
like Saudi Arabia stage 'grassroots' movements to boycott Danish milk
and yoghurt, while they would mercilessly crash a grassroots movement
fighting for the right to vote.

Today I am here to defend the right to offend within the bounds of the
law. You may wonder: why Berlin? And why me?

Berlin is rich in the history of ideological challenges to the open
society. This is the city where a wall kept people within the boundaries
of the Communist state. It was the city which focalized the battle for the
hearts and minds of citizens. Defenders of the open society educated
people in the shortcomings of Communism. The work of Marx was discussed in
universities, in op-ed pages and in schools. Dissidents who escaped from
the East could write, make films, cartoons and use their creativity to
persuade those in the West that Communism was far from paradise on earth.

Despite the self-censorship of many in the West, who idealised and
defended Communism, and the brutal censorship of the East, that battle was
won.

Today, the open society is challenged by Islamism, ascribed to a man named
Muhammad Abdullah who lived in the seventh century, and who is regarded as
a prophet. Many Muslims are peaceful people; not all are fanatics. As far
as I am concerned they have every right to be faithful to their
convictions. But within Islam exists a hard-line Islamist movement that
rejects democratic freedoms and wants to destroy them. These Islamists
seek to convince other Muslims that their way of life is the best. But
when opponents of Islamism try to expose the fallacies in the teachings of
Muhammad then they are accused of being offensive, blasphemous, socially
irresponsible - even Islamophobic or racist.

The issue is not about race, colour or heritage. It is a conflict of
ideas, which transcend borders and races.

Why me? I am a dissident, like those from the Eastern side of this city
who defected to the West. I too defected to the West. I was born in
Somalia, and grew up in Saudi Arabic and Kenya. I used to be faithful to
the guidelines laid down by the prophet Muhammad. Like the thousands
demonstrating against the Danish drawings, I used to hold the view that
Muhammad was perfect - the only source of, and indeed, the criterion
between good and bad. In 1989 when Khomeini called for Salman Rushdie to
be killed for insulting Muhammad, I thought he was right. Now I don't.

I think that the prophet was wrong to have placed himself and his ideas
above critical thought.

I think that the prophet Muhammad was wrong to have subordinated women to
men.

I think that the prophet Muhammad was wrong to have decreed that gays be
murdered.

I think that the prophet Muhammad was wrong to have said that apostates
must be killed.

He was wrong in saying that adulterers should be flogged and stoned, and
the hands of thieves should be cut off.

He was wrong in saying that those who die in the cause of Allah will be
rewarded with paradise.

He was wrong in claiming that a proper society could be built only on his
ideas.

The prophet did and said good things. He encouraged charity to others. But
I wish to defend the position that he was also disrespectful and insensitive
to those who disagreed with him.

I think it is right to make critical drawings and films of Muhammad. It is
necessary to write books on him in order to educate ordinary citizens on
Muhammad.

I do not seek to offend religious sentiment, but I will not submit to
tyranny. Demanding that people who do not accept Muhammad's teachings
should refrain from drawing him is not a request for respect but a demand
for submission.

I am not the only dissident in Islam. There are more like me here in the
West. If they have no bodyguards they work under false identities to
protect themselves from harm. But there are also others who refuse to
conform: in Teheran, in Doha and Riyadh, in Amman and Cairo, in Khartoum
and in Mogadishu, in Lahore and in Kabul.

The dissidents of Islamism, like the dissidents of communism, don't have
nuclear bombs or any other weapons. We have no money from oil like the
Saudis. We will not burn embassies and flags. We refuse to get carried
away in a frenzy of collective violence. In number we are too small and
too scattered to become a collective of anything. In electoral terms here
in the west we are practically useless.

All we have are our thoughts; and all we ask is a fair chance to express
them. Our opponents will use force to silence us. They will use
manipulation; they will claim they are mortally offended. They will claim
we are mentally unstable and should not be taken seriously. The defenders
of Communism, too, used these methods.

Berlin is a city of optimism. Communism failed. The wall was broken down.
Things may seem difficult and confusing today. But I am optimistic that
the virtual wall, between lovers of liberty and those who succumb to the
seduction and safety of totalitarian ideas will also, one day, come down.

Berlin, 9.02.06
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
10 februari 2006

--------
(c) 2006 PCM

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********