The controversy, a few months ago, over the decision of a Berlin opera house to cancel a staging of Mozart’s opera, “Idomeneo”, brings into focus the eternal debate: at what point does freedom of expression degenerate into license. The opera company was worried about probable backlash resulting from a scene which showed the severed heads of Mohammed, Buddha and Jesus. The German Chancellor, Uma Merkel, came out strongly against this action, calling it an assault on the freedom of expression so cherished in the West. This undoubtedly earned her a standing ovation from liberals around the world – maybe deservedly so.
The opera company’s apprehensions were understandable. Staging a provocative scene like that mentioned above was practically guaranteed to invite violent protests from Muslims and, perhaps, some right wing Christians as well. The world wide protests – often deteriorating into pure hooliganism – over the infamous Danish cartoons: and the more recent brouhaha over the Pope’s comments on Islam, are still fresh in memory. So it really comes down to a delicate balancing act. Sure, freedom of expression is noble and a birthright and all that stuff, but how far can it be allowed to go? Do we need to draw the line somewhere?
There is no argument that the human race has become more “civilized” over the centuries – particularly in the area of being allowed to speak one’s mind. A thousand years ago, anyone who dared to speak out against injustice or criticize the king – or even a Squire – was likely to be sent to the gallows. This still happens, of course – except that the form of execution has become more “efficient” – in some dictatorships and banana republics; but, by and large, the human race has become more tolerant.
The French and Russian revolutions helped to demolish the myth about the divine rights of kings and czars: and the American Declaration of Rights was a supreme moment in history; putting hitherto unimaginable ideas into the minds of common citizens. Democracies flourished and – imperfect as they are – have emerged as the most enlightened system of government in human history.
Freedoms – of speech, of thought and of the power to choose one’s leaders – flourished and grew exponentially. Soon, the liberties bequeathed to ordinary citizens by the toil and sacrifice of generations of brave men became a given. People took them for granted and inevitably, lost the desire – or felt the need to protect them. Worse, the intent of the original freedoms granted by their forebears got trivialized and manipulated to serve less than noble ends. America, for example, considered the right to sue as a fundamental right – which it is – but took it to sometimes ludicrous extremes. The right to bear arms – which, at the time it was framed,– was meant to protect homesteaders in a still wild and untamed land – degenerated into a near license to shoot at anyone who caused annoyance. Modern day anarchists considered it their right to burn the flag and spew venom at the very nation that had nourished them.
It took a terrible tragedy like 9/11 to make Americans realize that the freedoms they enjoyed were not perennial or immutable. What was given could be taken away. Sometimes people needed to endure irritants – and even some hardship – for the common good. The euphemistically-titled “Patriot Act” and the very recent “Detainee Trial Bill” almost unobtrusively whittled away at our freedoms. The fall from grace became evident in more mundane ways too. Getting on a plane was no longer as easy as catching a train: curbside check-ins became a fond memory and invasive, insidious security checks became the norm. Suddenly, some of the practices Americans had contemptuously scorned in “less-civilized” nations came home to haunt them. They needed to look over their shoulders; self-censor emails they sent out (they could be legally intercepted) and what they spoke over the phone (their conversations could be recorded and retrieved). The surprising fact is that many Americans have accepted these infringements on their liberties without too much protest. Fear is a very powerful motivator.
Which brings us back to the German Chancellor. No one can fault her statement on moral or ethical grounds. However, when the probability of a violent backlash is overwhelming, is in practical - or even sensible – to take the high ground? Voltaire may have been prepared to defend to the death peoples’ right to say what they want; but are we? Will not the same diehards who are now applauding Uma Merkel condemn her if their homes and shops are torched? Purists may argue that giving in to threats of violence is a sign of cowardice – even moral decay. But are we willing to risk the consequences? Our forefathers had the courage – some may argue – and it is because of their fortitude that we enjoy the liberties we do today. True; but our forefathers were made of sterner stuff. Can today’s pampered generation, to whom creature comforts have become paramount, be expected to bite the bullet and take what comes? I hardly think so.
Freedom of expression is a precious gift; but let us not take it too far. Like an overstretched elastic band, it can snap and bite the hand that holds it. Let freedom ring, by all means, but let us temper it with a little common sense.
