Uthman Badar is entitled to be a bigot

"bigot… 2 A person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion or ritual … [or] other than religious opinions": Oxford English Dictionary (Second Edition), Vol II, 185

What are we to make of the affair of the "idea" that, suddenly, became too "outrageous" for the 2014 Sydney Festival of Dangerous Ideas (FODI), a joint presentation by the Sydney Opera House Trust and the St James Ethics Centre scheduled for the weekend of 30/31 August?

Here is one approach: Can a free and open society such as Australia tolerate the expression of ideas favouring either the rejection of integral elements of its criminal law which are necessary to protect the lives of everyone, or a return to medieval authoritarianism?

History

The failure of the Menzies Government to outlaw the Communist Party of Australia (CPA) is an enduring reminder that (a) even sustained campaigning for the revolutionary overthrow of government can be tolerated, (b) there is a clear dividing line between the permissibility of dogmatic urging of attacks on democracy, and the unqualified impermissibility of resort to violence to impose change on the people, (c) hysteria comes and goes, and (d) Australia's abiding strength, its long history of peaceful, secular, democratic government, stands firmly against the stridency and bigotry of illiberal dogma.

Plain English/plain speaking

The particular controversial idea is, "Honour Killings are Morally Justified". Its proponent at FODI was to be Mr Uthman Badar, the media representative of the Australian branch of the Islamic political organization, Hizb ut-Tahrir which is committed to the restoration of the Caliphate. The advertising of Mr Badar's scheduled contribution gave a glimpse of his argument.

Opinions may, perhaps, differ, but this piece assumes that the proponent was seeking to express the idea unambiguously in the title, and contends that he was successful.

Authorship

Dr Simon Longstaff AO, the Executive Director of the St James Ethics Centre, has published an e-mail message sent to him by Mr Badar containing a statementby Mr Badar proposingthe title of his idea.

A monstrous idea

"Honour killings" are a category of murder. Murder is at the apex of criminality. There are no exceptions.

The line separating lawful advocacy or approval of what Australian courts have called "extremist or fundamentalist" or "medieval" ideas, from unlawful action in the nature of violent jihad may well be drawn at a very early preparatory stage of conduct which may result in violence.

Theocracy and democracy

With the Biblical story of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, at the forefront of Dr Longstaff's considerations, he concluded that, because some honour killings arose from a theocratic motivation, namely, obedience to Islamic law in the politico-religious context of an Islamic Caliphate, FODI should invite Mr Badar http://jacobinism.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/defending-indefensible.html#comment-form, to propound his idea.

Rejection of "Western" secularism and freedom

Just as the CPA rejected capitalism with quasi-religious doctrinal zeal, so also does Hizb ut-Tahrir reject Western secular society and its values with Islamic politico-religious zeal.

For Hizb ut-Tahrir, " … the secular law ... cannot permit what Allah prohibits or prohibit what Allah permits. Sovereignty is for Allah, not the law of any land".

For Hizb ut-Tahrir, the separation of state and church, given partial effect in s 116 of the Australian Constitution and which includes the freedom to denounce all religious ideas is, in a word, intolerable.

An appeal to Islamic justice, however "nuanced", is beside the point. As the late Ronald Dworkin observed in 2006, in the context of the violence which accompanied the Danish cartoons controversy, "religion must observe the principles of democracy, not the other way around".

Sophistry

After FODI reneged on its deal with him, Mr Badar stated that he was not advocating honour killings. Let that be accepted. What Mr Badar was doing by his chosen title was approving his idea. That was at the heart of Dr Longstaff's theocracy-related rationale for inviting Mr Badar to speak at FODI.

What "dangerous" idea?

A dangerous idea connotes one the mere public expression of which carries with it a real risk, as distinct from a far-fetched or fanciful one, of producing some imminent serious adverse social consequence(s).

What was the worst imaginable consequence which might have been brought about if Mr Badar had not been censored by FODI – keeping in mind that he had already advertised his unambiguous idea with some particulars (and, indeed, continues to refer to it, albeit, choosing without explanation not to expose his reasoning, nuanced or otherwise).

Mr Badar had a right to be heard if invited. If there had been a real risk that imminent violence might be used to prevent Mr Badar providing his explication at FODI, that was a matter that the law enforcement authorities were duty bound to prevent in the ordinary course of protecting Mr Badar's lawful right, and preventing civil strife. Dr Longstaff was sure there was no such risk.

Another consequence was the possibility that Mr Badar would persuade someone that murder is acceptable if it accords with the dictates of Islamic justice. But, so what? Common sense suggests that the overwhelming majority of persons living in Australia would be repelled by Mr Badar's idea – regardless of his rationale.

As for the prospect of Mr Badar's line of thinking being such that, at some future time, Australia would choose to bring itself within (or within the jurisdictional reach of) an Islamic Caliphate, the words far-fetched and fanciful fall far short of characterising the prospect of such a change.

Let truth and falsity grapple

So, let Mr Badar, who is an accomplished public contrarian, do his utmost to persuade the nation that his idea is true.

And, let the enduring wisdom of John Milton (1644), John Stuart Mill (1859), and US Supreme Court Justices Holmes and Brandeis (1925) - take your pick - have its say.

"No compelled respect"

FODI also has a right to free speech. If Mr Badar had approached FODI and insisted upon being given space and time to advance his idea in a one-sided presentation, would not FODI have been entitled to show Mr Badar the door?

Hizb ut-Tahrir and Mr Badar might be expected to agree with the general principle that a person or organization should not be compelled to express or approve or to give the appearance of approval to an idea considered to be obnoxious, for Mr Badar, say, that blasphemy has no place in a contemporary civilized society – "a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his own message and, conversely, to decide what not to say".

Free speech misunderstood

Dr Longstaff explained that, in considering Mr Badar's idea, he was influenced by his view that "Free speech is a basic human right which is founded on the principle of 'respect for persons' - a recognition of an inalienable intrinsic dignity of all human beings . . ." That appeal to the abstractions "respect" and "dignity" exposes a major misunderstanding of the concrete reality of the legal right to express offensive ideas.

The law of defamation not only protects but actively encourages speech that exposes a person to hatred, ridicule and contempt provided that a comment (a) is on a matter of public interest, (b) is honestly held, and (c) is based on facts truly stated or indicated, or which are notorious.

In the FODI 2014 context, Mr Badar's idea – approving murder – might be, and in substance has been, condemned as being odious, medieval, shocking, loathsome, and barbaric. Some responses have involved a less caustic reaction, the use of vernacular ridicule to the effect that the idea is just too silly for words, and/or that anyone who believed in such an idea should have her or his head read.

And, not surprisingly, other responses have, in substance, contended that, by expressing his idea, Mr Badar was showing himself to be a bigot – which, despite the torrents of abuse directed at the First Law Officer of the Commonwealth for saying so, is a right which Mr Badar shares with everyone else.

To his credit, Dr Longstaff was seeking to enable an audience to understand why a particular type of murder occurs. There is a clear public interest in having light cast on that subject, including by Mr Badar fully explaining why he approves his idea.

But, in deciding to provide what Dr Longstaff perceived as a theocratic-based "insight" - in a one-sided presentation - FODI exposed itself to the risk that it was giving the appearance of approving murder. Even if that was not a concern to FODI, there was an inherent prospect that its decision might blow-up in FODI's face. That need not have occurred.

Public discussion

Posing the question, "Are honour killings morally justified?", which Dr Longstaff did consider, would not necessarily get over the problem of not wanting to be associated in express or implied approval of the affirmative case.

As others have suggested, the title, "What explains why honour killings occur?" would have served the public interest in furthering understanding of Islamic justice. It is difficult to imagine why, if he were to be asked, Mr Badar would not agree to that.

Ironically, he had suggested a far better title, "The West Needs Saving by Islam", better because it was wider and because it would have enabled him to use his approval of honour killings to exemplify the compelling moral basis of Islamic justice.

Reality

Australians tolerate actual advocacy of murder not amounting to criminal incitement. This is clearly demonstrated, for example, by recent angry public exhortations that politicians, climate change deniers and certain non-believers be put to death simply for expressing their beliefs.

Self-inflicted woe

The Sydney Opera House announcement of the cancellation of Mr Badar's session was all spin. Again, to his credit, Dr Longstaff later frankly acknowledged that the sole reason for the cancellation was the level of public outrage that Mr Badar's idea should even be discussed. Unfortunately, FODI has made itself look ridiculous.

Whingeing

Mr Badar rightly complains that FODI has displayed hypocrisy. But he and his supporters are pulling our legs in their portrayal of him as a free speech "victim"/hero.

After being axed from FODI 2014, Mr Badar conducted a media conference during which he declined to say whether or not he believed there were circumstances in which honour killings could be justified. Then, he laid the hyperbole on with a trowel, stating that he:

hadn't even opened my mouth and having not said anything, words were shoved in my mouth, outrage ensued, and of course that is the way Islamophobia works . . .

In truth, his authorship of the title, and prior advertising, of his idea was a crystal clear speech act which Mr Badar has affirmed repeatedly. Its effects, such as they are, continue. No words were "shoved in [his] mouth". He has had plenty to say, including one television interview accessible via his FaceBook page, and the heavens have not fallen. But the arguments favouring his idea remain a closely guarded secret.

Self-censorship or self-help?

It is baffling to this observer why Mr Badar is being so coy. Why not, without further ado, call another media conference to announce that he has published on theHizb ut-Tahrir Australia web site the talk which, when the squeals went up, FODI decided was just too outrageous a challenge to mainstream thought and opinion for it to host in an event with such a pretentious title?

Mr Badar doth protest far too much

The overwhelming majority of Australians have to live with the unpalatable knowledge that Mr Badar was willing to propound his "dangerous" idea. Mr Badar has to live with the unpalatable knowledge that, like the CPA's dictatorship of the proletariat, theocracy is not a goer in Australia: To borrow Lord Denning's words, "Freedom once given cannot be taken away".