The Preacher And The Slave: 21st Century Edition

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that 'a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people'. It was a Magna Carta for mankind – and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it 'Western', Robert Mugabe calls it 'colonialist', and Dick Cheney calls it 'outdated'. The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it – but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now."

I should hope that these developments are at last getting some attention. Ten months ago, the International Humanist and Ethical Union pointed out: "For the past eleven years the organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) representing the 57 Islamic States, has been tightening its grip on the throat of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yesterday, 28 March 2008, they finally killed it. With the support of their allies including China, Russia and Cuba (none well-known for their defence of human rights) the Islamic States succeeded in forcing through an amendment to a resolution on Freedom of Expression that has turned the entire concept on its head. The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression will now be required to report on the 'abuse' of this most cherished freedom by anyone who, for example, dares speak out against Sharia laws that require women to be stoned to death for adultery or young men to be hanged for being gay, or against the marriage of girls as young as nine, as in Iran."

Meanwhile, I see Michail Ryklin's essay "In The Burning House," which appeared last summer in Lettre International (my essay Der Andere Fluss appeared in the same edition) has been translated from the German into English. It's about the tribulations and eventual suicide of his late wife, the artist Anna Alchuck, following her involvement in the 2005 Caution: Religion! exhibition in Moscow. Ryklin takes note of what can happen when a person is "charged as guilty by an authority which speaks in the name of everyone." Here's what can happen: "The chosen scapegoat begins, with time, to inscribe the guilt on to their own body. At some point the desire emerges to peel off this body, to break out into a space beyond this perverted society which condemned them."

All of this has deepened my conviction that the implications of these hullaballoos are far broader, and far more dire, than we generally realize. Not that long ago, our rallying cry was 'What we want for ourselves, we demand for all.' This principle was once central to the historic mission of the left. It's long past time to revive that spirit, and rejoin that epic struggle for the right to free speech, at home, and over the hills and far away:

UPDATE: The linked article that the first paragraph of this post cites, which first appeared in the Independent (UK), is Johann Hari's "Why should I respect these religions?" After Hari's essay was reprinted in India's venerable liberal-left daily, The Statesman, mobs of protesters besieged the newspaper's offices for several days, then took to blocking roads, attacking police, and then forcing the Statesman's staff to barricade the front entrance to the building to protect themselves. Yesterday, Statesman editor Ravindra Kumar and publisher Anand Sinha were arrested on charges of malicious intent to upset the religious feelings of Muslims.