I See Where ...

Those infamous cartoons have by now had more than enough airtime but their publication has brought to the fore some interesting discussion regarding freedom of speech in multicultural society.

Western culture holds freedom of speech to be sacred and defends it against all comers. Mind you, the recent stance taken by some sections of the tabloid press as defenders of that freedom does not sit well with me. (Not when I look at their record. More words from my great musical and poetic influence spring to mind – “Could it be an infringement of the freedom of the Press to print pictures of women in states of undress” - but I digress.)

There is a bigger picture. Western culture reserves the right to poke fun, to lampoon its heads of state, its religious leaders, its ideologies, and its people. It teaches us to question and arrive at our own conclusions.

Freedom of speech has within it an implicit right to offend. We have the right to say, to write and to draw or paint subject matter that will offend the sensibilities of some. We therefore have the right to cause offence, whether through irreverence, disagreement, dissension or outright criticism.

We are free to say what we want about whatever we want and if some people take offence, so be it. We do not assume that all people must agree.

These days, however, freedom of speech has a moral guardian. The spectre of political correctness that seems to preach that every word must be examined before use and carefully sanitised lest some individual or group might take offence.

That is not to say that it is acceptable to set out to cause offence. It is not, but determining the motivation of any expression of sentiment is subjective and seeking to suppress such expressions may be construed as censorship. However, it is never acceptable to deliberately seek to offend, belittle, or judge individuals or groups on the basis of difference. There’s a word for that: Bigotry.

All this works well enough in a society where all members are of broadly similar ethnic origin. Add to the mix an ever widening spectrum of ethnicity and suddenly the collective sense of taste is altered. But this is still a democracy.

Culture, the culture of a place, is perhaps best described as: ‘the way we do things here’ and each country, each ethnic group, has its own way of going on, its own way of being and is generally comfortable in its own skin.

It is right and proper that a culture should embrace its visitors and those who choose to relocate and call the seat of that culture 'home'. But it is a mistake to dilute the pre-existing culture in an effort to avoid offending newcomers. Such an act does both parties a disservice.

Those who feel uncomfortable in a minority and disapprove of the ways, attitudes, and beliefs practised by the majority in their new surroundings perhaps need to re-examine their reasons for coming or for staying.

To personalise this for a moment; I spent three years in the UK, met many wonderful people, some of whom became life-long friends, and generally I look back on that time as a wonderful experience. But I could never live there. I found the culture of the place too conservative, too restrictive. I never felt the place was at peace with itself and I could never call it 'home'. So I didn’t and I returned to Ireland.

I was never made to feel unwelcome or inferior in the UK, on the contrary. It just didn’t feel right and so I turned my back on what was the career of my choice because I couldn’t stay in a place where I was not at one with my surroundings and did not feel fulfilled or free to be myself.

I didn’t want to be like them and I wasn’t looking for them to be like me. Had I stayed, I would have become either embittered or assimilated, and neither state leads to a productive life.

I know there aren’t huge differences between the two countries but the cultures are different nonetheless.

The key to the success of multicultural society is mutual respect for traditions, beliefs and customs. However, the age-old principle of ‘When in Rome…’ should apply.

I’m not suggesting people should assimilate and lose their identity or keep to themselves and become ghettoised, rather that they should take their place among the natives and contribute to the life of the place in which they find themselves, according to the customs and culture of the place. They will enjoy the freedom to practice their own beliefs and live by their own cultural values, subject to the laws of the land in common with their neighbours.

For those who find that life too restrictive or the prevailing culture offensive there are return tickets. To those not yet come I would say come among us, be with us, live alongside us, but if you find the way we do things not to your liking, do not presume to tell us we are wrong. Rather, accept that we have our differences, and, if they are too great, consider that you may have made a mistake and move on.

We have a responsibility to be tolerant and inclusive as our part of the deal, and not to judge newcomers and their ways too harshly. After all, we don’t like to be on the receiving end of such treatment. But we should not rush to change who we are just to avoid offending the sensibilities of peoples whose cultures may be opposed to ours to begin with.

It is people’s differences that make them interesting. The alternative is an amorphous collection of citizens of the world without nationality or identity.

The grass isn’t always greener ...

Roy Thompson.

[ED: This was originally published in The Bridge March edition.]