The plight of Asia Bibi should have everyone in the West trembling Charlotte Gill
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/11/plight-asia-bibi-should-have-everyone-west-trembling/
Watching the horrifying crowds of men in Pakistan calling for the death of Asia Bibi seemed like watching another, medieval world. Bibi, a Pakistani Christian woman, spent eight years on death row, after allegedly insulting the Prophet Muhammad during a row with neighbours. Last week, the Supreme Court acquitted her, and she secretly left her prison, causing violent protests from Islamists, who said she should be hanged for blasphemy. The Foreign Office has said that she is still in the country, meaning her life is at tremendous risk. Even the judges who allowed her release are in danger now, after an Islamist leader said all three “deserved to be killed”.
Many of us will rightfully feel far removed from Bibi, a victim of one of the most oppressive mobs this decade has seen. But, while the secularisation of the West may have led us to believe that the violence and authoritarian nature of Pakistan could not be replicated here, both history and contemporary life show us that societies twist and turn, and new movements are quite capable of replacing religion. What happened to Bibi should serve as a lesson as to what happens when censorship is allowed to engulf a country.
Indeed, there are troublesome parallels here. The UK has been slowly moving in a dangerous direction of late, steered mostly by the politically correct Left, which has become ever-more authoritarian about what people can say, and therefore believe. Their behaviour is alarmingly akin to that of the religious fanatics in Pakistan: monitoring words for any signs of evil sentiment, sometimes misquoting them as proof of wicked deeds. Heavily applied political correctness is no different from religious extremism. It is the same thing: believing that everyone is blaspheming against you.
In daily life, many of us know the dangers of speaking our minds; we try to ascertain the religion of our listener before we delve into conversation, and, should we find our beliefs contradictory, we tiptoe around. It’s partly politeness, but increasingly also an awareness of the social consequences that await us should we offend. Western society is still one of the most free in the world, but legislation and the policing of language draw us dangerously close to wobbling. Should the tightrope on which we all walk on when we speak become much thinner, who knows what the risks might be?
The news is littered with examples of this sweeping fanaticism, which paints a picture of a new religion – a belief system with its own absolute truths, revealed only when someone offends against them. Insult the idea that people can self-declare whether they are male or female, or suggest that the gender pay gap is not a real thing, and you find yourself at the whim of the fundamentalists. The offensive may not be thrown in prison, but they will be ostracised and cast out by way of Twitter excommunication. And let’s not forget the existence of dubious laws that can punish people for “insults” that cause “distress”.
Comments are closed.
