Offence, Blasphemy and Moderation: A Cultural Difference Worth Understanding
WARNING: THIS WILL BE A LONG ARTICLE PORCODIO
I have read the posts calling for sanctions, accountability and even a boycott of the game following the recent controversy. And before we start, I want to say that I personally find it ragebait a lot of posts/memes/images that have been shared lately.
I think that one important point is missing in these conversations: the controversy is also a clash between different understandings of religion, offence, and freedom of expression.
It began with the juxtaposition of an LGBT flag and the Libyan flag (I think, if I had not lost pieces?). Some players perceived that as deliberately provocative or disrespectful. The discussion then expanded to comments about Islam, Muhammad and Jesus.
I understand perfectly well that many Muslims consider Muhammad sacred and that mocking him can therefore be deeply offensive.
The separate question is whether offending a religion or religious figure should automatically be treated as an attack against the people who follow that religion.
In much of the European tradition, and especially in France, where this game originates, the answer is generally no.
BUT WHY?
People and beliefs are not the same thing
If somebody says:
“Muslims are inferior and should be excluded from this community”
they are targeting people because they are Muslim.
If somebody mocks Islam, Christianity, Muhammad, Jesus, the Bible or the Quran, they are targeting a belief, doctrine, symbol or religious figure.
Both can be offensive, but they are different categories.
France expresses this distinction unusually clearly. The French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs states that human rights protect individuals, rather than systems of thought such as religions and their symbols. It also notes that French law does not recognise a general concept of blasphemy. (See link at the end of this section)
Hatred against Muslims is still a different matter. Calls for hatred, discrimination or violence against people because of their religion can be prohibited. French law draws the line between protecting Muslims as people and protecting Islam from criticism or mockery. France Diplomatie
This goes beyond France
The same distinction appears more broadly in European discussions of freedom of expression.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has stated that freedom of expression also protects ideas that may offend, shock, or disturb people, and that democratic societies must permit open discussion of religion and religious beliefs. It has also argued that blasphemy, understood simply as an insult against a religion, should not in itself be treated as a criminal offence. Council of Europe
European institutions still allow limits on expression. Incitement to hatred, discrimination or violence against believers is a different matter, and European countries retain different laws and different boundaries. The Council of Europe itself stresses that expression rights may be subject to proportionate legal limits. Assemblea del Consiglio d'Europa
The principle is therefore narrower than “you can say anything you want.” Being offensive to a religion is not automatically the same thing as attacking the people who practise it.
The Jesus example
One argument made in a discussion was essentially:
“Would it be acceptable if somebody said Jesus was homosexual?”
A secular European response can be:
“You are entitled to find it offensive, but insulting Jesus is not automatically an attack on Christians.” (TL:DR: Yes)
That does not make the statement nice or respectful, obviously. It treats offence against a religious figure separately from hostility toward the people who believe in that figure.
The same standard can apply whether the figure being discussed is Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, the Pope or any other religious figure.
Protecting one religion from mockery while allowing another to be mocked would be a double standard. A rule that leaves every religion open to criticism or ridicule while protecting believers themselves from harassment and discrimination is at least internally consistent.
Why Charlie Hebdo matters
For players unfamiliar with French culture, Charlie Hebdo is probably the clearest example of how different this tradition can be.
Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical magazine famous for publishing extremely irreverent material about politicians, institutions and religions, including Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
In January 2015, twelve people were murdered in an attack on its Paris offices after years of controversy surrounding, among other things, cartoons depicting Muhammad. France subsequently experienced a huge national debate about freedom of expression, secularism and the right to offend. Reuters and BBC
Understanding Charlie Hebdo does not require liking it. Many French and European people find some of its cartoons vulgar, tasteless or unnecessary. The principle under debate was that something does not acquire legal or cultural immunity from satire simply because somebody considers it sacred.
After the attack, then-President François Hollande explicitly connected Charlie Hebdo with freedom of expression and the French tradition of irreverence and independence. elysee.fr
For somebody coming from a society where insulting a prophet is understood as an extremely serious transgression, this attitude can understandably seem shocking. To many Europeans, the idea that a religious community can declare a person, symbol or doctrine sacred and thereby require everyone else to refrain from mocking it can feel equally alien.
Different societies place the boundary in different places.
Respect does not create a right not to be offended
Several comments and articles have argued that peaceful coexistence requires respect.
I agree that treating other people respectfully makes communities better. But these are two different claims:
“I think you should respect my religion.”
and:
“Because my religion is sacred to me, the community must punish anyone who mocks it.”
The first asks for courtesy. The second creates a rule everybody must obey.
In an international game, that creates an obvious problem: whose definition of sacredness should determine what everybody else is permitted to say?
Muslims regard Muhammad as sacred. Christians regard Jesus as sacred (I think?). Other religions have their own prophets, scriptures, rituals and prohibitions. Atheists and secular people may consider none of them sacred.
A neutral moderation system therefore needs a rule that can operate even when people fundamentally disagree.
One principle deeply familiar in the European tradition is:
Protect people. Do not require everyone to protect ideas from offence.
Offence is still a legitimate reaction
None of this requires a Muslim player to laugh when Muhammad is mocked.
You can consider a statement disgusting. You can condemn it, explain why it hurts you, stop speaking to the person who said it, or argue against it publicly. Those are also expressions of freedom.
Other players may come from a culture in which religious satire, blasphemy and deliberate irreverence have existed publicly for generations. They may draw the line at attacking Muslims, rather than at offending Islam.
Understanding that difference does not require agreeing with it.
Before describing the moderators as corrupt, anti-Muslim or guilty of a double standard, it is worth considering whether the disagreement begins with different assumptions about what moderation is supposed to protect.
European secular culture has generally moved toward protecting people from hatred and discrimination while leaving religions, doctrines and sacred figures open to criticism and ridicule. That is the cultural context behind much of this disagreement.
I took a lot of time to write this, so if you can give me all of your money now, that would be great. Mannaggia alla madonna